St Martin in the Fields

I feel about St Martin-in-the-Fields rather like I do about Holst’s Planet Suite. It has always been there and I don’t appreciated it. Familiarity breeds contempt. The first time I saw it in my teens I don’t suppose I understood it at all. Coming from Lincolnshire with our rich diet of medieval churches, post Fire of London churches weren’t quite proper. Over the years I have kept popping in, more often to the excellent catering in the crypt or for presents in the excellent shop. Somehow the church didn’t do it for me, as they say. Yet what would Trafalgar Square be without it? Yes, I guess we all take it for granted but it is a national treasure – the most photographed London church after St Paul’s and Westminster Abbey. How many know the name of the architect? No not Wren! But is it Baroque? If not why am I including it?

Entry to shop and cafe

  Furthermore since the work of the great vicar Dick Shepherd (1914-26) it can  be seen as  a living church which helps the community, particularly the poor. It is also a major concert venue bringing concerts (often candlelight) to thousands of visitors and Londoners.

When the earlier church, which incidentally had been the parish church for the Palace of Whitehall, became unusable, parishioners hoped they would be able to get a rebuild under the 1711 Act. When this was unsuccessful they obtained there own Act to rebuild at their own expense. The chosen architect was James Gibbs (1682-1754). His previous works had included St Mary le Strand about which I have already written in great praise. The trouble with Gibbs was that he was a Scot and Roman Catholic. Born in Aberdeen he had studied under Fontana in Rome and Roman Baroque had rubbed off on him. (Hurrah). Now he was to show his versatility to be able to adapt his style to the Protestants of St Martin’s. His first design was for a 12 pillared round church with long apse. When this proved too expensive he came up with the present design. In doing so he became the first British architect to create a Roman temple with giant portico with tower and steeple sitting on the top.

This combination has been controversial. John Summerson has written “the incongruity of the temple-like church and the steeple which rushes through its roof is undeniable”. Sacheverell Sitwell liked it though “aesthetically the most successful of all London churches”. I will admit that if one looks at the front, blocking out the steeple so it becomes a temple and then adding the steeple that an air of incongruity could be defended. However for most of us we see the reassuring steeple and the steps of the portico and feel welcomed.

Gibbs was being eclectic here because he was building in the tradition of Wren, remembering what he had learnt in Rome and take account of  the current taste for Palladianism. I believe he produces a personal blend that could satisfy the  Palladians with their obsession with rules of perspective ( as for example in the well defined sections of the steeple) and a template that was readily adaptable elsewhere.

It is then an updated  Roman temple or basilica. R. Morrice said “a large galleried hall with highly ornamental vaults over a wide nave and narrower aisles”. There are no transepts and the chancel is quite shallow with vestries on both sides. The nave has 5 bays separated by  large Corinthian pillars which grow out of the pews and have their own entablature which seems to dance into the barrel vaults.  The ceilings were by Artari and Bagutti, the stucco artists Gibbs brought from Italy. They add a touch of rococo I think and help to make this a joyful building. Galleries were felt to be necessary in the early 18^th century so that congregations could see and hear the sermons. Gibbs didn’t like galleries (or fixed pews) because they broke up the aesthetics of the interiors. However here at St Martins he did his best to play down their effect. The curved end of the gallery near the chancel creates an almost Bernini type effect.

Ceilings by Artari and Bagutti

So what has made this the single most influential Georgian church? The answer lies first in its simplicity and versatility. It is also attractive and almost playful in style, (compare it to any of Hawksmoor’s designs). It had the advantage of being in an aristocratic area, capped in 1828 when it became a focal point of the new Trafalgar Square. Finally, Gibbs was a good self publicist and his 1728 Book of Architecture was very influential. First to the Palladian architect  Flitcroft’s nearby St Giles-in-the-Fields the influence spread throughout England Scotland and North America.

Do go take another look : you won’t be disappointed!