bombed churches: from catastrophic destructions to specific choices of restoration; the impact on...

7/28/2019 Bombed churches: from catastrophic destructions to specific choices of restoration; the impact on their authenticity

1/83

Lucie Fusade

Bombed churches:

from catastrophic destructions to specific

choices of restoration;

the impact on their authenticity.

The cases of St. Martin Le Grand, York

and St. Lawrence Jewry, London

Master Dissertation

MA Heritage Management

International Centre for Cultural and Heritage Studies

Newcastle University

31/08/2012


2/83

Lucie Fusade

- 1 -

Dissertation Tutor: Susannah Eckersley

Final word length: 14,856

Acknowledgment

I would like to thank my supervisor Susannah Eckersley, for her wise advice and

recommendations since the beginning of this dissertation. My thanks also go to Andrew

Hingston for his recommendations to find primary sources as well as his interesting visit

on the restoration of the church. The staffs of the Borthwith Institute, the York City

archives and the London Metropolitan archives were helpful to find relevant documents.

Finally, I give thanks to my friends and family in Newcastle and in Paris for their

unfailing support.


3/83

Lucie Fusade

- 2 -

Abstract

The post-conflict restoration of historic buildings is challenging, especially in the case of

bombed churches. When fabric has been heavily damaged, the issue of the restoration is

the extent of the impact on the original fabric left and on the overall significance, and

thus on the authenticity of the building. The authenticity of the two churches this study

is looking at: St. Martin-Le-Grand and St. Lawrence Jewry, has been impacted at different

degrees, preserved or changed. Because the authenticity is a multifaceted notion, the

impact varies depending on the type of restoration, and the aspects touched. A

restoration can also add new degrees of authenticity. This study evaluates how and to

what extent the different degrees of authenticity have been preserved, changed or

renewed through the restoration of St. Martin-Le-Grand and St. Lawrence Jewry.

Keywords : restoration ; philosophy of conservation ; authenticity ; bombed chuches


4/83

Lucie Fusade

- 3 -

Table of Content

Chapter I:Introductory Chapter................................................................................................................7

1- Introduction .....................................................................................................................................................7

1.1 Context of the study...............................................................................................................................7

1.2 Research focus .........................................................................................................................................7

1.3. Background information on the churches ..................................................................................8

1.4. Research question .............................................................................................................................. 10

1.5 Aims & Objectives ................................................................................................................................ 11

2- Literature review................................................................................................................................... 13

2.1 Previous studies on the post-war restoration of bombed churches............................... 13

2.2 Definition of concepts ........................................................................................................................ 14

2.3 The multiple definition of authenticity...................................................................................... 16

3- Methodology ............................................................................................................................................. 18

3.1 Aims of the research ........................................................................................................................... 18

3.2 Research strategy................................................................................................................................ 18

3.3 Data collection process ..................................................................................................................... 19

3.4 Framework for data analysis ......................................................................................................... 20

3.5 Limitations and potential problems ............................................................................................ 20

Chapter II:The historic context of the restoration of bombed churches in England;

from a deliberate destruction to debates over restoration ......................................... 21

1- Impacts of the bombings of churches in England .......................................................... 21

1.1 The extent of war damage on churches in England and on the two case studies ... 21

1.2 Concerns for the future of bombed churches ........................................................................... 25

2- The aftermath of the bombings: concern for the future of churches in the

reconstruction planning context....................................................................................................... 26

2.1 The treatment of bombed churches in the context of the post-war reconstruction

planning.......................................................................................................................................................... 26

2.2 Creation of specific organisation, committees and commissions for the future of

the churches in London and York........................................................................................................ 28


5/83

Lucie Fusade

- 4 -

3- Conservation philosophy and debates over the future of the bombed

churches ............................................................................................................................................................ 29

3.1 Main conservation/restoration philosophy in the 1945s, during the decision

making process ............................................................................................................................................ 29

3.2. To restore or not to restore: debates and arguments over the conservation and the

future of bombed churches. .................................................................................................................... 30

Chapter III:St. Martin-Le-Grand and St. Lawrence Jewry: the indirect role of the

authenticity in the decision making process ......................................................................... 34

1- St. Lawrence Jewry: forgetting the tragic loss ........................................................................... 34

2- St. Martin-Le-Grand: from neglect to restoration.................................................................... 40

Chapter IV:St. Martin-Le-Grand and St. Lawrence Jewry: the extent of the impact

of the restorations on their fabric ................................................................................................ 45

1- The outcomes of the restoration on significant elements ........................................ 45

1.1 St. Lawrence Jewry.............................................................................................................................. 45

1.2 St. Martin-Le-Grand........................................................................................................................... 56

2- Impact of the restorations on the overall authenticity.................................................. 70

2.1 impact on the different degrees of authenticity..................................................................... 70

2.2 applying Riegls categorisation of values.................................................................................. 72

2.3 The new authenticities.................................................................................................................. 73

Chapter V:Overall conclusion: two creations through restorations ............................... 74

1- Conclusions on the impact of these restorations on the authenticity .............. 74

2- Limitations and recommendations......................................................................................... 75

List of References ................................................................................................................................................. 78


6/83

Lucie Fusade

- 5 -

List of figures and tables

Figure 1. St. Lawrence Jewry, Published in Nov. 5th 1798 by T. Malton (LMA, ........................8

Figure 2. The nave, 1924 (LMA) ......................................................................................................................8

Figure 3. The nave and the West windowabout 1890 ..........................................................................9Figure 4. St Martins Church, Coney Street..................................................................................................9

Figure 5. Faade around 1900 ....................................................................................................................... 10

Figure 6. Interior looking West, 1941 ........................................................................................................ 22

Figure 7. Interior of the church, photographed by Arthur Cross and Fred Tibbs ................. 22

Figure 8. The burned-out-church ................................................................................................................. 23

Figure 9. The nave, 1942 .................................................................................................................................. 24

Figure 10. North aisle after bombing, 1942 ............................................................................................ 24

Figure 11. St Martin-le-Grand after Bomb Damage, exterior view from the South-East

1942 ................................................................................................................................................... 25Figure 12. The organ, 1926 ............................................................................................................................ 35

Figure 13. The vestry, 1924 ............................................................................................................................ 35

Figure 14. The Altar with Riberas painting, 1890 ............................................................................... 36

Figure 15. George Paces drawing................................................................................................................ 43

Figure 16. The East exterior side, 2012 ..................................................................................................... 46

Figure 17. The nave, 2012 ............................................................................................................................... 46

Figure 18. The organ, 2012 ............................................................................................................................ 47

Figure 19. The transept and chapel, 2012 ............................................................................................... 48

Figure 20.Actual Plan of the Church, 2012 ............................................................................................. 48Figure 21. The altar and reredos, 2012 ..................................................................................................... 49

Figure 22. Interior looking East, 1941 ....................................................................................................... 53

Figure 23. The Garden, north part of the former nave, 2012........................................................... 56

Figure 24. black and pink marks of fire on a pillar, 2012 ................................................................. 57

Figure 25. . Medieval carved head ,new North wall, 2012 ................................................................ 57

Figure 26. the Great Window, opposite the entrance, 2012 ............................................................. 58

Figure 27. The new nave, on the left the former south arcade , 2012 ........................................... 59

Figure 28. The Garden and new North Wall, 2012 ............................................................................... 59

Figure 29. The restored faade, 2012......................................................................................................... 60

Figure 30. New south aisle window, 2012 .............................................................................................. 60

Figure 31.Actual map of the church) ......................................................................................................... 61

Figure 32 The repainted ceiling, 2012 ....................................................................................................... 62

Figure 33. Juxtaposition of concrete, 15th century arcade and 1960s ceiling , 2012............. 63

Table 1. summary of the impacts of the destruction and of the restoration on significant

elements of St. Lawrence Jewry

Table 2. summary of the impacts of the destruction and of the restoration on significant

elements of St. Martins churchModern photographs were taken by the author


7/83

Lucie Fusade

- 6 -

List of abbreviations

ACWDC: Archibishops church war damage commission

BC: Bishops Commission

BL: Bishop of London

BLCCC: Bishop of London Committee for the Care of Churches

DL: Diocese of London

DRC: Diocesan Reorganisation Committee

LCC: London County Council

LMA: London Metropolitan Archives

PCC: Parochial Church Council

SPAB: Society for the Protection of Ancient Building

YACCC: York Advisory Committee for the Care of Churches

YWDC: York Diocesan War Damage Committee

YCT: York Civic Trust


8/83

Lucie Fusade

- 7 -

CHAPTER I

Introductory Chapter

1- Introduction

1.1 Context of the study

Authenticity is a major contemporary issue when restoring a historic building,

especially in the context of post-conflict restoration of buildings that have beendestroyed or heavily damaged. Destruction has touched the original fabric of these

buildings and for this reason their authenticity is vulnerable, but it is also a step in their

history. By definition the concepts of authenticity, what is original, and reconstruction,

returning to a previous state, cannot really work together, especially when modern

material is added. Although there is no universal way to deal with the aftermath of the

destruction of architectural heritage of high historical significance and especially

churches, in every case, there is the desire to retain them.

1.2 Research focus

During World War II because many buildings had been damaged the approaches of

reconstruction were quite diverse and taken under duress, especially in the case of

churches. Larkham defines a church as a building type that bears considerable social

significance, visual importance and contribution to local and national identity

(Larkham, 2012, p.1). Therefore the authenticity of a church is retained in many aspect.For these reasons the restoration of these highly significant buildings was a challenge

that did not always take into account the impact on their authenticity. It is interesting to

focus on one specific period of reconstruction of one type of building and identify the

context of restoration.


9/83

Lucie Fusade

- 8 -

1.3. Background information on the churches

Therefore the research focuses on two churches with challenging restorations. St.

Lawrence Jewry in the City of London was destroyed by the Great Fire and rebuilt by Sir

Christopher Wren in 1680 (fig. 1). The whole interior was richly decorated with fruits

and foliage carvings and Corinthian columns (Norman, 1905, p.1), as illustrated in figure

2. Since the early twentieth century St. Lawrence Jewry is referred as the Church of the

Mayor and the City Corporation (Derrick, 1992, p.33).

Figure 1. St. Lawrence Jewry, Published in Nov. 5th 1798 by T. Malton (LMA)

Figure 2. The nave, 1924 (LMA)


10/83

Lucie Fusade

- 9 -

St. Martins-Le-Grand is described as one of the largest and most splendid churches in

York (Milner-White, 1943, p.4). The nave and a south aisle are dated from the

fourteenth century, and were rebuilt in perpendicular style in 1430-1450 (fig 3).

Figures 4 and 5 show the modifications on the exterior walls done in the nineteenthcentury.

Figure 3. The nave and the West windowabout 1890

(York Explore, Y1_STMAR_391_A)

Figure 4. St Martins Church, Coney Street

F.Bedford. Lithograph. 19th century(reproduced in Wilson, 1998, p.108)


11/83

Lucie Fusade

- 10 -

Figure 5. Faade around 1900

(York Explore, y_11139)

1.4. Research question

These architecturally and historically significant churches have been heavily damaged

by the bombing, thus their material integrity was changed forever and their authenticity

touched. For this reason, many discussions have been raised whether or not to restore

them, because of the issue that reconstruction is always another modification that will

again impact their material integrity. That is why it is interesting to define and evaluate,

in the case of two badly destroyed churches that have been partially or completely

restored whether and to what extent the authenticity has been preserved and how.

The research question is thus: to what extent did the restoration of these bombed

churches in England have an impact on their authenticity?


12/83

Lucie Fusade

- 11 -

1.5 Aims & Objectives:

Aim 1: gain an understanding of restoration/preservation principles and philosophy for

historic buildings, especially for churches in England

objective 1.1: understanding the philosophy and principles of restoration both for

churches in England and for intentionally destroyed buildings

objective 1.2: define the notions of significance, value and authenticity and

integrity

objective 1.3: understanding the level of bombed damages to churches during

world war two and find relevant case studies

Aim 2: Understand, identify and evaluate the choices of conservation for bombed

church after the war

objective 2.1: explore and synthesise the discussions and debates about the

conservation and especially the reconstruction of churches after

the war, and the issues they faced.

objective 2.2 examine the different stages of the decision-making process during

the war and the management approach, and identify the

institutions, committees and organisations involved for the two

case studies.

objective 2.3: define the approach of restoration chosen for the two case studies,

and examine why it was chosen. Define the different steps of the

restoration

Aim 3: Evaluate whether and how the historical, architectural and aestheticsignificances and the authenticity of each case study have been impacted through

the process of restoration

objective 3.2:define what was the historical, architectural and aesthetic

significances of the church before the bombing

objective 3.3: analyse and evaluate the outcomes of the bombing on the church,

its fabric, design and fittings. Analyse which parts were touched

and the level of damage


13/83

Lucie Fusade

- 12 -

objective 3.4: identify the outcomes of the restoration on the church, its fabric,

design and fittings. Analyse how the restoration was undertake and

what was exactly done to the original fabric and design.

Aim 4: Draw conclusions on the impact of these choices of restoration on the

authenticity of these two bombed churches

objective 4.1: Analyse whether and how the authenticity of the two case studies

have changed from the bombing and to the end of the restoration,

considering the modifications to the design, fabric and function.

objective 4.2: evaluate if the philosophical ideas about conservation and

restoration and the theoric approaches defines were practicallyapplied for these case studies

objective 4.3:: evaluate the pros, the cons and the outcomes of the two

approaches of restoration and discuss whether one was less

intrusive for the authenticity and could be recommended


14/83

Lucie Fusade

- 13 -

2- Literature review

2.1 Previous studies on the post-war restoration of bombed churches

Not much has been written on the conservation of churches bombed during the SecondWorld War. The first study, after the war, was by Casson in 1945. Bombed church as

memorials is an advocacy to leave the damaged churches as ruins and turn them into

memorials, public open spaces or preserved gardens. He proposed several schemes and

realised the significance of ruins left as they are, as a reminder of the past where every

stone, whether fallen or in place, is a fragment of the past, part of the pattern of history

(Casson, 2004, p.16). Although he mentioned that a church is not merely old stones and

fabric but has its own character and individuality, he suggested that the only interest ofa bombed church is to leave it as a ruin. Casson seemed, however, to be the first one to

raise the issue of the significance of destroyed churches, beyond the discussion over

preservation.

In the past years, two researchers wrote about the future of bombed churches in the

post-war context: Larkham and Derrick. Larkhams topic mainly focuses on the

treatment of bombed churches in the reconstruction plan context and identifies the

different arguments over their restorations (see Chapter II). He also examines the

perception of ruins by society, which are seen as symbols, especially when they are

produced through the action of war. However he explores only the impacts of

destruction over the development of both conservation principles and the development

of memorials, not the impact of restorations themselves on the churches. Derrick also

studied the debate but focused only on the City of London. Therefore, the literature

about the post-war reconstruction of churches that have been bombed mainly consists

of a description and analysis of the discussions about their future and what type of

approach of restoration should be followed. The articles mentioned failed to look at the

impacts of these choices of restoration on the fabric itself and on the significance and

authenticity of these churches as historic monuments. For this reason, this study

focused on whether and how their authenticity has been impacted through the

restoration, which is also a contemporary issue.


15/83

Lucie Fusade

- 14 -

2.2 Definition of concepts

2.2.1 Definition of restoration

From Viollet-le-Ducs definition of restoration as the idea of re-establishing a building to

a finished state that may have never existed to the contrary non-restoration advocated

by Morris and Ruskin to the actual international definitions of restoration, it is a notion

that involves many principles.

Nowadays, restoration, as stated by TheBurra Charter(1999, art. 1.7) means returning

the existing fabric of a place to a known earlier state by removing accretions or by

reassembling existing components without the introduction of new material, whereas

reconstruction means returning a place to a known earlier state and is distinguished

from restoration by the introduction of new material into the fabric (art. 1.8).

Thompson explains thatreconstructions must be construed as authentic expressions of

the prevailing discussions of the time (2008, p.4) suggesting that restoration is an

approved modification of a damaged fabric.

The notion of restoration involves the respect of the original fabric and the preservation

of the character of a building through the incorporation of original fragments,

particularly in the case of ruins, as stated in The Athens Charter(1931, art VI). The

Venice Charter for the conservation and restoration of monuments and sites (1964) states

that the aim of a restoration is: to preserve and reveal the aesthetic and historic value

of the monument, (art.9) and The Burra Charter(1999, art.18)explains that

restoration and reconstruction should reveal culturally significant aspects of the

fabric pointing out the relation of restoration to the historical significance of the place.

For Fejerdy (2011, p.211) the act of restorations is the fact that original fabrics are

restored.

The use of modern materials should either be concealed, as suggested by the Athens

Charter (1931, art. IV), or in the case of consolidation, be clearly distinguished from the

original stone (Venice Charter, 1964, art.11). Moreover, restoration must stop at the

point where conjecture begins (Venice Charter, 1964, art. 9).

In the case of catastrophic destruction, such as St. Martins church and St. Lawrence

Jewry, this last principle was not followed and according to these definitions, it wasmore a reconstruction than a restoration.


16/83

Lucie Fusade

- 15 -

Restoration of heavily destroyed buildings is always an important intervention. Besides

in a time of war, decisions are sometimes made under duress without regard to the

integrity of original materials (Thomson, 2008, p.2). The Declaration of Dresden on the

Reconstruction of Monuments Destroyed by Warfrom 1982 gives advice andrecommendations to deal with destroyed monuments, explaining that the choice of the

type of restoration depends of the significance of a site, the extent of the destruction,

and the function attached to it. For this reason the charter warns against complete

reconstruction of severely damaged monuments except if justified for special reasons

resulting from the destruction of a monument of great significance by war, suggesting

that the only justification to rebuild a building is its significance. The charter thus

recommends that the original fabric of the monument is to be preserved because it has

been through time, and because if authentic, it confirms the origins of the monument

and its historical evolution (art. 6). The notion of authenticity is raised to justify the

preservation of what is left of the original fragments. In 2003, the UNESCO Declaration

concerning the Intentional Destruction of Cultural Heritage explained that it is the

responsibility of each state to take measures towards preservation but did not give any

practical recommendations.


17/83

Lucie Fusade

- 16 -

2.3 The multiple definition of authenticity

Authenticity, in its basic definition, means, what is real or original as Fejerdy explained

in the Nara Conference. Making sure that the authenticity is kept means to ensure the

monument has preserved its old stones from the time of its creation or the evidences

from older restorations. Therefore, restorations can add to the significance of a

monument or decrease it by changing the original. Therefore, authenticity is the main

basis of restoration. It is the principle that limits restoration in order to preserve its

historical significance and nature as a document of history. Moreover, if authenticity is

what is original, it is linked to the notion of historical significance (Fejerdy, 1995,

p.212). However, it questions the relationship between old stones and authenticity:

does a monument have to be old to be authentic?

However, authenticity is a notion that cannot be strictly defined as it changes for every

single monument and from element to element within the same building (Fejerdy, 1995,

p.212). As the Nara Document on authenticity(1994, art. 11) explains it is thus not

possible to base judgements of values and authenticity within fixed criteria.

Authenticity cannot be measure so it needs to be compared and divided into different

degrees.

The Nara Document on authenticitypoints out the multiplicity of the notion of

authenticity (1994, art. 13):

Depending on the nature of the cultural heritage, its cultural context,

and its evolution through time, authenticity judgements may be linked to

the worth of a great variety of sources of information. Aspects of the

sources may include form and design, materials and substance, use and

function, traditions and techniques, location and setting, and spirit and

feeling, and other internal and external factors. The use of these sources

permits elaboration of the specific artistic, historic, social, and scientific

dimensions of the cultural heritage being examined.

It means that authenticity is embodied in the fabric, the design and the use of a building.

The ways it can be impacted depend on many factors.

Therefore, authenticity of a church is based on its fabric and its significant elements that

make this building a church: the nave, aisles, altar, tower, stained-glass, treasures and


18/83

Lucie Fusade

- 17 -

the specific superposition of arcades and windows. But each church has its own

authenticity and significant elements as well as specific architectural and historical

value.

Furthermore, for Fejerdy (1995 ,p.213) there are three different degrees of authenticity:the fabric, the design and the purpose of the building, explaining that the authenticity of

a building can remain in harmony with these three degrees.

Thomson, in the article Authenticity and the Post-Conflict Reconstruction of Historic

Sites (2008), defines the new history added by the bombing as revised authenticities.

He also proposed new categories of authenticity that can be applied for post-conflict

sites:

- Authenticity of Connection: when a building is faithfully and precisely recreatedas an expression of continuity with its pre-conflict social, environmental and

cultural conditions

- Authenticity of renewal: when a damaged site is wiped clean of its originalbuildings and is an entirely new structure

- Authenticity of experience: buildings or architectural assemblages thatexplicitly reflect damage incurred through conflict as a graphic reminder of the

traumatic episode (2008, p.2)

Authenticity is therefore based on different values, and values are based on authenticity

(Nara Charter, 1994, art.10). Regarding to values, A. Riegl, in The Modern Cult of

Monuments (1908) defines different values of a monument: historical, artistic, age,

commemorative, use, and newness value. Riegl demonstrates that some of these values

conflict and can change.


19/83

Lucie Fusade

- 18 -

3- Methodology

3.1 Aims of the research

This research studies whether and how the choices of restoration of bombed churcheshad an impact on their authenticity and if so which type of impact. A number of aims

had thus to be achieve (see above, Chapter I). Because the issue of authenticity in

restoration of bombed churches has not yet been subject to previous study, it was

necessary that new information and own documentation be collected and then

analysed.

3.2 Research strategy

This study objective was to evaluate the impact of restoration choices on the

authenticity of a church. For the purpose of this particular study it seemed appropriate

to choose the research strategy of case studies. As define by Biggam (2001, p.6) the

case study researcher typically observes the characteristics of an individual unit [].

The purpose of such observation is to probe deeply and to analyse intensively.

Therefore, a case study allowed the research to be practical and realistic, (Yin, 2008,

p.4) to focus on a period: here the post-war restoration, a type of building: churches and

a specific situation: a deliberate destruction. Therefore, case studies enable an in-depth

evaluation of a restoration of churches, comparison, evaluation of differences, and the

possibility to make a judgement on the pros and the cons of a post-war restoration.

The other steps was to research the outcomes of the bombings in England in order to

identify and list the churches that have been bombed. This type of research strategy is

called historical research because it focuses primarily on events that occurred in the

distant past (Biggam, 2011, p.30.). Considering this historical research, it was decided

to use a multiple-case design (Yin, 2009, p.53) that will cover the three approaches of

restoration chosen after the war for bombed churches and enables comparison.

Besides, in order to meet aims 3 and 4 (see above in Chapter I) and because the

authenticity of a church is mainly based on its fabric and design , the case studies had to

be churches of historical and architectural importance, badly damaged by bombings and

above all, with an interesting approach of restoration which had an impact on the

original fabric of the church. As a result, the churches that were completely destroyed


20/83

Lucie Fusade

- 19 -

and demolished were not considered, as well as modern churches built on the site, as

the famous case of Coventry. The church of St. Martin-Le-Grand, a 15th century church, is

said to be a successful example of post-war restoration of churches in England. Because

this case study was representative of two approaches of post-war restoration: left as agarden and modern restoration, (see below, Chapter III) two case studies were enough

to cover the three approaches of restoration. The second case study was chosen within

the City Churches because of the heavy destruction and the long debate over their

future. Saint Lawrence Jewry, a Wrens church, is a good example of the third approach

of restoration: rebuilt as it was before the bombing. Therefore the case studies chosen

are both in historic cities, with similar circumstances of catastrophic destruction but are

different from one and other in their centuries of creation and in their context of post-

war reconstruction decision-making process, which enables an interesting analysis.

Historical research was also used in order to collect qualitative information on the post-

war context of the restoration of bombed churches, on philosophy of restoration and

authenticity and on the restoration of these churches themselves. Biggam (2009, p.33)

explains that for this type of research the researcher requires skills in observation and

interpretation. Through observations, cross referencing and interpretation of

documents, the data were evaluated and analysed. Thereby, it was possible to draw

generalised conclusions from the two case studies that could be applied to other cases

of restoration of deliberately destroyed churches

3.3 Data collection process

The data for the two case studies were collected through the same process in order to

obtain the same type and amount of information. The first step was to gain a broad

knowledge about the restoration of bombed churches their through articles or

conference papers found on data based and bibliographies. The second step was to

contact the vicars of the churches in order to find out more about the restoration and to

plan a visit. The purpose of these direct observations, or field visits (Yin, 2009, p.56)

was to understand exactly what was restored to make a personal judgement.

Photographs were taken in order to have personal research materials to use as evidence

for the analysis. The third step was to consult contemporary documents, primary

sources, from the archives as diocesan files, agendas, committee minutes, letters,

reports, administrative documents, internal records, historic photographs, leaflet of


21/83

Lucie Fusade

- 20 -

services, and journal articles of the time to serve as the base of the study research.

Thereby, multiple sources of evidence were collected.

3.4 Framework for data analysis

The analysis was based on a combination of the literature review on the concepts of

restoration and authenticity as well as on the empirical findings on case studies through

archived materials and observations. Then the impacts of the restoration on the original

fabric and authenticity of the churches was analysed through different model of

evaluation, from specific element to the overall building, based on different theories of

authenticity in restoration and comparisons.

3.4 Limitations and potential problems

Some of the primary sources, such as diocesan archives documents and old

photographs, were not accessible, or did not exist anymore. The study had to deal with

what was available trying to remain objective.


22/83

Lucie Fusade

- 21 -

CHAPTER II

The historic context of the restoration

of bombed churches in England; from a

deliberate destruction to debates over

restoration

1-Impacts of the bombings of churches in England1.1 The extent of war damage on churches in England and on the two case studies

Although the damage in the UK was relatively light compared to France or Germany,

Englands historic cities and buildings were badly touched. Nearly 14,000 churches

were harmed, according to the War Damage Commission in 1944 (Larkham, 2004, pp.6,

46).

The main air raid, known as The Blitz, occurred between September 7th 1940 and May

16th 1941 on sixteen British cities and especially on London. St. Lawrence Jewry was

one of the thirty six churches harmed. During the night of December 29th 1940,

incendiary bombs started a fire which completely destroyed its rich interior. Figure 6

shows the extent of the damage in the nave where the roof and all the decoration were

reduced to ashes. The columns supporting the clerestory wall were also badly damaged

and in danger of collapsing (Brown, 1954, p.2); the arcades of the nave were badly

fractured (fig. 7). Besides, the two vestibules, the vestry, the chapel and the organ were

destroyed which was considered as a tragic loss (Derrick, 1992, p.10). The heat

generated destroyed the wood and the bells in metal. A week after the bombing, Clarke

(BBC News, 1941) reported that St. Lawrence Jewry was knee-deep in smoking,

smouldering ash and wreckage.


23/83

Lucie Fusade

- 22 -

Figure 6. Interior looking West, 1941(LMA, SC/PHL/02/1158-1165-535)

Figure 7. .Interior of the church, photographed by A.Cross and F.Tibbs

(LMA, SC/GL/CTI/003/A/341/04)


24/83

Lucie Fusade

- 23 -

However, as figure 8 illustrates, the exterior walls with their ornaments as well as the

tower were slightly damaged and said to be quite stable (Parochial Church Council,

1941).

Figure 8. The burned-out-church

(LMA, SC/PHL/02/1158-1165-535)

Therefore, the church was classified by the War Damage Commission in 1946 as having

major structural damage: protected but unusual (except tower) (Bishop of London,

1946).

The other air raids, called the Baedeker raids, deliberately targeted key historic cities,

like York (Larkham, 2004, p.3). In April 1942, St. Martin-Le-Grand was hit by incendiary

bombs which fell inthe belfry and quickly gutted the building. In a few hours it was

only unutterable chaos and desolation (Lamb, 1958, p.1) and only four walls. The roof,

pillars of the nave, High Altar, pews, rich carpets, windows and some old glasses were

reduced to ashes as it is clearly visible in the photographs taken right after the bombing

(fig. 9 and 10).


25/83

Lucie Fusade

- 24 -

Figure 9. . The nave, 1942(York Explore, Y_12174)

Figure 10. North aisle after bombing, 1942(York Explore, Y_12175)


26/83

Lucie Fusade

- 25 -

The broken bells had fallen on the ground. The faade was badly damaged as well as the

outside clock, where the naval figure of the Admiral was badly burned (Laishley, 1968,

p.1). Thus, only the Lady Chapel with its altar, in the south aisle, the exterior walls and

the tower remained untouched (Lamb, 1958, p.1) as Halls drawing shows it(fig. 11).The north aisle, on the right of the drawing, was more harmed. As summarised by the

Schedule of War Damage and Building Priorities (YDWDC) in 1942 the church was

ruined and closed. As a result, in 1945, St. Martin-Le-Grand was classified as seriously

damaged by enemy action.

Figure 11. St Martin-le-Grand after Bomb Damage, exterior view from the South-East1942

Patrick Hall, York City Art Gallery R1800 (reproduced in Wilson, 1998, p.114)

1.2 Concerns for the future of bombed churches

Thereby, many historic churches with their fabric and valuable fittings were badly

damaged. Because of the extent of the loss, concerns were raised about the protection of

the survival historic fabrics and items of these burned-out churches. For instance, the

Society of the Protection of Ancient Building (SPAB) President stated, in 1941, for

preservation of specific churches or features (Larkham, 2004, p.9).

In London, this concern was justified as from January 1941 to September 1942 some of

the finest woodwork were removed during cleaning process (Allen, 1945, p.7). As a


27/83

Lucie Fusade

- 26 -

result, steps were taken, mainly by the London County Council and the Diocese of

London, to ensure historic important fragments were not lost (Derrick, 1992, p.28) and

to protect the churches from any further deterioration. For instance, the churches were

made weatherproof, with repairs and filling of the opening windows (BLCCC, 1941) andtheir debris were leave untouched (Richardson, 1945, p.11). This suggests that, in

London, right after the destruction, reconstruction or at least preservation, was already

an idea. The architect Godfrey Allen (1945, p.9) said that, across the UK, everything

humanly possible has been done to safeguard the churches and maintain them in a

sound and where possible usable condition until the time comes when they can be dealt

with fully. Furthermore, in 1942, the Ministry of Works and Planning, concerned about

the issue of bombed churches, produced a Memorandumon the preservation and

maintenance of ancient churches suggesting that as many of the churches as possible

should be rebuilt, without necessarily copying destroyed internal fittings or

enrichments (cited in Larkham, 2010, p.13). The extent of the destruction of these

churches made institutions and commissions realised their value. As a result, principles

to guide their preservation and restoration were pronounced which led to a broad

debate over the future of these churches (see below).

2-The aftermath of the bombings: concern for the future ofchurches in the reconstruction planning context

2.1 The treatment of bombed churches in the context of the post-war reconstruction

planning

The reconstruction planning within the UK started soon after the major air raids and

hundreds of plans were produced from 1945 to 1949 (Larkham, 2003, p.296). Because

their aim was mainly to reorganise urban areas into more functional places there was a

risk for historic settings to be ignored and demolished. Therefore, in historic cities, the

issue was mainly, as Pendlebury explains to reconcile functional modernity with the

historic qualities of place (2003, p.388). The reconstruction plans thus took into

account the significant architecture of historic cities which suggested recognition of the

need to conserve them. Besides, because of the extent of bombed damage,

architecturally important buildings were recorded (Karvey, cited in Larkham, 1993, p.

299) but there were no special treatment for churches.


28/83

Lucie Fusade

- 27 -

Larkham, in his paper titled The place of urban conservation in the UK reconstruction

plans of 19421952, identifies thatthe notions of conservation and preservation

started to rise in these plans (Larkham, 2003, p.306). The reconstruction plan for York,

titled York: a Plan for Progress and Preservation, made in 1848 by Adshead, (cited inLarkham, 2003, p.301), is a good example of this concern. The plan recommended that

the historic legacy of York should be preserved, especially the narrow streets and the

historic medieval heart of the city (Pendlebury, 2003, p.385). This is perhaps one of the

reasons St. Martin-Le-Grand, located on the medieval Coney Street, was finally

preserved. However, the planning focused more on conservation areas than on specific

buildings. Although these plans identify significant areas of historic significance, they

did not proposed their retention (Pendlebury, 2003, p.389).This could perhaps explain

why St. Martin-le-Grand was neglect for ten years (see Chapter III).

Linked to the fact that these reconstruction plans were focusing more on areas than on

specific buildings the notion of character is used in order to justify the conservation of

an area and to evoke the fact that the authenticity of a building is maintained within its

surrounding urban context (Larkham, 2003, p.311). Therefore, as Pendlebury (2003,

p.390) explains, the historic character war regarded as the experience of historic

buildings and places in the present. Hence, the plan for York suggested to retain and

enhance, as far as possible [...] the old streets and buildings which give to our ancient

city its special charm, character and attractiveness (Adshead, 1948, cited in Larkham,

2003, p.312). This could explain why St. Martins church in York has been retained. The

reconstruction planning for London, in 1944, suggested that the rebuilding of each City

church should be comprised in the general reconstruction of the City and its churches.

Although the management of the conservation of these historic buildings was not clear

these reconstructions plans lead to the emergence of the preservation of historic

buildings (Larkham, 2003, p.295). This overall concern for historic settings and the

notion of character was the cornerstone of the national designation for protection of

historic areas in 1944 and 1967 (Pendlebury, 2003, p.391). It is in this context that

decisions were made concerning the future of churches.


29/83

Lucie Fusade

- 28 -

2.2 Creation of specific organisation, committees and commissions for the future of the

churches in London and York

Across England, the future of the bombed churches was led by organisations,

committees and commissions dedicated to the care of churches and the concern about

their preservation. Nationally, the War Damage Commission was set up under the War

Damage Act of 1943, to decide upon claims for compensation. According to the War

Damage Act, compensations were assessed on the smaller of the reasonable cost of the

plain repair not the decoration (ACWDC, 1941, p.2).War damaged churches had to

apply to it to obtain compensations. But the main decisions in terms of conservation and

restoration were made at a diocese and a city level.

In the City of London, the London County Council and the Diocese of London, were

ready and well prepared to deal with war damages, potential destructions and

measures of safety for the care of churches. Through correspondences sent to the City

Churches, the Diocese of London gave recommendations to the City churches to follow

in case of damages: a) care of the ruins: control of demolition, clearing of site, interim

repairs; b) salvage of valuable monuments and materials; c) preparation of claim for

compensation to be submitted to the government (DL, 1941).

Besides, to deal with the destroyed City Churches as a whole and the issue of their

restoration in relation with the reconstruction planning context, the Diocese created the

Commission on City Churches to consider policies and advice regarding the problems of

rebuilding destroyed churches (G.London, 1941; Larkham, 2003, p.292). The

Reorganisation Committee was then introduced by the Bishop to carefully consider the

advice offered by the Commission and to accept its recommendations (Larkham,

2004:26).

Even though the Diocese of London was aware of the historic and architectural

significance of the City Churches, The SPAB, was concerned that some work of historic

significance would be lost through the demolition process and urged the Bishop of

London to take more actions. The Bishop of Londons Committee for London Churches

was created as an interim body dealing with practical matters such as the storage of

treasure and the protection of ruins (Larkham, 2003, p.292). It also gave advice on fire

prevention and measures to preserve damaged and undamaged churches as well as


30/83

Lucie Fusade

- 29 -

their fitments, furniture and memorials (Allen, 1945, p.1). It consisted of the archdeacon

of London, the Rural Dean of the City Deaneries, and the secretary of the Diocese of

London and was in contact with the reverend of each damaged City Church. The Bishop

of Londons War Damage Committee, was created to authorise repairs and make grantsat the City of Londons level, (Derrick, 1992, p.28). Its main aims, was to see a church

made fit for people to use for divine worship, not restored as museum pieces

(Richardson, 1945, p.12).

In York, the Diocese was also the main body to care for the future of churches with the

York Diocesan Advisory Committee, which became the Diocesan Advisory Committee

for the Care of Churches in 1947. In March 1941, the York Diocesan War Damage

Committee was created to consider all problems of replanning necessitated by War

Damage within the Diocese (YDWDC, 1942). It eventually became the York Diocesan

Reorganisation Committee.

These committees and commissions, at a national or diocesan level, in London or in

York were the right response at this concern about churches preservation and had a

major voice in the decision making process concerning the future of these churches.

3- Conservation philosophy and debates over the future of the

bombed churches

3.1 Main conservation/restoration philosophy in the 1945s, during the decision making

process

After the war, the principles of conservation of historic building were led by William

Morrisprinciples: to preserve everything and copy noting and the Society for the

Protection of Ancient Buildings which promote repairs and not restoration, (cited in

Derrick, 1992, p.28) were still the main actors. As a result, many recommendations of

restoration, reconstruction or replacement, were heavily influenced by William Morris

and the SPAB particularly during the 1940s (Larkham, 2004, p.7). Moreover, as seen in

the section about the reconstruction plans, the increasing development of the concept of

character of a historic city, helped in the development of new ideas of conservation

and preservation.


31/83

Lucie Fusade

- 30 -

3.2. To restore or not to restore: debates and arguments over the conservation and the

future of bombed churches.

The arguments raised over the future of bombed churches, because there did not always

follow Morris principles of conservation, led to a major debate.

To what extent should we be ready to renew according to the original

design a destroyed portico which formed the principal feature of a

faade, or to re-erect the fallen tower of a church? If renewals are to be

made, what variation should be introduced? If the original drawings

exist, should they be exactly followed? (SPAB, 1942, cited in Derrick,

1992, p.30)

This SPAB Policy Statement clearly summarises the main questions raised at the time in

order to consider the future of a bombed church, its demolition, its preservation or its

restoration. The condition of the ruined church was the main argument to decide

whether or not to rebuild, or to leave the church as a ruin. In 1940 the article Rebuild

or Restore by the architect Goodhart-Rendel pointed out that the choice to rebuild or

the choice to demolish had to be justified (cited in Derrick, 1992 ,p.30).

Therefore, according to the architect Ralph Tubbs, there were four possible courses of

action for a bombed church: restoration in its original form [], repair by replacing

damaged portions with candidly contemporary work []; demolition []; retention of

picturesque remains (1942 cited in Larkham, 2010, p.12). In other word, Casson also

defined three solutions rebuildthem as they were, [] pull them down and re-used the

sites for other purposes, [or] leave them as they are (Casson, 1945, p.5), but did not

envisage the partial restoration or repairs.

Many arguments were raised against the complete restoration of a badly damagedchurch, although Casson said that technically it would be easy enough to rebuild nearly

all of them as they were (Casson, 1945, p.3). However the debate was beyond technical

consideration and what was discussed was the reason for restoring the churches and

how. Many architects argued against complete reproduction, such as Goodhart-Rendel

and John Summerson who pointed out that it would not make sense to rebuild a

building wholly demolished because the changes undertook by the church through

centuries would not be visible anymore (cited by Derrick, 1992, p.30, 32). Assummarised by Casson reconstruction, evidently, is a solution for the slightly damaged


32/83

Lucie Fusade

- 31 -

building, for the few churches which hold places of honour in our countrys history, or in

those cases where it is still possible to recapture the original spirit of the structure

(1945, p.13). He suggested that the authenticity of a church had to be kept in order to

justify the restoration.

Therefore, the debate was mainly about how to restore what was left of a church.

In 1941, the President of the Society of Antiquaries, suggested three principles of

restoration, clearly derived from SPAB guidance:

Where only the bare shell remains, reinstatement would be largely

without historical value or artistic justification [...];

Where demolition has been extensive, rebuilding would hardly be

justified [...];

Fittings and plasterwork, where destroyed, would be costly to

replace and, if so, would be only near reproductions (cited in

Larkham, 2003, p.8).

This last principle is all about the fact that, according to Summerson, it would be

impossible to exactly recreate the work of the craftsmen at the time (cited in Derrick,

1992, p.32), or it would only be a pale copy and not authentic. The original fabric would

thus never be restored, as it would be made of new stones. This led to one of the

approach chosen for the restoration of these churches, which consisted of reproducing,

the exterior walls, because of their high quality as works of art and restoring the

interior with variations in details but not of general forms so that they will not be

mistaken for restoration or for original work (SPAB, 1941 cited in Derrick, 1992, p.28).

The SPAB was surprisingly supportive of this approach of restoration; saying that the

only buildings worth replicating were those of high value and that the City Churches

were far easier to reproduce (SPAB, 1941, cited in Derrick, 1992, p.28). This approach

emphasised the fact that some significant elements of churches had to be kept and even

restored. As clearly expressed by the Memorandum on the Preservation and Maintenance

of Ancient Churches, by the Ministry of Works and Planning in 1942, all the towers or

steeples [...] should be retained and restored (cited in Larkham, 2010, p.13). It was the

solution chosen at St. Lawrence Jewry, because in Summersons opinion, (1941, cited in

Larkham, 2004, p.12) it was not sensible to rebuilt Wren naves as the carving was

irreplaceable.


33/83

Lucie Fusade

- 32 -

When restoration, or partial restoration was not considered, because of the extent of the

damage, the Ministry of Works and Planning suggested that where towers and steeples

are preserved, the rest of the site should be kept as open space and the remains of the

church laid out as an AncientMonument (1942, cited in Larkham, 2010, p.13). Thisidea was mainly supported by Casson, in Bombed Churches as War Memorials (1945)

who explained that, left as a ruin, the emotion, the drama, and the individuality of the

church would be preserved (1945, p.15). Therefore, he suggested three different

approaches to keep churches as ruins: as sanctuaries with open air service; as open

spaces for quiet, relaxation and retreat; or as war memorials to make men

remember (Casson, 1945, p.17, 19). Summerson also suggested this approach, saying

that if it is notwanted as a place of worship why not let it remain as a shell, a witness

[] of the acts of these times (1941, cited by Larkham, 2004, p.13).

The alternative to this approach of preserving the ruins in terms of restoration was to

rebuild with contemporary material while incorporating the ruins. It seems to have

been a successful approach of restoration According to the architect Goodhart-Rendel

the purpose was to embody the ancient work in a new design and reveal the original

design (cited in Larkham, 2003, p.10). It seems to be the principles followed by Pace for

the restoration of St. Martins Church. Finally, the possibility of relocated churches

raised issues of context and historical associations, linked to the idea of authenticity of

the place.

While the debate clearly focused on the issues of replication, especially in the case of

Wrens churches, the issue of authenticity was never mentioned, nor the impact of the

choices resulting from this debate on the direction of the restoration itself. Besides,

whereas the reconstruction plans were talking about the character of the cities, the

debate over the conservation and/or restoration of churches never mentions this

notion. It seems that the decision making process had followed broad ideas of

restoration, without considering the issue of replicating original fabric. The impact on

the authenticity was therefore not taken into account. What was important for the

decision making process was the possibility to rebuild or not, considering the extent of

the damage and of fabric left and the significance of the church, and its merit as a work

of art.


34/83

Lucie Fusade

- 33 -

At the end the amount of the compensation and payments determined, to a considerable

extent, whether or not churches were going to be rebuilt and the nature of the

restoration (Derrick, 1992, p.32). That is why, decisions were made relatively quickly,

and even though there were some discussions concerning the approach of therestoration, the decisions were mostly based on the cost and the efficiency of the

restoration. It was in this context, of a broad debate, that the decision-making process

over the restoration of St. Martins Church and St. Lawrence Jewry in London were

made.


35/83

Lucie Fusade

- 34 -

CHAPTER III

St. Martin-Le-Grand and St. Lawrence

Jewry: the indirect role of the authenticity

in the decision making process

As seen in the previous chapter, despite the development of the notion of character the

authenticity of a building was not a matter directly taken into account within both the

reconstruction plans and the arguments raised over the future of these bombed

churches. However, the significance of the church was the reason, institutions,

committees, and people involved, wanted to retain them (Richardson, 1945, p.14). The

architectural significance of Saint Lawrence Jewry, a Wrens church and the historical

significance of Saint Martin Le Grand, including its recent history, had a role in the

decision making process about the future of these churches.

1-St. Lawrence Jewry: forgetting the tragic lossThe decisions following the bombing of St. Lawrence Jewry in December 1940 were

prompt and efficient. Indeed, a few days after the destruction, a qualified architect

employed by the War Damage Committee, had already seen the church to evaluate the

extent of the damage (DL surveyor, 1941).Because of the high architectural significance

of this Wrens church its destruction was seen as a tragic loss.As well summarised by

D.A. Clarke (BBC News, 1941) a week after the bombing: At St. Lawrence Jewry we have

lost much, but we still have the main structure and tower built by Wren and we have the

old treasures now found safe. Its value was due to its oak organ described as one of the

richest specimens which the art of the seventeenth century produced (fig. 12), the

vestry with its rich carving qualified as one of the most beautiful small rooms in the

world (fig. 13)(Norman, 1905, p.1), as well as its gold and silver treasures (BBC News,

1941) and the painting by Rivera on the altar (fig. 14).


36/83

Lucie Fusade

- 35 -

Figure 12. The organ, 1926

(LMA, A 314/4)

Figure 13. The vestry, 1924

(LMA )


37/83

Lucie Fusade

- 36 -

Figure 14. The Altar with Riberas painting, 1890

(From the Solmon Collection of photographs of City Churches, LMA)

Besides, because St. Lawrence Jewry was treated with the overall City Churches

decision-making process, the main decisions over the future of the church, whether or

not to restore, were already made within a year after the bombing. Both the Diocese of

London and the London Council were proactive in preserving the City Churches because

of their overall value and character (LCC, 1941) For the Diocese of London what is

valuable and can be preserved, should be preserved (DL, 1941), following the overall

concern for the preservation of bombed churches (see above in Chapter II). In fact in

January 1941 the Diocese of London recommended that each church of special value

should have a specially qualified architect attached to it in order to be consulted

regarding the care of architectural and historical treasures (DL, 1941). As a result Cecil

Brown, was appointed architect for Saint Lawrence Jewry by the Diocese, the Church

Council, and the Dean and Chapter of Saint Pauls. It was again a decision made with the

agreement of both the Diocese and the Council, illustrating the importance of the

cooperation in this time of post-war reconstruction.

Furthermore, in September 1941 the Bishop of London set up a Diocesan Commission to

examine the City Churches and formulate a plan for their restoration (Derrick, 1992,


38/83

Lucie Fusade

- 37 -

p.32). The reconstruction of St. Lawrence Jewry was already under discussion (PRC,

1941;The Times, 1955),as if the diocese wanted, above all, to forget that this significant

Wrens church was bombed It was said that they were indeed hoping for days of victory

[for] the restoration of [the] church (BBC News, 1941), showing that special care was

given to the church.

However, there was not much discussion about restoring St. Lawrence Jewry as the Final

Report of the Bishop of Londons Commission on the City Churches(1946) stated that no

Wren church, not already destroyed, nor damaged beyond the possibility of satisfactory

restoration, should be removed and that Saint Lawrence Jewry required special

consideration because it is the Church of the City Corporation (BC, 1946, cited in

Larkham, 2004, p.30). Therefore, the main reason to restore the church, other than

because it was a Wrens church, was for its connection with the City.

Thereby, the decision making process concerning the future of St. Lawrence Jewry was

mainly about how to restore the church. The approach chosen followed the main debate

around Wrens City Churches, especially the recommendation of the SPAB Annual

Report of 1943: where the walls are standing [] the ceilings and roofs should be

replaced in forms designed by Wren (cited in Derrick, 199, p.32). Brown thus specified

that the agreement was to rebuild the main body of the church as close as to the original

design of Sir Christopher Wren (Brown, 1954:3; BC, 1946, cited in Larkham, 2004,

p.30). Concerning the interior of Wrens church, the leading conservation body and

historians of Wren agreed that facsimile reinstatement of Wren interiors would be

wrong (cited in Derrick, 1992, p.32). As a result, the restoration of St. Lawrence Jewry is

not a complete copy. The fact that the church was architecturally significant for the City

obviously influenced the choice of the reconstruction. In a way, it was decided to keep

the authenticity of the church before the bombing by rebuilding it (see below in Chapter

IV).

Nevertheless, during the war years, at the same time of this decision-making process,

only urgent temporary repairs could be carried out. The reason is that no decisions

about the permanent rebuilding of a church could be taken until the War Damage

Commission was sure no further damages were done to the church (DL, 1941), and that

no compensations were given until after the end of the war (DL, 1940).


39/83

Lucie Fusade

- 38 -

St. Lawrence Jewry followed once again, the recommendations of the Diocese of London

(see above, Chapter II): care of the ruin by repairs and salvaging of valuable fittings and

preparation for claims (G.London, 1941). Although the immediate repairs were taken in

order to prevent any further deteriorations through the removals of items and to

maintain the church in a safe and weather-proof condition (BLCCC,1946; LCC,1941),

there was no consideration of their impacts on the significance of the church and

therefore on its authenticity. The columns and the north arcade were demolished

because they were in imminent danger of collapsing (Brown, 1954:2); the arches have

not been saved. Besides, the only justification given to remove some of the balustrade

and one pinnacle was that most of their fabric was lost (PCC, 1941). Perhaps the reason

for the removal of these arcades was also to minimise the visible outcome of the

bombing. Thereby, not much thought was given to the effects on the authenticity of the

church because the only imaginable solution was that St. Lawrence Jewry appeared as a

complete church and not as a ruin. For this reason, it did not matter what was left of the

original fabric because the church was going to be reborn.

Some of the repairs however, contributed to retaining the original fabric, for instance

the walls and the floor were made weatherproof (BLCCC, 1942). Brown undertook these

repairs in three steps in accordance with the Diocese of Londonssuggestion: 1. takingdown and making safe those parts of the structure which had become dangerous; 2.

taking steps to protect the remainder of the fabric against the weather; 3. Collecting and

sorting the debris to prevent anything of value or interest from being destroyed (BLCC,

1941). All works done on a City Church was strictly controlled by the Bishop of Londons

Committee for the City Churches and the War Damage Commission.

Although the war was not finished, Godfrey Allen, the architect of the Bishop of Londons

Committee for the City Churches agreed, with Browns plans to build a chapel under the

Tower. This place of rest and quiet during the war years built to hold the services until

the rebuilding of the church was dedicated on December 18Th 1943 (PCC, 1942; Brown,

1954, p.3). Once again, St. Lawrence Jewry seemed to have undergone a special

treatment.


40/83

Lucie Fusade

- 39 -

The restorations plans by Cecil Brown were shown to the Sub-Committee of the

Diocesan Reorganisation Committee1 in July 1947 and after different schemes were

proposed, the restoration started in November 1954. (BLCCC, 1947). Brown was

respectful of Wrens work when he wrote: may the third Church rebuilt on this site be a

worthy successor of those that have gone before, a continuing Place of Worship and a

tribute to our English Leonardo. This has influenced his restoration.

1Name of the Bishop of Londons Committee for the City Churches after being re-

constituted in 1946


41/83

Lucie Fusade

- 40 -

2-St. Martin-Le-Grand: from neglect to restorationThe first decision made concerning the future of St. Martin church was a non-decision. In

fact, in 1943, the York Diocesan Re-organisation Committee2clearly stated that no

useful purpose would be served by discussing [] the future of St Martins church

further at the present time (YDWDC, 25.11.1943, p.1). Perhaps the reason was that the

war was not over and it was not necessary to start repairing with the risk of other

destructions. However, in 1946 at the end of the war, the restoration of the church was

still a forgotten matter when this same Committee assured that no decision could be

given for restoration and in any case [it] could not put this church in any high priority

(YDWDC,1946, p.2). Milner White the Dean of York, had yet explained in 1943, in his

Open Letter to the Lord Mayor and Citizens of Yorkentitled Shall St. Martins Coney

Street Be Destroyed? that there [was] no serious difficulty, either architecturally or

financially, about restoring it. The war Damage Commission which gave compensations

was indeed efficient and claimed were available to churches for repairs and restorations.

Architecturally, as seen above, the church was not completely destroyed and the south

aisles and the tower were almost unharmed (Laishley, 1968, p.1).

Obviously, the St. Martin Le Grand was not listed in the First five years priorities of repair

set by the Priorities War Damage Replacements and Major Repairs of the York Diocesan

Re-organisation Committee in 1947. They may have considered the church not to be in

eminent danger of collapse. However, repairs were eventually done within five years

after the destruction. It was made safe, by destroying the north window wall and

arcades of the nave that we can see in figure 6; only the pillars remained (Hingston,

2012, pers. com.). These actions were taken for safety reasons without regarding the

impact on the authenticity of the overall design of the church.

In 1950 projects for the rebuilding and restoration of churches within the diocese of

York started; St Martins church was again not taken into account (YDWDC, 1951, p.1).

Perhaps the reason not to undertake further repairs at St. Martins was because the

Diocese of York did not value it and thought it was not significant enough to restore it.

However, Milner-White, in his advocacy for the restoration of the church in 1943, had

listed all the reasons why St. Martins church is valued and significant to the city of York

2

Formed in March 1941 in order to negotiate the claims in respect of all War Damage to Church propertyand to consider all problems of replanning within the Diocese necessitated by War Damage or other

circumstances arising out of the war (committee minutes, 1942).


42/83

Lucie Fusade

- 41 -

and thus why it should not be destroyed. The main one was that for York to lose St.

Martins window out of St Martins Church is to lose a jewel out of its crown (1943, p.5).

The church was indeed well known for its West window, one of the finest 15th century

windows in the country (Milner White, 1943, p.5). Moreover, in 1949 considering the

significance of the clock, it was decided to repair and restore it to its former position

(YCT, 1948-49, p.10). Furthermore, St. Martins was significant for the city of York itself

as the Civic Church (Lamb, 1958, p.1). From the window to the clock as well as its

function the church was of high significance for the City of York.

Therefore, the reason St. Martins church was neglected seemed to be that the Diocese

could not decide what to do with the church, the idea of turning it into a shop was even

raised (A. Hingston,2012, pers. com.). Instead of making a definitive decision, nothing

was done. Perhaps, the Diocese needed a time of thinking to ensure that restoration was

the best option, and the approach chosen would well serve the historic significance of

the church.

The case of St Martins did not raise the archdioceses interest until 1951 when the ruin

has stood, bare and gaunt for about ten years, as Lamb describes (1958, p.1). As a

result, the church stayed in its present state: a witness of the destruction of war, which

changed its authenticity and even added to it.

The fact that the church stayed as a ruin for so long gave it a new historic significance

that seemed to have influenced the decision-making process. First of all, it was after a

visit to the ruin of St. Martins Church in 1951 that the Archbishop, probably with the

influence of the newly appointed vicar of the church, (Laishley, 1968, p.1) raised

suggestions and discussions for the future of this church (YDWDC, 1951:1). The outcome

of the ten years ruins and the neglect was that in 1952, the Archbishop appointed a

committee of enquiry, called the Reconstruction Committee (YCT, 1952-53, p.7) to

report on the future of St. Martin-Le-Grand (YDWDC, 1952, p.1). From then on the

church received a special treatment within the Diocese of York.

The decision-making process over the type of restoration of St Martin-Le-Grand was

influenced by three factors. First of all by the ruins of the church which were now a new

element of the urban landscape of York and have added to the authenticity of the place

as reflect of the damage. For this reason they had to be retained. Secondly, Milner-White,

advocated for a complete restoration as the exactly right home of the memorial to the


43/83

Lucie Fusade

- 42 -

fallen of York (1943, p.7). For the first time a practical solution and a type of restoration

was suggested. Finally, in 1941, during the debate over the future of bombed churches

(see above in Chapter II) the architect Goodhart-Rendel suggested, , that if fragments

remained the restoration should reveal the original design, [] supply all the parts that

are missing, embody the ancient work in a new design, add nothing that could falsely

appear to have been originally part of it, but let the building look what it is, a mixture of

old and new (cited in Larkham, 2010, p.11). However, other than these three factors, no

historic documentation of the church was consulted as it is recommended for a

restoration (ICOMOS, 1964, art. 9).

It seemed that the idea of maintaining the ruins, creating a memorial, and mixing the old

and the new strongly influenced the Archdiocese and the Reconstruction Committee

which recommended a partial restoration to include restoring the Tower and Bells, the

South Aisle (as a memorial Chapel) and clock, and the laying out of the remainder of the

site within the Church walls [] as a Garden of Rest. The scheme is clearly visible on the

plan (fig. 31, Chapter IV).

Besides, it was recommended to restore the clock to its old position and to replace the

bells in the Tower (YCT, 1952-53, p.5). This scheme for the restoration; a part preserved

and a part put to a new use, seemed to be the easiest solution. Moreover, turning the

church into a memorial and a Garden of Rest was the reason to rebuild. In a way, this

type of restoration emphasises the fact that the ruin had to be retained, suggesting that

the bombing is a new step of the history of the church that had added degrees of

authenticity to it, what Thomsom called revised authenticities. However, this partial

restoration did not specify which state of the church it will refer to, or if it will be more

of a reconstruction, that includes modern material (ICOMOS, 1999, art. 1.8), or if it will

rebuild a new church within the ruin (see below in Chapter IV).

The architect was deliberately chosen in accordance with the scheme: someone able to

deal both with the ruins and with a partial restoration. George Pace, appointed by the

Bishop and Archdeacon in 1953 (YDWDC, 1953:1) was indeed qualified by Laishley

(1968, p.1) as a specialist in ecclesiastic work both restoring and altering ancient

churches and cathedrals and designing new ones. As a result, Paces drawings were,

according to The York Advisory Committee for the Care of Churches, a masterly schemefor bringing the remnants of this church into worthy use (1955, p.2). Pace finished his


44/83

Lucie Fusade

- 43 -

plans in 1957, following the agreed scheme with the addition of a modern part as his

drawing shows (fig. 15).

Figure 15. George Paces drawing

(Reproduced in YCT, 1959-1960, p.10)

The next step George Pace had to take was to claim a reasonable war damage

compensation for the rebuilding that would include all work necessary in the

reconstruction scheme (Pace, 1960, p.2). As seen in Chapter II the choices of restoration

were mainly determined by the amount of compensation received. Despite the fact that

St. Martin Le Grand was neglected after its destruction, Pace obtained enough money to

realise his scheme. In 1960 the main directions of the restoration were sorted out and in

1962 the repairs were proceeding and the church was supposedly going to be settled in

three years (Rev. Porter, 1962).


45/83

Lucie Fusade

- 44 -

The decision-making process for the restoration of St. Martin-Le-Grand emphasised that

the original fabric of the church, ruined because of the bombing, needed to be kept.

Therefore the approach of restoration, while turn it into a new use, respect the ruins and

the changes the church had undertook through centuries. In the case of St. Lawrence

Jewry, the church as a ruin was not a solution. For this reason the approach chosen is a

complete rebuilt as it was before. In the two restorations, changes have been done

through the restorations that have impacted the significance and authenticity of the

church.


46/83

Lucie Fusade

- 45 -

CHAPTER IV:

St. Martin-Le-Grand and St. Lawrence Jewry:

the extent of the impact of the restorations

on their fabric

The decision-making process over the restorations of St. Lawrence Jewry and St. Martin

church have shown that the authenticity of the church, the respect of what was left of its

original fabric, or the wish to recover the previous church have indirectly influenced the

choice of approaches.

However, if the authenticity of a building is defined by what is real in its fabric and/or

what is left of its history, reinstatement of elements goes against the idea of authenticity

and integrity. Nevertheless, as the Nara Document on authenticityand the Burra Charter,

point out, the notion of authenticity is diverse, involves many values, and is kept in

significant elements of a church. This is the reason an in-depth evaluation of a

bombed churches: from catastrophic destructions to specific choices of restoration; the impact on...

Documents