112 



THE CIVIL ENGINEER AND ARCHITECT'S JOURNAL 



May, 



of it : — " Thp exquisite Early English work of Ibis part of tbe church is 

 truly hpaulifiil; not llie least idea is obtained by the wretched drawing 

 given in ' Winkle's Cathedrals.' To stand opposite the western front — itself 

 once a marvel uf art — and view through the now vacant and ruinous windows 

 the paganized nave beyond it, with its flat pediraental roof, its ridiculous 

 vases and urns, its stuccoed walls, is inevitably to feel the most forcible con- 

 trast between the speaking graces of the Christian and the burlesque ab- 

 surdities of the revived pagan style." 



Although from the affinity of England to Wales, where our ancestors 

 sojourned, if not as absolute conquerors, yet as authorised visitors, we may 

 fairly believe architecture to have been almost on a level in point of date, 

 we can have no reason for imagining that the Welch were some 70 or 80 

 years in advance of the English in the periods of their architecture, or that 

 the change from the circular to the pointed arch, by us called " Early Eng- 

 lish," should more properly have been called " Early Welch." If this is 

 allowed, I am unable to believe that any antiquary can assign an earlier date 

 than 1180 or 1190 to the west front and nave of this cathedral; for though 

 it is perfectly impossible to fix with peremptory certainty the exact date 

 when one particular stage or style of art ended and another commenced, yet 

 we find that from the period when the pointed arch first made its appearance 

 and became blended with the Norman semicircle, years elapsed before the 

 newer style or form had shaken off ihe influence of its predecessor. 



We find in numerous instances, as at Gloucester, Canterbury, the Temple 

 Church, and St. David's Cathedral, that this transitional feeling existed in 

 full force — nay, that the Norman preponderated — although the portions [ 

 allude to are well known to date about the end of the twelfth century. You 

 will, 1 think, share my disbelief in the theory that the pure and pointed 

 work at Llandatf could have been commenced sixty or seventy years before 

 the Norman arch had elsewhere ceased to prevail. In Buildwas Abbey, 

 which is one of the earliest transitirm works I know (the date of which is 

 stated to be about 1135), the indication of Early English form or feeling is 

 very slight. In the section of one of the bays of the nave of St. David's 

 Cathedral, built in 1180, you find the only Early English work consists of a 

 small arcade, between two series of clearly-defined Norman arches ! — cer- 

 tainly not a very convincing proof that Early English work was in existence 

 in the sister cathedral of South Wales sixty years before this work was com- 

 menced. 



Henry (prior of Abergavenny) was consecrated bishop of Llandatf in 1191, 

 and died in 1218. He may, with at least as much probability as belongs to 

 some antiquarian assertions, be supposed, if not actually to have recom- 

 menced the erection of his cathedral in the new style of his day, at least to 

 have promoted works, the character and period of which are so evidently 

 coeval with his twenty-seven years of power. 



The lower portions of the north tower, and all the remaining part of the 

 south tower, the nave, and clerestory remaining, are all of the same pure 

 Early English character. In the columns and arches of the nave and 

 choir a slight variety of arrangement occurs without deviating from the 

 style ; somewhat more ornament is introduced, and by the time they reached 

 the Ladye chapel, the gradation of style becomes apparent ; and with a 

 view to give increased richness to this more sacred portion of the building, 

 or from the more " decorated" fashion of the day, when they arrived thus 

 far east, vaulting is introduced, mulhons and circles are executed in the side 

 windows, and in the easternmost window tracery becomes apparent, until it 

 almost assumes the character of a " decorated" window.* 



In the two bays of the presbytery a fault (as geologists might term it) 

 occurs, which it is difficult to account for. These arches are evidently of a 

 later and more depressed form than those in the nave and choir, and from 

 their form and detail are of a later date than the Ladye chapel. Whether 

 this portion of Urban's work may have remained uninjured and undisturbed 

 until after the completion of the Ladye chapel, when they may have thought 

 it necessary to assimilate the Norman piers and arches more closely to their 

 pointed neighbours, or whether some injury took place to this part of the 

 cathedral, which rendered rebuilding necessary at a later period, 1 have no 

 means of determining, but it is curious that in this portion of the building 

 we find more Norman remains than elsewhere. There still exists the Nor- 

 man string-course in its original bed, with a sort of "embattled fret" carved 

 upon it, running round the three sides of the presbytery : we find plinths 

 and portions of cylindrical shafts, which may have formed (as at Norwich) 

 the arch between the choir and presbytery : there is the large Norman arch 

 over the screen ; the curious remains of a Norman window, so unceremo- 

 niously blocked up by the Early English architect who built against it ; and 

 in the rough masonry of the walls of this part we find walled-up numerous 

 fragments of Norman mouldings and ornaments. One might almost suppose 

 this portion of Urban's original cathedral to have escaped the early destruc- 

 tion I attribute to the rest of his building, and to have been preserved intact 

 by the Early English architects who rebuilt it. At some later period, for 

 fashion's sake, or from decay, we can imagine these arches to have been re- 

 constructed or remodelled, leaving, as I believe they did, the Norman cleres- 

 tory undisturbed. The string-course even now remains ; and in the view 

 given of the north front by Godwin, in 1713 (when it was almost perfect), 

 it will be observed that a semicircular and ajjparently Nurnian line of win- 

 dows is shown in the clerestory of this part, as riistiEiguished from the Early 



* There is good reason to believe tlint tile Ladye eliapel u-as the addition of William de 

 Breos. tile torty-Lhird bishoii, irum 12t> »to 1:^1^7. He was buried close to the ullar, and 

 his tomb still remains. 



English in the nave. Of the history of this alteration or portion of the 

 work, I can find no trace. 



The "decorated" altar-screen is stated, in Browne Willis's, and all the 

 other histories of the cathedral, to have been erected by a Bishop Marshall, 

 who was consecrated in 1478; hut as the detail is pure "decorated," it 

 must have been completed, in all probability, 100 years before this time. I 

 have little doubt but that the piers and arches of the presbytery and this screen 

 were erected at the same time, or by the same architect — an opinion which 

 is confirmed by the fact of the base moulding on the south side being raised 

 considerably above the opposite pier on the north side, and corresponding 

 exactly with the level of tlie base of screen and the base of the sedile which 

 it immediately adjoins. The decoration and enrichment of this screen, attri- 

 buted to Bishop Marshall, have, no doubt, reference to the painting and 

 gilding upon it. " There are eleven niches in the principal level, painted 

 with roses and hyacinths interchangeably." The centres of the roses and 

 flowers of the hyacinths are gilt. The roses are white (which quite identi. 

 fies the decoration with Bishop Marshall), — the white rose being the device 

 of the house of York, used for decoration only in the reign of Edward IV. 

 and Richard 111. Bishop Marshall having been preferred to this diocese by 

 Edwaid IV., the adoption of his badge was a natural and proper compliment. 

 " Under these eleven niches is a row of eight niches, painted in fresco, ex- 

 actly like the former. At each end of these are three real niches painted 

 in the same manner; within these are two little ones, with a pilaster be- 

 tween ; the ground-work throughout is interchangeably blue and red, and 

 the ornaments over all the niches are gilt. At each end is a door leading 

 into a vestry." Thus far I can confirm, from the remains of this screen, the 

 description given by Browne Willis. He then proceeds to say — " Above the 

 altar-piece are two rows of large niches, in which formerly there have been 

 figures. In both rows the middlemost niche is larger than the rest; and on 

 each side are two lesser ones. The two largest niches probably contained 

 the images of our Lord and the blessed Virgin, and the other twelve were 

 for the twelve Apostles. Under the two large niches are the ten command- 

 ments, writlen with gold letters, within a frame, and over all is a handsome 

 freestone window." Unfortunately, the destruction of this upper portion of 

 the screen has been complete (doubtless the work of puritan or political 

 fanaticism). Nothing remains above this line, but we have found walled 

 into the various portions of the structure fragments of corbels, canopies, and 

 buttresses, which evidently, from their size and form of moulding, belonged 

 to this screen. 



From the period when Godwin described Urban's church to have been 

 complete, of certain dimensions, and a work truly magnificent," there is no 

 notice of the cathedral until 1719, when Browne Willis, an antiquary of that 

 day, as he says, "collected together various records and matter, and gave 

 with his work certain draughts of the said church, in order to illustrate the 

 descriptions thereof." These draughts, as you may imagine, are not very 

 clear in their distinctions of style, or in the best possible perspective, but 

 they are most valuable as helping the description, as being the only records 

 we have of what the old cathedral was (before lightning, storms, and Wood 

 of Bath played such havoc with it) ; and, consequently, as being our princi- 

 pal guide and authority in the restoration. It was then falling into a state 

 of deplorable decay, though perfect in its internal arrangements. There 

 was a large building in front of the south Norman doorway, v\hich he calls 

 the "Consistory Court;" and a porch opposite the "decorated" south 

 door. Both these excrescences have disappeared, and I should much doubt 

 if they formed any portion of the original design. 



Soon after Browne M'illis's survey, destruction had full sway. On the 

 20th of November, 1720, the remaining battlements and pinnacles of the 

 north tower (which had escaped the storm of 1703) were blown down, and 

 destroyed a considerable portion of the north aisle. On the 6th of February, 

 1722, the " roof and floor of the south tower fell in, and destroyed a good 

 deal of the church." The complete ruin of this old structure must have fol- 

 lowed very rapidly on Willis's visit; and in 1724 we find the Archbishop of 

 Canterbury interesting himself in its proposed rebuilding (I cannot say re- 

 storation). He obtained 1,000/. from George I., and, like our bishop of the 

 present day, tried in vain to get anything from the Prince of Wales. Suffi- 

 cient funds were, however, eventually raised to erect the frightful shell 

 which now encases the original piers and arches. 



About 1735, Mood of Bath, commenced the desecration of this find old 

 work, and of his own prior fame : for most assuredly a more barbarous or 

 tasteless grafting of uncongenial modernism upon an ancient stem was never 

 perpetrated ; and never was the sarcasm of the historian Whitaker more 

 justly deserved than in this instance. He says — " The cloven foot will ap- 

 pear ! for modern architects have an incurable propensity to mix their own 

 absurd and unauthorized fancies with the genuine models of antiquity ! They 

 want alike taste to invent, or modesty to copy." All that can be said in 

 extenuation is that the corrupt taste of that day gave a fashion to this work, 

 the power of which Wood may have been unable to resist ; I wish it was in 

 evidence that he had tried to do so. That this fashion approved such bar- 

 barism may be inferred from the accompanying letter, which 1 find copied in 

 the " Cole's MSS." in the British Museum. It is written by a Rev. Thos. 

 Davies to Browne Willis, who appears still to have taken much interest in 

 the old wreck : — 



"23rd Nov. 1736. — The church on the inside, as far as 'tis ceiled and 

 plastered, which is something beyond the west end of choir, looks exceeding 

 fine, and is a very stately and beautiful room. The area of the whole church 

 is to be considerably raised, so that when finished it will (in the judgment of 



