The Danger to St. Paul's Cathedral, London

New Zealand Tablet, Volume LII, Issue 10, 18 March 1925, Page 29

The Danger to St. Paul's Cathedral, London

j The dome of St. Paul's has been officially "1 declared to be a "dangerous structure" (says the London Catholic Times). The piers and arches that support it have long been showing signs of being overweighted by the evidence of ominous cracks and stones forced out of true alignment. Efforts have been for some time in progress to strengthen them by forcing liquid concrete into the rubble work of their interior, but exports are now suggesting that this is not effective, and that complete reconstruction of the piers may be necessary. The weight they carry is about 40,000 tons, including the dome itself, the cylindrical structure from which it rises and the lantern on its summit. To many the sectional diagrams of the dome, published in the Times and other papers, must have come as a revelation, for few realise that Wren's stately dome is. strictly speaking, an architectural sham. 'The true dome developed from the arch, and is a selfsupporting circular vault. Wren's dome, as we see it towering over London, is a domeshaped shell supported, by a. hug' l cone of brickwork rising from the circular base of its sub-structure, with a domed ceiling concealing this device as seen from within the cathedral. All the other famous domes of the world, from the Roman Pantheon of classic days to St. Peter's and the Cathedral of Florence, are true domes, and several of them (including the three we have named) have a wider span than that of St. Paul's. One may wonder why it was that Wren, with A these examples before him. designed the complicated structure of St. Paul's dome —all the more because a true dome could have been designed that would have brought a less crushing weight upon the piers.

Built for the Mass. It is an interesting fact that it was not upon Wren's original design that the new St. Paul's was built after the fire of 1666. In one of his letters, written while ho was engaged in his immense task of the rebuilding of central London, he remarked that it had been complained that many of the parish churches lie designed to replace those destroyed by the Great Fire were smaller than their predecessors. He wrote that he had deliberately reduced their size and with good reason. Catholic churches, he argued, were built for the Mass, and it was sufficient even for a large congregation to be present at its celebration, but in Protestant churches the most important point was that the preacher should be seen and easily heard by all. So he made his parish churches halls of moderate size and simple ground plan. Obviously this famous builder of Protestant churches had never heard of the "continuity" fable, and fully realised that the altar was the centre of Catholic worship, while the reading desk and the pulpit were the essentials of the new church' service. When he set about designing the new St. Paul's his first proposal was the building of a great domecrowned hall, where a. large congregation could assemble on State occasions. This was rejected by the King, and he substituted a design for a building on the general lines of a Catholic cathedral with some features--such as places for side altars and eh :jpels that were useless in a Protestant church. Tradition says that it was the Catholic Duke of York, afterwards James IT, whose influence decided the change of plans, his action being inspired by the hope of S + . Paul's being one day restored to Catii >iic worship.