Notes and References

WA Lib. = Westminster Abbey Library

WAM = Westminster Abbey Muniments

1	The tower could be interpreted as having an octagonal upper stage, but certainty is impossible. The surviving crossing tower at Jumièges, Normandy – which is the closest analogue for Edward’s abbey church – is square throughout its height, but its twin western towers have square bases and octagonal upper stages.
2	R.D.H. Gem, ‘The Romanesque Rebuilding of Westminster Abbey’, Proceedings of the Battle Conference on Anglo-Norman Studies, III, 1980, fig. 5 (Woodbridge, 1981). Dr Gem’s reconstruction, which is reproduced here (Fig. 3), envisages a pyramidal roof to the crossing tower, not a domical cupola-like termination, and circular corner-turrets with conical roofs. The turrets could equally well have been square with pyramidal roofs.
3	J. Hubert, J, Porcher and W.F. Volbach, Carolingian Art, pl. 2 (London, 1970).
4	T. Tatton-Brown, ‘The Building History of the Lady Chapels’, in T. Tatton-Brown and R. Mortimer (eds.), Westminster Abbey: The Lady Chapel of Henry VII, 189–204 (Woodbridge, 2003); for the plan, see fig. 5.
5	The nationality of Henry of Reyns has been much debated, and current opinion favours English parentage, rather than French; however, this is by no means certain.
6	A.E. Henderson, Westminster Abbey Then and Now (SPCK, London, 1937).
7	C. Wilson, ‘The Chapter House of Westminster Abbey: Harbinger of a New Dispensation in English Architecture?’, in W. Rodwell and R. Mortimer (eds.), Westminster Abbey Chapter House: The History, Art and Architecture of ‘a chapter house beyond compare’, 40–65 (Society of Antiquaries, London, 2010).
8	S. Murray, Notre-Dame, Cathedral of Amiens, pl. 7 (Cambridge, 1996).
9	The exact overall dimensions of the crossing piers above plinth level (excluding the attached shafts) are 13.3 m (north–south) by 13.5 m (east–west).
10	Close access for inspection is not possible without scaffolding, but most of the moulded masonry in the Henrician work, if not of Purbeck marble is of Caen Stone. Reigate stone was generally used for plain ashlar and rubble-work.
11	For a plan showing the relationship of the belltower to the Abbey church, see R. Thomas, R. Cowie and J. Sidell, The Royal Palace, Abbey and Town of Westminster on Thorney Island, fig. 45. Museum of London Archaeology Service, Mono. 22 (London, 2006).
12	Previously noted in W.R. Lethaby, Westminster Abbey Re-Examined, 62 (London, 1925).
13	I use the term ‘nave’ in an architectural sense throughout this study, to refer to the main vessel of the church, west of the crossing; liturgically, however, the three easternmost bays of the nave, as well as the crossing itself, were occupied by the quire at Westminster, as in many other great churches.
14	The survival of this masonry inside the attached stair-turrets is incompatible with the demolition of a putative square tower; on the other hand, it can be explained if there had been an octagonal tower with projecting or detached corner-turrets (p. 16).
15	Pipe Roll 2 Edward I, rot. 18d. Cited in H. Colvin (ed.), The History of the King’s Works, 1, 146, n. 7 (HMSO, London, 1963).
16	In plan, at eaves level the tower measured 13.3 m (east–west) by 13.45 m (north–south), overall.
17	J. Bony, French Cathedrals, pls 85 and 86 (London, 1951).
18	There has been a reluctance by previous writers to accept the existence of this lantern, although no cogent argument for dismissing the graphic evidence has been advanced. Thus, it has been described as ‘a mere symbol rather than a representation’: W.R. Lethaby, Westminster Abbey and the King’s Craftsmen, 91 (London, 1906).
19	Tapisserie Plan: Musée Notre-Dame. I am grateful to Tim Tatton-Brown for supplying a copy of the drawing. See also A. Erlande-Brandenburg, Notre-Dame de Paris (Abradale Press, New York, 1999).
20	Wren Soc. 11 (1934), 19.
21	Bodleian Library: Gough Mss. Reproduced in Wren Soc. 11, pl. 4.
22	W.H. St John Hope, The Obituary Roll of John Islip, Abbot of Westminster, 1500–1532, with Notes on other English Obituary Rolls. Vetusta Monumenta VII (Society of Antiquaries, London, 1906). For discussion of Islip’s roll, see pp. 11–13; the letter is illustrated on pl. 24.
23	The Islip Roll was included in the Royal Academy’s, Exhibition of Flemish Art, 1300–1700, in 1953–54: cat. no. 625. The drawings were previously attributed to Hans Holbein.
24	The plain pyramidal roof on the cupola may well represent a simplification by the artist, since it would have been impossible for him to incorporate a tall spire or flèche in this elaborated letter ‘U’.
25	B. Willis, A Survey of the Cathedrals, 2, engraving by J. Harris opp. 332 (London, 1742); J. Maddison, Ely Cathedral: Design and Meaning, 63–70, fig. 53 (Ely Cathedral Publications, 2000).
26	D. King, The Cathedrall and Conventuall Churches of England and Wales, Orthographically Delineated, fig. 23 (London, 1656); L. Reilly, An Architectural History of Peterborough Cathedral, 28, pl. 43 (Oxford, 1997).
27	For construction details of the Ely octagon, see C.A. Hewett, English Cathedral and Monastic Carpentry, 114–22 (Chichester, 1985).
28	A. Peigné-Delacourt, Monasticon Galliarum, 2, pl. 76 (Paris, 1871).
29	H. Keepe, Monumenta Westmonasteriensia, 131 (London, 1683).
30	J. Dart, History of St Peter’s, Westminster, 2, 58 (London, 1723).
31	One or two bells could be tolled from a platform or gallery within the lantern, and that presents no great logistical problem. However, installing a peel of six for change-ringing is quite a different matter. The bells could not have been rung from the floor of the quire, both on account of the distance being too great, and the inconvenience it would cause to the conduct of services. Hence, a ringing chamber would have to be constructed inside the lantern, and that had to be separated from the belfry itself, on account of the noise factor.
32	For detailed drawings of the timberwork, see The Builder 93, 3 Aug. 1907.
33	H.A. Cox and H.W. Brewer, Old London Illustrated. London in the XVI Century, fig. 10 (The Builder, 8th edn., London [1947]). Brewer’s drawing appears to be dated 1894.
34	C. Wilson, in Rodwell and Mortimer 2010, op. cit., 56, fig. 62. The drawing is in the Victoria and Albert Museum: E.128–1924.
35	Being without purlins or wind-braces, the thirteenth-century rafter-couples of the high roofs of the Abbey relied upon their being securely held in the vertical plane by large masses of masonry at both ends. Diagonal braces were later fitted, at least in the north transept, doubtless because the roof began to rack after losing the crucial support provided by the crossing tower: see Hewett 1985, op. cit., 29, fig. 26.
36	H. Colvin and S. Foister (eds.), The Panorama of London, circa 1544, by Anthonis van den Wyngaerde. London Topographical Soc., 151 (1996). The original drawings which make up the panorama are in the Bodleian Library, Oxford. They were previously published by London Topographical Society in their vols 1 (1881–82) and 77 (1941).
37	E.g. N. Whittock, London, Westminster and Southwark as they appeared A.D. 1543, fig. 1. (London, n.d., c. 1840).
38	G.E. Mitton, Maps of Old London, fig. 1 (London, 1908).
39	Another introduction is St Margaret’s church, which was omitted from the original drawing; and the campanile is shown in a markedly different form.
40	Although the drawing may represent the situation obtaining in 1532, it is more likely to have been based on an earlier record that depicted the coronation in 1509. Hence, the possibility that the lantern had already been lost before 1532 must be acknowledged.
41	For the north elevation, see M. Roberts, Dugdale and Hollar: History Illustrated, 59 (University of Delaware Press, 2002). For the south elevation, see Wren Soc. 11, pl. 1. Typically, Hollar omitted the cloister ranges entirely, ‘completing’ the architectural detail on the south elevation as though there had never been any abutments.
42	J.C. Keirincx’s prospect of Westminster (1625) is a very elementary sketch and the detailing is possibly not reliable; it is reproduced in I. Watson, Westminster and Pimlico Past: A Visual History, fig. 1 (Historical Publications, London, 2002).
43	Watson 2002, op. cit., fig. 1.
44	Bodleian Library, Gough Mss. Reproduced in Wren Soc. 11, 115, pl. 4.
45	The positioning of these eight openings points to an octagonal or even circular gallery arrangement, which would have included a further four openings on the angled faces, connecting with the corner-turrets. The spacing between the twelve openings would have been equidistant around the circumference of the circle describing the interior of the lantern.
46	This is seen in section in Figs 31, 32 and 46.
47	Although the situation is confused by the overdrawing of various potential stair arrangements, only two of the turrets are shown with doors providing access from the parapet walks. It may be noted that some other corner-turrets have hollow compartments where they do not contain stairs (e.g. in the south transept: turret west of the central gable).
48	Painting in Westminster Abbey Collection; it is unsigned and undated, but on internal evidence must fall within the bracket 1677–1706. Cocke 1995, op. cit., fig. 100.
49	A possible date for the replacement of the ceiling would be 1706, when the sanctuary was refurbished and the enormous Whitehall altarpiece was installed. Cocke 1995, op. cit., 40–3, fig. 22.
50	S. Wren (ed.), Parentalia, sect. VII, 295–302 (London, 1750; reprinted Gregg Press, Farnborough, 1965). See also Wren Soc. 11, 15–20.
51	Wren Soc. 11, 18. Grants had been made annually by the House of Commons since 1699.
52	E.B. Chancellor, ‘Wren’s Restoration of Westminster Abbey: I. The Drawings’, The Connoisseur 78, no. 311 (1927), 145–8.
53	Wren Soc. 11, 12. WAM 34511, f. 43. Wren refers to the model in his report of 1713. See also T. Cocke, 900 Years: The Restorations of Westminster Abbey, 130–1 (Harvey Miller, London, 1995). The date of the model is given there as c. 1720.
54	Westminster Abbey, inventory no. 1062. The model has been variously exhibited at the Abbey and elsewhere, and when it was soaked with water during World War II it collapsed. The fragments were subsequently reconstructed by J.G. O’Neilly in c. 1980. For a detailed account of its vicissitudes, see T. Platt, Catalogue of the Lapidarium (2002), item E22 (WAM, unpublished).
55	Wren Soc. 11, 19.
56	Only two tie-bars are currently missing and these were not linked to the crossing piers, but were associated with the western arcade in the south transept. The physical integration of the east cloister with the western aisle rendered those bars unnecessary anyway.
57	Bodleian Library, Gough Mss. Undated plan (1723, or earlier). Reproduced in Wren Soc. 11, pl. 4.
58	The measurements were taken by Hawksmoor, following the erection of scaffolding in the crossing in April 1724 (p. 47); they are recorded on a piece of paper attached to Wren’s drawing of 1715. Wren Soc. 11, 115–16, pl. 4.
59	North-west – 1¾ ins; north-east – 1¼ ins; southeast – ¾ in; south-west – 2¼ ins.
60	Wren Soc. 11, 20. As we see from his other works at the Abbey, Wren’s adherence to the Gothic style was anything but strict: he basically invented his own version of Gothic, which had clear classical overtones.
61	Wren Soc. 11, 21.
62	Bodleian Library: Gough Mss. Reproduced in Wren Soc. 11, pl. 4.
63	WAM (P)907. The drawing is dated 14 Sept. 1722.
64	WAM (P)909 with flaps 909A–C. Flap A is dated 4 Aug. 1722 and flap C is dated 8 Jan. 1722/3.
65	WAM (P)909D.
66	Version (iia) was reproduced in Wren Soc. 11, pl. 5.
67	WAM (P)908. The drawing is dated Dec. 1722.
68	WAM (P)911. No explanation can be offered as to why these two, seemingly unrelated, items should have been conjoined and bear the same date.
69	WAM (P)902. Cf. Cocke 1995, op. cit, fig. 25. The original drawing can be no later than 1720, but the pencilled tower could be a slightly later addition, although the positioning of the image on the paper would argue against that.
70	Wren Soc. 11, 29.
71	North-west view by John James (Wren Soc. 11, 34, 116, pl. 6). A receipt for producing this engraving is dated 13 May 1737 (WAM 46734).
72	W. Maitland, The History of London, 686 (London, 1739). The engraving is by W.H. Toms. See also Cocke 1995, op. cit., fig. 24.
73	There is a considerable literature referring to Hawksmoor’s contribution to Westminster Abbey. The principal works are: K. Downes, Hawksmoor (London, 1959; 2nd edn., 1979); H.M. Colvin, A Biographical Dictionary of British Architects, 473–8 (Yale U.P., 3rd edn., 1995); V. Hart, Nicholas Hawksmoor (Yale U.P., 2002).
74	Cocke 1995, op. cit., ch. 3.
75	G. Worsley, ‘Drawn to a Find’, Country Life 187 (20 May 1993), 100–1.
76	WAM (P)913. The drawing is neither signed nor dated, but is likely to have been created in 1723 or early in 1724.
77	WAM (P)912. The drawing is neither signed nor dated; several versions of the cupola are indicated on paper flaps.
78	WAM, Hawksmoor drawing no. 5.
79	WAM (P)910, dated May 1724.
80	The legend records: ‘The pillars of ye dome are proposed to be fortified and made larger and thicker’.
81	WAM, Hawksmoor drawing no. 4.
82	Drawings in Westminster City Archives: Box 53, nos 6 and 7.
83	Hart 2002, op. cit., figs 55, 81 and 109.
84	Hart 2002, op. cit., 38, fig. 46.
85	WAM 34517; Wren Soc. 11, 29.
86	WAM (P)911.
87	The roof truss shown is characteristically eighteenth century and, as previously remarked, is likely to have been installed by Wren when he was carrying out major roofing work a few years earlier. Selfe-vidently, several of the drawings considered in this study are structurally ‘layered’, in that they served both to provide a record of what existed, and at the same time were overlaid with one or more proposals.
88	WAM 34515, f. 25v.
89	WAM, Minutes and Accounts for Repairs, 1722–45. Published in Wren Soc. 11, 30.
90	Wren Soc. 11, 30. The instruction is also recorded on Hawksmoor drawing no. 9.
91	Wren Soc. 11, 30.
92	Westminster Abbey, inventory no. 1043.
93	The significance of the fragments was first identified by Tony Platt, who assembled them for display in the Abbey’s former Lapidarium. They have not hitherto been published, and deserve fuller treatment than can be accorded to them here.
94	As reconstructed, this cannot represent the basement stage itself of a wholly octagonal lantern, because the paired windows would have been obstructed by the abutting roofs. On the other hand, since the fragments assembled to form this component are not conjoining, it is possible that they derive from a different structural configuration.
95	The model potentially relates to the western half of the crossing tower, with the stair in the north-west turret, as it is today.
96	WAM, Hawksmoor drawing no. 9.
97	WAM, Hawksmoor drawings nos 10 and 11. Estimates: WAM 34891 and 34892A.
98	WAM, Minutes and Accounts for Repairs, 1722–45. Published in Wren. Soc. 11, 30. For Hawksmoor’s estimate, see WAM 34891.
99	WAM 34891 and 34892A. For estimates from the various trades involved, accepted and signed by Hawksmoor, who added the proviso, ‘The work is not to exceed this estimate’; see WAM 34688–34693.
100	Most likely, the decision to install a plaster and timber vault over the crossing, rather than the stone one that Hawksmoor preferred, was driven by the need for haste.
101	WAM 34598.
102	WAM 34693 (estimate and instruction to proceed). At this period, Newcastle was noted for the production of the highest quality ‘flint’ glass in Britain.
103	Engraving by W. & J. Walker, after J. Dixon, dated 30 Jun. 1784, published in The European Magazine; copy in the Bodleian Library, Gough Maps, 23, f. 10b; reproduced in T. Friedman, The Georgian Parish Church: Monuments to Posterity, fig. 83 (Spire Books, Reading, 2004). There is also a copy of the engraving in WAM.
104	While the view is taken looking east, with the royal box set up in front of the quire screen, the artist seems to have inserted the west window of the nave into the presbytery; it is larger than the windows in the eastern apse, and provided a more satisfactory distant focal point for the viewer. That aside, the architectural detailing is tolerably well recorded.
105	The scheme shown did not just cover the boarded-up arches, but created a continuous frieze around the interior of the tower. Inspiration for this may have been derived from the arcaded gallery-like feature above the external entrance to the north transept: see Hawksmoor drawing no. 4.
106	M. Jourdain, The Work of William Kent, 72, fig. 86 (Country Life, London, 1948).
107	The weathering has been altered, and the fourth (topmost) course is a relatively recent addition: it was not present when the 1870s photograph was taken (Fig. 93).
108	WAM, Hawksmoor drawing no. 5. Curiously, this drawing bears two dates and is not readily compatible with the basement stage of the tower that had already been constructed in 1727.
109	WAM 46042. Published in Wren. Soc. 11, 34.
110	WAM, Hawksmoor drawing no. 20.
111	WAM, Minutes and Accounts for Repairs, 1722–45. Published in Wren. Soc. 11, 29.
112	Many artists in the eighteenth and nineteenth centuries chose to omit the tie-bars entirely, but an oil painting (in the Abbey Collection) showing an eastward view of the quire in c. 1700 appears to record a full complement of ironwork: it is reproduced in Cocke 1995, op. cit., fig. 100.
113	Grove Dictionary of Art (Oxford, 1996).
114	This painting is in the Westminster Abbey Collection.
115	Ibid.
116	Christies Auction Catalogue, London, 23 Jun. 1972, lot 2. Photograph in the Conway Library, Courtauld Institute of Art, London (Neg. 625/8/8). The painting was sold by the Rt. Hon. Lord Burnham of Hill Barn, Beaconsfield, and bought by the London art dealer Roy Miles, for 380 guineas (£399). The canvas measured 96.5 x 71.1 cm.
117	For the history of this building, see W. Rodwell in The Westminster Abbey Chorister 49 (Winter 2009/10), 21–5.
118	Hawksmoor discussed the work in an undated letter to the dean [1735]: WAM 24878. Published in Wren. Soc. 11, 33–4.
119	Cited in Worsley 1993, op. cit., 101.
120	WAM 34720.
121	Parliament had made the decision in 1697, but the first grant was not paid for another two years. Cocke 1995, op. cit., 48–53.
122	St Margaret’s Church is not included in the extracts reproduced here as Figs 79 and 81.
123	The two paintings were acquired separately in the twentieth century: no. 1 found its way to Toynbee Hall, from which it was purchased by Lord Wakefield of Hythe in 1932, and presented to the Dean and Chapter. Painting no. 2 was found hanging in a hotel in the 1930s, by the Keeper of the Muniments of Westminster Abbey, but was then lost from view for many years, turning up again in the 1970s, when it was purchased for the Abbey. See further: L.E. Tanner, Recollections of a Westminster Antiquary, 173, pl. 43 (London, 1969).
124	Worsley 1993, op. cit., 100.
125	Copies are held by several institutions, including the British Museum (Prints and Drawings Dept.) and the Guildhall Library, London.
126	Engraving from an unidentified publication. Reproduced in E. Abbott et al., Westminster Abbey, 22–3 (Radnor, Pa., USA, 1988). It is there assigned to the late seventeenth century, but is datable to the period 1727–35. It shows the basement for the new lantern tower which was built in 1727, but not the upper part of the north-west tower which was begun in 1735 and completed in 1738.
127	Watercolour in the British Museum: Prints and Drawings 1865-8-10-1323. Reproduced in J. Cherry and N. Stratford, Westminster Kings and the Medieval Palace of Westminster, 6. British Museum, Occ. Pap. 115 (1995).
128	E.g. R. Ackermann, The History of St Peter’s, Westminster, 2, pl. 3 (London, 1812). J.P. Neale and E.W. Brayley, The History and Antiquities of the Abbey Church of St Peter, Westminster, 1, pl. 21; 2, pls 28 and 41 (London, 1818 and 1823).
129	Woodperry House was built in 1728–31 by John Morse, a wealthy London goldsmith, but he died in 1739 and cannot therefore have commissioned the painting. The chimneypiece was clearly altered to accommodate it, but no plausible connection with subsequent owners or tenants has so far been established.
130	The canvas measures 126 × 70.5 cm; it has been cleaned, rebacked and remounted in recent times.
131	The signature, which is placed in a small plaque on the west face of the tower of St Margaret’s Church, occupies three lines: it appears to read MARI[…]F·X / VERV / PINX · A·D·1748. The reading of the second and third lines is not in doubt.
132	For the Woodperry painting, see J. Cornforth, ‘Woodperry, Oxfordshire II’, Country Life 129 (12 Jan. 1961), figs 3 and 12; also M. Airs, ‘The Woodperry House Chimney Piece’, in M. Airs (ed.), Baroque and Palladian: The Early Eighteenth-Century Great House, 47–53 (OUDCE, Oxford, 1996).
133	E.g. in the engraving, the north transept, nave and north-west tower all rise from a common base-line, whereas in the painting the true projection of the transept is captured.
134	The fact that the village of Islip lies 3½ miles away from Woodperry – and was the birthplace of Edward the Confessor – hardly provides a convincing explanation for adorning the chimneypiece with a painting of Hawksmoor’s design for completing the towers of Westminster Abbey. This has, however, been adumbrated.
135	Illustrations derivative from James’s similarly show large lucarnes: e.g. E. Walford, Old and New London, 3, 409 (London, 1897; original edn., ed. W. Thornbury, 1872–78).
136	WAM, Chapter Minute Book.
137	It is too much of a coincidence that we have both Kent’s estimate for painting figures, and a view showing an arcaded gallery that would have housed them: the evidence is complementary, and I am not therefore inclined to reject out-of-hand either element as having never existed in reality.
138	The interior of the lantern is also just glimpsed in Malton’s view of the nave. Engravings in Westminster Abbey. WA Lib., Langley Coll. II.1.(22). Cocke 1995, op. cit., figs 36 and 37.
139	J. Perkins, Westminster Abbey: Its Worship and Ornaments, 1, 149. Alcuin Club Coll. (London, 1938).
140	J. Carter, letter in Gentleman’s Magazine 73(ii) (1803), 636–8.
141	Carter criticized this unhistorical approach in Gentleman’s Magazine 75(i) (1805), 324.
142	Neale and Brayley, 2 (1823), op. cit., pls 33 and 45.
143	Ackermann, 2 (1812), op. cit., pls 7 and 9. Neale and Brayley, 2 (1823), pl. 42. Cocke 1995, op. cit., fig. 38. Note: Ackermann’s pl. 9 (1811)shows no door in the filling of the northern arch, which would appear to be a consequence of his copying the view from Malton’s painting of 1793; that being pre-fire, the aperture was merely boarded over.
144	The boarding was fixed to the backs of the arches, so that they appeared as recesses when viewed from the crossing. Remains of the iron cleats that held the boarding are visible inside the roofs spaces.
145	Access for repair and maintenance was difficult, since there was not even a parapet around the top of the tower.
146	On the right-hand side of the bricked-up arch in the west face of the tower.
147	G.G. Scott, Gleanings from Westminster Abbey, 37 (2nd edn., London, 1863).
148	Scott built the present crossing tower and spire at Chichester Cathedral, following the collapse of the medieval one in 1861, he carried out major restorations on towers and spires at Salisbury, Lichfield and other cathedrals in the 1860s and 1870s, and he designed new churches such as the twin-towered and spired Episcopalian Cathedral at Edinburgh (1876).
149	For details of this and other works carried out by Scott and later Surveyors, see C. Reynolds (ed.), Reports and Letters of the Surveyors of the Fabric, Westminster Abbey, 1827–1906 (forthcoming).
150	G.G. Scott, Personal and Professional Recollections by the Late Sir Gilbert Scott, R.A., Edited by his son, G. Gilbert Scott, F.S.A., 153. (London, 1879; new edn., Stamford, 1995).
151	The instruction to carry out this work was given to Samuel Cundy, stonemason, on 26 Feb. 1859: Scott’s report to the Dean and Chapter. WAM, RCO 5.
152	The windows were installed by Cundy, whose contract is dated 21 Mar. 1859. WAM, RCO 5.
153	WAM, RCO 5.
154	S. Brindle, ‘Sir George Gilbert Scott and the Restoration of the Chapter House, 1849–72’, in Rodwell and Mortimer 2010, op. cit., 139–57.
155	For an undated drawing (late nineteenth century?) of the proposed layout of the roof leads, see WAM, SD/1/596.
156	G.G. Scott 1879, op. cit., 287. See also A.D.C. Hyland, ‘Imperial Valhalla’, Journ. Soc. Architectural Historians 21 (1962), 129–39.
157	WAM, RCO 6; dated 11 Feb. 1899.
158	For the context of these schemes, see G.A. Bremner, ‘“Imperial Monumental Halls and Tower”: Westminster Abbey and the Commemoration of Empire, 1854–1904’, Architectural History 47 (2004), 251–82.
159	A series of views was prepared; two of the watercolours are in the RIBA Drawings Collection at the Victoria and Albert Museum.
160	The architects proposed only a single, large belfry opening in each face of the crossing tower; this is unusual, there being more commonly two openings per face. In that respect they took their cue from the Abbey’s western towers, where the principal faces are smaller on account of the heavy buttressing.
161	W. Rodwell, ‘The Chapter House Glazing’, in Rodwell and Mortimer 2010, op. cit., 250, fig. 239.
162	This occurred in the presence of A.L.N. Russell, architect for Westminster School: The Guardian, 12 May 1941. The report is probably exaggerated, since very little masonry was dislodged by the fire.
163	WAM, Peers’s files include design drawings of the new roof structure, dated July 1941.
164	Inf. from Alan Rome, former Assistant Surveyor under Dykes Bower. I have been unable to trace a copy of this photograph.
165	WAM, SD/1/635–639.
166	The unfortunate effect is well demonstrated in a photograph taken in May 1945 at a service celebrating Britain’s victory in the Second World War (press cutting kindly supplied by Alan Rome).
167	This pavement, comprising diagonally-laid squares of black and white marble, was first laid in 1677, repaired in 1746, taken up and relaid in 1775–76 when the quire was reordered, patched after the fire of 1803, taken up and relaid again in 1847, and finally repaired in 1957.
168	WAM, the Dykes Bower files contain considerable correspondence relating to post-war repairs. For dimensioned survey drawings (May 1956) of the interior of the lantern, see WAM, SD/1/678–679.
169	WAM, Dykes Bower files. The cost of the glazing was £1,514 10s 0d, plus £368 for scaffolding.
170	The structural engineer who designed the ceiling support was H.J. Paton. His drawings (dated 30 May 1956) and correspondence are in WAM.
171	WAM, Dykes Bower files. Letter from Mathew to the Librarian, 28 Sept. 1984.
172	WAM, SD/1/600–602, 698–806.
173	It is also found earlier in the wallpainting in St Faith’s chapel.
174	Dr E. Clive Rouse advised on the painting (inf. from Dr Pamela Tudor-Craig).
175	By Peter Foster, Surveyor of the Fabric, 1973–88. WAM, SD/1/879–881.
176	Surveys carried out by The Downland Partnership Ltd, using a combination of techniques: GIS surveying, photogrammetry and laser-scanning.
177	The amounts by which the piers are out of plumb are as follows: south-west, 2.2 cm; north-west, 8.4 cm; north-east, 2.7 cm; south-east, 0.5 cm. The bowing on the full height of the shafts is, respectively, 8.6 cm, 8.3 cm, 8.2 cm and 7.1 cm.
178	The crossing has been analyzed by Clive Richardson, Structural Engineer to Westminster Abbey, who has very kindly supplied the data incorporated in this chapter.
179	A pit was dug against the transept foundation in 1869, when some information about the raft and local ground conditions was noted, albeit very sketchily: H. Poole, ‘Some Account of the Discovery of the Roman Coffin in the North Green of Westminster Abbey’, Archaeol. Journ. 27 (1870), 119–46; see esp. 124 and plan opp. 118.
180	WAM, SD/1/634.
181	Mr Richardson points out that, in making his calculations, certain reasonable assumptions had to be made where absolute knowledge is lacking.
182	Carried out by Mrs Erica Utsi, of Utsi Electronics Ltd.
183	For a plan showing the topographical relationship between the medieval Palace and the Abbey, see Thomas et al. 2006, op. cit., fig. 45.
184	This appendix is largely based on the author’s article, ‘Staged Timber Spires in Carolingian North-east France and Late Anglo-Saxon England’, Journ. British Archaeol. Assoc. 148 (1995), 29–54, where full references will be found.