[To the Editor of the SPECTATOR.] Sza,—Apropos of the letter
of Mr. Arnold VVhittick in your issue of Sept. 18th perhaps the opinion of the distinguished archaeologist, the late Sir W. St. John Hope, may be of interest to your readers.
In a letter I had from him only shortly before his death, speaking of the right kind of material to be used for memorials to the fallen in War, he said that he was entirely against the use of marble for this purpose, as indeed for any memorial in this country ; for which he called it "the most detestable of all stones."
Instead, he strongly advocated the Derbyshire Hopton Wood Stone, which he described as a beautiful creamy material that will take a nice dull polish very well. I have myself had occasion to make use of this stone for a memorial, and am wholly satisfied with its appearance, besides being well assured of its durability. Moreover, is it not better, ceteris paribus, to make use of stone, as of other products, of our own country instead of going abroad for it ? though this, it would seem, is a case of ceteris inferioribus ! Marble is quite right for statuary, but most unsuitable for our churchyards, especially when trees are near at hand. —I am, Sir, &c., Newbiggin, Beverley, Yorkshire. M. C. F. Moan's.
Ma. C. S. MAITZ, of Messrs. G. Maile and Son, Ltd.. Writes :—" In the interesting letter from Mr. Arnold Whittick as to whether white marble or stone should be used fol
memorials erected in our English churchyards, he omits altogether any reference to the material which, in recent years, has largely replaced stone as an alternative to white marble, namely, the beautiful silvery grey Cornish granite. Its increasing use is due to the recognition of the fact that the pleasing light grey colour of the granite harmonizes and tones with the surroundings of a country churchyard, and being of such a hard, rocky nature is impervious to moisture and is altogether more durable and lasting than any marble or stone."
Previous page
