After crossing a bridge to the north-west of the cathedral we pursue a most picturesque alley, whence a good view of the tower and north side is obtained, and shortly, on the left-hand side, we come to the entrance to the Bishop’s Palace.[94]
In the times before Gower (1328-47), who built the whole of this once magnificent palace, there undoubtedly was some
THE BISHOP’S PALACE, 1779.
From an engraving after Paul Sandby, R.A.
sort of episcopal residence or guest-house, as Kings Henry II. and Edward I. were here entertained. However, not only is there no trace of a pre-existent building, but this of Gower is a superb ruin. It is said that we have to thank the scandalous Bishop Barlow (1536-49) for initiating the work of destruction, removing, as he did, the lead from the roofs to provide marriage portions for his daughters who married five bishops. He also attempted to remove the see to Carmarthen. “Barlow’s letter to Cromwell on this subject strongly urges the removal, partly on account of the inconvenient situation and partly because the hopes of Protestantism rested on getting rid of the religio loci.”[95]
“It is hardly necessary to say that many churches, even of inferior ecclesiastical rank, greatly surpass St. David’s Cathedral in extent and in positive beauty, though certainly there is none which could so well occupy its peculiar position; of the Palace, on the other hand, it is hardly too much to affirm that it is altogether unsurpassed by any existing English edifice of its own kind. One can hardly conceive any structure that more completely proclaims its peculiar purpose. It is essentially a palace and not a castle; we have not here the moat, the tower, the frowning gateway, or any feature proclaiming, if not an intention of hostility, at all events a state of things involving the necessity of defence. The prominent parts are the superb rose-window of the hall and the graceful spire of the chapel, importing an abode, not of warfare, but of hospitality and religion.”[96]
With all due deference to Messrs. Jones and Freeman, however, the great arcaded parapet, which is certainly the most noticeable feature of the building, gives at least a hint that Bishop Gower had an arrière pensée against defence. As the close was fortified, it was not necessary to make any elaborate preparations against attack; but it will be noted that, although there is no moat, the river Alan—then much larger than now—runs past one side, and that on the others there were very few windows, and those small; in fact, most of the remainder opens on to the great quadrangle, which was self-contained. Let us look at it again from another point of view. Eliminate the parapet, and what do we find? Truly, except for an excellent plan and mere bulk, nothing at all extraordinary from an architectural point of view.
A particular description must be given to the Parapet. It consists of a series of arches, with a hollow ornamented by Gower’s four-leaved flower, carried down on octagonal shafts, which rest on corbels of considerable variety about two feet down the wall. Above the arcade is a corbel-table carrying a projecting battlemented cornice. The battlements have extremely narrow embrasures and loopholes. The sills of the arcade are steeply slanted outwards, and the jambs show the old shape of the roof and finish with a neat weathered projection. Great richness is obtained above the arcade from the various coloured stones employed. They are set in squares, alternately purple and grey, in the voussoirs of the arches and the spandrils above them, and make a mellow and harmonious chequer-work which greatly adds to the character of the whole building.