in intercalary years 30 Tisri, or Ethanim, means the "autumnal season;" at which time the Hebrews thought the world was created, and therefore began their civil year from it. The month Veadar only occurs in years of thirteen months. The average length of the year of twelve months is 354 days; but, by varying the length of the months Marchesvan and Chisleu, it may consist of 353 or 355 days. In the same manner, the year of thirteen months may contain 383, 324, or 385 days. In nineteen years, twelve have twelve months each, and seven, thirteen months. The following table of a cycle of nineteen years exhibits the number of months in each year, as well as the first day of the year reduced to our present style; but the first day will not always be quite accurate, as in some years certain lucky and unlucky days require the postponement of a day.

The month Veadar is

omitted in years of twelve months. The average length of the year of twelve months is 354 days; but, by varying the length of the months Marchesvan and Chisleu, it may consist of 353 or 355 days. In the same manner the year of thirteen months may contain 383, 384, or 385 days. In nineteen years, twelve years have 12 months each, and seven years 13 months. The following table of nineteen years exhibits the number of months in each year, as well as the first day of the Judaic year, reduced to the new style; the first day will not always be quite accurate, as in some years certain lucky and unlucky days require the postponement of a day.

}12

12

12

3rd

10th

13

3rd

5608 is the third of the cycle, and, consequently, that it begins on the 10th of September. The 1st of Chisleu will, therefore, be about the 8th of November, 1847.

The ecclesiastical year of the Jews begins six months earlier, with the month of Abib or Nisan, to commemorate their return from Egypt, which took place in that month. By the ecclesiastical year their fasts, feasts, and everything relating to religion is regulated; consequently, when the given year is ecclesiastical, a year must be deducted in the date, from Nisan to Elul, inclusive, for the civil year.

The Jews frequently, in their dates, leave out the thousands, which they indi. cate by placing the letters p, meaning according to the lesser

.e . ,לסטקטוז

computation."

Though various other epochs from the creation have been adopted by the Jews, it is unnecessary, for practical purposes, to allude particularly to them, as only the above-mentioned are those which have been in general use.

This extract reaches from p. 167 to p. 169 of Sir Harris Nicolas's work. After an interval there is, in the same note, another similar extract, which extends from p. 24 to p. 31 of the same work. That is followed by a similar extract from p. to p. 5, and after another interval there is another extract from p. 37 to p. 40, with an inserted passage derived from p. 32.

Altogether the quantity extracted from the Chronology of History in this single note amounts to about FIFTEEN PAGES, WITHOUT A SINGLE ACKNOWLEDGMENT, MARK OF QUOTATION, OR REFERENCE OF ANY KIND WHATEVER.

I have said that the subsequent extracted passages are inserted after two principal intervals. Both those intervals consist of passages apparently derived from other sources than the Chronology of History, but I am able to identify only one of them. It consists of about four pages of learned matter, the fruit of great research, extracted verbatim from Mr. Hampson's Medii avi Kalendarium. Lond. 1841, vol. i. p. 389.

In this case the extract is made in the same general manner as in the

5588 is the second of the cycle, and, consequently, that it begins on the 22nd of September. The 1st of Chisleu will, therefore, be about the 20th of November, 1827. The ecclesiastical year of the Jews begins six months earlier, with the month of Nisan to commemorate their return to (sic) Egypt, which took place in that month. By the ecclesiastical year their fasts, feasts, and everything relating to religion is regulated; consequently, when the given year is ecclesiastical, a year must be deducted in the date from Nisan to Elul, inclusive.

The Jews frequently, in their dates, leave out the thousands, which they indicate by placing the letters p, meaning

po, i. e. “according to the lesser computation."

Though various other epochs from the creation have been adopted by the Jews, it is unnecessary, for practical purposes, to allude particularly to them, as the above mentioned are the only ones which have been in general use.

other, but there is this difference between them. After four pages of literal extract and adoption of authorities, the Hampson extract concludes thus: "Vide Hampson's Treatise on Medii ævi Kalendarium, 389-393. Lond. 1841." This maimed semiacknowledgment is imperfect and deceptive; it is perhaps even more contemptible than a daring silence; but in the case of Sir Harris Nicolas there is nothing of the kind; not a single word.

There is also another difference between the two cases. Mr. Hampson, I am happy to say, is a living author, still doing the state good service by his accurate and learned researches, and well able to defend himself; poor Sir Harris, after life's fitful fever, now sleeps well; but I trust that there will never be wanting, especially in your pages, to which he has so often contributed, those who will vindicate his memory against all persons who seek to appropriate to themselves the credit which is due to his varied and useful labours.

Yours, &c.,

PHILO NICOLAS.

THE Architectural and Archæological Society for the county of Buckingham will have done good service to the cause which called it into existence, even should its sole result be the paper on Church Restoration read before its members by Mr. Scott, at their first annual meeting, July 27th, 1843. This paper, with certain "notes" and "miscellaneous remarks on other subjects connected with the restoration of churches, and the revival of pointed architecture," has been recently published, and we now invite the attention of our readers to this equally interesting and valuable little volume. And herein, with special reference to the paper itself on church restoration, we pass on from a strong general recommendation of this essay to a more direct appeal in behalf of our ancient churches, to certain classes and individuals who are, or who at least ought to be, specially interested in "the conservation and restoration of those invaluable relics of Christian art which

have been so wonderfully preserved to us in almost every village throughout our land-relics but for which we should now be ignorant of the most remarkable phase which art has ever yet assumed the only form in which it has suited itself to the pure and ennobling sentiments of our religion, and, in our national variety of it, the only form which is adapted to our climate and our traditional associations, and every vestige of which, however simple or homely it may be, has the strongest claims upon our reverence and care." (p. 13.)

To the clergy, to patrons of livings and lay impropriators of ecclesiastical revenues, to churchwardens also, and more particularly to all members of architectural and archæological societies, the duty of church conservation and restoration must be considered in a peculiar manner to appertain; to their hands, therefore, we earnestly commend Mr. Scott's pages, as eminently calculated at once to awaken their sympathies with the subjects of

which he treats, and to direct them in practice upon sound principles and to salutary and beneficial ends. We desire to see the spirit of church restoration thoroughly awakened, and displaying throughout the length and breadth of the land an active energy; but no less essential than the existence of such a spirit is the condition that its working be well directed. Restoration must be faithful, or it is not restoration at all. "Conservation and restoration" must go hand in hand, or restoration is but another word for renovation; and the renovation of an ancient church is the destruction of that ancient church, and the substitution of some modern edifice in its stead. Now the object of a true church restorer is twofold; being to maintain in every church its own individuality of character, while he seeks to preserve so far as may be the original aspect and condition of the building. Consequently, his care must be divided between the actual circumstances in which he finds any ancient church when about to plan its restoration, and the traces of a better form and of more harmonious details which yet linger about its walls. Upon this principle much that has been lost may be regained, while nothing that is valuable will be suppressed. In order however to be enabled to carry out in practice this system of restoration, it is no less necessary to assign some limit to architectural conservatism than to restore upon conservative principles. We do not desire to retain all that we find in an ancient church, but all that is valuable; and so also, while we restore, that is, reproduce what has been lost or altered, with deep respect, with much caution and hesitation, still we do thus restore only what is really more excellent in itself and more consistent with the character of the entire work and with its general associations. But here we are met by our grand difficulty, that is, to determine the point at which we must cease both to reproduce and to retain; in other

words, to determine how far we are bound to keep what we find, and how far we may rightly and beneficially substitute what we believe once to have been, for what we now see in actual being. As a general rule, (and in such a case it is only a general rule that can be laid down,) we would have everything in our ancient churches retained which is not of later date than the close of the fourteenth century, and would keep as little as possible that is later than the close of the fifteenth.* And, whatsoever restoration we introduce, whether it be in restoring the mutilated remains of the more ancient portions of any building after their evident original design, or in replacing what has been long destroyed, or what we ourselves are constrained to condemn and sweep away, in every case, it must be our grand object to reproduce what we have reason to believe once existed, and that as it once existed. This is that "conservatism" so zealously advocated by Mr. Scott (we retain his italics) as "the great object, the very key-note, of restoration;" and this, if admitted as our rule, will impart its tone even to those exceptions and deviations from any one fixed law which, in the practical working out of the ever-varying question of church restoration, will of necessity arise.

It will be borne in mind that, in the general rule which we have above suggested, it is implied that the relics of the several architectural periods anterior to A.D. 1400, and it may be also anterior to A.D. 1500, have for the most part an equal claim for " conservation and restoration." Except in some special case of rare occurrence, the church-restorer must seek to transmit to them that come after him the identical edifice which the architects of the Gothic age themselves entrusted to time to bring down to him.

If they spared a Romanesque doorarch or corbel-table, it is for him to treasure heedfully the hoary relic; when inserting a richly traceried window of many lights, if they retained beside it a simple deeply-splayed lancet, let his restoring hand touch what is left of either member with equal care and veneration.† And in like manner with the entire work, even where it is not possible literally to act up to this principle, the restorer ought always to be directed by the tone of feeling which it inspires; he ought to be "one who keeps constantly in view the preservation of the sacred relics of Christian art, and who, if he sees it expedient to restore an early form at the cost of removing a later one, or to remove early features from inevitable necessity, does so with pain; and if unavoidably called upon" to destroy any portion of an ancient church, or to rebuild a part without any guiding authority, who has learned from the

66

vast treasury of Christian art, so wonderfully preserved for his use," how to adapt his work "to the tone and character of the building he is treating." Restoration, as it is well added by Mr. Scott, does indeed "call forth the exercise of mind and judgment, and sometimes even of imagination; but every wish to display individual genius or invention should be banished from the mind of the restorer; he should forget himself in his veneration for the works of his predecessors. Restoration often calls for the highest exercise of the talent of the architect, and is not unfrequently far more difficult and laborious than making a new design; and he may safely trust to the legitimate exercise of his intellect being appreciated, without wishing to risk the truthfulness of his work by giving scope to his own invention." (p. 27).

In these remarks we have followed

GENT. MAG. VOL. XXXIV.

:

U

Mr. Scott in distinguishing carefully between the restoration of an ancient church and the rebuilding it, or the making any additions or unavoidable alterations. Upon these points we readily adopt Mr. Scott's view, that such works should generally be in a style at least not quite so early as the oldest parts of the original building, unless the church contains nothing anterior to the fourteenth century; and we also agree with our author in his opinion that "there can scarcely be a case which would excuse a Norman addition, whatever we may say to restoring lost features in that style, in a building in which this is the general character." We must, however, consider that the early-English period of

Gothic architecture is not less suited for additions, and particularly in the case of village churches, than either subdivision of the period by which it was succeeded. In the case of a church entirely of the Perpendicular Gothic period, perhaps it may be sometimes well to add after the fashion of that period; but that fashion we would avoid as much as possible. In rebuilding, we would never follow any authority of later date than the fourteenth century, and, as far as may be, we would adopt that most admirable form of Gothic art which prevailed about A.D. 1320, and is now generally known as the "geometrical" period of the style.

Before we pass on to the consideration of the second part of Mr. Scott's volume, containing "miscellaneous remarks" on various questions indirectly suggested by his paper on the "Faithful Restoration of our ancient Churches," we cannot forego the pleasure of transferring to our pages some few passages selected from the concluding portion of that paper itself.

"The great danger in all our restorations," says Mr. Scott, "is doing too much, and the great difficulty is to know where to stop. An ordinary practical man, for instance, will often condemn a church roof or wall with as little ceremony as if it belonged to some farm building, while one who duly appreciates them would know how to repair or to reconstruct them without losing their design, or even their identity. . . . As a general rule, it is highly desirable to preserve those vestiges of the growth and history of the building which are indicated by the various styles

and irregularities of its parts; they often add interest to a church in other respects poor; they frequently add materially to its picturesque character, and nearly always render it more valuable as a study. This rule is, however, open to many exceptions; and it is here, perhaps, more than on any other question, that a sound judgment and freedom from caprice is needed. In some cases the later are the

more valuable and beautiful features; but in these the architect of true feeling will be very unwilling to obliterate earlier features, however simple or even rude, to bring them into uniformity with more ornamental additions. Indeed it may be laid down as a rule that some vestige at the least of the oldest portions should be always preserved as a proof of the early

origin of the building. In other buildings some one of the earlier styles claims the finest and most beautiful features; but it by no means follows that later parts should be removed, even though they may infringe upon finer forms; in some instances, however, this may seem to be desirable, particularly when, as is often the case, the later portions are themselves decayed, and the earlier may be restored with absolute certainty. all, I would urge that individual caprice (we repeat Mr. Scott's italics) should be wholly excluded from restorations. Let not the restorer give undue preference to the remains of any one age to the prejudice of another, merely because the one is, and the other is not, his own favourite style." (p. 31.)

Above

In cases where details are lost, such as the tracery of a window, &c. Mr. Scott judiciously advises that "hints be searched for from churches of corresponding age in the same neighbourhood." He also most rightly urges the careful preservation of monumental brasses, crossed slabs, effigies, &c. and of fragments of stained glass or of ancient iron-work and carving, and of encaustic tiles, during the time that a church is undergoing the process of restoration. These relics Mr. Scott places under the special care of the parish clergyman. "I believe," he says, "that, with the careful co-operation of the clergyman, these might often be preserved or restored, while, without this, every effort of the architect for their preservation will be useless." And in like manner, in the following paragraph, the same sentiment is yet more earnestly set forth:-"An architect may lay down a most perfect and ju