Problems With Dating St Mary Redcliffe Church Essay Example

make it impossible to identify an original date as much of the initial porch is now obscured.
Moreover, dating this particular part of the church poses another difficulty since Brakspeare believes that the outer north porch was built in 1290 - a date that aligns with information from one style sheet but falls within early English period according to another sheet. Notably, certain statues seem to have gone missing and could potentially be a result of puritanism.

The Puritans had a strong commitment to their Christian faith and sought to convert the Catholic Church into the Church of England. They viewed statues within churches as symbols of idolatry, with a particular disdain for those depicting Mary due to her lack of importance in the worship practices of the Church of England. As a result, they often destroyed these statues, which could have offered valuable insights into the church's construction history. However, this act only makes it more challenging to determine exact dates. Despite this difficulty, the presence of Puritans during the 16th-17th century suggests that the porch was likely constructed during that time period.

Although it is not conclusive, we can gather some information from the inner north porch of the church. It appears to have been built in the Early English style, which is characterized by arched walls, ceilings, and archways, unlike the undecorated, straight lines of the Norman style. The entrance to the porch, however, suggests decoration from the Decorated period, with intricate floral patterns and impressive designs. Dating the church is problematic due to Brakspeare's vague assertion that the inner north porch cannot be later than 1190, while style sheets indicate a different period by

200 years. Furthermore, evidence of renovation within the porch, including repainted ceilings and missing statues due to Puritans, may alter its original style and make it less reliable for dating purposes.

The south porch of the church is a combination of two distinct styles from different periods: the decorated period (1250-1350 or 1300-1400) and the perpendicular period (1350-1550 or 1400-1500). This presents a problem, as it is unclear whether two different designers were involved in its construction or if it was simply built in stages as style preferences changed over time. The lower half of the porch is clearly decorated style, while the top is perpendicular. However, some parts of the roof do not conform to either style and cannot be accurately dated. Brakspeare dates the South Porch at 1320, which would fall within the decorated period, but it is evident that parts of the porch were constructed during both periods. This suggests that 1320 may be accurate for only a portion of the porch, and that some of the decoration would not have been possible without later architecture used in constructing the top half during the decorated period.

The South Porch encountered two difficulties, namely theft of sculptures and refurbishment issues. This location has had the most renovations compared to all other areas we studied. The upper portion of the porch is noticeably coated in gold paint and adorned with extensive decorative features on its ceiling. In contrast, the Tower is visibly split into three parts, each constructed during a distinct period. The lower section dates back to Early English architecture (1150-1250 or 1200-1300), while the middle section adopts the decorated style (1250-1350 or 1300-1400). Lastly,

the top segment follows perpendicular style (1350-1550 or 1400-1500). One can deduce this from observing how decoration levels and archway shapes become progressively intricate as one moves upwards from plain pointed windows to elaborately designed floral and geometric ones that are significantly wider apart in the highest part. However, determining when it was built solely based on its architectural style becomes complicated due to multiple renovation periods it went through, including instances where Puritans removed statues. These alterations continue to pose problems even today.

The Tower's previous decorations may have been covered with gargoyles that do not match the original design, possibly because of the belief that they would ward off evil spirits. This was a common practice in adding protection to buildings, including the Tower and other parts of the church. The tower is dated by Brakspeare to 1230, but its upper sections' architecture does not align with the Early English era, casting doubt on this date. Therefore, while 1230 could be considered as a starting point, it is likely that completion occurred at least a century later.

Deciding when Redcliffe Church was built presents many difficulties. The Bristol Merchants, who owned the church, constructed a new south porch to challenge the Merchants who owned Bristol cathedral. This resulted in a prolonged battle and extensive renovation of various parts of Redcliffe Church. Additionally, Brakspeare's writing is imprecise and prone to errors regarding dates. Furthermore, conflicting architectural styles in different parts of the church made interpretation challenging. Social groups, such as puritans removing statues and Merchants adding more to the building, further complicated dating the church. In short, the answer to the question "What Problems do we

face in deciding when the church was built?" is simply "many!"