CHAPTER IIITHE INTERIOR—THE NAVE

CEILING OF CENTRAL TOWER.

Bishop Gower’s stage, above a string with the ball-flower ornament, contains on each face a tall two-light window, having pointed arches opening to a wall-passage, and externally a niche on either side. The third storey (of Bishop Vaughan, c. 1515) has a top-heavy effect and a most unusual parapet, with polygonal angle-shafts and a set of eight pinnacles. There are at present three bells, and the one that is used most and strikes from the clock is outside on the tower roofunder a wooden diminutive belfry. There are two bells at the west end on the nave floor. Apparently there was an octave in the middle of the fourteenth century, when the bells were recast and the largest was lost at sea. About 1690 there were five (some cracked), and in 1748 the Chapter ordered that the four large bells should be taken down as they were both useless and dangerous, and in 1765 two were sold. The upper part of the interior of the tower consists of an elaborate wooden vault, which was raised by Scott and finely emblazoned. As the roof of the tower must obviously have been raised at least twice before, it seems hardly necessary for Scott to apologise (videReport, 1869, Appendix) for doing so again. His success, however, is very patent.

The South Side.—Beginning at the west end, the first noticeable feature is theSouth Porchin the second bay, with the parvise or first floor chamber. The inner doorway has been, as Freeman[4]justly says, “one of the most magnificent displays of ornament in the whole building ... and, contrary to the common rule, the original Norman doorway has given way to a later successor.... The present doorway is Decorated (Bishop Gower, 1328-47), without shafts, but with a superb display of sculptured decoration, besides crockets and the ordinary four-leaved flower. The arch is adorned with a series of sculptures, which are sadly mutilated, but in which we may still trace the familiar representation of the Root of Jesse. The position, however, necessarily involves some singularities, and, as in the better known example of the Dorchester window, the genealogy is by no means easy to follow. The western impost is occupied by what appears to be a figure of Adam, with Eve issuing from his side; the other supports the recumbent figure of Jesse, from whom springs the branch, along which the figures are introduced, somewhat after the manner of the Norman medallions at Iffley. Some of the figures may still be discerned reading at desks; David with his harp may also plainly be seen, as well as a representation of the Crucifixion. Over the apex is an effigy of the Holy Trinity, with angels on each side bearing censers. The doorway has pinnacles at the sides, but they are cut off by the vaulting of the porch, which is plain quadripartite, springing from corbels,

SOUTH ELEVATION.Drawn by F. Taylor Scott.

SOUTH ELEVATION.

Drawn by F. Taylor Scott.

among which we may observe the ornament called the mask, the only example of that form to be found in the cathedral.” This porch is the work of Gower, and the peculiar mouldings are readily traceable to the same artist who designed the rood-screen. Scraps of the previous Norman doorway, which was done away with by Gower, are still to be seen in the plinth. At one time there were five steps in the porch, but these were removed in 1885. The entrance to the upper chamber (added by Vaughan, c. 1515) is obtained from the nave by a turret-stair, and the room is now used as a clerk-of-work’s drawing office.

In 1849 Butterfield renewed the tracery of the aisle windows as it originally was in Decorated times, but it is not very attractive.

The Clerestory is Norman, of ashlar work, and the windows are rather wide, stumpy, and round-headed, with flat pilaster-like buttresses between each pair. But the restoration has deprived the exterior of much of its interest, although one can easily imagine that those of the next century will enjoy a very pleasing contrast between the purples of the Caerfai buttresses and the yellows of the window dressings, which are of Somersetshire oolite.

The South Transeptstill retains the outline of the arch of the great south window which was blocked up when the four existing Perpendicular windows of four lights each were inserted. A double buttress supports the south-east corner of the transept, and behind this is the present Chapter House.

The East End.—The south Presbytery aisle was put into proper repair at the time of the general restoration, and new windows were inserted. The upper tier of windows at the east end of the Presbytery have been well restored also by Scott, and his own description[5]may well be given:

“In restoring the eastern arm of the church, a question arose which, though but slightly suggested in my first Report, grew upon my mind as we proceeded to such a degree, that it was more than a twelvemonth before I could make up my mind as to which course to take. The case was this:“This wall of the church had originally side walls, much lower than atpresent, with a high-pitched roof, and was constructed with some view to stone groining, though it is clear that this was never carried out, and was, in fact, deliberately relinquished.“The east end had two ranges of windows, three most magnificent lights below and four above.

“This wall of the church had originally side walls, much lower than atpresent, with a high-pitched roof, and was constructed with some view to stone groining, though it is clear that this was never carried out, and was, in fact, deliberately relinquished.

“The east end had two ranges of windows, three most magnificent lights below and four above.

SOUTH DOORWAY.

“In the fifteenth century the high roof was taken off, the side walls raised by the addition of some six feet of dead wall, the gable lowered, and a very flat, though handsome roof placed upon the walls thus altered; at the same time the upper tier of lancet windows was removed, all but theouter jambs, and the space they occupied converted into a single window in the Perpendicular style, with a very flat arch.“Sometime later still the three great lancet lights below were walled up, owing to the erection of Bishop Vaughan’s chapel behind them.“Finding that the dead wall, thus added to the sides, was aperfect mineof thedébrisof the ancient upper tier of windows, that the Perpendicular window substituted for them was so decayed as to require renewal, and that the timbers of the late and low-pitched roof were much decayed, it was a tempting idea to restore this limb of the church to its ancient design, and to add groining (if not of stone, at least of oak) as at first contemplated; while opposed to this was the judicious rule laid down by Messrs. Freeman and Jones, the historians of the cathedral, that when ancient alterations had become stereotyped as a part of an historical monument, all change in them not included under the termrestorationis set down as to be in itself reprehended, only to be justified by special circumstances, the burden of proving whose existence rests, in every case, with the innovator.“This rule would certainly demand the repair and retention of the later roof, and even, at first sight, of the later window, and between these conflicting views I for a considerable time oscillated, in a way which may have appeared weak to others, and was certainly most painful to myself.“I eventually took an intermediate course, which I think will be admitted to be justified by the result.“As regards the roof, though it was so bad as to necessitate its being taken down, and though all its main beams (I think) but one had to be renewed, the remainder, including much good carving and many armorial bearings, was capable of reparation. As regards the original intention of groining, I found unquestionable proofs that it had been relinquished, if not by the original builders, yet certainly by the reconstructors after the fall of the tower in 1220, for these builders had inserted niches just where the vaulting would come. They had also erected the upper range of lancet lights at the east end in a form incompatible with vaulting.“These considerations led me at length to determine to relinquish the idea of groining, and to return to my first intention of restoring the later and existing roof.“The case, however, was different with the upper east windows, for not only was the later insertion so decayed as to demand renewal, but on searching below its cill we found those of the original lights stillin situ, while on working the mine ofdébriswhich existed in the dead walls added to the original sides, we found not only evidence sufficient to show the precise design of the ancient eastern lancets, but sufficient to go a considerable way in reconstructing them with their own ancient materials, though we found no details to enable us to complete either the high gable or its flanking turrets.“While, then, I arrived at the conclusion that the fifteenth-century roof should be restored, I also felt convinced that, as regards the lancet lights, I had discovered just suchspecial circumstancesas would justify and almost demand the restitution of their original forms.“The design of the windows, thus reproduced from their original materials after being for four centuries immured, is very excellent andinteresting. Internally they form a continuous arcade, supported on little clusters of light shafts, while externally—the lights being narrow, and the piers between them wide—the latter are occupied each by a double niche, a fellow to which flanks either jamb, so that while the arcade within consists of four arches, that without is formed of fourgroupsof arches, making twelve in all—four being windows and eight niches. The details of all are excellent; unfortunately, however, the roof of Bishop Vaughan’s Chapel prevents the external group from being seen with any effect, though within we have now, so far as the forms of the windows go, the ancient arrangement complete, and a most effective and beautiful one it is.”

“Sometime later still the three great lancet lights below were walled up, owing to the erection of Bishop Vaughan’s chapel behind them.

“Finding that the dead wall, thus added to the sides, was aperfect mineof thedébrisof the ancient upper tier of windows, that the Perpendicular window substituted for them was so decayed as to require renewal, and that the timbers of the late and low-pitched roof were much decayed, it was a tempting idea to restore this limb of the church to its ancient design, and to add groining (if not of stone, at least of oak) as at first contemplated; while opposed to this was the judicious rule laid down by Messrs. Freeman and Jones, the historians of the cathedral, that when ancient alterations had become stereotyped as a part of an historical monument, all change in them not included under the termrestorationis set down as to be in itself reprehended, only to be justified by special circumstances, the burden of proving whose existence rests, in every case, with the innovator.

“This rule would certainly demand the repair and retention of the later roof, and even, at first sight, of the later window, and between these conflicting views I for a considerable time oscillated, in a way which may have appeared weak to others, and was certainly most painful to myself.

“I eventually took an intermediate course, which I think will be admitted to be justified by the result.

“As regards the roof, though it was so bad as to necessitate its being taken down, and though all its main beams (I think) but one had to be renewed, the remainder, including much good carving and many armorial bearings, was capable of reparation. As regards the original intention of groining, I found unquestionable proofs that it had been relinquished, if not by the original builders, yet certainly by the reconstructors after the fall of the tower in 1220, for these builders had inserted niches just where the vaulting would come. They had also erected the upper range of lancet lights at the east end in a form incompatible with vaulting.

“These considerations led me at length to determine to relinquish the idea of groining, and to return to my first intention of restoring the later and existing roof.

“The case, however, was different with the upper east windows, for not only was the later insertion so decayed as to demand renewal, but on searching below its cill we found those of the original lights stillin situ, while on working the mine ofdébriswhich existed in the dead walls added to the original sides, we found not only evidence sufficient to show the precise design of the ancient eastern lancets, but sufficient to go a considerable way in reconstructing them with their own ancient materials, though we found no details to enable us to complete either the high gable or its flanking turrets.

“While, then, I arrived at the conclusion that the fifteenth-century roof should be restored, I also felt convinced that, as regards the lancet lights, I had discovered just suchspecial circumstancesas would justify and almost demand the restitution of their original forms.

“The design of the windows, thus reproduced from their original materials after being for four centuries immured, is very excellent andinteresting. Internally they form a continuous arcade, supported on little clusters of light shafts, while externally—the lights being narrow, and the piers between them wide—the latter are occupied each by a double niche, a fellow to which flanks either jamb, so that while the arcade within consists of four arches, that without is formed of fourgroupsof arches, making twelve in all—four being windows and eight niches. The details of all are excellent; unfortunately, however, the roof of Bishop Vaughan’s Chapel prevents the external group from being seen with any effect, though within we have now, so far as the forms of the windows go, the ancient arrangement complete, and a most effective and beautiful one it is.”

On the east wall of the tower the various weather-courses of previous roofs are visible, which make a not unnatural appeal to the imagination of the spectator. For the great defect of the exterior generally is that the roofs are of such a very flat pitch.

The Ruined Chapels—on the southKing Edward’s, on the east that ofOur Lady, on the north ofSt. Nicholas, and the Ante-Chapel—will be described later, as it is only by an unfortunate chance that they are now roofless (except the last), and will, we hope, shortly be correctly regarded as part of the interior if the proposed restoration takes place.

Not far from the east end of the Lady Chapel is the spring which St. David is credited with creating. Giraldus[6]has a very pretty legend concerning this spring, which was known as St. Mary’s Well. It seems to have been of somewhat variable quality, as its waters were sometimes changed into milk and at others into wine. Sir G. Scott, however, with scant respect for its saintly origin, caused it to be drained!

The North Sideis much the more interesting of the two. After passing the chapels we come to a very curious three-storied building, the roof of which is higher than that of the cathedral. On the ground-floor was the Chantry of St. Thomas, now a vestry, entered from the east side of the north transept, and above this the turret stair from the north aisle of the presbytery leads to the old Chapter House, now the Library, and above this again is a disused room, once the Treasury.

No parallel has yet been found for this remarkable building, which Freeman (1856) very accurately describes thus:[7]

“It is continued from the face of the north transept, which it slightly exceeds in point of elevation. The external work is Decorated; the east isflanked by two flat buttresses of very singular character, which are terminated by rich pinnacles, now mutilated. Equally singular is the buttress dividing its two bays on the north side; flat at the bottom, after its first stage its projection becomes angular, and so runs up the whole height of the wall, becoming much smaller in its upper portion; its pinnacle is quite destroyed (but is now restored). At the junction with the transept a staircase is attached, in a singular and almost indescribable way, to the upper portion of the broad pilaster at the north-east corner of the transept....The east end has a very strange appearance, having three windows over each other, and a niche, not unlike a window, above all; that in the third stage is a blocked spherical triangle (now restored). The lower part of the wall is of ashlar, the occurrence of which is so rare in the exterior of this church; the upper is of rubble, excepting the buttresses.”

Butterfield is responsible for the large Decorated window in theNorth Transept, and Scott raised the roof to its original pitch and rebuilt the north-west angle turret. In the west wall are two Transitional windows (but the northern one has long been filled in), and above is a corbelled parapet. Below, but at a lower level than the transept floor, is a doorway to the cloisters, with a semicircular outer arch having a solid tympanum and segmental head within. At a contemporary period half, and much later the whole, of this entrance was built up, and in the recess thus formed was placed a lavatory and drain.

The east wall of the cloisters connects St. Mary’s College with the north transept. An imposing view is obtained on going through the door at the north-east corner of the cloisters. We now see the north side of the nave, with flying buttresses supported on huge masses of masonry, the ruins and graceful tower of St. Mary’s and, in the distance across the Alan, the magnificent ruins of the episcopal palace.

TheNorth Doorway(see p. 80) corresponds in position to the south porch, and is a good example of a Transitional (Norman to Early English) doorway, but it is much decayed. The principal ornament is, like those in the arcade, a kind of hybrid composed of the Norman chevron and the Early-English dog-tooth ornaments. There is a depressed arch to this doorway, which, with other evidence, leads us to suppose that it has been higher. Another feature which calls for comment—it is the same in the arcade but in less marked degree—is that no matter what the size of the stone, a complete part of the ornament has been carved upon it, thus obtaining an irregular but not unpleasing effect.

The presentWest Frontis from a design by Sir G. G. Scott, who based it upon a drawing which he found in the library of the Society of Antiquaries showing the church as it was before Nash’s alterations.

The illustrations on pages 2 and 7 show Nash’s design of 1793, which seems to have received the sanction of the Society of Antiquaries. The figures that appear in the first are Bishop Jones, Professor Freeman, the authors of the best history of St. David’s, Dean Allen, and Sir G. G. Scott. This execrable composition was a hopeless conglomeration of Norman, Decorated, and Perpendicular, with a couple of heavy-arched buttresses, which were apparently standing as recently as 1887.[8]The rebuilding of theWest Frontwas undertaken at a cost of about £4,000 as a memorial to Bishop Thirlwall, who first seriously began to restore the church in 1864, and his statue stands over the west door. The material is Caerfai stone from the neighbouring quarries of Caerbwdy, and suffers from its newness in appearance. In fact the design and the purple stone combine to give the whole front a very heavy appearance, which only years of exposure to the sea air will partially remedy.

Photo. J. Valentine.THE NAVE, LOOKING EAST.

Photo. J. Valentine.

THE NAVE, LOOKING EAST.

Atthe South Porch, by which the visitor usually enters, the ogee-headed holy-water stoup should be noticed, and a general view be made of the church, as it is most unusual and has a character all its own. The majority of the work is that of Bishop Peter de Leiâ (1176-1198), and is therefore Transitional in character; that is to say, it is at the point of fusion between Norman and Early English. The pointed arch of the latter is not yet adopted, but the round (more or less) arch is still employed, probably in some degree to avoid the greater height otherwise entailed, but the details verge on the purity of the most refined Early English. De Leiâ evidently intended sexpartite groining to form an internal ceiling, but an earthquake and the fall of the tower doubtless instilled caution—even if funds were forthcoming—and the project was never carried out. The exceedingly rich ceiling, however, of Irish oak does not make one regret this circumstance, for its very bizarrerie and semi-arabesque character, coming so closely in contact with the great Norman arches, combine to make the interior of St. David’s one of unusual beauty. The more so, by contrast, on entering from the almost bald exterior.

“Possibly the circumstances which conduced to the lack of external ornament may have led its designers to counterbalance this deficiency by a superabundance of internal decoration. Certain it is that very few structures of the same size equal this cathedral in richness and elaborateness of execution lavished upon this portion of the interior. In fact, much of the solemnity of a Romanesque nave is lost, an effect which is

ELEVATION OF A BAY OF THE NAVE, N. SIDE.From a Drawing by J. Taylor Scott.

ELEVATION OF A BAY OF THE NAVE, N. SIDE.

From a Drawing by J. Taylor Scott.

certainly far better produced by more massive proportions and a greater extent of unadorned surface.”[9]

NORMAN SHAFT WITH RE-CARVED CAPITAL, EASTERN PIER IN S. NAVE ARCADE. (See p. 27.)

But although we miss the characteristic massiveness of most Norman naves, we also enjoy the freedom—which may fairly be claimed as the structural note of this interior—from their attendant heaviness. In fact, the very large span of the arches detracts from the size of the piers, the actual bulk of which is great.

DETAILS OF PIER ARCHES.(From J. & F. p. 58.)

DETAILS OF PIER ARCHES.

(From J. & F. p. 58.)

CARVED PANELS AND ARCH ORNAMENTS IN THE TRIFORIUM.(From J. & F. p. 58.)

CARVED PANELS AND ARCH ORNAMENTS IN THE TRIFORIUM.

(From J. & F. p. 58.)

The details of the arcade are of an interesting character. The piers are alternately round and octagonal (irregular), with attached shafts at the cardinal points. Towards the aisles the shafts are clustered, being intended for vaulting. The plinths are more varied than is usual, but the tongue of foliage, which is a favourite method of ornamenting the space caused by the change from the square to the round or octagonal, is here conspicuous by only one example, and that a timid one on the south side. The bases are of quite an Early English type, with the usual hollow, but the capitals prove an instructive study. The most frequent type of these is the rather common “cushion,” which the Transitional carvers have vivified in the most exquisite way by, apparently, experimenting with several forms of stiff-leaved foliage, some of which approach more nearly to the classic type than is usual in thiscountry, and least of all was it to be expected at the land’s end of Wales. On the south side towards the east is one of special beauty, where one sees how the carver has treated the Norman cushion cap as a boss on which to let his fancy play. The arches are of exceptional richness and elaborately moulded towards the nave—in fact, just as little of the Romanesque character as is consistent with the Norman arch is retained. The westernmost arches, being narrower in span than the others, are skilfully kept the same in height by being pointed, and the details differ; which prompts the suggestion that De Leiâ, finding his nave somewhat short in appearance, decided to lengthen it by another bay, and was only confined by the river Alan, which at the north-west corner even now runs quite close to the foundations. A strong horizontal line is carried east and west, close above the Norman hood-moulding, which, combined with the great width of the nave and the huge span of the arches, conduces towards the feeling of stuntedness already noticed in the exterior.

The deeply recessed clerestory of round-headed windows is curiously amalgamated with the triforium of couplets having pointed arches; in the spandril between each of which latter are elaborately decorated circles, some with a kind of rude dog-tooth star and others with a kind of eternal interlacing which looks something like an interwoven horseshoe pattern. In other instances, as at Southwell Minster, the triforium absorbs the clerestory, but at St. David’s it retains its character and becomes a screen to the passage over the arcade. The result is a very rich confusion. The amalgamation of distinct members not only precludes either the usual appearance of a church with or without a triforium, but the treatment of the triforial arches themselves is clever without being pleasing (see illustrations, pp. 22, 24, 25). The arches which enclose both the triforium and clerestory are again very rich, and the ornamentation is carried down their whole length without shafts or cappings. Clustered shafts with the Norman cushion capitals having square abaci receive the shafts of the wooden ceiling.

Of the previous nave-roof we have no date, but very possibly it may have resembled that at Peterborough or St. Alban’s, as something similar seems to have existed at Llandaff. The present roof is generally accredited to the Treasurer, OwenPole (1472-1509), and in all likelihood that of the choir may be also.

“This very singular, if not unique, structure is, in its construction, simply a flat ceiling of timber laid upon the walls; but, by some, certainly unjustifiable, violations of the laws of architectural reality, such as are not uncommon even in the stone roofs of that period, it is made to assume a character wholly its own, and which it is very difficult to describe in an intelligible manner. By the employment of vast pendants, which at the sides take the form of overlapping capitals to the small shafts already mentioned, the ceiling appears to be supported by a system of segmental arches effecting a threefold longitudinal division of the roof, and crossed by a similar range springing from the walls. Of course these arches in reality support nothing, but are in fact borne up by what appears to rest on them. Notwithstanding this unreality and the marked inconsistency of the roof with the architecture below, notwithstanding that its general character would have been much more adapted to some magnificent state apartment in a royal palace, still the richness and singularity of such an interminable series of fretted lines renders this on the whole one of the most attractive features of the cathedral. Both the arches themselves, and the straight lines which divide the principal panels, drip with minute foliations like lace-work in a style of almost Arabian gorgeousness. It is much to be regretted that this ceiling cuts off the top of the western arch of the lantern, which at once spoils the effect of the latter, and gives an unpleasant appearance to the unfinished pendants of the ceiling, when seen from behind, out of the choir. Still this very view of the roof, in which hardly any other part of the nave is visible, is wonderful in the extreme” (J. & F., p. 59).

Having noticed the details and their curious effects in the nave, the observant visitor still feels that he has not fully explained to his satisfaction the complete secret of its bizarre effect. It only unfolds itself on measuring and levelling. The whole nave floor slopes considerably—more than two feet—from east to west, following the natural fall of the ground, and the arcades slope outwards respectively north and south, and, in consequence, their piers lengthen as one nears the west end. A settlement, owing to the very wet site and bad foundations, probably aided by an earthquake (1248) and the unusual width of the nave (for a Norman church) are enough to account for these peculiarities; and the slope of the nave floor seems to have been purposely so devised for the sake of drainage in flood-time.

At the west end of the south aisle, on three octagonal steps, stands theFont. Its original shaft is missing. The marble base is octagonal, and rudely arcaded with sixteen pointed arches, but no part is specially beautiful.

The nave aisles do not call for any very special remarks. At the east end of both will be seen traces of the original vaulting, and on the north side the vaulting-shafts are taller than on the south. Also on that side the Perpendicular flying-buttresses are seen which make such a strange show outside, where once was the cloister garth, with their huge props. Speaking of the aisles generally, Freeman says: “It must be remembered that none of these preparations for vaulting were ever carried into effect. This is, indeed, no unusual phenomenon, yet there is certainly something striking in so many designs for a stone roof being traced out upon the same walls, and none of them being ever brought to perfection. In the nave aisles it may perhaps be accounted for by the strange and untoward shapes which the great width of the pier arches compelled the lateral arches of the vaulting to assume; it may have been found actually impossible to vault the aisles either at this (1328-1347) or the earlier Romanesque period. But this argument does not apply to any of the other unfinished vaults in the church of whatever date.”[10]

The interior of the west front has been as nearly as possible restored to its former state, but has now no triforium passage. There are a couple of tiers of windows over the original west entrance. All the lights are round-headed and are set in a Norman rear-arch.

Some of the nave piers still show traces of polychromatic decoration. On the north and south sides, on the easternmost pier but one, are the remains of some frescoes, as also on the middle pier of the south arcade. But Bishop Field’s white-wash of 1630, which was removed about 1830 under the careful superintendence of the Ven. Archdeacon Davies, doubtless spoilt whatever beauty these mural decorations ever had.

It requires considerable discernment to distinguish very clearly what the designs are, but Freeman[11]made out that on the third southern pier (from the east) is a representation of the Blessed Virgin seated beneath a canopy. The figure is within a vesica, vested in a cope and has a nimbus; beneath which is an inscription, “Virgo Maria.” Above is our Lord and the emblems of the four Evangelists, and on the smallattached shafts are figures of seven candlesticks, evidently referring to the vision of St. John.[12]

On the south-east face there is a full-length crowned figure of a king in plate-armour with the basanet and camaille, holding a sword and standing under a canopy. On the left arm is the initialH, which—the date of the plate-armour with knee-caps and elbow-pieces corresponding—has been taken to denote Henry IV.

On the two other piers are achievements of arms which Freeman[13]states to be “a banner bearing a bend, a shield party per chevron, and a casque with crest and mantlings, the crest being a head crowned.”

The Rood Screen.—The elaborate rood-screen, which separates the nave and choir, projects into the nave nearly half a bay. A daïs[14]of three steps in height occupies the remainder of the bay. The entrance to the choir is vaulted in two bays, and there are some very unusual flying groin-ribs, which are shown in the illustration. The work is unmistakably that of Bishop Gower (1328-1347), and was perhaps the completion of the Decorated scheme which he inaugurated throughout the fabric. On the sunny south side the tomb of the Bishop gains by contrast with the heavy arch-shadow.

On the north side, facing the nave is a peculiarly flat and shallow arcade in three bays, which formed a kind of reredos to the altar of the Holy Cross—the piscina being on the north. On the oblique side, facing north-west is a doorway with a semi-octagonal arch leading to the roof and organ loft.

On the south side of the western bay are two tombs, and on the north one, all of which will be described with the monuments in the nave (see p. 71).

The backing to the screen was, when Freeman wrote, solid, and he surmised, with some accuracy, what Sir G. G. Scott found on his restoration of the screen. In Scott’s words:[15]

“I mentioned in my first Report the massive stonework, some seven or eight feet in thickness, which blocked the rood-screen, and which I suppose to have been added to strengthen the tower piers. On examination this was found originally to have been hollow, but to have been filled up solid for the purpose suggested. The entrance to the choir was through a roof and uncouth archway in this vast wall, but on searching the contents of the

GROINING OF ROOD SCREEN, SHOWING THE FLYING RIBS.

wall thedébriswas discovered of the original archway, and of the side doorways into the hollow spaces. These details were found to be parts of a beautifully groined space, closely resembling the existing archway through the rood-screen, and forming a second, though varied, bay of that beautifulentrance. We have been enabled to reconstruct this feature, using the old remains so far as they would go. This beautiful addition to the choir was wholly beyond anything I had anticipated.”

In theComputusunder 1492 is an entry recording that the sum of 100 shillings[16]for materials for a work which would seem to be for the blocking up of the screen, and no doubt the constant trouble arising from the weakness of the western tower arch rendered some such course imperative.

In De Leiâ’s time, or rather later, the screen probably stood between the tower piers, as the bases of their eastern responds are raised above those of the nave and suggest an earlier screen and its platform. And it is not unlikely that the pleasing incongruity of the western side of the screen is due to the retention of some portions of earlier work. There are two steps to the first bay of the screen, and on the second stand the wrought-iron gates (1847), and to the second bay there are three more steps before we reach the level of the choir. Gower’s characteristic ornaments and mouldings are somewhat lavishly bestowed about the screen, and doubtless his statue was intended to stand in the niche on the south side towards the nave above the curious aperture fitted with intersecting tracery. For a description of the tombs,see p. 71.

Along the length of the screen runs an oak cove cornice—possibly Butterfield’s work—copied from an existing piece which is original. The arches are fitted with late Perpendicular tracery, very white in appearance, and the springers of the vaulting seem not to have been completed. The groining has now been finished and an oak cornice added, and on the rood-screen is the organ. In 1571 30s. seems to have been paid for taking down the rood-loft, but it is now almost impossible to be sure what precisely this meant.[17]

The views north, south, east, and west are well worth the little walk on to the organ-loft level. Various details are well seen from this height, notably the interior of the tower, the nave-roof, and the general arrangements and fittings of the choir.

The Organ.—The present organ and case can hardly be

THE ROOD-SCREEN AND ORGAN.

described as things of beauty, though in point of tone the instrument is undoubtedly strong, yet sweet. It was built by Messrs. Willis in 1883, and is almost entirely new. Like the organ at Winchester, it used to occupy the north lantern arch, and was re-erected there in 1843 by Lincoln of London, but the present instrument stands on the rood-screen, care being, however, taken that it should obstruct as little of the view as possible. The tubular pneumatic system has been here adopted, and there are three manuals. A few points concerning the previous organs may be of interest, as it is not unusual to neglect this branch of archæology. According to tradition the present position of the organ is the original one. Browne Willis[18]says: “The Organ, before the Rebellion Stood in the Rood-Loft, under theWestArch, and fac’d the Altar; it is now removed to theNorthArch: It is a new one, and those that are Judges, say, a pretty good one.” This amusing criticism gives further evidence to the notion that Browne Willis did not visit the church before—or at any rate very recently before—he wrote his interesting but somewhat unreliable little survey, which has now become very rare in any form. The items—“Et Sol Willō Warryn organizanti 40s” and “to yemrof yechildren for keeping of yeorgans and teaching of yequoristers, £10,” and others from theLiber Communis, imply the existence of an organ in 1490, 1492, 1557 and 1565. In the last year the magnificent sum of 6d. was spent on two stops “for yegreat organs,” from which we may infer that our organs of to-day are far larger than in 1565. At any rate some small organ might easily have stood under the western arch of the tower, although this arch was then built up as it “fac’d the altar.”[19]

“Probably the tradition of the organ having stood there, led Browne Willis to suppose that the arch had been recently built up. However this may be, there are strong signs of its having occupied that position subsequently to the erection of the wall. The balustrade which surmounts the canopies of the stalls projects at this point, as if to give greater room for a small organ; and the door which pierces the wall, and is apparently coeval with it, is not set in the centre, where it would have interfered with the organ, but near the northern pier of the arch. This seems to have been the usual place of the organ in our churches, and to have been retained from the mere force of habit to the present time, when, from the greater size of our instruments, it is far less convenient.”[20]

A new organ was built in 1581—“ad usum divini servitii”—but was ruined in the great rebellion.[21]The ever-interesting Manby, however, gives another account, by which the organist, hearing some rebel discussing the demolition of the organ, and fearing that he might lose his position, dropped a stone from the loft and killed a Roundhead, an “aids-du-camp.” The organist fled and thus diverted attention from his instrument, having found a hiding place in the great bell by holding on to the clapper! This same bell the rebels stole, but their vessel was wrecked off Ramsey Sound, and thesuperstitious still say that the tolling of this bell presages a great storm!

It is clear there was an organ in 1691, as Precentor Ellis, in his answer to Bishop Watson’s Visitation Articles, says: “I answeare that we have an Organ, but out of order, for how long I doe not remember.”

Early in the eighteenth century Bernard Schmidt, the celebrated builder of that in St. Paul’s Cathedral, constructed an organ as the result of an order of the Chapter (1695), by which £10 was, for five years, to be set apart “out of the allowance to the Master of the Fabric”; and in 1698 each canon was ordered to advance £10 towards the new organ, for which the canons had expressed a great desire.

A very interesting communication from Archdeacon Davies to Archdeacon Yardley, of August 3, 1740, gives further particulars:

“What Particular time yenew Organ was set up here, I cannot be positive, but do believe, from yeaccounts, it must be in the year 1704 or 1705. What Exact Sum̃ it stood yeChapter In, I cannot for certain say, but am apt to think, from Various Items in various Years picked up about it, in their Accounts it could not be less, including all Charges, than £300, whatever More; and in a very little time after it was set up, they were at a Considerable Expense in repairing it again, after it had been damaged by a Storm, which uncovered yevery part of yeRoof of yeChurch under which it lay, and exposed it to yeRain and yeopen Sky; and they were obliged to have an Organ Builder (down from London I think) at a great Expense to put things to rights again.“Upon looking over some loose Papers in yeChest at St. David’s, I have found these Receipts from Mr. Bernard Smith of London, Organ Builder (who made this Organ at St. David’s) for yeSumme of £290 paid to Him only upon that Account. So that when yeCharge of bringing it down, yeNecessary workmanship here, and other articles relating to it are put together, I dare say, before it could be compleatly set up, yeExpense was much nearer to £400 than £300.”[22]

“Upon looking over some loose Papers in yeChest at St. David’s, I have found these Receipts from Mr. Bernard Smith of London, Organ Builder (who made this Organ at St. David’s) for yeSumme of £290 paid to Him only upon that Account. So that when yeCharge of bringing it down, yeNecessary workmanship here, and other articles relating to it are put together, I dare say, before it could be compleatly set up, yeExpense was much nearer to £400 than £300.”[22]

This organ seems to have been used till that consisting of a choir organ and swell was put up by Lincoln in 1843 (as already noted), and the old case “of Norway oak”[23]was re-used. Six of the present stops are Father Smith’s originals.[24]

In the present restoration this organ was removed, and, to the very great discredit of all concerned, the splendid casewith carvings if not actually by, certainly worthy of, Grinling Gibbons, was allowed to be broken up. A few of the best pieces were recently put together and a neat organ-screen constructed for the Church of St. Martin, Haverfordwest. A brief list of organists will be found on p. 95.

THE PRESBYTERY IN 1856.Drawn by J. H. Le Keux(from Jones & Freeman).

THE PRESBYTERY IN 1856.

Drawn by J. H. Le Keux(from Jones & Freeman).

On passing through the rood-screen up five steps from the daïs the choir is reached, which affords one of the most

Photo: F. Frith & Co.THE CHOIR AND PRESBYTERY IN 1895.

Photo: F. Frith & Co.

THE CHOIR AND PRESBYTERY IN 1895.

pleasing prospects in the cathedral. This view gains by comparison with the nave because of the latter’s over-intricacy, which complication is avoided in the choir by the absence of a triforium. There are four Transitional bays of very good proportions, if we except perhaps a tendency to heaviness in the alternately round and octagonal piers. Here we have—what the nave-bay design so much wants—strong vertical lines in the clustered shafts. The Transitional vaulting-shafts stop a little above the string over the arcade, and continuing them are slender Decorated ones with elaborate capitals. The clerestory lights (also Transitional) are beautifully detailed with a bold kind of chevron.

The east end is one of the finest pieces of Norman blending with Early English in the cathedral, or, for the matter of that, in the kingdom. It is composed of three lancets below and four above, Sir G. G. Scott having restored it to the state in which it was after the rebuilding of 1220, consequent upon the fall of the tower, except that Bishop Vaughan’s Chapel has made it desirable that the three lower lights should not be open as they originally were. They are now filled with mosaics.

In the fifteenth century, when the Perpendicular window was inserted, the stonework of the previous wall and upper tier of lights was used for heightening the side walls. Finding these walls to be a mine of thedébrisof the earlier windows, and the Perpendicular window in a bad state of decay, Scott determined to replace the old work.

After the fall of the tower the rebuilders were astonishingly conservative in their avoidance of novelty. It cannot have been from any want of ability, and we incline to the belief that it was the result of a genuine desire to make the new work harmonise with that in the nave and, by re-using a certain amount of old material, to relieve a possibly not overflowing exchequer of a larger disbursement. In the fifteenth century the steep-pitched roof of cradle-pattern, marks of which remain on the tower, was removed, the gable lowered, and the walls at each side raised about six feet. A roof of very flat pitch (as now) and the Perpendicular east window were added.

Finally, when Bishop Vaughan added his chapel behind the east end the lower lancets were walled up. During the Civil War the lead was stripped from the aisle roofs and the mainarcades of the presbytery were filled up by walling, and the huge props to the roof were inserted which appear in Freeman’s view. The eastern windows are deeply recessed, and the banded shafts have caps of stiff-leaved foliage, and angels form the termination to the hood-moulding. Just below the cills is an early example of an embattled band, almost Greek in its severity, and beneath this again are numbers of intersecting semicircular arches with a ball ornament.

After four centuries of immurement the upper range of lights are restored to their former arcaded glory, behind the graceful shafts of which runs a passage. The restored portions are readily recognisable by their being made of oolite, whilst the original stones are all of purple Caerfai. These windows are now filled with stained glass by Hardman, the gift of the Rev. J. Lucy. The subjects are the Last Supper, Gethsemane, the Transfiguration, and the Nativity. The large lower lancets are filled with mosaics by Salviati, which are good of their kind. They form a fixed reredos, and were also part of a memorial by the Reverend John Lucy, Rector of Hampton Lucy, Warwickshire, to his ancestor, William Lucy, Bishop of St. David’s, 1660-1677. The designer of the mosaics as well as the glass above was Powell, of Hardman’s glass works in Birmingham.

Back to Index Next