1107, we can understand the reasons which induced the original
architect to distrust a spire, and to adopt a lantern in its place.
If, however, timidity delayed it at first, when it was undertaken, its
builder left it not only the most lofty in England then and since, but
in actual effect the most lofty in the world. This is claimed in spite
of its 404 feet being exceeded by Amiens (422 feet), and Strasburg
(488 feet), and although it might appear special pleading to urge such
a theory against contradictory facts, yet since at Amiens the nave
roof is 208 feet high, against the 115 feet of Salisbury, it is
obvious that the apparent height of the latter exceeds its French
rival. At Strasburg the excess of elaboration in the ornament is
detrimental to the effect of height, and the same may be said of
Antwerp or Mechlin, where the whole effect is not so much that of a
spire, as of an elaborately fretted finial, insubstantial if exquisite
in itself, but merely an added ornament, not appearing part of the
solid structure.
Despite the somewhat ornate details of the upper stories and spire,
they accord well with the rest of the building, and, although typical
Early Decorated of the time of Edward III., fail to clash with the
more severe Early English work. These two stories have elaborately
canopied arcades running round them, the windows being pierced through
two of the arches on each facade and not emphasized by any special
treatment. Above each story is a traceried parapet of lozenge
decoration, the same design being repeated in the two bands that
encircle the spire itself. At each of the four angles of the tower is
an octagonal turret with crocketed spire. Amid a coronet of decorated
finials the great octagonal spire grows naturally with no abrupt
revelation of its change of plan. The whole cresting of the tower, and
the perfectly natural way in which its lines continue easily into the
graceful spire itself, are triumphs of successful design. The
silhouette of the mass against the sky so precisely reaches the ideal
effect that it is difficult to restrain oneself to sober criticism in
describing it, yet the result is achieved so naturally that until we
compare it with others, especially with modern ones, we hardly do
justice to the subtle beauty that gives it a right to the supremacy it
has won. The timber framework erected as a scaffold during the
progress of the building still remains inside the spire and helps to
impart strength to it; those curious in such matters will find a mass
of information and many plans and drawings of its internal
construction in Francis Price's "Antiquities of Salisbury, 1774." In
1762, during the progress of some repairs to the capstone and the
addition of a new copper vane, the workmen discovered a wooden box,
and inside it a round leaden one 5-1/2 inches in diameter and 2-1/4
inches deep, which contained a piece of woven fabric.[4] This was
conjectured to be a relic of the Virgin Mary, the patron saint of the
church, which had been deposited there to guard the lofty spire from
danger by lightning or tempest. When tested on the 600th anniversary
of the building the spire showed, it is said, no further deflection
from that registered two centuries earlier. Consequently the
settlement in the two western piers being so long at a standstill, and
the repeated additions of metal work to strengthen the spire being
apparently entirely successful, there seemed no reason to doubt but
that in the natural course of events it would remain for many
centuries a landmark to its neighbourhood and one of the greatest
triumphs of English mediaeval workmanship.[5] Richard de Farley, a
Wiltshire man, is supposed to have been the architect of the spire;
that his artistic instinct was right is evident to-day, but his
engineering foresight seems less certain, as in all probability the
settlement began almost immediately after the erection. Indeed it is
said that the efforts to obtain the canonization of Osmund were
started in 1387 to increase the popularity of the cathedral as a place
of pilgrimage, and thereby to augment its revenue, so that funds might
be forthcoming for the additional work needed to support the tower.
Frequent references to miracles at his shrine show that the saint was
popularly adored long before his canonization in 1456. A local
superstition says the tower was builded on woolpacks. According to
Pliny's account, the temple of Diana of Ephesus was made firm with
coats or fleeces of wool; but it is inconceivable that bags of wool
were employed in either case for the foundation. At Rouen in Normandy
a similar legend refers to butter as the foundation of one of the
western towers, which tradition, absurd though it be, supplies the
idea of a butter tax, which in turn suggests a wool tax, that in such
a district as this would have been naturally a profitable source of
revenue.
Probably because of the early trouble with the foundation of the great
tower, there was from the first no intention of making it a belfry.
Even before the spire was decided upon, the oscillation of a mass of
swaying bells was obviously too dangerous to be seriously considered.
A special campanile, as at Chichester, was therefore built at the
north-west corner of the close. Its style was evidently similar to
that of the cloisters and the chapter house. Multangular in form, an
early historian calls it, but the engravings still existing show it to
have been a somewhat ordinary specimen of Early English design. Its
special feature was a single central pillar of Purbeck marble that
supported the weight of the bells and belfry. The spire was doubtless
of wood, and, apparently, the upper lantern-like tower also.[6]
Although its destruction is not ordered in the official document
wherein the Chapter gave Wyatt authority to do so much mischief, on
some pretext, probably his craze for what he called "vistas," it was
demolished in the terrible destruction of 1789, opening up a view of
the Cathedral that was entirely unnecessary, and wilfully destroying a
feature of the close that could ill be spared.
The custom of climbing the spire during the Whitsun fair, to which
Francis Price, in a naive description, attributes much damage to the
leadwork of the roofs, has only ceased in recent times, some sixty or
seventy years ago. Arnold, a watchmaker, wound up his watch while
leaning actually against the vane. When a lad, during a royal visit,
stood on his head on the capstone, George III. refused to reward him,
saying that he was bound to provide for the lives of his people. On
June 26th, 1741, the timber braces of the spire were found to be on
fire. According to Francis Price, "there was, about ten o'clock the
night before in a very great storm, a particular flash of lightning
observed by many of the inhabitants to strike against the tower with a
sort of smacking noise, and then to have been lost.... It may well be
called dreadful since, had it continued half an hour longer, all the
assistance on earth could not have prevented the total destruction of
the pile."
=The West Front= of the Cathedral was, beyond doubt, the last portion
of the original design to be carried out, for among its details the
ball-flower, a typical feature of the decorated style, frequently
occurs. The governing idea of its facade is indefensible. Not merely
because in common with Wells, Lincoln, and other churches, it does not
emphasize the construction of the nave and aisles, and hides them by a
screen, but because the screen itself poses as an integral part of the
building. Even considered solely as an architectural composition,
without regard to the building it professes to decorate rather than
hide, it is hardly good. The two western towers it unites are, in
themselves, not sufficiently important in comparison with the rest of
the edifice; in fact, they are little more than finials to the screen.
In many similar structures the unity of effect gained at the expense
of theoretical consistency justifies the departure; here it is merely
a huge surface adapted to display a great number of statues. Rich as
it appears now that its long empty niches are again repeopled, it is
of no remarkable excellence either in mass or in detail. Its worst
fault, however, is that unlike Exeter, it does not content itself by
frankly assuming to be nothing more than a screen, but at first sight
appears to be the legitimate finish of the nave and aisles. A recent
critic, defending the facade in spite of its architectural isolation
from the building in its rear, points out that the chief objection to
the west front is that it is wanting in that repose and refinement of
detail which characterize the rest of the building, and that its
design is entirely out of keeping therewith, and also complains that
"the ragged outline at the angles produced by the high relief and
rather clumsy sections of the decorative detail has a very bad
effect." It has been suggested that as from the position of the site
there was never a chance of the building being seen from a
distance--owing to the level country around it, the projection of the
transepts and the group of the whole pile could never tell out as they
would had it been on a hill, therefore the form chosen was
deliberately adopted to give a factitious importance to the west front
on its own merits. The continental builders with much more lofty nave
and aisles, and with their habit of making the west door the principal
entrance, were able, by enriching its portal and decorating the
natural divisions of the building, to attain a stately form that
honestly fulfilled its purpose; here the magnificence is secured by
masking the low aisles of the nave with a wall that is a mere
theatrical adjunct, its simulated windows and its stringcourses
marking stories that do not exist. Apart from theoretical criticism,
it is not quite admirable in itself; the three doorways are hardly of
sufficient importance, the central window is somewhat larger than it
should be to accord with the scale of the whole facade, while the
apparently built up windows above the genuine windows of the nave
aisles, whose roofs have their apex about on a level with the sills of
the large central lancets, are as much frauds as any of those sham
windows in symmetrical Renaissance work, which so excite the ire of
ardent champions of Gothic purity.
It consists of five bays, of which the lateral ones are square
turrets, covered with arcades, and terminated by spires. The lower
story of the central bay is composed of three pedimented porches
deeply recessed, each with a niche in its gable. Above these is a
story of canopied trefoiled arches, with quatrefoil lozenges in
their centres. Over this arcade is the large west window, a triplet of
lancets with slender shafts and chevron ornament. Above this again is
a band of quatrefoils at the foot of the gable, which is filled with
double couplets of lancets with quatrefoils above their heads; and in
the upper spandrils is a quatrefoiled aureole. The buttresses flanking
this central bay have similar arcading continued around them. The side
bays each have a triple porch, a two-lighted window with a quatrefoil
in the head, with a window of the same form above it, and higher still
the arcading continued from the towers.
[Illustration: PORTALS OF THE WEST FRONT.
_From a Photograph by S.B. Bolas and Co._]
In 1863 the hundred and odd niches designed to contain statues were
either despoiled or had never been occupied, with the exception of
eight which held figures mutilated beyond certain recognition. Mr.
Cockerell conjectured that two on the buttress of the south tower
represented St. Peter and St. John the Baptist, on that to the north
St. Paul and St. John the Evangelist, while a figure facing north on
the same buttress he believed to represent Stephen Langton, Archbishop
of Canterbury. Other figures are supposed to commemorate Bishop Poore,
William Longespee, 1st Earl of Salisbury, St. Stephen, and Bishop
Giles de Bridport.
A sketch by Hollar, dating from the beginning of the seventeenth
century, shows the niches completely filled; and Hatcher claims from
this evidence that we are warranted in assuming that the figures were
destroyed by Ludlow's troopers when he garrisoned the belfry. But such
an assumption requires many facts to support it which are not
forthcoming. We have no proof that Hollar's sketch was intended to be
a literal transcript of what he saw; it is quite possible that for the
sake of effect he preferred to complete the design according to the
supposed intention of its builders. We are not certain that the niches
were all filled originally; it is quite possible that some were
purposely left vacant for future benefactors. We know also that during
the Civil War the whole fabric of the Cathedral escaped serious
injuries. The Hyde family, powerful at that time, had friends on both
sides, and we find record of certain articles sent up to Parliament by
one of Waller's officers were ordered to be restored. On the other
hand, the Visitation of Cathedrals, ordered and undertaken during the
reign of Edward VI., had especial instructions to remove images. In
addition to these objections to attributing the destruction of the
figures to the Ludlow soldiers, there is also to be considered the
natural decay of carving exposed to the open air, which might
reasonably account for the dilapidation of a certain number.
However, whether wantonly destroyed or not, it is certain that the
present figures must be all regarded as modern, since the eight
actually left have been, with the exception of St. John the Baptist,
very much restored. Redfern, the well-known sculptor, is responsible
for the present statues. If not possessing the vigour of the old work,
which from fragments in other parts of the building was certainly
superior to these modern additions, yet they are creditable in design
and scholarly in treatment.
The arrangement is probably in harmony with the original scheme. It
represents the orders of terrestrial and celestial beings mentioned in
the four verses of the hymn, "Te Deum Laudamus." In "The Legend of
Christian Art," by the Rev. H.T. Armfield, Minor Canon of Salisbury
(published in 1869), the symbolism and history of the whole design is
given at great length. Here it must suffice to quote a few of the more
salient points.
The statues are arranged in five horizontal lines from north to south,
exclusive of the figure in the "vesica," the oval above. In the
principal niches of the top row is a tier of angels, below this a tier
of Old Testament patriarchs and prophets, then a tier of doctors,
virgins, and martyrs, and lowest of all a tier of worthies, including
princes, martyrs, bishops, and founders connected with the diocese and
the Cathedral.
The Vesica contains a figure of our Lord seated, known technically as
a "Majesty." In the tier of angels below, noting them from left to
right, are the celestial hierarchies, Seraphim, Cherubim, and Thrones;
Dominions, Powers, and Authorities; Principalities, Archangels,
Angels. The Old Testament prophets are: David with the harp, Moses
with the Tables of the Law, Abraham with the knife, Noah with the ark,
Samuel with a sceptre, and Solomon with a church. The eight vacant
niches should contain figures of Isaiah, Ezekiel, Elijah, Melchizedek,
Enoch, Job, Daniel, and Jeremiah. The tier with the Apostles observes
this order: On the northern turret St. Jude with a halberd, St. Simon
Zelotes with a saw, St. Andrew with the cross that bears his name, St.
Thomas with a builder's square; on the north buttress St. Peter with
the keys; on the southern buttress St. Paul with a sword (both
these are restorations of ancient figures); on the southern turret St.
James the Less with a club, St. James the Greater with a pilgrim's
staff, St. Bartholomew with the knife of his martyrdom and St.
Matthias with a lance.
[Illustration: DETAILS OF MAIN WEST PORTAL.
_From a Drawing by H.P. Clifford._]
The tier of the doctors, virgins, and martyrs, keeping to the same
order, shows: St. Ambrose, Bishop of Milan, with a scourge in his
right hand, and a bishop's staff in his left; St. Jerome in a
cardinal's hat, with a church in his right hand and a bible in his
left; St. Gregory in papal tiara, the legendary club on his shield,
his pastoral staff doubly crossed, and a book, typical of his
writings, on his left. On the smaller north buttress, near the turret,
is a restored figure removed from its original place, which represents
St. Augustine, wearing a bishop's mitre, and holding his hand as in
the act of benediction. On the greater north buttress is the figure of
St. Mary the Virgin, to whom the church is dedicated. This figure is
also restored. In the eleven niches over the central door are, with
their various symbols: St. Barbara, St. Catherine, St. Roche, St.
Nicholas, St. George of England, St. Christopher, St. Sebastian, St.
Cosmo, St. Damian, St. Margaret, and St. Ursula. On the greater south
buttress is St. John the Baptist, and on the lesser an old figure
unrestored, supposed to represent St. Bridget. On the southern turret
are St. Mary, St. Agatha, St. Agnes and St. Cecilia, each wearing the
martyr's crown. The tier of worthies comprises: Bishops Giles de
Bridport and Richard Poore, and King Henry III. as a founder. Bishop
Odo, with a wafer in his hand, commemorating the legend of his
miraculous proof of the transubstantiation of the Blessed Sacrament;
St. Osmund, Bishop Brithwold, St. Alban, St. Alphege, St. Edmund, and
St. Thomas of Canterbury.
Another figure on the north side of the north-west turret, for some
time assumed to be St. Christopher, is now assigned to St. Birinus, or
possibly with more truth to St. Nicholas, who had an altar dedicated
to him, "probably just at the back of this spot."
On the apex of the west front is an ancient carving of a bird on a
scroll, which has puzzled many specialists. Mr. Armfield believes it
to be intended for a dove, the emblem of the Holy Spirit, in a scroll
to typify The Word, and thus with the "Majesty" near, to be a
representation of the three persons of the Trinity, in a mode in
accordance with English taste.
=The North Porch= is a massive structure of two stories. The upper,
now used as the dean's muniment room, has, like a similar example at
Christchurch, Hants, no certain indication of its original use.
Whether it was a dwelling for sacristans, a school, or a library, was
doubtful; but later opinion thinks it was unquestionably used by the
sacristans, since it is said that "the sub-treasurer of Sarum, who was
usually one of the vicars choral, pledged himself to see that the
clerks told off for given duties slept in the church in their
accustomed places; and for himself he promised that unless lawfully
excused, he would sleep each night in the treasury." Against this
theory, however, it might be urged that the muniment room at the angle
of the south-east transept is identified as the ancient treasury.
This porch, sometimes called the Galilee, was possibly a place where
penitents met, and from which they were expelled from the church on
Ash-Wednesday until Maundy Thursday. Externally, although of exquisite
proportions, it has no very important details, yet its pinnacles
deserve notice; but the interior is very beautiful, the walls have
sunk panelling, a base arcade of foliated arches, and in the upper
tier large foliated circles with sub-arches, each comprising two
trefoiled arches with quatrefoil heads. Mr. G.E. Street, who
thoroughly appreciated this particular period of English Gothic as his
work at the New Law Courts proves, just before his death restored this
part of the cathedral admirably.
Another porch, formerly the entrance to the north transept, removed by
Wyatt for the most trivial reason, is now in the grounds of the
college which occupies the site of the secular buildings belonging to
the church of St. Edmund, founded in 1268.
=The Exterior= of the =Nave= is simple, but with excellently disposed
features. The triple lancets of the clerestory occur in pairs between
flying buttresses with tall finials; below these, in the aisles, are
two two-light windows, divided by lesser buttresses terminating in
gables.
The fronts of the main transepts show four stories, the two lower
being divided into three bays by buttresses, and flanked by pinnacled
buttresses at each side. The doors that had a ritual use have long
since been walled up both on the north and south sides. A triplet
window is in the lower stage, three-light windows with quatrefoil
heads occupying the second, while the third has an arcade of six
lancets below a floriated circle flanked by sunk panels and
quatrefoils. The windows in the gable consist of two lesser windows,
two-light, with quatrefoil heads, beneath a large octofoil, the whole
grouped with blank panels at the side, beneath a cinquefoil moulding.
The aisle has flying buttresses reaching to the clerestory, and good
angle-pinnacles. The choir transept has no dividing buttresses, and a
different grouping of windows. In the lower stage is a triple lancet;
there is a group of three two-light windows in the story above, and in
the upper one an arcade of four lancets grouped under a comprising
arch with a quatrefoil in the head. The gable is lighted by a triplet
window flanked with blind lancets, and terminates in a cross.
[Illustration: ONE BAY OF THE NAVE (EXTERIOR), NORTH SIDE.]
The transepts differ slightly in detail on their north and south
fronts. It has also been pointed out that while in the one transept
the lancet form rules, in the other the free employment of the circle
and the quatrefoil almost foreshadows the Early Decorated style. The
windows of both are so singularly pure in design and beautiful in
proportion, that they have often been selected as typical examples of
the best work in their style.
The east front of the choir is flanked with square pinnacled
buttresses. Above the Lady Chapel is an arcade with five members
pierced with three windows, and in the gable a similar arrangement of
five lancets, three being windows, arranged in harmony with the
triangular space it fills. The flying buttresses on the south side
were added by Bishop Beauchamp in 1450-58.
The east front of the Lady Chapel is divided by buttresses into three
bays, and has crocketed gables to each. The aisles show a lancet in
the lower story, with a blind couplet beneath a quatrefoil in the
gable; the central compartment has a triplet in each story.
The south side corresponds in character to the north, but is partly
hidden by the chapter house, the muniment room, the library, and
cloisters. The walls of the latter are high, and the quadrangle they
inclose entirely separated from the building, the long narrow space
between being known as the Plumbery.
Many consecration crosses of beautiful design are to be found on the
building marking the spots touched by the oil of unction at the
dedication of the edifice. (See initial letter, page 1.)
The cathedral is built of freestone from the Chilmark quarries twelve
miles distant, with a lavish use of Purbeck marble in its interior.
The grey colour of the leaden roofs and the pure unstained tone of its
walls, impart a quasi-modern aspect to it, which, no matter how little
justified by facts, always presents Salisbury to one's mind, as a late
addition to the superb array of English churches; yet considering that
as we see it from the Close no portion (except possibly the spire)
later than the twelfth century comes into the picture, there is no
other cathedral that so little justifies such an impression, and one
cannot escape a return to the first reason advanced, namely, that its
singular unity has given it an aspect of perpetual youth.
[Illustration: THE CHOIR SCREEN.
_From a Photograph by Carl Norman and Co._]
FOOTNOTES:
[4] This was carefully replaced in its original position inclosed in a
copper cylinder.
[5] Recently, however, anxiety has been again aroused, and the spire
has been once more strengthened.
[6] This lantern story was removed in 1757 by order of the Dean and
Chapter.
THE INTERIOR OF THE CATHEDRAL AND CHAPTER HOUSE.