THE SOCIETY FOR THE PROTECTION OF ANCIENT BUILDINGS
During the last few weeks the restoration of the Lady Chapel of Worksop Priory has been in progress. It was a roofless ruin, retaining much fine thirteenth-century work. It is being re-roofed, the fallen portions rebuilt, and missing parts renewed in the style of the original building, the new work being made to resemble as nearly as may be what the old is believed to have been.
This on the face of it sounds reasonable enough, but experience has shown that in practice the result of such treatment is the reverse of satisfactory. It is exactly what the restorers of the last century did, and what people with any knowledge or love of old buildings deplore to-day, whenever it comes to their notice. It is just such a case as this which goes to the root of the matter in which the Society interests itself, and its customary ruling thereon may be stated in the following way:
1. The ruin should be subjected only to repairs needed for its upkeep.
2. If the site is absolutely necessary to the community for the purposes of its daily life, it has a right to use such ruins and even in extremity to demolish them.
3. Confronted by a similar necessity it may be justifiable to incorporate an old building in a new one. The danger in this case lies, however, in the fact that the desire to restore for the sake of restoration may outrun the actual need of a new building designed to fulfil some special purpose.
Having made this concession to a genuine demand, the Society still stands out against restoration. The new work should be good and in harmony with the old, but it should also be living architecture and not a study in dead style.
As Professor Lethaby expressed it, "Architecture is a current speech, it is not an art of classical quotation."
But the Lady Chapel of Worksop Priory is actually being restored. So, though much more might be said, the case ends here, save for the thought that with better guidance different conclusions would have been reached.
The promoters of the scheme, having so far determined to make use of the ruin, might have asked the advice of a selected group representative of our best men—a group which should include within it one real authority versed in the building methods of the same period as that of the ruin, an acknowledged authority on modern architecture, a representative both of the Society of Antiquaries and the Society for the Protection of Ancient Buildings. To these one would add a local architect or builder conversant with the local conditions and material.
To such an advisory board would be committed the task of choosing an architect, whose plans would be submitted for approval before being recommended to the promoters.
The scheme may seem to savour too much of the ideal which has no part in actual life, yet it is worth consideration, for from it, one might say almost inevitably, good work must result.
As a matter of fact the Committee does comprise within itself the qualities of such an advisory board, but the above suggestion is made for those who may prefer, for one reason or another, to ask advice elsewhere.