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

Present research findings

General thoughts

I have to question Gill's speculations with regard to the gargoyle, as first, it does not link any early phase with his suggestion of a westward extension, being situated above the line of the buttress on the eastern side of the porch (i.e. two whole bays east of his suggested early west end).
Moreover, examination of the stone work at the top of the clerestory windows shows that the eastern battlements (crenellation) have below them deeper panels than those west of the gargoyle (composite illustration, right). This seems to me simply to reflect the fact that the eastern horizontal roll is composed of stone blocks which also embody the tops of the window point. West of the gargoyle the horizontal roll and the window tops are separate blocks. The latter surely must have been much cheaper - so the gargoyle covers a change in economics at some time (I suspect the 1761 works, which may have been by Joseph Pickford). Also it is only on that short western section of the south aisle clerestory that such shallow panelling occurs.
As to the ornate buttresses of the south face, it seems that Gill again was wrong (his drawing is on the right). Orange (1840, 508) pointed out that there was nothing at St. Mary's of the decorated English style "except in the new buttresses, which in a perversion of taste were added to the south transept, in 1818". That work had been undertaken by William Stretton, the unsung hero who did much quality restoration work at St. Mary's in 1790-1820, and probably influenced Gilbert Scott when the latter prepared his designs for the 1845-48 works.

As to the variation in windows, I feel that owes more to replacement than the original construction. This stems from my observation of the cross pomeé on a window mullion in the north aisle west of the modern entry to the choir vestry and others on the south aisle (see later).

With regard to the Chancel, I feel that Gill misconstrued the evidence. For instance, his remarks on the "slender angle shafts" on the eastern edge of the tower piers assume that the piers, which were rebuilt in 1845-8, are in keeping with the original design. This seems unlikely and indicates that he ignored the loss of the original symmetry with the building of the south chapel, in 1912, and the opening of the south wall of the chancel. An 1874 photograph (below left) shows that there were four windows on the south wall, matching the arrangement on the north wall (below right, 1844 drawing), except for the blank area where window North 2 could not be installed because of the old Vestry). To suggest that the chancel was a mean design overlooks the great height of all the windows, which run right to the top, without a clerestory, and would have made the chancel very light.

continuationContinue continuation References start Return to History Introduction

Compiled by Brian Taylor, published September 2000     

stmarys/2ws&anx3.htm