Bells Cathedrals: Chichester | Page 9

case of
the south-west tower we have already seen what was done, and
obviously it was one of the two towers that had fallen. But what of the
other of these? What suggestions remain to show which it was? It is
well known that a central tower had been erected as part of the original
plan, and also that a new upper part was being added to this same tower
about the middle of the thirteenth century. This new portion eventually
rose above the roofs to the level of the top of the square parapet, about
the base of the octagonal spire, the spire being a still later addition.
Now the heightening of this tower--perhaps with already the idea of a
future spire in view--would raise many questions. Experience would
already have taught the builders that the early central towers of many
other churches were incapable of carrying their own weight. This being
so, much less would it do to suppose that it could bear the addition of
new weight upon the old piers; for though to all appearance sound, the
cores were of rough rubble work, not solidly bedded and not properly
bonded with the ashlar casing. So the question arises, did they remove
the whole or part of the old central tower and piers, or were they saved
this trouble by the structure having shared the fate of many others like

itself, which fell, and so made way for new work? Another tower had
fallen besides the one to which attention has already been drawn; and
as there appears to be nothing to show that this other was the
north-west tower, we must see what evidence there is concerning the
central tower. That it was added to we already know. But documentary
as well as structural evidence comes to our aid. The first is supplied by
the records of Bishop Neville's episcopate; the next by the researches of
modern archaeology. Professor Willis has shown in his remarks upon
the structure of the piers at the time of the collapse of the mediæval
tower and spire in 1861, that these had not been rebuilt at a date later
than the twelfth century. But Mr. Sharpe [6], writing to Professor Willis
seven years before the occurrence, indicates his discovery--from a close
examination of the structure then existing--that before the upper part of
the central tower was rebuilt in the thirteenth century the earlier arches
at the crossing which were to support it had been taken down, and
probably a large part of the piers carrying them. And that, though the
twelfth-century voussoirs were re-used others of a fine grained stone
were inserted among them to strengthen the arches, or as a substitute
for some of the rougher sandstones that could not be used again. By
this means, then, the original form and detail of the twelfth-century
arches was preserved, so that the drawings representing the measured
studies of the building, which were Sir Gilbert Scott's principal
authority upon which to base his restoration of this portion of the tower,
were made from work which had already been once rebuilt. But why
was this part of the church rebuilt, and by whom? Two alternative
suggestions for the reason have been offered.
[5] Walcott, p. 15. [6] Author of "Architectural Parallels."
Evidently, if the upper part of the tower did not fall, it is apparently
certain that it was reconstructed, in order to carry the additional weight
of the larger tower. But in examining the documentary evidence offered
us, we find some further help. The teaching of archaeology shows that
the portion of this tower above the main supporting arches and up to
the bottom of the parapet was executed between 1225 and 1325--that is,
it was finished not very long after the new part of the south-west tower
was completed.

The cathedral statutes show that between the years 1244-1247 Bishop
Ralph Neville was much concerned about a "stone tower" which he
wished to see completed. They tell us, too, that the same bishop had
himself expended one hundred and thirty marks upon the fabric, [7] and
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. Ralph died in
1244, so it is concluded that the work in which he was so interested
was none other than the central or bell-tower of the cathedral, and that
the earlier tower, with its supporting arches, must have fallen, else it is
not likely that the work would have been rebuilt from below the spring
of these arches before the new superstructure could be added; for we
are obliged to take the customs of mediæval builders into consideration
in any attempt to sift the evidence concerning their work--and they
were before