IS 16.] 



THE CIVIL ENGINEER AND ARCHITECT'S JOURNAL. 



287 



" There is one additional point still to be noticed, namely, the pressures 

 on the piers. It is shown by writers on mechanics, that the horizontal ^^train 

 at every point of the chain is the same, and equal to the tension at the lu.Test 

 point of the curve. Wlicn a bridge is properly constructed, the catenary on 

 the other side of the pier is a portion of the same curve as the first. The 

 horizontal strains on the two sides ol the pier will then be equal, but in op- 

 posite directions, and, therefore, they will counteract each other: the two 

 vertical strains will also be equal, and in the same direction : and as it is 

 evident that each of those strains is equal to half the weight of tlie chain 

 between the piers, the vertical pressure on eacli pier is equal to the weight 

 of this chain. (See MilUanj Bridges, p. 311). In the case of the Hunger- 

 ford Bridge, however, the catenaries at tlie two ends when completed, have 

 a considerably less span than the central curve, but they have the same droop 

 or deflection. Hence if 2 y he the span of the centre arc, 2 y' the span of 

 the curves at the two extremities when completed ; and a, a', the corres- 

 ponding tensions at the lowest points, we have 



3yH^ 

 6 X 



3 y'- + J ^ 

 t> X 



And as y' is considerably less than y, a' will evidently he less than a in a 

 still higher ratio. Hence there will he a constant horizontal strain, equal to 

 (a — a') actinir at the top of each pier, (which the ingenious contrivance of 

 the shifting saddles at the summits of the piers cannot remedy.) which will 

 of course tend to pull and shake the piers, and may ultimately overthrow 

 them, founiled as they are, without underpiling, on the natural bed of a river, 

 which is continually becoming deeper." 



The conclusion here arrived at is erroneous, and the error arises from the 

 application of a formula to a case with which it has no connection. The 

 value given for a' is taken from the expression for the tension in a chain at 

 its lowest [}oint, when the chain is suspended between two piers of the same 

 weight, and the lowest pohtt is consequently /lorizontal. But here the shorter 

 chain at ihe end where it is attached to the abutment on the banks of the 

 river is inclined to the horizontal at a considerable angle. Moreover if the 

 saddle (which is furnished with friction rollers) were acted upon by an acce- 

 lerating force a — a', it would be set in motion. And lastly, however, the 

 question may be complicated by mathematical symbols, the general truth 

 remains indisputable, that the pressure of the rollers upon the top of the pier 

 is normal to tlie surfaces in contact, and is therefore wholly vertical. Con- 

 sequently the reader, whether acquainted or unacquainted witli mathematics, 

 will not have much ditliculty in concluding tliat the danger of the piers of 

 Hungerford Bridge being overthrown by the unequal strain of the suspension 

 chains is purely imaginary. 



A Critical Dissertation on Professor Willis's Arcliitectnriil History of 

 Canterbury Cathedral. By Charles S.^ndts. Smith, Old Compton-street. 

 18-16. pp. 02. 



Canterbury Cathedral is in one respect pre-eminent beyond dispute above 

 all other ecclesiastical edifices in England ; more has been written about it 

 than about any other. Not only is its library rich in manuscript chronicles 

 and records of the erection of diflferent parts of the building written con- 

 temporarily by resident Monks, but the number of Itineraries, County His- 

 tories, &c., of comparatively recent date, in which this cathedral is described 

 as unequalled with respect to similar buildings. 



The work of description seems to have gone on nearly continuously from 

 the time of the Conqueror to the current year 1846, and probably is not yet 

 finished : for the dissertation by Mr. Sandys, is of too controversial a nature 

 to remain long without an answer. We have no intention of plunging our- 

 selves or readers into the labyrinth of a purely antiquarian discussion; still 

 as the name of Professor Willis of itself carries considerable interest with it, 

 and as his opponent has displayed great learning and accumen in conducting 

 the controversy, a good many architectural readers will be anxious to know 

 what the dispute is about. 



Simply this : Professor Willis ascribes the architecture of a large part of 

 the Cathedral to an architect who, Mr. Sandys says, has no claim to the 

 merit. There is something very laudable in this anxiety to commemorate 

 not only the building but the name of the builder, which might he imitated 

 with advantage in more modern instances : still we apprehend that the ques- 

 tion whether Archbishop Anselrae built merely the choir of the present ca- 

 thedral, or the external walls of tlie choir-aisles, the Trinity chapel, and the 

 east transept also, will not attract so large a share of public attention as to 

 render it incumbent upon us to give more than a brief outline of the discus- 

 sion. 



The dispute seems of long standing. We have before us an old and we 

 believe rather scarce copy of Somner's Antiquities of Canterbury,* published 



* Mr. Samiy3 quiues trum ibe Siime boot:, but from a niuc-li later edition : the orif^inal 

 work i3 ttie more interestuig because written before the commeauement of the Civil wars, 

 ia wlik-h the Cutbeiinil greatly suITered, 



in 1640 (the imprimatur is dated from Lambeth, October 1639.) Now 

 Somner alludes to the subject of this very dispute — namely, what parts of 

 the cathedral are to he assigned to Anselme and Ernulpli — in the following 

 terms. 



" Matthew Paris Records a dedication of the Church o{ Canterbury in the 

 yeare of Christ 1111. being the yeare of Anselmes death. Haply it was of 

 that new piece or new work, as Edmerus cals it. This doubtlesse is the part 

 meant by Malmesbnry. ascribed to Er/iul/jhiis the then Prior of the Church, 

 and of him (erroniously it seemcs) said to have beene built in the place of a 

 like part then demolished, whereof he hath these words Cantim (saith he) 

 dejectum priorem partem ecctesiie qnam Lanfrancns cedificaverat, adeo splen- 

 dide erexit^ ut nihil tale possit in Anglia videri, in vitrearuinfenestraum luce, 

 in marmorei pavimenti nitore, in diversicoloribus picturis qua mirantes 

 oculos trahunt adfastiyia lacunaris." 



The above extract proves at least thus much, that there has long been a 

 dispute respecting the architects of the eastern part of the church. Mr. 

 Sandys has not referred to this circumstance ; he gives however the Latin 

 sentence from Malmeshury, with his own translation, which commences 

 " Ernulphns having thrown down the front (or fore part) of the church 

 which, &e." It may be observed that the assumption that Ernulph was the 

 author of the work of demolition is Mr. Sandys's own. The original Latin 

 simply states that part of the church was thrown down — but does not inform 

 us whether destruction was accidental or intentional, or who was the de- 

 stroyer. The whole dispute turns on the interpretation of the words 

 " priorem partem," which Mr. Sandys takes to mean the choir and no more ; 

 whereas Mr. Willis gives the^ihrase a much wider signification. The former 

 takes it to mean the choir, the latter the whole eastern part of the church. 

 Might we not translate priorem simply" former" or "older".' In that ca?q 

 the meaning of the quotation would be that " Ernulph rebuilt an older part 

 originally erected by Lanfranc, which had been thrown down." 



The author in the present dissertation gives several extracts from Edmer, 

 iXc, in confirmation of his opinion, but his translations are in one or two cases 

 made more favourable than they ought to be, for his own side of the ques- 

 tion. For instance, " super hcec, ipsum oratorium quantum a majorc turri in 

 orientem porrectum est. ipso Patre Anselmo providente disponente, aucturti 

 est." he translates thus, " Moreover this oratory [choir or chancel] so far as 

 it stretches from the great tower eastward was enlarged, Anselm himself 

 providing for and directing the works." The words super haec are not re- 

 presented with sufficient force in the translation. In addition to tliese tliinys 

 Anselm enlarged the oratory itself — meaning that he had undertaken otlier 

 works besides that. This interpretation, if it do not specifically assign to 

 Anselm the works which Professor Willis assigns to him, at all events leaves 

 room to suppose that be did more than Mr. Sandys would have us believe. 

 He neglects also the word ipsum which adds force to the super lime : and 

 his assumption that oratorium means the chancel or choir is at least contro- 

 vertible. An oratory is a place of prayer in distinction to auditorium, the 

 place for hearing. We may therefore suppose every part of the church set 

 apart for prayer, to be included in the word oratorium. Mr. Sandys quotes 

 the expression ^nis ecclesice ornabatur oratorio beatm Matrix Dei Marice, and 

 this instead of confirming his interpretation seems to show that there were 

 all over the church parts distinguished by the appellation oratorium, which 

 therefore is not limited to the choir. The sense of the passage seems there- 

 fore—that in addition to other works Anselm's labours extended to that 

 part of the church which is devoted to prayer, and that he enlarged so mu'jh 

 of it as was built to the east of the great tower (intimating, it may be sur- 

 raised, that there were parts to the west also set apart for prayer.) 



Mr. Sandys states, page 43, as a conclusive objection to Professor \Villis'» 

 opinion, respecting the architect of the present Trinity Chapel, that Lan- 

 franc is expressly stated in the Latin history to have been buried in Trinity 

 Chapel, which must therefore have been standing at the time of his death. 

 But this difficulty is entirely got over if we suppose Trinity Chapel to have 

 been one of those parts of Lanfranc's works which were subsequently de^ 

 stroyed and then rebuilt by his successors. 



In an architectural point of view it seems difficult to suppose that Anselm 

 could have enlarged the choir without rebuilding the choir aisles and their 

 external walls. There seems nothing unreasonable in Professor Willis's 

 supposition that " the increased space must h.ave aft'ected all the arrange- 

 ments of the choir of the monks." 



We throw out these suggestions merely to show that Mr. Sandys argu- 

 ments are not of such a nature as to preclude reply. We are tolerably well 

 acquainted with the architecture and history of Canterbury Cathedral, and 



