When at length the ruins of Old St. Paul's had come down and the huge mass of wreckage been cleared away, working from the west the excavations for the new foundations were begun. The old cathedral had rested on a layer of loam, or "pot earth" or "brick earth," near the surface; and wells being sunk at various points to ascertain the depth of this, it was found that the loam, owing to the ground sloping towards the south, gradually diminished from a depth of six feet to four. Sinking further, they found sand so loose as to run through the fingers; next, freshwater shells and more sand, and continuing through hard beach or gravel, they reached at last the London clay.[57] At one point of the north-east corner, where the loam had been dug out, Wren was compelled to rest the foundations on the clay; and it seems almost a pity that this was not universally adopted, at whatever additional cost of time and labour, in preference to the loam. The building had not long been completed ere the great weight of the dome caused some of the piers to sink from an inch to more than two inches, and Edward Strong the younger had to repair cracks and fissures.[58] Dean Milman tells us that in his time the City authorities once contemplated a sewer on the south side; but the surveyor, Mr. R. Cockerell, remembering that the sand and shells underneath the loam would be in danger of oozing out, went in great haste to him, and on their joint representation the project was abandoned.
The old cathedral was not due east and west, neither did it directly face Ludgate Hill. Owing to the lie of the land cleared away, both of these peculiarities were increased by the surveyor, and the axis of the New St. Paul's was swung some seven degrees further north than the Old. He thereby made the best of his somewhat cramped site, and avoided the foundations of the old walls. The excavations were not completed nor the site fully cleared and made ready until 1674.
RELATIVE POSITION AND AREA OF THE GROUND-PLANS OF OLD AND NEW ST. PAUL'S.
Reproduced from Longman's "Three Cathedrals of St. Paul's." [ToList]
It has been the lament of many that the Pointed arch had by the time of the Fire died out, and that the Renaissance style, borrowed from Italy, had taken the place in England of Gothic architecture. "About two hundred years ago," we are told in the "Parentalia," "when ingenious Men began to reform the Roman Language to the Purity which they assigned and fixed to the Time of Augustus and of that Century, the Architects also, ashamed of the modern Barbarity of Building, began to examine carefully the Ruins of Old Rome and Italy; to search into the Orders and Proportions, and to establish them by inviolable Rules: so to their Labour and Industry we owe in a great Degree the Restoration of Architecture." Here we have the Renaissance style defined. Wren would naturally have fallen in with the fashion of his own time; and the faults he found in his elaborate surveys at Old St. Paul's, Salisbury, and elsewhere confirmed him in his adherence. He found "a Discernment of no contemptible Art, Ingenuity and geometrical Skill in the Design and Execution of some few"; but this was more than counterbalanced by grave faults: "An affectation of Height and Grandeur, tho' without Regularity and good Proportion, in most of them." They are loaded with too much carving and tracery, and in other ways offend his taste, but chiefly in the neglect of a due regard to stability. "There is scarce any Gothick Cathedral, that I have seen, at home or abroad, wherein I have not observed the Pillars to yield and bend inwards from the Weight of the Vault of the Aile.... For this Reason this Form of Churches has been rejected by modern Architects abroad who use the better and Roman Art of Architecture.... Almost all the Cathedrals of the Gothick Form are weak and defective in the Poise of the Vault of the Aile."[59] On the other hand, he reckoned the dome "a form of church-building unknown in England, but of wonderful Grace," and, moreover, the dome wasted a minimum of space, whilst a mediæval cathedral could accommodate only a small auditory in proportion to its large area, so that every one could both see and hear. Any place of worship was in his eyes badly or imperfectly constructed in which the preacher's voice could not travel so as to be distinctly heard. There is much to be said on both sides in regard to the comparative merits of Gothic and Renaissance; and instead of echoing complaints, it is surely better to be thankful we have one cathedral, situated in the greatest centre of population, in the latter style.[60]
MODEL OF WREN'S FIRST DESIGN
Reproduced from Longman's "Three Cathedrals," &c.
[The western cupola is an addition to the design shown on p. 57][ToList]
In 1668 a small committee of eight, in addition to the Dean and Chapter, was appointed, and about the same time Wren set seriously to work and soon after produced his first design (see p. 57). In addition to the reasons already mentioned, he had at first to take into consideration the all-important question of finance, for when he began there were only voluntary contributions to fall back upon; but in 1670 a share of the import duties on coal was granted, and soon constituted the greater part of the rebuilding fund. In 1673 an enlarged commission of over a hundred members was nominated by royal warrant, with the Lord Mayor at its head, who took precedence over the Primate and the Bishop; and Wren laid his first design before them, of which a model was made. This was a kind of Greek cross; the external order was the Corinthian, with Attic above. It bore a general resemblance to a rotunda, and was crowned with a dome taken from the Pantheon at Rome. This dome was of about the same diameter as the present, but less lofty, and was likewise supported by eight pillars. West of the rotunda part was the foot of the cross, and a secondary dome was afterwards added. When Wren began to design this we have seen that amongst other considerations was that of finance[61]; but even had the coal dues been then granted, it is certain that he would have adhered to it, for it was always a great favourite. In designing it he took two facts into consideration: (1) that the outdoor sermons, formerly preached at the Cross, were for the future to be preached inside, and that a large auditorium would be required for this purpose (2) that religious processions inside were now discouraged, and that a nave and aisles were in consequence a useless waste of space and means.[62] Forgetting these two important items, a vast amount of adverse criticism has been bestowed upon Wren's favourite. Its main drawback was the absence of a proper Sacrarium; and yet so obvious were its advantages, that when a cathedral was lately proposed for Liverpool, no less an authority on architecture than the late Canon Venables advocated its adoption.