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

Lucie Fusade

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.

-1-

Lucie Fusade

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

-2-

Lucie Fusade

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

-3-

Lucie Fusade

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 12St. Lawrence Jewry: forgetting the tragic loss ........................................................................... 34 St. Martin-Le-Grand: from neglect to restoration .................................................................... 40 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

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

-4-

Lucie Fusade

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 window about 1890 ..........................................................................9 Figure 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 ................................................................................................................................................... 25 Figure 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 ............................................................................................. 48 Figure 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 church Modern photographs were taken by the author

-5-

Lucie Fusade

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

-6-

Lucie Fusade

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 been destroyed 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 bear s 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.

-7-

Lucie Fusade

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)

-8-

Lucie Fusade

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 nineteenth century.

Figure 3. The nave and the West window about 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)

-9-

Lucie Fusade

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?

- 10 -

Lucie Fusade

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 aesthetic significances 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

- 11 -

Lucie Fusade

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 practically applied 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

- 12 -

Lucie Fusade

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 Second World 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 of a 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.

- 13 -

Lucie Fusade

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 The Burra 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 that reconstructions 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 aspect s 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 was more a reconstruction than a restoration.

- 14 -

Lucie Fusade

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 War from 1982 gives advice and recommendations 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.

- 15 -

Lucie Fusade

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 authenticity points 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

- 16 -

Lucie Fusade

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 recreated as 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 original buildings and is an entirely new structure Authenticity of experience: buildings or architectural assemblages that explicitly 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.

- 17 -

Lucie Fusade

3- Methodology
3.1 Aims of the research This research studies whether and how the choices of restoration of bombed churches had 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

- 18 -

Lucie Fusade

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 a garden 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 postwar reconstruction decision-making process, which enables an interesting analysis. Historical research was also used in order to collect qualitative information on the postwar 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 observatio n 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

- 19 -

Lucie Fusade

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.

- 20 -

Lucie Fusade

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 England

1.1 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.

- 21 -

Lucie Fusade

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)

- 22 -

Lucie Fusade

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 in the 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).

- 23 -

Lucie Fusade

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

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

- 24 -

Lucie Fusade

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-East 1942 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

- 25 -

Lucie Fusade

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) and their 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 Memorandum on 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 of churches 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.

- 26 -

Lucie Fusade

Larkham, in his paper titled The place of urban conservation in the UK reconstruction plans of 19421952, identifies that the 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 in Larkham, 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 experienc e 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.

- 27 -

Lucie Fusade

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

- 28 -

Lucie Fusade

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 grants at 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 Morris principles: 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.

- 29 -

Lucie Fusade

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 contemporar y work []; demolition []; retention of picturesque remains (1942 cited in Larkham, 2010, p.12). In other word, Casson also defined three solutions rebuild them 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 damaged church, 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). As summarised by Casson reconstruction, evidently, is a solution for the slightly damaged

- 30 -

Lucie Fusade

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 sp irit 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 resto red (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.

- 31 -

Lucie Fusade

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 Ancient Monument (1942, cited in Larkham, 2010, p.13). This idea 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 mak e men remember (Casson, 1945, p.17, 19). Summerson also suggested this approach, saying that if it is not wanted 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.

- 32 -

Lucie Fusade

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 the restoration, 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.

- 33 -

Lucie Fusade

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 historic al 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 loss

The 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).

- 34 -

Lucie Fusade

Figure 12. The organ, 1926 (LMA, A 314/4)

Figure 13. The vestry, 1924 (LMA )

- 35 -

Lucie Fusade

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,

- 36 -

Lucie Fusade

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).

- 37 -

Lucie Fusade

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 London s suggestion: 1. taking down 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 18 Th 1943 (PCC, 1942; Brown, 1954, p.3). Once again, St. Lawrence Jewry seemed to have undergone a special treatment.

- 38 -

Lucie Fusade

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.

Name of the Bishop of Londons Committee for the City Churches after being reconstituted in 1946
1

- 39 -

Lucie Fusade

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

The first decision made concerning the future of St. Martin church was a non-decision. In fact, in 1943, the York Diocesan Re-organisation Committee2 clearly 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 York entitled 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 property and to consider all problems of replanning within the Diocese necessitated by War Damage or other circumstances arising out of the war (committee minutes, 1942).

- 40 -

Lucie Fusade

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

- 41 -

Lucie Fusade

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 scheme for bringing the remnants of this church into worthy use (1955, p.2). Pace finished his

- 42 -

Lucie Fusade

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).

- 43 -

Lucie Fusade

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.

- 44 -

Lucie Fusade

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 authenticity and 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 restoration is necessary.

1- The outcomes of the restoration on significant elements

As authenticity is difficult to measure it is interesting to start by evaluating the impact of the restoration on significant elements by understanding what was changed and how. The difference between the elements before the bombing and after can be compared in order to define if marks of the destruction have be left or erased by the restoration. 1.1 St. Lawrence Jewry St. Lawrence Jewry, was restored according to the first meaning of restoration: returning a place to a known earlier state (ICOMOS, 1999, art. 1.8) as it is inspired by Wrens church. However, it seems that the restoration was not based on documentation or drawings.

- 45 -

Lucie Fusade

It was agreed during the decision making process (see above, Chapter III) that Brown had to restore the main body of the church as Wrens design. The exterior of the church, especially the decorated East side, remains unchanged as it was unharmed (fig. 16). Besides, the moulded plaster ceiling and vaulting with its decoration in white and gold is a replica of the previous one designed by Wren and was noticed for its accuracy (The Times, 1955) as illustrated by figures 2 and 17.

Figure 16. The East exterior side, 2012

Figure 17. The nave, 2012

- 46 -

Lucie Fusade

However, the details of Wrens original interior could not be exactly reproduced because the craftsmen were not the same, as well as time and financial reasons. As a result, the church was rebuilt in the spirit of Wren and not as an exact copy. Although the original design of the Organ and its gallery could not be exactly reproduced because of the cost they required, the organ created is quite similar and still highly decorated (fig. 18).

Figure 18. The organ, 2012

The main modification made to the church was the addition of an accommodation for the Vicar in the west part of the North aisle that originally comprised the Baptistery and the Priests Vestry (BLCCC, 1956). As a result it created a transept, use as the Commonwealth chapel (fig. 19). It was the only change done to the plan; the nave remained the same (fig. 20).

- 47 -

Lucie Fusade

Figure 19. The transept and chapel, 2012

Figure 20. Actual Plan of the Church, 2012 (pers. com.)

- 48 -

Lucie Fusade

Besides, whereas the nave and the chancel of Wrens church were structurally one, with the altar placed against the East wall, Browns restoration proposed giving more emphasis to the Altar by placing it in the centre of a raised Sanctuary and against a reredos, designed in the renaissance manner, between the eastern windows (fig. 21) (Brown, 1954, p.5).

Figure 21. The altar and reredos, 2012

Because all the windows had been destroyed some new stained glass windows, designed by Christopher Webb were incorporated on the East side, three on the south side to commemorate the parishes of Saint Lawrence, St. Michael and St. Mary, and in the Commonwealth Chapel (The Times, 1955, p.1). This choice of restoration _ take inspiration from Wrens design but not realise a faithful copy _ was criticised because no great attempt was made to reproduce the detail or even the character of Wrens [church] (Derrick, 1992, p.33).These changes to Wrens original scheme suggested that Brown wanted to put his mark and adapt the church for a more contemporary use through the restoration. Brown wanted to be faithful to Wren but also to make a personal creation

- 49 -

Lucie Fusade

This restoration of reproducing Wrens spirit gives a good understanding of how the church was before being destroyed. However Browns restoration erased all the marks of bombing to recreate a new church that looked like Wrens. In doing so, the restoration went beyond conjecture and only on the original fabric of the exterior walls was respected. The original church is now the envelope of a new church. For this reason, it is difficult to understand what has changed and whether the church is a complete copy or a new one.

- 50 -

Lucie Fusade

Table 1. summary of the impacts of the destruction and of the restoration on significant elements of St. Lawrence Jewry Significant elements plan of the church Shape of the Wrens church before bombing
Unchanged since Wrens

Impact of the bombing

Impact of the restoration

remained

Creation of accommodation and transept

An original drawing made by Wren (LMA, SC/GL/PHO/A/341/004/q6059804)

East side

unharmed

untouched

East side, 1910s Same as fig. 8

East side, 2012

- 51 -

Lucie Fusade

West side Facade and tower

unharmed

remained

Faade, before 1940

Same as fig. 6

Facade, 2012

Roof and ceiling

Ruined, collapsed

reproduced

Same as fig. 6 Nave and ceiling, 1930 (LMA

Ceiling, 2012

- 52 -

Lucie Fusade

nave

Badly damaged, ruined

Reproduced but in less detail

Nave, 1930

Nave, 2012 Figure 22. Interior looking East, 1941 (LMA, SC/PHL/02/1158-1165-535)

North side

Badly damaged

Arcades demolished New chapel

1924 (LMA)

Same as fig. 7

Same as fig. 20

- 53 -

Lucie Fusade

organ

Burnt out, reduced to ahes

Reproduced but less in detail

Same as fig.12 Same as fig. 6

Same as fig.18

vestry

Burnt out

Turned into an accommodation

Same as fig.13

- 54 -

Lucie Fusade

High altar

Burnt out, reduced to ashes

New high altar with a reredos

Same as fig. 21 Same as fig.22 Same as fig. 14

- 55 -

Lucie Fusade

1.2 St. Martin-Le-Grand George Pace followed the agreed scheme (see above, in Chapter III) but also made some decisions about which elements were to be kept or modified. Regarding Paces drawings (fig. 15) and to the actual shape of St. Martin le Grand, the church was restored exactly as he willed, which means that at the end he was the one leading the decisions over restoration. Considering the definition of restoration by The Athens Charter (1931, art VI, see above in Chapter I) it should respect the original fabric and preserve the character of the building. Therefore, it was a deliberate choice to keep the ruined part of the church intact as a reminder that the church had changed because of the war. Besides, because the ruins were left for ten years they had achieved a historic significance as being part of the history of the church. Evidences of the bombings have been left, as the north pillars were not restored (fig. 23); and marks of fire not erased (fig. 24).

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

- 56 -

Lucie Fusade

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

The restoration also consisted of an incorporation of intact elements of the previous church (Burra Charter, 1999, art.1.7) into the new scheme but in a new location. On Paces decision, the Great window was then incorporated opposite the entrance and on ground level (fig. 26), not re-arranged and re-inserted in the smaller windows of the South-Chapel as the York Civic Trust had suggested it (YCT, 1952-53, p.7). Lamb (1958, p.1) emphasizes that in a way, the new church has been designed round this window by the architect. Three small 14th and 15th century stained-glass windows have survived and been integrated in a new location as well. Pace also did some surprising integrations including the carved heads that are now visible outside the north wall, and some medieval carvings, previously used as filling in the 18th century, are now inside the nave (fig. 25).

Figure 25. . Medieval carved heads, new North wall, 2012

- 57 -

Lucie Fusade

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

But Pace also modified the burned-out-church. The main modification was the creation of a North wall, identified in orange on the actual map of the church. The wall and the south arcades create a collateral on the left of the new nave (fig. 27). The North wall had been built in an L shape, as visible on the actual plan (fig. 31), in order to serve as a giant frame for the Great Window. Figure 28 clearly shows the garden with the North pillars on the left, and on the right the new North wall and the Great Window. Although the outside walls of the church were not badly harmed Pace blocked the north aisle window and repaired the south aisle one as we can see on figures 29 and 30 by comparison to figure 5 in Chapter I. As a result of the destruction of the top of the former north wall and north arcades as well as the incorporation of the Great Window on ground level and now at the chancel, the new church in the south aisle is less high than the previous church. This modification

- 58 -

Lucie Fusade

is visible by comparing the faade before destruction (fig. 5 in Chapter I) and after restoration (fig. 28) or the previous nave (fig. 3 in Chapter I) and the current (fig. 27).

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

Figure 28. The Garden and new North Wall, 2012

- 59 -

Lucie Fusade

Figure 29. The restored faade, 2012

Figure 30. New south aisle window, 2012

- 60 -

Lucie Fusade

Figure 31. Actual map of the church (A. Hingston, 2012, pers. com)

- 61 -

Lucie Fusade

The agreed scheme was Paces started point but, as an architect, he made his own creation. He had his own idea about what needed to be done, especially for the interior, where he wanted something new and modern, with plaster. Pace had a sense of modernising, meaning constantly taking the old and make it modern (A. Hingston, 2012, pers. com.), and incorporating original elements into a modern creation. For this reason it is difficult to know how much is original and how much has been repaired. For instance, the ceiling, although medieval in spirit, is a 1960s creation, not a copy. The bosses are inspired by the 1450s original ones but Pace added his own colours, clearly visible in figure 32. Besides, the use of concrete, juxtaposed to original stones in figure 33, shows this will to make the chapel look modern. Besides, some fittings were recreated in a radically different way. Because the church was not rebuilt as a church of worship a 1960s main altar, radically different from the previous one, was put in place (A. Hingston, 2012, pers. com). Some new windows were created by Harry Stammers and added in the east (Laishley, 1968, p.1).

Figure 32 The repainted ceiling, 2012

- 62 -

Lucie Fusade

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

On April 28th 1968, twenty-six years after the destruction, the restoration was finished and the church re opened (Laishley, 1968, p.1). The restoration is said to be one of the most successful post-war restoration of churches in England. No further restoration of this church has been done since that time. From modifications with new materials to incorporation of original fabric, George Paces restoration therefore mixes modern conception and old elements of the church. As summarised by Laishley, the church is a blending of ancient and modern, a memorial to the past and a symbol of reconciliation (1968, p.1). This combination of old and 1960s fabric is clearly visible on the actual map of the church that shows the different periods of construction of the church. St. Martin-Le-Grand has been through centuries and had undergone many changes: a complete restoration in the 15th century, destruction, and a partial restoration. These changes are therefore part of the history of the church, and of its architecture as well. Paces restoration is thus another stage in this history but it is also a remainder of the previous stages as the 14th century, 15th century and the bombing are still visible. Although modern materials were added in the south aisle through restoration they are distinguished from the original fabric. The restoration respects the outcomes of the destruction and the history of the church is clear, the restoration emphasises the historical significance of the church.

- 63 -

Lucie Fusade

Table 2. summary of the impacts of the destruction and of the restoration on significant elements of St. Martins church Significant elements plan of the church date and shape before the bombing Unchanged since 15th century Impact of the bombing Remained Impact of the restoration divided in two by the new north wall the new church only in the south aisle

Plan of the church before 1960s

Plan of the church after 1960s

exterior walls

15th century

Remained, slightly damaged,

Slight repairs with modern stones

Modern repairs on exterior walls

- 64 -

Lucie Fusade

facade

15th century and 19th century restorations

Slighty damaged Damages especially to the window and north aisle side

Middle section completely restored, with the creation of a central arcade on the same high than the aisles North window blocked

Same as fig. 5

Same as fig. 12

Restored faade, 2012

tower

15th century and 19century restoration

Unharmed

Slight repairs with modern stones

1853, (York Explore, Y942_74_51)

Same as fig. 12

Tower, 2012

- 65 -

Lucie Fusade

Roof and ceiling

19th century restoration

Collapsed, completely ruined

modern restoration in the spirit of the 15th century ceiling

Same as fig. 3

Same as fig. 10

The nave, 2012

nave

19th century restoration

ruined

Cut in two by new north wall: half new church, half garden

Same as fig.11 Same as fig. 3

The Garden of Rest from the gate, 2012

- 66 -

Lucie Fusade

South aisle

15th century

Slighty damaged (no picture found)

Restored as a chapel, walls remain

Same as above

Nave: south wall and arcade

15th

century

Slighty damaged but unsafe

Top of the wall, window and arcade took down for safety reason South pillars kept and slightly repaired

South wall from the nave, 1942 (York Explore, Y_12173)

Same as above

- 67 -

Lucie Fusade

North aisle

15th century

Badly damaged

Cleared and left as a garden

north aisle, 2012 North aisle, 1942 (York Explore, Y_12177)

Nave: north wall and arcade

15th

and

17th

century

Heavily damage, arcade unstable

arcades and top wall: destroyed for safety reason; North pillar: not restored, new north wall

The nave, 1910 (York Explore, Y942_843_LOA_83) North aisle, 1942 (York Explore, Y_12175)

Garden, 2012

- 68 -

Lucie Fusade

Great window

15th century

Unharmed, moved before the air raid

Re-inserted in the church but on a different location and different high

The Great Window, not dated (York Explore, Y_11153

Same as fig. 10

Same as fig. 26

stain glass windows High altar

14th to 17th century 15th century

Some ruined, some damaged Badly damaged

some incorporated in the new church, and new ones Not restore, replaced by a new altar

The nave, 1910 (York Explore, Y942_843_LOA_83) Same as fig. 10

The altar, 2012

- 69 -

Lucie Fusade

Therefore, the restoration of these two churches covers the overall definition of restoration: return to a previous state of the church, respect of the original fabric, integration of leftover fragments and consolidation by distinguishing modern materials. As the tables illustrate, many significant elements of the churches have been changed through the restoration, in their design or location. However some other elements remained unchanged. This had an impact on the overall authenticity of the churches.

2- Impact of the restorations on the overall authenticity

The evaluation of the extent of the impacts of the restorations on the overall authenticity of the churches is based on three theories: the fact that there are different degrees of authenticity, Riegls system of values applied to the restoration and Thomsons theory of new authenticities.

2.1 impact on the different degrees of authenticity As seen in Chapter I, the concept of authenticity is multifaceted. For this reason the impact of the restoration is to be assessed regarding the different degrees of authenticity of a church. These degrees of authenticity concern the church itself: its fabric and design. Because they relate to how the church was before being restored they can be qualified as original authenticities. This assessment evaluate s whether a degree of authenticity is preserved or changed and why.

- 70 -

Lucie Fusade

Degrees of authenticity Authenticity of the fabric: Do the old stones remain?

St. Martin-Le-Grand Preserved: it is still visible in the garden and within the modern part of the church, Even though some old stones have been replaced.

St. Lawrence Jewry Preserved: the outside walls were unchanged and not restored. But changed for the interior (arcades destroyed). Preserved: the plan is unchanged even with the addition of an accommodation. Preserved: remains the same, untouched by the restoration

Authenticity of the overall plan: Does the plan have been modified? Authenticity of the exterior design

Changed: the original plan was modified to have a garden and a church on the same site. Preserved for the tower, the south window and south side of the church Changed: for the faade because of the creation of the arch less high than the previous church.

Authenticity of the interior design

Preserved in the garden Changed in the south aisles, especially because of the integration of modern material and the relocation of the window

Seems preserved because the church looks like the previous one, but the authenticity is changed because it is a copy

Authenticity of the function

Changed: not a parish church but a memorial

Preserved: remain the church of the City Corporation

To summarise it is not because there are not many old stones left that the overall authenticity of a church was changed. In the case of St. Lawrence Jewry, the authenticity of the fabric is not preserved, but the other degrees are, whereas in St. Martin the authenticity of the fabric is preserved but many of the other degrees, such as the plan and exterior design are. Therefore, the impact of a restoration on the authenticity varies depending on the approach.

- 71 -

Lucie Fusade

2.2 applying Riegls categorisation of values Riegl (1908) has defined different values that are part of a monument. Therefore it is interesting to evaluate the level of these values before the restoration, so after the bombing and consideration of restoration, one can assessed the impact on these values (Berducou, 2010). Values Age value: Based on signs of alterations Historic value: Based on the historical importance of the monument Use value: Based on current use Newness value: Based on the new aspect of the forms Low High Still exist but modified because new function Increased because of the modern elements Low High: because the current state seems like the original High High because of bombing High St. Martin-le-Grand before after High: alteration still visible, but modified by modern material Unchanged High Decrease because the historic authenticity is modified unchanged High: because of bombing St. Lawrence Jewry before after Low: no signs

To summarise, the age and the historic values remained after the restoration of St. Martins church and were even increased by the sign of destruction left. However, these values were highly modified through the restoration of St. Lawrence Jewry but, because of its modern aspect, the newness value is at a high level. Therefore, the restorations had an impact on these values: the restoration of St. Martins increased is commemorative value, whereas for St. Lawrence Jewry it increased its contemporaneity value. It means that the outcomes of the two restorations were

- 72 -

Lucie Fusade

different. Although values were changed, diminished or added by the restorations, they still remain. 2.3 The new authenticities Finally, the impact on the authenticity can be assessed by an alysis if new authenticities have been added to the destroyed and restored churches. The three new authenticities described by Thomson (see above in Chapter I) are added to a building through its destruction and its restoration. St. Martin-Le-Grand was restored by assembling the old walls of the church which still had signs of bombing in a modern restoration. Therefore the restoration is a reminder of the destruction of the church and adds a degree of authenticity called authenticity of experience. Because the church was rebuilt as a memorial and is thus still in use, it entered a new stage of its history and of the history of the place, giving a sense of continuity. For this reason there is an authenticity of connection but at a low level, because its main function has changed. The complete restoration of St. Lawrence Jewry cleaned the bombed site and erased all traces of the bombing in order to rebuild a new church within the walls left. For this reason the new authenticities added is an authenticity of renewal. The authenticity of the restoration can also be considered. At St. Martins church the restoration is visible and clearly distinguished from the original material, which made it authentic, whereas in St. Lawrence Jewry the restoration is hidden to make the church look like it was before.

At different degrees the authenticity has changed, especially if authenticity is considered what is original. However, these restorations have added new degrees of authenticity that take into account the history of these churches and add to their overall significance.

- 73 -

Lucie Fusade

CHAPTER V: Overall conclusion: two creations through restorations

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

In both cases the restoration had had an important impact, and the church is not the same as before. Some degrees of the original authenticity have been modified, whereas new degrees of authenticity have been added. St. Lawrence Jewry would seem more authentic than St. Martin-Le-Grand because the authenticity of the exterior design has been preserved and because the interior looks like the previous church. However, as seen in Chapter IV, the original authenticity of the church had been highly modified. In this case, the notions that matters and now define the church are the authenticity of renewal and the contemporaneity value. For this reason, it seems that the restoration of St. Lawrence Jewry has recreated an authenticity. In the case of St. Martins church, the original authenticities are more preserved because the bombed church was included in the restoration, even if modern materials have been added. Therefore, the different stages of the history of the church are visible which make authenticity of experience and the commemorative values being an essential aspect of the church. The authenticity of a church, in a broad meaning, cannot be either preserved or erased. It is different degrees of authenticities and some significant elements that are impacted and lead to increase or decrease some aspect of an authenticity through restoration. Therefore, because both restorations introduced modern materials they are more reconstructions, according to The Burra Charter (1999, art. 1.8). However, in both cases the restorations did not return the churches to their exact previous state. Moreover, because of the personal decisions made by both architects, the churches are creations, not just restorations because they both went beyond conjecture.

- 74 -

Lucie Fusade

2- Limitations and recommendations

Although the aims have been met because conclusions have been drawn; the research question cannot be strictly answer because the notion of authenticity is broad and multifaceted. It would be interesting to do the same study of post-war restoration of churches in France or in Germany in order to evaluate whether the restoration were undertaken with the same approach and whether the impact on the authenticity have been the same.

- 75 -

Lucie Fusade

List of References

Archbishops Church War Damage Committee. (1941) A Memorandum on the War Damage Act for the use of Diocesan and Parochial Authorities . London: Press and Publications board of the Church Assembly. Allen, G. (1946) Protection of the City Churches in the war, Friends of the City Churches, Occasional Paper, no 2. Unpublished booklet. London Aloul, M. (2007) The Destruction of Cultural Heritage by Warfare and Reconstruction Strategies: Lessons Learned from Case Studies of Rebuilt Cities. Master Thesis, University of Florida. Available online at: etd.fcla.edu/UF/UFE0021605/alaloul_m.pdf [accessed 27.08.2012] Berducou, M. (2010) Dontologie de la Conservation-Restauration: perspective historiques et questionnement actuels. [Lecture to Ecole du Louvre]. December. Biggam (2008). Succeeding with your Masters Dissertation, a step-by-step book. Open University Press. Bishop of London Committee on the City Churches (1941) [letter] to Rector [23 August], single page Bishop of London Committee on the City Churches (1942) [letter] to Rector [22 October], single page Bishop of London Committee on the City Churches (1943) [letter] to Reverend Couchman [10 August], single page Bishop of London Committee on the City Churches (1943) [letter] to Rector [12 August], single page Bishop of London Committee on the City Churches (1943) [letter] to Reverend Couchman [17 August], single page

- 76 -

Lucie Fusade

Bishop of London Committee on the City Churches (1946) [letter] to Rector [18 September], single page Bishop of London Committee on the City Churches (1946) [letter] to Reverend Couchman [1 October], single page Bishop of London Committee on the City Churches (1947) [letter] to Reverend Couchman [4 July], single page Brown, C. (1954) Leaflet for the re consecration service. Unpublished leaflet. London Casson, H. (1945) Bombed church as memorials. Cheam: Architectural Press Clarke, D.A in BBC News (1941) BBC Radio, 7th January Delafons. (1997) Politics and preservation: A policy History of the built heritage 18821996. London: E & FN Spon Derrick, A. (1993) The Post-War reconstruction of Wrens City Churches. AA Files mo 26, pp. 27-35 Diocese of London (1940) [letter] to Reverend of the City Churches [June], single page Diocese of London (1940) [letter] to Reverend of the City Churches [August], single page Diocese of London (1940) [letter] to Reverend of the City Churches [September], single page Diocese of London (1940) [letter] to Reverend of the City Churches [November], single page Diocese of London (1941) [letter] to Reverend of the City Churches [January], single page English Heritage. (2008) Conservation Principles Policies and Guidance for the sustainable management of the Historic environment. English Heritage publication

- 77 -

Lucie Fusade

Fejerdy, T. (1995) Authenticit dans la restauration des monuments historiques, Nara Conference on Authenticity in relation to the World Heritage Convention. Nara, Japan, 1-6 November 1994. UNESCO World Heritage Centre Publication, pp. 211-216 Forsyth, M. (2007) Understanding Historic building Conservation. Oxford : Blackwell Harrison, F. (1926) St Martins Church Coney Street: some note on its history and its ancient stain-glass. York: Yorkshire Herald Newspaper Hingston, A. (2012) Conversation with Lucie Fusade, 26 May. Personal Communication ICOMOS. (1982) Declaration of Dresden on the Reconstruction of Monuments Destroyed by war. Dresden: Available online at http://www.icomos.org/en/charters-andtexts/179-articles-en-francais/ressources/charters-and-standards/184-thedeclaration-of-dresden [accessed 27.08.2012] ICOMOS. (1964), International Charter for the Conservation and Restoration of Monuments and Sites, The Venice Charter. Available online at: www.icomos.org/charters/venice_e.pdf [Accessed 27.08.2012] ICOMOS. (1931) The Athens Charter for the Restoration of Historic Monuments. Adopted at the First International Congress of Architects and Technicians of Historic Monuments. Available online at: http://www.icomos.org/en/charters-and-texts/179-articles-enfrancais/ressources/charters-and-standards/167-the-athens-charter-for-therestoration-of-historic-monuments [Accessed 27.08.2012] ICOMOS Australia. (1999) The Burra Charter The Australia ICOMOS Charter for Places of Cultural Significance. Available online at: http://australia.icomos.org/publications/charters/ [Accessed 27.08.2012] Kane, L.J. (2011). Rebuilding to remember, Rebuilding to forget: The tangible and intangible afterlife of architectural heritage destroyed by acts of War. Masters thesis The State University of New Jersey. Available online at: mss3.libraries.rutgers.edu/dlr/showfed.php?pid=rutgers-lib:33773 [Accessed 27.08.2012] Knowles, John, A. (1953) The West Window of St. Martin le Grand Coney St, Yorshire Archaeological Journal, p.148

- 78 -

Lucie Fusade

Laishley. A.L. (1968) Return of a Great Window, Yorshire Life Illustrated, May, p.40 Laishley, A.L. (1968) The Church of St. Martin Le Grand Coney St. York: no publisher Lamb, A. (1958) York People Fought and a Treasure Rises again, Yorkshire Life Illustrated, p.15 Larkham, P.J. and Nasr, J. (2012) Decision making under duress: the treatment of London churches as special buildings after the Second World War, Urban History, Volume 39, Issue 02 , May 2012 , pp 285-309 Available online at:http://journals.cambridge.org/action/displayAbstract?fromPage=online&aid=85210 77 [Accessed 27.08.2012] Larkham, P.J. (2010) Developing concepts of conservation: the fate of bombed churches after the Second World War, Transactions of the Ancient Monuments Society vol. 54, pp. 7-34. Larkham, P.J. (2003) The place of urban conservation in the UK reconstruction plans of 19421952, Planning Perspectives, 18:3, 295-324 Larkham, P.J. (2004) The treatment of bombed churches after the Second World War: the development of ideas in reconstruction and conservation planning, Working Paper no. 92, School of Planning and Housing, UCE. Milner-White, E. (1943) Shall St. Martins Church be destroyed? An Open Letter to Lord Mayor and Citizens of York from the Dean of York. Unpublished booklet. York Monkhouse W., and Bedford, F. (1843) The Churches of York with historical and architectural, notes by Rev Joshua Fawcett. York: no publisher Norman, P. (1905) The Church of St. Lawrence Jewry. Presentation at the Society of Antiquaries, London Pace, G. (1960) Details places before the Feoffees on the 11th April 1960 in Parish Record. Unpublished record. York Richards, J.M. (1942) The bombed Building of Britain. London:The Architectural Press.

- 79 -

Lucie Fusade

Richardson, A.E. (1946) The Future of the City Churches Friends of the City Churches, Occasional Paper, no 2. Unpublished booklet. London Riegl, A (1908) The Modern Cult of Monument. Stainley-Price, N. (2009) The Reconstruction of Ruins: Principles and Practice in Richmond, A. (ed.) Conservation: Principles, Dilemmas and Uncomfortable Truths. London:In Association with the Victoria & Albert Museum, pp. 32-46 Stanley-Price, N. (2005) The thread of continuity: Cultural Heritage in Postwar Recovery. ICCROM forum on Cultural Heritage in Postwar Recovery, October 4-6 2005. ICCROM Conservation Studies 6. Available online at www.iccrom.org/.../ICCROM_ICS06_CulturalHeritagePostwar_en.pdf [Accessed 27.08.2012] Starn, R. (2002) Authenticity and historic preservation: towards an authentic history, in History of the Human Sciences, vol. 15 No. 1, pp 1-16. London: SAGE Publications Parochial Church Council (1941) Report, 12 January. Unpublished report. London, single page Parochial Church Council (1941) Report, 26 January. Unpublished report. London, single page Parochial Church Council (1942) Report, 23 November. Unpublished report. London, single page Pendlebury, J. (2003) Planning the Historic City: Reconstruction Plans in the United Kingdom in the 1940s, The Town Planning Review Vol. 74, No. 4, October, pp. 371-393, Liverpool University Press. Available online at http://www.jstor.org/stable/40112577 [Accessed 27.08.2012] Reverend Couchman. (1941) [letter] to Rector [22 January] Reverend Couchman. (1941) [letter] to Rector [7 November] Reverend of the church (1956) Progress Report, February. Unpublished handbook. London

- 80 -

Lucie Fusade

Surveyor of Diocese of London. (1941) [letter] to Reverend Couchman [10 January] Surveyor of Diocese of London. (1941) [letter] to Reverend Couchman [24 December] Swanson, H. (1999) Building Accounts from St Martins Coney Street 1447 -1452 in Smith, D.M (ed.) The Church in Medieval York. University of York, Borthwick Institute of Historical Research. The Times. (1944) War Damage Churches, 16 May Thomson, R.G. (2008) Authenticity and the Post-Conflict Reconstruction of Historic Sites, CRM: The Journal of Heritage Stewardship, National Park Service, Vol 5 Number 1 Winter 2008. Available online at: http://crmjournal.cr.nps.gov/04_article_sub.cfm?issue=Volume%205%20Number%20 1%20Winter%202008&page=2&seq=4 [Accessed 27.08.2012]. UNESCO. (1994) Nara Document on authenticity. Available online at: whc.unesco.org/uploads/events/documents/event-833-3.pdf [Accessed 27.08.2012]. UNESCO (2003) Declaration concerning the Intentional Destruction of Cultural Heritage. Available online at:http://portal.unesco.org/en/ev.phpURL_ID=17718&URL_DO=DO_TOPIC&URL_SECTION=201.html [Accessed 27.08.2012]. Yin, R,K. (2009) Case Study Research, Design and Methods. Applied Social Research Methods Series, Vol 5. London: Sage Publications, York Advisory Committee for the Care of Churches. (1955) 327th meeting report, February 22nd. Unpublished report. York York Advisory Committee for the Care of Churches. (1962) 391th meeting report, February 8th. Unpublished report. York York Civic Trust. (1948-49) Annual Report. Unpublished booklet York Civic Trust. (1949-1950) Annual Report. Unpublished booklet York Civic Trust. (1952-1953) Annual Report. Unpublished booklet York Civic Trust. (1959-1960) Annual Report. Unpublished booklet

- 81 -

Lucie Fusade

York Diocesan War Damage Committee. (1942) Committee minutes, 16th March. Unpublished report. York York Diocesan War Damage Committee. (1943) Committee minutes, 25th November. Unpublished report. York York Diocesan War Damage Committee. (1946) Committee minutes, May 12th. Unpublished report. York York Diocesan War Damage Committee. (1951) Committee minutes, October 16th. Unpublished report. York York Diocesan War Damage Committee. (1952) Committee minutes, 23rd May. Unpublished report. York York Diocesan War Damage Committee. (1952) Committee minutes, November 20th. Unpublished report. York York Diocesan War Damage Committee. (1953) Committee minutes, February 25th. Unpublished report. York York Diocesan War Damage Committee. (1955) Committee minutes, June 1st. Unpublished report. York York Diocesan War Damage Committee (1952) Schedules of War Damage and Building Priorities 1941-52. Unpublished booklet. York York Diocesan Reorganisation Committee. (1947) Priorities War Damage Replacements and Major Repairs. Unpublished booklet. York Wilson, B. and Mee, F. (1998) The Churches of York with historical and architectural notes by Rev. Joshua Fawcett. York

- 82 -