The Architectural History and Theory

The Canterbury Fire Tragedy and Conflicting Perspectives

The tragic fire that destroyed Canterbury’s Christ Church Cathedral in the 10th century, according to a monk by the name of Gervase, was expedited by the ferocious wind. On the other hand, Kidson, a different historian, thinks that the fire was started on purpose. How do Gervase’s and Kidson’s narratives explain the Canterbury fire catastrophe that destroyed the Christ Church Cathedral in the tenth century, based on these two opposing points of view, is the question that this essay aims to resolve.

Peter Kidson’s Theory and Historical Context

Peter Kidson wrote a piece of theoretical architecture called “Gervase, Becket, and William of Sens.” In this piece of work, Kidson articulates that the fire that consumed the roof of Christ Church Cathedral in Canterbury in the year 1174 was not by chance. In the same article, Kidson seeks to evaluate William of Sens influence on the Trinity Chapel’s design. As disclosed by this particular manuscript, Kidson is among the few historians who believe the Canterbury fire was deliberately set. Kidson in his article presents a historical context that happened around the time of the fire and the reconstruction of the church. Kidson’s interest in restating the occurrence of this tragedy comes after he was asked to give a speech on the choir that was consumed in that misfortune. During this time, he learns of the doubtful occurrences associated with this fire incident and develops his own justification of the tragedy. However, his account lacks substantial evidence to support its claims and even other historians such as Urry William disapprove Kidson’s “arson theory” claiming that it is misleading. After some association with Urry William, Kidson did not pursue with his arson theory for some time. Woodman’s publication, on the other hand, presents another overview of the fire incident. In this publication, Woodman focuses on the reconstruction intentions of William of Sens’ intention for the Trinity chapel. According to Woodman, William the Englishman made the amendments towards the reconstruction of the Trinity’s chapel and not William of Sens. Woodman further acknowledges Gervase’s justification that the fire was a natural tragedy. In his book, Woodman separates and tries to validate both Gervase’s and Kidson’s accounts regarding this fire incident. His approach is quite important as it helps us validate both justifications in the context of the tragedy.

Contrasting Views and Evaluating Accounts

Kidson and other historians have, however, found Woodman’s explanations unconvincing. Peter Drapper contrasts Woodman’s articulations by supporting the idea that it was William of Sens and not William the Englishman who played a role in reconstructing the Trinity’s Chapel. Also, Drapper disagrees with Woodman regarding Gervase’s account of the tragedy. Three years down the line after Drapper provides his analysis of the incident, Frank Barlow also emerged with his explanation of the same and whose role was to justify which account between Gervase’s and Kidson was more convincing in regards to the tragedy.

Evaluating Gervase and Kidson’s Views

This essay tries to evaluate these two contrasting accounts; Gervase’s and Kidson’s. It seeks to evaluate each account and identify which one fits best in regards to the context of this fire tragedy that consumed Christ Church Cathedral of Canterbury.

Discussion

Several historians have indeed written about the fire tragedy that consumed the Christ Church Cathedral of Canterbury in the year 1174. Some of these historians have been identified earlier, and some of their views on the incident slightly detailed. As articulated before, the essay tries to evaluate this fire occurrence while referring to Gervase’s and Kidson’s accounts in the context of the tragedy.

Gervase’s Natural Cause Explanation

According to Gervase’s views, the fire incident must have been a natural cause. In his explanation of the tragedy, he identifies that alongside a wild wind that blew across Canterbury town, came along the fire. In this regard, Gervase’s association of the wild wind and the fire tragedy provides solid and convincing evidence that the fire was not deliberately set as acclaimed by Kidson. Typically, we have heard of wildfires that escalate and intensify on their own or by the wind. Looking at the Canterbury tragedy from this point of view firmly supports Gervase’s account of the incident on an evidence-based approach.

The monk further writes that the increasing intensity of the wind facilitated the spread of the fire to the roof. This further supports Gervase’s account of the fire as a natural tragedy. In real life, we have witnessed winds shifting and intensifying the spread of fires from one location to another. In this regard, Kidson’s argument about the fire being deliberately set is compromised considering the fact that Gervase provides substantial and convincing evidence that proves the fire was a natural cause.

Kidson’s Arson Theory and Biased Approach

Kidson is not satisfied with Gervase’s views and goes ahead to call the monk a perpetrator trying to cover-up for what actually happened. According to Kidson, the fire was not by chance, and it was deliberately started. In his arson theory, Kidson tries to disclose what he believes happened. With his knowledge of structural engineering, he reveals an unusual geometric construction which he uses as evidence to evaluate the role played by William of Sens in the Canterbury fire incident. Based on this finding among others, Kidson is determined to expose the proceeding and context of the Canterbury fire tragedy in his arson theory.

Kidson is so much obsessed with Gervase’s justifications and in his book focuses on contrasting Gervase’s justifications rather than providing solid evidence to support his articulations. Kidson in his book tries to associate the monk as one of the conspiracies in the tragedy. Worst of all, he tries to justify how he thinks the monk conspired in the fire incident. This obsession that Kidson shows towards Gervase’s account of the incident renders his arson theory a fallacy. Kidson actually fails to provide convincing proof of his arson theory in the context of the Canterbury happenings.

Both Gervase and Kidson try to disclose their views of the incident on an evidence-based approach. However, Kidson’s piece of work is biased since its purpose was focused on judging Gervase’s justifications. In fact, in his book, Kidson displays an emotional approach towards Gervase’s articulations where he tries to give a bad impression of Gervase. Apart from disregarding Gervase’s account of the fire incident, Kidson also questions Woodman’s view. In fact, he identifies Woodman’s views as dubious. Typically, Kidson disagrees with other historians’ publications on the Canterbury incident. His negative expression towards other historians’ accounts of the fire incident renders him a biased author.

Conclusion

At the time Kidson was writing his piece, there were other historians such as Woodman’s, and Drapper who were making publications of what they believed was correct about the occurrences of the fire of the Canterbury Chapel. Kidson might have been inspired by what some of these writings. Additionally, his inspiration started when he first gave his speech in 1969 when he came across strange coincidences. The above discussion tries to evaluate and justify Gervase’s and Kidson’s account of the Canterbury incident. From the discussion, it is clear that Gervase’s account of the tragedy is convincing more than Kidson’s arson theory that is built on blames and false conspiracies.

Bibliography

Frisch, Teresa Grace. “Gervase of Canterbury: The New Architecture.” Gothic Art 1140-c 1450. Toronto: University of Toronto Press, 1987.

Kidson, Peter. Gervase, Becket, and William of Sens, Speculum, 68 4, 1993, pp.969-991.