ET 47 & 48 Front Cover 6/7/14 09:30 Page 1 ECCLESIOLOGY TODAY Ecclesiology Today . Issues 47 & 48 . July 2013 ET 47/48 First 6 pages (4) 8/4/14 15:52 Page 1 ECCLESIOLOGY TODAY ET 47/48 First 6 pages (4) 8/4/14 15:52 Page 2 ET 47/48 First 6 pages (4) 8/4/14 15:52 Page 3 ECCLESIOLOGY TODAY Ecclesiology Today . Issues 47 & 48 . July 2013 ET 47/48 First 6 pages (4) 8/4/14 15:52 Page 4 © Copyright the authors 2014.All rights reserved. ISSN: 1460-4213 Published 2014 by the Ecclesiological Society c/o The Society of Antiquaries of London Burlington House Piccadilly London WIV 0HS The Ecclesiological Society is a registered charity. Charity No. 210501. www.ecclsoc.org The views expressed in this publication are those of the authors, and do not necessarily represent those of the Ecclesiological Society or its officers. ET 47/48 First 6 pages (4) 8/4/14 15:52 Page 5 Ecclesiology Today C ontents Journal of the Ecclesiological Society Chairman’s letter 2 The Hereford Screen by Ingrid Brown 3 VIEWPOINT:The creation of liturgical space at Ely Cathedral in 2013: possibilities A lecture given in Ely on 28 April 2013 by Jane Kennedy 45 VIEWPOINT: Problems affecting church monuments: a personal perspective by Sally Badham 75 Ledgerstones and the Ledgerstone Survey of England and Wales by Julian W S Litten 105 ‘An age of destruction’?: Anglican church closure past and present by Linda Monckton 121 OBITUARY: Terry Friedman (1940–2013) 133 Book Reviews 137 Issues 47 & 48 for December 2012 & July 2013 published April 2014 ET 47/48 First 6 pages (4) 8/4/14 15:52 Page 6 Chairman’s letter Dear Fellow Member You will immediately see that this is a bumper volume of Ecclesiology Today. It is in fact a joint edition, for December 2012 and July 2013. Though, alas, we are still behind with our production cycle. There is a unifying set of themes to the articles in this volume – how do we properly value, keep, and use what we have inherited from the past? The important article by Ingrid Brown on Scott’s Hereford screen sharply highlights some of the practical issues.When the legacy is something rather dominant, is suffering from corrosion, is seen as old-fashioned and ugly, symbolises something one would rather it did not, and gets thoroughly in the way, what does one do? It is not difficult to guess, though, perhaps unusually, this is one of those stories that does have a happy ending. Jane Kennedy’s lecture on possible developments at Ely Cathedral deals not with inherited objects, but with inherited space and planning. Over the centuries the interior at Ely has been altered many times: how should this shape our view of its future? Sally Badham’s article raises worrying issues about our legacy of church monuments.Whilst acknowledging the excellent work often done by the organisations and congregations responsible for churches, she points out many ways in which things can, and sometimes do, go wrong. Of most concern is the damage caused by bats in churches, a problem which has largely arisen in the last thirty years or so. In his article, Julian Litten gives a brief history of ledgerstones, and explains the work of the Ledgerstone Survey.As the article explains, these monuments can be of considerable interest, both individually and for their broader social significance. Some of them are elegant, even beautiful. But we have no handlist, so cannot yet properly assess or value these items.And, how anyway should one look after objects which may form a substantial part of the stone floor surface? Finally, Linda Monckton’s article deals with church closure. She demonstrates how the rate of closure has slowed down since the late 1960s, and how the pattern of re-use is changing. Each one of these buildings has been the subject of a sometimes complex series of choices about its future: it is fascinating to see the patterns that have arisen from these individual decisions, and to reflect on what the future might hold. I hope you find these articles both enjoyable and thought-provoking. Trevor Cooper Chairman of Council 2 ET 47 Brown (5) 9/4/14 11:30 Page 3 The Hereford Screen Ingrid Brown Introduction THE HEREFORD SCREEN was hailed in 1862 as ‘the finest Ingrid is a recent MA graduate in piece of modern metal work in existence ... there is nothing ... architectural history, with a particular which will bear even a moment’s comparison’.1 The Illustrated interest in nineteenth-century churches and cathedral furnishings. London News considered it ‘the most noble work of modern times ... the largest art-work in metal of which we have knowledge, ... [which] stands forth to the world as a monument of the surpassing skill of our land and our age’ (Fig. 1).2 But in less than fifty years, the 1897 edition of Architecture deemed it as ‘gorgeous ... but not so particularly artistic ... a great deal too gaudy and glittering for its place’,3 and by the early twentieth century, the object was damned in Batsford & Fry’s Cathedrals of England as ‘tortured art metalwork ... a melancholy Fig. 1: Contemporary print of the 4 commentary on the transience of even the most eminent taste’. Hereford screen at the 1862 Exhibition The screen, designed in 1861–2 by leading Gothic Revival (Illustrated London News, 30 architect Sir George Gilbert Scott and produced by renowned August 1962) 3 ET 47 Brown (5) 9/4/14 11:30 Page 4 ECCLESIOLOGY TODAY 47 & 48 · 2013 Coventry metalworker Francis Alfred Skidmore, was made for Hereford cathedral, at the time ill-suited to new liturgical needs, and formed part of Scott’s larger undertaking to restore the cathedral to its former glory. Made from a variety of gleaming materials, including iron, brass and copper, the screen became central to Scott’s scheme, and answered the contemporary desire to reinstate a division between the choir and nave, in accordance with emerging ecclesiastical reform movements. Displayed at the International Exhibition to great acclaim, it was famed before it even arrived at the cathedral. The combination of Scott and Skidmore in its design, both leading figures in the Gothic Revival, and the innovative techniques employed in its production, ensured its success, attracting considerable enthusiasm. A decade later, Christopher Dresser’s 1871 Principles of Victorian Decorative Design extolled Skidmore’s ‘correct and very beautiful treatment of material, one of the finest examples of artistic metalwork with which we are acquainted’.5 Despite the considerable acclaim, however, much less was said of the proposed purpose of the screen at Hereford. As ironwork became unfashionable in the latter years of the century, concerns for the practicality of the ostentatious screen at the cathedral began to surface. Shortly before his death, Scott declared himself unhappy with the design.6 In the 1930s, Hereford’s dean and chapter increasingly felt the obtrusiveness of the screen on the function of their cathedral, strongly desiring its removal. The matter soon aroused national interest, and became the subject of contentious debate. Noted defenders of Victorian art and architecture, John Betjeman and Nikolaus Pevsner, argued for the ‘sense of mystery and length’ which the screen effected in the cathedral,7 and as a Victorian ‘monument of the first order’, should be retained for its historic and practical value.8 But the dean firmly believed Scott and Skidmore’s creation spread ‘an atmosphere of gloom and decay’ within the cathedral.9 Finally, amidst significant controversy, the screen was removed in 1967. By the late twentieth century,after failed attempts to preserve it and nearly three decades in storage, the screen was eventually acquired and restored to its former glory by the Victoria and Albert Museum (V&A) in London, where it stands today (Fig. 2). Displayed above the main entrance hall of the museum, the screen does little to give away the many eventful perambulations it has endured. The aim of this paper is to shed light upon the extraordinary journey of this object from its inception through to today, and show how its final resting place in the Victoria & Albert Museum returns the screen to the environment for which it was originally created. 4 ET 47 Brown (5) 9/4/14 11:30 Page 5 THE HEREFORD SCREEN The original commission Fig. 2: The Hereford screen.As it is By the time Sir George Gilbert Scott arrived to restore Hereford today, in the National Ironwork cathedral in 1858, the building had suffered over two centuries of Galleries,Victoria and Albert Museum, damage and destruction. Many of its prized Norman features were London.This photograph, viewing the obliterated, and its interior was entirely unsuited to contemporary screen face on, is taken from a vantage point not generally open to the public. needs. The collapse of the great western tower on Easter Monday of 1786 had prompted a melangè of alterations particularly detrimental to Hereford’s choir, undertaken by the prominent eighteenth-century architect James Wyatt (1746–1813).10 But by 1813 visitors described the choir as ‘so deranged ... it was beyond description’,11 and there were structural problems: in 1841 Robert Willis (1800–75) described the cathedral as having ‘scarcely a vertical pier or wall in the whole building’, with the crossing piers expanding outwards under pressure from Wyatt’s alterations.12 In 1832, a determined drive to reform the choir was instigated on the arrival of dean John Merewether, who began a petition in 1835 to ‘open up the Saxon arch’ behind the early eighteenth- century altar-screen which had been installed by bishop Bisse in 5 ET 47 Brown (5) 9/4/14 11:30 Page 6 ECCLESIOLOGY TODAY 47 & 48 · 2013 the choir (Figs.