St. Paul's Cathedral v.s Westminster Abbey...Ready? Fight!

 Originally founded as early as 604, the modern rendition of St. Paul’s Cathedral was commissioned by King Charles and constructed by Sir Christopher Wren between 1675 and 1711 following the Chapel’s destruction in the Great Fire of 1666. As Michael revealed in today’s tour, St. Paul’s Cathedral constitutes the literal heart of the city of London and throughout its expansive history, it has not only functioned as the center of the Christian faith and its teachings, but also as a center promoting arts, culture, learning, and public debate (Guidebook 3).

 Unlike other prominent religious institutions that populate the surrounding area, St. Paul’s Cathedral differs in that it can be characterized by its diverse, multi-faceted purposes that attribute to the general welfare and productivity of London and its inhabitants. These differences are especially obvious when one compares the documented historical functions of St. Paul’s with its rival cathedral Westminster Abbey. The contrasts between St. Paul’s and Westminster Abbey are primarily dictated by their respective influences regarding religion and social/political motivations. At the beginning of the tour Michael divulged an abbreviated history revealing the current Cathedral is the fourth reconstruction following a series of fires and other calamities that consequently left St. Paul’s in disrepair. Upon receiving his commission by King Charles to restore the chapel, Sir Christopher Wren deliberately avoided adhering to the traditional Gothic architectural design that had once characterized St. Paul’s as well as other medieval cathedrals including Westminster Abbey. Instead, Wren utilized architectural concepts such as the 65,000 ton dome, which would have been more common with the structures located in ancient Greece. Allegedly, Wren’s specific plans were conceived as an attempt to remove examples of catholic idolatry ubiquitously portrayed by Gothic inspired cathedrals (Guidebook 6-7). In relation to the religious turmoil instigated by the Reformation, St. Paul’s Cathedral differed significantly in how it regulated and responded to the confrontations between Catholics and Protestants. Whereas Westminster Abbey constituted a direct relationship between the monarchy and its subsequent religious significance, St. Paul’s is largely described as a direct reflection of “the taste, attitudes and peoples of the nation” (Guidebook 4). Henry Milman’s Annals of St. Paul’s Cathedral asserts that if one were to discover and assemble the entirety of the various religious sermons that occurred throughout the seventeenth century at St. Paul’s Cross one would essentially have a complete perspective of religion as it pertained to the reformation (Milman169). Due to the lack of affiliation with the English monarchy, St. Paul’s Cathedral became the final pilgrimage for anyone who wished to express their concerns and innovations regarding religion and its insinuations within society.

 As we observed when visiting Westminster Abbey, the cathedral enjoyed additional functions beyond those associated with religion. St. Paul’s Cathedral was also utilized as a center for social congregation in addition to religion; however, unlike Westminster and its reputation as the church of the monarchy, St. Paul’s was not constructed with the singular intention of promoting a symbolic representation of the monarch’s power. Rather, the history of St. Paul’s Cathedral has revealed that the relationship between the cathedral and the people of England is most similar to those observed between a master and servant in which, St. Paul’s serves the current needs of the people. Milman provides historical evidence that depict the cathedral as a thriving indoor market in which traders “expose their wares, as it were, in a common market, buy and sell without reverence for the holy place” (Milman 83). The guidebook recounts the Cathedral’s use as a stable for over 800 horses in addition to a market with a road running through the transepts prior to the restoration of King Charles II.