Ten difficulties understanding the cathedral with linked posts

 

1.    After the Civil War bombardment,1646, the cathedral was wrecked. Only the frame with some roofing was left. Cromwell passed an Order for the cathedral to be demolished and, fortunately, it was not enacted, though much was taken away. Not much of the original cathedral now remains. See the post, ‘Civil War damage and restoration.’

2.    The external library, a brick building north of the nave, containing the records and muniments of the cathedral was destroyed.[1]  Most likely the lost records included fabric accounts for when and how the current cathedral was constructed. The only written record concerns licenses to obtain timber and stone. See the posts, ‘Dating the cathedral’ and ‘Old Library.’    

3.    Building the cathedral lasted around 110–140 years. At least 3 kings,[2] 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. See the posts, ‘South transept’ and ‘North transept’ for a great mixture of styles and multiple phases of construction. See the post, 'Building the cathedral'.

4.    There were three major occasions of great alteration to the cathedral. Post-Civil War rebuilding, James Wyatt’s idiosyncratic restoration (see the post, ‘James Wyatt's restoration, 1787-92’) and G. Gilbert Scott’s Victorian Gothic revival (see the post, Victorian Recovery’). In between there were smaller re-orderings and repairs of parts of the cathedral. So much re-building has occurred essentially the standing cathedral is now Victorian Gothic. See the post, ‘Gothic cathedral.’

5.    There never was an initial grand plan. The master mason and his patron built with ideas arising as they constructed the building. 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[3]. This did not necessarily inhibit invention, for there were times when master masons seemed to enjoy subverting the designs of their predecessors, sacrificing consistency for variety. Consequently, master masons, presumably with the support of their patrons, were prepared to take bold and imaginative decisions and sometimes this led to dramatic failures. The addition of a heavy roof on the nave and its subsequent replacement in 1788 must be a failure. Why has the cathedral a crook in alignment of 2^o? 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? More examples could be cited. See the posts, 'Eight Myths  with linked posts',  ‘East-west alignment,’ ‘Nave part 1’ and Nave part 2 arcades.’

Kink in the north presbytery wall. 

Odd double chevron ornamentation in the north choir aisle archway.

6.     Those who have boldly interpreted the architectural styles have sometimes over-concluded from 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, ‘Making sense of Chad's grave, St Peter's cathedral, St Mary's church and a shrine tower.’ 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 of Bordeaux and 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 of the cathedral’.

 

Double abacus in south transept

7.      Those who have boldly interpreted the architectural styles would have been very careful at ascribing dates. Robert Willis gave median dates to architectural periods and relied on describing sections of the cathedral as simply Early English or Decorated. See the post, ‘Dating the cathedral’ and ‘Why the second cathedral must be Anglo-Saxon.’ Later architectural historians were more daring and explicit and appeared to know dates for the beginning of constructions. This desire for precision has been a bane. Much of the early dating relies on the style of pier bases and a few more aspects of the architecture in the western three bays of the choir and this might not be as reliable as it appears. See the post, 'Early English Choir.' Dating is subjective, but appears definitive and can be distorting.

Style	Date	Kings
Early English	1189–1272	Richard I, John, Henry III
Decorated	1272–1377	Edward I, II and III
Perpendicular	1377–1547	Richard II to Henry VIII

Architectural periods from J. H. Parker, ABC of Gothic Architecture, (Oxford and London: 1881)

8.     Again, those who have interpreted the architectural style have placed emphasis on comparisons with other cathedrals. Indeed, the second cathedral has been seen to be Norman, because of the extensive cathedral building undertaken early in the Norman era. See the posts, ‘There is no historical evidence for a Norman second cathedral.’ and 'The incomparable apse of the second cathedral.' The author believes the second cathedral is Anglo-Saxon and has a resemblance to Brixworth church. See the post, ‘Comparison shows an Anglo-Saxon second cathedral.’ 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 post, ‘West front of the cathedral.’ There are many more examples, all interesting but ignore the independent thinking of those who built the cathedral. Resemblance does not mean homology.

9.    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, pilgrimage, 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 medieval resident use the church? See the series of posts on the Pre-Reformation church: Mass, Baptism, Penitence, Death and Burial. Also, the posts on, ‘Pilgrimage defines the cathedral’ and ‘Washing feet.’  Indeed, the author believes Bishop Wilfrid of Ripon was instrumental in building the first cathedral and shrine tower and he is rarely mentioned. See the posts, ‘Wilfrid founder of church of Mercia,’ and ‘Wilfrid, context and date of the Great Gold Cross.’

10. 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. 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 three storeys in the central tower and could explain the difference between the two front towers. See the post, ‘Crossing tower.’

---

[1] 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.

[2] Henry III, Edward I through Bishop Langton is treasurer and Richard II.

[3] 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)