Bells Cathedrals: Chichester | Page 2

by its character during each stage of its
development, and this development, this character, is to be discovered
as well in the plan and structure of the fabric, with its decorative details,
as in the record that documents and traditions have preserved. But we
need to remember that one see, one building, represents a link in one
long continuing chain, and in doing this we naturally look back as well
as forward to observe the relation of either to the past and to the present.
Such an attitude as this requires that we refer to that period when the
subject of this chapter was not yet part of the native soil of Sussex, and
in doing this we find that so early as the eighth century the town of
Chichester was even then a known centre of civil, though apparently
not ecclesiastical, activity; for it is not until about the middle of the
tenth century that some uncertain documentary evidence refers to
"Bishop Brethelm and the brethren dwelling at Chichester." [1] It may
be that Brethelm was a bishop in, though not of, Chichester, who dwelt
and worked among the south Saxons living in and about the city, for
the history of the diocese and see will show that probably there was no
episcopate established under that name until a little more than one
hundred years later.
[1] Walcott, "Early Statutes," p. 12.
Ceadwalla's foundation of the see at Selsea dated from about the end of
the seventh century; but we know nothing about any cathedral church at

that place during the following three hundred and fifty years. If,
however, there was a bishop in charge of the missionary priests,
deacons, and laymen who lived there together, there must necessarily
have been a "cathedra" in the church they used.
When Stigand came from Selsea to establish his see in Chichester he
found the city already furnished with a minster dedicated to S. Peter.
He had effected this transfer because the Council of London had
decided in 1075 that all the then village sees should be removed to
towns; and as there is no evidence of any attempt to provide a new
cathedral until about the year 1088, the existing minster must have been
appropriated for the see. It has been supposed that Stigand may have
devised some scheme for building a new church, and even that he saw
it carried out so far as to provide the foundations on which to execute
this idea. But there appears to be no authority which warrants the
assumption that he did even so much as this, for history says nothing
about such an early beginning of the new operations, tradition asserts
no more, and speculation suggests probabilities merely. We are obliged,
therefore, to be satisfied with the fact that the work begun about 1088
was consecrated by Bishop Ralph de Luffa, in 1108, and it is possible
even now to see the stone which commemorates that ceremony
embedded in the walling of the present church. Unfortunately no more
than about six years had passed since this, the first, dedication, when a
fire occurred which burnt part of the fabric. Ralph was still living, and
began at once to repair the damage that had been done; and the king
(Henry I.) gave him much help by encouraging his endeavour. What,
then, had been accomplished during the twenty years between 1088 and
1108?
In 1075 Stigand transferred the see. About thirteen years later the new
cathedral building appears to have been begun under Ralph, and in
another twenty years so much had been finished as would allow him to
see it dedicated. It is probable that before this ceremony was performed
a considerable portion of the eastern section of the work was finished;
for in accordance with a general custom with the mediæval church
builders, this part would have been that first begun. But how much of it
was ready for use? The sanctuary and presbytery, or choir, with its

necessary structural appendages, no doubt first appeared. It may be that
no more than this was ready when the dedication took place. But it is
not possible to say with any authority what actually was finished.
Nevertheless, the character of the building itself explains the course in
which the structure was developed. After the first fire, in 1114, the
work steadily continued, and it is possible that before that mishap
occurred, certain other parts had been begun, if not finished. The
remains of the original nave still present distinct evidence to show that
it was, with the aisles, built in two sections; and these, although they
appear at first to be alike, prove upon closer examination that the four
bays towards the west are of a later date than those other four eastward.
Now it is not