The History of the Parish Church of St. Mary the Virgin, Nottingham
St. Mary's Nottingham, two Williams and a cross pomeé - continuation

Background

Although the site was probably in Christian use before the Norman invasion and equally probably the church was the one listed in the Domesday Record, few firm records exist prior to the description by Leland, who visited Nottingham in 1534. He wrote how St. Mary's was - "excellente [new] and unyforme yn worke and so manie faire wyndows yn itt yt no artificer can imagine to get more". But, how new was it and who was responsible for the construction of such a magnificent building?

Unfortunately there is a scarcity of early records, which can be attributed to the loss of the Cartulary of the Cluniac Monastery of Lenton. Lenton had been granted St. Mary's, together with the churches of St. Peter and St. Nicholas in the new French Town, in 1103-8 by William Peveril, with the consent of the Lord King, Henry I. The copper engraving of St. Mary's by Wenceslaur Hollar (1607-77), based on a drawing by Richard Hall, and first published by Dr. Robert Thoroton in 1677 (Thoroton, 1677) is of great importance. This shows how the subsequent restorations were essentially faithful to the original; even the 19th Century work ascribed to Sir Giles Gilbert Scott, later renowned for his over-restorations of many churches, although the building work was actually overseen by Moffatt and the style also followed that used by William Stretton, who did much rebuilding in the early years of the century.

The analysis by Harry Gill, 1916

Harry Gill, a well known local architect of the earlier part of the twentieth century (he died in 1950), made a detailed examination of the church, which was published by the Thoroton Society (Gill, 1916). His description, which accompanied the text of a guided tour given by the Rev. A du Boulay Hill (Hill, 1916), opens with St. Mary's being - a fine example of the "Indian summer of Gothic architecture". In discussing the structural origins of the present church, Gill thought that the gargoyle on the south aisle clerestory parapet was a possible "key to the whole fabric". It occurs at a point where there is a break of three inches (7.62 cm) in the line of the cornice, and a perceptible change in the contour of the moulding. Thus, he argued, it was inserted to mark the junction between the work of two distinct periods, for eastwards of the gargoyle the work is executed in Gedling stone and westward in Mansfield stone below the line of racking and magnesian limestone above. His text has "Gedling" in both instances, but I assume that his sketch was correct and that has "Mansfield" on the western side. In 1761 - the south aisle was "re-faced with Derbyshire stone, the porch alone being left". This was repaired in Roman cement which had crumbled off by 1916. Gill noted that the south (clerestory?) wall was recased with Derbyshire stone in 1817. On stone, Beckett (1977) writes of Wollaton, Trowell and Carlton for well-cemented Coal Measures sandstones; Bulwell for magnesian limestone and lime; and Gedling for the softer, more workable Triassic weatherstone.

Gill regarded all the earlier work as found on the eastward side, with a portion of the south aisle including the porch, the eastern bay of the north aisle including the chantry-house doorway, the lower portion of the transept walls, including the canopied south transept tomb, and the two stairway turrets, all being contemporaneous; with their details all being of the fashion of the closing years of the 14th century. He particularly mentioned the panelling in the gables and buttresses and the predominance of foliated ogival arches; the decorative sculpting on the south porch (replicated by Scott on the west porch), which is typical of the reign of Richard II, especially lions' faces; also, he draws attention to the description by Thoroton (in 1677) of ancient glass in the south aisle, which included the arms of Samon, the Archbishops Arundel and Nevill (1374-88), and Richard II. The glass he presumed was lost when the "new tracery was made in 1761".

Internally, he felt the tomb canopies themselves added evidence. The south transept canopy is an integral construction with the transept, whereas the north tomb is set into the wall, with clear cutting away of the original structure. The south canopy obviously matches the south porch and is of the style fashionable in the reign of Richard II (1377-1399). The north canopy, however, is of the style of Edward IV (1461-70 & 71-83) with "Yorkist" roses in the tracery which tops the now-empty niches. Edward IV, who proclaimed himself King at Nottingham, and his brother, Richard III, spent much time in the city. If the canopied south transept tomb is that of a Samon, the options are John Samon the elder, died ca. 1395, or his son John (whom Thoroton had described as "the benefactor of St. Mary's"), who died in 1416, and Gill noted that the tomb could have been erected within their lifetime. He suggested that the western limit of the church during that era may have been one bay west of the south porch, which would have placed the porch in the traditional place. Referring back to Rev. Hill's talk he draws attention to a Papal Indulgence of 1401, designed to draw in money to continue the work "newly begun with solemn, wondrous and manifold sumptuous work". The westward extension then could have been built while the initial west end was in situ. The west porch, now Scott and Moffatt's reproduction of 1845-8, was shown in the 1677 print to closely resemble the still-existing but well-worn south porch and Gill pondered whether it was not in fact moved from its original position at the end of the shorter first-phase building.

Turning to the Chancel, Gill described this as built of Gedling stone, probably after the main church was completed. The relative simplicity of construction he noted as at odds with the main body and from the "slender angle shafts" on the eastern edge of the tower piers concluded that the window form of the main church was intended to continue but did not. Gill thought the tower was built in the reign of Henry VII (1485-1509), arguing that it could not have been built prior to completion of the chancel as there would have been insufficient strength in the lower structure. Something which only he has noted is the presence of the strong "relieving" or "discharging" arch within each face of the tower just above the line of the roofs, designed to place the downward force onto the massive tower piers. The lower lights of the east and west faces of the tower were modified and the stone "stringing" altered in 1807 to accommodate the clock made by Thomas Hardy of Nottingham. To complete his description, Gill provided a speculative plan of the building when first complete (right).

To summarize, what Gill argued was that there was an intact "Samon" church, of around 1390, the building of which disrupted a "Commission of Inquiry" meeting in the church in 1386 (Borough Records), and that building was extended during the 15th century. Further, he claimed that further evidence of the piecemeal construction comes from the inexactitude of the building lines - adding that he felt the buttresses on the north aisle are not exactly opposite those of the south aisle and neither set is in line with the piers of the nave arcades. Moreover, the buttress designs are more elaborate on the south side. The two westernmost windows of the north aisle match those of the south aisle in general proportions and shape but have four lights (sections) as opposed to the three lights of the south aisle. The eastern windows of the north aisle again differ in detail of the stonework. The south aisle windows he compares with those at St. Peter's and local "18th century Gothic" but noted that the south wall was recased with Derbyshire stone in 1817. According to Hill, the piers of the arcades are lozenge-shaped in plan, with the shorter diameter between the arches, and shallow arch-moulds carried down without capitals, which "suggest a date of about 1470-80, and cannot be ascribed to any time much earlier than that period". He then gave his opinion as to the likely master builder as being one with knowledge of York Minster, much of which was built contemporaneously with St. Mary's.

Observations by Close, 1866

Both De Boulay Hill and Gill drew on the earlier article by T. Close, who wrote on "St. Mary's Church, its probable architect and benefactors" (in Allen, 1866, pp. 105-120). Close plumped for William of Wykeham due to what he thought was similarity with Winchester Cathedral. As for dates, he drew on Deering's descriptions of the armorial shield in the windows, accepting the time of Richard II (1377-99) and Anne of Bohemia (died 1394) adding - "Details of a peculiarly shaped doorway in the north aisle, leading to what is now a receptacle for coals, but which formerly - was probably a separate - perhaps a mortuary chapel; of later date though than that of the nave, to which it is attached. Its hood moulding terminates in two sculptured heads, both crowned - male and female - and both unfortunately mutilated". He concluded these heads were "I believe, the likenesses of Richard II and Anne of Bohemia" drawing comparison with a monument in Westminster Abbey, so, the stone was "proof of pre 1394". Much of Close's article was reiterated in the first Guide Book (Anon. 1874), which includes the illustrations of the shields seen by Deering (see later). Close was able to explain those of The Earls of Arundel and Surrey as Thomas de Arundel was Archbishop of York, 1388-96, then of Canterbury, 1396-1414, as well as being Lord Chancellor of England no less than five times. Two other shields were those of Richard II, King of England before his first marriage, January 1382, and probably his shield after that marriage to Anne of Bohemia. That made good sense as Richard II was often at Nottingham. The fourth shield, however, posed a puzzle which Close could not fully decipher. He determined that the arms thereon were those of the Nevill family but could not identify a member of the family who had known or sensibly likely close associations with Nottingham. The closest candidate he could find was Alexander de Nevill, "a devoted friend of Richard II", who was Archbishop of York in 1374-87, but there was the problem that Alexander was no friend of Thomas de Arundel. Counter-credence, however, came from Nottingham being both in the Primacy and Diocese of York, with the Archbishop having a palace at Southwell, and it would not be surprising for there being an Archbishop's arms in a window denoting founders.

continuation Continue continuation References start Return to History Introduction

Compiled by Brian Taylor, published September 2000     

stmarys/2ws&anx2.htm