Bells Cathedrals: Chichester | Page 8

had all been
completed when in 1199 Bishop Seffrid II. and six other bishops again
consecrated the church. Doubtless only so much had been done as was
necessary to enable the priests to officiate at an altar provided for the
purpose and the congregation to assemble within the walls; for the
work of building continued with a somewhat persistent manifestation
of energy throughout the whole of the thirteenth century. Of this
activity and enterprise there are many evidences in proof, both
documentary and structural. The documentary evidence indicating the
activity which prevailed after this date is sufficient to show at least that
much was being done; but it does not often indicate in precise terms
what is that particular portion of the building to which it primarily
refers. Early in the thirteenth century (1207) the king gave Bishop
Simon de Welles (1204-1207) his written permission to bring marble
from Purbeck for the repair of his church at Chichester. He attached to
this act of favour certain conditions which were to prevent any disposal

of the material for other purposes.
John had also two years before given Bakechild Church to the
"newly-dedicated" cathedral. Then Bishop Neville, or Ralph II.
(1224-1244), at his death in 1244, "Dedit cxxx. marcas ad fabricam
Ecclesiae et capellam suam integram cum multis ornamentis." Walcott
adds that "his executors, besides releasing a debt of £60 due to him and
spent on the bell tower, gave £140 to the fabric of the Church, receiving
some benefit in return." This cannot be interpreted as referring to the
isolated tower standing apart to the north of the west front; for, as we
shall see, this was not erected until at least one hundred and fifty years
later. In 1232 "the dean and chapter gave of their substance. During
five years they devoted to the glory and beauty of the House of the
Lord a twentieth part of the income of every dignity and prebend"; [3]
and then, again, ten years after the period covered by this act of the
chapter the bishops of some other sees granted indulgences on behalf of
the fabric of the church at Chichester. Bishop Richard of Wych
(1245-1253) "Dedit ad opus Ecclesiae Circestrensis ecclesias de
Stoghton et Alceston, et jus patronatûs ecclesiae de Mundlesham, et
pensionem xl. s. in eadem." [4] To this he added a bequest of £40. He
had revived in 1249 a statute of his predecessor, Simon de Welles, and
extended "the capitular contribution to half the revenues of every
prebend, whilst one moiety of a prebend vacant by death went to the
fabric and the rest to the use of the canons." Other means were used to
provide funds to continue the work.
[3] Walcott, "Early Statutes," p. 15. [4] Walcott, p. 15.
But apart from these many indications of activity, the fabric as it stands
to-day speaks very clearly of the amount of building that went on
between 1200 and 1300. But it was not till 1288-1305 that Bishop
Gilbert de S. Leophardo had added the two new bays of the lady-chapel
eastward.
The fire was the direct cause of most of the work that was done. There
was another, however; for eleven years after the re-dedication, two of
the towers fell. It has been supposed by some that these must have been
the early towers of the west front, both of which still preserve

indications of having been begun during the twelfth century as part of
the original building scheme. It is probable, for reasons that will appear
later, that the two towers of the west front did not collapse at the time
of the second fire, although it would seem from the Chronicle of
Dunstable that their stability may have been impaired in some measure,
since the sole cause for this fall of towers is given in the words "impetu
venti ceciderunt duae turres Cicestriae." [5] But if these towers had
been affected, what of the original central tower? Its risk of receiving
serious damage would be far greater. That no more than the upper story
of one of these can have fallen is evident from the fact that the
south-western tower presents for examination to this day its original
base, and the nature of the upper part of this same tower shows that it
was rebuilt anew daring the first half of the thirteenth century. It was
necessary that the two towers at the west as well as the central tower
should be finished up to a certain level, for, placed as they were upon
the plan, they became essential parts of the structure, whose absence
would diminish the strength of the whole; hence any desire to maintain
the fabric satisfactorily would require that those of them which fell
should receive the immediate attention of the builders. In the