1. After the Civil War bombardment of 1646, the cathedral was wrecked. The Parliamentary army had looted and defaced the interior. Only the frame with some roofing was left. Cromwell passed an Order for the cathedral to be demolished though it was never enacted. Consequently, not much of the original cathedral remains. See the post, ‘Civil War damage and restoration.’ Furthermore, it has been said, ‘documents are rare and tradition is vague.’[1] The external library, a brick building north of the nave, containing the records and muniments of the cathedral was destroyed.[2] Most likely the lost records included fabric accounts for when and how the current cathedral was constructed so any dating is problematic. The only existing records concern licenses to obtain timber and stone. See the posts, ‘Dating the cathedral’ and ‘Old Library.’
2. Building
the cathedral lasted around 110–140 years. At least 3 kings,[3] 12 bishops, several
master-masons, many skilled masons and numerous stone workers were involved and
each one would have had some influence on the way the cathedral was built. Ways
of construction therefore varied with time. See the posts, ‘South transept’ and
‘North transept’ for a great mixture of styles and multiple phases of
construction. There never was an initial grand plan, see the post, ‘Building a
cathedral’. As with all Gothic cathedrals the process was incremental or
piecemeal construction, with the building being strung out over a long period
in which there were fluctuating resources[4]. This did not inhibit
invention, for there were times when master masons seemed to enjoy subverting
the designs of their predecessors, sacrificing consistency for variety. Master
masons, presumably with support of their patrons, were prepared to take bold
and imaginative decisions and sometimes it led to dramatic failures. The
addition of a heavy roof on the nave and its subsequent replacement in 1788 was
one example. Why has the cathedral a crook in alignment of 2o? Why
the north presbytery aisle has a deviating wall and why at the west end is a
double-chevron decoration unlike anywhere else? Why are there two small
passages in the west front? Why are the two transepts different in width? Why
are the north and south nave aisles so different? There are more examples that could
be cited. See the posts, ‘Eight Myths’, ‘East-west alignment,’ and ‘Nave’.
Kink in the
north presbytery wall.
Odd double
chevron ornamentation in the north choir aisle archway
3. There
were three major occasions of great alteration to the cathedral. Post-Civil War
rebuilding included James Wyatt’s idiosyncratic restoration, see the post, ‘James
Wyatt's restoration, 1787-92’, and George Gilbert Scott’s Victorian Gothic revival,
see the post, ‘Victorian revival’. In between there were smaller re-orderings and
repairs of parts of the cathedral. So much re-building has occurred that essentially
the standing cathedral is now Victorian Revival Gothic, see the post, ‘Gothic
cathedral.’
.
4. Those who have boldly interpreted the
architectural styles have sometimes over-concluded using flimsy evidence. For
example, the discovery of a socketed stone near the grave of Chad does not
indicate a four-posted canopy over the grave. See the post, ‘Understanding
Chad’s grave site’. A foundation wall
across the inside of the west nave wall from column to column does not
constitute an early front to the cathedral. See the post, ‘King Richard II liked Lichfield.’ A shaft capital in the northeast corner of the
south transept showing an Early English abacus below a Perpendicular abacus
either suggests a change in style from wall to roof or perhaps a change of roof
from timber to stone or simply repair in a later time. See the post, ‘South
transept.’ Early moulding profiles and mason’s marks in the lower west front
are not convincing for an earlier Romanesque west front. See the post, ‘West
front including the ‘singing windows’’.
Double abacus in south transept
Interpreters
of the architectural style have placed emphasis on comparisons with other
cathedrals. Indeed, the second cathedral has erroneously been seen to be
Norman, because of the extensive cathedral building undertaken early in the
Norman era, see the post, ‘Why the second cathedral must be Early Medieval.’ The
second cathedral appears to be Early Medieval and has a resemblance to
Brixworth church. Other authors have drawn inspiration from the east ends of
Peterborough, Norwich, Gloucester and Jumiéges. The east end chapel has been
likened to Sainte-Chapelle in Paris, see the post, ‘Lady Chapel and Sainte-Chapelle’
The west front has a resemblance to Wells and Salisbury cathedrals, see the
posts, 'Lichfield, Wells and Salisbury cathedrals are post-Norman.' and ‘West front including the 'singing windows'. Willis linked the timing of
construction with that at York Minster.[5] There are many more
examples, all interesting but do not account for the independent thinking of
those who built the cathedral.
5. Knowing
the history of a building is not the same as knowing how the building was used.
The cathedral is a sacred site and worship, a top pilgrimage location, and the
foibles of bishops and deans and vagaries of church fashion have all influenced
its shape. Visitors ask questions like how old is it, who are those statues on
the front, where does the organist sit, but rarely ask why did Chad come to
Lichfield, what started pilgrimage how did the medievalists use the church? See
the series of posts on the Pre-Reformation church: Mass, Baptism, Penitence,
Burial and Death. Also, the posts on, ‘Pilgrimage defines the cathedral’ and
‘Washing feet.’ Bishop Wilfrid of Ripon was instrumental in building the first
cathedral and shrine tower and he is rarely mentioned. See the posts, ‘Wilfrid,
creator of the first cathedral.’
6. The
cathedral has yet to employ innovative technological advances which can open an
entirely new understanding of the cathedral. A carbon-dating of the heavily
mortared foundation to the second cathedral would have many implications. A
deep-penetrating radar scan of the transepts and nave would possibly reveal
more of the early churches as well as how the current cathedral was built. The
age of roof timbers is little known and dendrochronological analysis would show
much more. Archaeology on the south side of the cathedral should reveal much
more of the early settlement the bishops came to administer. Similarly, the
mounds in the garden of the cathedral school would with excavation reveal more
of the first bishop’s palace. See the post, ‘Bishop Langton’s Palace.’ A
database of the mason’s marks is incomplete and would show affinities with
other Mercian cathedrals. The Chad’s gospels are still waiting for a full
analysis like that given to the Lindisfarne Gospels, see the post, ‘St Chad’s
Gospels.’ The frescoes can now be carbon dated using their lead white
ingredient. See the post, ‘Two frescoes in the south aisle.’ A mineral
examination of some of the stonework will point to its origin and perhaps date
of quarrying. This would illuminate the reason for three storeys in the central
tower and could explain the difference between the two front towers. See the
post, ‘Crossing tower.’
It is troubling there is no eagerness to seek the truth in
the history of the building. Other cathedrals have projects to uncover their
history.
[1]
J. Hewitt, Handbook of Lichfield Cathedral, (Lichfield: 1882), 2.
[2]
W. Dugdale, A short view of the late troubles in England. (Oxford:
1681), 559. The Chapter Act books do not begin until the early 14th century and
contain little information concerning the fabric.
[3]
Henry III, Edward I through Bishop Langton is treasurer and Richard II.
[4]
R. Stalley, ‘Innovation in English Gothic Architecture: Risks, Impediments, and
Opportunities.’ In British Art Studies Issue 6, Invention and
Imagination in British Art and Architecture, 600–1500. Eds. J. Berenbeim
and S. Heslop. (London: 2017)
[5]
R. Willis, ‘On foundations of early buildings
recently discovered in Lichfield Cathedral’. The Archaeological Journal, (1861),
18, 1–24.