The existing west front is certainly the second constructed - and possibly the third intended - as the public face of the post-Conquest cathedral building. It was during the extensive late nineteenth-century restorations, first between 1871 and 1878, under the supervision of Sir George Gilbert Scott (1811-78), and again from 1888 to 1894, under the direction of John L. Pearson (1817-97), which latter included the underpinning of the west front, that two earlier designs were discovered. The first, revealed in 1888, was of the simple 'sectional' type, with a central portal of three jamb-shafted orders and pilaster-strip buttresses projecting only eight inches.'. It survived - buried inside the present structure - above the foundations for about two and a half feet. As remains of plaster were found on the inner face, it seems likely this facade was completed.

At the same time, heavier foundations were found under the existing north flanking stair-tower, 'consisting of great blocks of tufa and rag stone', similar in character to those found earlier, about 1875-6, by Scott's clerk of works, J. T. Irvine, in front of the north aisle west wall. These blocks have been interpreted as evidence of the intention to construct a more imposing facade, one with two west towers.

The project, however, seems never to have been carried out, as similar preparations were not found on the south side. Nevertheless, this discovery perhaps explains why the westernmost pair of nave piers, which are an elongated octagon in plan, without attached shafts, are larger in their east-west dimensions than the other piers of the nave. In facades of the twin-tower type, as can still be seen at Durham Cathedral (1093-1133), Worksop Priory (1120-1170/80), or Southwell Minster (1108/14-1140/75), the piers under the inner eastern corners of the towers are always heavier than the others of the nave arcade.

Fig. 1. Rochester Cathedral. West front (1988)

Fig. 2. Rochester Cathedral. West front before (1888)

The sectional facade should be associated with the original post-Conquest building initiated by the second Norman bishop, Gundulf of Bec (1077-1108). The plan for twin western towers may be connected with a rebuilding of the nave begun shortly after the fire which, according to Gervase of Canterbury, devastated both city and cathedral monastery in 1137'. The present facade would then date from a separate building campaign, one perhaps as late as c. 1150 (?under Bishop Walter, 1148-82), representing a change in plan. It is clear that the existing west front was not built simultaneously with the aisle walls and arcades of the present nave, for there is a vertical joint visible at the end of each nave arcade; the coursing is not continuous across the arcade responds and the west wall. This suggests that the arcades were built while the first (sectional) facade was still standing, and that it was only replaced as the last phase of work. This in turn suggests that the particular form of the angle turrets as eventually built was a conscious compromise between these two other types of facades, one actually built, the other only 'momentarily' - intended.

Although the resulting west front is modest in scale and in its basic architectural form, it is not without impact due to its richly arcaded and decorated surfaces. Nor is the fundamental form without interest with respect to the history of facade design in the twelfth century, as it is neither of the two standard types that predominated during the Romanesque [Norman - Ed.] period in Britain - the sectional facade and the twin-tower facade, although it is closer to the former than the latter.

General Description

The facade is characterized by the clear and emphatic articulation of its five components: a large turret at the outer angle of each aisle, the narrow terminal walls of the two aisles, and the broad end wall of the nave. The articulation is achieved by setting back the end walls of the aisles, thus throwing the nave end and the turrets into relief. Rather unusually, no buttresses were used. Originally, there was only one west portal - the central one, as the north aisle portal is a later insertion - flanked by shallow arched recesses. Taller, deeper recesses were placed in the aisle end walls, encompassing the small window at the end of each aisle. The surfaces are decorated with registers of arcading which are not horizontally continuous in design or level, but which are symmetrically disposed within the five vertical units. Three registers are on the nave end: the later Perpendicular west window has displaced most of the two upper ones. An additional three registers of arcading are found on the turrets which rise out of the angles of the nave end and which originally flanked a steeply pitched gable. (The existing one, with its low pitch and crenellations, is a consequence of the rebuilding of the nave clerestory and roof in the Perpendicular period). On each aisle end, a band of arcades, gradated in height, fills the area between the arch of the recess and the slope of the aisle roof. (Formerly, there were horizontal, crenellated parapets, the result of flatter roofs placed over the aisles in the Perpendicular period, probably when the nave clerestory was rebuilt). Each angle turret - really a small stair-tower, for they contain spacious, generously proportioned newel-stairs - received four registers of arcading different in height and detail from those of the nave end.

Restoration History

Despite the appearance of harmony and authenticity, a good deal of the fabric of the front actually dates to the late nineteenth-century restoration. It was at this time that compositional completeness was returned to the facade after severe delapidation had diminished it in the eighteenth. This work affected mainly the stair-towers and turrets. For instance, only the turret in the line of the south arcade is original. The northern one had been rebuilt in the Perpendicular period; it was replaced with a copy of the southern one during the restoration begun in 1888. As to the angle stair-towers, only the lower two registers of the southern one are original: its upper stages were removed sometime between 1772 and 1816 and rebuilt in 1888*. The north angle tower has been twice rebuilt from the ground up. In the 1760s, it was taken down and then rebuilt only to a height equal to the north aisle. On 15 July 1760, it had been noted that the north-west stair-tower was in a 'very bad and rotten state' and it was recommended that it be taken down to the gallery level and covered with a temporary roof. On 11 October 1760, Henry Keene (1726-76), Surveyor to Westminster Abbey, reported the north-west stair-tower was 'impossible to repair and must be taken down and rebuilt, carrying it up to a height equal to the square part of the south-west tower from which the octagonal stage should be removed*. Keene also recommended that the Perpendicular top of the norn 'middle tower' be removed and replaced with a copy of the south 'middle tower. By lune 1769, the rebuilding of the north-west angle stair-tower was nearing completion height equal to the square part of the south-west tower from which the octagonal stage should be removed* Keene also recommended that the Perpendicular top of the north 'middle tower' be removed and replaced with a copy of the south 'middle tower. By lune 1769, the rebuilding of the north-west angle stair-tower was nearing completion

The small vignette of the cathedral in the margin of the large engraving. 'View ofthe Citv or Rochester' (T. Pradeslade. The History of Kent

 Fig. 5. Rochester Cathedral. West front, interior: gallery and clerestory levels at south

Fig. 6. Lichfield Cathedral. West front (the hidden wall passage behind the arcade with the statues of seated Kings

The small vignette of the cathedral in the margin of the large engraving. 'View ofthe Citv or Rochester' (T. Pradeslade, delin., J. Harris, sculpt.), from I. Harris, The History or Kent London, 1719, depicts the west front before any of these alterations. Two engravings of 1772 show the result of the rebuilding of the north angle stair-tower'. The engraving by John Coney for 1. Caley, H. Ellis and B. Bandinel, Dugdale's Monasticon Anglicanum. | London, 1817, found between pages 152 and 153, shows the west front after all the eighteenth-century alterations.

During the restoration of 1888, the eighteenth-century north stair-tower was completely taken down and rebuilt. The base of this angle tower is now solid up to the level ofthe sill of the west window as a result of its 1888 rebuilding, it not that of the 1760s; there is no evidence as to whether it originally had a newel-stair from the ground up, as is most likely.

These several rebuildings of the north-west angle stair-tower also affected the penultimate west bay of the north aisle. Internally, this bay lacks the flat string-course of the six bays to the east (three of which were rebuilt in the 1660s); there is no respond between it and the west bay; and there are no longer any details to the inner jambs of the blocked fifteenth-century portal.

The Exterior Design

Except for a high bare dado, the facade is completely covered by tiers of tall narrow bays of arcading. The south stair-tower rises square for three stages: the first is plain; the second and third are decorated with tall narrow arcading, four and five bays to a face, with tiny multi-scallop capitals and roll moulded archivolts [members of the arch - Ed.]; an angle-shaft is placed at each corner. The two upper (rebuilt) stages are octagonal with three bays of arcading on each face: they have shaft-rings, multi-scallop capitals and arches with banded rolls or chevrons. By contrast, the (rebuilt) north stair-tower is square for its full height, as it was originally, according to the engraved view of 1719. Its first three stages are equal in height to those of the south tower; the upper two stages are both shorter than the ones below, and shorter than the corresponding octagonal ones on the south. The details of the first three stages are similar to those of the south stair-tower from which they were no doubt copied.

The narrow aisle-ends are each completely filled by a tall arched recess with thin jamb. shafts and double-scallop capitals: each archivolt is roll-moulded, and there is a double label composed of sawtooth and dogtooth motifs. A window of two orders is placed in its back wall; the outer order of the window is shafted with double-scallop capitals and a chevroned arch; the inner one is continuously moulded. A reticulated diaper pattern, now preserved only in the south recess, fills the wall surface below the window. On each side, a bare stretch of wall, pierced by a small window, intervenes between the top of the arched recess and the arcading of the (restored) half gable corresponding to the original slope of the lean-to roof over the aisle.

The nave-end has a plain dado, much shorter than that on the stair-towers, followed by three tiers of arcading; then flanking turrets rise free for three more stages. The tiers of arcading do not correspond in level with those on the stair-towers: they begin lower down, and, being of varying height, the string-courses between them are noticeably 'off' in relation to those on the stair-towers. If it were not for the enormous eight-light Perpendicular window, the centre would be dominated by the west portal. Flanking the west portal are two flat-backed niches, barely contained within the height of the dado; their jambs are continuously roll-moulded. Because of their size, they remain quite subordinate to the portal, and because they are separated by flat wall serfaces, portaland niches do not form a strong tripartite unit.

The archivolts of the n ding it hich isor tall their jambs are continuously roll-moulded. Because of their size, they remain quite subordinate to the portal, and because they are separated by flat wall surfaces, portal and niches do not form a strong tripartite unit.

The archivolts of the portal rise completely throush the firsttier of arcading which is of tall. narrow bays with shafts that rest on carved corbels above a string course with pointed leaves individually encircled by their stems, linked together to form a series of medallions; its capitals are varied multi-scallop or leat/volute types and its arches are carved with a pattern of leaves, each under an embracing volute. The second tier, which follows after a short space covered by a diaper pattern consisting of medallions containing four-petalled flowers, was squat: three bays now survive on each side of the west window. They are unusual, as the columns support a continuous lintel, smal tympana and arches. The lintels are carved with a zig-zag, with small bosses decorating the triangles; the capitals are double scallop or volute, and the arches are chevroned; small grotesque animals or foliage fill the tympana. Above a narrow zone decorated with a lattice or trellis diaper pattern, is the tall hird stage: four bays now remain on each side of the perpendicular window; once again there are chevroned arches, this time with intersecting arches decorated with billets over them. The string-course below this stage, and the label over the arches below, have a curious design of alternating lozenges and bars.

Above this level the turrets rise free. The first stage is short, with two twin bays of arcading to each face; a concentric chevron pattern runs continuously up the jambs of the bays and the background is diapered with diagonal crosses (north) or swirling rosettes (south). The two upper stages are octagonal, with two bays of arcading on each face; the upper tier of shatts have shaft-rings.

Altogether the decorative motifs are remarkably rich and varied; they include, in addition to those already mentioned, a twisted cable motif (on the second string-course); a bar square chain design (under the south aisle window and on the first string of the south stair-tower); and spirally fluted or cabled shafts (in the first tier of tall arcading). The small tympana displayed: a pair of opposed birds; a man holding a fish; a bird with its tail under it; a symmetrical rinceau [scroll pattern - Ed.]; a bird with its tail under it (badly eroded); and a symmetrical rinceau. In addition, the Romanesque gable was probably decorated with one or more patterns. The mid seventeenth-century engraving of Daniel King °, shows a diaper pattern of circles and lozenges surrounding the head of the Perpendicular window. This diapering was removed during the restoration of the window by Lewis N.

Cottingham (1787-1847), c. 1825, who actually recorded a number of varied diaper patterns, including large and small squares, encircled four-petaled flowers, cusped lozenges, fretwork, and more elaborate four petal flowers, in his notebook". The stones bearing these designs had been, no doubt, reset during the installation of the window, one or more patterns probably coming from the original gable or from between the registers of arcading, or even from the nave clerestory.

The west portal, of five orders, is the only surviving portal in England still to have column figures - there are only two - as well as a carved tympanum and lintel. The three outer jamb-shafts of the portal have carved shaft-rings which also occur on the upper stages of the turrets; the innermost jamb is formed by a large half-shaft. The column figures are on the fourth pair of shafts, a male figure on the north, a female figure on the south. The capitals, abaci, and label of the portal are all elaborately carved with a variety of foliage patterns which are inhabited on the capitals. The lintel, bearing the figures of the Apostles, is not a single beam but eight stones ingenuously inter-locked. It does not quite fit into place, as it is positioned so that the bottom of the tympanum and the last voussoir (wedge-shaped block - Ed.] stone of the inner order project over it. The subject of the tympanum is Christ in Majesty, supported by two angels and surrounded by the beasts of the Evangelists. Each voussoir is separately carved with one of a number of varied foliage, bird and animal motifs arranged radially; only the innermost order has an almost identica pattern offoliage on each voussoir. All of these features - including the six small tyrparad under the arches of the second tier of arcading - have been traced to various regionana France, in terms of their type, style, and subject matter, and are features with few parallels

Colemn a tonine Cothin

Evanselianimalmousarangedladhaly.onlytherinerosiordumber of varied foilage. bird and animal motifs arranged radially; only the innermost order has an almost identical pattern of foliage on each voussoir. Al orthese features - including the six small tympana under the arches of the second tier of arcading - have been traced to various regionana France, in terms of ther type, style, and subject matter, and are features with few parallels Column figures were characteristic of church portals of the developing Gothic style in the ile-de-France, from their initial appearance at the abbey of Saint-Denis, outside Paris, c. 1137-40. Sculptured tympana are another feature of portals in the same region, but the iconography of that of Rochester is similar to the manner the same subject is presented in Burgundy. The Apostles on the lintel may be compared to those which appear on the central portal at Chartres Cathedral, c. 1145. The voussoirs of the portal, however, both in their motifs, and their radial arrangement, recall in origin another region of France, the Poitou, which also seems to have influenced the neighbouring region of the Touraine which may have been the more immediate source for this aspect of the Rochester portal.

The same region of western France, and perhaps the neighbouring Angoumois, also appears as the source of inspiration for the small tympana under the arcades, although they are disposed very differently at Rochester than in such church facades as that of Notre-Dame-la-Grande in Poitiers, c. 1130. The mixture is complex as a number of motifs found at Rochester, especially on the capitals, as well as some of the voussoirs, seemingly have parallels in the early Gothic of the north-east, as the ensemble of figurated sculpture - the column figures, tympanum and lintel - would lead us to expect'?.

By contrast, the basic design of the facade is not paralleled by the facade types of any of the several regions with which the sculpture has been associated. Only one French building, the cathedral of Le Mans (Maine), has a facade which offers a few compositional parallels and which could have been a prototype for Rochester's'3. In its original form, it had a pronounced, clearly articulated turret at each of its western corners. The wall in between, however, was flat, all in one plane. Although the facade lacked registers of arcading, due to its earlier date, c. 1120, it, too, had only a central portal, with - perhaps significantly? - shallow flanking recesses; contrarily, there were no recesses on the aisle ends.

The Interior Design

The interior design of the facade has also been gravely affected by the insertion of the west window. Traces of the original arrangement do remain, but they are not fully revealing of all its particulars. The central portal is flanked by two registers of three arcades equivalent to the nave arcade in height. At the sides of the west window are the first bays of two additional registers, the lower one of which only approximately corresponds to the height of the second storey of the nave.

The two tiers of arcading, flanking the tall narrow portal, are differentiated in size and type. The lower tier has shafts and the upper continuously moulded jambs. Again, the lower tier is short, the upper is conspicuously taller, a reversal of the relationship of the corresponding zones on the exterior where a tall blank dado - containing only the small flanking flat-backed niches - is succeeded by a lower zone of arcading, one only equal to the arch of the portal in height. The string-course at the top of this band of external arcading marks the approximate level of the floor of an internal passage-way.

Above this level, defined on the interior by a broad string-course, at either side of the jambs of the interior frame of the west window, are the remains of two tiers of arcades.

The remains of the string-course between them - in the form of a horizontal zig-zag - is a little lower then the string at the top of the second stage forming the clerestory sill, so there was not an exact synchronisation of levels. Nor is the third level equal in height to the arches of the second (gallery) stage of the nave, Indeed, its arcade arches do not fill the available height of the zone on the west wall, being more comparable to the sub-arches than to the superordinate arches of the second stage. The third tier is also somewhat taller than the third exterior one; of course, the design of its arcading is completely different.

Because the bays of arcad the zone that has the there was not an exact synchronisation of levels. Nor is the third level equal in height to the arches of the second (gallery) stage of the nave. Indeed, its arcade arches do not fill the available height of the zone on the west wall, being more comparable to the sub-arches than to the superordinate arches of the second stage. The third tier is also somewhat taller than the third exterior one; of course, the design of its arcading is completely different.

Because the bays of arcading on the exterior are even shorter - it is the zone that has the horizontal lintels and small curved tympana - and begin at a slightly higher level than the interior ones, it is doubtful there were any large windows at this level, unless they simply interrupted the arcading. If the arcading was continuous and uniform in design, any openings could only have been smaller than those opening to the exterior from the wall passage at the end of the aisles.

The fourth tier of arcading on the interior appears to be at a somewhat higher level, but of about the same height, as the fourth register (third band of arcading) of the exterior, and corresponded to the level of the Romanesque clerestory. Of it, only one tall, narrow blind bay remains at each side, now appearing rather like a niche in the wall with shafted jambs, although it should be noted the shafts are not of equal size.

The Internal Circulation System'4

The unseen internal arrangements of the facade are possibly more interesting than the visible ones of its wall faces. The spiral stairs within the towers lead to a passage-way in the thickness of the wall which crosses the front below the sills of the upper aisle-end windows, and which corresponded to the (lost) section of exterior arcading immediately above the central portal's arch. This wall passage also gave access to the passage-ways through the second stage over the nave arcades. At the junction with the nave arcades, narrow newel-stairs lead to higher levels - to the original clerestory, to a passage-way across the west wall at the level of the gable, and to the nave roof eaves: the exits from the newel-stairs are preserved at all levels on both sides.

The newel-stair leading to the passages in the thickness of the west front is now entered by a sizeable doorway opening from the south aisle. As the north-west stair-tower has been rebuilt with a solid base, it is not certain if there was a corresponding doorway in it: but, as the facade is symmetrical in all other respects, it is likely that originally there was one at the end of each aisle. The ample stair-vice [spiral staircase - Ed.], three feet eleven inches wide, is distinctly larger in scale than the normal stair-vice hidden behind one of the angle buttresses of a so-called sectional facade. The unusual amplitude of the newel-stairs explains the unusual prominence of the angle turrets at Rochester; and for this reason, also, they are more correctly described as stair-towers than turrets. Not surprisingly, the stairway rises for the full height of the stair-tower and gives access to the aisle roof. Before that level is reached, however, a wall passage opens to the north, and passes through the wall at the end of the aisle. A small window to the exterior gives it some light; this window is opposite a larger opening (inner jamb, two feet three and one-quarter inches wide) that looks into the aisle. At the end of the nave arcade this passage-way ends in a complex junction. To the east there is the passage-way that ran through the level of the second stage of the nave elevation; to the west there are the lowest steps of another stair-vice; and to the north, not quite on the same axis, there is another passage-way heading across the west front.

The passage-way leading to the east, over the nave arcades, was clearly built when or shortly after it was decided neither to vault the aisles nor to provide a wooden floor for the roof space behind the second stage openings. The scale of these openings suggests that either a so-called low or a false gallery was originally intended. In each bay, the gallery opening was designed as a pair of arches with a centre shaft and tympanum; because of

the passage-way, this design is used twice, one set of arches placed towards the nave and one towards the aisles. The passage way, therefore, passed between the double serand of the arches and continued through the piers between the bays. Between the openings, it

is covered by small barned or semicircular arches because they are actually at the level of the roof of the original building, which would have had a much steeper pitch than the present one, a product of the Perpendicular aesthetic. These two openings suggest the possibility that there was either a wooden ceiling at Rochester, or that the nave had been vaulted and these doors gave acess to the space between vault and roof.

The idea of vaults at Rochester may seem surprising, but it can be asked if the Perpendicular reconstruction of the clerestory is another bit of 'negative' evidence for them. That is, if the Rochester nave had a tall clerestory with a passage-way, as the blocked openings suggest, and a wooden roof, why was the clerestory rebuilt when the pitch of the roof was lowered? The Perpendicular clerestory windows are not so large that they may be automatically considered a vast improvement in the lighting of the nave over earlier Romanesque ones. But the potential failure of a vault, and a weakened clerestory level, could explain the Perpendicular rebuilding. Or, was there simply an additional passage-way across the west front at the base of the gable? The interesting feature is that the access doorways are so large and well-built.

Some six or seven steps beyond the nave-facing openings there is, in each stair-vice, a small arched opening - now blocked - facing to the east, which most probably formerly led out on to the parapeted gutter of the nave roof.

A Possible Liturgical Function

On the basis of comparisons with several other nearly contemporary and later buildings, the newel-stairs and the lowest arcaded passage-way may have had a specific liturgical function. That is to say, this lower passage, which was open to the nave by an arcade, corresponds to the second register of arcading on the west face - which is also the lowest in height - and, as has been pointed out, could therefore have had only small slit windows opening to the exterior. If it did, it bears a resemblance to the arcaded passageway between the central portal and the west windows found at Salisbury Cathedral nearly a century later, c. 1245. That passage-way, and a similar but enclosed one at Wells Cathedral, c. 1215-35, has been assigned a role in the Palm Sunday liturgy'. Specifically, it has been suggested that choristers were stationed in it to sing the response to the hymn,

"Gloria, laus et honor', as the cathedral clergy and congregation, assembled in front of the church, prepared to re-enter the cathedral. The choristers were meant to be heard, not seen - hence there were only narrow apertures towards the exterior, hidden behind sculpture at both Wells and Salisbury. There is a similar passageway in the twin-tower west front of Lichfield Cathedral. It is closed towards the nave like that at Wells, and opens to the exterior through small slit windows effectively hidden by the (restored) sculpture in the low arcade between central portal and west window 7, The amplitude of the newel-stairs at Rochester, more than is required for the utilitarian purpose of providing access for maintenance, would be appropriate for use by choristers in long copes.

At least two other Romanesque buildings in England may have had west front wall passages with a similar function. Earlier than Rochester, the west front of Lindisfarne Priory, c. 1135-40, despite its small scale, has small stair-towers at the angles like those at Rochester which lead to a passage-way across the west front, open to the nave through five arcades. To the west, a single wide doorway gave access from the passage to a small chamber - now destroyed - placed over the projecting orders of its portal-porch under a double-pitched roof18. A second example, perhaps contemporary with Rochester, and closer geographically, is at St. Botolph's, Colchester, c. 1160/70. As at Rochester, the relevant level has not survived complete, but there is clear evidence of an arcaded wall passage above the west portal which opened to the west by small slit windows 19,

Date and Relation to Contemporary Style

the west portal of the cathedral, on the basis of its sculptural styles, is now generally assigned a date of c. 1160. By extension, of course, this date then applies to the facade as a ntrole ion dorthe nave in the 1140 sand 1150s for is erection fits comforably wad as construction of the nave in the 1140s and 1150s - that is, a renewal of the west arm of the cathedral after the fire of 11378. Nave and facade also fit comfortably with the stylistic trends or fashions of the third quarter of the century. In the conception of the facade as a Rochester reflects a fashion or taste that had become fully established in Britain certainly wallet arcadings a registers of arcading of varied design rising one upon the atheasa by or from mid-century, a Romanesque development which was carried over into the early Gothic. The Romanesque facade of Hereford Cathedral, completed after c. 1150, was a prime example before its destruction due to the collapse of a perpendicular west tower in 1786: it is known from several engravings. The Cluniac Priory at Castle Acre is another splendid example, though now reduced to a ruin. Even when the building materials available to hand would not seem conducive to such forms, the taste for rich displays of arcading prevailed as can be seen in the facade of St. Botolph's, Colchester, mostly built of reused Roman brick

One can also compare the general decorative intensity of the work at Rochester with the remains of numerous projects, mostly in the monastic enclosure, carried out by Prior Wibert (1153-67) at Christ Church, Canterbury?'. In addition to the extensive use of arcading, one may also note the richness and variety of geometric and vegetal motifs on arch voussoirs, string-courses, and wall surfaces. The east wall of the vestiarium and the four upper stages of the cathedral's minor transept stair-turrets are particularly close in spint to the work at Rochester. Several nearly identical motifs are employed at both: thin intersecting arcades rising over lower, chevroned arches; ziz-zags carved on string-courses; chevroned roundels.

In addition to being up-to-date, or even of the avant-garde, with respect to current tastes in architecture within Britain, the designer of the cathedral's facade also clearly wished to demonstrate awareness of contemporary developments across the Channel, in northeastern France particularly. Set in the context of a very English idea of what a facade should be, is the exotic sculptural ensemble showing all the necessary components of the portals of the early Gothic Chuches of the lle-de-France, although executed with what might - or might not - be regarded as characteristic English restraint, particularly observable in the modest dimensions of the portal and reiterated in the modest (if not stingy) number of column figures. Altogether, then, the west facade of the cathedral constitutes a paradigm of the most advanced thinking about the public face of the cathedral (and the city's parish church), the display considered appropriate both as a background to ceremonies conducted at entrance, and as a prelude to the sacred space behind it. Heavily restored or rebuilt as it is, its design - and hence its meaning - still remains intact.

Notes

G. M. Livett, 'Foundations of the Saxon Cathedral at Rochester', Arch. Cant., xviii (1889), 261, 274-5.

Ibid., 278.

The Historical Works of Gervase of Canterbury, ed. Wm. Stubbs (Rolls, Series, 73), 2 vols, London 1879 and 1880, 1, 100.

G. H. Palmer, The Cathedral Church of Rochester: A description of its fabric and a brief history of the Episcopal See (Bell's Cathedral Series), London, 2nded., 1899, 26, 30, 36-7.

West Kent Archives Office (Maidstone), Thereafter W.K.A.O (M)L. DRE/Emf 32,

*Report of Repairs Absolutely Wanting to be Done

W.K.A.O.(M), DRc/E

Don of the Buildings

West Kent Archives Office (Maidstone), thereafter W.K.A.O.(M). DRe/Emf 32,

Report of Repairs Absolutely Wanting to be Done,

W.K.A.O.(M), DRc/Emf 34, 'A Survey of the State and Condition of the Buildings of the Cathedral Church of Rochester'.

W.K.A.O.(M), DRc/Emf 35/2-3, estimates from plumbers and carpenters for roofing the 'New tower', 30 June 1769.

Gentleman's Magazine, Supplement, 1772 (B, cole, Sculp.), and [S. Dene and W Shrubsolel, The History and Antiquities of Rochester and its Vicinity, London 1772, facing p. 57 (F. Baker del.).

See W.K.A.O.(M), DRc/Emf 65/9, 16-17, 48.

R. Dodsworth and Wm. Dugdale, Monasticon Anglicanum, London 1655, pl. between 24 and 25, and in Custumale Roffense, from the original manuscript in the archives of the Dean and Chapter of Rochester, ed. J. Thorpe, London 1788, pl. XXXV (view from north-west by Jacob C. Schnebbelie).

New York, Columbia University, Avery Memorial Architectural Library, A1430/ R5/M46 ('A Sketch Book by an Unknown Architect' [1825|). It was recognized as Cottingham's by M. R. Covert.

See J. P. McAleer, The Significance of the West Front of Rochester Cathedral', Arch. Cant. xcix (1983), 147-50, and the bibliography there cited, to which should be added: D. Kahn, 'The West Doorway at Rochester Cathedral', in ed. N.

Stratford, Romanesque and Gothic: Essays for George Zarnecki, 2 vols, Woodbridge (Suffolk) 1987, 129-34 (she makes a correction to the analysis of G.

Zarnecki in his various studies (cited by Kahn in her n. 101, relating the voussoirs' design to the west of France, emphasizing instead, sources 'in and around the lle-de-France).

G. Fleury, La cathédrale du Mans (Petites monographies: n.d. (190821), 78-82; F.

Salet, 'La cathédrale du Mans', Congrès archéologique, cxix (Maine 1961), 34-7;

McAleer, op. cit. in n. 12, 152.

See W.K.A.O.(M), DRc/Emf 65/3.

For further detail on this aspect of the west front - and the preceding section see J. P. McAleer, 'The West Front of Rochester Cathedral: The Interior Design' Arch. Cant. cit (1986), 27-43.

Pamela Z. Blum, 'Liturgical Influences on the Design of the West Fronts at Wells and Salisbury', Gesta, xxv/1 (1986), 145-50.

See J. P. McAleer, 'The West Front of Lichfield Cathedral: A Hidden Liturgicai Function?', Friends of Lichfield Cathedral: Fifty-Second Annual Report (1989), 26-9.

For Lindisfarne see J. P. McAleer, 'A note about the reconstruction of the West Portal-porch of Lindisfarne Priory', Durham Archaeological Journal, in (1987), 9-

13.

For Colchester see J. P. McAleer, 'Particularly English? Screen Facades of the Type of Salisbury and Wells Cathedrals', Journal of the British Archaeological Association, cxli (1988), 137-40.

The attribution of the nave to Bishop Ernulf (1115-24), as proposed by W.H.St.I.

Hope, The Architectural History of the Cathedral Church and Monastery of St.

Andrew at Rochester, London 1900, 24-8, can no longer be accepted on stylistic grounds. There is no documentary evidence relating to the construction of the

35

Report di Repairs

WKADIM.OR

W.K.A.O.MI. DRc/Emf 32,

tion of the Buildings

 

nave or west front. See 1. P. McAleer, 'Some Observations on the Building Sequence of the Nave of Rochester Cathedral, Arch. Cant., ci (1985), 149-76.

See F. Woodman, The Architectural History of Canterbury Cathedral, London 1981, 76-86.