I T A
49
I T A
still
thi
efect in the original construction ; and though large sums0 money were collected, and materials provided for ther 6paration, it remained in the same state till the preferment0 the celebrated Laud to the see of London . This prelate®xerted himself zealously and successfully in favour of thegleeted building, and a general subscription, supported inmunificent manner by king Charles I. was soon collected,the amount of £101,330 4s. 8d. Having thus providedI ? necessary means for an entire restoration of the church,r mg° Jones was appointed to superintend the undertaking.
le repairs were begun in 1633, and, in the course of nine•, ars > a magnificent portico was erected at the west end;c whole exterior of the body of the church was new casedtn stone, the roof and leaden covering were completed, and0 £. e Va ulting, which was much dilapidated, and stood in need, repair, was well centred, and supported with somecmlreds of tall masts.
v Uur ' ,| g the time of the commonwealth, the building becamev cee 'lhigly ruinous, and great part of the church was con-e 'ted into stables and barracks ; the choir, however, wasused for public worship.
*-nder the reign of Charles II . the regular government of-clmrch being re-established, the dean and chapter pro-ued immediately to remove the encroachments, and tobut° re ^' e 8ta ^ s an( l other appendages of cathedral worship ;r their revenues not affording the means for a general've I . arat ' on ’ an °ther subscription was opened, and the repairsRei 6 cornm enced > n 1663. Sir John Denham , the surveyor-^ ra l, had the superintendence of the works,the P ^ ren > afterwards Sir Christopher , (as appears fromitio- ', lrcnia ^a) was employed to make a survey of the build-tafn T. res »lt °f which is given in an elaborate report, con-r erri i,' In wor k- In this paper, the architect, afterc ]j arain g on the general bad construction of the body of thep ron c ’> a nd recommending a new and massy casing of stone,to,, | ? Unces a final condemnation upon the tower, which,defo . with adjacent parts, he represents as “sucha heap ofrig;j7 nu ’ es > that no judicious architect would think it cor-ing j. 6 an y expense that could be laid out upon new dress-ing ’ ^at ’ t wou 16 s tiH remain unworthy of the work,ti Qn 111 „ an< l tottering.” He therefore proposed a bold altera-of ^ ‘ the primitive form, by cutting off the inner corners0l ' h ? ross to reduce the middle part to a spacious cupola,orn a ^ 1IS P^ er ' ca l roof, and upon this cupola, for the outwardbut no 6 ” 1 ’ a ^ antern w ' l h a spiring top, to rise proportionally;pf 0fl to the unnecessary height of the former spire. This‘•s eni i does I10t a PP ear t0 have been much approved of byf„ r retJ 1 • erS ’ an< ^ t ie public opinion was expressed strongly
The great fire
’ , nfbrt* IUOn ’ in 1666, at length decided the question, and thise°H Su , e building again became a prey to the flames, whichenefi l i‘ e ro °f; and by precipitating the vaulting, weak-,, >ann e ^ I ' ac ^ e( i’ and ruined the walls and piers in such a8o me r ’ ^ lat; they were judged incapable of repair. Stillfnin e( ? f ars ni 1 irresolution elapsed before it was finally deter-Su c h° ere °t a new cathedral.
fithe r Was t * le fate of this venerable edifice ; and, like manythe nie ° nui . nen ts, it might have passed into oblivion, had notblol] ar lton ° us antiquary, Dugdale, with the assistance of8ic,e ‘- a ble P n eSerVed ’ in his History of St. Paul's, some con-Tl le 6 m ® rnor 'als of its form and decorations.re 8 a rded a !' CIent ca thedral of St. Paul’s must always beMiddle >S ° n ? t ^ le g rea t works of the architecture of theev-ery 0 u“ es : \ n magnitude of dimension it far surpassedS(i nted i ' e , r . re ^Si° u s edifice of this country ; and it is repre-a "d snlen i " stonans as equally pre-eminent in magnificence- Hour of ornament.
01 - U.
The general form of the plan was a simple cross, with avery long choir, and a transept rather short in proportion tothe extreme length of the building. The body of the churchwas in the Norman style of architecture ; huge clusteredpillars on each side divided the nave from the aisles, andsupported large semicircular arches : immediately above theseextended an open gallery, with arcades of the same form andwidth as those below, but of a much shorter proportion.From this level a different style of building prevailed, forthe windows above the gallery were pointed. The vaulting,which covered the nave, was also of the pointed form, of thesimplest groined construction, with soffits and diagonal ribsonly, similar to Salisbury cathedral and the transept ofWestminster abbey . Slender circular shafts, placed againstthe centre of each pier, rose from the pavement without anyinterruption of mouldings, and received the springing of thearches: the transept was in the style of the nave. Hence,we may conjecture that the original work of Maurice and DeBelmeis comprehended the body of the church as high as thegallery ; the vaulting being, undoubtedly, part of these works,which, in the preceding historical sketch, are mentioned ascompleted in 1221 ; and it thus became one of the earliestexamples of the use of pointed arches in this country.
Sir Christopher Wren was of opinion, that this Normanbuilding had been erected upon the remaining foundationsof the more ancient Saxon church, for these he found to becomposed of Kentish rubble-stone, cemented with mortar ofextreme hardness, and both much superior to the materialsused in the superstructure.
At the intersection of the nave with the transept, fourmassy pillars supported the tower ; and, from this part, abroad flight of steps led to the choir, which was enclosed bya magnificent screen, elaborately adorned with niches andstatues. The choir, which was a grand specimen of thearchitecture of Henry VIII. ’s time, was completely in thepointed style, with a vault of a more complicated structurethan that of the nave, each severy being composed of fiveribs. The Lady Chapel, at the §nd of the choir, was a con-tinuation of the building in the same form and style, andterminated, at the eastern extremity, by a rose window ofextraordinary size and magnificence. A spacious, lofty crypt,extending beneath the eastern part of the cathedral, wasappropriated to religious rites, under the designation of thechurch of St. Faith and the chapel of Jesus. Three rangesof massy piers, enveloped by slender cylindrical shafts,divided the area into four equal aisles, and supported a high-pitched vault of the simplest groined construction. Theexterior of the building presented a curious medley of thestyles of different ages. At the western front, Inigo Jones had erected a portico of the Corinthian order, thus display-ing a signal example of that bigotry in taste, which, onlyadmitting of one mode of beauty, is insensible to the superiorclaims of order and congruity. This portico was, however,singly considered, a grand and beautiful composition, andnot inferior to anything of the kind produced in moderntimes. Fourteen columns, each rising to the lofty height of46 feet, were so disposed, that eight, with two pilasters placedin front and three in each flank, formed a square peristyle,and supported an entablature and balustrade, crowned withstatues of the kings, the predecessors of Charles I. whoclaimed the honour of this fabric. Had the whole front beenaccommodated to Roman architecture, it might have deservedpraise as a detached composition ; but, though cased withrustic work, and decorated with regular cornices, the pedi-ment retained the original Gothic character in its equilateralproportions, and it was flanked by barbarous obelisks and ill-designed turrets. A representation of this curious elevation