James Wyatt’s legacy has predominantly been the reputation of ‘the Destroyer’ or ‘the Vandal’ gained for his work on some of England’s great cathedrals; are these titles a fair reflection for the work he undertook?
‘When the cathedrals of Hereford, Durham, Salisbury and Litchfield were altered agreeably to the taste of the late Mr James Wyatt, only a few professed antiquaries dared to remonstrate… but their interference was generally treated with ridicule or resented with indignation. Salisbury and Litchfield were thought to be much improved by the demolition of the altar screens, the throwing open of the smaller chantries and the removal of ancient tombs from the graves to which they belonged, in order to range them in rank and file. These barbarisms were praised and admired because the public mind was ignorant on the subject.’
(Edward James Wilson (preface to the Elder Pugin’s Examples of Gothic Architecture) 1831.
James Wyatts’ notoriety stems from his repairs and improvements to four important English cathedrals, namely, Litchfield, Hereford, Durham and Salisbury. This essay will focus upon his work at Hereford and Salisbury in seeking to evaluate whether his reputation was fairly earned or can be considered too harsh or perhaps simplistic in its apportionment of blame. Hereford has been selected as a case study due the circumstances of necessity which led to Wyatt being commissioned. Whereas, Salisbury has been selected for extent of the ‘improvements’ under his stewardship.
‘It must also be remembered that architects to cathedrals were never given carte-blanche (at least not in theory) to carry out a repair or alteration’ (Cobb p11)
‘They were employees of the dean and chapter, and credit for whatever improvement or vandalism was effected must be shared, in varying degrees, between architect and cathedral body; whether or not an architect was called in to advise, the ultimate responsibility remained with the dean and chapter’ (Cobb p11)
James Ralph in 1734 makes the following observation about Westminster Abbey, ‘the enclosure behind the alter, commonly known by the name of St Edwards’s Chapel has nothing remarkable in it but certain Gothique antiquities, which are made sacred by tradition only, and serve to excite a stupid admiration in the vulgar’ (Cobb p 11) – this helps us to understand the mood at the time.
‘The eighteenth century restorations of James Wyatt and his contemporaries posed a greater threat to medieval buildings than either neglect or fire.’ (Forsyth, p.2)
Only a few cared – eg Horace Walpole, Francise Grose, Richard Gough, John Carter and the Rev John Milner…. This needs to be expanded
Background section – childhood, family, how he progressed in to architecture, his great works… his love of the gothic style, friendship/ associations with warpole et al, work at Strawberry Hill (450 words)
The combination of the Reformation, English Civil War and general disregard for the medieval resulted in an accumulated level of disrepair to many of Englands’ Cathedrals. After the Restoration there was an effort by the Cromwellians to make good as far as possible the damage caused by the war but this work sometimes went further and included aesthetic changes. These efforts were largely led by the prelates
‘The veneration that we now feel for our medieval cathedrals was non existent in the 17th and 18th centuries among the intelligentsia, whose chief regard was for Roman and later Greek Architecture.’ (Cobb p11)
‘This utter indifference to the worth of our medieval heritage and its subsequent neglect led to a great deal of interesting remains… and it seems on the whole that more damage was wrought by the early ‘restorers’ on their zeal for ‘neatness’’. (Cobb p11)
Cobb (p9) says that ‘Extreme laxity of behaviour and control in our cathedrals was notorious’.
General work on the cathedrals, which ones, how did he get asked? – (350 words)
There were practical considerations in the screens that he erected at Hereford and Salisbury which were in response to the challenge of keeping warm in an unheated church. (Cobb p12)
– Initial work was at litchfield
Hereford:
Why – collapse of the west tower on Easter Monday 1786 causing extensive damage to the nave; Hereford is a sandstone cathedral and has suffered great weathering and damage.
The cathedral at Hereford is of Norman pedigree but little of what stands there today remains in its original Norman form. There have been additions and alterations in nearly every century since its construction all of which have interred with its original form.
What
‘The restoration of Hereford was forced on the dean and chapter by the fall of the western tower in 1786. Unfortunately, they chose Wyatt to repair the damage, who not only did not rebuild the tower, but shortened the nave by one bay and destroyed the whole of the Norman triforium and celestory up to the central tower (from which he removed the spire). In their place he substituted a new west front and ‘Gothick’ work of feeble design – so feeble, indeed that Cottingham was later employed to improve the interior, and to him we owe the colouring of the vaults and the quite good carvels corbels to the vaulting shafts and other details.’ (Cobb p12)
Interestingly, in contrast, Paul Johnson observes when discussing the collapse of the west tower, ‘The Dean and Chapter then took the decision to rebuild the west front completely, and to reconstruct all of the nave above the first storey, reducing it by one bay in the process’. He continues by saying that ‘this calamitous scheme was decided upon before James Wyatt was called in to carry it out. He therefore cannot be blamed for the demolition involved, more extensive than in any other medieval cathedral.’ (p40)
Wyatt changes were in fact only a prelude to further major works under Cottingham in the 1840s and Scott in the 1850s and 60s.
Who was involved – anything in ‘Hereford Cathedral; a history?’
Already, at Salisbury, Wyatt had been busy with irreparable deeds of vandalism, but at Hereford he surpassed his previous efforts in this direction. He altered the whole proportion of the building, shortening the nave by a bay of 15 feet, erected a new west front on a “neat Gothic pattern,” and availed himself of the chance of removing all the Norman work in the nave, above the nave arcade substituting a design of his own.
One of the strangest items in his scheme was a plaster hod moulding round each of the arches above the arcade. These eccentricities were removed not long since, but the roughened[pg 022] lines for adhesion of the plaster still remain. Inside the west front may also still be seen large spaces of wall painted to represent blocks of stone, but no more so in reality than the wall of any stucco residence.
It should not be forgotten, while condemning the meaningless insipidity of Wyatt’s work, that it was enthusiastically approved in his own day, and that the public generally were as much to blame as himself.
The old spire was taken down from the central tower, and in order to give it apparent height the roofs of both nave and choir were lowered in pitch, its parapet was raised, and some pinnacles were added.
At the same time the churchyard was levelled and new burying-grounds provided for the city elsewhere.
The west tower, the west front and the whole of the adjoining nave and aisles fell down on April 17th 1786 during repair work. (By a strange coincidence, this was Easter Sunday.) James Wyatt rebuilt the west front, along with one bay east of the old front. He also replastered the vault of the nave, remodelled thetriforium, and rebuilt the clerestory. The interior timber structure of the tower was also removed to make it lighter. – from Hereford through time
The Dean and chapter called in the architect James Wyatt to restore the building. As a Neo-Classical architect was fine – as for example the Oriel Library of 1788. Let loose on a medieval church he showed at Hereford, even more than he had at Durham and Salisbury, all the sensitivity of a1960s town planner faced with an historic town centre. Over the decade 1786-96 he shortened the nave by a bay, rebuilt the whole of that part of the cathedral above the nave arcade, and removed the timber spire, pinnacles and parapet from the central tower. Inside the cathedral a vast amount of damage was done, including the loss of many monumental brasses, although the figure of 2 tons weight is surely exaggerated.
Not until Lewis Cottingham’s 1841 restoration were the parapet and pinnacles, rather larger in the latter case than those there previous to Wyatt, but which work well, replaced on the central tower.
Wyatts’ insipid west front found little favour and in 1878 Sir George Gilbert Scott produced a design in the romanesque style, that perhaps mercifully, was not carried out. In 1902-8 his son J. Oldrid Scott rebuilt the west end as a memorial to Queen Victoria. This is a much more impressive design, though the nave still remains short of a bay.
‘there were many moments of crisis during the cathedral’s rebuilding from the first ‘lead watch’ on the night of the 17th – 18th April 1886, to the memorable chapter declaration of 26th June 1796 requesting resumption of ‘evening choir prayers’ following completion of ‘repairs of the church’.
The full story of the cathedrals restoration will be told elsewhere. It is sufficient here to mention some of the problem the chapter faced from a situation that had been far worse than it had been in 1660, and as bad as it could have been from any Cromwellian bombardment. First, there was the obstacle of an elderly Bishop (Beauclerk), nearing the end of a 40 year episcopade, who at best lacked sympathy for the cathedrals enormous task and at worse was downright obsteporous. Once he had finally died in November 1787, and Wyatt’s design for a shortened nave had been agreed upon by Bishop Butler, Beauclerk’s successor but one (his immediate successor, John Harvey, having lasted but a few weeks) there were the ever present dangers of repairing a crumbling building, as illustrated by the fatal accident of January 1790 when the collapse of scaffolding killed 3 workmen and injured others. This in itself caused damage to the great organ which had to be taken down. Above all, there were financial strains imposed by the most expensive building project that had been undertaken in several centuries.
The impression given by the financial accounts and other extant records is a familiar one; a chapter living from hand to mouth in response to ever spiralling costs. Wyatt had originally reckoned, in a vague estimate of June 1788 that these would be no more than £6500 plus ‘near a thousand pounds’ if a spire was built. This compares with the final cost (to the end of 1796) of over £16,650. Even the former amount could only have been met by ‘substantial aid’ from a public subscription. – all from Hereford Cathedral, a History p 140 – 141.
The above extract goes on to reflect the amount of fundraising with local people ‘great and good’ and London and Marches bankers. Also many appeals in the Herford journal to raise funds – over £5000 in 6 months. Dr John Napleton (new Bishop’s prebend and camon residentiary) was key in securing £4000 through a private act of parliament. They also took loans in the form of bonds and took donations wherever they could get them,
What remains – how much was removed by gilbert scott – within 100 years of the work
Contemporary comment (1200 words) – refer to the newspapers of the time and any other comment.
Wyatt was attacked by Pugin who wrote in a letter to William Osmond in October of 1833, ‘I rushed to the cathedral, but horror, dismay, the villain Wyatt had been there. the West Front was his. Need I say more, no, all that is vile, unmeaning and rascally is included in the term Wyatt and I could hardly summon sufficient fortitude to enter to Look at the interior’ (Belcher p. 18)
Pugin goes on to say in his letter to Osmond ‘all these things raise emotions in a true antiquarian not easily subdued’ (Belcher p. 18)
How is it perceived today? It is simple and brought balance to the frontage at the time but was considered too plain.
Salisbury:
Why/ When – his restoration took place between 1789 – 92
What:
Salisbury Cathedral is unique amongst the cathedrals of England in that it was built in one continuous phase in accordance with a singular plan. It also was built on a virgin site and therefore had none of the encumbrances that an existing ground plan can present. (Johnson p 82). Work started in 1220 and the main construction concluded in 1258.
The first cathedral at Salisbury was 2 miles away at Old Sarum; a site that had no water which led the Bishop to ask for papal permission to build a new cathedral in the valley below. It is due to this ‘green field’ build that Salisbury has such a well organised and uncluttered close that is so admired. Trollope was so impressed that he based his notion of cathedral living in Barchester Towers on the close at Salisbury (albeit his cathedral on Exeter).
‘The decision to remove the two perp chapels had been taken by Bishop Shute Barrington before Wyatt’ (Pevsner/ Metcalf p. 265) became involved in the project.
‘Wyatt also refurbished the interior, tidying it with depressing orderliness, and swept away a good deal of original glass’ (Pevsner/ Metcalf p. 265)
Who – is there any correspondence in the archive? Bishop Shute Barrington Funding was not from the fabric fund…
How
Contemporary comment (1200 words) contemporary guide – seems to say that the work was really excellent – this was produced by the verger of the cathedral/ also look at Miles Glendinning as the verger also went on the attack in the Gentleman Magazine (worth searching the archive for)
Objections raised at the time, so the fabric fund was not used – instead money was raised from local patrons who favoured the scheme.
Cobb notes that ‘At the time, Wyatt’s vandalisms were generally approved, even by the Society of Antiquaries, and Britton was only mildly critical’ (p112)
Only Horace Walpole, Richard Gough, Sir Henry Englefield, John Carter and the Rev John Milner were vocal in their disapproval. John Carter wrote a number of objections in the Gentleman Magazine in a series of letters.
What remains now? All ripped out by Scott but Scotts’ work then also removed so could it be argued that it is really about taste at a point in time? Not really as the contemporaneous criticism was so great the argument falls somewhat flat…
How is what he did perceived today? Is it admired in any way or only seen as an act of vandalism?
Objections raised by his peers at his gaining membership (450 words)
Refer to the work which was contemporaneous… (450 words) -Miles Glendinning has lots on this and other Europeans that could be used.
Wyatt’s screens at Hereford and Salisbury which were recognised to be attractive were replaced with 100 years by metal screens by Scott; these later additions have now also been removed.
His response – he learnt and prevented some later developments (450 words)
Use Austrian example provided by Miles Glendinning
Real issues for James Wyatt in his personal life but he went on with his perseverance with the gothic ideal – as time went on it became more austere which appealed to the guys below…
(600 words)
Influence of Wyatt’s gothic ideal on the Cambridge Camden Society and how this led to the back lash by Ruskin and William Morris…. (500 words)
Conclusion
Tragedy of how he started as a brilliant architect but went on to display a lack of attention to detail… he was focussed on the picturesque and that became his obsession (e.g. Fonthill) but lost his way with the restoration… he must be held responsible rather than using the get out of he was being paid – in later years he himself objected to the more radical proposals to cathedrals as it would destroy the built heritage but when he was younger was less inclined to listen (?)
‘At a Cathedral a Fabric Advisory Committee and the Cathedrals Fabric Commission for England will also require to be satisfied before any major alterations can be undertaken.’ (Insall p. 50)
David Lowenthall discusses emulation of the past in his work ‘The Past is a Foreign Country’. Here he acknowledges that ‘not only are emulations more numerous than surviving originals, but many a past survives only or mainly in refractions of it’. He goes on to remark that ‘present day notions of Gothic owe less to scanty medieval remains than to subsequent additions that reflect and rework Gothic style and spirit.’ (p. 309)
Nicholas Taylor observes when talking about Pugin, Ruskin and Morris in his work, ‘Village in the City’, that ‘Under the guise of ‘revival their authors were in fact being highly original and inventive’ (Lowenthall p. 309)
‘The style of the thirteenth century was commonly taken as a standard of perfection and the restorer effaced as far as possible the evidences of later work, while all the new masonry and fittings were studiously carried out in this same fashion. The result of this process in too many cases was a wholesale clearance of interiors which has left them painfully base and unfurnished. [] and Salisbury Cathedral in England (before the time of Gilbert Scott) was similarly denuded.’ (Baldwin Brown p.51)
Ruskin in his work ‘The Seven Lamps of Architecture’ expresses his appreciation of the value and virtue of ancient buildings. Salvador Munoz Vinas observes that ‘his love for the past was so passionate and exclusive that it was also accompanied by a certain disregard for the present. For him, nothing should disturb the original remnants from the past, especially if these remnants were Gothic buildings. For Ruskin, among these disturbing agents were the people trying to rebuild damaged buildings.’ (p. 3)
‘For Ruskin, the signs of history are one of the most valuable features of the object and without them, the object would be a different thing, thus losing an important element of its true nature.’ Vinas (p. 5)
Contrary to Ruskin, Viollet-le-Duc, the French Architect was of the view that the most perfect state of a conservation object is in its original state. He believed that wear and tear deformed the object.
The first charter that tried to address the extreme differences in opinion was the Athens Charter , published in 1931.
(600 words)
Total: 6600
1789 – 92
FA/1/12/7
Repairs wanted at the Cathedral Church old Sarum
The parapet wall on the Tower and also the pinnacles on the angels and ornaments over the doors, and the gutters round must be new, or at least three sides of the spire want some repairs and pointing.
The Mullions of the stone of the stone windows in the tower are exceeding bad and in danger of falling.
Some led gutters on the Church and in sun dry places on the Roof want Repairing.
Part of the roof over north porch repaired and the new lead caut.
The little North porch, the covering repaired.
The skilling to the North Side wants to be new.
The stone work in the cloysters is very bad and tumbling down but have been lately soported for a short time.
The led shuts that convey the water from the cloysters into the church yard want to be supported and some new cast.
Ironwork of the painted window wants painting very much.
Repairing of stone work on the tower at the eighth doors wide account for nearly the sum £100.
FA/1/12/8
Necessary work wants at the cathedral
FA/1/12/10
Survey of necessary repairs – 1794 on the orders of Rev Canon Colton
Extensive small booklet
FA/1/12/11
Letter from Bishop Shute Barrington to John Audley esq concerning donations to be given towards the work of improving Salisbury Cathedral (beautifying). Nov 21st 1788
The letter requests a donation.
Sir,
I trust I shall obtain your ready forgiveness if I repeat my application in favour of Salisbury Cathedral. Without the assistance of the Liberal and Affluent in the two counties of which Diocese composed, both equally interested in the support and improvement of the Common Cathedral of both. The most beautiful Gothic fabric not only in England but in Christondom must continue is a state unworthy of what every Wiltshire and Berkshire Gentleman must wish it to be.
I take the liberty to enclose a list of those persons who have already contributed on this prefosing occasion; and to acquaint you that the names of who shall hereafter subscribe will be printed.
I have the honour to be with much regards, your most obedient humble servant.
FA/3/1/4/3
Guide to the Cathedral Church of Salisbury, with Particular Account of the late Great Improvements made therein under the Direction of James Wyatt Esq. By William Dodsworth, Cathedral Verger
Printed by BC Collins 1972, Salisbury
Starts with…
From the late great Improvements made in Salisbury Cathedral (under the direction of the Honourable and Right Reverend Shute Barrington, late Lord Bishop of Sarum, and the Reverend the Dean and Chapter aided by the voluntary contributions of the Nobility, Gentry and Clergy of the Diocese; and executed by that celebrated Architect Mr Wyatt) it is humbly presumed that the following guide to the same will not be deemed unnecessary. The compiler has given a history and description of this ancient structure, with and account of its monuments, which he has selected from the best accounts published. The late Improvements he has progressively attended to, which he endeavoured to describe.’
P36 ‘It remained in this state until the year of 1789, when the present improvements commenced, in which Mr Wyatt has displayed his great taste and abilities in Gothic architecture’ ?!!! by the owner of the pamphlet! ‘The organ screen is chiefly composed of various ornaments selected from the chapels removed, where they were little noticed; their beauties are now brought to view, and by their judicious arrangement form an exquisite piece of workmanship.
The organ, (the safe of which was designed by Mr Wyatt, and is in the same stile with the screen) together composes a principal object at the west entrance.
The Bishop’s throne is supposed to be the first of its kind; forming altogether a perfect piece of Gothic architecture, which is imagined at a this time not to be equalled for richness and correctness of design.
The pulpit is placed opposite the throne, in which the same stile is preserved; the top of it having the appearance of a venerable piece of Gothic antiquity.
P39 ‘Nothing can convey a better idea of Mr Wyatt’s great judgement than the arrangement of the different ornaments he has selected from the chapels removed, of which the whole of this end I chiefly composed; and their application seems very suitable to their different situations.’
FA/3/1/3/4
‘A Dissertation on the Museum Style of Altering Catherdrals as exemplified in the Cathedral Church of Salisbury’ By the Reverend John Milner DD FSA 1811
‘Ever since the year 1789, when alterations in Salisbury Cathedral which are the subject of the following pages, a difference of opinion and, more or less, a controversy has subsisted concerning the taste and propriety of them. By some they have been thought to improve the beauty and uniformity of that sacred structure; whilst others have represented them as utterly destructive of its proportions, in proper disposition of parts, and its general effects; independent of the ravages amongst many of its most venerable and interesting Antiquities, which it was necessary to make, in order to carry these alterations into execution.’
Chapter Book – covering the period 1787 – 92 (extends much longer) has very little contained within it regarding the alterations. It has one reference to the removal of the clock and the knocking down of the Bell Tower but very little else is obvious.