# Talk:Old St Paul's Cathedral

This is a well-referenced, well-written aticle. Good job.Reddyrov

In the info box is some sort of code that I'm not familiar with for "Cathedral church established:  x604-675x685-961x962-1087x1087-1666": what does it mean? Cheers! Wassupwestcoast 14:06, 27 October 2007 (UTC)

Hi, very late reply here -I'm guessing it means that it was build between the years 604-675, destroyed then rebuilt 685-961, etc, etc. It is a bit confusing, though. Bob talk 11:27, 28 January 2008 (UTC)

The external link: History of Old St.Pauls does not work for me  Nithsdale  —Preceding unsigned comment added by Nithsdale (talk • contribs) 23:14, 17 March 2010 (UTC) 

Didn't work for me either, have removed. Bob talk 17:53, 18 March 2010 (UTC)

better late than never!

 
With regards to this picture, dates have been used in a way that can only be described as a little lax. 

The caption reads "Engraving of Old St. Paul's prior to 1561, with intact spire". The implication here is that the engraving is earlier than 1561. The caption needs to state clearly that this represents St Paul's as it appeared prior to 1561.
The alt caption reads:  A 17th century engraving of Old St Paul's cathedral seen from above. The building is in a cross shape, architecturally rectangular and very long west to east, with flying buttresses along the quire. In the centre is a square central tower, which in this picture has a tall spire. The building looms over the old City of London before the Great Fire.
How do we know this is a 17th century engraving? If this is a fact, then why isn't it included in the regular caption? 

The illustration itself is taken from a book published in 1913 (the last of a series). Since the illustration is very typical of 19th century encyclopedic illustration, and demonstrates the Victorian passion for archaeological reconstruction, why does the alt caption propose a 17th century date for this artwork?
Amandajm (talk) 01:04, 7 October 2010 (UTC) 

I've changed to your proposed wording. Shall I just remove this image? It's been the source of more trouble than it's really worth, with regards to where it's from, etc. Bob talk 18:21, 7 October 2010 (UTC)
Comment  concerning length, English cathedrals tended to be very long compared with those elsewhere, possibly because of the weather, so that processions could be held inside, around the cathedral, rather than outside, as would be the case in Italy. In consequence, England produced the longest medieval cathedrals and abbeys in the world, Winchester, St Albans, Old St Paul's, Lincoln, York, Ely, Canterbury and Durham all being over 500 feet long.
"St Paul's was now the third-longest church in Europe.[11] Excavations in 1878 by Francis Penrose showed it was 586 feet (179 m) long (excluding the porch later added by Inigo Jones) and 100 feet (30 m) wide (290 feet across the transepts and crossing)."
What I want to know is this: The statement "St Paul's was now..." refers to a date in the 1300s. If St Paul's was indeed the third longest at that point in time, then which two churches were longer? Not Old St Peter's, and not the newly built Florence. Not Seville, which has the largest area, or the mighty Milan which is 515 feet and very wide. Not Cologne, which didn't have a nave. It seems a very odd statement.
In the 1600s Old St Paul's was surpassed by St Peter's, and then in the 20th century, by Liverpool. But from the early 1300s until the building of the nave of St Peter's, it must surely have been the world's longest church.
Amandajm (talk) 01:17, 7 October 2010 (UTC)
I couldn't tell you what the three longer cathedrals were! I think that was one of the early additions derived from an old version of the St Paul's website or even the main St Paul's article, I forget now, but I have removed it anyway. Apparently Winchester is 170m long, so if that's the longest medieval English cathedral now, I guess it must have been. Bob talk 18:21, 7 October 2010 (UTC)
I think that it would be reasonable to state that it was the longest church of the Medieval period, but it would need referencing. What exactly did it say? Amandajm (talk) 02:58, 8 October 2010 (UTC)
Looking at Alec Clifton-Taylor's Cathedrals of England, Winchester is definitely cited as "the longest Gothic church in Europe" (275), so I suppose it wouldn't count as "original research" to say that St Paul's must have been the longest. Bob talk 08:53, 8 October 2010 (UTC)

I'm afraid the engraving is still not right. The book is supposed to have come out in 1913 while the summary description of the engraving puts its date at 1916.Cwebbe (talk) 11:32, 7 May 2012 (UTC)

William Dugdale records that the shire was pyramidal in shape with an altar table placed in front for offerings. Shrine ?Cwebbe (talk) 11:40, 7 May 2012 (UTC)

I'm sure you're right, but rather than point out little mistakes here, why not just correct them yourself? Bob talk 11:44, 7 May 2012 (UTC)

According to the entry dated 27th August 1666, Evelyn, Wren, the Bishop of London, the Dean of St Pauls and numerous workmen convened to see what they could restore and repair of the old building. They debated as to whether they could remove the steeple altogether and replace it with a cupola or whether they should keep it and just repair the foundations. Wren and Evelyn supported the cupola idea and they drew up plans there and then.  — Preceding unsigned comment added by 92.21.230.191 (talk) 13:44, 31 December 2014 (UTC) 

This is a beautiful job.  Too bad that no one to this day has thought of preparing a digital reconstruction of "Old St. Peter" in Rome, the church that stood for a thousand years until it was replaced
by Pope Julius in the 16th century.--dunnhaupt (talk) 13:37, 8 August 2015 (UTC)