CHAPTER II

THE EXTERIOR OF THE CHURCH

The church of Holy Trinity loses much, in popular estimation at least, by its nearness to St. Michael's. It invites comparison of the most obvious sort. It is not nearly so large and its spire is not so high, these facts alone are sufficient to account for the popular view. Fuller, in his "Worthies" says of the two churches, "How clearly would they have shined if set at competent distance! Whereas now, such their Vicinity, that the Archangel eclipseth the Trinity."

The plan is quite unlike that of its neighbour, being cruciform, with a central tower, a short nave, and a chancel distinctly longer than the nave. On the south both nave and chancel have a single aisle, the transept projecting beyond it and there is a vestry at the east end. On the north there is a similar aisle with a Lady Chapel at the east corresponding to the Vestry, but a large porch and several chapels fill up the spaces so that the transept does not in plan project.

Looking at the exterior as a whole it may be said that the more moderate length (194 feet), the central spire, 230 feet high, and the transepts unite in forming a more satisfactory composition than the long body and immense western steeple of St. Michael's. There however, the superiority ceases for the frequent "recasings" and restorations have left hardly a stone of the exterior that has not been renewed again and again, and the dates of these operations, 1786, 1826, 1843, sufficiently suggest the degree of knowledge and feeling likely to be manifested in the work.

Probably most of the structure was first built of the same friable red sandstone as its greater neighbour. Much of the recasing has been executed in a rather harder gray sandstone, but the tower and spire are still red.

The tower above the roofs, is of two stages, the upper, or bell chamber, and the lower or lantern opening into the church. Below this are small windows with the lines of the old high-pitched roof visible above the present transept roofs, but in the nave and chancel the lines of the old roofs are now within the church, the clearstory having since been added. Each face of the tower is divided, apart from the narrow angle buttresses, into six vertical divisions separated by thin projections of buttress form. On the south and west the stair turret absorbs one of the outer divisions. Each division is curved in plan in a curious way, which may be the perpetuation of a feature of the original design, but was more probably introduced or modified by the person who recased the tower in 1826. That there was sculpture we know, for in 1709 ten shillings was paid for taking the images down from the steeple. The smallness of the sum indicates that they were few in number, and if they occupied similar positions to those on the belfry stage of St. Michael's, and the structure was as decayed as was the tower of that church it is probable that the cutting away of the niches may have suggested the curving of the surfaces especially as the tower would be thereby lightened. As it is we cannot be certain of much else than that there were vertical divisions serving to emphasize the impression of height and that the openings were in the same positions as now.

The spire blown down in 1665 had been in the previous ninety years five times repaired and repointed. We cannot now say whether the original design was at all closely followed in the rebuilding, but its present likeness to St. Michael's suggests doubts. The lowest stage which takes the place of the octagon and may be an intentional imitation of it, has almost upright sides with two-light windows on the cardinal faces and panelled ones on the oblique sides, while the remaining stages correspond in number and partly in design with those of St. Michael's.

In 1855 it was considered that the bells endangered the safety of the tower, and after recasting by Mears of London they were rehung in a timber campanile in the north churchyard. Even now they cannot be pealed.

The deplorable refacings have left few features of interest on the outside. Were Gothic architecture still a living and not merely imitative and academic art, one would welcome a complete renewal of all outside work--not an imagined harking back to the work of the fifteenth century but showing the lapse of the centuries from the fifteenth to the twentieth as clearly as does the north porch the change from the thirteenth to the fifteenth.