Bell's Cathedrals: St. David's

by Philip A. Robson

One thing caused us a little puzzle: we found the remains of windows in all four bays, though the westernmost of them would be blocked up by the eastern aisle of the transept. On close scrutiny, however, we found that the place of this aisle was at first only occupied by a single chapel,[104] with a space between it and the aisle of the choir, which had been at a later period built over, so as to form the aisle which stopped the window in question. This we have restored to its older form, at the same time repairing the adjoining stair turret of the transept, which was in a dangerous state.

I will now return to the space beneath the tower, which in this church is the choir proper, as containing the stalls; the eastern arm of the church being more correctly the presbytery.

The great engineering works already described necessitated the temporary removal of the stalls. They have subsequently been restored to their old position, and have undergone a most careful process of reparation. On close examination they were found to have been deprived of many of the more delicate of their decorative details. These have been or still are in process of being restored from fragments, more or less extensive, which have been discovered; the greatest care being taken to preserve the ancient work as nearly untouched as is possible. The whole is a very excellent and interesting specimen of ancient woodwork, and retains traces of coloured decoration, including some armorial bearings.

The same process of careful reparation has been applied to the Bishop’s throne, and the unique screen, which severs the choir proper from the presbytery, neither of which have been moved from their positions, but have been repaired as they stood. The similarity of the panels of the lower parts of the screen and the throne, show them to be practically one work. I suppose their date to be late in the fourteenth or early in the fifteenth century. Both are very curious and valuable ancient works. I am aware that the conservative manner in which they have been dealt with has provoked some criticism from those who undervalue these relics of ancient workmanship. For myself, I do not hesitate to express my high satisfaction at the manner in which they have been both preserved and restored; and I trust that the hand of spoliation and innovation will never be permitted to tamper with the works I have thus endeavoured to hand down in their integrity to future generations.

(For extract here see [pp. 30-32], ante.)

One thing I will mention which stands, I think, alone, as a deliberate deviation on my part from the old work.

Bishop Gower, in building the middle stage of the tower, had made it form a fine lantern storey to the choir. Late in the fifteenth or early in the sixteenth century, wooden groining had been introduced, which, strangely enough, cut Gower’s lantern windows in two, entirely hiding their traceried heads. I have done away with this desight, by lifting the wood groining a stage higher, so as to show Gower’s windows in their integrity, which forms the lantern into a very fine feature. I trust that, as regards the general principle of conservative restoration, this exception will be accepted as one of the class which proves the rule. The wood groining was decorated with colour, and has been repainted.

. . . .

Since the date of the last Report the works have been proceeding. The restoration of the roofs of the nave and south aisle with their ceilings has been accomplished. The clerestory of the nave has been fully restored externally and internally; some of its windows which had been walled up have been opened out, and the whole of them have been reglazed.

In carrying out this portion of the work it was found that the parapets had been corbelled in the same manner as those of the presbytery, although the corbels had been cut off flush with the face of the wall. Fortunately in a sheltered corner next the tower two or three of the corbels remained in a perfect state; these have been the guide in the restoration. The parapet was probably of less height originally, but the position of the sixteenth century roof would not allow of the height being kept lower than at present.