Roodscreens and roodlofts . enthor early sixteenth century date. The most artistic are probably those at Ashton(ss. 3 and 51 a, b, c), though the later series at Plymtree is perhaps equally Sibyls at Bradninch (ss. 4), have a grace and charm of their own, and the paintingsat Buckland-on-the-Moor, though much defaced, show signs of great skill in painter of the figures at Ipplepen (which also seem to be an early series), was a realartist, and the hand that drew the little figures at Hennock was not unskilful. At Holneand Kenton the figures are very rude, though there
Roodscreens and roodlofts . enthor early sixteenth century date. The most artistic are probably those at Ashton(ss. 3 and 51 a, b, c), though the later series at Plymtree is perhaps equally Sibyls at Bradninch (ss. 4), have a grace and charm of their own, and the paintingsat Buckland-on-the-Moor, though much defaced, show signs of great skill in painter of the figures at Ipplepen (which also seem to be an early series), was a realartist, and the hand that drew the little figures at Hennock was not unskilful. At Holneand Kenton the figures are very rude, though there is beauty in the Coronation groupon the former screen. The majority of these paintings, however, are distinguishedchiefly by their quaintness. Mr. Keyser observes that in some instances the apparent rudeness of the subjectsmay be due to the ill-treatment they have received, as in cases where the panels haveescaped the brush of the painter and varnisher, or renovation from some well-intentioned 214 ROODSCREENS AND ROODLOFTS. (AiitiTMn.) but incompetent local artist, we still find figures and subjects exhibiting vigorous and careful treatment, worthy of the artistic spirit of the age in which they were executed. But whatever opinions may be held asto their artistic value, no one will disputethat these paintings are of quite extra-ordinary archaeological interest. It is,therefore, the more deplorable that evensince the Gothic re\^val so many shouldhave been wantonly destroyed by ignorantso-called restorers. In a paper readbefore the Society of Architects in 1897]\Ir. Harry Hems gave a very incompletelist of no less than eighty Devonshirechurches that apathy, greed, ignorance,fanaticism, or right-down wilful wicked-ness, respectively or combined, havedeprived of their chief glory and pride, their carved oak fifteenth century screens. The writers of this work have been able very largely to extend this black list. How many of these screens may have been painted cannot now be ascerta
Size: 1610px × 1551px
Photo credit: © The Reading Room / Alamy / Afripics
License: Licensed
Model Released: No
Keywords: ., bookcentury1900, bookdecade1900, booksubjectchurcharchitecture
