THE PRECINCTS--THE CLOISTERS AND ST. MARY’S COLLEGE
The College of St. Mary was founded conjointly by John of Gaunt, Duke of
Lancaster, his wife Blanche, and Bishop Adam Houghton in 1377, but it
was endowed solely by the Bishop for the maintenance of a Master and
seven Priest-Fellows, who were bound by a solemn oath to live in strict
obedience to such regulations as the founder thought fit to ordain. The
priests wore the same dress as the vicars-choral, and were under the
control of the Precentor or Treasurer of the cathedral. They were bound
to say the Hours and Masses of Requiem and perform certain services in
the church. Any view from the northern side of the cathedral must
include the graceful proportions of St. Mary’s, and it is surprising how
well these buildings group with those of the cathedral. The cloisters
and the cloister-garth, which separate the two buildings, date from
about the same time as St. Mary’s and doubtless were common to the
members of both foundations. The Early Perpendicular chapel is built on
a large crypt, being quite contiguous to the river Alan, not unlike the
chapel and hall of Magdalene College, Oxford. At the south-east angle
was a Sacristy, with an upper chamber built over the cloisters, which
had alleys to the north, west, and east; the latter running from the
college to the north wall of the transept. As at Hereford, therefore, a
covered way existed between the cathedral and the college.
To the north of the cloisters was the square occupied by the college; on
the north side of which, again, was the principal entrance. And on the
south side of the square stood the chapel of which we now see the
remains, showing that it must have been a very fine building of its
kind. The elegance of the proportions and subtlety of the detail betray
the hand of a very skilful architect. The dimensions of the chapel are
69 ft. × 23 ft. 9 in. × 45 ft. high. It was lit by three windows in each
side 24 ft. × 9 ft. broad each, and the east window must have been a
grand affair, as it occupies the whole of the east wall. The tower is 70
ft. high, to the north of which are the remains of the Infirmary.[89]
The cathedral cloisters, unlike most English cathedrals, never had an
alley next the church, and it is most probable that no cloister existed
before the time of Bishop Houghton.
But so fragmentary are the remains of the cloister and so complete its
destruction that we will only give a brief outline of its state as
inferred by Freeman, that the visitor may understand the ruins.
A reference to the plan will best locate the cloister, but it will be
noticed that the massive western buttresses, which take the thrust of
the nave, show traces of the cloister wall. Also the wall-arcade and
vaulting-springers are visible on the south wall of the chapel of St.
Mary’s. The sacristy to the chapel, which has a piscina, was over the
eastern alley, and under this can be seen the lines of four bays of the
cloister and part of a fifth. Apparently the east side of the cloister
was never completed, as the buttresses show no sign of additions;
therefore, although a covered way was obtained between the cathedral and
college, the north door remained as a separate entrance from the
prebendal and other houses.
The crypt[90] on which the chapel stands is roofed with a simple
elliptical barrel-vault and rear arches of small lights cut into it on
the northern side. Below the tower was the cloister entrance, but the
steps up to the chapel have quite disappeared. The landing at the top of
these steps and two bays to the north formed an ante-chamber to the
chapel, and a turret-stair on the northern or garden side led down to
the domestic buildings as well as to a room over the vestibule. This
room had two windows, one of which looked into the chapel, as at St.
Cross. It will thus be seen that there could not have been a west
window.
The chapel is in four bays, but as the eastern bays were utilised, on
the north by the existing recess for the founder’s tomb and on the south
by the sacristy, there are only three windows. The great east window--as
well as others--was denuded of much ashlar-work and tracery to help in
Nash’s extraordinary concoction the west window of the cathedral.[91]
This great east window filled up almost the whole of the wall, and must
have been a fine example of the best sort of Perpendicular. Indeed, it
would not be impossible to reconstruct it even now.
There is a legend (found by Browne Willis in an Elizabeth manuscript)
that Houghton was excommunicated by the Pope Clement, and that he
retaliated by returning the compliment, and further pictorially
displayed the event in stained glass.[92] Clement died, however, in
1352, before Houghton was made bishop, but was succeeded by Innocent VI.
The names may thus have got confounded, or the Pope may have been the
Anti-Pope, Robert of Geneva, known at Avignon as Clement VII. Although
the story is of doubtful authenticity it is quite in accord with
Houghton’s vigorous character, being as he was the friend of Chaucer and
John of Gaunt. He also established several ordinances for the diocese,
which shows that he was no mere figure-head. He held the office of
chancellor for two years.[93]
The tower of the chapel--the only part yet undescribed--was evidently
designed for a broached spire, as is shown by the squinches within. But
a settlement, owing to the close proximity of the river, evidently not
only prevented further weights being imposed, but caused the south-west
angle buttress to be added which is so prominent (_vide_ p. 82).
Of the collegiate domestic buildings there only remain a few vaults,
except a single entrance, with a four-centred arch, to the north.
THE BISHOP’S PALACE.
After crossing a bridge to the north-west of the cathedral we pursue a
most picturesque alley, whence a good view of the tower and north side
is obtained, and shortly, on the left-hand side, we come to the entrance
to the =Bishop’s Palace=.[94]
In the times before Gower (1328-47), who built the whole of this once
magnificent palace, there undoubtedly was some
[Illustration: THE BISHOP’S PALACE, 1779.
_From an engraving after Paul Sandby, R.A._]
sort of episcopal residence or guest-house, as Kings Henry II. and
Edward I. were here entertained. However, not only is there no trace of
a pre-existent building, but this of Gower is a superb ruin. It is said
that we have to thank the scandalous Bishop Barlow (1536-49) for
initiating the work of destruction, removing, as he did, the lead from
the roofs to provide marriage portions for his daughters who married
five bishops. He also attempted to remove the see to Carmarthen.
“Barlow’s letter to Cromwell on this subject strongly urges the removal,
partly on account of the inconvenient situation and partly because the
hopes of Protestantism rested on getting rid of the _religio loci_.”[95]
“It is hardly necessary to say that many churches, even of inferior
ecclesiastical rank, greatly surpass St. David’s Cathedral in extent and
in positive beauty, though certainly there is none which could so well
occupy its peculiar position; of the Palace, on the other hand, it is
hardly too much to affirm that it is altogether unsurpassed by any
existing English edifice of its own kind. One can hardly conceive any
structure that more completely proclaims its peculiar purpose. It is
essentially a palace and not a castle; we have not here the moat, the
tower, the frowning gateway, or any feature proclaiming, if not an
intention of hostility, at all events a state of things involving the
necessity of defence. The prominent parts are the superb rose-window of
the hall and the graceful spire of the chapel, importing an abode, not
of warfare, but of hospitality and religion.”[96]
With all due deference to Messrs. Jones and Freeman, however, the great
arcaded parapet, which is certainly the most noticeable feature of the
building, gives at least a hint that Bishop Gower had an _arrière
pensée_ against defence. As the close was fortified, it was not
necessary to make any elaborate preparations against attack; but it will
be noted that, although there is no moat, the river Alan--then much
larger than now--runs past one side, and that on the others there were
very few windows, and those small; in fact, most of the remainder opens
on to the great quadrangle, which was self-contained. Let us look at it
again from another point of view. Eliminate the parapet, and what do we
find? Truly, except for an excellent plan and mere bulk, nothing at all
extraordinary from an architectural point of view.
A particular description must be given to the =Parapet=. It consists of a
series of arches, with a hollow ornamented by Gower’s four-leaved
flower, carried down on octagonal shafts, which rest on corbels of
considerable variety about two feet down the wall. Above the arcade is a
corbel-table carrying a projecting battlemented cornice. The battlements
have extremely narrow embrasures and loopholes. The sills of the arcade
are steeply slanted outwards, and the jambs show the old shape of the
roof and finish with a neat weathered projection. Great richness is
obtained above the arcade from the various coloured stones employed.
They are set in squares, alternately purple and grey, in the voussoirs
of the arches and the spandrils above them, and make a mellow and
harmonious chequer-work which greatly adds to the character of the whole
building.
A similar parapet is only known to occur in two other buildings (also
attributed to Gower), viz., Swansea Castle and Lamphey Palace, near
Pembroke.
We can place the date of the building about 1340, as an ordinance by
Bishop Gower, dated May 27, 1342, orders that only certain buildings
belonging to the bishop be kept in repair,[97] which includes the
palace. Architecturally, the arrangements are excellent. The leading
idea is a great quadrangle, but so skilfully broken up with projections
that the monotonous rectangular effect of the square gives place to a
most pleasing and picturesque variety, and although the main portion is
kept about the same height throughout, yet the most dignified chambers
are given due prominence and the parts of lesser importance treated with
a fit reticence.
The building is raised on crypts, which, however, were evidently used
for domestic offices from the windows (once glazed) and the divisions.
The vaults are of the plain barrel description, without ribs, although
there are some which rather suggest ribs. These vaults do not run
longitudinally, as under St. Mary’s Chapel or, indeed, the chapel in the
palace; the reason being that divisions, for living purposes, were
necessary on both floors.
On entering the quadrangle, which is about 170 feet square, we find a
small building immediately to the left which many call the =East Chapel=.
The West Chapel (K)[98] was probably not built till later, and then
probably this little one became the Bishop’s private chapel. There are
indications of a way through to the ante-room adjoining in the
south-west wall, and a passage also leads to the lower floor.
The =Bishop’s Hall= (I, about 60 ft. by 23 ft.) is approached from the
quadrangle by seven modern steps and a porch with a semi-octagonal arch.
The point of the octagon is at the centre of the opening, and resembles
that leading to the rood-loft in the cathedral. The small window in the
porch has two five-foil lights.
The Hall was lit by two windows to the north-west and four to the
south-east. Possibly the recess, which cuts into the window at the south
angle, may have contained the refectory pulpit, and behind it was a
passage and stair leading to the minstrels’ gallery.
There was a diagonal entrance (just above the head of the I on plan)
leading from the Bishop’s Hall to his =Study= or private apartment. Just
by this entrance there is also a way down. There are two fireplaces and
chimneys, and as there are indications of a divisional wall there were
probably two rooms, the further of which has a blocked doorway and may
have been utilised before the main entrance was built. H is the
_Kitchen_ (about 26 ft. by 23 ft.), to the west end of the Bishop’s
Hall. This room is very interesting, as it was evidently domed, and
later a wall had to be built to support it. The chimney, which was
standing in 1857 when Messrs. Jones and Freeman published their book, is
now lying in a mass on the floor. As this is a good object lesson to the
modern flimsy designers of to-day, the dimensions will not be without
interest: flues, 1 ft. 11 in.; outer walls, 1 ft. 3 in., inner, 1 ft.
[Illustration: SECTION OF CHIMNEY.]
On the northern side of the kitchen was an aisle leading behind the
Great Hall, and so out to the garden.
=The Great Hall= is approached from the quadrangle by a fine porch, richly
adorned and of the whole height of the building. The entrance is an
unusual one at so early a period.
[Illustration: BISHOP’S PALACE: GREAT WHEEL-WINDOW OF BANQUETING HALL.]
It is about 9 ft. wide by 11 ft. 6 in. high, and has an ogee six-centred
arch, but the flight of steps are somewhat inconvenient, as the tread is
about fourteen inches and the rise about eleven and a half. Above were
two niches containing statues of King Edward III. and Queen Philippa.
Fragments of one remain now, but where is the other? It seems sad that
this should have disappeared within the last few years.
[Illustration: BISHOP’S PALACE: GENERAL VIEW OF COURTYARD LOOKING
TOWARDS ENTRANCE TO GREAT HALL.
(_From Jones and Freeman._)]
The Hall itself is a magnificent stately apartment, even unroofed as it
is. It measures 116 feet by 31 feet, but this includes a smaller chamber
of about 30 feet which was originally a withdrawing room. At the south
corner is a staircase (down and up), and another at the east leading to
the turret. A doorway from the kitchen aisle is now blocked. In the
south-east wall is an exceptionally beautiful rose-window. The centre is
an upright quatrefoil, and at the cardinal points radiate four strong
mullions, and in between each of these are three lesser ones. The heads
are of the trefoil kind. The inner circle is not concentric with that
enclosing the tracery, but is dropped a little to create, as was often
done in these circular windows, an optical delusion. Thus the splay at
the top is considerably less than at the bottom, but _looks_ about the
same. Gower’s four-leaved flower is again in evidence in the hollow at
the outside edge of the splay. Bedrooms in two floors occupied the
western end of the hall.
The =West Chapel= is entered from the northern corner of the hall, and
projects from the main building. There must have been a fine window to
the east judging by its proportions, and it has niches with canopies
outside. A large arched piscina can be seen on the south wall inside,
and at the east corner a double-bodied grotesque. In the north-east
angle is the belfry turret, which terminates in a very pleasing broached
spire; but the porch, which occupied the angle between the chapel and
the domestic buildings, is all destroyed.
Of the _Domestic Buildings_ to the north-west less remains than of any
other part. The well of the palace is to be seen in a crypt, and a fine
example of a stone chimney-place with brackets, like the one in the
library of the cathedral, is also worthy of notice. The northern side
was probably used for stables, and the foundations for the enclosing
wall on the north-east side can still be traced.
In conclusion, it must be remembered that the very high regard in which
St. David’s was held as a pilgrims’ haven, particularly in the
fourteenth and fifteenth centuries, and that the Bishop was bound to
entertain all who came, necessitated a very large guest-house, and here,
indeed, was one which was deemed worthy of the attention even of royalty
on many occasions.
APPENDIX I.
BISHOPS OF ST. DAVID’S.[99]
[601] David
Cynog
Teilo
Ceneu
Morfael
Haerwnen
Elwaed
Gwrnwen
Llunwerth
Gwrgwyst
Gwgan
Clydawg
Eineon
Elfod
Ethelman
Elanc
Maelsgwd
[831] Sadurnfen
Cadell
Sulhaithnay
840. Novis
Idwal
Asser
Arthwael
Samson
Ruelin
[961] Rhydderch
Elwin
Morbiw
873. Llunwerth
944. Eneuris
Hubert
Ivor
[999] Morgeneu
Nathan
Ieuan
Arwystl
[1023] Morgeneu
1023. Ervin
1039. Trahaearn
[1061] Joseph
1061. Bleiddud
1071. Sulien
1076. Abraham
1078. Sulien (again)
1088. Rhyddmarch
1096. Griffri
1115. Bernard
1147. David Fitz-Gerald
1176. Peter de Leiâ
1204. Geoffrey de Henelawe
1215. Iorwerth, alias Gervase
1230. Anselm de la Grace
1284. Thomas Wallensis
1256. Richard de Carew
1280. Thomas Beck
1293. David Martyn
1328. Henry de Gower
1347. John Thoresby
1350. Reginald Brian
1353. Thomas Fastolfe
1361. Adam Houghton
1389. John Gilbert
1397. Guy Mone
1408. Henry Chicheley
1414. John Catterick
1415. Stephen Patrington
1418. Benedict Nicholls
1433. Thomas Rodburne
1442. William Lyndwood
1447. John Langton
1447. John Delabere
1460. Robert Tully
1482. Richard Martin
1483. Thomas Langton
1485. Hugh Pavy
1496. John Morgan
1505. Robert Sherborne
1509. Edward Vaughan
1523. Richard Rawlins
1536. William Barlow
1548. Robert Ferrar
1554. Henry Morgan
1559. Thomas Young
1561. Richard Davies
1582. Marmaduke Middleton
1594. Anthony Rudd
1615. Richard Milbourne
1621. William Laud
1627. Theophilus Field
1635. Roger Mainwaring
1660. William Lucy
1677. William Thomas
1683. Laurence Wornack
1686. John Lloyd
1687. Thomas Watson
1705. George Bull
1710. Philip Bisse
1713. Adam Ottley
1723. Richard Smallbrooke
1730. Elias Sydall
1731. Nicholas Claggett
1742. Edward Willes
1743. Hon. Richard Trevor
1752. Anthony Ellis
1761. Samuel Squire
1766. Robert Lowth
1766. Charles Moss
1774. Hon. James Yorke
1779. John Warren
1783. Edward Smallwell
1788. Samuel Horsley
1793. Hon. William Stuart
1800. Lord George Murray
1803. Thomas Burgess
1825. John Banks Jenkinson
1840. Connop Thirlwall
1874. Basil Jones
John Owen
PRECENTORS[100] (DEANS FROM 1840).
1224. Richard
W----
[1237] Philip
[1254] Richard Pue
[1287] John de Swinssey
[1300] Thomas Barry
1328. Richard de Musselwick
[1334] David Barret
1339. Adam Houghton
[1352] David Ley
[1399] John Noke
1413. Thomas Wollaston
1437. Hugh ab Owen
1486. Richard Machen
1492. John Howell
1509. Lewis ap Rhys
1534. Thomas Lloyd
1547. Thomas Young
1554. Morgan Phillips
1558. Thomas Young
1560. Thomas Huett
1591. Roger Gyfforde
1596. William Hinton
1631. Griffith Higgs
1660. William Thomas
1663. Richard Watson
1677. John Ellis
1693. Charles Pryse
1696. Hugh Powell
1717. John Davies
1733. John Pember
1735. Joseph Hill
1753. John Morgan
1774. John Jekyll
1777. Francis Wollaston
1816. Richard Richardson
1839. Llewelyn Lewellin (assumed the title of Dean in 1840)
1878. James Allen
1897. Evan Owen Phillips
1897. H. Howell
ORGANISTS OF ST. DAVID’S CATHEDRAL.[101]
Walter Warryn 1490
Priest Vicars[102] officiated from 1490-1563
John Norman 1509-1522
Thomas Elliott 1563-1577
Priest Vicars officiated in turn 1577-1713
R. Mordant 1713-1714
(Lay Vicar Choral)
Henry Mordant 1714-1719
(Son of the preceding Lay Vicar Choral)
Richard Tomkins 1719-1719
(Lay Vicar Choral)
William Bishop 1719-1720
(Lay Vicar Choral)
Henry Williams 1720-1725
Matthew Maddox 1725-1734
(Lay Vicar Choral)
Matthew Philpott 1734-1793
(Lay Vicar Choral)
Arthur Richardson 1793-1826
(Lay Vicar Choral, also tuner of the organ. Died 1826?)
John Barrett 1827-1851
(Lay Vicar Choral)
William Peregrine Propert, LL.D. and M.A., Cantab.;
Mus.B., Oxon. 1851-1883
(A Lay Vicar Choral of the Cathedral. During the restoration of
the Cathedral, 1864-1883, the organ was not in use)
Frederick S. Garton 1883-1894
(Organist of St. Martin’s, Haverfordwest, 1894)
D. John D. Codner 1894-1896
(Born 1851. Organist of St. Bride’s, Fleet Street, E.C.)
Herbert C. Morris, F.R.C.O. 1896
(Born at Coventry, June 18, 1873)
[Illustration: GABLE CROSS LYING IN BISHOP VAUGHAN’S CHAPEL. (_See_ p.
67.)]
APPENDIX II
EXTRACTS FROM SIR G. G. SCOTT’S REPORT TO THE DEAN AND CHAPTER, 1869
By reference to my first Report, addressed to the Dean and Chapter in
1862, it will be seen that, while the entire building was reported to be
in a state of the most severe dilapidation, and some portions actually
in ruins, the greatest immediate danger was to be apprehended from the
tower, the crushed condition of two of whose sustaining piers rendered
its fall an event by no means improbable--a catastrophe which would
probably involve the destruction of a large portion of the church.
Before, therefore, embarking upon any other works of restoration, it was
determined to take immediate measures for the removal of this great
danger, and, while the first contract united with this the restoration
of the choir, the actual work in the first instance undertaken,
excepting only some necessary works of drainage, was limited to this
“article of a standing or a falling church.”
At the risk of being tedious, I will repeat here a detailed description
of these most dangerous and difficult operations, which I wrote
immediately after their completion, in a private Report to the Bishop:--
“I do not hesitate to tell you that the operations thus in the main
completed, have caused me the greatest anxiety; for, although it has
been my lot to apply the same process to five other central towers, and
though I have, in each instance, undertaken it not without much
trepidation, I have never met with a case so serious, and involving so
great an amount of apparent and actual danger, as that of your
Cathedral; for not only is the tower far larger and of vastly greater
weight than any other on which I have been called to operate, but its
two western piers were more alarmingly shattered than anything I have
witnessed elsewhere. I take the liberty of quoting the following passage
from my first Report, as showing what were my impressions on this point
after my original survey, and they have been more than verified by the
result:--
“‘The present condition of the tower is in the highest degree alarming,
and till it is restored to a state of security, it is quite useless to
think of any extensive reparation of other parts of the building.
“‘The western piers consist each of two portions, the parts towards the
nave belonging to De Leiâ’s work of the twelfth century, and those
towards the transepts having been added after the catastrophe of 1220.
Of these, the older or western portions are literally, at least so far
as they are open to examination, shattered to fragments, and the same
process has extended itself in a less degree into the later or eastern
parts of each pier; in fact, the only security which the tower has from
actually falling, is the buttressing it sustains from the walls of the
transepts and the nave, though the latter have themselves severely
suffered under the undue pressure thus brought upon them.
“‘The arch facing the nave is very much injured, and the wall which it
sustains, up to the commencement of the later stages, is utterly
disintegrated, so much so as to render it dangerous very closely to
investigate the defects; and the same state of disintegration extends
itself some feet into the north and south walls, but especially the
former, which is at this point crushed throughout its whole thickness.
“‘It will be seen from what I have stated, that the whole remaining
portion of the first tower is crushed and left at the mercy of the
various walls which abut against, and, so to speak, bolster it up; and
that this terrible failure extends itself to a certain distance into the
later and, in themselves, better constructed portions; in fact, that of
the four supports of the tower, two are sound, and two wholly
untrustworthy.’
“It will be seen from the above, that the object to be aimed at was
little (if anything) less than the rebuilding from their foundation of
two of the four piers which sustained the tower, each of them bearing a
load of 1,150 tons, which had to be supported by timber shoring during
the operation.
“Our first work, however, was to take measures for binding together, and
otherwise strengthening the tower itself, so as to avoid the danger of
its becoming fractured, or otherwise injured, during the reconstruction
of its supporting piers; and this was rendered the more necessary by the
disintegrated state of the lower walls immediately resting on the
arches, and the enormous cracks by which the north and south walls were
rent throughout their entire height. This object was attained by the
introduction of permanent iron ties of great strength, at several
different levels, binding all the walls together; by the use of
temporary girders of massive timber-work round the exterior of the
tower, throughout the greater part of its height; and by repairing with
new stone and strong cement many parts of the disintegrated walls.
“The shoring by which the weight of the western half of the tower has
been temporarily supported is of three descriptions--1st, direct
supports under the western, northern, and southern arches (the two
former consisting of timber framing, and the latter being provided by an
old stone wall, by which the arch was blocked); 2ndly, vertical shores
of immense strength, supporting “needles,” or horizontal masses of
timber, passing through the walls; and 3rdly, by ‘raking’ or inclined
shores abutting against the walls in all directions, and both supporting
weight and preventing lateral motion. All these had to be provided with
firm foundations, having to bear the actual weight of the tower. The
magnitude of the work may be judged of when I mention that, of the six
main supports of the ‘needles,’ two consisted each of _nine_, and the
others of _six_ full-sized balks of timber, bound together into one mass
by irons, and thus making timber supports, the first 3 feet 6 inches
square, and the others 3 feet 6 inches by 2 feet 4 inches in thickness,
and all of them 36 feet in length. The ‘needles’ are of oak, 2 feet 4
inches deep and 2 feet 4 inches thick, and shod with wrought iron. The
raking shores are arranged in systematic groups, giving supports at all
heights, from immediately over the piers to nearly the top of the tower.
“The shoring has required the use of nearly 12,000 cubic feet of timber.
“The state of the west wall of the tower was rendered alarmingly
apparent by the difficulties encountered in making the holes for the
‘needles.’
“Mr. Clear, the Clerk of the Works, and myself, foreseeing some
difficulty, arranged a plan by which, before cutting through the wall, a
sort of tunnel of strong stone should be formed through it, by inserting
the stones, one at a time, in the shattered rubble work, and then
removing the enclosed wall. This was done, with some difficulty, to a
depth of 2 feet from either side, but as the wall is 6 feet thick, there
remained 2 feet in the middle untunnelled, and when the enclosed wall
was attempted to be removed, the middle mass began to pour out like an
avalanche, which was only stopped by the immediate insertion of
sand-bags, and by subsequently running the wall from above with liquid
cement, and thus solidifying the disintegrated rubbish.
“These systems of supports having been completed, the actual operations
commenced, and for this another and less permanent system of shoring was
requisite. If the main shoring may be compared to the solid masses of an
army, those I am now speaking of may be viewed as the _skirmishers_.
They consist of needles and props inserted immediately above the part to
be operated on, and supporting a portion of the shattered pier while
that below it was renewed, and as soon as this was effected, a new
needle was inserted above the first one, to make way for the renewal of
another batch, each lower needle being in its turn removed, when that
above it was secured. Besides this, however, endless extemporised
precautions had at every hour to be taken, to provide against
contingencies which were ever arising; blocks of timber inserted under
stones threatening to fall; struts and shields against masses in danger
of bursting; sand-bags, &c., against the rushing out of the avalanches
of rubbish; temporarily running together, with liquid cement, of parts
which, though eventually to be removed, had not yet been reached, and
threatened, if not consolidated, to bury the workmen in their ruins. All
these, and many more precautions, had to be taken to meet the exigencies
of every day and every hour; and when it is considered that each pier
took months to reinstate, that these dangerous operations could not, in
many cases, be suspended day or night, and that the Clerk of the Works
would never leave the spot while any dangerous work was pending, you may
judge of the wearing anxiety which he and others engaged in the work
have undergone.
“By the process I have thus briefly sketched, the entire piers,
excepting a small central portion, have been rebuilt from their
foundations to their capitals; the new stone-work having to be inserted
a little at a time, has been aided, in all cases, by strong copper
cramps, so as to tie its courses together in their circuit round the
pier.
“All the stones are laid in strong cement, and all that remains within
of the old work is run together at each course with liquid cement till
it will hold no more. I saw, myself, ten pails full of this material
poured into a single hole.
“The stone made use of is the purple stone of the neighbouring cliffs,
and closely resembles the old stone, though somewhat harder, and is
worked in a similar manner. Any old stones which are unshattered (of
which I regret to say that but very few were found) have been re-used.
“I had hoped that the southern pier, which was the second operated upon,
would have proved less dangerous than the northern one, but on a close
examination of it, just before the work on it was commenced, I found
that it was really as much shattered as the other had been, and, in
point of fact, was ready to burst at the middle of its height. The Clerk
of the Works, when he reached this point, told me that a cat could walk
in and out of the cracks which intersected the pier!
“I have been the more minute in describing our operations, and the state
in which we found the old piers to be, because, when such a work is
completed, there is a tendency to forget, or to discredit, the danger
which has been avoided; indeed, to any one who sees the piers as now
reconstructed, it would be impossible to believe that the tower could
have stood on such masses of shattered fragments as those which they
have replaced.”
At the time that the above description was written the shoring had not
been removed. This has now been the case for several years, and the
piers, I am thankful to say, have sustained the weight perfectly.
When the crushed substructure had been thus rendered trustworthy, we not
only proceeded with the restoration of the remainder of the choir, which
formed a part of the same contract, but your orders were given to
proceed also with the repairs of the upper portions of the tower, which
were sadly dilapidated, and with the aisles of the choir, one of which
had long been in ruins and roofless, and the other in but little better
condition.
(For extract here see pp. 16-19, _ante_.)
I have had to bear some little ridicule for taking down the dead wall,
by which the sides had been heightened, and building it up again. I can
only say that the roof having been of necessity temporarily removed, and
these additions to the walls, being devoid of any character or value of
their own, being a mine of wealth in the debris they contained, I simply
worked them _as a mine_, and having obtained the treasure which lay
hidden within them, I reconstructed them with their old materials.
In doing this we discovered the curious eaves-course and gutters of the
original roof, which is of a remarkable construction, and is now exposed
to view with some restoration.
Among the timbers of the later roof were found portions of that of the
earlier date, shewing that it was perfectly plain, though massive, and
of the cradled form so usual at early periods.
The design of the early stonework of the eastern arm, apart from its
intrinsic merits, is interesting from the evidences it presents of its
_double_ date, being a union of the original work of Bishop De Leiâ
(begun in 1180) with that resulting from the reparations after the fall
of the tower in 1220. The tower falling eastward would of course destroy
the parts immediately adjoining it, and it would appear that it, by the
fall of its upper portions, must also have reached and damaged the
eastern wall.
We accordingly find that, while the eastward portions of the side walls
and the lower parts of the east end are of the original date, the
western bays of the sides and the upper parts of the end are of the
later date. This is made very manifest on the south side of the
clerestory by a triforium passage, originally communicating with that in
the south transept, but which was omitted in the reconstructed parts,
thus cutting off the communication.
Curiously enough, we also find that in the reconstructed portions of the
sides a very marked preparation was commenced for vaulting, which,
however, was suspended at a few feet in height, and on one side niches
added just where the groining arches would come; while at the east end
the upper range of windows (as already mentioned) was designed without
reference to vaulting.
We made a curious discovery in the eastern end, where a walled-up arch
was visible below the cill of the central window in Bishop Vaughan’s
Chapel (formerly the exterior of the end). On opening this we found it
to be a deep recess into the thickness of the wall, at the back of which
are some ornamental crosses of the older period, in the principal of
which (which is very beautiful) the intervals between the arms of the
cross are perforated through into the interior, opening just behind the
high altar, as if to allow a person while kneeling in the external
recess to participate in the services going on within.
Returning for a moment to the choir roof, I will mention that we have
restored it precisely to its old form, retaining every part not unfitted
by decay. The chief exceptions are the beams, which were hopelessly
decayed, and which were of so great a size as to cause us much
difficulty and delay in obtaining trees of sufficient size to contain
them. They were eventually procured from Radnorshire, Shropshire,
Herefordshire, and the Forest of Dean.
The old roof was decorated throughout with colour, which has been
carefully restored. The panels had been repainted in the seventeenth
century, in a discordant style; these have been now decorated in a
manner agreeing with the older work.
The roof contains ancient shields, bearing the arms of Bishop Tully, the
Earl of Richmond, Roderic the Great, Bishop Martin, Owen Poole,
treasurer to the church; the arms of France and England quartered; those
of Edward V., Richard III., and (perhaps) Henry VII., of Rhys ap Tudor
and of Bishop Young. Those which were affixed to the corbels had been
obliterated, and have been supplied by the arms of the present bishop,
dean, canons, and archdeacons, thus marking the period of the
restoration.
The walls, pillars, arches, &c., of the eastern arm, are now put into a
thorough state of repair; and the beauty of the interior will be greatly
increased by the munificence of the Rev. John Lucy, of Hampton Lucy, in
Warwickshire, who, as a memorial of Bishop Lucy, a member of the ancient
family to which he belongs, has undertaken to fill the upper tier of
windows in the east end with stained glass, and the lower tier (blocked
up by Bishop Vaughan’s Chapel) with Venetian enamel mosaic work, the
opaque co-relative of stained glass, though a much more costly form of
art. This will give to these noble lancets just the relief and beauty
which they had lost when deprived of their light, and that in a form
more unique and striking than stained glass itself. I had in my first
report suggested for these blank windows that “possibly some more
durable kind of decoration (than painting) may be introduced,” and Mr.
Lucy’s benefaction precisely meets the want.[103]
The aisles of the eastern arm, which owing to their ruined condition had
been walled off, have now been opened out and brought back to a perfect
state, which of course brings out the beauty of the interior in a very
marked degree. In opening the second arch from the east the old sedilia
were found. They are of wood, and of the fifteenth century. These have
been carefully restored. The piscina, which occupied the south-eastern
arch, is too ruined for its design to be recovered, though I think that
a beautiful basin dug up in the churchyard must have belonged to it.
Three arches on the north side are occupied by ancient tombs (including
the substructure of St. David’s shrine). These are a good deal ruined,
and must be in some degree restored. The tombs similarly placed in the
northern arch of the tower, and which had to be removed for the repairs,
have been carefully replaced.
The aisles of the choir have been twice prepared for vaulting, first in
the original structure, and again when the aisles were widened, and the
walls raised and remodelled, by Bishop Gower. I doubt whether in either
case it was carried out, as I could find no evidences of it on the inner
side, and after some perplexity I determined not to attempt it, but to
cover them with handsome oak roofs, suited in character to Bishop
Gower’s work.
The windows were in a most ruined condition. We found on the north side
evidences of the old form of their tracery, which we have followed.
Those of the south aisle had no remains of the tracery left, and even
the jambs were so shattered that it was only by a fragment here and
there that the mouldings were recovered. These were found to be
curiously varied, out of four windows two only being alike. The tracery
introduced has been founded on fragmentary evidences from other parts of
the church of the same date.
One thing caused us a little puzzle: we found the remains of windows in
_all four bays_, though the westernmost of them would be blocked up by
the eastern aisle of the transept. On close scrutiny, however, we found
that the place of this aisle was at first only occupied by a single
chapel,[104] with a space between it and the aisle of the choir, which
had been at a later period built over, so as to form the aisle which
stopped the window in question. This we have restored to its older form,
at the same time repairing the adjoining stair turret of the transept,
which was in a dangerous state.
I will now return to the space beneath the tower, which in this church
is the _choir_ proper, as containing the stalls; the eastern arm of the
church being more correctly the _presbytery_.
The great engineering works already described necessitated the temporary
removal of the stalls. They have subsequently been restored to their old
position, and have undergone a most careful process of reparation. On
close examination they were found to have been deprived of many of the
more delicate of their decorative details. These have been or still are
in process of being restored from fragments, more or less extensive,
which have been discovered; the greatest care being taken to preserve
the ancient work as nearly untouched as is possible. The whole is a very
excellent and interesting specimen of ancient woodwork, and retains
traces of coloured decoration, including some armorial bearings.
The same process of careful reparation has been applied to the Bishop’s
throne, and the unique screen, which severs the choir proper from the
presbytery, neither of which have been moved from their positions, but
have been repaired as they stood. The similarity of the panels of the
lower parts of the screen and the throne, show them to be practically
one work. I suppose their date to be late in the fourteenth or early in
the fifteenth century. Both are very curious and valuable ancient works.
I am aware that the conservative manner in which they have been dealt
with has provoked some criticism from those who undervalue these relics
of ancient workmanship. For myself, I do not hesitate to express my high
satisfaction at the manner in which they have been both preserved and
restored; and I trust that the hand of spoliation and innovation will
never be permitted to tamper with the works I have thus endeavoured to
hand down in their integrity to future generations.
(For extract here see pp. 30-32, _ante_.)
One thing I will mention which stands, I think, alone, as a deliberate
deviation on my part from the old work.
Bishop Gower, in building the middle stage of the tower, had made it
form a fine lantern storey to the choir. Late in the fifteenth or early
in the sixteenth century, wooden groining had been introduced, which,
strangely enough, cut Gower’s lantern windows in two, entirely hiding
their traceried heads. I have done away with this desight, by lifting
the wood groining a stage higher, so as to show Gower’s windows in their
integrity, which forms the lantern into a very fine feature. I trust
that, as regards the general principle of _conservative restoration_,
this exception will be accepted as one of the class which _proves the
rule_. The wood groining was decorated with colour, and has been
repainted.
* * * * *
Since the date of the last Report the works have been proceeding. The
restoration of the roofs of the nave and south aisle with their ceilings
has been accomplished. The clerestory of the nave has been fully
restored externally and internally; some of its windows which had been
walled up have been opened out, and the whole of them have been
reglazed.
In carrying out this portion of the work it was found that the parapets
had been corbelled in the same manner as those of the presbytery,
although the corbels had been cut off flush with the face of the wall.
Fortunately in a sheltered corner next the tower two or three of the
corbels remained in a perfect state; these have been the guide in the
restoration. The parapet was probably of less height originally, but the
position of the sixteenth century roof would not allow of the height
being kept lower than at present.
The ceiling of the south aisle, which until lately was open, showing the
rough timbers above, has been panelled in completion of the ancient
design. The parapet and pinnacles have also been repaired.
The walls internally of the nave and south aisle and the piers and
arches have been cleaned, restored, and pointed.
The north transept has been groined in oak, carrying out the design
which had been commenced in stone. The modern roof, which was truncated
and of very slight timbers, has been strengthened, and the pitch carried
up to fit the fifteenth century gable. The ruined pinnacle at the
north-west angle has been completed.
Whilst speaking of this transept, it will be well to call attention to
the doorway on the western side, which was originally of considerable
width, but at a period very shortly after its erection was narrowed,
the later jamb with its shaft, cap, and base being precisely like the
original jamb which remains built up in the wall; and at a still later
period the doorway appears to have been walled up to form a recess, in
which was placed a hollowed stone sink with a stone shoot projecting
through the wall.
The roofs of Bishop Vaughan’s Chapel and of the cross aisle eastward
(page 6) have been thoroughly repaired and releaded.
The works now in progress (July, 1873) are the reparation of the roof of
the north aisle of the nave and the restoration of the upper part of the
Chapter-house building. The windows in the north aisle, two of which
have lost their tracery, are being restored, and the walls internally
will be cleaned.
The modern roof of the Chapter-house building, which has for years been
in a very unsafe condition, is now being removed, and will be replaced
by a new roof covered with lead. The walls, &c., of the upper part of
the building will be restored as far down as the floor of the
Chapter-house. This will include the completion of the triangular window
in the gable, and the windows in the north side of the uppermost storey
or “Treasury.” The window in the north wall of the Chapter-house has
enough of its tracery remaining to enable the design to be completed
with certainty, and will be restored. The pinnacles flanking the eastern
gable, which are of very curious design, will be completed.
The cost of these works on the Chapter-house building is being defrayed
by one of the Canons Residentiary, to whose liberality the new roof and
groined ceiling of the north transept, and the renewal of the roofs of
Bishop Vaughan’s Chapel, and of the adjacent ante-chapel are also due.
Now that the substantial repair of the nave with its aisles is so nearly
completed, the nave should without further delay be paved and provided
with fittings for the parochial services.
The pavement of the north transept should follow, with the restoration
of St. Thomas’s Chapel, stone tracery being substituted for its present
wooden window-frames, and an open screen for the existing partition
between it and the transept.
The south transept should be dealt with in a similar manner to the
northern one. The unseemly condition of its roof is rendered more
apparent by contrast with the restored roofs and ceilings of other parts
of the church.
There would still remain the porch, with sundry external repairs to the
north and south aisles. There is also the eastern group of unroofed
chapels, for which some provision should be made, to prevent further
dilapidation to their walls and injury to the delicately wrought tombs
still remaining within them.
It is unnecessary at present to give estimates for the works enumerated
above, or for the amelioration of the western front.
The extent to which these very desirable objects will be effected, must
depend on the liberality with which the present appeal is responded to.
The outlay and liabilities up to the present time are--for the Drainage,
£500; the Tower, with the Presbytery and its Aisles, £15,700; the South
Transept Chapel and Stair Turret, £600; the Nave and its Aisles, £6,500.
CHISWICK PRESS: PRINTED BY CHARLES WHITTINGHAM AND CO.
TOOKS COURT, CHANCERY LANE, LONDON.
DIMENSIONS OF THE CATHEDRAL.
Total length (interior) 298 feet.
Length of nave 130 “
“ from crossing to E. wall of choir 56 “
Width of nave and choir 68 “
Length along transept 131 “
“ of crossing (E. to W.) 30 “
Area 21,950 sq. ft.
[Illustration: S^{T}. David’s Cathedral. S. Wales., Ground Plan]
* * * * *
Bell’s Cathedral Series.
_Profusely Illustrated. Cloth, crown 8vo, =1s. 6d.= net each._
NOW READY.
CANTERBURY. By HARTLEY WITHERS. 3rd Edition, revised.
CARLISLE. By C. K. ELEY.
CHESTER. By CHARLES HIATT. 2nd Edition, revised.
DURHAM. By J. E. BYGATE, A.R.C.A. 2nd Edition.
EXETER. By PERCY ADDLESHAW, B.A. 2nd Edition.
GLOUCESTER. By H. J. L. J. MASSÉ, M.A. 2nd Edition.
HEREFORD. By A. HUGH FISHER, A. R. E.
LICHFIELD. By A. B. CLIFTON. 2nd Edition, revised.
LINCOLN. By A. F. KENDRICK, B.A. 2nd Edition, revised.
NORWICH. By C. H. B. QUENNELL. 2nd Edition.
OXFORD. By Rev. PERCY DEARMER, M.A. 2nd Edition, revised.
PETERBOROUGH. By Rev. W. D. SWEETING, M.A. 2nd Edition.
ROCHESTER. By G. H. PALMER, B.A. 2nd Edition.
ST. PAUL’S. By Rev. ARTHUR DIMOCK, M. A. 2nd Edition,
SALISBURY. By GLEESON WHITE. 2nd Edition, revised.
SOUTHWELL. By Rev. ARTHUR DIMOCK, M. A.
WELLS. By Rev. PERCY DEARMER, M.A. 2nd Edition, revised.
WINCHESTER. By P. W. SERGEANT. 2nd Edition, revised.
WORCESTER. By EDWARD F. STRANGE.
YORK. By A. CLUTTON BROCK. 2nd Edition, revised.
_Preparing._
ST. DAVID’S. By PHILIP ROBSON, A.R.I.B.A. CHICHESTER. By H. C. CORLETTE,
A.R.I.B.A. RIPON. By CECIL HALLET, B.A. ELY. By Rev. W. D. SWEETING,
M.A. ST. ALBANS. By Rev. W. D. SWEETING, M.A. BRISTOL. By H. J. L. J.
MASSÉ, M.A. ST. ASAPH’S and BANGOR. By P. B. IRONSIDE BAX. GLASGOW. By
P. MACGREGOR CHALMERS, I.A., F.S.A. (Scot).
_Uniform with above Series. =1s. 6d.= each._
ST. MARTIN’S CHURCH, CANTERBURY. By Rev. CANON ROUTLEDGE, M.A., F.S.A.
24 Illustrations.
BEVERLEY MINSTER. By CHARLES HIATT. 47 Illustrations.
WIMBORNE MINSTER AND CHRISTCHURCH PRIORY. By Rev. T. PERKINS, M.A.,
F.R.A.S. 65 Illustrations.
TEWKESBURY ABBEY AND DEERHURST PRIORY. By H. J. L. J. MASSÉ, M.A. 44
Illustrations.
WESTMINSTER ABBEY. By CHARLES HIATT.
[_Preparing._
* * * * *
Bell’s Handbooks to Continental Churches.
_Profusely Illustrated. Crown 8vo, Cloth, =2s. 6d.= each._
CHARTRES: The Cathedral and Other Churches. By H. J. L. J. MASSÉ, M.A.
[_Ready._
ROUEN: The Cathedral and Other Churches. By the Rev. T. PERKINS, M.A.
[_Ready._
PARIS (NOTRE-DAME). By CHARLES HIATT.
[_Preparing._
LONDON: GEORGE BELL AND SONS,
YORK STREET, COVENT GARDEN, W.C.
* * * * *
Opinions of the Press.
“For the purpose at which they aim they are admirably done, and there
are few visitants to any of our noble shrines who will not enjoy their
visit the better for being furnished with one of these delightful books,
which can be slipped into the pocket and carried with ease, and is yet
distinct and legible.... A volume such as that on Canterbury is exactly
what we want, and on our next visit we hope to have it with us. It is
thoroughly helpful, and the views of the fair city and its noble
cathedral are beautiful. Both volumes, moreover, will serve more than a
temporary purpose, and are trustworthy as well as delightful.”--_Notes
and Queries._
“We have so frequently in these columns urged the want of cheap,
well-illustrated, and well-written handbooks to our cathedrals, to take
the place of the out-of-date publications of local booksellers, that we
are glad to hear that they have been taken in hand by Messrs George Bell
& Sons.”--_St. James’s Gazette._
“The volumes are handy in size, moderate in price, well illustrated, and
written in a scholarly spirit. The history of cathedral and city is
intelligently set forth and accompanied by a descriptive survey of the
building in all its detail. The illustrations are copious and well
selected, and the series bids fair to become an indispensable companion
to the cathedral tourist in England.”--_Times._
“They are nicely produced in good type, on good paper, and contain
numerous illustrations, are well written, and very cheap. We should
imagine architects and students of architecture will be sure to buy the
series as they appear, for they contain in brief much valuable
information.”--_British Architect._
“Bell’s ‘Cathedral Series,’ so admirably edited, is more than a
description of the various English cathedrals. It will be a valuable
historical record, and a work of much service also to the architect. The
illustrations are well selected, and in many cases not mere bald
architectural drawings but reproductions of exquisite stone fancies,
touched in their treatment by and guided by art.”--_Star._
“Each of them contains exactly that amount of information which the
intelligent visitor, who is not a specialist, will wish to have. The
disposition of the various parts is judiciously proportioned, and the
style is very readable. The illustrations supply a further important
feature; they are both numerous and good. A series which cannot fail to
be welcomed by all who are interested in the ecclesiastical buildings of
England.”--_Glasgow Herald._
“Those who, either for purposes of professional study or for a cultured
recreation, find it expedient to ‘do’ the English cathedrals will
welcome the beginning of Bell’s ‘Cathedral Series.’ This set of books is
an attempt to consult, more closely, and in greater detail than the
usual guide-books do, the needs of visitors to the cathedral towns. The
series cannot but prove markedly successful. In each book a
business-like description is given of the fabric of the church to which
the volume relates, and an interesting history of the relative diocese.
The books are plentifully illustrated, and are thus made attractive as
well as instructive. They cannot but prove welcome to all classes of
readers interested either in English Church history or in ecclesiastical
architecture.”--_Scotsman._
“They have nothing in common with the almost invariably wretched local
guides save portability, and their only competitors in the quality and
quantity of their contents are very expensive and mostly rare works,
each of a size that suggests a packing-case rather than a coat-pocket.
The ‘Cathedral Series’ are important compilations concerning history,
architecture, and biography, and quite popular enough for such as take
any sincere interest in their subjects.”--_Sketch._
LONDON: GEORGE BELL AND SONS
* * * * *
FOOTNOTES:
[1] Jones and Freeman, p. 140.
[2] King’s “Handbook to the Cathedrals of Wales” (Murray), 1887, p.
115.
[3] Winchester central tower fell 1107; Ely central tower in 1321.
[4] J. & F., p. 54.
[5] Report, 1869, p. 16.
[6] Giraldus, “Vita S. Dav.” Ang. Sac. ii. 634.
[7] J. & F., pp. 72-73.
[8] King’s “Handbook,” 1887, plan p. 105.
[9] J. & F., p. 56.
[10] J. & F., p. 161.
[11] P. 127.
[12] King’s “Handbook,” p. 123.
[13] P. 128.
[14] Pronounced _Dice_ locally.
[15] _Vide_ Scott’s Report, 1869.
[16] “El sol pro factura muri in solaris Ste. Cyencis calce & lapid’
& aliis nēriis ad idem opus pertinent, ut palet per billam inde
examinat, 100_s_.”--_Lib. Comm._ vol. i., p. 24.
[17] Lib. Com., vol. i., p. 47.
[18] “A Survey of the Cathedral Church of St. David’s” (1715), 8vo,
London, 1717.
[19] Browne Willis, p. 8.
[20] J. & F., p. 94.
[21] Manby’s “History and Antiquities of the Parish of St. David’s,”
1801, pp. 20, 30. “Mens. Sac.,” vol. i., p. 23.
[22] J. & F., p. 95. “Mens. Sac.,” vol. ii., Appendix, fol. 54.
[23] “Mens. Sac.,” vol. i., p. 23.
[24] “Guide to St. David’s,” &c., T. J. Bryant, 1896, 12mo, p. 49.
[25] King’s “Handbook,” pp. 143, 144.
[26] J. & F., p. 163.
[27] “Lib. Comm.,” vol. i., p. 15, an. 1490.
[28] _Vide_ Appendix.
[29] _Vide_ Plan, _at end_.
[30] J. & F., p. 129.
[31] “Handbook,” p. 147.
[32] J. & F., pp. 84-85.
[33] J. & F., p. 65.
[34] J. & F., p. 86.
[35] 3 & 4 Vic., c. 113, § I. _Vide_ also p. 94.
[36] J. & F., p. 105.
[37] “Church of Our Fathers,” vol. iii., p. 473.
[38] See _post_, pp. 61, 62.
[39] McKenzie Walcott’s “St. David’s,” p. 17, and “Anglia Sacra,” vol.
ii., p. 640.
[40] Two other doings by this Pope are worthy of passing notes. (1)
Being a Frenchman, he was the first to make France a traditional ally
of the Roman See. (2) He concluded the celebrated Concordat of Worms,
1122, by which the rights of the Roman Church in relation to the Crown
were defined.
[41] Given as 1079 in “Anglia Sacra,” p. 649.
[42] “Brut y Twwysogion, sub annis.” Haddan and Stubbs, vol. i., p.
377.
[43] “Anglia Sacra,” p. 651: “Annales Cambriæ,” in ann. 1284.
[44] “St. Justinianus martir 5 die decembris in vigilia Sancti
Nicholai; jacet in capella in ecclesia Sancti David sub ejus tumba,
confessor Sancti David.”--Itinerarium _Willielmi de Worcestre_
(Nasmyth, 1778, p. 164).
[45] “Anno MLXXXVI. Scrinium Sancti David de Ecclesiâ suâ furator, &
juxta civitatem ex toto spoliator.”--_Anglia Sacra_, vol. ii., p. 649.
[46] Gale, “Scriptores,” vol. xv., p. 299.
[47] “Anno MCCLXXV. Incœptum fuit Feretrum Beati David in Ecclesiâ
Menevensi.”--_An. Sac._, p 651.
[48] “Mens. Sac.,” vol. i, pp. 255-257.
[49] “Lib. Stat.,” p. 299.
[50] “Browne Willis’ Survey,” pp. 54-55. and 69.
[51] J. & F., p. 105.
[52] “Lib. Stat.,” p. 24.
[53] Removed from the back recently. J. & F., p. 103.
[54] P. 69.
[55] “Anglia Sacra,” vol. ii., p. 547.
[56] Fenton’s “Pembroke,” p. 84.
[57] Freeman, p. 155. King’s “Handbook,” p. 148.
[58] Report, 1869, p. 21.
[59] George Owen’s MS. history, see Fenton, p. 98.
[60] J. & F., p. 152.
[61] J. & F., p. 70.
[62] During Scott’s restoration this was subsequently found to be a
recess only (of De Leiâ’s period).
[63] P. 52.
[64] Briant, p. 67.
[65] J. & F., p. 96.
[66] “I take it to be This Bp. who began S. Mary’s Chapel, & that He
lies buried in it on yᵉ N. Side, which Tomb is by Mistake said to
be Bp. Houghton’s.” “Mens. Sac.,” vol. i., p. 49. J. & F., p. 121.
Fenton, p. 87, _note_.
[67] King, “Handbook,” 1873.
[68] On Plan No. 4.
[69] Browne Willis, opp. p. 1.
[70] J. & F., p. 71.
[71] Browne Willis, p. 4.
[72] Now wrought iron (_vide_ opposite).
[73] P. 108.
[74] Finton, p. 423, gives a similar design.
[75] J. & F., p. 159.
[76] “Mens. Sac.,” p. 232.
[77] See p. 36.
[78] Fenton, p. 73.
[79] P. 112.
[80] J. & F., p. 112, from Browne Willis.
[81] “Survey,” p. 12.
[82] Pp. 68-69.
[83] J. & F., p. 113.
[84] J. & F., p. 114.
[85] For a learned disquisition on these tombs see Jones and Freeman,
pp. 114-116.
[86] Browne Willis, p. 101.
[87] J. & F., p. 116.
[88] T. J. Briant, p. 54.
[89] McKenzie Walcott, p. 16.
[90] Formerly a charnel-house (Browne Willis, p. 25).
[91] See plates, pp. 2 and 7.
[92] King, 1887, p. 239; Briant, p. 71.
[93] _Vide_ Campbell’s “Lives of the Chancellors.”
[94] Reference to the plan on page 10 is here desirable.
[95] J. & F., p. 330.
[96] _Ibid._, p. 189.
[97] J. & F., p. 190; _Lib. Stat._, p. 24.
[98] The references are to the plan on p. 10.
[99] J. & F., pp. 358, 359.
[100] The List of Precentors is from Eardley as far as the middle of
the eighteenth century, from the Cathedral Registers from then to
1854. Freeman (footnote p. 358) states that the Registers have never
been very carefully kept, but both lists were revised by Le Neve’s
“Fasti” (ed. Hardy); the accuracy of this latter, however, is not very
remarkable.
[101] Condensed from pp. 76-77 “Cathedral Organists,” by J. C. West,
8vo, London, 1899, which was apparently compiled from information
supplied by D. J. D. Codner.
[102] “Mens. Sacra.”
[103] The stained glass and mosaics have since been fixed. Mr. Lucy
has also undertaken the repair of the Earl of Richmond’s altar-tomb in
the presbytery.
[104] This chapel was added in the fourteenth century, being a part of
Gower’s work. Its extension into an aisle was probably of modern date.
It will be seen that the old base-moulds concealed by that extension
still remain.
End of Project Gutenberg's Bell's Cathedrals: St. David's, by Philip A. Robson