[Illustration: CHICHESTER CATHEDRAL FROM THE SOUTH.]
THE CATHEDRAL CHURCH OF CHICHESTER
A SHORT HISTORY & DESCRIPTION OF ITS FABRIC WITH AN ACCOUNT OF THE
DIOCESE AND SEE
HUBERT C. CORLETTE
A.R.I.B.A.
WITH XLV ILLUSTRATIONS
LONDON GEORGE BELL & SONS 1901
PREFACE.
All the facts of the following history were supplied to me by many
authorities. To a number of these, references are given in the text.
But I wish to acknowledge how much I owe to the very careful and
original research provided by Professor Willis, in his "Architectural
History of the Cathedral"; by Precentor Walcott, in his "Early
Statutes" of Chichester; and Dean Stephen, in his "Diocesan History."
The footnotes, which refer to the latter work, indicate the pages in
the smaller edition. But the volume could never have been completed
without the great help given to me on many occassions by Prebendary
Bennett. His deep and intimate knowledge of the cathedral structure
and its history was always at my disposal. It is to him, as well as to
Dr. Codrington and Mr. Gordon P.G. Hills, I am still further indebted
for much help in correcting the proofs and for many valuable
suggestions.
H.C.C.
C O N T E N T S.
CHAP. PAGE
I. HISTORY OF THE CATHEDRAL............... 3
II. THE EXTERIOR.......................... 51
III. THE INTERIOR.......................... 81
IV. THE DIOCESE AND SEE: OTHER BUILDINGS IN THE CITY ... 101
LIST OF ILLUSTRATIONS.
Chichester Cathedral from the South.... _Frontispiece_
Arms of the See........................ _Title_
Longitudinal Section, about 1815........................ 2
Chichester Cathedral from the East...................... 3
The West Front, about 1836.............................. 7
View through the South Triforium of the Nave............ 9
The Clerestory Passage, Nave, South Side............... 11
Historical Section from Willis......................... 13
The Clerestory, North Side of Nave..................... 14
Pier-Capitals in the Retro-Choir....................... 16
Transverse Sections from Willis........................ 18
The Cathedral from the South-East, about 1836.......... 25
The South Transept, about 1836......................... 27
The Bell Tower as seen from West Street................ 31
Decoration formerly on the Choir Vault................. 33
Chichester Cathedral, about 1650....................... 39
The Nave, about 1836................................... 44
The Retro-Choir and Reredos, about 1836................ 45
The Cathedral from the South-West...................... 50
The North-East Angle of the South-West Tower........... 52
Wall Arcade in the West Porch.......................... 54
The South Doorway...................................... 60
The Cloister from the South-East....................... 61
The East walk of the Cloister.......................... 63
The Choir and Central Tower from the South-East........ 67
Windows of the Lady-Chapel, South Side................. 70
The Cathedral from the North-East...................... 74
The Detached Bell-Tower................................ 77
The Nave, looking West................................. 80
The Nave, looking East................................. 82
The South Aisle, from the Nave......................... 84
The Sacristy........................................... 87
The Altar and Reredos.................................. 89
The Triforium in the Choir............................. 91
Decoration on the Vault of the Lady-Chapel............. 92
The Presbytery, or Retro-Choir, looking North-East..... 93
The Lady-Chapel........................................ 95
The North Choir-Aisle.................................. 97
The Library............................................ 98
The Town Cross......................................... 100
Sculptured Panels in the South Choir-Aisle............. 105
Tomb Assigned to Bishop Richard of Wych................ 113
S. Clement's Chapel, and Tomb of Bishop Durnford....... 121
Painted Decoration formerly on the Choir Vault......... 125
PLAN of the Cathedral......................... _At End_
[Illustration: LONGITUDINAL SECTION ABOUT 1815, SHOWING THE ARUNDEL
SCREEN AND THE POSITION OF THE REREDOS. From Dallaway's "West Sussex."
(Scale 75 feet to 1 in.)]
[Illustration: CHICHESTER CATHEDRAL FROM THE EAST. _Photochrome Co.,
Ltd., Photo.]
CHICHESTER CATHEDRAL.
CHAPTER I.
THE HISTORY OF THE CATHEDRAL.
Any attempt to write the history of a cathedral requires that the
subject shall be approached with two leading ideas in view. One of
these has reference to the history of a Church; the other to the story
of a building. The two aspects are clearly to be distinguished, but
their mutual relation may be better appreciated when we realise how
intimately they are bound together.
Ecclesiastical history, or "ecclesiology," and architectural history,
or "archaeology," do not exist apart; for the needs of Christian
liturgy indicated what arrangement was required in those buildings
that were peculiarly dedicated to the use of the Church; hence we
have, in the mere building itself, to consider the condition of
ecclesiastical and architectural growth displayed by its character
during each stage of its development, and this development, this
character, is to be discovered as well in the plan and structure of
the fabric, with its decorative details, as in the record that
documents and traditions have preserved. But we need to remember that
one see, one building, represents a link in one long continuing chain,
and in doing this we naturally look back as well as forward to observe
the relation of either to the past and to the present. Such an
attitude as this requires that we refer to that period when the
subject of this chapter was not yet part of the native soil of Sussex,
and in doing this we find that so early as the eighth century the town
of Chichester was even then a known centre of civil, though apparently
not ecclesiastical, activity; for it is not until about the middle of
the tenth century that some uncertain documentary evidence refers to
"Bishop Brethelm and the brethren dwelling at Chichester." [1] It may
be that Brethelm was a bishop in, though not of, Chichester, who dwelt
and worked among the south Saxons living in and about the city, for
the history of the diocese and see will show that probably there was
no episcopate established under that name until a little more than one
hundred years later.
[1] Walcott, "Early Statutes," p. 12.
Ceadwalla's foundation of the see at Selsea dated from about the end
of the seventh century; but we know nothing about any cathedral church
at that place during the following three hundred and fifty years. If,
however, there was a bishop in charge of the missionary priests,
deacons, and laymen who lived there together, there must necessarily
have been a "cathedra" in the church they used.
When Stigand came from Selsea to establish his see in Chichester he
found the city already furnished with a minster dedicated to S. Peter.
He had effected this transfer because the Council of London had
decided in 1075 that all the then village sees should be removed to
towns; and as there is no evidence of any attempt to provide a new
cathedral until about the year 1088, the existing minster must have
been appropriated for the see. It has been supposed that Stigand may
have devised some scheme for building a new church, and even that he
saw it carried out so far as to provide the foundations on which to
execute this idea. But there appears to be no authority which warrants
the assumption that he did even so much as this, for history says
nothing about such an early beginning of the new operations, tradition
asserts no more, and speculation suggests probabilities merely. We are
obliged, therefore, to be satisfied with the fact that the work begun
about 1088 was consecrated by Bishop Ralph de Luffa, in 1108, and it
is possible even now to see the stone which commemorates that ceremony
embedded in the walling of the present church. Unfortunately no more
than about six years had passed since this, the first, dedication,
when a fire occurred which burnt part of the fabric. Ralph was still
living, and began at once to repair the damage that had been done; and
the king (Henry I.) gave him much help by encouraging his endeavour.
What, then, had been accomplished during the twenty years between 1088
and 1108?
In 1075 Stigand transferred the see. About thirteen years later the
new cathedral building appears to have been begun under Ralph, and in
another twenty years so much had been finished as would allow him to
see it dedicated. It is probable that before this ceremony was
performed a considerable portion of the eastern section of the work
was finished; for in accordance with a general custom with the
mediæval church builders, this part would have been that first begun.
But how much of it was ready for use? The sanctuary and presbytery, or
choir, with its necessary structural appendages, no doubt first
appeared. It may be that no more than this was ready when the
dedication took place. But it is not possible to say with any
authority what actually was finished. Nevertheless, the character of
the building itself explains the course in which the structure was
developed. After the first fire, in 1114, the work steadily continued,
and it is possible that before that mishap occurred, certain other
parts had been begun, if not finished. The remains of the original
nave still present distinct evidence to show that it was, with the
aisles, built in two sections; and these, although they appear at
first to be alike, prove upon closer examination that the four bays
towards the west are of a later date than those other four eastward.
Now it is not essential that we should know exactly how much of the
building was finished by a certain year, or what stage towards
completion had been reached at any particular time; it is sufficient
at present that we should be able to indicate the general trend of the
operations,--and this would suggest the conclusion that, having
prepared so much as was necessary about the chancel, the builders went
on busily, after the dedication, to deal with the transept and the
nave. Then followed those four early bays of the nave which are
nearest to the east.
It is quite safe to assume upon various grounds that the work had been
carried on successfully up to this stage early in the twelfth century;
but neither the documentary evidence available, nor the condition of
the fabric, enables us to venture more than this surmise concerning
its condition at that time.
Between 1114 and the time of the second and serious fire in 1187, the
remainder of the whole scheme planned a hundred years before was
apparently finished.
The first fire had excited some public interest in the great
enterprise at Chichester, and from this an impetus was derived which
helped towards its execution, after the small damage caused by the
fire had been quickly repaired, for by about the year 1150 the four
western bays of the nave, with its aisles, must have been complete. It
should be understood that the fire in 1114 did not lead to any change
in the character of the church such as was occasioned by that other
fire which shall be considered presently; but the work had quietly
continued, so that the aisles of the nave were vaulted by about
1170-1180, the lady-chapel was completed, and in 1184 all was ready
for the second ceremony of consecration which then took place. It has
been assumed that this act implies that the whole of the original
scheme had been executed. Nevertheless, it must be acknowledged that
again there are but few authentic records to show in what manner the
work had been carried on, nor are there many indications of the way in
which the necessary materials and money were provided to help it
forward. But it is interesting to notice that in 1147 William, Earl of
Arundel, gave to the see that quarter of the city in which stood the
palace of the bishops, the residences of the canons, and the cathedral
church. This grant of land confirmed the see in its possession of all
that part of the city now within the bounds of the close.
[Illustration: THE WEST FRONT, ABOUT 1836. _from Winkles's Cathedrals_.]
What, then, was the plan of that church which was designed to suit
the requirements set down by Bishop Ralph Luffa? The ground-plan at
the end of the volume shows the building as it now remains, after many
alterations have been made in the original scheme; but the arrangement
is still, in its main features, much the same as was at first devised.
The usual plan was adopted, and this was the provision of a nave and
chancel having a transept between them so as to make the form of a
cross. The nave had aisles along its whole length. These were extended
on both sides eastward of the transept, and continued as an ambulatory
round a semicircular apse. The transept also had a small apsidal
chapel on the east side of both its north and south arms. At the point
of intersection between the transept and the nave the supports of the
central tower rose. Between this and the west end there were eight
arches in each of the arcades opening north and south from the nave
into the aisles. Beyond the crossing towards the east there were three
similar arches in the arcades which connected the apse with the large
piers of the central tower. These three bays, together with the apse,
enclosed the chancel; and this comprised the sanctuary, which was that
part within the apse itself, and also the presbytery, or choir of the
priests, which occupied the remaining space between the apse and the
arch into the transept beneath the tower. At a later date the
accommodation of the choir was increased by making it occupy part of
the space farther to the west. Possibly it projected into the nave. At
the west end of each of the aisles of the nave a tower was placed, and
between these two towers was the chief public entrance to the church.
From the subsequent history of the structure it would appear that the
two western towers had been built up and finished, so far, at least,
as was necessary to allow of the completion of the nave with its
aisles and roofs. The same may be concluded of the central tower.
This latter probably rose only just above the ridge of the roofs. To
carry it up so far would have been dictated to the builders by
structural reasons; for such a height would be required to help the
stability of the piers and arches below, since they had to resist a
variety of opposed thrusts. But even this tower, low as it no doubt
was, like others of the same date, did not survive the dedication more
than about twenty-six years. The whole building was covered with a
high-pitched wooden roof over the nave, transept, and chancel; and
beneath the outer roof there was a flat inner ceiling of wood formed
between the tie beams, similar to those now to be seen at Peterborough
and S. Albans. The north and south aisles of the nave were protected
by roofs which sloped up from their eaves against the wall that rose
above the nave arcades. Internally the ceiling to these was a simple
groined vault supported by transverse arches.
Immediately above the vault of the aisles was the gallery of the
triforium. This was lighted throughout by small external round-headed
windows, some of which may still be seen embedded in the walls. The
aisles and ambulatory of the chancel were treated by the same methods.
In the triforium gallery, above the transverse arches of the aisles,
were other semicircular arches. These served a double purpose: they
acted as supports to the timber framework of the aisle roofs, and also
as a means of buttressing the upper part of the nave walling in which
the clerestory windows were placed. Such other buttresses as there had
been were broad and flat, with but little projection from the surface
of the wall. The windows throughout the building up to about the end
of the twelfth century were small in comparison with some of those
which were inserted at various times afterwards.
[Illustration: VIEW THROUGH THE SOUTH TRIFORIUM OF THE NAVE FROM THE
SOUTH-WEST TOWER. _From a photograph by Mr. F. Bund_.]
It has been remarked that the termination of the early chancel towards
the east was an apse, and that round this was carried the north and
south choir aisles in the form of a continuous ambulatory. From this
enclosing aisle--a semi-circle itself in form--three chapels were
projected, each with a semicircular apsidal termination. The central
one of the three was the lady-chapel. This consisted then of the three
western bays only of the present chapel. The lady-chapel was added
about eighty years after the early part of the nave had been built,
and has since been much altered.
The presence of this grouping of features is indicative of that
influence which Continental architecture had exercised upon English
art, and now that Norman government had been established that
influence became more directly French. But though so strongly affected
by this means, Anglo-Saxon character was always evident in work which
was a native expression of the thought and personality of those by
whom it was executed.
Thus we see that the plan which Ralph approved for the new church that
was to be built for him at Chichester was devised according to
accepted traditional arrangement. He adopted no new idea when he
decided what general form the cathedral should follow. The disposition
of the several parts differed in no wise from that which had been
followed during centuries before. The requirements of ritual had
decided long since what were those essential features of planning to
be insisted upon, for the pattern in germ was shown in the arrangement
of the Mosaic Tabernacle. In the earliest plans the same distribution
of parts was observed, though at a later date the transept was
introduced--an idea which no doubt had its origin in some practical
necessity, and was afterwards retained as being representative of an
ecclesiastical symbol.
Of the practical and artistic character of the architectural details
we shall see more in examining the exterior and the interior of the
church. These will lead us, of necessity, to deal more with
archaeology in its relation to the history of architecture rather than
of this particular church as a building used for ecclesiastical
purposes.
After the ceremony of 1184 building operations were continued, but the
records available do not tell about anything of much interest for the
next two or three years. Then in 1186-1187 a catastrophe occurred--the
cathedral was again burnt. But this time the effects of the fire were
much more disastrous than had been the case in 1114. So extensive was
the destruction that the entire roofing, as well as the internal flat
ceiling, was gone; and though we can glean no certain knowledge from
documentary evidence, it appears probable that the eastern section of
the building suffered more than any other, for whatever other causes
may have aided in the wreck of this part--a weakness in the masonry,
an insufficiency in the supports or abutments--the fall of such heavy
timbers as those which must have formed the outer roof and inner
ceiling of the chancel would in itself be sufficient to wreck the
remainder.
Whether the change in plan that now followed was really necessary
because of the damage that had been done, or whether the fire provided
a welcome opportunity by which new features might be introduced, we
are not able to discover. It is sufficient that the chance was not
lost, for in the eastern ambulatory of the cathedral church at
Chichester is to be seen, as a result, one of the most truly beautiful
examples of mediæval design that English architecture now possesses.
[Illustration: THE CLERESTORY PASSAGE, NAVE, SOUTH SIDE. _From a
photograph by Mr. F. Bond_.]
In the nave some parts of the old limestone walls had been injured by
the fall of the roofs; they were also seriously damaged by the beams
that had been laid upon them, for these, after their fall, would
continue to burn as they rested against those portions of walling
which remained standing. It was no doubt by some such cause as this
that the early clerestory was disfigured and partly destroyed. In
either case, the old clerestory arcade of the twelfth century no
longer remained as it was before; and though there were already stone
vaults to the aisles of the nave before the fire occurred, yet they
also disappeared and made way for newer ones. The outer roof over the
triforium evidently shared the fate of the other coverings; and the
arched abutment in the triforium, which acted as a support to this
roof and the walling below the clerestory, now disappeared. It may be
that this arching was not completely destroyed by the fire alone; no
doubt some that remained was intentionally removed to prepare the way
for the new work.
The same bishop who had witnessed the completion of the earlier
operations began with much enterprise to see about the reconstruction,
but not the restoration, of what had been destroyed. Some portions
were repaired, others rebuilt; but the greater part of the work now
undertaken involved an entire change in the character of some of the
principal features of the earlier scheme. In fact, this incident in
the history of our subject gave "occasion to one of the most curious
and interesting examples of the methods employed by the mediæval
architects in the repairs of their buildings." [2]
[2] Willis, "Chichester Cathedral," p. 6.
Having decided that they would, if possible, avoid all future risk of
a similar catastrophe, a system of vaulting was adopted as the best
solution of the problem,--this involved necessarily a remodelling of
the interior; and so, neglecting the Isle of Wight limestone and the
Sussex sandstone, which at first had been the material used for the
walling, the masons were directed to use stone of finer texture and
smaller grain. It has been thought by some that this material was
brought from Caen in Normandy. The same stone was used to re-face
parts of the nave piers. And in addition Purbeck marble was selected
instead of that which was to be found in Sussex.
It is interesting to remember that the new choir of Canterbury had
only been finished about three years before the fire occurred at
Chichester. This work had been begun by William of Sens and finished
by William the Englishman; and though it was so large an undertaking,
it appears to have been commenced and completed between the years 1174
and 1184. This would very naturally exert some influence upon the
building projects of a neighbouring see. Whether any of the actual
craftsmen from Canterbury worked again at Chichester or not we cannot
tell, but it is evident that the Kentish experience was of great help
to Sussex in the new venture. When it had been decided how they should
operate, it was natural that the covering of the building must be the
first provision. This involved the repair of the shattered clerestory,
and then they were free to proceed in other directions. Further than
this we have no means of learning what method was followed in carrying
on the new work; but it continued, so that in about twelve years the
building was dedicated again.
There is nothing now to indicate that the provision of a vault had
been intended by the original builders of these walls. This deficiency
was met by the insertion of vaulting shafts and the addition of
external buttressing; for as the pressure of the flat wooden roof was
exerted for the most part vertically upon its supports, that of the
vault would be a strong lateral thrust as well as vertical pressure,
and these were to be provided for. We shall see presently that all the
real beauties of this most interesting work were the outcome both of
the needs of practical structure and the requirements of ritual and a
ceremonial expression of the liturgy.
[Illustration: HISTORICAL SECTION FROM WILLIS'S ARCHITECTURAL HISTORY.
Original Elevation. Present Elevation. Two Bays of Retro-choir. (Scale
29'2 feet to 1 in.)]
[Illustration: THE CLERESTORY, NORTH SIDE OF NAVE. _From a photograph
by Mr. Francis Bond_. ]
It is not possible for us to discover exactly when the several parts
of the work undertaken after the fire of 1186-1187 were begun, nor
when they were finished. Of dates we have little knowledge, except
that of the dedication in 1199, the fall of two towers in 1210, and
the various indications of architectural activity at certain periods
given by the several dates mentioned in connection with donations,
bequests, and royal sanctions in the episcopal statutes and other
documents. These nearly all show that the time of greatest activity
was after 1186 and before 1250. If such a feat as has been mentioned
was performed at Canterbury between 1174 and 1184, was it not possible
also at Chichester? Then it becomes necessary to assume that the
structural alterations were continuing during the whole of the period
suggested; and this was so. Enough work had been done by 1199 to allow
of another dedication of the building. Seffrid II. had been bishop
from 1180-1204, and the register of Bishop William Rede, written one
hundred and sixty years later, explicitly states that Seffrid
"re-edified the Church of Chichester." This is a comprehensive
statement, but it might easily include at least the greater part of
the vaulting with some form of external roof. Such a change as this
involved the alteration of the nave and aisle piers, so that the
slight vaulting shafts of finer stone might be inserted in the older
masonry. The lower part of each of the piers of the nave arcade on the
side towards the centre of the church was re-faced with the same
material, and smaller shafts of Purbeck marble were introduced upon
the piers, replacing probably the heavy ones of an earlier date. These
shafts formed the support to a more delicate moulded member, which was
now substituted for the original and very simple outer order of the
original arch. A string-course of Purbeck marble was inserted as a
line of separation between the nave arcade and the triforium, and also
between the triforium and clerestory. The triforium itself remained as
it had been before 1186; but the clerestory was dressed again, so that
it obtained quite a new character. It was re-faced with the
fine-grained stone, and the slight shafts which supported the
clerestory arcades were provided with Purbeck capitals and bases. This
arcading itself was also changed from its earlier type. The central
arch was still made round in form, but those on either side of it were
each pointed, and all were more finely moulded than before. Above this
point rises the new stone vault, which is carried upon a framework of
strong transverse and diagonal ribs. Between these the shell, or
filling, which formed the surface of the vault, is of chalk, roughly
cut and irregularly laid; above this was placed a thick coat of
concrete.
Some flying-buttresses were built now in order to meet the thrust
exerted by the new arched vault of the nave. These were constructed in
two series, one being concealed under the sloping roof over the
triforium and acting in place of the earlier round-arched abutment.
Its supports were provided at the points where the transverse and
diagonal arches of the nave vault began to spring away from the
vertical plane of the walls. The other series was the immediate
counter-poise to any direct thrust exerted by the arching of the vault
against the upper section of the same walls. There was, in fact, a
large buttress added to support these nave walls at that point from
which each set of vault-carrying ribs began to rise. This buttress,
though apparently sub-divided, was one thing, but of composite
structure. It was pierced first by the aisle, next by the triforium,
and then again above the roof of the triforium. It will be seen that
most of these alterations were the direct result of the introduction
of a stone vault. But the almost entire renewal of the eastern part
of the cathedral was made possible by the destruction and total
removal of the apsidal terminations of the earlier work. It has been
suggested that the fire may have so badly damaged this portion as to
allow no alternative but rebuilding. What may have been the actual
cause of its removal it is impossible for us now to know; but the
substitute is quite a perfect piece of work of its kind. This
ambulatory, or presbytery, as it is commonly misnamed, was nearly all
newly built from the foundations during the first half of the
thirteenth century. The continuation of the arcade, the triforium, the
clerestory, and the vault, the vaulting of the aisles and the chapels
forming their terminations eastwards,--all this, with the new arch at
the entrance to the earlier lady-chapel, was work of the same date.
[Illustration: PIER-CAPITALS IN THE RETRO-CHOIR. _From a photograph by
S.B. Bolas & Co_.]
Some new buttressing had been added to the south-west tower when the
upper part of the tower itself was rebuilt; but the larger works were
the addition of a vaulted sacristy in the corner between the west side
of the south end of the transept and the nave. On the opposite side of
the same part of the transept a square-ended chapel with a vestry
attached was added in place of the original shallow apsidal chapel.
The original chapel on the east side of the north end of the transept
was also removed to make way for another and much larger one. This is
now used as the cathedral library.
The scheme planned after the second fire having been completed by
about the middle of the thirteenth century, little further work was
undertaken in comparison with that then finished; but before 1250 the
wall of the south aisle of the nave was pierced in four bays, and two
more chapels were added. Then, on the north of the nave, the outer
wall of the aisle was cut through in the second bay, going west from
the transept, and a small chapel was built. The other chapels west of
this one were added during the latter half of the century. In each
case the deeply projecting buttresses which had been introduced
against the earlier walls after the second fire were used, where they
were available, to form parts of the masonry of these new chapels, and
were therefore not disturbed unnecessarily. The old walls having been
altered, and the earlier buttresses being changed in their nature, it
became necessary to carry the original thrust from the nave still
farther out from its source in order to find for it some satisfactory
abutment, and in doing this there was that new force, introduced by
the vaulting of these added chapels, to be reckoned with in addition.
Consequently, to the earlier buttressing more was added. The exact
nature and the approximate date of this work are shown by Professor
Willis in the sections and plan given in his monograph on the
cathedral. The addition to each buttress amounted to an elongation of
it as a pierced wing wall which provided lateral support. Upon the end
of it a greater mass of masonry was introduced to serve as a weight
for steadying the structural device; and this necessary structural
idea was the means of introducing another architectural feature--the
pinnacle. Between the pinnacles of these buttresses rose the gabled
ends of each of the chapels. Professor Willis suggests that a great
part of the work done after the fire of 1186-1187 was completed by the
time of the dedication ceremony in 1199, and he is no doubt a safe
authority to follow. But the nature of many architectural features
tends very strongly to confirm the idea that much of the work in the
ambulatory eastward of the sanctuary had been delayed. It may have
been that the activity which prevailed during the early half of the
thirteenth century was caused by the desire to see this portion of the
church completed; and the energy with which the plea for new interest
and further funds was urged at this time would no doubt be indicative
of a supervening lethargy following on the great effort necessary for
the completion of so much in these few years. But it should be
remembered that these great works of mediæval art were none of them
built in a day; they represented the accumulation of even centuries of
developing thought and continually improving skill. Therefore must we
realise that after this fire had occurred in 1186-1187 not more than
eleven or twelve years elapsed before the building was again in use
after the consecration in 1199.
_Note_.--For remarks on Chichester Cathedral, see _Archaeologia_,
xvii., pp. 22-28: "Observations on the Origin of Gothic Architecture."
By G. Saunders, 1814.
[Illustration: TRANSVERSE SECTIONS FROM WILLIS'S ARCHITECTURAL
HISTORY. North Aisle, original. (Scale 27 ½ feet to 1 in.) South
Aisle, as now existing.]
This process of reconstruction shows that the mediæval builders did
not restore in duplication of what had been lost. Where their work was
destroyed they built anew and improved upon what had gone.
We need not suppose that this repair, renewal, and addition had all
been completed when in 1199 Bishop Seffrid II. and six other bishops
again consecrated the church. Doubtless only so much had been done as
was necessary to enable the priests to officiate at an altar provided
for the purpose and the congregation to assemble within the walls; for
the work of building continued with a somewhat persistent
manifestation of energy throughout the whole of the thirteenth
century. Of this activity and enterprise there are many evidences in
proof, both documentary and structural. The documentary evidence
indicating the activity which prevailed after this date is sufficient
to show at least that much was being done; but it does not often
indicate in precise terms what is that particular portion of the
building to which it primarily refers. Early in the thirteenth
century (1207) the king gave Bishop Simon de Welles (1204-1207) his
written permission to bring marble from Purbeck for the repair of his
church at Chichester. He attached to this act of favour certain
conditions which were to prevent any disposal of the material for
other purposes.
John had also two years before given Bakechild Church to the
"newly-dedicated" cathedral. Then Bishop Neville, or Ralph II.
(1224-1244), at his death in 1244, "Dedit cxxx. marcas ad fabricam
Ecclesiae et capellam suam integram cum multis ornamentis." Walcott
adds that "his executors, besides releasing a debt of £60 due to him
and spent on the bell tower, gave £140 to the fabric of the Church,
receiving some benefit in return." This cannot be interpreted as
referring to the isolated tower standing apart to the north of the
west front; for, as we shall see, this was not erected until at least
one hundred and fifty years later. In 1232 "the dean and chapter gave
of their substance. During five years they devoted to the glory and
beauty of the House of the Lord a twentieth part of the income of
every dignity and prebend"; [3] and then, again, ten years after the
period covered by this act of the chapter the bishops of some other
sees granted indulgences on behalf of the fabric of the church at
Chichester. Bishop Richard of Wych (1245-1253) "Dedit ad opus
Ecclesiae Circestrensis ecclesias de Stoghton et Alceston, et jus
patronatûs ecclesiae de Mundlesham, et pensionem xl. s. in eadem." [4]
To this he added a bequest of £40. He had revived in 1249 a statute of
his predecessor, Simon de Welles, and extended "the capitular
contribution to half the revenues of every prebend, whilst one moiety
of a prebend vacant by death went to the fabric and the rest to the
use of the canons." Other means were used to provide funds to continue
the work.
[3] Walcott, "Early Statutes," p. 15.
[4] Walcott, p. 15.
But apart from these many indications of activity, the fabric as it
stands to-day speaks very clearly of the amount of building that went
on between 1200 and 1300. But it was not till 1288-1305 that Bishop
Gilbert de S. Leophardo had added the two new bays of the lady-chapel
eastward.
The fire was the direct cause of most of the work that was done. There
was another, however; for eleven years after the re-dedication, two
of the towers fell. It has been supposed by some that these must have
been the early towers of the west front, both of which still preserve
indications of having been begun during the twelfth century as part of
the original building scheme. It is probable, for reasons that will
appear later, that the two towers of the west front did not collapse
at the time of the second fire, although it would seem from the
Chronicle of Dunstable that their stability may have been impaired in
some measure, since the sole cause for this fall of towers is given in
the words "impetu venti ceciderunt duae turres Cicestriae." [5] But if
these towers had been affected, what of the original central tower?
Its risk of receiving serious damage would be far greater. That no
more than the upper story of one of these can have fallen is evident
from the fact that the south-western tower presents for examination to
this day its original base, and the nature of the upper part of this
same tower shows that it was rebuilt anew daring the first half of the
thirteenth century. It was necessary that the two towers at the west
as well as the central tower should be finished up to a certain level,
for, placed as they were upon the plan, they became essential parts of
the structure, whose absence would diminish the strength of the whole;
hence any desire to maintain the fabric satisfactorily would require
that those of them which fell should receive the immediate attention
of the builders. In the case of the south-west tower we have already
seen what was done, and obviously it was one of the two towers that
had fallen. But what of the other of these? What suggestions remain to
show which it was? It is well known that a central tower had been
erected as part of the original plan, and also that a new upper part
was being added to this same tower about the middle of the thirteenth
century. This new portion eventually rose above the roofs to the level
of the top of the square parapet, about the base of the octagonal
spire, the spire being a still later addition. Now the heightening of
this tower--perhaps with already the idea of a future spire in
view--would raise many questions. Experience would already have taught
the builders that the early central towers of many other churches were
incapable of carrying their own weight. This being so, much less
would it do to suppose that it could bear the addition of new weight
upon the old piers; for though to all appearance sound, the cores were
of rough rubble work, not solidly bedded and not properly bonded with
the ashlar casing. So the question arises, did they remove the whole
or part of the old central tower and piers, or were they saved this
trouble by the structure having shared the fate of many others like
itself, which fell, and so made way for new work? Another tower had
fallen besides the one to which attention has already been drawn; and
as there appears to be nothing to show that this other was the
north-west tower, we must see what evidence there is concerning the
central tower. That it was added to we already know. But documentary
as well as structural evidence comes to our aid. The first is supplied
by the records of Bishop Neville's episcopate; the next by the
researches of modern archaeology. Professor Willis has shown in his
remarks upon the structure of the piers at the time of the collapse of
the mediæval tower and spire in 1861, that these had not been rebuilt
at a date later than the twelfth century. But Mr. Sharpe [6], writing
to Professor Willis seven years before the occurrence, indicates his
discovery--from a close examination of the structure then
existing--that before the upper part of the central tower was rebuilt
in the thirteenth century the earlier arches at the crossing which
were to support it had been taken down, and probably a large part of
the piers carrying them. And that, though the twelfth-century
voussoirs were re-used others of a fine grained stone were inserted
among them to strengthen the arches, or as a substitute for some of
the rougher sandstones that could not be used again. By this means,
then, the original form and detail of the twelfth-century arches was
preserved, so that the drawings representing the measured studies of
the building, which were Sir Gilbert Scott's principal authority upon
which to base his restoration of this portion of the tower, were made
from work which had already been once rebuilt. But why was this part
of the church rebuilt, and by whom? Two alternative suggestions for
the reason have been offered.
[5] Walcott, p. 15.
[6] Author of "Architectural Parallels."
Evidently, if the upper part of the tower did not fall, it is
apparently certain that it was reconstructed, in order to carry the
additional weight of the larger tower. But in examining the
documentary evidence offered us, we find some further help. The
teaching of archaeology shows that the portion of this tower above the
main supporting arches and up to the bottom of the parapet was
executed between 1225 and 1325--that is, it was finished not very long
after the new part of the south-west tower was completed.
The cathedral statutes show that between the years 1244-1247 Bishop
Ralph Neville was much concerned about a "stone tower" which he wished
to see completed. They tell us, too, that the same bishop had himself
expended one hundred and thirty marks upon the fabric, [7] and that his
executors, besides releasing a debt of £60 due to him and spent on the
bell-tower, gave £140 to the fabric of the church. Ralph died in 1244,
so it is concluded that the work in which he was so interested was
none other than the central or bell-tower of the cathedral, and that
the earlier tower, with its supporting arches, must have fallen, else
it is not likely that the work would have been rebuilt from below the
spring of these arches before the new superstructure could be added;
for we are obliged to take the customs of mediæval builders into
consideration in any attempt to sift the evidence concerning their
work--and they were before all things practical. The claims of
structure, the motives of common-sense, rather than abstract and
aesthetic ideals of beauty, were the prime causes at work in the
evolution of their great art. Here they found themselves faced by a
practical need--the rebuilding of a fallen tower. Its reconstruction
was necessary to the completeness and stability of the building; so
they put it up, applying new and increasing knowledge and skill in the
execution of the work. They did their best, and the result was
something not only strong and structural, but beautiful. But, as time
has shown, it would have been better had they been less respectful of
the valueless legacy bequeathed to them in the piers, though in
defence of their sagacity it must be admitted that what they deemed
sufficient for the purpose then in view was able to carry their own
tower for five hundred years in safety, and not only this, but, in
addition, a spire, the erection of which they may not have thought of
when the restoration was begun.
[7] Walcott, p. 15.
There is another interesting fact which may be mentioned before
quitting this part of our inquiry. Professor Willis found that there
still existed in 1861 one of the old wooden trusses of the roof over
the west bay of the chancel. It was a specimen of mediæval carpentry
six hundred and fifty years old, and it had not, as he showed, been
unframed since the fire of 1186-1187. The timbers composing it had
been slightly charred by the flames, and some of the lead which
covered the burning roof had run in its melted condition into the
mortices of the framing. [8]
[8] See Willis, p. x.: Introduction.
In the admirable plan and sections which Professor Willis prepared to
illustrate his work upon the history of the fabric it is possible to
see at once what work had been done during the different stages of
development. The work finished by the end of the thirteenth century
changed the earlier church of the eleventh and twelfth centuries in
its essential arrangements into the church we see to-day.
We have now briefly to review the changes produced in the plan of the
cathedral. There were those effected as an immediate consequence of
the fire, and others which were more the result of the continued
energy of the thirteenth-century builders. The most remarkable one was
that which converted the French chevet, or group of apses, into the
more familiar square, and characteristically English, eastern
termination. The apsidal chapels on the east side of each arm of the
transept had disappeared to make room for others of a different shape
and size. The other chapels at the east remained the same in number;
but towards the close of the thirteenth century the lady-chapel had
been lengthened, and the aisles of the choir, being continued
eastward, ended in small chapels to the north and south of the central
one. The other changes were those caused by the addition of chapels
off the south and north aisles of the nave. The addition of the south
and north porches, and the sacristy next to the south arm of the
transept, were the only other alterations, if we except the addition
of buttresses, which had been made in the original arrangement up to
the beginning of the fourteenth century.
[Illustration: THE CATHEDRAL FROM THE SOUTH-EAST, ABOUT 1836. _From
Winkles's Cathedral Churches_.]
Though the quest may not be followed here, it would be interesting to
try and trace the cause of this desire to add chapels to mediæval
buildings. It had during the thirteenth century already become a clear
indication of that gradual movement affecting the arrangement of
churches which originated in the introduction of new doctrinal ideas.
The particular set of ideas which caused such additions as these had
now become a part of the common property of popular thought,
imagination, and reverent superstition. The earlier designers and
builders had not been taught to consider these features essential to
the complete equipment of a church planned in accordance with
primitive usages; they were a simple example of the influence which
doctrine exercised upon the history of art and the scope of
archaeological inquiry.
The course of history that has been followed has led us through the
maze of some events which served to produce the cathedral that stands
among us now. The later centuries will not require as much attention,
since they afford but little material, comparatively, with which we
need delay; for the industry expended upon the fabric since this time
has produced little change in the general appearance of the building.
With the approach of the fourteenth century we meet a period when the
peculiarities of the work of the thirteenth century had become merged
in transitional forms, and from this application of ever-developing
ideas to accepted working principles came the well-known character
which English architecture displayed during that time. It was native
by parentage and birth; it represented the life which prevailed in the
ideas which were then the common currency. By it the ideals of thought
and imagination were expressed, until, later, they were represented in
other forms of art. At Chichester an early indication of the changed
treatment of older methods that was being developed experimentally is
shown by the portion which was added to the lady-chapel during the
episcopate of Gilbert de Sancto Leophardo. The architects and
master-builders devised for him the two new eastern bays complete,
together with the larger windows that were inserted in the walls of
that part of the chapel already built. Here again, as in the work set
in motion by his successor, the designers and builders made no attempt
to add these new portions in imitation of earlier ones. Then it was
Bishop Langton who, between 1305 and 1337, spent £340 "on a certain
wall and windows on the south side, which he constructed from the
ground upwards." [9] This work is principally to be seen in the great
south window of the transept, under which he provided for himself a
"founder's" tomb. In the gable above a rose window was inserted,
following the example of that earlier one in the east end of the
presbytery. The chapter-house above the treasury, or sacristy, was
also added when the new windows were inserted in the lower walls.
About the same time the doorway to the nave within the western porch
was constructed.
[9] Bishop Reade's Register.
[Illustration: THE SOUTH TRANSEPT, ABOUT 1836. _From Winkle's Cathedral
Churches_.]
Walcott shows by his study of the early statutes of the cathedral that
"in 1359 the first fruits of the prebendal stalls were granted to the
fabric; and in 1391, one-twentieth of all their rents was allotted by
the dean and chapter to the works, which embraced works round the high
altar, for, in 1402, materials 'ad opus summi altaris,' were stored in
S. Faith's Chapel. A 'novum opus,' a term applied to some special
building, was also in progress." [10] These remarks are of interest,
since about the end of the fourteenth century a beautiful wooden
reredos was built across the east end of the sanctuary. It was placed
just west of the feretory of S. Richard. In many old prints its
character is represented, and Dallaway gives some dimensions of it in
the long section he shows of the church as it was before the reredos
was removed (see page 2). The feretory no doubt had a reredos at this
point, but what the type of this earlier arrangement may have been it
is impossible exactly to tell. But the work which took its place was
evidently beautiful, as the many remains still in existence prove to
those who may examine them. Walcott [11] gives some interesting details
concerning this work. From the representations, descriptions, and
remains of it, it may be gathered that the whole was much carved,
niched, and canopied, and decorated in colour; and there is a note
extant showing that Lambert Bernardi in the sixteenth century repaired
"the painted cloth of the crucifix over the high altar." [12] This
reredos had a gallery across the top of it, from which the candles on
a beam over the altar could be lighted and a watch kept over the
precious jewels in S. Richard's shrine. The whole screen was made of
oak, and those old sketches and drawings, or prints, of it still
preserved, help dimly to show what had been its character. An old
letter in the British Museum refers to it as having the finest "glory"
above the high altar "we have ever seen." But this so-called "glory"
was an eighteenth-century production. Much of the reredos is still
hidden away unused in the chamber over the present library of the
church, and since its first removal it has travelled as far as London
in search of a friendly purchaser. In the chapter on Chichester in
Winkles's "Cathedrals" a view in the "presbytery," dated 1836, [13]
shows the reredos still in its place where it remained till after the
fall of the spire. There are in existence two drawings of considerable
interest. [14] One of these shows the east end and the other the west
end of the choir as it was about the beginning of the last century (c.
1818); the other indicates what were the changes made after 1829, when
the altar was set back six feet farther eastward. The latter was taken
from a water-colour drawing supposed to have been made by Carter, an
architect of Winchester.
[10] Walcott, p. 16.
[11] "Early Statutes."
[12] Walcott, p. 23, note _a_.
[13] See page 45.
[14] See drawings in vestry of cathedral.
Other minor works were added during the fourteenth century, but to few
of these can any exact dates be assigned. The parapets to the north
and south wall of the nave, the choir, and lady-chapel, and the
painted oak choir-stalls were some of those additions.
In the fourteenth century we meet many changes in the treatment of the
windows. They became larger; they were themselves very treasuries of
design, and this not only for the stonework of their tracery, but also
for the very beautiful glass with which they had been filled. Their
outer arches are more varied in shape, more rich in moulded detail,
and the entire character of the curves of the moulded forms had been
developed and made more delicate than the stronger and deeper-cut
types from which they were derived. Two causes had apparently urged
the builders to exert their capacities and apply their increasing
technical skill to compass the aims proposed to them.
The small windows, the use of which had so long prevailed, did not
admit sufficient light. In the more southern countries there was not
the same reason for the change; but where light was less strong, less
clear, less penetrating, it might not be spared. So though with their
glass they were beautiful in themselves, many of these windows gave
place to larger ones. But if the admission of more light was one
reason for the change, there was another powerful inducement offered
by the larger field that might be provided for the use of decorative
colour, and they accepted the opportunity with alacrity--not as a mere
chance for display only, but because, rather, they would be enabled to
teach by the use of it.
But what was that _novum opus_, that special building that was
already in progress in 1402? What was the reason for granting in 1359
the first-fruits of the prebendal stalls to the fabric? And in 1391
why did the dean and chapter give one-twentieth of all their rents to
the works? And these works were not alone about the high altar, for
the new work proceeding in 1402 had no doubt some relation to that
which was in progress in 1391, and it can have been no mere small
undertaking. Can these words be applied to the central tower and the
spire that rose above it, or to the detached bell-tower of Ventnor
stone northward of the church? It seems they must refer to the former,
for to no other work can they be applied, since the angle turrets to
the transept, the parapet of the central tower, and the windows
inserted during the fifteenth century were not in existence at either
of these times. And, further, the action taken in 1359 in order to
provide funds for work that was proceeding could have no reference to
the detached bell-tower, for its character shows that it was certainly
not even begun before quite the end of the fourteenth century,
probably not before some time during the first quarter of the
fifteenth. So, since there was nothing else proceeding about the
structure that could claim such sacrifice, the suggestion occurs that
the spire was already in course of construction not long after the
middle of the fourteenth century. The late Gordon M. Hills, Esq., in
reporting to the chapter in 1892 his opinion concerning the condition
of the fabric, said that, "Under Bishop William Rede (1369-1385) was
begun a series of works: the completion of the central spire, the
conversion of the north end of the north transept into a perpendicular
work, the construction of a new library, the construction of the
present cloisters, and finally the erection of the great detached
belfry, called 'Raymond's, or Redemond's, or Riman's Tower,' was in
progress in 1411, 1428, and 1436. All this work was carried on partly
by the influence at Chichester of churchmen of the school of William
of Wykeham, whose followers were strong at Chichester at this
era." [15]
[15] See the Wykeham motto on the lady-chapel vault decoration, page
92.
[Illustration: THE BELL TOWER AND SPIRE AS SEEN FROM WEST STREET.
_Photochrom Co., Ltd., photo._ ]
He also said "that the spire itself was commenced before the death of
Bishop Neville. The moulding in the angles cannot, I think, have
originated later"; and "that the early work extended to about forty
feet above the tower; all the pinnacles and canopies at the base of
the spire and the upper part of the spire, were insertions and
rebuilding of one hundred years later. At the base the work of the
earlier period had had its face cut away to bond in the later work,
and the masonry of the two periods did not agree in coursing."
The mere fact that the detached tower was built suggests many
questions which are not easily solved. Why was it at all necessary?
Perhaps the cathedral bells hung in the south-west tower, and those of
the sub-deanery church in the other, or _vice-versa._ At all events,
we know that in the fifteenth century the sub-deanery church was
removed from the nave to the north arm of the transept. The great
window of the north end of the transept is also early fifteenth
century in date, and the detached tower likewise. Angle turrets were
placed upon the four angles of the transept during the same century;
and if Daniel King's drawing of 1656 is any guide, the tops of the
central and western towers had battlemented parapets added during the
same period. In any case, it appears that it took much longer to
complete the repair of the central tower than that at the south-west.
In fact, it is doubtful whether the former was finished until about
the end of the thirteenth or the beginning of the fourteenth century,
for its fall apparently wrecked much of the vaulting of the transept;
and this, from the character of its moulded and carved vaulting ribs
in the south arm of the transept, is of the same date as the rose
window in the east gable of the presbytery, the rose windows in the
east gables of the lady-chapel and the chapels at the east end of the
north and south aisles of the choir. This argues that at the end of
the thirteenth or the beginning of the fourteenth century, during
Bishop Leophardo's episcopate, these works were completed.
About the middle of the fifteenth century a stone rood screen was
built up between the western piers of the central tower. It thus
separated the choir under the crossing from the nave; but through the
middle of this screen there was an open archway with iron gates. On
either side, as parts of the screen, to the north and south was a
chapel, each with its altar. This new work had been known as the
Arundel screen, and its erection is often attributed to the bishop of
that name, and at the altar in the south side of it Bishop Arundel
founded a chantry for himself. Except that the cloister was added
and some details of the building altered during the fifteenth century,
no other architectural work of any size appears to have been done for
many years.
[Illustration: DECORATION FORMERLY ON THE CHOIR VAULT. _From an
engraving by T. King_, 1814, _lent by the Rev. Prebendary Bennett_.
(Scale 7 feet 10-½ in. to 1 in.) (See pp. 42-3.)]
The next work of importance was begun by Sherburne. He invited Lambert
Bernardi and his sons to decorate the whole of the vaulting of the
cathedral. This they did by covering it with beautifully painted
designs. But unfortunately, excepting the small remnant now on the
vault in the lady-chapel (see page 92), their work was entirely
destroyed early in the nineteenth century. Some idea of its original
beauty may be formed by an examination of similar work by other hands
that may yet be seen in S. Anastasia at Verona, in two churches at
Liege, and at S. Albans Abbey. An engraving by T. King, of about 1814,
shows some details of the design that was painted on the vault of the
choir in the bay next but one to the central tower. The cathedral was
at this time an open book, with its walls covered with painted
stories. The reredos, the stalls of the canons, as well as the walls,
were rich with colour. Now all has gone except a meagre, faded scrap
under the arch from the present library into the transept, and one or
two other slight remnants. Sherburne also had some large pictures
painted by the Bernardis. They represented the kings of England and
the bishops of Chichester, and used to hang upon the west and east
walls of the south transept.
From Sherburne's death until the seventeenth century little but a tale
of destruction is to be recorded; for this period witnessed the
dissolution of the monasteries, the beginning of a wholesale system of
spoliation urged by self-interest and hypocrisy, and the establishment
of "Reformation" methods of procedure in Church and State. By each of
these both the fabric and the diocese suffered, even though by some
they gained. But especially did vandalism help to destroy,
unnecessarily, many things which, legitimately used, might still have
been allowed to remain as evidences of the artistic influence of the
Church in England. For though some of them were dedicated to uses
which the reformation necessarily condemned the wholesale destruction
of much beautiful workmanship must be regretted by any who are
interested in such treasures. In 1538 it was ordered that all shrines
should be abolished. This seriously affected Chichester, as the fate
of the feretory of S. Richard was involved by the mandate. Two
commissioners were named, whose duty was to see that his shrine was
removed. The instructions issued served a double purpose, since in
this case, as in others, "reformation" helped to satisfy the claims of
avarice. Henry told the commissioners that
"We, wylyng such superstitious abuses and idolatries to be
taken away, command you with all convenient diligence to
repayre unto the said cathedral church of Chichester and
there to take down that shrine and bones of that bishop
called S. Richard within the same, with all the sylver,
gold, juells, and ornamentes aforesaid, to be safely and
surely conveighed and brought unto our Tower of London,
there to be bestowed as we shall further determine at your
arrival. And also that ye shall see bothe the place where
the same shryne standyth to be raysed and defaced even to
the very ground, and all such other images of the church as
any notable superstition hath been used to be taken and
conveyed away." [16]
[16] Walcott, p. 34.
Then in 1550
"there were letters sent to every bishop to pluck down the
altars, in lieu of them to set up a table in some convenient
place of the chancel within every church or chapel to serve
for the ministration of the Blessed Communion."
Bishop Daye replied that
"he could not conform his conscience to do what he was by
the said letter commanded."
In explanation of his attitude towards this order he wrote that
"he stycked not att the form, situation, or matter [_as
stone or wood_] whereof the altar was made, but I then toke,
as I now take, those things to be indifferent.... But the
commandment which was given to me to take downe all altars
within my diocese, and in lieu of them 'to sett up a table'
implying in itselffe [_as I take it_] a playne abolyshment
of the altare [_both the name and the things_] from the use
and ministration of the Holy Communion, I could not with my
conscience then execute."
The churches were so ransacked and destroyed in this way that Bishop
Harsnett [17] said he found the cathedral and the buildings about the
close had been criminally neglected for years, so that they were in a
decayed and almost ruinous condition. Such was the deliberate opinion
which he expressed early in the seventeenth century.
[17] "Records."
During the first half of the sixteenth century a stone parapet, or
screen wall (taken away in 1829), was built up in front of the
triforium arcade. It rose to a height of about four feet six inches,
and was continued throughout the whole length of the church. It has
been supposed that it was intended to render this gallery available as
a place from which some of the congregation might observe the great
ceremonials. So we see that after the close of the fifteenth century
little but decline is to be recorded. Since Sherburne's day no care
had been taken of the fabric; and except that an organ was introduced
above the Arundel screen, no new schemes were devised, no new building
done. It should be remembered, however, that the Reformation did not
at once destroy all the beauties of mediæval art that the cathedral
contained. Certain things, such as shrines, altars, chantries, and
chapels, were removed, dismantled, or totally wrecked. It was with the
coming of the Parliamentary army to the city that wholesale pillage
and destruction began.
The removal of the altar and other derangements of the building had
been effected during the preceding century; but now the vestments,
plate, and ornaments were stolen. The decorative and other paintings
on the walls, and all parts that could easily be reached, were
scratched, scraped, and hacked about until they were mere wretched,
disfiguring excrescences; and in this mutilated condition they waited
for the whitewash that came later, to cover up these vulgar excesses
with a cheap but clean decency. Such criminal procedure culminated in
the wilful wreckage of all the beautiful glass. The store of three
centuries of labour and consummate skill was destroyed till it lay all
strewn in broken fragments, mere rubbish, about the floors. But the
decorations on the vaults were saved, because they could not be
reached without expensive scaffolding. They were thus preserved to be
dealt with by the wisdom and taste of a later century.
Let me quote the remarks of one who lived when these things were done.
He says they
"plundered the Cathedral, seized upon the vestments and
ornaments of the Church, together with the consecrated plate
serving for the altar; they left not so much as a cushion
for the pulpit, nor a chalice for the Blessed Sacraments;
the common soldiers brake down the organs, and dashing the
pipes with their pole-axes, scoffingly said, 'hark how the
organs go!' They brake the rail, which was done with that
fury that the Table itself escaped not their madness. They
forced open all the locks, whether of doors or desks,
wherein the singing men laid up their common prayer books,
their singing books, their gowns and surplices; they rent
the books in pieces, and scattered the torn leaves all over
the church even to the covering of the pavement, the gowns
and surplices they reserved to secular uses. In the south
cross ile the history of the church's foundation, the
picture of the Kings of England, and the picture of the
bishops of Selsey and Chichester, begun by Robert Sherborn
the 37th Bishop of that see, they defaced and mangled with
their hands and swords as high as they could reach. On the
Tuesday following, after the sermon, possessed and
transported by a bacchanalian fury, they ran up and down the
church with their swords drawn, defacing the monuments of
the dead, hacking and hewing the seats and stalls, and
scraping the painted walls. Sir William Waller and the rest
of the commanders standby as spectators and approvers of
these barbarous impieties." [18]
[18] "Mercurius Rusticus" (1642). Quoted by Walcott.
This is a history in little of what took place in nearly every
cathedral and other church in the kingdom, and this after the
Reformation and its best work had been a fact for a century.
The most important disaster to the fabric during the seventeenth
century was that which so seriously affected the structure at the west
end. It is difficult to decide exactly when and how north-west tower
fell or was removed. Professor Willis [19] is content to say:
"Mr. Butler informs me that there is evidence to show that
the north tower was taken down by the advice of Sir
Christopher Wren, on account of its ruinous condition."
[19] "Archaeological History," Chichester, p. 6, note _c_.
But Præcentor Ede, in a paper written about 1684 A.D. and quoted by
Præcentor Walcott, [20] gives
"an account of Dr. Christopher Wren's opinion concerning the
rebuilding of one of the great towers at the west end of the
Cathedral Church of Chichester, one third part of which,
from top to bottom, fell down above fifty years since, which
he gave after he had for about two hours viewed it both
without and within, and above and below, and had also
observed the great want of repairs, especially in the inside
of the other great west tower, and having well surveyed the
whole of the west end of the said Church, which was in
substance as followeth; that there could be no secure
building to the remaining part of the tower now standing;
that, if there could and it were so built, there would be
little uniformity between that and the other, they never
having been alike nor were they both built together or with
the Church, and when they were standing the west end could
never look very handsome. And therefore considering the vast
charge of rebuilding the fallen tower and repairing the
other, he thought the best way was to pull down both
together, with the west arch of the nave of the church
between them; and to lengthen the two northern isles to
answer exactly to the two southern; and then to close all
with a well designed and fair built west end and porch;
which would make the west end of the church look much
handsome than ever it did, and would be done with half the
charge." [21]
[20] "Early Statutes," p. 21.
[21] Walcott, "Early Statutes" p. 21
Such was Dr. Wren's opinion of the west front. It is fortunate that
his advice was not followed, for have we not the same west front still
in existence? However, Wren spoke of "the remaining part of the tower
now standing," and King's print, publishing 1656, shows the portion to
which he referred. Fuller [22] remarked in 1662 that the church "now is
torn, having lately a great part thereof fallen to the ground." He no
doubt refers to the same ruin, for it is not to be conjectured that
any other part fell then.
[22] "Worthies," II, 385
Sir Christopher Wren says the towers never were alike in design, nor
were they "both built together."
The edition of Dugdale's "Monasticon," published in 1673, gives a view
of the north façade of the church. Ede, writing in 1684, said that
"above fifty years" before one-third part of the north-west tower had
fallen from top to bottom; yet this illustration shows that same tower
complete. This affords an opportunity of comparing portions of the two
towers. The upper part of each is shown to finish on top with a
battlement parapet. It is evidence in itself that during the fifteenth
century certain alterations had been effected in them both at this
part. But this print must have been made from an original which had
been executed quite twenty years earlier--for King's drawing, issued
in 1656, shows the north-west tower already partly destroyed; so it is
necessary to conclude that the drawing for the "Monasticon" was done
before 1656, but after 1610, when Speed's map, or bird's-eye view, of
the city was brought out.
Præcentor Walcott has supposed that the two towers in Chichester
referred to in the "Annals of Dunstable" as having fallen during the
year 1210 were the two at the west end.
[Illustration: CHICHESTER CATHEDRAL, ABOUT 1650.]
But taking Sir Christopher Wren's report with the discovery made by
Mr. Sharpe in 1853, quoted by Professor Willis, it would seem rather
that those two towers were the original central tower and that at the
south-west angle of the west front.
Wren in writing of the tower at the north-west, which had fallen about
1630-1640, said that it had not been built at the same date nor in the
same manner as the other then remaining to the south of the same
front. The upper part of the central tower itself had been built
perhaps during the second quarter of the fourteenth century or even
earlier. Consequently it seems probable that the two towers which fell
in 1210 were the original twelfth-century central tower and that of
the same date to the south of the west front. In Speed's map of 1610
both the western towers are represented as having small spires.
Hollar's print in the "Monasticon" shows what appear to be some
fifteenth-century buttresses to the north-west tower; but in
excavating for the foundations of the new north-west tower, now
completed, no traces of any projecting buttresses were discovered, so
it may be that it was the original twelfth-century tower which fell
about 1630, and the peculiar character of its masonry suggested the
remark to Wren when he said it so distinctly differed from its
companion.
Towards the close of the seventeenth century the central spire was in
an unstable condition, and Elmes, in his "Life," says of Wren that he
"took down and rebuilt the upper part of the spire of the
cathedral, and fixed therein a pendulum stage to counteract
the effects of the south and the south-westerly gales of
wind, which act with some considerable power against it, and
had forced it from its perpendicularity."
It is interesting to have this record, for the spire during the
following century was still a cause of trouble.
Spershott's memoirs show that about 1725
"a new chamber organ was added to the choir of the
cathedral, the tubes of which were at first bright like
silver, but are now like old tarnished brass."
Whether this organ contained any parts of that which was destroyed in
the previous century is not known; but many old prints and drawings
show that the case of the one that was now built on the top of the
Arundel screen was quite as beautifully designed as the one in Exeter
Cathedral, or King's College Chapel at Cambridge.
About 1749 the Duke of Richmond's vault was "diged and made" [23] in the
lady-chapel, and ten years later "the kings and bishops in the
cathedral" were "new painted." The floor of the lady-chapel was raised
to give height to the vault beneath, and a fireplace and chimney built
up in front of the east window. Portions of the other windows were
plastered up, and so left only partly filled with glass. These served
to provide light in what was now to be the library, since, apparently,
the originally well-lighted library, above the chamber now used for
the purpose, had lost its proper roof and been otherwise made useless.
[23] Spershott.
There is little else to be said concerning the history of the building
during eighteenth century; but it is stated by a careful observer, [24]
writing in 1803, that "in the interior of this cathedral few
innovations have been effected." He says that the east window of the
lady-chapel is plastered up, and that
"we find that the great window in the west front of the
cathedral has a short time back had its mullions and other
works knocked out, and your common masoned 'muntings'
(mullions) and transoms stuck up in their room, without any
tracery sweeps or turns, of the second and third degrees;
which work may before long be construed by some shallow
dabblers in architectural matters into the classical and
chaste productions of our old workmen. On the north and
south sides of the church are buttresses, with rare and
uncommon octangular-columned terminations; but they have
likewise, to save a trifling expense in reparation, been
deprived of their principal embellishments, and are now
capped with vulgar house-coping....
"It may be well to speak of the west porch as an excellent
performance; and the statue over the double entrance is
remarkably so."
[24] _Gentleman's Magazine_, Part I., 1803, pp. 22-25.
Proceeding, the same writer relates that:
"Against the east and west walls of the said transept are
affixed historic paintings; those on the west side (the
figures as large as life) relate to the founding of the
church and its re-edification in Henry viii.'s time. Among
the various portraits is that of Henry viii. himself. Here
are also in separate circular compartments, the quarter
portraits of our kings, from William the Conqueror to Hen.
viii. (and since his day, in continuation to George i.) On
the east side is the entire collection of the ancient
bishops of the see (quarter lengths, and in circular
compartments). A short time back the faces of the several
portraits were touched upon by some unskilful hand; however
we have before us most curious specimens of the costume of
Henry's day, when the whole of these paintings were done
(excepting those of subsequent dates), in dresses, warlike
habiliments, buildings, etc....
"Looking towards the north, on the outside of the choir, is
the monumental chapel and tomb of St. Richard. The groins
above are embellished with paintings of foliage, arms, etc.,
conveying the eye over the choir; thence into the north
transept, intercepted in the way by the galleries over the
side-aisles, when the general combination of objects is
terminated by the north transept window, which, though
inferior to the southern window, still has its own peculiar
attractions."
At the time these words were written the north porch was in a wrecked
condition. Both gables of the transept were in ruins, and the
high-pitched roofs of the old library, the lady-chapel, and the south
arm of the transept were absent altogether.
But soon the authorities began to take some interest in the condition
of the building. James Elmes had been called in to deal with the spire
in 1813-1814, and under his direction the "useful piece of machinery"
which had been put there by Wren was "taken down and reinstated." In
his "Life of Wren" an illustration is given of the device, which he
had carefully examined and measured. He describes it thus:
"To the finial is fastened a strong metal ring, and to that
is suspended a large piece of yellow fir-timber eighty feet
long and thirteen inches square; the masonry at the apex of
the spire, being from nine to six inches thick, diminishing
as it rises. The pendulum is loaded with iron, adding all
its weight to the finial, and has two stout solid oak
floors, the lower one smaller by about three, and the upper
one by about two and a quarter inches, than the octagonal
masonry which surrounds it. The effect in a storm is
surprising and satisfactory. While the wind blows high
against the vane and spire, the pendulum floor touches on
the lee side, and its aperture is double on the windward: at
the cessation, it oscillates slightly, and terminates in a
perpendicular. The rest of the spire is quite clear of
scaffolding. This contrivance is doubtless one of the most
ingenious and appropriate of its great inventor's
applications."
About 1814 T. King made a plan of the whole building and several
drawings of the church as it then appeared. One of these [25] shows
some carefully copied specimens of the decorations on the vaults. The
engraving was published in 1831, and on it is the statement, "Painted
1520. Erased 1817." Another drawing showed the interior of the choir
looking west. In this was represented in careful detail the design of
the eastern elevation of the organ-case and the "return" stalls
against the Arundel screen. It also shows the original iron gates in
the archway, which pierced the screen in the centre below the organ,
and formed the entrance to the choir. These gates were evidently
copied in design from the thirteenth-century iron screen that
protected the sanctuary, part of which is now in the Victoria and
Albert Museum. In the distance the decoration on the nave vaulting is
lightly indicated. There is also an original drawing by T. King in the
possession of the Chapter, which gives a view looking eastwards.
Another drawing [26] which was made some time after 1829 shows the
choir looking east towards the reredos. It is a careful study, and is
of peculiar interest, since it is a record of many features now
entirely removed. The early reredos appears still in its place, but
the upper portion of it is gone. This was a gallery which was
accessible from either triforium, across which boys early in the
century used to run races by starting up the staircase in one aisle
and down that in the other. The absence of the gallery in the drawing
shows that it was made after 1829, the year in which the gallery was
removed. The "glory" which was added to the reredos during the
eighteenth century appears just above the altar. On the south side of
the choir are some spectators in the gallery above the stalls. There
were also at this time other galleries on the north and south of the
sanctuary, and above the arch on the east side of the north arm of the
transept was a gallery too. To this last there was access from the
staircase that led to the chamber above the east chapel of the
transept close by. These drawings show what the interior of the church
was like up to the time when that extraordinary revival of activity in
matters ecclesiastical began in the nineteenth century.
[25] See illustrations, pp. 33 and 125.
[26] Supposed to be by Carter, an architect of Winchester.
Like other churches, that at Chichester felt the sting of controversy
in unnecessary vandalism. But it may be admitted that destruction,
like a storm, carried at least some virtue in its clouds. In
attempting to sweep away the accumulated refuse heaped within the
building, some precious things fell before the broom of zealous
furnishers, and were lost for ever in the dust raised by this new
cleansing dream.
[Illustration: THE NAVE, ABOUT 1836. _From Winkles's Cathedral
Churches_.]
The removal of the gallery above the old fifteenth-century reredos in
1829 was the beginning of a serious attempt to repair, restore, and
reanimate the fabric. This revival of faith began to try to do good
works--but not always with discretion, not always with knowledge,
wisdom, and taste. Here was rash ardour, often without the hesitation
of true reverence.
[Illustration: THE RETRO-CHOIR AND REREDOS, ABOUT 1836. _From
Winkles's Cathedral Churches_.]
It is certain the building was not all it should have been when these
works were begun; it is not what it might have been had some of them
been deferred. Consequently any illustrations which show its condition
before the middle of the nineteenth century are of interest and value
to those who would know what changes have been made.
In Winkles's essay on Chichester, in his "Cathedrals of England,"
published between 1830 and 1840, are many beautiful drawings of the
fabric. There is one which shows the Arundel screen still in its
original position with the organ above it; and in another the complete
design of the back of the reredos appears. These careful studies of
the building, which were made before it became so changed by the
removal of its best remaining treasures, help to convey some idea of
what the place was before it was so radically "restored."
None of the drawings, however, show any of the beautiful decorations
of the vaults, for all this had been smeared over with a dirty yellow
wash about 1815, which earned for the church the name of "the leather
breeches cathedral." And when, later, the plaster on the stone-filling
between the ribs was removed, the paintings were utterly obliterated
for ever, excepting only the small portion remaining in the
lady-chapel bearing the Wykeham motto upon a scroll. But this recital
is but a prelude to the changes that were to follow. The energy of
revival found expression in many ways, and English architecture
suffered sorely at the hands of ardent ignorance. But the very desire
to deal well with the fabrics of our churches that were to be repaired
taught men to study closely the facts of archaeology. The studies had
a practical end, and at Chichester they found their opportunity in the
cathedral.
But first a new church of S. Peter was built in West Street in 1853,
so that the north arm of the transept should no longer be used as it
had been for about four hundred years. Then not long afterwards Dean
Chandler, at his death, left a large sum to be used for the purpose of
decorating the cathedral. To this sum other funds were added. The need
that more space should be provided for the congregation arose, and to
satisfy this it was decided that the choir should be opened out to the
nave. Consequently, in 1859 the work of decoration was begun by the
removal of the Arundel screen with the eighteenth-century organ above
it--one of the most beautiful remnants of the art of earlier days that
remained in the cathedral. The object of this act was most admirable,
but it involved in addition the destruction of the fourteenth-century
"return" stalls which were on the eastern face of the doomed screen.
In taking down the screen, or shrine, all the stones composing it had
been carefully numbered, with the intention that it should be rebuilt
in a new position. But although these materials are still wantonly
distributed about the cathedral and precincts, no attempt has been
made to use them again, either as a screen or as an evidence to show
by contrast that the result has justified the change. Its removal was
the beginning of a series of alterations, both by accident and design.
The old reredos, that quiet and beautiful witness of things so sacred
and some so profane, was torn away. The whole of the choir was to be
rearranged. But when the piers of the central tower were exposed by
the removal of the screen, it was discovered that they were in a
precariously rotten condition at the core. Other indications of
weakness, which had been overlooked before, were now observed. Large
and deep cracks and various earlier signs of apprehended weakness both
in arches and piers were remarked. That the work now begun had given
impetus to the fall has been denied on excellent authority, and to
discuss such a question at this time is useless. The serious trouble
now was that the whole tower with the spire was rapidly settling on
its base. Every method that could be used was tried in order to save
the piers. They were propped up with shores, and the arches held up
with centres, while new masonry was bonded into the older work. But
the labour availed nothing, for towards the end of the year 1860
matters had developed seriously.
"Old fissures extended themselves into the fresh masonry,
and new ones made their appearance.... But in the next
place, the walling began to bulge towards the end of January
1861, first in the north-west pier, and afterwards in the
south. Cracks and fissures, some opening and others closing,
and the gradual deformation of the arches in the transept
walls and elsewhere, indicated that fearful movements were
taking place throughout the parts of the wall connected with
the western piers."
On Sunday, February 17th,
"the afternoon service was performed in the nave of the
cathedral, as usual, but ... was interrupted by the urgent
necessity for shoring up a part of the facing of the
south-west pier.... On Wednesday, crushed mortar began to
pour from the old fissures, flakes of the facing stone fell,
and the braces began to bend. Yet the workmen continued to
add shoring until three hours and a half past midnight."
Next day the effort was resumed before daybreak; but by noon
"the continual failing of the shores showed, too plainly,
that the fall was inevitable."
Just before half-past one
"the spire was seen to incline slightly to the south-west,
and then to descend perpendicularly into the church, as one
telescope tube slides into another, the mass of the tower
crumbling beneath it. The fall was an affair of a few
seconds, and was complete at half-past one."
Such, briefly, is the record of the fall, which so admirably has been
related by Professor Willis, from whose work these extracts have been
taken.
Sir Gilbert Scott, [27] after the central tower had collapsed, was
consulted concerning its reconstruction. He examined the remains; and
by the great care his son Gilbert exercised in labelling and
registering all the moulded and carved stone that was discovered in
the debris, the new tower and spire was designed upon the pattern of
the old one. Old prints and photographs were used to help in this work
of building a copy of what had been lost. But this task could not have
been done had it not been that Mr. Joseph Butler, a former resident
architect and Surveyor to the Chapter, had made measured drawings of
the whole, which supplied actual dimensions that otherwise could not
have been recovered. These drawings had come into the possession of
Mr. Slater, the architect associated with Sir. G. Scott in the
rebuilding of the tower, and they enabled him
"to put together upon paper all the fragments with certainty
of correctness: so one thing with another, the whole design
was absolutely and indisputably recovered. The only
deviation from the design of the old steeple was this. The
four arms of the cross had been (probably in the fourteenth
century) raised some five or six feet in height, and thus
had buried a part of what had originally been the clear
height of the tower, and with it an ornamental arcading
running round it. I lifted out the tower from this
encroachment by adding five or six feet to its height; so
that it now rises above the surrounding roofs as much as it
originally did. I also omitted the partial walling up of the
belfry windows, which may be seen in old views." [28]
[27] See "Recollections," p. 309. Edited by his son, 1861.
[28] _Ibid._, p. 310.
These statements have been taken from Sir Gilbert Scott's own account
of the work. He further assures us that many portions of the original
moulded and carved work were re-fixed in the new tower. As we have now
in existence so careful an imitation of the former tower, all praise
is due to Sir Gilbert Scott, Mr. George Gilbert Scott, and Mr. Slater,
for the admirable way in which they co-operated, so that their care
has given to posterity this admirable instance in which a lost
specimen of architectural art has been reproduced by successful
copying. But the satisfactory nature of the work is chiefly due to the
preservation of those careful studies of the original which were made
by Mr. Joseph Butler.
In 1867 the wall enclosing the library in the lady-chapel was removed,
and three years later, with the consent of the Duke of Richmond, the
floor was lowered to its original level and the chapel restored in
memory of Bishop Gilbert. Soon afterwards the windows were provided
with new stained glass.
During the last half of the nineteenth century several small portions
of the building were repaired, restored, or rebuilt. The cloister was
carefully restored by the late Mr. Gordon M. Hills. More recently the
roof of the lady-chapel, the two eastern pinnacles of the choir as
well as those two lower ones to the chapels of S.M. Magdalen, and S.
Catherine, have been restored by his son Mr. Gordon P.G. Hills,
A.R.I.B.A., with much care and consideration for the fabric of which
he is the surveyor. The latest act affecting the history of the
building has been the addition of a new north-western tower to take
the place of the unsightly rents and wreckage that have disfigured and
helped to destroy the structure at that part during the last two
hundred years. It was designed by the late Mr. J.L. Pearson, R.A.
[Illustration: SOUTH WEST VIEW OF THE CATHEDRAL FROM THE GARDEN OF
THE BISHOP'S PALACE. _Photochrom Co., Ltd., Photo_. ]