Bell's Cathedrals: St. David's

by Philip A. Robson

“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 the outer 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 a perfect mine of the débris of 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 term restoration is 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 still in situ, while on working the mine of débris which 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 such special circumstances as 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 and interesting. 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 four groups of 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.”