THE CATHEDRAL CHURCH OF
YORK

A DESCRIPTION OF ITS FABRIC
AND A BRIEF HISTORY OF THE
ARCHI-EPISCOPAL SEE

BY

A. CLUTTON-BROCK

WITH FORTY-ONE ILLUSTRATIONS

LONDON GEORGE BELL & SONS 1899

W.H. WHITE AND CO. LTD.
RIVERSIDE PRESS, EDINBURGH

GENERAL PREFACE

This series of monographs has been planned to supply visitors to the great English Cathedrals with accurate and well illustrated guide-books at a popular price. The aim of each writer has been to produce a work compiled with sufficient knowledge and scholarship to be of value to the student of Archaeology and History, and yet not too technical in language for the use of an ordinary visitor or tourist.

To specify all the authorities which have been made use of in each case would be difficult and tedious in this place. But amongst the general sources of information which have been almost invariably found useful are:—(1) the great county histories, the value of which, especially in questions of genealogy and local records, is generally recognised; (2) the numerous papers by experts which appear from time to time in the Transactions of the Antiquarian and Archaeological Societies; (3) the important documents made accessible in the series issued by the Master of the Rolls; (4) the well-known works of Britton and Willis on the English Cathedrals; and (5) the very excellent series of Handbooks to the Cathedrals originated by the late Mr John Murray; to which the reader may in most cases be referred for fuller detail, especially in reference to the histories of the respective sees.

GLEESON WHITE.
EDWARD F. STRANGE.

AUTHOR'S PREFACE

I have usually followed Professor Willis in his account of the Minster, and my obligations to his excellent works are general and continuous.

Professor Willis made careful and extensive observations of the Crypt and other parts of the Minster during the restoration, which gave him opportunities for investigation now impossible. He also brought to these observations a learning and sagacity probably greater than those of any other writer on English Gothic Architecture, and his little book remains the standard work on the history of the Minster.

I regret that I have been unable to agree with several of the theories of that most enthusiastic and diligent writer, Mr John Browne, or even to discuss them as I should have liked; but his books must always be of great value to every one interested in the history of York. I am also indebted to Canon Raine's excellent works and compilations; to Mr Winston for his remarks on the glass in the Minster; and to Professor Freeman for his interesting criticisms of the fabric generally.

A.C.-B.

CONTENTS

ILLUSTRATIONS

CHAPTER I
HISTORY OF THE SEE AND CITY

At York the city did not grow up round the cathedral as at Ely or Lincoln, for York, like Rome or Athens, is an immemorial—a prehistoric—city; though like them it has legends of its foundation. Geoffrey of Monmouth, whose knowledge of Britain before the Roman occupation is not shared by our modern historians, gives the following account of its beginning:—"Ebraucus, son of Mempricius, the third king from Brute, did build a city north of Humber, which from his own name, he called Kaer Ebrauc—that is, the City of Ebraucus—about the time that David ruled in Judea." Thus, by tradition, as both Romulus and Ebraucus were descended from Priam, Rome and York are sister cities; and York is the older of the two. One can understand the eagerness of Drake, the historian of York, to believe the story. According to him the verity of Geoffrey's history has been excellently well vindicated, but in Drake's time romance was preferred to evidence almost as easily as in Geoffrey's, and he gives us no facts to support his belief, for the very good reason that he has none to give.

Abandoning, therefore, the account of Geoffrey of Monmouth, we are reduced to these facts and surmises. Before the Roman invasion the valley of the Ouse was in the hands of a tribe called the Brigantes, who probably had a settlement on or near the site of the present city of York. Tools of flint and bronze and vessels of clay have been found in the neighbourhood. The Brigantes, no doubt, waged intermittent war upon the neighbouring tribes, and on the wolds surrounding the city are to be found barrows and traces of fortifications to which they retired from time to time for safety. The position of York would make it a favourable one for a settlement. It stands at the head of a fertile and pleasant valley and on the banks of a tidal river. Possibly there were tribal settlements on the eastern wolds in the neighbourhood in earlier and still more barbarous times, before the Brigantes found it safe to make a permanent home in the valley, but this is all conjecture. It is not until the Roman conquest of Britain that York enters into history. The Brigantes were subdued between the years 70 and 80 A.D. by Patilius Cerealis and Agricola. The Romans called the city by the name of Eburacum. The derivation is not known. It has been suggested that it was taken from the river Ure, a tributary of the Ouse, but variations of the word are common in the Roman Empire, as, for example, Eburobriga, Eburodunum, and the Eburovices. These are probably all derived from some common Celtic word. In process of time, perhaps in the reign of the Emperor Severus—that is to say, about the beginning of the third century A.D.—the name was changed to Eboracum: from this was derived the later British name Caer Eabhroig or Ebrauc. The Anglo-Saxon name was Eoferwic, corrupted by the Danes into Jorvik or Yorvik, which by an easy change was developed into the modern name of York. In the York Museum is preserved a monument to a standard-bearer of the 9th legion, which is probably of the period of Agricola, and it is likely that Eburacum became the headquarters of the Roman army in the north soon after the conquest. It became the chief military town in the island; for, whereas the southern tribes were soon subdued, those in the north were long rebellious, and it was natural that the chief centre for troops should be established in the more disturbed parts of Britain. Close to York was the town of Isurium (Aldborough), where remains of pavements have been discovered, and where it is probable that the wealthier citizens of York had their homes. Eburacum was fortified in or before the reign of Trajan, and was connected by a system of roads with other important Roman towns. The Roman Camp lay on the east side of the river, on or near the site of the present minster. One of its corner towers and fragments of the wall still remain, and parts of the city gates have been discovered. The camp at first covered about seventy acres of ground; it was afterwards enlarged on the south. The modern streets of Petergate and Stonegate represent the roads which passed through this camp, and Bootham Bar is on the site of one of the gates. Remains of Roman pavement have been discovered below Stonegate. The city itself spread westward over the river, and fragments of houses and tesselated pavements have been discovered. In 1841 remains of public baths were found; and there are many signs that there was a large population on this side of the river. In 1854 there was found near the southern gate of the camp a tablet dedicated to Trajan, and commemorating the conclusion of some work done by the 9th legion in the year 108-9. This work was perhaps the palace of the emperors.

Near the south gate also was a Christian Church of St. Crux. The road to Tadcaster was lined with tombs, and remains of cemeteries have been discovered all round the city.

As in London, there are few remains of Roman masonry above ground, and this is but natural, for the city has been burnt and destroyed, wholly or partially, many times; and there is no doubt that Roman buildings were used, as in Rome and other cities, as a quarry for later erections.

York is historically connected with several of the emperors. Two of them, Severus and Constantius Chlorus, died there, and Constantine the Great, the son of the latter, was hailed emperor at York, if it was not the scene of his birth. At York also were the headquarters of two of the legions, the 9th and the 6th; and there is little doubt that in course of time it came to be regarded as the capital of the island. In fact, according to Professor Freeman (Macmillan's Magazine, Sept. 1876), "Eburacum holds a place which is unique in the history of Britain, which is shared by only one other city in the lands north of the Alps (Trier, Augusta Trevirorum)." We learn little of the history of York from Roman historians, and next to nothing of the early Christian Church. There is mention of York at rare intervals, when it became connected with the general history of the empire. For instance, in 208, Severus was in York, and it became for a time the headquarters of the court.

The Emperor Constantius died at York in 306, and there is a tradition that hundreds of years afterwards his body was found under the Church of St. Helen-on-the-Walls, with a lamp still burning over it. Many churches in the neighbourhood of Eburacum were dedicated to his wife Helena, the legendary finder of the True Cross. It has been supposed thatConstantine the Great was born at York, but this is probably untrue, though he was proclaimed emperor there. In the middle of the fourth century the Picts and Scots began to make inroads, and it is probable that they captured York about 367 A.D. They were shortly afterwards driven northwards by Theodosius the Elder. At the beginning of the fifth century there were further invasions repelled by Stilicho, but in 409 the Emperor Honorius withdrew the Roman troops from Britain, and the Roman period in the history of York came to an end.

Of the early ecclesiastical history of York less even is known than of the civil. There are few relics of Roman Christianity in the city.

A stone coffin, with an apparently Christian inscription, and several Roman ornaments bearing crosses have been found and placed in the York Museum, but this is all. There is no evidence, documentary or other, of the manner in which Christianity reached York. The Christian historians give us only the most meagre references to the history of the faith in Britain. Tertullian, for example, mentions that parts of the island as yet unvisited by the Romans had been evangelised by British missionaries, and, if this were so, it would seem to prove that the Church in Britain was early active and flourishing. It is not until 314 A.D. that we come upon a definite historical fact. This was the date of the Council of Arles, convened by Constantine, to consider the Donatist Heresy, and among the bishops there assembled were three from Britain—"Eborus, Episcopus de Civitate Eboracensi; Restitutus, Episcopus de Civitate Londinensi; Adelfius, Episcopus de Civitate Col. Londinensium" (perhaps Lincoln). These bishops are mentioned in the order of precedence, and it would appear that the See of York at that time was the most important, or perhaps the oldest, in Britain. Bishops of York were also present at the Councils of Nicaea, Sardica, and Arminium. With these facts our knowledge of the Roman see of Eburacum begins and ends. The Episcopal succession probably continued for some time after the Roman evacuation, and the legendary names of Sampson, Pyramus or Pyrannus, and Theodicus have been handed down as bishops of York during the struggle with the Anglo-Saxon invaders. For a long time after the Roman evacuation jewels and plate were discovered in the neighbourhood; and in the Pontificate of Egbert, an archbishop in the eighth century, there is a special form of prayer for hallowing vessels discovered on the sites of heathen temples and houses. The great Wilfrid also, in the seventh century, speaks of recovering the sacred places from which the British clergy had been forced to flee. It is unknown when or how York was finally captured, but in the seventh century it was certainly in the hands of the English; though there still remained an independent British kingdom of Elmete, only a few miles to the west of the city. Close to York has been discovered a large burying-place of heathen Angles, in which the ashes were deposited in urns; the date of this is probably the beginning of the sixth century, and at that time the invaders must have been settled in the country, and perhaps in the city itself. The conquest marks a change in the position of York. Under the Roman occupation it had been an important city for military purposes, and for that reason it was the seat of an important bishopric. After the second conversion of England it becomes important more and more for ecclesiastical reasons, and when it plays a part in the history of England it is because of the action of its bishops; from this time, therefore, it becomes necessary to say less about the city itself and more about the see.

After the Anglo-Saxon conquest of the North of England the country between the Tweed and the Humber was divided into two kingdoms, Bernicia to the north of the Tees, and Deira to the south. In the reign of Ethelfrith these two kingdoms were united, under the name of Northumbria. Edwin, his successor, was the most powerful king in England, and every state except Kent acknowledged his supremacy.

In the troubles after the Roman evacuation, it is probable that York lost some of its importance, which it regained under Edwin, and became again the capital of England. It is at this period that the authentic ecclesiastical history of the see, and indeed of England, really begins. In 601 Gregory the Great, in a letter to Augustine, gave him authority to appoint twelve bishops in England, and among them a bishop of York, who, if his mission was prosperous, was to ordain further bishops in the North of England, remaining himself the chief of them, and being invested with the pall, the mark of a metropolitan bishop. Provision was made that the first bishop of York should be subordinate to Augustine, but that subsequently the question of seniority was to be decided by priority of consecration. Thus early did the question of precedence between York and Canterbury arise.

We may take it that the early Christian church had entirely died out in Northumbria, and that prior to the mission sent by Gregory there had been no effort in the southern part of the kingdom, at least, to reclaim the inhabitants from heathendom. York was chosen as the seat of the metropolitan bishop in the north, entirely because of its importance as a city. It is after this event that it becomes chiefly remarkable for its ecclesiastical importance. Augustine died before he had followed Gregory's instructions, and they were not carried out till 625. In that year, Justus, the fourth bishop of Canterbury, was led by unusually favourable circumstances to consecrate a bishop of York and to send him to Northumbria. Edwin the king was over-lord of England, and he wished to be allied with Kent, the only other independent kingdom in the country. He therefore proposed to marry Ethelburga, the daughter of the King of Kent. She and her father were Christians, and Edwin, though still a heathen, agreed that she should be allowed to take with her a Christian chaplain to Northumberland. Paulinus, perhaps a Briton by birth, was chosen for this office, and was consecrated Bishop of York before he set out. He has been identified with a certain Rum the son of Urien. This enterprise met with great and immediate success, in which political reasons probably played a considerable part; and on Easterday 627, the most important date in the ecclesiastical history of York, the king Edwin, his family, and many of his court were baptised there in a wooden chapel temporarily erected on the site of the present minster. Immediately afterwards Edwin begun to build a church of stone, dedicated to St. Peter, on the same site. The baptism of the king was followed by a wholesale conversion of thousands of his subjects, and it is stated that Paulinus was forced to stay over a month in one place to baptise the crowds who flocked to him. Paulinus was confirmed in his appointment to the see by the king, and immediately after received the pall, together with Honorius of Canterbury, which authorised him to assemble councils and to consecrate bishops. The pall was not given to any of his successors until Egbert (732 A.D.). In view of the subsequent struggles for precedence between the sees of Canterbury and York, the following passage in a letter from the Pope to Edwin is of interest:—"We have ordered," the Pope says, "two palls, one for each of the metropolitans, that is for Honorius and Paulinus, that in case one of them is called from this life, the other may, in virtue of this our authority, appoint a bishop in his place." (Bede, "Eccl. Hist.," Smith edit., book ii., cap. 17, p. 98.)

This early prosperity of the northern Church did not last long. In 633 Edwin was defeated and killed at a battle near Hatfield, and a period of anarchy and persecution followed. Thereupon Paulinus, with Ethelburga, the queen, fled to Kent, leaving behind him only one evangelist, by name James the Deacon. It is probable that the greater part of Northumbria thereupon fell back into paganism, and by the flight of Paulinus the Catholic Church, or that part of it immediately under the influence and control of the bishops of Rome, lost its hold on the north, which it was not to regain without a struggle. The anarchy came to an end with the accession of Oswald, a Christian, who had been converted, not by Paulinus, but by the Celtic Church of Iona. It was this circumstance which led to the establishment of the influence of that Church in Northumbria. Oswald did not look to Rome or Canterbury for evangelists when he set to work to establish Christianity in his kingdom, but to Iona, whence, in 635 A.D., was dispatched a bishop, Aidan, who settled at Lindisfarne (Holy Island). From this time there were two influences at work among the Christians in Northumbria—that of the older and more national British Church which had survived the flood of heathen invasion; and that of the later Catholic Church, which originated with the mission of Augustine.

The conflict between these two influences reached its height in the time of Alfred. Oswald completed the church began by Edwin: it remained under the rule of Aidan, as no evangelists were sent from the south to take the place of Paulinus, though it is said that James the Deacon continued his missionary work in the North Riding. In 642 Oswald was killed in battle, and Deira and Bernicia were again split up into two kingdoms. With this division came also religious difficulties between the Church of Iona and the Catholic Church of the south. These difficulties culminated in the Synod of Whitby, 664, at which the Catholic party, led by the great Wilfrid, perhaps the greatest of all bishops of York, defeated their opponents. After the council, Colman, then Bishop of Lindisfarne, resigned, and his successor, Tuda by name, was killed with many of his monks, by a pestilence at Lindisfarne. The ground therefore seemed to be cleared for Wilfrid. At this time Oswy was king of Bernicia, and Alchfrid his son governed Deira, probably as an independent province. Alchfrid induced Wilfrid to accept the see of York. Wilfrid at once set to work to strengthen the position of the Catholic Church and to destroy the influence of the Church of Iona in his diocese. He refused to be consecrated by a bishop of the Church of Iona, sent for that purpose to Gaul. He probably was determined not to acknowledge the supremacy of any other English see over his own. He was absent for three years, and Oswy, who favoured the Church of Iona, took advantage of his absence to appoint Ceadda (Chad) to the see of York. On his return, after being duly consecrated, Wilfrid retired without a struggle to his own monastery at Ripon. In 669, Theodore, the Archbishop of Canterbury, intervened to make peace between the two factions, and at his instigation Ceadda resigned the see in favour of Wilfrid, who at once began his great period of activity in the diocese. Whatever may be our sentimental liking for the older and more national Church of Iona, there can be no doubt that the Catholic Church was the chief support of culture, learning, and civilisation in Europe, and Wilfrid was a worthy representative of it. During his episcopate the see of York probably played the most important part it has ever taken in the history of England. At that time, more than any other, the future of learning, civilisation, and humanity was in the hands of the priests, and the English toto divisi ab orbe were kept in touch with the slowly reviving culture of Europe by the cosmopolitan Church of Rome. Wilfrid was undoubtedly the best representative of that culture in England. It was his object not only to Catholicise the north of England, but to educate it. He travelled continually through his vast diocese with a train of builders, artists, and teachers. His architectural activity in particular was very great. He repaired the minster at York, which had fallen almost into ruins, and built large churches at Hexham and Ripon. But he was not allowed to continue his work unopposed. Egfrith had become king of the whole of Northumbria, and a quarrel arose between him and Wilfrid. At last the king induced Theodore, who had formerly interfered in Wilfrid's favour, but who was now perhaps jealous of his great activity and fame, to assert his supremacy over the north and to divide the great diocese of Northumbria into four bishoprics, York, Lindisfarne, Hexham, and Witherne. Theodore had received the pall; Wilfrid had not. It was therefore contended that Theodore had authority over him. Wilfrid retired to Rome to claim the support of the Pope. It was given to him, but when he returned to York, in 680, he was imprisoned and afterwards banished. Soon after Egfrith died, and Theodore, again intervening, obtained a reconciliation between Wilfrid and the new king Alchfrid. Wilfrid again became Bishop of York, but another quarrel caused him again to resign his see, and this time for good. During all this period there is no doubt that the Bishops of York were subordinate to those of Canterbury. The constant disorders to which the kingdom of Northumbria was subjected for a century, and the quarrels between bishop and king, lessened the power, both civil and ecclesiastical, of the kingdom. It was not till 734 that a bishop of York, Egbert, received the pall, which had been granted only to Paulinus, and from that time the northern archbishops seem to have been independent of Canterbury, especially after York fell into the hands of the Danes in 867. It is possible that Gregory, who directed that York and Canterbury should each appoint twelve suffragan bishops, intended to make the sees equal in every respect. The anarchy and divisions of the northern kingdom prevented this plan from being carried out. The kings of Northumbria themselves, from time to time, acknowledged the authority of Canterbury, and during the hundred years between Paulinus and Egbert that York was without a metropolitan archbishop, the Primate of Canterbury, without a rival, increased his power. With the advent of the Danes, however, Northumbria was naturally much isolated from the south, and the diocese of York, though smaller and poorer than that of Canterbury, was a rival power. In fact, until the year 1072 the archbishops of York either held themselves or appointed others to the diocese of Worcester. It was not until the Conquest that the independence of the northern bishops was seriously questioned. Under the Danish rule two of the archbishops were probably of that race—Wolfstan, appointed in 928, and Oskytel, his successor. The Danish supremacy was put an end to in 954, when Eadred incorporated Northumbria into the kingdom of England. From 867 to 1000, or after, York was ruled by an earl, either under the Danes or the kings of England. The city was important, not only as a strongly fortified place, but as a centre of commerce, and it had a large population. It had as many as 30,000 inhabitants in the tenth century. There are traces of the Danish supremacy in the language and faces of the people; in York itself Danish beads, glass, jet and amber, and carved horns have been found.

At the time of the Conquest, Aeldred was archbishop of York. After Hastings he swore allegiance to William. For this act he was bitterly reproached. It is said that he exacted a promise from William that he would treat his English and his Norman subjects alike. He crowned William at Westminster. In 1068 Edwin and Morcar, Earls of Mercia and Yorkshire, broke into rebellion. They soon submitted, but the people of York had been roused, and remained in rebellion. On the approach of the Conqueror, however, they also submitted. William built a castle in York, at the junction of the Ouse and the Foss, and garrisoned it with Normans. He then returned southwards. So soon as his back was turned, the city revolted again and besieged the castle. But William was soon upon them. He took and plundered the city, and erected another fortress on Beacon Hill. In 1069 occurred the final rebellion. A Danish fleet sailed up the Humber under Edgar, Gospatric, and Waltheof. This last calamity is said to have killed Ealdred, the archbishop. He had endeavoured to make peace between conquerors and conquered, and he saw that now a desperate struggle was inevitable. The whole of Northumbria rose as the Danes made their way up the Ouse. The Norman garrisons in York set fire to the houses near them, and the whole city was burnt down. The minster was either wholly or partially destroyed. On the site of William's fort at Beacon Hill there have lately been discovered several deposits of silver pennies of the earliest coinage of William. These were probably hidden there by the Norman garrison. After a desperate sortie, these forts were taken. Thereupon the Danes sailed away with their plunder, and the revolt suddenly came to an end. But William swore an oath of vengeance. He caught and destroyed a number of the Danes in Lincolnshire. When he reached York he found it deserted. He repaired his castles, and then proceeded to make an example of the country round. His vengeance was so thorough that for nine years afterwards the land between York and Durham was untilled. He returned to York to keep Christmas. It is not too much to say that the north of England took centuries to recover from his vengeance. The famous library of York, which was destroyed in the fire, deserves a few words of mention. It was a fine example of the educational work of the Saxon Church. Under Egbert, and at the instigation of Bede, was founded the University of York, which soon grew to great importance. Alcuin was its chief ornament, and gave lessons there in Hebrew, Greek, and Latin. The library was formed in connection with this university, and a list of the books in it, made by Alcuin himself, has come down to us. They consist chiefly of the Fathers and of the later Latin poets, with a few books on philosophy and grammar.

Thomas of Bayeux, the first Norman archbishop, found everything at York in ruin and confusion. The minster and its outlying buildings, the library, and the university were destroyed, and only one of three canons remained in residence. He increased the number of these, and appointed a dean—there had not been one at York before—and otherwise changed the constitution of the minster. He further appointed a chancellor, or magister scholarum, in charge of all schools within ten miles of York. Among these was the Grammar School in the city, which still survives and flourishes, under the name of St. Peter's School. In the nave of the minster there is a window known as the Chancellor's Window, and containing a representation of Robert Riplingham, a chancellor of the fourteenth century, lecturing to his pupils. The library was never fully replaced. The books at the time of the Reformation were few, and were kept in a building close to the entrance to the south transept of the minster, and now used as the archbishop's registry. This building was erected in 1415. Most of these books are still preserved. In due course Thomas rebuilt the minster, or part of it, on a modest scale. In his episcopate the struggle for supremacy with Canterbury really began. Thomas refused to make submission to Lanfranc, Archbishop of Canterbury; but Lanfranc represented to the king that the supremacy of Canterbury was necessary as a bond of union between the south and the north. Thomas was at last compelled to submit to Lanfranc himself, though he made reservations with regard to his successors. In 1072 Worcester, and soon after Lindsey and Lincoln, were taken from the see of York. The abbeys of Selby and St. Oswald in Gloucester were given to the archbishop by way of some return. Meanwhile the archbishops of York also claimed supremacy over the northern bishops of the Isles and Scotland. They certainly visited and consecrated in these dioceses. After many quarrels, these pretensions were finally disposed of at Rome. In 1154 the sees of Man and Orkney were placed under the Archbishop of Drontheim, and in 1188 the whole Scottish Church was released from any subjection to York and placed under the direct control of the Pope. Only one Scottish prelate, the Bishop of Whithorn, remained a suffragan to York, but in the fourteenth century Whithorn also was lost to the archbishops, and became a part of the Scottish Church.

The Bishop of Durham remained nominally in subjection to the see of York, but in reality he was often a greater man than his superior. In 1134 the Bishopric of Carlisle was founded and placed under the authority of the archbishops. Sodor and Man afterwards fell again under his jurisdiction, and in 1542 the diocese of Chester was founded. The archbishop has now authority over nine bishoprics. But to return to Thomas. In 1071 he went with Lanfranc to Rome to receive the pall. The question of precedence was there argued, and the Pope decided in favour of Canterbury. Afterwards, at a synod held by William, it was decided that the Archbishop of York should swear allegiance to Canterbury, and must be consecrated in Canterbury Cathedral, that the diocese of York from that time should not extend south of the Humber, and that the archbishop should lose his authority over the see of Worcester. On the death of Lanfranc, however, the dispute broke out again. For four years there was a vacancy to the see of Canterbury; Anselm, the new archbishop, was consecrated by Thomas, who took the opportunity to insist that Anselm should not be styled Primate of all England. The quarrel with Canterbury remained in abeyance until Thurstan was appointed Archbishop of York (1114 A.D.). He refused to make submission to Canterbury, and the Archbishop of Canterbury was determined not to consecrate him until he submitted. There was, therefore, a deadlock. Thurstan had the support of the Pope, but he was not consecrated until 1119, when the Pope Calixtus himself performed the ceremony at Rheims. Thurstan obtained a Bull from the Pope releasing him and his successors for ever from supremacy of Canterbury, and for a time York was triumphant.

In the reign of Henry II. the quarrel again broke out. This time the Archbishop of York, Roger Pont L'Eveque, the builder of the Norman choir of the minster, had the support of the king, who was engaged in the struggle with Becket. Roger, indeed, has been bitterly reviled as an accessory to the murder of Becket. He carried on the quarrel with Richard of Canterbury, Becket's successor, and at the Council of Westminster (1176 A.D.) the rivalries of the two prelates came to a head in a ridiculous scene. The papal legate was present at the council, and the Archbishop of Canterbury seated himself at his right hand. Shortly afterwards entered the Archbishop of York, who, refusing to take a lower place, sat down in the lap of Canterbury. He was seized, beaten, and kicked for his pains.

In 1190 the people of York, incited by the priests, rose and massacred the Jews, killing nearly 500. For this they were fined by the king. The minster contributed to the ransom of Richard I., pawning a golden cross which Roger had given. The cross was afterwards redeemed.

Roger was succeeded, after an interval of ten years, by Geoffrey, the bastard son of Henry II. He quarrelled continually with John, who on one occasion fined the city of York £100 for omitting to meet him when he visited the city.

In the war between Henry III. and the barons, the archbishops Gray and Gifford took the part of the king, and owing to their efforts their diocese was little affected by the struggle.

In 1265 a quarrel broke out between the Abbey of St. Mary and the townspeople, owing to the abuse of the privilege of sanctuary possessed by the convent. Much blood was shed, and the suburb of Bootham was burnt down.

In the reign of Edward I. York played a great part in the history of England, as the king made it his capital during the war with Scotland. He was present at the installation of St. William's relics in the choir, and in 1297 he held a great Parliament there. The archbishops and clergy contributed one-fifth of their income to the expenses of the war. The Courts of the Exchequer and King's Bench were also removed from London to York, and remained there for seven years.

At this time York was a more important city than it has been at any period since the Roman occupation. It was both the civil and military capital of England, and its archbishops and prebendaries had great power. It was also, naturally, a period of great building activity. In a hundred and fifty years the whole fabric of the minster, as it now is, was erected.

Edward II. also spent much of his time at York, and in 1318 another Parliament met there. After Bannockburn the Scots made continual inroads into Yorkshire. In 1319 an army of Scots, 15,000 in number, advanced to the very gates of York. Melton, the archbishop, hastily got together 10,000 men and fell in with the Scots at Myton, on the Swale, where he was utterly routed, and narrowly escaped with his life. This battle was known in derision as the Chapter of Myton.

The quarrel between York and Canterbury was not finally settled until the time of John of Thoresby. He was one of the most remarkable of the archbishops of York. When he was made archbishop (1352) the diocese, owing to the Scottish inroads, the black death, and other causes, stood in great need of reform. Anarchy and brigandage were rife. The people were ignorant and poor, and the chief posts about the cathedral, including even the deanery, were held by Italian absentees appointed by the Pope. The ecclesiastical discipline was naturally very lax. Thoresby drew up his famous Catechism, which was translated into English verse, in 1357, and set to work to abolish the abuses caused by pluralism and immorality among the clergy. The question of precedence was settled by Innocent VI., who determined that the Archbishop of Canterbury should be styled Primate of All England, and the Archbishop of York Primate of England.

"Thus," says the sardonic Fuller, "when two children cry for the same apple, the indulgent father divides it betwixt them; yet so that he giveth the bigger and better part to the child that is his darling."

It was also settled that each archbishop should carry his cross erect in the diocese of the other, but that the Archbishop of York should send a golden image to the shrine of St. Thomas of Canterbury.

Edward III. had been married in York Minster, and there his little son, William of Hatfield, was buried. His is the only royal tomb in the minster.

In 1392 the Court of the King's Bench again sat at York. Richard II. visited the city several times. The archbishops Neville and Arundel played a great part in politics at this period. After the deposition of Richard II. a prebendary, by name Mandelyn, who bore a great resemblance to the king, personated him and headed a revolt, but he was captured and put to death. The chapter in general were strongly in favour of Richard, and three other prebendaries were imprisoned.

In 1405 occurred the rebellion, headed by Scrope, the archbishop. After he had been trapped and captured, the king had great difficulty in bringing him to trial, as the Chief Justice, Gascoyne, refused to try him. He was finally condemned in his own palace, at Bishopthorpe, and executed near to the walls of the city. Henry IV. withdrew also the liberties and privileges of the city, and the citizens had to beg for pardon on their knees with ropes round their necks. The archbishop was buried in the minster, and his tomb was much frequented by pilgrims in the north.

In 1407 the rebellion broke out again, and the citizens of York were again severely punished. In the fifteenth century the importance of York began to decline, and from that time it owes the position it still holds chiefly to its ecclesiastical eminence. Richard III. visited York several times, and gave a great cross to the minster, standing on six steps, each of which was ornamented with the figure of an angel. The figures were all of silver, and the whole was decorated with precious stones. Richard also planned the establishment of a college of 100 chaplains, and in 1485 six altars were erected for their use. But the scheme came to an end on the death of the king. York had been greatly devoted to Richard, but it submitted to Henry VII. when he made a state entry into the city in 1486, and it remained loyal in the rebellion of Lambert Simnel, when the rebels besieged the city, but were repulsed.

In the reign of Henry VIII. the importance of York was steadily declining. He only visited the city once. The whole of Yorkshire, which was no doubt poorer and more ignorant than most other counties, was much disturbed by the abolition of the monasteries and the spoiling of the churches, especially by the seizing of the head of St. William, the chief treasure of the minster. In 1536 the insurrection known as the Pilgrimage of Grace broke out, and the city willingly received the rebels. Aske, their leader, made a proclamation that all the "religions" should be reinstated in their old places: and the friars sang matins the same night. In 1557 Aske was hanged on a gallows set upon one of the bars of York. Henry entered York, and the citizens sued for pardon, which was not granted to them until 1560. Henry ordered the removal of such shrines as had not already been destroyed, and fragments of these have been found buried near the minster. Henry determined to establish his authority firmly in the north, and established the famous council which appointed the Duke of Norfolk their president. The council was held in the house of the Abbot of St. Mary's. It took away most of the powers of the Mayor and Corporation, but gave renewed importance to the city.

The diocese was much neglected during the episcopacy of Wolsey and his successor Lee. Both were statesmen rather than ecclesiastics. Indeed, it is said that Wolsey never set foot in York itself, though he was arrested at Cawood, where was one of the bishop's palaces. Lee was employed continually on missions and embassies. He happened to be in York, however, at the time of the Pilgrimage of Grace, and was seized by the rebels, carried to Pontefract, and compelled to swear support to the rebellion. The see was much impoverished in the time of Holgate, Lee's successor (1545-1554), who supported Henry in his quarrel with the Pope.

Much of the property taken by Henry was restored by Mary to Heath, the next archbishop, who was the last appointed by a papal bull with the acknowledgment of the Government. Heath was deposed by Elizabeth in 1559.

In 1569 occurred another rising in the north in favour of the old religion and of Mary Queen of Scots, under the Earls of Northumberland and Westmoreland.

In Richmondshire and the Cleveland district the new prayer-books were destroyed, and the old service restored. York itself favoured the rebels, but before it could be entered a force arrived from the south and the rebellion sank to nothing. The queen's army exacted a loan of £500 from the citizens of York. Eleven persons also in the city were sentenced to death. The Earl of Northumberland also was afterwards executed and buried in York. After the rebellion the Roman Catholics in the diocese were much persecuted. They were forced to attend the reformed services and the Holy Communion, and their priests were hunted down. Attempts also were made to abolish the Christmas mummeries and the miracle plays. The archbishop of this period, Thomas Young, is accused of plundering the estates of the church in the interests of his own family.

Charles I. had a great affection for the city and minster of York, and enriched the latter with many gifts. For instance, he gave £1000 to the chapter for the building of a new organ, and out of the same the chapter also bought some Communion plate, and a Bible and prayer-book richly bound in purple velvet and ornamented with silver-gilt plates. These latter are still preserved. He further removed certain houses and offices which had been built close to the west and south doors. He also destroyed a building which had been erected inside one of the transepts, and ordered certain seats in the choir, which hid the stalls and woodwork, to be taken away.

Charles also wrote to the Corporation in 1639, ordering them not to bring the official sword and mace into the minster, and to receive the Holy Communion there on certain fixed occasions. The Mayor and Corporation evaded the order by entering the church with sword and mace "abased." They have never yet officially attended Holy Communion. They also had a quarrel with the dean and corporation owing to their practice of using the north aisle of the nave, known as the Lord Mayor's Walk, as a common promenade. The dean and chapter endeavoured to put a stop to this in 1632, but it continued until the end of the century.

During the Civil War York suffered less than many cathedral cities. In 1644 it was besieged by the Parliamentary troops and the Scots under Fairfax and Leslie. During the siege the minster seems to have been spared as far as possible, mainly, perhaps, through the influence of Fairfax, but it did not escape entirely scatheless. Thomas Mace, the author of "Musick's Monument," was in the city during the siege, and he thus describes the way in which the minster suffered:—"The enemy was very near and fierce upon them, especially on that side the city where the church stood; and had planted their great guns mischievously against the church; with which constantly in prayer's time, they would not fail to make their hellish disturbance by shooting against and battering the church; insomuch that sometimes a cannon bullet has come in at the windows and bounced about from pillar to pillar (even like some furious fiend or evil spirit) backwards and forwards and all manner of sideways, as it has happened to meet with square or round opposition amongst the pillars."

During the siege the citizens suffered much from the presence of the soldiery who were billeted upon them. Each citizen, in addition to giving free quarters to as many soldiers as possible, had to pay £2 a month for their support. The siege lasted for six weeks, and in the course of it the Marygate Tower, which was used as a record office for the whole of the north, was attacked and spoiled, all the records in it, an irreparable loss, being destroyed. The city was captured soon after Marston Moor, and the defenders obtained very good terms, marching out with all the honours of war. The citizens also were well treated. They were to enjoy all their old privileges and were to be preserved from plundering. All churches and public buildings were to be treated with respect. A Presbyterian service was at once held in the minster by the conquerors. The Corporation presented to Fairfax a butt of sack and a tun of French wine in gratitude for the good offices he had rendered them. There can be little doubt that the great amount of stained glass still remaining in the minster is owing to the control he exercised over the Parliamentarians. On October the 24th of the same year the Corporation ordered that the Solemn League and Covenant should be tendered to the aldermen and citizens. Then all the Royalist members of the Corporation were removed, and both the bishop, Williams, and the dean, Scott, were deprived of their offices. They left the country, and the dean died in a debtor's prison in 1646. Fairfax, however, who remained as governor of the city, maintained the minster in scrupulous repair, and paid all the salaries of the necessary officials. A short time before the Restoration a large sum of money was spent on the bells. It has been said, indeed, that the Puritans wished to pull down the chapter-house, but there is no authority for the statement. But the control of the minster was taken out of the hands of the chapter and given to the Corporation, and this transference was only effected by the interference of the troops. The organ given by Charles was also taken down, and silver candlesticks and other ornaments, including the brass about the shrine, perhaps, of St. William, and also the lectern in the choir, were sold for the repair of the fabric and bells. In 1646 the organ loft, the canopies over the altar in the side choir, and the font were removed. In 1647 a cushion was made of the dossal. The library was left untouched and thrown open to the public, and the keys of the minster placed in charge of the Mayor and Corporation. In place of the dean and chapter, the precentor, and chancellor—all removed—four city preachers were chosen by the Assembly of Divines, and paid out of the revenues of the minster. Meanwhile the churches in the city suffered far more than the minster itself. In 1646 all "superstitious pictures in glass" and images were ordered to be broken, and the fonts were removed. In 1648 twenty-four churches in the city were without incumbents.

After the Restoration the Corporation did everything in their power to resist a return to the old order of things, and in 1663 there was a small rebellion, as a result of which twenty-one persons were executed at York. Discontent, however, continued, and in 1682 it became necessary to appoint Sir John Reresby governor of York, with a garrison of 500 men. The governor said that York was one of the most factious towns in the kingdom. About this time, also, the dean and chapter caused a riot by issuing a proclamation forbidding the nave to be used as a promenade. They succeeded, however, in finally putting an end to the practice.

In 1686 Lady Strafford, daughter-in-law of the great Strafford, was buried in the minster. Party spirit still ran very high, and the mob rushed at the hearse and endeavoured to tear the coats of arms from it. The military was called out, and there was a sharp struggle in the minster itself.

The Catholic designs of James II. were ill received in York. His proclamation for liberty of conscience was read in hardly any of the York churches, and an attempt to stock the Corporation with Roman Catholics was resisted. At last there came a crisis. The king appointed James Smith, the Roman Catholic Bishop of Callipolis, one of his four vicars-apostolic, and in August 1688 he appeared at York. The archbishopric had been vacant for two years, and it was rumoured that the king intended to appoint Smith to the see.

York, therefore, was ripe for the revolution, and it broke out there on November 22. Lamplough of Exeter, a discreet and timely supporter of both James and William, was appointed archbishop, and Smith was attacked by the mob as he was passing through the streets in procession. His silver-gilt crozier, which had been given to him by Catharine of Braganza, was torn from him and sent to the vestry of the minster, where it still remains. It is seven feet in length. Smith fled to Wycliffe-on-Tees, where he spent the rest of his life.

Since the reign of James II., and the last serious attempt to establish the Roman Catholic religion in the country, the history of both the city and the see of York has been uneventful. The city itself has declined in importance, and is now hardly even one of the larger towns in Yorkshire. It is known and visited chiefly for its historic interest and its minster. The see has experienced only peaceful changes, and its archbishops are concerned more with questions of Church discipline than with politics. The minster has suffered two serious fires, and a restoration, carried out on the whole moderately and judiciously.

CHAPTER II
HISTORY OF THE BUILDING

The architectural history of the minster is somewhat vague and uncertain, and has been the subject of several disputes. It will be as well, perhaps, before entering into details, to give a table of approximate dates, both of the different parts of the minster as it now stands and of the buildings which preceded it. These dates are mostly sanctioned by the authority of Professor Willis.

It will be seen that it is doubtful whether the fire of 741 and the rebuilding of 767-780 mentioned by historians refer to the minster at all. The fact that a wooden chapel was erected for the baptism of Edwin in 627 seems to show that no Christian church had remained at York from Roman days, as at Canterbury; this chapel, therefore, is the first Christian building in York of which we have any definite record. The church of stone with which it was immediately replaced was finished by Oswald, after the death of Edwin in battle; whose head was carried thither and placed in the Chapel of St. Gregory. It has been supposed that there are remains of this original stone church in the crypt.

In sixty years Edwin's church had fallen into great disrepair. It was restored by Archbishop Wilfrid about 669. The following account of the dilapidated condition of the building as he found it is taken from a versified life of Wilfrid, ascribed to Frithegode, a monk of the tenth century:—

Ecclesiae vero fundamina cassa vetustae, Culmina dissuto violabant trabe palambes, Humida contrito stillabant assere tecta; Livida nudato suggrundia pariete passa Imbricibus nullis, pluriae quacunque vagantur, Pendula discissis fluitant laquearia tignis, Fornice marcebant cataractae dilapidato.

Wilfrid glazed the windows, repaired the holes, painted and decorated, and, strange to say, whitewashed the building.

We now come to the first disputed point in the history of the minster. In the chronicle of Richard Hovenden it is stated that Monasterium in Eboraca Civitate Succensum est nono Kalendas Maii Feria prima—that is to say, that a church was burnt down in the city of York on Sunday the 23rd of April 741 A.D. It has been contended that the word monasterium need not of necessity mean the minster, that the word civitas may perhaps mean the diocese, the ecclesiastical state, and not the city of York, and that, therefore, the church mentioned may be not the minster, but some other large church in the city or diocese of York. Professor Willis is of opinion that this is probably the case.

In the poem of Alcuin or Flaccus Albinus, there is a passage speaking of a church built by Albert (767-780), in the following terms:—

Ast nova Basilicae mirae structura diebus Praesulis hujus erat jam caepta, peracta, sacrata, Haec nimis alta domus solidis suffulta columnis Suppositae quae slant curvatis arcubus, intus Emicat egregiis laquearibus atque fenestris Pulchraque porticibus fulget circumdata multis, Plurima diversis retinens solaria tectis, Quae triginta tenet variis ornatibus aras.

It is plain that this church, wherever it was, and the poem does not mention its locality, was a very important one. It was very lofty, and had many porches, or apses (porticus may mean either), and thirty altars.

Just before this passage in the poem there is an account of altars set up by the archbishop, probably in the cathedral. Professor Willis thinks that if the church referred to immediately after were the cathedral, an account of altars set up in it would not be given before an account of the building of the church itself. But, as Professor Freeman points out, it is most improbable that two writers, the chronicler and Flaccus Albinus, should allude to a church other than the minster without giving its name. It is, of course, just possible that Albert set up his altars before rebuilding the cathedral, in which case Professor Willis' contention would lose its force. It is curious that no other chronicler mentions either the fire or the rebuilding of the church, but this omission would be almost equally strange whether the building in question were the minster or some important church in the diocese.

On the whole, therefore, it is perhaps most probable that the church referred to by Flaccus Albinus was the minster. If that is so, this church remained until it was ruined by the Danes in 1069. Then it was certainly either wholly or partially burnt down. Thomas, the first Norman archbishop, appointed in 1070, found the minster, the city, and the diocese, all waste and desolate. At first he was satisfied with roofing in what remained of the cathedral and otherwise restoring it as best he could. Afterwards, before 1080, he began to rebuild it. It is uncertain whether he rebuilt the whole church, or merely the nave and transepts.

Stubbs on this point seems to give two different accounts.

"Thomas," he states, "restored the canons of the church after he had rebuilt it as well as he could." Afterwards he says, "He built the church as it now is from its foundations."

Probably, this first passage refers to the immediate repairs which Thomas found necessary in 1070, and the second to his ultimate rebuilding of the church.

William of Malmesbury says that he began the church from its foundations and finished it. In the face of this positive testimony it is probable that Thomas built not only the nave but the choir. That he did so has been doubted, because the choir of his day was undoubtedly a very small one, and was afterwards demolished by Roger. It must, however, be remembered that Lanfranc rebuilt Anselm's Norman choir at Canterbury in the same way. It is very likely that Thomas was forced by necessity to plan his work on as modest a scale as possible, and that the pride of Roger would not allow the choir of his minster to remain one of the smallest in the cathedrals of England.

The minster, as Thomas left it, was utterly unlike the present church. The nave was probably shorter than the present one, and was certainly twenty feet narrower. This was discovered after the fire of 1840, when remains of the side aisle walls of Thomas's nave were discovered. There are no data for the number of piers in this nave or for the position of the west front.

The tower certainly stood on the site of the present tower, as Roman ashlaring has been discovered on the north-west side of the north-west tower pier, above the vault of the side aisle, and also portions of a shaft with a base, which probably belonged to the Norman clerestory. It will be seen that the present piers supporting the central tower contain cores of Norman work recased in Perpendicular times.

The transepts of Thomas's church appear to have been without aisles. The remains in the crypt show that there were two eastern apses to these transepts close to the central tower, and Professor Willis deduces from the position of these apses that they left no room for eastern aisles. There is no instance in existence of a transept having western without eastern aisles. One may therefore conclude that aisles were entirely wanting. Professor Willis thinks it possible that an additional pair of apses may have existed on the east side of these transepts, to the north and south respectively of these already discovered. This was certainly the case in St. Mary's Abbey.

As has been mentioned, considerable doubts still exist as to the size and character of the choir of Thomas's church.

On the one hand we have positive testimony that Thomas rebuilt the whole church; on the other, the walls of the crypt, as they existed up to the time of Roger's choir, are a part of the Saxon church. Their masonry is Saxon, and they mark the lines of a chancel far too narrow to have been that of Thomas, even if we suppose that his choir was necessarily small, from the want of funds at his command, and the wasted condition of the diocese.

This would seem to support the theory that Thomas left the Saxon choir as it was, and contented himself with rebuilding the ruined nave and transepts. In that case, of course, the Saxon choir remained until the time of Roger.

The alternate theory is that Thomas rebuilt an enlarged, but still a small, choir, leaving the Saxon crypt as it remains to this day; and that even this choir proved too small for the magnificent ideas of Roger, who utterly demolished it to make room for his own great building, leaving no trace of it above ground. This is the more probable supposition, and it is supported by the fact that the inner wall of the crypt is composed of fragments of masonry, buildings, etc., of early Norman date, which might well be parts of Thomas's choir, if it was destroyed, as we suppose. Some of the stones are covered with white plaster, showing they are parts of the interior of a building, and they are of the same red sandstone as the remains of the transept apse, which was undoubtedly built by Thomas.

As has been said, the choir of the minster remained unusually small for so important a church. The eleventh and twelfth centuries were periods of great activity in church building, and many of the Norman architects planned their works on a vast scale. With the examples of Durham, Winchester, and St. Albans before them, it was natural that the archbishops of the Metropolitan Church of York should be dissatisfied with the size of their own choir. It fell to the lot of Roger, the rival of Thomas à Becket, to rebuild it. The date of his nave is approximately 1154-1181. The remains of his work in the crypt show that it was in the latest style of Norman architecture and considerably influenced by Flambard's work at Durham, with channeled and fluted pillars. The detail appears to have been richer and later in character even than Flambard's. The outer wall of the crypt shows the dimensions of this choir. It was square at the end, and had flanking towers—two bays from the east—which served as transepts inside. The eastern transepts of the present choir still keep the position and tradition of these towers. The aisle probably ran round the east end as at Romsey and Byland. The two bays east of the tower were wider than the others. Roger, it should be said, had been Archdeacon of Canterbury, and he was therefore well acquainted with the "glorious Choir of Conrad" built by Anselm. There is much in the planning of his work to show that he was influenced by the example of Conrad's choir.

At the end of the twelfth century the minster was utterly unlike the present building. Except in the crypt, and in certain parts of the nave and tower not visible to the casual observer, there are no vestiges of the work of the earlier builders. There is now no Norman work to be seen in the minster itself, and in 1200, nave, choir, transepts, and towers were all Norman. Of these the transepts appear to have been the poorest part. They were probably short, and had no aisles. The nave also was of rude Early Norman character. The Early English architects having determined, probably, to rebuild the nave and transepts, made a beginning with the transepts about 1230. Roger's choir, only finished about fifty years before, no doubt seemed to them grand enough. The transepts were built on a totally different scale to the rest of the church as it then stood. They were both longer and broader, and they had aisles on each side of them. No doubt the object of this was to get a standard for the ultimate rebuilding of the nave. The greater width of these transepts made it difficult to join their aisles with those of the nave and choir, and were the cause of a curious and daring expedient, which will be described in the architectural account of the building. The south transept was the first to be rebuilt. It is the work of Walter de Gray, archbishop from 1216 to 1265, who was buried under an arch of his own building, in a tomb which still remains the most beautiful, perhaps, in the minster. The north transept seems to have been begun as soon as the south was finished; it is said to have been the work of John Romeyn, or the Roman, an Italian, and the treasurer of York. Walter de Gray probably also had a large part in the building of them. These transepts are the earliest part of the existing minster. John Romeyn also built an Early English central tower in place of Thomas's Early Norman tower. It remained for John Romeyn the younger, son of the treasurer, and archbishop from 1286 to 1296, to begin the rebuilding of the nave. It was planned on a far larger scale than the old nave, and was wider even than the Early English transepts. The old nave had been 83 feet wide, the transepts were 95, and the new nave 103. The difference in width between the transepts and the new nave is in the aisles. The plan of the transepts had no influence on the plan of the nave. The large triforium, small clerestory, and moderate-sized main arches give way to a large clerestory, large main arches, and practically non-existent triforium. These are unusual proportions in English Churches of that period. At Ely, Westminster, Beverley, and many other places, the proportions of Norman or Early English work influenced those of the later Decorated and Perpendicular.

The records of the building of the nave are somewhat scanty. Stubbs tells us that the foundation stone was laid on April 6, 1291, and that it was begun on the south side towards the east. It has been supposed that the chief object of making the new nave so much wider and loftier than its predecessor, was that it might be built round the old work without interfering with its utility.

But a petition, dated 1298, states that the old nave had long since fallen (diu est corruita). If this were so there was no object in refraining from disturbing the old work. It is uncertain whether the nave had been purposely destroyed, or had fallen of its own weight. It may be, though we have no record of the fact, that Thomas's Norman tower fell down, as did so many Norman central towers, destroying with it some part of the nave, and so made the rebuilding of that part of the church necessary.

The nave is fully developed geometrical Decorated work. It is loftier than the transepts, and its roof is low pitched. The main part of the rebuilding seems to have been done between 1298 and 1320. The indenture for glazing the great west window is still extant, and is dated 1338. The nave must have been roofed before this.

The vault was probably intended to be stone, but the great width of the building seems to have made the builders afraid, and they erected a vault of wood, but shaped and ribbed to look like stone. The outer walls of the clerestory, and the pinnacles of the south side of the nave show vestiges of flying buttresses. It is uncertain whether these were merely intended when a stone vault was projected, or whether they were actually erected, and afterwards, being unnecessary for the support of a wooden vault, were allowed to fall into disrepair. There are no flying buttresses on the north side, and the pinnacles are much smaller.

The west front was undoubtedly the latest part of the work to be finished, except the vault. The lowest stages, though geometrical in style, are later in character than the nave itself. The great west window, and the upper stages are of florid curvilinear Gothic. The west front is said to have been finished, and the great west window glazed by Archbishop Melton, who gave 500 or 600 marks to the fabric in 1338. The church was vaulted in 1354; Archbishop Thoresby is said to have given the wood. Before the beginning of the nave, the relics of St. William had been carried into the choir, and installed there with great pomp. The offerings of the faithful at his shrine helped to defray the expense of the building. Further funds were gained by means of indulgences granted by successive archbishops. The houses of Vavasour and Percy gave wood and stone, and statues of their representatives were placed over the main porch of the west front.

The date of the chapter-house, and the passage connecting it with the north transept is disputed. Browne thinks it was begun about 1280, and finished about 1340. He partly bases his contention on the fact that the Acts of the Chapter from 1223 to 1300 are given in Capitulo Eborum. After 1300 in Capitulo Ecclesiae, or in loco Capitulari ipsius Ecclesiae. After 1342 in domo Capitulari. From this he argues that up to 1342 the chapter-house was not in existence, or unfinished, but that it was in use from that date. The geometrical character of the tracery, and the Purbeck marble shafts used in the chapter-house might seem to support that view. Professor Willis, however, considers there is little significance in the difference in the phrases used. In capitulo simply means "in chapter," and in loco capitulari and in domo capitulari are vague phrases which may either mean a chapter-house, or a place used for the sittings of the chapter. At any rate, he thinks the chapter-house was not begun until after 1320, and the passage leading to it is still later. If this is the case, however, there is no reason why the chapter-house should not have been finished in 1342, and that would account for the change of phrase in the Acts. Though, at first sight, the building appears to be Early Decorated in style, on a closer examination it will be seen that the slender mouldings, the character of the carvings, and the details, especially on the outside, all point to a later date. It is curious, however, that if the building was not begun until after 1320, the tracery was not curvilinear, as in the great west windows, and the middle windows of the towers built about the same time. Perhaps, however, the geometrical forms were found to give the greater support, necessary owing to the absence of a central pillar. On the whole, the evidence of details, particularly of the foliage in the beautiful arcading inside the chapter-house, seem to point to its not having been begun until 1320 or later.

In 1362 John of Thoresby became archbishop. The times were unpropitious for building. Yorkshire was suffering much from the black death, there was great poverty among the peasantry, and the diocese was in great need of discipline and reform. Thoresby gave himself up for nine years to this work, and in 1361 he thought the time had come for the rebuilding of the choir. We have already seen how at York, one great work led to another. The transepts were rebuilt that they might be in harmony with the grandeur of Roger's choir, the nave that it might not be eclipsed by the transepts; and now it was contended that the choir must not be inferior to the rest of the church. Therefore, on the 20th of July 1361, it was resolved by the archbishop and chapter that "It was right that every church whatsoever should agree in the fitting decoration of each particular part, and that the choir in particular, where the holy sacrifice of the mass took place, should be especially rich in ornament." Thereupon they decided to rebuild the choir. The foundation stone was laid on the 30th July 1361, and the work was begun at the extreme east end. There was a very good reason for this procedure. The design of the new choir, both as to size and the planning of the bays, was modelled on that of the nave. It was Thoresby's object to build the largest and most magnificent choir in England. It was therefore both wider, loftier, and longer than that of Roger's, and beginning at the east end it was possible to complete almost the whole of the portion east of the altar as it now stands—that is to say, the presbytery, without interfering with Roger's choir. While, therefore, the presbytery was being built, the service of the church was still carried on in Roger's choir, and only the aisles behind Roger's east end were destroyed. Even when the four bays of the presbytery were completed, say about 1370, it was possible to continue the aisles of the new choir proper without interfering with Roger's work, except to pull down the towers flanking it, so much wider was the new building than the old. Even Roger's transepts did not extend beyond the aisle walls of the new choir, and their place was taken by the present eastern transepts, which are each merely a bay of the aisle, raised to the same height as the vault of the choir itself, and open to the choir from top to bottom.

There has been a dispute whether or no this presbytery was completed in Thoresby's lifetime. According to Stubbs, Thoresby provided tombs for six of his predecessors, and placed them in the choir in front of the lady chapel—that is to say, in the presbytery.

He also says that Idem Archiepiscopus ...Capellam ...Virginis Mariae Mirabili arte Sculpturae atque notabili pictura peregit.

The building must certainly have been roofed before it was decorated, and if Stubbs is accurate, and there is no reason to suppose that he is not, the work was completed by Thoresby. Thoresby died in 1373, and if he finished the presbytery, there was a gap of seven or eight years between its completion and the beginning of the choir. There is internal evidence to support this presumption. The presbytery, though Perpendicular in its main features, shows many traces of the transition from the curvilinear Decorated to the Perpendicular style, especially in the tracery of the great east window and the clerestory windows. In the choir proper these traces have vanished, and the work, though apparently of the same character as that in the presbytery, is altogether Perpendicular. A lapse of ten years in the continuity of the work would account for this change, and becomes still more probable when we consider that the circumstances of the time were not favourable for great expenditure on building. The presbytery had been completed unusually quickly. Indeed, we know that £627 were spent upon it in one year, and this was an unusual amount. The average expenditure, for instance, on the choir of Ely was £318. It was natural, therefore, that there should be a halt to collect further funds. The work of the choir itself proceeded much more slowly. There was a complaint in 1390 on the archbishop's visitation—quod fabrica ecclesiae negligenter tardatur—and it was not roofed in until 1400.

The contract for the glazing of the great east window is December 10, 1405—that is to say, thirty years and more from the date of its construction. But there is nothing unusual in this. It was customary before filling windows with stained glass to cover them with linen cloth which admitted a sufficient amount of light, or to glaze them with plain glass; and it was only natural that a long time should elapse before stained glass could be supplied to the largest window in the world. Burying was begun at the east end soon after 1400, and Scrope was buried there in 1405. Bowet's monument also was erected there in 1415, while he was still alive.

A new high altar was projected in 1418, and the new crypt was fitted with iron work and paved in the same year. The building of the choir had caused a subsidence in the crypt, so the work of Roger and others was broken into fragments and patched together, older capitals being placed on Roger's pillars, in the condition in which we now see it. Nothing is known of the history of the vaults of the cahoir and eastern transepts. Like those of the nave and transepts, they are of wood, though of the same shape and design as a stone vault.

The great central tower was erected between 1400 and 1423. Hitherto there had been the Early English tower of the elder John Romeyn, supported by Norman piers which, perhaps, had received a partial casing of Early English stonework. These piers were afterwards recased, not simultaneously, but as the arches between them were erected, in the following manner:—

Taking the south-western pier for an example: when the present nave was begun, the western face of the pier was cased with masonry, so that three parts still remained Norman; when the Decorated arch[^[1]] in the transept was erected south of it, it received a further Decorated casing on its south side; when the central tower was built, its northern and eastern faces were cased with Perpendicular masonry: so, in the case of the north and south-eastern piers, their eastern faces were completely cased when the choir was built, their western only when the tower was in course of erection. To this day it may be seen that there is no bond between the different periods of masonry, and that the courses are at different levels.

The piers were probably completely recased by 1409.

Nothing is known of the elder Romeyn's tower, or the manner in which the present one replaced it. A great part of the new work has been attributed to Walter Skirlawe, Bishop of Durham. It will be seen it is of the same character as the lower part of the central tower at Durham. It has never been finished, as the corners and the condition of the masonry at the top still show, but it is impossible to say whether it was intended to receive another storey, and if so, of what character that other storey was to be. At one time, as may be seen in old engravings, it had a turret in one corner, 24 feet high; this was probably destroyed in the last century.

The south-west bell tower was built probably between 1433 and 1447, the north-west between 1470 and 1474. They are thus both Perpendicular in style.

At the end of the fifteenth century, therefore, the minster as we now see it was fully built. Since that date it has suffered no changes of importance, and the record is only one of occasional damage from fires or fanaticism, and of necessary restorations.

The minster suffered to a certain extent at the restoration, and in a less degree at the hands of the Puritans. In 1734 the nave was repaved. Several tombs were found when the old pavement was removed, and relics taken from them and deposited with the other treasures of the minster.

On the 2nd February 1829, Jonathan Martin, a brother of the apocalyptic painter, John Martin, and a religious maniac, hid himself during evening service behind the tomb of Archbishop Greenfield in the north transept, and when the church was shut up for the night set fire to the choir. The flames were not extinguished until the stalls, the organ, and the vault had been entirely destroyed. The actual stonework and carving of the choir were considerably injured, and the glass of the great east window itself only just avoided destruction. Martin escaped through a window of the transept, but was quickly captured, and discovered to be insane. The restoration, carried on by Smirke, was begun in 1832, and on the whole was fairly done. At any rate, the authorities of the minster may console themselves with the knowledge that it was absolutely necessary. The stalls were a reproduction, as exact as possible, of the old woodwork, but the design of the throne and pulpit are original, and not successful. The cost of the restoration was £65,000, most of which was contributed by subscription. Timber, to the value of £5000, was given by the State, and Sir Edward Vavasour, following the example of his ancestor of the fourteenth century, supplied the stone.

Another fire broke out on the 30th May 1840. It began in the south-west tower, and is said to have been caused by some workmen who were repairing the clock. The whole tower, excepting its shell, including the bells, was destroyed, and the fire was not extinguished until the wooden vault of the nave had been burnt. The restoration on this occasion cost £23,000, and was finished in a year, under the superintendence of Sydney Smirke, son of the former restorer.

In 1871 the south transept was discovered to be in a dilapidated, and, indeed, a dangerous condition, and the advice of Street was asked on the question of restoring it. In his report he stated that the design of the clerestory, constructed as it was of two thin walls, was not strong enough for the weight it had to support, even though the vault was of wood. The whole wall of the transept had given way, and the clerestory, in particular, was in a very bad condition. It became necessary, therefore, to rebuild the side walls of the clerestory and the flying buttresses under the steep roofs of the aisles, to remove the heavy slates from the roof, and to renew the pinnacles.

On investigation, it was discovered that the inside portion of the walls had been made up of stone chippings without cement. It is curious that builders in the thirteenth century, whose system of ornament was most profuse and thorough, often scamped the more important details of structure. At Peterborough, no less than at York, instances have been discovered of what would, in these days, be called jerry-building.

The walls were rebuilt with solid masonry, held together by Portland cement, and strengthened by wrought-iron bars; the Purbeck marble shafts were in places renewed; the groining of the vault was stripped of the whitewash which concealed its material; the lath and plaster work of the vault between the groins was removed, and replaced by oak boarding; the bosses were gilded, and picked out with vermilion paint.

The cost in all of this restoration was about £20,000. In the course of it it was discovered that there were many remains of tombs and coffins under the pavement, but they have not yet been thoroughly explored.

The reredos, made of terra-cotta and wood, was designed by Street, the figures by Tinworth.

Modern stained glass windows have from time to time been placed in the minster. In the last century a certain Pickett patched and rearranged much of the older glass.

CHAPTER III
THE EXTERIOR

York Minster consists of a nave of eight bays and a choir of nine. It has a large central tower and two western towers. The main transepts project three bays from the nave and choir. There are also two eastern transepts four bays west of the east end, which do not project beyond the aisles of the choir. The chapter-house lies to the east of the northern transept, and is connected with it by a lofty passage projecting three bays from the transept. The east end of the cathedral is square, as in most English Gothic churches. The best views are to be obtained from the north, especially from the walls, which will be most conveniently ascended at Bootham Bar, or from the extreme northern corner of the close. From the walls the whole of the vast bulk of the minster may be seen, broken by the great central tower and the lofty cap of the chapter-house. Other English cathedrals are more finely placed, several are richer in ornament, one or two have a more delicately varied outline. None are so stately and so magnificent; and there is hardly a church in Europe that appears so vast as the minster viewed from the north. Compared with it the great French cathedrals, with their stilted roofs so often unbroken, except by a small flêche and with their outlines concealed in a crowd of flying buttresses, are apt to look short and huddled when seen from a distance.

The low-pitched roof of the minster, the absence of flying buttresses, and the simple and tranquil front of the north transept, give the building an air of masculine and stately repose, and of perfect finish seldom to be found in foreign churches; while the apparent uniformity of style, though the architecture is of three different periods, frees it from the picturesque inconsequence of many English cathedrals. Yet neither inside nor outside does the minster appear to be the expression of the spiritual aspirations of a people. It represents rather the secular magnificence, the temporal power of a Church, that has played a great part in the history of the nation. The archbishops of York have been forced by circumstances to be militant prelates, contending with Canterbury for precedence, leading armies against the Scotch, sometimes even heading rebellions against the king; and in their cathedral they have expressed their ambition and their pride.

The West Front.—The west front of York Minster is free from the two faults most common to the façades of most English cathedrals. It is not a mere undistinguished ending to the church, like those at Norwich and Winchester, and it is not a magnificent misrepresentation of the height or width of the building itself, like the west fronts at Peterborough and Lincoln. Most of the English cathedrals are not lofty or wide enough to give opportunities for an impressive façade, unless they are fronted with a mere screen of masonry; but this is not the case at York. No other Gothic church in England is so wide, and only Westminster Abbey is as lofty. The builder, therefore, was not tempted to any expedient to conceal the dimensions of his church, and so the front consists of the natural end of the nave, of which a great part is filled by the west window, with a gable above it representing the space between the vault and the roof, and with the porch below it. It is flanked by two towers built in front of the aisles, with two smaller porches at the base of each. The three divisions of the west front are marked by buttresses, prominent and richly ornamented, one on each side of the west window and two at the external corners of the towers. The buttresses, covered with niches and panelling, grow narrower and less prominent as they rise, until they are cut short with three cornered caps some feet below the battlements of the towers. The central window and the principal entrance are surrounded with niches, and there is an elaborate gable above each of them. The west front exhibits three different styles; the lowest part, containing the porches and the west windows of the aisle, being of the geometrical Decorated style; the middle portion, including the great west window, the gables above it, and the middle windows of the towers of the later or curvilinear Decorated; and the towers above the roof, Perpendicular of the fifteenth century. The central gable and the great west window are almost flamboyant in their decoration. A battlement immediately above the central window runs right across the front. The niches on the buttresses are in four storeys, and those on the central part of the front in six, of varying heights. There is also a row of niches on the towers immediately above the ornamental gable of the aisle windows, and the upper part of each tower is covered with niches. The greater part of these niches above the two lowest rows do not appear to have ever contained sculpture. The bases of the lowest row of niches are richly ornamented with foliage. The main entrance, though small, is extraordinarily beautiful. It consists of a single arch, divided into two smaller cusped arches by a central pillar with a circular opening above it, glazed and filled with six divisions of cusped tracery. Above the main arch is a gable, in which are five niches, the central one containing the figure of an archbishop. It is uncertain whether this is Archbishop John Romeyn, who began the nave, or Archbishop Melton, who finished the west front and glazed the central window. On either side of the gable are statues of the Percy and Vavasour, who gave the wood and stone necessary for the building of the nave. These statues, and the greater, part of the porch, have been restored. But even after restoration the fine proportions and delicate workmanship of the porch are evident. The slender shafts supporting the arches are well grouped and contrasted. The capitals, though characteristically small, are most delicate, and the mouldings are admirably varied with foliage, figures, canopies, and brackets for statues, formal decoration, and courses of plain stone. These mouldings contain the history of Adam and Eve. Even the porches at Sienna and Orvieto, though made of far more costly materials, can hardly be more beautiful than was this porch at the time of its completion. There is but little other statuary remaining on the west front. A few figures of saints remain in the upper niches of the buttresses, and there are fragments of sculpture on some of the lowest. The towers are 201 feet high, and are uniform in design. The front of each contains three large windows; the highest, Perpendicular in style, containing three lights; the middle, curvilinear Decorated, containing four; and the lowest, the west windows of the aisle, being geometrical Decorated, and containing three lights. The middle windows to the north and south are of very curious half geometrical, half curvilinear tracery. The highest and lowest windows of the towers have ornamented gables above them, the lowest being triangular, the upper ogee-shaped. The towers are topped with large battlements and pinnacles.

It will be seen, therefore, that this west front is planned on the most regular lines and the most ambitious scale. True, some French façades are loftier, as at Amiens for instance, but, as Professor Freeman has pointed out, the effect aimed at at York is one of breadth rather than of height, and it is an advantage that the front is not too high for the towers to rise some way above it. It is also richly decorated and well proportioned in the mass, and yet nearly every one, on first seeing it, must be struck by its curious ineffectiveness when its height and breadth, its regular outline, and profusion of ornament are considered. To tell the truth, the English architects have here endeavoured to rival the French on their own ground, and have not succeeded. The English cathedral, as has been said, was not usually planned on such lines as to make a sumptuous façade possible. Throughout the whole course of English Gothic architecture, the treatment of the west end is curiously hesitating and arbitrary. Sometimes it is altogether unambitious, as at Winchester and Norwich; sometimes boldly illogical, as at Lincoln or Peterborough; and at Salisbury, where everything else is beautiful, it is altogether unsatisfactory. In all these cases circumstances were against the architect, but at York there was every opportunity for a great architectural triumph. Yet the designer was not able to throw off his English timidity, to forget the small English features to which he was used, and to conceive his front as a gigantic whole.

To begin with, he made his west window so large that every other important feature of the central division of the front had to be sacrificed to make room for it. In the great French façades the customary circular window leaves ample space for vast porches below it. These are pushed forward to a level with the great flanking buttresses, so that the actual wall of the church above it appears to be recessed. As the side porches fronting the aisles are on the same level with the main porch, the bottom part of the front is bound together, and the divisions of nave and aisle, emphasised above by the prominent buttresses, are minimised below. This arrangement gives at once unity and variety to the whole design. The towers do not appear to be external additions rising from the ground, but an integral part, the very crown and flower, in fact, of the whole design.

At York the central window is so large that it leaves but little room below it for the porch. This porch, though exquisite in itself, is not pushed forward, but flat with the wall, and appears a mere hole cut in the surface. It has necessarily no connection with the entrances to the aisles; and the finest feature of the great French façades is wanting. But the size of the west window has other disastrous effects. It would have been difficult, almost impossible, to assimilate an opening so large, and of such an elaborate pattern, to the rest of the design, and hardly an effort even has been made to do so. It appears, therefore, like the porches, to have been cut bodily out of the front without regard for the rest of the plan, and its acute arch harmonises badly with the gable above it. No doubt the designer saw the fault; he placed an acute ornamental gable above the window, rising to the top of the front, and he covered the actual gable of the roof with flamboyant tracery of the same character as that on the window; but, by so doing, he merely weakened the contrast between tracery and bare spaces of masonry so necessary to every great design.

The weakness of the central division is not made up for by any excellence in the towers. These, though fine on their lower storeys, are strangely feeble above. They are, in fact, the worst part of the minster, and have been condemned by all critics, from Mr Ruskin downwards. In most towers of this kind there are two windows above and a single one below. At York the three storeys of single windows give the design an air of monotony and weakness. Further, the highest window is not only far too large, but is placed too low. Like the great west window, it appears to have been cut out of the wall. It is also peculiarly unfortunate that the buttresses should die into the wall below the pinnacles. Where a tower is buttressed, it is a natural and logical device to make the pinnacles a continuation of the buttresses. Here both pinnacles and buttresses, unusually prominent and elaborate, do not seem to be an integral part of the design. They have been called a kind of architectural confectionery, and the criticism is just. The fact that the battlements and pinnacles project a few inches over the walls of the towers, only adds to the air of weakness and instability of the whole. Nowhere else surely has a Gothic architect approached so closely to the ideals of his "churchwarden" imitators of the beginning of this century.

But these faults, though serious enough, do not include everything that can be said against the west front of the minster. Gothic churches have often been noble and triumphant works of art in spite of errors almost as grave. Unfortunately the west front suffers from a tendency first beginning to show itself in the middle of the fourteenth century, which afterwards became the most serious drawback of the whole Perpendicular style. It is not only because the porches do not project that it appears flat and thin. The west front of Notre Dame at Paris has no projecting porches, yet the alternations of bare spaces of wall and of rich and deep masses of carving, the strong horizontal lines, and the deep-set windows, give it a boldness and strength altogether wanting at York. Like all Norman and earlier Gothic work, it has this great merit, often most strongly felt by people who are quite unable to explain it, that the design seems to emphasise, and to be dictated by, the materials in which it is carried out. The Norman architect never forgot for a moment—he was not skilful enough to forget—that he was building with stone. So he did not conceive of his west front as a flat space to be ornamented, but as a wall to be built, and naturally his ornament followed and emphasised the main lines of his building. His single pillars, with their heavy capitals, bore witness that they were made of great stones piled one on the top of the other; his simple windows were merely openings in the wall to let in light.

But as masons grew more skilful, and designers more sophisticated, they found it pleasant to play with their material; to turn their single pillars into bundles of clustered shafts; to fill their windows with tracery, structural at first, but afterwards as free and fantastic as lacework. The result is often beautiful. The method gave the freest play to the artist's invention, but it had its dangers, and they are exemplified at York. There the designer has evidently regarded his west front as a large space of wall to be played with, to be decorated much as if it were a piece of embroidery, and, in his anxiety to decorate it richly, he has lost his sense of unity and proportion. He has forgotten to use his ornament merely to emphasise the main lines of the structure. Where this is done, where the ornament is massed on the porches, on the windows, and on the lines dividing the storeys, the rest of the façade may be left alone. The bare spaces of masonry only serve to give relief to the decoration. But at York the main lines are so neglected, they offer so little opportunity for decoration, that the designer was afraid to leave his walls plain, lest the whole should appear lean and cold. He has, therefore, spun his tracery and panelling over the whole surface. Nowhere can the eye rest on a plain piece of wall; everywhere it is fidgeted by monotonous rows of niches and mouldings. In fact, it may be compared to an etching so full of unnecessary details that composition, balance of mass, and beauty of line are all smothered in them. And yet there is much to be said on the other side. The mere size—the height and width—go far to make the front impressive; and the detail, even now when so much of it has been restored, is usually beautiful. If it is not great architecture, it is at least living architecture, and as such infinitely superior to the most scholarly works of the Gothic revival. It is only when we compare it to the magnificent west fronts of Francethat we are inclined to regret that it has not rivalled them.

The north side of the exterior of the nave differs from the south in several particulars. Thus, on the south the aisle buttresses are crowned by lofty pinnacles having at their bases niches, in some of which statues still remain. These pinnacles appear to have been originally connected with the wall of the nave by flying buttresses, traces of which still exist, both on the walls and the pinnacles. In Hollar's engraving, in a later print in Dugdale's "Monasticon" (1817), and in Willis's "Cathedrals" (1742), these buttresses are represented as existing, but the accuracy of the pictures in these books cannot be trusted. It is possible that a beginning only was made of these flying buttresses, and that when it was decided to place a wooden vault on the cathedral, they were discontinued as being unnecessary. At any rate, there are no pinnacles to the aisle buttresses on the north side, and, consequently, no flying buttresses. The plainer style of the north side was perhaps owing to the fact that a great part of it was concealed by the archbishop's palace, yet at the present day it is certainly more beautiful than the south. It closely resembles the exterior of the beautiful nave of Beverley Minster, and for simplicity and delicacy of design could hardly be surpassed. The bays are marked by plain aisle buttresses, terminating in three-cornered caps, with a battlement of cusped stonework ornamented with finials behind them. The buttresses of the nave are plain narrow bands of stone topped with small pinnacles. The roof is low pitched; the only other decoration is given by the uniform tracery of the windows and by a crocketed gable above each of the windows of the aisle.

North Transept.—The walls of the north transept are lower than those of the nave, and its roof, covered with a particularly ugly coating of zinc, is much more highly pitched. Thus the ridges of the two roofs are practically level, while the battlement of the transept is only on a level with the point at which the arches of the clerestory in the nave spring. The union of the two and the contrast between the low-pitched roof of the nave and the stilted roofs of the transept are rather awkward. It should be said that the zinc roof of the north transept was a necessity, as the old roof of stone tiles proved to be too heavy. But for these inevitable differences the exterior of the north transept blends most successfully with that of the nave, though, of course, its details are altogether different. As an example of the great effect to be attained by the lancet windows, delicate proportions, and restrained ornament of the Early English style, it has never been surpassed. It extends three bays from the nave. The aisle buttresses end some little way below the battlements of the aisle. There are no buttresses against the main wall of the transept; but it is ornamented with a row of arches, some blank, and some pierced with the clerestory windows. These windows are in groups of three separated by two blank arches. The blank arches are wider than the windows. All the arches are decorated with dog-tooth mouldings. The absence of buttresses and the continuous row of arches cause a remarkable freedom from vertical lines in the exterior of the transepts, which is also characteristic of the interior. The battlements, both of the aisles and of the transept itself, are quite plain. The most admirable portion of this transept is its north front, which contains the famous group of lancet windows known as the "five sisters." These are five very narrow and long windows separated only by slender shafts. Below them is a blind arcade almost entirely without ornament, and above them another group of five lancet windows of different sizes, gradually diminishing from the central window to follow the outline of the gable. The details of these upper windows closely resemble those of the "five sisters," and they are flanked by two blind arches. The buttresses are also ornamented with blind arches, and appear never to have been finished, as they are truncated in an unusual way where one would expect pinnacles. The exterior of the western aisle of this transept is very curious in arrangement. There is an almost complete absence of division into bays. There are two lancet windows to each bay, and buttresses rise between them as well as between the bays. Thus there is nothing to mark the interior division of the main arches, clerestory, and triforium. All of these buttresses are cut short by caps a little way below the tops of the windows. Between the groups of aisle windows are blind arches narrower than the windows themselves. There is a blind arch of the same width at the southern extremity, and a wider one at the northern. The aisles, like the rest of the transept, are almost perfectly plain.

The Chapter-House is connected with the eastern aisle of the transept by a vestibule projecting three bays beyond the north front. This vestibule then turns eastward for two bays, at which point it joins the chapter-house. Both vestibule and chapter-house are magnificent examples of Decorated work. Their date is doubtful, and is discussed in the history of the building. They are certainly among the finest works of Gothic architecture in Europe. The chapter-house is octagonal in shape, and is crowned by a lofty pyramidal roof. Its chief, almost its only decoration, is provided by the buttresses and the beautiful tracery of the acutely-pointed windows. The buttresses are of very curious design. They are joined to the wall of the chapter-house for nearly half their height, and up to this point are quite plain. They are then narrowed into lofty pinnacles, and these pinnacles are connected with the wall by two small flying buttresses, the lower one plainly moulded and sloping upwards to the wall, the upper one being horizontal and richly decorated with arcading, two arcades to each side of every buttress. At the point at which the buttress narrows into the pinnacle there are cusped gables with gargoyles on the outer side of the buttresses. The pinnacles are decorated with slender shafts and richly ornamented gables. The windows of the chapter-house contain five lights. They will be further described in the account of the interior of the building. Above them is a plain battlement, with two rows of ornament below it, and three figures in each bay above it. There is a very curious buttress at the point of junction of the vestibule and the chapter-house. It is joined to the wall of the chapter-house up to the battlement, and consists of an irregular mass of masonry ornamented as far as possible in the same manner as the other buttresses with gables and panelling. The two bays of the vestibule nearest to the chapter-house have nothing unusual about them except their buttresses. One of these is set close to the wall up to the spire of the pinnacle. All the other buttresses of the vestibule, except the one built against the buttress of the transept end, have pinnacles joined to the wall by a pierced arch of curious and ingenious design. The vestibule is crowned by plain battlements like that of the chapter-house, with small square-headed windows of two lights each. The windows of the two bays nearest the transept end are of most unusual design, which will be explained in the account of the interior; these bays are narrower than the others, that nearest to the transept being the narrowest of all.

The Choir.—The exterior of the north side of the choir is almost identical with that of the south; but there are some points of difference between the four earlier bays east of the transept and the four later ones west of it. In particular, in the four eastern bays the triforium passage runs outside instead of inside the building. The clerestory windows are recessed, and in front of them, running flush with the buttresses, is a screen of three divisions to each bay (see illustration to the left). The triforium passage, hidden by the roof of the aisle, runs below the screen and the windows, and between the two. The mullions dividing the screen run straight up to the battlement. The tops of the divisions are ornamented with cusped arches of open stonework. There is a transom crossing the mullions of the screen about one-third of the way up. It is difficult to say what was the object of this screen. It must have been included in the original design, and so cannot have been added afterwards to strengthen the walls. Whether it was a merely decorative experiment or an architectural device for the purpose of allowing the walls to be pierced with very large windows for the display of glass cannot now be decided. The effect from the outside is not good. The mullions break the surface into too many vertical lines, and, with the transom, take away from the dignity and purity of outline of the exterior. Inside, whether by a lucky chance or not, this screen, by darkening the clerestory windows, has greatly added to the effect of the wall of glass at the east end. There are also slight points of difference in the clerestory windows, showing the transitional character of those in the four eastern bays. The windows of the aisle are delicately moulded with capitals to their shafts, and are ornamented with a crocketed gable, ogee-shaped and topped with a prominent finial rising just above the battlements of the aisle. These battlements are pierced with cusped circles, below them is a cornice ornamented with foliage. The buttresses of the aisles are decorated with gargoyles and crowned with pinnacles of a considerable size with crocketed spires and finials. The front of these pinnacles is ornamented with characteristic Perpendicular panelling. The buttresses of the main wall are thin and plain, and, with the pinnacles, much resemble those of the nave. The battlements are of pierced stonework of a common Perpendicular pattern. The eastern transepts do not project beyond the aisles. Their fronts contain very long windows of five lights, each with three transoms. The southern one has strong buttresses ornamented with panelling, and gargoyles at the corners. The northern is much plainer. Their side windows are like those of the clerestory. Britton conjectures that the unfinished state of the stonework on the north side of the choir beneath the window shows that a cloister or other low building was intended in this part, which was never executed. The cornice, he says, under the battlements is more perfect towards the western part and shows beautiful foliage. The spouts are sculptured with bold projecting figures through which the water is conveyed from the roofs.

The east end of the cathedral is square. The great east window of nine lights fills almost the whole of the central division. The buttresses separating it from the aisle are decorated with six storeys of niches, two to each storey, except the lowest, which contains only one. The east window has an ogee gable above it, topped by a curious pierced pinnacle at present in process of restoration. The ends, both of the aisles and of the choir itself, are square, and do not reveal the roof behind them. The arch of the great east window is surrounded with panelling, each panel curiously broken at different heights by cusped arches. The aisle windows have ogee gables above them with finials, and immediately above them a band of panelling running right across the exterior buttresses. These buttresses are large, and capped with lofty spires. The niches on them contained statues of Vavasour and Percy. Below the east window are the remains of sculpture representing Christ and His Apostles, Edward III. (on the north), and Archbishop Thoresby (on the south). These have suffered much in the frosts of recent winters. The square ends of both choir and aisles are decorated with arches with crocketed gables above them. Those of the south aisle differ from those of the north, being fewer in number and wider. All the niches on the east front except those mentioned have lost their statues.

There was certainly not very much opportunity for a fine architectural design in this east end with its great wall of glass, but, allowing for all disadvantages, it cannot be considered successful. There is no justification for the square ends concealing the roof. They are misrepresentations, and they are not beautiful. The decoration, with its monotonous rows of panelling and niches, shows the poverty of invention often characteristic of Perpendicular architects, and is sometimes positively ugly. The whole east front must surprise most people by its apparent smallness. It seems merely the end of an overgrown parish church, and not of a great cathedral, and though that apparent smallness is partly owing to the enormous size of the windows, which prevent any structural division of parts, it is increased by the monotony and shallowness of the decoration. It is almost impossible, in fact, to believe that this is the east end of the loftiest and widest choir in England. The buildings on the south side of the choir are the vestry, the treasury, and the record room.

The South Transept has a front entirely different from that of the north, though the sides are much the same. This front has three storeys of windows. Below, on each side of the porch, are two lancet windows. Above these are three more lancet windows, the central one of which, wider than the others, is divided by a mullion, probably a later insertion. These windows alternate with blind arches. On each side of the windows are slender shafts with capitals, and dog-tooth moulding runs round them and round the blank arches. Above these windows is a large rose window of "plate tracery"—tracery, that is to say, in its earlier form, in which the openings for the glass appear to have been cut out of the stone rather than the stone to have been added as a frame for the glass. This window is of a very elaborate design, and consists of three circles, the outer being the circumference of the window; the middle about equi-distant from the circumference and the centre, and connected with the circumference by pillars, twenty-four in all, and cusped arches; and the inner connected with the centre in the same way and ornamented with cusps. The spaces between the arches of the middle circle are pierced with trefoil holes, those between the outer arches are pierced and filled with glass. The outer circle is ornamented with three rows of dog-tooth moulding. Above this window, in the crown of the gable, is a small three-cornered window ornamented also with dog-tooth moulding. On either side of the rose window are small lancet windows with smaller blind arches on each side of them. Both windows and arches are surrounded also with dog-tooth moulding. An arcading with shafts and cusped arches runs along the base of the front, not quite reaching the exterior buttresses. In the centre is the porch by which entrance to the minster is generally obtained. It is reached by an ascent of two flights of steps. The porch is rather small, and not particularly remarkable architecturally. It consists of a single arch supported by an outer and inner group of clustered shafts. On each side of it is a small blind arch. All three of these arches are decorated with dog-tooth moulding. The interior of the porch is vaulted and decorated with blind arches. Above this porch are three blind arches surrounded with heavy gables, the middle and largest of which runs up to the lancet windows above it. It is difficult to believe that these arches and gables are not an addition later in date than the transept itself; they are so ugly and so meaningless, but they appear in the old prints of the minster, and the ancient clock, with two wooden statues in armour of the date of Henry VII., seems to have stood there from time immemorial. This clock was removed, with the statues, to make room for another at the beginning of this century, and it appears that the arches and gables were also altered, which may perhaps account for their present ugly appearance. The clock is now in the north transept. It should be stated that the whole of this front has been rather badly restored, and nearly all of its beauty of detail is gone. The aisle fronts have upper storeys ornamented with blind arches and an upper row of small lancet windows. These upper storeys do not correspond with the roof of the aisle behind them. The aisle windows are lancet, two to each aisle. The external buttresses are large, ornamented with gables and blind arches, and the other buttresses are of the same character.

On the whole, the front of the north transept, though very rich in ornament, is distinctly inferior to the front of the south. The rose window is too large for its lofty position, and its elaborate tracery and rich mouldings make it seem heavy. The lancet windows below it, being too long and badly spaced, have rather a bald look, increased by the richness of the rose window above them, and the porch is altogether too insignificant and plain for its prominent position. But, as has been stated, the front has suffered much from restoration and later additions, and must not be too severely judged. When it was restored by Mr Street, pinnacles, which were late additions, were removed, and the present ones, more in keeping with the rest of the front, were put in their place.

The South Side of the Nave resembles the north in most respects, but the buttresses and pinnacles of the aisles are altogether different. The buttresses rise some way above the battlements of the aisles. They are plain to the level of these battlements, and above them are ornamented with niches containing figures, with blind arches above the niches. They are cut short by three gables, on the top of which are set lofty pinnacles. The niches vary in detail, some of them having more elaborate canopies than others. On these buttresses and on the wall of the nave are the marks of flying buttresses which have been removed, as has been stated in the account of the north side of the nave.

Three gargoyles spring from each buttress at the level of the battlement of the aisle. This side of the nave is only less beautiful than the other. The pinnacles, if they add to the richness of its decoration, break the simplicity of outline so admirable in the northern exterior of the nave. The stonework of the pinnacles and buttresses is much decayed, and constantly requires renewal.

The Central Tower rises a single storey above the ridge of the roof and is open inside to the top. But for small gables on the buttresses, it is quite plain up to the level of the roof ridge. Above this it contains two long and narrow Perpendicular windows on each side, of three lights each, with a transom. These windows are ornamented with ogee gables, and between them are three niches, one above the other, with canopies. The external buttresses are split up with vertical mouldings and ornamented with niches and panelling. The tower is crowned with a battlement. Horizontal string courses with gargoyles divide the buttresses at intervals. There are no pinnacles on these buttresses, and they appear never to have been finished. It is possible that it was intended to set another storey on the top of the present one, but this is merely conjecture.

This tower, or rather its Perpendicular casing, for it was originally an Early English tower, is, with the western the latest part of the minster, but it is by no means the least beautiful. The English architects of the sixteenth century, if they were inferior to earlier builders in invention and vigour, were at any rate supreme in the management of towers. Their wonderful sense of proportion, their habitual use of vertical lines, and the character of their windows helped them to build what are perhaps the finest towers in Europe, and the central tower of York Minster is one of the finest of all. Even the absence of pinnacles, if it is an accident, seems to be a lucky accident, and gives this tower an unrivalled dignity and air of restraint suitable to the character of the whole cathedral. For whatever may be said against certain parts of the exterior, as a whole it is one of the most magnificent in the world. It shows best from certain points of view—from the north, for instance, or from the network of narrow streets to the south. It may be contended that the central tower is not quite lofty enough compared with the two western towers for perfect symmetry of outline; that, seen from certain aspects, it is rather square and box-like in appearance; that from no point of view are the western towers satisfactory. But the minster produces its great effect by its enormous bulk and dignity, its vast length, the variety and yet unity of its outlines, the severity and restraint of its form.

CHAPTER IV
THE INTERIOR

The Nave.—The most casual observer will have noticed that churches of the Gothic style are divided vertically into bays, and that in cathedrals and large churches these bays are usually further divided horizontally into three compartments, the lowest consisting of the main arch and piers, the highest of a window or windows, known as the clerestory, and the middle, called the triforium, consisting usually of an arcade, sometimes blind, sometimes pierced, and occasionally even glazed. This triforium fills up the space between the top of the main arches and the bottom of the clerestory window which is covered on the outside by the roof of the aisle. As a distinct division or architectural feature, the triforium arcade is not a necessary part of the structure. In smaller churches it seldom exists. But in most cathedrals, as at York, a passage runs behind it, and is generally lit by the holes in the arcading. As has been stated, however, the arcading is often blank, and in such cases there might be nothing but a bare space of wall in its place, for all the practical purpose it serves. Since, therefore, its form is not dictated by considerations of utility, there is far more variety in its treatment than in that of the other two divisions, the main lines of which are formed by structural necessities; and yet the success or failure of an interior often depend upon the arrangement and proportion of the triforium; and the arrangement of the triforium, its emphasis or subordination, was one of the chief problems with which the builders of Gothic churches had to deal. Since such a church is generally divided into three storeys, the main lines of the interior would naturally be expected to be horizontal, and in many interiors of the Norman and Early English periods they are so, as, for instance, in the nave of Wells Cathedral. But the stone vault, which played so important a part in the development of Gothic style naturally emphasised, with its ribs converging at regular intervals, the vertical division into bays as opposed to the horizontal division into storeys.

The supports of the outside wall were gradually concentrated by the use of pinnacles and flying buttresses placed between the windows; the windows themselves grew in size with the introduction and development of tracery and the increasing taste for the decoration of stained glass; until the final organism of Gothic architecture was attained, and the typical Gothic Church, from being a building of three storeys, pierced by windows, became a structure made up of vertical supports, with the intervening spaces filled with glass. When this phase of development was reached, the building became as organic in all its parts as the human body. Structure was ornament, and ornament structure, and the two were fused as they have never been in any other style of architecture. Decoration and variety of outline were supplied by the mere disposition of the supporting masses, the arrangement of structural lines; to the exterior, by the flying buttresses, the pinnacles, and the window tracery; to the interior, by the banded shafts, the capitals, the groined ribs of the vaults, and the openings of the triforium. Outside the church became a framework of glorified stone scaffolding; inside, an avenue of columns rising from the ground to the vaults, with intermediate spaces of tracery and coloured glass. But before this stage was reached there were many compromises and passing phases, and every considerable church in England, until the end of the fourteenth century, may be classified and criticised, not only for its beauty, but as a link in the development of Gothic architecture. The builders were grappling with both tendencies, the vertical and the horizontal; they were not consciously working on a theory of complete vertical development; they made progress by structural experiment, and a sensitive eye for possibilities of beauty; and in the meantime their problem, both structural and artistic, was to make a happy compromise between vertical and horizontal lines. It was a problem which probably presented itself to them in the question how they were to treat the different storeys of the building. Structural difficulties would be continually at war with their aesthetic ambitions, and the heavy stone vault made structural difficulties a serious matter. There was a growing desire for space, for height and width, for light and colour. With every increase of height and width the burden of the vault became more oppressive; with every enlargement of windows its supports were weakened. As a rule, the English builders were far less ambitious in their treatment of these problems than the French. Amiens Cathedral, begun at the beginning of the thirteenth century, is structurally as daring as can be. Salisbury, but for its spire, a later addition, is comparatively modest and timid. The French builders quickly reached the limits of structural possibilities, and their type became fixed. The English, with less economy of support, and a lower organisation of structure, were better able to play with their forms. So their churches present a series of continual and often inconsequent experiments in the treatment and proportion of every storey, particularly of the triforium, and in compromise between vertical and horizontal tendencies. Thus at Beverley, Salisbury, and particularly in the nave of Wells, the horizontal tendency is predominant, and the triforium is both important and continuous, without regard for the vertical division of the bays. In the Early English transept of the minster itself the triforium is the most prominent feature of the design. These are all examples of Early English work, but in the nave of Lichfield, which is Decorated, the triforium is still far more prominent than the clerestory. In the same way a various and experimental use may be noticed of the shafts dropping from the point at which the ribs converge. At Wells and Salisbury these shafts reach only to the top of the triforium. They are so insignificant as hardly even to suggest a vertical division. At Beverley they cease a little way above the capitals of the main piers, and are still very slender. At Exeter they are much more prominent, and terminate in rich corbels reaching to the capitals of the main piers; while in the later naves of Canterbury and Winchester, not only do they reach to the ground, but they are forced so far forward, and rendered so prominent by continuous mouldings on each side of them, that they become the most significant part of the whole structure. They seem to be the columns on which the vault is supported; and we have at last the avenue of stone.

The nave of York Minster was built at an intermediate stage, in which neither the vertical nor the horizontal tendency predominated. We might have expected, therefore, a design something like that in the naves of Exeter or Worcester; but the York builders were ambitious. They were determined to build a nave both lofty and wide, and with a great space for the display of stained glass. It seems likely, though we have no evidence to support the theory, that they were influenced by French example. There can be no doubt, as Professor Freeman has pointed out, that the design is more French than that of any other large English church, hitherto built, except Westminster Abbey. The most casual observer will be struck at once by the large space occupied by the glass. The clerestory is unusually large; the main arches unusually high, and thus far the greater part of each bay is filled with the clerestory and the aisle windows. With so much space given to the highest and lowest storeys, it naturally follows that the triforium is almost squeezed out of existence. Indeed, out of a total height of 99 feet, there are only about 13 between the top of the main arches and the bottom of the clerestory. It would have been almost impossible to give so narrow a triforium a separate and independent design; and, therefore, by a device often found in French cathedrals, the triforium is merely a continuation of the mullions of the clerestory windows. Behind these mullions is the customary triforium passage; but the design really consists only of two parts, the clerestory and the main arches. It is as if the lower part of the light of the clerestory windows were divided from the rest by a transom, and pierced, but not glazed, so as to let in light to the passage behind them. This is the first example of this treatment, which was so happily followed in the naves of Winchester and Canterbury, in an English cathedral. In earlier examples, even where the triforium was decisively divided into bays and had ceased to be a continuous arcading, it was absolutely independent of the clerestory, as in the transepts of the minster. There can be no doubt that the plan adopted in the nave was a convenient and logical one. It is impossible to have every advantage; and where the designer has set his heart on a wall of glass, he cannot combine it with a rich and prominent triforium. Unfortunately, the architect of the nave, though ambitious and logical up to a certain point, did not carry his pursuit of the vertical tendency far enough. He aimed at unity and coherence in the design of each bay, and for the sake of that unity and coherence he was forced to sacrifice the richness and fulness of pattern given by a prominent and independent triforium. The later builders at Winchester and Canterbury made up for this, as has been said, by the emphasis they gave to their vertical lines. But at York, while the insignificance of the triforium deprives the design of all horizontal continuity, there is little attempt at vertical emphasis. True, large shafts rise from the floor to the converging point of the ribs of the vault; but these shafts are not forced forwards as at Winchester, but lie flat against the wall. They are prominent enough when each individual bay is examined, but they do not catch the eye when the nave is looked at as a whole. In the naves of Salisbury or Beverley the eye is led on from west to east by the circling band of the rich triforium; in the naves of Winchester and Canterbury it is attracted from floor to roof by the upspringing clusters of shafts; at York it wanders from point to point without any prominent feature to catch it. The blank space in each bay between the windows of the clerestory and the vaulting shafts ought to be a welcome contrast to the curves of tracery, the clusters of pillars and mouldings in a strong and forcible design. At York it appears to be simply a piece of wall which requires decoration.

Everywhere there is a lack of emphasis, not only in structure but in detail. The windows are not recessed, the capitals are small, the mouldings are delicate rather than forcible. The main piers are thin, their shafts are rather monotonously and tamely divided, the mouldings of the arches are narrow and shallow, the mullions of the clerestory and the shafts on each side of them are unusually slender; and this is peculiarly unfortunate in a nave, the width of which is greater both actually and proportionately, than that of any other English Gothic cathedral. To make a successful design of such proportions, there was need of strong vertical lines to give it the appearance of unusual strength: and not only the appearance but the reality. It is a significant fact that the builders were afraid to place a stone vault on their nave, and thus it is a Gothic building without that feature which gives its whole significance to the Gothic style, and by reason of which the design of this nave came to be what it was. It is a curious paradox, that the builders of York should have abandoned one of the most attractive features of earlier art in pursuit of a more logical design, and should then have been forced to abandon that very vault which gave their design all its logic. It is as if a dramatist strictly subordinated all his characters before the central figure of the hero, and then discovered that the exigencies of the plot would not allow of the introduction of the hero at all.

The most casual observer, on first entering the nave of York Minster, must have a vague feeling of disappointment, a consciousness that something is wanting; he will see that his feeling is justified, when he learns that it is the first building in England of which the design is entirely dominated by the necessities of a stone vault, and yet that it is crowned by a wooden roof. But it must not be supposed that this nave is altogether to be condemned, as some critics have condemned it. Each bay, looked at by itself, is not only perfectly logical and coherent in design, but is filled with delicate and appropriate detail. The capitals, if small, are finely carved; the mouldings well contrasted and subordinated; and the window tracery is the finest possible. It is a work of the best age of architecture with all the characteristics in detail of that age; yet it is not the work of a builder of genius, but of a careful scholar, who has imperfectly assimilated the principles of his masters.

In passing this judgment, it must be remembered that we are not rashly coming to a conclusion on insufficient data. This nave is not a mere beautiful scaffolding deprived of all its original decoration, like the nave of Salisbury. If that is somewhat cold and wanting in richness, it is the fault of later ages, which have deprived it of its stained glass. At York the greater part of the stained glass remains. The vault has been renewed, it is true, but it can never have been satisfactory; and we may assume that in essentials we see the nave now as its designers intended us to see it.

To pass to a detailed description, the nave is divided into eight bays, of which the two nearest the lantern are narrower than the rest, no doubt with the purpose of giving increased support to the tower. It is about 263 feet long inside, and 48 feet wide, with the aisle 104 feet wide in all. Its height is about 99½ feet. Each bay is divided into two main divisions of almost equal height; the upper half, consisting of the triforium and clerestory, being only about 2 feet longer than the lower, which consists of the main arches. These two halves are divided by a slender horizontal moulding running immediately above the crown of the main arches.

The piers of the main arches are octagonal in shape and unusually slender. They are made up of shafts of different sizes, the larger ones placed at the corners of the octagon, the smaller ones between them. The grouping of these shafts should be compared with that of the Early English piers in the transepts. There the central mass of masonry is surrounded with shafts of Purbeck marble almost detached. Here thedifferent shafts are closely connected together and subordinated. The earlier pier is made up, so to speak, of a bundle of shafts; the later is a mass of masonry cut into different shapes. There can be no doubt that in this case the treatment of the earlier pier, if less logical, is more successful. The piers of the nave have capitals of beautiful design, and well executed, but rather small and shallow. The moulding of the arches is narrow, almost as narrow and small in detail as Perpendicular work, but, of course, much more diversified in outline. On each side of the main arches—that is to say, in their spandrels—is a series of shields with coats of arms, said to be those of benefactors of the minster. "Murray's Hand-book" gives the arms on the shields as follow, beginning at the north-east end of the nave:—

Beginning again at the south-west end of the nave the arms are:

At the centre of each pier rise three shafts to the point at which the ribs of the vaulting spring: a large shaft in the middle, with a smaller one on each side of it. There are small carved figures at the point at which the smaller of these shafts touch the moulding of the arches. The capitals of these shafts, though small, are of a very delicate design. A few inches above the top of the main arch is a horizontal string course or moulding dividing each bay into two storeys. As has been said, the triforium is merely a prolongation of the lights of the clerestory window. These lights are five in number. The division between clerestory and triforium is marked by a band of stone ornamented with quatrefoils. Below this is a cusped arch in each light of the triforium with a crocketed gable ending in a finial above it. The centre lights of the triforium in each bay originally contained figures, said to have been the patron saints of European nations. Of these there only remains a figure in the fourth bay from the west on the south side. Near the triforium in the opposite bay to this there projects the head of a dragon carved in wood, from which the covering of the font used to hang. The clerestory windows are of uniform pattern of the style known as geometrical Decorated. This pattern is very fine in design. It consists of five lights, the two outer of which are grouped in a single arch, with a quatrefoil piercing in its head. Between these two arches and on the top of the arch of the central light is a circle fitting into the arch of the window, and ornamented with four quatrefoils, four trefoil piercings, and other smaller lights. There are capitals to the outside shafts of the windows, and to the main shafts of the two inner mullions. All these mullions are very delicately moulded. A separate account will be given of the glass in these windows and those of the aisles, together with the rest of the glass in the minster. There is a curious moulding running round the arches of the windows and springing from the capitals of the vaulting shafts, which bends towards those arches to a point a little way above the capitals from which they spring, and then runs parallel and close to their mouldings. The vault is of wood covered with plaster.

The ribs are elaborate in design, but not very successful. The fact that the vaulting is not of stone deprives the mouldings and bosses of all sharpness and delicacy. From the capital of the vaulting shafts and for about 9½ feet above them these ribs are of stone: the division between wood and stone is marked by a curious and heavy moulding. The aisles of the nave are bolder in design and altogether more satisfactory than the nave itself. Like the nave they are unusually wide and lofty. In the two farthest bays to the west, above which are the western towers, the rough wooden roof, which has never been covered with a vault, may be seen. These bays are separated from the bays next to them by strong arches with thick shafts and mouldings, which were built for the support of the towers. The shafts supporting this arch on the outer side are five in number. The shafts corresponding to them in the other bays of the aisle, to which the ribs of the aisle vaults converge, are only three. All these shafts have finely-carved capitals of leafage. The vault of the aisles is of stone, with only structural ribs, finely moulded and with carved bosses. The aisle windows are, like those of the clerestory, of the geometrical Decorated style, but of an earlier and simpler, uniform, design. They each contain three lights, and there is no variation or subordination of mouldings in the mullions. Unlike the clerestory windows, they are somewhat deeply recessed. The mouldings of their arches are broad and bold, and are supported by five shafts with capitals. Above the three lights of the windows are three quatrefoils, pyramidally arranged. On each side of these windows, in the space between the windows and the vaulting shafts, is plain stone panelling terminating in an arch with a crocketed gable above it, ending in a finial which reaches to about the level of the spring of the window arch. On each side of this gable are grotesque carved figures. A small pinnacle is rather strangely inserted on each side of the arch at the point at which it springs. Below the windows there is a rich arcade, with buttresses between the divisions ending in pinnacles. Each division is filled with a geometrical pattern of two panels, each panel ending in a trefoil, with a circular trefoil in the head of each division, and a crocketed gable, terminating in a rich finial above it. All the mouldings of this arcade are very delicate. In the north aisle, and in the second bay from the west, is a doorway, which opened to a Chapel of the Holy Sepulchre, now altogether destroyed. Above this doorway is a gable ornamented with foliage and a statue of the Virgin, which has lost its head, with statues of angels on either side of her, also much mutilated.

The Interior of the West End of the Nave contains the famous window with tracery of the curvilinear or flowing Decorated style, and of a design only surpassed by the east window of Carlisle Cathedral. The glass in this window was given by Archbishop Melton, and is almost the finest in the cathedral. The tracery has been entirely and very carefully restored. The window contains eight lights. These lights are coupled in pairs by four arches with a quatrefoil in the head of each, and again formed in groups of four by an ogee arch above the other arches. The flowing curves of these ogee arches are most ingeniously and beautifully worked into the pattern of the upper part of the window, which contains five main divisions of stonework, each like the skeleton of a leaf in shape and in the delicacy of its pattern. Of these five divisions the top one is made by splitting up the central mullion; two diverge from it at the top of the lower lights; and two others curve inwards from the outside arch. The central mullion runs up almost to the top of the arch. The mullions are alike in moulding and size. Below the window is the west door, the head of which is filled with ancient stained glass. There is a gable above it, running up to the bottom of the window and containing three niches. There are kneeling figures on each side of the gable, so that the top of it may have held a figure of Christ. All that portion of the west end not occupied by the window and the porch is filled with storeys of niches and arcading. The lowest storey consists of a rich arcading, each division of which is ornamented with geometrical tracery closely resembling that of the arcading of the aisles. These divisions are marked by pinnacles. Above this is another row of arcading of much the same character, except that it is about half as high again as the lower storey. Each division of this arcading contains two niches for statues, and above the niches are gables. Above the gables the divisions are filled with tracery closely resembling that of the lower arcade. This second arcade reaches to the bottom of the great window, which is marked by a string course running across the whole part. On each side of the gable of the porch is an extra niche rather clumsily fitted in. Above the string course the arcading is not so rich as below. The third storey consists of long niches ornamented merely with arches, gables, and pinnacles between each niche. The fourth is of much the same character, but that the divisions are shorter and have no gable above them. The last storey consists of plain panelling ornamented at intervals by gables. The west windows of the aisle are shorter than the other aisle windows, but have tracery of the same character. The aisle doorways are plain, but over both are some sculptured figures. Those over the north door appear to represent a hunt. In the middle a woman is setting a dog on to two beasts, and behind them there is a man blowing a horn. At the sides are two quatrefoils, set in which are figures (1) of a man attacking another man drinking, and (2) one man driving another away. The sculpture over the south door was destroyed in the fire of 1840, but a careful restoration of it has been made. It consists of a man in the middle fighting with a dragon, with sword and shield, and at the sides in the quatrefoils (1) Delilah cutting the hair of Samson, and Samson and the lion; (2) a man and woman fighting. The ends of the aisles are also ornamented with arcading in three storeys, the lowest of which is like the lowest storey of the arcading at the west end of the nave; the second a smaller series of niches ornamented with gables and pinnacles; and the third a single arcade on each side of the window, filled with geometrical tracery and resembling those on the sides of the other aisle windows.

It cannot be said that this mass of niches and arcading at the west end is either ingenious or successful. Arcading is a very beautiful decoration where it is employed, as in a triforium, in single storeys, to cover a definite even space. But where it is used to fill up an irregularly-shaped mass of wall which there is no need to decorate, it looks incoherent and confused. Had the wall been left bare it would have afforded an excellent contrast to the elaborate pattern of the central window. As it is, this decoration seems to be conceived in a spirit, of which there are further evidences in the decoration of the west front of the east end—the spirit of a builder determined to display the magnificence of his resources even at the expense of symmetry and refinement. This is a weakness that might be expected in the designer of a London hotel, but not in a great mediæval architect.

The nave was fitted with benches, seats, and a very mean-looking organ, in 1863. It is lit by gas jets round the capitals of the piers.

The tombs of the nave are described in a general account of the monuments of the church.

The present pavement dates from 1731. It was laid down according to the design of William Kent, under the direction of Lord Burlington, the amateur architect of Burlington House. The stone was given by Sir Edward Gascoigne from Huddlestone. Some of the gravestones were also used for the work. The work cost £2500, which was collected by subscription. The pavement, though inoffensive, is not in keeping with the rest of the church.

The Transepts.—The minster is generally entered by the door at the south end of the south transept, and this is perhaps an advantage, as it introduces the visitor at once to the finest view of the interior and one of the finest architectural views in the world.

Mr Fergusson has called the "lantern" the weak point in the system of Gothic, or rather of English Gothic, architecture (for in French churches there is usually no lantern), and there is something to be said for his view.

The climax of a domical church is obviously the dome. That is the centre and dominating feature of the whole design, and all the lines of the building should lead up to it. But in a Gothic interior the climax is at the east end. In the Middle Ages the high altar, blazing with jewels, plate, and costly embroidery, naturally drew all eyes to it. From the west end, therefore, the altar as a point of attraction was without a rival. But, as the visitor drew near to the transepts, the lantern, if it existed, suddenly discovered itself and distracted his attention from the altar. And when seen directly from below it had not the overpowering impressiveness of the dome. It was apt to be too narrow and dimly lit, too much disconnected from the system of the whole building to produce an overpowering and harmonious effect. But at York, when the minster is entered by the south transept, the east end is not seen at all, and the lantern, with all its height and vastness, is seen at once. Even as viewed from the west end, the choir is shut off from the rest of the church by a heavy screen, and the view eastward is broken and ineffective. But those very qualities of the interior which lessen the beauties of the nave increase the grandeur of the transept view. The great width of the church has enabled the lantern to be so large as almost to give it the effect of a dome. And the opening of the lantern is so lofty, 180 feet indeed from the floor to the vault, as to lessen the appearance of emptiness that might otherwise result from the great width of the transepts. The dimensions of this part of the church are all enormous, and only comparable to those of the dome and transepts of St. Paul's. The length of the transepts, each of them four bays long, is 223 feet from north to south, in itself the length of a large church; their width is 93 feet, the height to the summit of the roof, 99 feet, and to the top of the lantern, 180 feet.

The transepts, therefore, are unusually prominent, even for an English cathedral, and they have many other unusual features. Taken in conjunction with the lantern, they produce an effect to be found in no other Gothic church in the world. In England there are none so wide and so lofty. In France there are interiors even loftier, but in France the transepts are seldom a prominent feature of the design. Often they do not project beyond the outer wall of the aisles of the nave, and oftener still there is no central tower large enough to allow of a lantern at all. It is a great piece of good fortune, also, that the five vast lancets of the north transept end, known as the five sisters, still keep their beautiful original glass. If we look at these windows and consider how utterly ineffective they would be if they were glazed with plain glass, we can understand how little remains of the original beauty of the interior of Salisbury.

When these transepts were planned, the minster had a Norman nave and choir, far narrower and smaller in every way than the present nave and choir. There is no doubt that the transepts were begun with the intention of rebuilding the whole church. At that time it was not among the largest of English cathedrals, and the aspiring and ambitious archbishops naturally desired to have a cathedral worthy of their position in the church. They therefore planned their transepts without any regard for the then existing proportions of the rest of the building, but as it was impossible to rebuild the whole minster at once, they found it necessary to fit their new transepts on to the older and smaller nave and choir, and afterwards to fit their new and larger nave and choir to these transepts. This necessity accounts for and explains many of the peculiarities of the transepts.

There is one peculiarity in particular, the arrangement of the bays nearest to the piers supporting the lantern, which must strike every observant visitor at once, and the explanation of which was only discovered by the patient and penetrating investigations of Professor Willis.

For the purpose of explaining this peculiarity of arrangement, the two bays of the west side of the south transept nearest the south-west pier supporting the lantern may be taken as an example.

It will be seen that their arrangement is most irregular—in fact, they can hardly be called bays at all. For instance, the main arch nearest to the pier is much wider than the main arch next to it, and this latter is filled with masonry. It will be noticed, also, that the pier between the two arches is Decorated in style, and not Early English, like the rest of the transept. Further, the triforium and clerestory do not accord in their division with the main arches. There is no triforium, but merely a blank space of wall with a small ornamental opening, next to the pier of the lantern; and this blank wall only covers a small part of the space over the arch below it. Near to the centre of that arch is a vaulting shaft, and south of it a full-sized division of the triforium, with a full-sized division of the clerestory above it, and the division fills the space above both the remaining half of the first arch and the whole of the smaller second arch. It is as if the strata of the building had been broken by a violent change, and this is exactly what happened. As has been said, the old Norman nave and choir had much narrower aisles than the present nave and choir; consequently, the bays of the transept nearest to the piers of the lantern were narrower than the other bays, so that their main arches might be exactly of the same size as the arches of the Norman aisles which at that point joined on to them. But when the far wider aisles of the present nave and choir were built these narrower arches did not fit them, and their outside piers blocked up the centre of the new aisles. The builders of the nave therefore determined to remove these piers and to alter the whole scheme of the arches, so as to make them fit the new aisles. By an extraordinary and daring feat of engineering skill, they were able to do so without disturbing the triforium and clerestory above them. This was effected in the following manner:—The pier in the middle of the new aisle was removed, together with the whole of the narrow arch which it supported on the one side and the wider arch which it supported on the other. No doubt, in the meantime the upper storeys of the two bays were kept from falling by temporary props. A pier in the Decorated style was then placed so that the arch above it fitted the arch of the new aisles, and the two arches—the narrower one nearest the pier of the lantern, and the wider one beyond it—were made to change places bodily, so that the same space was occupied by the two together as before, and it did not become necessary to disturb the rest of the piers. This narrower arch was then walled up to give support to the lantern. Meanwhile, of course, with this new arrangement, the upper storeys of the bays did not correspond with the arches below them. The narrower upper division was now over the wider lower arch, and vice versa. It should be said that the triforium of the division next to the piers of the lantern was built blank, because, being so much narrower than the other bays, it would have been impossible to give it decoration of the same character, and also because a solid space of blank wall would give better support to the tower. An account has been given in the history of the building of the minster and the manner in which the piers of the lantern gradually received their casings. The daring shown in this alteration of the transepts and the disregard for continuity of design are very characteristic of the builders of the period. They lavished extraordinary labour on beautiful detail, but they cared very little how one part of that detail fitted in with another. The spirit of their art was entirely opposed to that of the renaissance architects, for the success of whose designs uniformity and continuity of plan and detail were absolutely necessary. It is curious, also, that these very builders who were so daring and so profuse of ornament, were often very careless in matters of structure, and at times were even guilty of something very like jerry-building, as the account of the restoration of the south transept will show. The vaulting of the transepts is also most unusual and well worthy of attention. It raises many problems which have been little noticed by most investigators of the history of the minster.

Like the vault of the nave, it is of wood, and dates probably from the beginning of the fifteenth century. In the north transept it is covered with plaster; in the south this has been removed by Mr Street, and oak panelling inserted. It has been stated that the vault of the nave and choir, though wooden, resembles a stone vault in form and structure. Not so that of the transepts, which is a curious compromise between the form of the ordinary vault of stone and the simple barrel roof. It is an attempt, in fact, to combine the advantages of both.

It is the merit of groined vaulting that it emphasises the division into bays, and is capable of great richness of structural decoration. On the other hand, it involves a great loss of height, for the ridge of the vault can be little higher than the top of the clerestory windows, and it cuts off the whole space covered by the roof above it from the building which it covers. The structure of the vault will be perhaps most easily understood if it is conceived as a flat roof of stone of the same height as the top of the clerestory, supported by fan-shaped brackets springing from a point between the clerestory windows, and rising and spreading out until they reach the central ridge of the vault. As the vault is, but for these brackets, in its essence flat,there must of necessity be a great sacrifice of space between it and the roof above it. This sacrifice of space is obviated by the barrel roof, which nearly approaches to the shape of the outside roof, and fits into it without the loss of space entailed by the vault. But the barrel roof does not readily submit to a structural division into bays, or a structural decoration by means of ribs and bosses such as ornament and emphasise the divisions of the intersecting vault.

Wishing, as has been said, to combine the advantages of both forms, the designers of the transept roof have given it the shape of a barrel roof, and have covered it with a network of ribs, some of which converge between the bays of the building and meet at a point on a level with the bottom of the clerestory. The roof, therefore, has at first sight the appearance of a vault, but it remains a barrel roof divided by ribs all the same; and this will be evident so soon as it is remarked that the top of the roof is not on a level with the top of the clerestory, but some way above it. It is, therefore, not to be conceived as a flat roof supported by brackets, but as an almost circular roof ornamented and divided by structurally unnecessary ribs. Indeed, it would be altogether impossible to combine a vault with such a clerestory as is found in these transepts, for a vault is a roof designed to fit a pointed arch. Its spreading supports make it impossible to adapt it to any other than an arched clerestory; and the clerestory of these transepts, consisting as it does of a row of five lancet windows, is flat at the top. A barrel roof, on the contrary, will fit any kind of buildings, but, unfortunately, it is seldom successful, except in round-arched churches. To some of these—as, for example, in Auvergne—it has been applied with magnificent effect. It is very rare in England. It is always very difficult to decorate. The fifteenth century builders having for some reason or other decided on the form, and being but little accustomed to it, determined to treat it like a vault. They covered it with a network of ribs, and where these ribs met they placed bosses. They also caused these ribs, as far as possible, to take the same direction that the structure of a real vault would give to them. No doubt the ribs serve some useful purpose as a support to the roof, especially as that roof is slightly pointed and not circular, like the barrel roof proper; but the whole effect is unfortunate. The artistic merits of the real vault are evident. It is logical, capable of much structural decoration, and it determines and explains the whole plan of the bays both inside and out. The merits of the barrel roof are also evident. It also is logical, though in a less degree than the vault. It does not determine or explain the plan of the building below it, but it is easily adaptable, and it has a simplicity and a marked grandeur of its own. The roof at York has none of this simplicity. To the most casual visitor it is puzzling and complicated. To the eye which looks farther, which seeks for the logic of its construction, it is still more puzzling. It may deceive the careless observer with the idea that it is a vault, but it will not convince him that it is a good one. It is a work of great ingenuity, but not of great art. It is impossible to say what was there before it. If we knew, we might be able to understand why the builders of the fifteenth century hit upon such a form; and it may be that they were forced by structural necessities to do so. Some space may perhaps be allowed to a conjecture on the subject. It will be remembered that when the present transept was built no part of the present nave or choir was existing; and only the core of the piers supporting the present tower. The tower itself as we see it, the arches over the pier, and the casing of those piers, all date from a period later than the transepts. The Norman nave and choir, existing when these transepts were begun, were, of course, much less lofty than the present nave and choir. If, therefore, the roof of the transept was of its present height, it must also have been far higher than the roof of the then existing nave; and, consequently, of the four arches supporting the central tower, those to the north and south must have been very much higher than those to the east and west. If the transepts had had a vault originally, this arrangement would have been plainly impossible, as a vault would have covered up a great part of the east and west arches. But, though the shape of the clerestory makes it plain that a vault was never even intended, it seems very unlikely that the north and south arches were originally loftier than those east and west. If we suppose that they were all originally designed and built of the same height, we shall find a very plausible reason for the form which the present roof has taken. In such a case the transept must have had a flat wooden roof, the natural covering to a clerestory of such a design, and must have looked, with its great width, very squat and low. But when the new and far loftier nave was built, it, of course, became necessary to heighten the western of the four arches supporting the tower, and afterwards to go through the same process with regard to the eastern arch. At such a time, when the choir was completed, the two arches east and west would be much loftier than the two north and south. Before rebuilding the tower it would naturally occur to the builders to raise the north and south arches to a level with the others, and to do this it would be necessary to raise the roof. In such a case it would be quite natural for the builders to hit upon such a roof as at present exists. They would have before them already the example of a wooden vault in the nave, and for the sake of uniformity they would be inclined to make their new roof as much like that vault as possible. Having the size and height of their arch settled before they designed their roof, the roof would of necessity be shaped to fit the arch, and this would be the most convenient roof for the purpose under the circumstances. This theory will explain why a new roof was required in the fifteenth century, and it also helps to explain other difficulties. For example, it is hard to understand why the transepts, being so wide, are not loftier, and why their original design made a vault impossible. But if we remember that they were originally additions to a much lower nave and choir, we shall see that their architect, having determined on a plan of great width, was in a difficulty. If he made his transepts much higher than his nave, the effect, both inside and out, would be very irregular. If he made them of the same height, and vaulted them, they would be far too wide for their height. He therefore determined, we will suppose, to make a wooden roof which would sacrifice as little of the height of his transepts as possible, and yet allow them to fit on to his nave without any appearance of incongruity.

He may also have expected that a loftier nave would soon be built, and set a temporary roof on his transepts which could be easily removed and adapted to new requirements.

Be that as it may, the transepts are altogether a curious patchwork, yet when entered from the south end they seem almost entirely satisfactory, since the eye is so engrossed by the magnificence of the five great lancets of the north front, and the great height of the lantern, that it is unable to take note of any smaller and less satisfactory details.

The two transepts are alike in the arrangement of their bays and in the general lines of their design, though they differ wholly in the arrangement of their fronts, and in many little points of detail.

Their bays are planned on wholly different proportions to those of the nave and choir. There every bay is divided into two main divisions, and the main arch is nearly half of the whole. Here the divisions are three—a main arch, a very large triforium, and a smaller clerestory. The ornamental details are very rich and bold, but the design, taken as a whole, is not altogether excellent. Professor Freeman says bluntly that "the feeble clerestory and broad and sprawling triforium are unsatisfactory." This is true enough, but the whole effect is far better than might be expected. The great width of the transepts in proportion to their length, and the great size of the lantern, coupled with the fact that they are not vaulted, makes one apt to forget that they are divided into bays at all, and to regard the whole as a gigantic hall divided into three storeys and magnificently decorated.

The plan of the bays, like that of the decorated part of the choir at Ely and the nave of Lichfield, is probably a reminiscence of Norman proportions. It is certainly better suited to the bold outlines and masses of the Norman period.

Here, as in the nave, the main piers are rather thin. The triforium appears to be "sprawling," because it consists of a single great arch in each bay, sub-divided into four smaller ones. The clerestory is small rather than feeble. Its five lancets, though not large, are boldly decorated with shafts, carvings, and mouldings.

The chief drawback to the design lies in the exceeding prominence of the triforium, owing to which the eye is drawn to the middle storey, rather than led up from the floor to the roof. And as this middle storey consists of a single bold arch in each bay, it has not the merit of horizontal continuity, found, for example, in the triforium at Beverley, and does not lead the eye, once directed to it, from bay to bay.

Like the nave, therefore, though for very different reasons, the transept should be examined bay by bay if the beauties of plan and of detail are to be appreciated, and these beauties, at least those of detail, are abundant.

There are some differences of detail between the east and west sides of the south transept, and also between the south and north transepts. The east and west sides of the north transept are practically identical, except for the fact that a Decorated pillar without Purbeck marble shafts has replaced an original Early English pillar on the west side of the north transept. This was probably made necessary by the height of the tower.

The differences between the east and west sides of the south transept are as follow:—

The windows in the southern bay of the west aisle are blank. They are pierced on the eastern aisle.

The vaulting ribs of the western aisle are plain. They are elaborately moulded in the eastern aisle.

The arcade in the eastern aisle is shorter than in the western, and does not reach to the ground.

There is a niche against the north-west pier of the tower, but none on the north-east.

There is a leaf moulding above the clerestory on the eastern side. The same moulding on the west is plain.

The eastern moulding of the main arches on the eastern side is dog-tooth. It is plain on the west. The other mouldings of the main arches are also differently arranged.

The spandrels of the triforium are decorated with circles of carved foliage, five to each bay, on the west side. These are absent on the east.

The north transept differs from the south in the following respects:—

The arches of the arcade at the north end of the north transept are trefoiled. They are plain at the south end of the south.

The main piers of the north transept have a ridge running down their alternate stone shafts. This ridge is wanting in the south.

Their capitals are richer, and, curiously enough, apparently later in detail.

In the clerestory of the north transept there are large dog-tooth mouldings between the Purbeck marble shafts wanting in the south transept. There is also more dog-tooth in the arch mouldings of the clerestory of the north transept than of the south.

In the north transept the moulding between the clerestory and triforium is dog-tooth. It is plain in the south transept.

The arcades of the aisles are practically the same in both aisles, except for the differences noted between the east and west aisle of the south transepts.

There are two rows of dog-tooth moulding round the windows in the aisles of the north transept, but only one in the south.

The clerestory shafts in the aisle of the north transept are bolder than in the south, and the capitals, especially on the east side, are more elaborate and beautiful.

The extra Decorated pillar on the west side of the north transept has already been noted.

The ends of the transepts are, of course, entirely different in arrangement. Purbeck marble is used lavishly all over the transepts; as, for example, alternately with stone in the main piers, on the shafts of the aisles, and in the triforium and clerestory. The main vaulting shafts are altogether of Purbeck.

The arcade at both ends of the transepts is entirely without Purbeck marble.

In the south front the shafts of the lowest row of windows are alternately of Purbeck and stone. The arcading above the door is wholly Purbeck, with dog-tooth mouldings of stone. The shafts of the central windows are Purbeck with alternate dog-tooth mouldings, and there are Purbeck shafts at the side of the rose window.

There are also Purbeck shafts on each side of the door, beginning above the arcade below.

In the north front, the shafts of the five sisters and of the five lancets above them are alternately marble and stone.

As has been said, the proportions of the bays in the transepts are very different to those of the nave. The triforium is much larger, and the clerestory much smaller. The main arches, slightly smaller in proportion than those of the nave, are extraordinarily rich and beautiful in detail. Their mouldings are very complex and deep, and are varied with dog-tooth and billet ornament.

The piers are perhaps too thin, though beautiful enough in themselves. They are made up of alternate shafts of Purbeck marble and stone. Those of Purbeck are ringed half-way up. The Decorated piers are altogether of stone, and not ringed at all. The arrangement of the shafts is not quite so bold and various as in some other Early English work—the choirs of Ely and Worcester, for example.

The capitals are finely carved, though small. Those in the north transept are rather richer than those in the south.

The corbels of the vaulting shafts, which are placed just above the capitals of the piers, are very large and richly decorated with four rows of foliage.

They support three shafts each, one large and two very slender, as in the nave. On each side of the larger shaft is a dog-tooth moulding.

The main arches, especially on the east side of the south transept, are considerably out of plumb, owing to the great weight of the lantern, and perhaps to the inferior material used in the transepts.

The triforium consists of a single great circular arch in each bay. It is divided by a thick central cluster of shafts into two smaller arches, and these in turn are divided by slenderer piers into two smaller arches still. In the head of the largest arch is a cinquefoil opening ornamented with cusps and dog-tooth moulding.

In the heads of the smaller arches are quatrefoil openings decorated in the same way. The mouldings of the large arches are very bold, and ornamented with dog-tooth; those of the lesser arches are less bold and plainer.

The shafts of the triforium run down on to a gabled sill which cuts into their bases. There is the same arrangement in the choir.

The clerestory consists of an arcade of five divisions, the three middle being windows, the outer ones blind. The clusters of shafts dividing them are very rich and thick.

The mouldings of the arches are broad and deep, the dog-tooth ornament being profusely used. Above the arches is a cornice decorated with foliage.

The vaulting shafts terminate in the wooden ribs of the roof, without the division of a capital, about two feet above the string course.

The aisles are vaulted, as in the rest of the minster, with stone.

The shafts supporting the vault are very richly clustered and varied. The mouldings also are broad and deep; in fact, some of the finest work in the whole of the minster is to be found in these aisles. Below the aisle windows runs an arcade with trefoiled arches, which is very plain and simple in its details.

The ends of the transepts, as has been said, are altogether different. The arrangement of the windows of the south front is described in the account of the interior. That arrangement is not particularly happy on the outside. It is even less so when seen from within. This is partly the result of the stained glass of different periods now in the windows, and partly of the scattered and confused spacing of the windows themselves. Inside, as well as outside, the great rose window appears much too large for its position, and the vaulting, raised to allow the whole of it to be seen, fits awkwardly round it.

The north end of the transept, however, is one of the most triumphant successes in the whole minster. Its plan is magnificently simple. It is almost entirely filled by two rows of lancet windows, the five sisters, and five much smaller windows of graduated sizes above them.

The five sisters are, no doubt, the largest lancet windows in England, and it was a bold idea to fill almost the whole of that great front with them, but the boldness was entirely justified by the result.

It might perhaps have been expected that, like other gigantic openings, they would dwarf the frame surrounding them. But this is not the case. They are enormous, and they appear enormous. They have an effect of gigantic and aspiring simplicity and vigour both inside and outside. They fill a given space in so obvious and efficient a manner, that it might seem that no other way of filling it could have occurred to the architect: that he was forced by a lucky chance to place them there. That, of course, is the greatest triumph of genius. It is a piece of luck however that they still retain their ancient glass—Early English glass of the simplest design, and of a beautiful silvery greyish green tint. Without it, no doubt, their effect would be entirely different.

The great size and height of the lantern has already been mentioned.

The wooden vault is covered with ribs elaborately reticulated.

There are two windows with simple Perpendicular tracery and transoms on each side. A single shaft runs between each window.

Below the windows there is an arcade of ten ogee arches on each side of the lantern, with pinnacles between. Above this arcade is a row of quatrefoils.

Below each division of the arcade are figures alternating with bosses of foliage.

In the spandrels of the main arches are coats of arms with angels above them.

The Chapter-House and Vestibule.—The vestibule leading to the chapter-house is entered at the north-east end of the north transept by a doorway of very curious design. It consists of two arched openings separated by a pier. Above the two arches is an acutely-pointed gable, within which, supported by the arches, is a circle with cinquefoil tracery. Above the gable is a further arch, the ribs of which join the gable at its exterior angles. This arch is further connected with the gable by a rib running horizontally through the crown of the gable, and below this rib, on each side of the gable, are circles quatrefoiled. From the finial at the top of the gable rise three ribs running to the top of the arch above.

It is impossible to understand the intention of this strange design, unless we suppose that the architect was determined to cover a certain blank space of wall at any cost. It is certainly an original effort, but it cannot be called either beautiful or logical.

The dates of the chapter-house and the vestibule are very doubtful. The question is discussed in the account of the building of the minster. It may be mentioned here, however, that the vestibule is later in date than the chapter-house itself.

The vestibule is a lofty and narrow passage running three bays north from the end of the transept, and then turning at right angles and running two bays east until it reaches the chapter-house itself. Just inside the vestibule will be seen the point at which the Early English work of the transept is interrupted by the Decorated work of the vestibule. There is no attempt at continuity. The Early English arcading breaks off just below the first Decorated window; the Early English shafts above it run close to the Decorated shafts of that window; while the Early English vaulting rib is cut off near its crown. It would appear from this that a passage to the chapter-house was begun and discontinued before the building of the chapter-house itself. The present vestibule was certainly built after the chapter-house, and the exterior parapet mouldings of the chapter-house may be seen within the vestibule, showing that it was almost an afterthought. Over the doorway leading into the vestibule is a pattern of blind tracery. Here, and on many portions of the roof and walls of the vestibule, are traces of old paintings. The windows are still filled with their magnificent original glass. The three bays running north are of unequal size, that nearest to the transept being the smallest, and that farthest away the largest.

The tracery of the two smaller windows is most curious and unusual. The smallest is also of a very odd shape, being almost as narrow as a lancet window, with, however, a rather obtuse arch. It is divided into two lights, which rise without further tracery to about three-quarters of the height of the whole window. Into the upper part are crowded five trefoils of different shapes, and piled one on the top of the other.The mouldings of the shafts have a slenderness and delicacy characteristic of the whole of the choir and the vestibule. The slenderness is one of the chief arguments for the later date assigned to them. All the shafts have rich capitals. The next window is filled with even more curious tracery. It is divided into four lights, rising only to almost half the height of the whole window. The central mullion is thicker than the other two. Above these lights are two gables, to the crown of which the two side mullions run, through an arch below them. Above the gables are two more arches with trefoils in their heads, and in the crown of the window a circle cinquefoiled. The unusual feature of the design is the gables with the lights running through them. They were probably inserted to strengthen the wall. The next three windows are of splendid design, resembling that of the clerestory of the nave, but richer. All the mouldings are of the same character. Under the windows runs an arcade of blind tracery, two lights to each division, with a cinquefoil ornamented with a sculptured boss above. These bosses contain alternately foliage and human heads wreathed in foliage. The capitals are also ornamented with leaves and curious animals. The vault is of richly-moulded ribs, and on each side of these is a pattern of white lozenges on a red ground. The vestibule, as a whole, is one of the most beautiful parts of the minster, not less for its fine proportions and detail than for its magnificent stained glass.

The Chapter-House is entered by a doorway of most beautiful design, planned in the same manner as the western entrance of the cathedral, but plainer in decoration. It consists of a large arch divided into two smaller arches, each of which contains a door. In the head of the larger arch is a quatrefoil, at the bottom of which are two carved brackets for sculpture. Between the two smaller arches is a niche, with a canopy decorated with a double row of gables and finials. The niche contains a statue of the Virgin Mary and Infant Christ, so mutilated that little of their ancient beauty is left. Below this niche are four narrow shafts with capitals. On each side of the doors is a rich cluster of shafts, boldly cut and varied, with finely-carved capitals. The mouldings of the main arch and of the two subordinate arches are plain, but much thicker and bolder than those of the western doorway. On each side of the main arch are plain niches with small carved brackets. This doorway on the inner side is divided by a cluster of shafts, and above it is an oblong piece of masonry ornamented with arcading enclosed in an obtuse arch. Above the outer arches of the arcading, on each side, is a niche with sculpture.

The chapter-house itself is octagonal in form, being divided into eight bays. Seven of these are filled with windows, the eighth, that over the entrance, being ornamented with blank tracery of the same design as that of the windows. These windows are very acutely arched, and their tracery is of the geometrical Decorated style. They contain five lights, each light terminating in a trefoiled arch. The central light has further a very acute arch above it, also filled with a trefoil. The two outer lights on each side are joined together by an arch above them, in which is a cinquefoiled circle. Above are three circles arranged pyramidally, each containing nine cusps. The mullions enclosing the central light are thicker than the others. All the mullions are broken up into very slender shafts with capitals. It may be safely said that for elegance, symmetry, and the ingenious filling of a given space, the tracery of these windows is not surpassed in Europe.

Between the windows are clusters of shafts which support the ribs of the vault. These shafts have fine capitals, and are separated from the windows by blank spaces of wall set at an obtuse angle to the windows, so that the shafts are pushed forward. Below is an arcade, famous both for its richness and curiously beautiful design. It consists of a series of canopies, six to each bay, under each of which is a seat forming the half of an octagon. At each angle of these seats is a shaft of Purbeck marble. The seats, or niches, are divided from each other also by shafts of Purbeck marble. The use of Purbeck marble, both here and in the doorway of the chapter-house, is worthy of note. It is unusual after the Early English period, and might be advanced as an argument of the early date of the chapter-house. In the bay which contains the entrance, there is a seat on each side of the doorway. The capitals of the Purbeck marble shafts are carved with unusual richness; but it is the canopies which demand most attention. They are flat at the top, and each is divided into three bays in front, the central bay being divided from the other two by pendants richly carved with foliage of the same character as the capitals of the shafts. Between the shafts and the pendants are trefoil arches, one to each bay, and above the arches and pendants are gables crossing each other and ending in finials of carved oak leaves. Where the gables cross each other are carved heads and figures. The sculpture of the arcade as a whole is the finest in the cathedral, and some of the finest in England; but the art of the Gothic sculptor reaches its culmination in these heads. In grotesqueness, fertility of invention, and perfect fitness as decoration they could hardly be surpassed. The canopies are decorated at the top with a cornice of carved grapes and vine leaves. Above them is a passage running round the whole chapter-house and passing behind the vaulting shafts and through the masses of masonry between the windows. The vault is of wood, though ribbed and painted to give it the appearance of stone. This vault is arranged so that the ribs diverge from the vaulting shafts until they reach the central octagon of the roof. At this point they converge to the boss in the middle of the central octagon. This boss is modern. The roof was restored in 1845. Before this time it was painted with figures of kings and bishops, and the bosses were covered with silver. The modern decoration of the roof is dull and trivial in design and offensive in colour. During the same restoration many of the marble shafts were replaced and the floor was paved with tiles, with a most unfortunate effect. The east window has also been filled with very bad modern glass. In fact, restorers have done their worst to the chapter-house; but, luckily, their work is not irreparable. We may hope that some day the glass, the tiles, and the paint on the roof will all be removed. This chapter-house marks the farthest point reached in the development of such buildings. It differs from the chapter-houses at Lincoln, Salisbury, Westminster, and Wells in that it has no central pillar, and this absence of a central pillar is supposed to be its special glory. No doubt the pillar was an inconvenience when the chapter met, and the architect was given a fine opportunity for the display of his mechanical ingenuity when he decided to do without it. But there can be no doubt that a central pillar or cluster of shafts such as is found at Wells, would be more beautiful. And as the architect at York was afraid to vault his chapter-house with stone, his mechanical ingenuity was not put to so severe a test after all. And yet, though we may regret the beautiful central pillar as we find it at Wells or Lincoln, there are other respects in which this chapter-house surpasses all its rivals. In size, in richness of decoration, in boldness of outline, and in aerial lightness it is unequalled. Above all, it still contains six windows of magnificent stained glass. Even now it seems to justify its boastful inscription:

Ut Rosa flos florum, sic est Domus ista Domorum.

The Choir is separated from the rest of the church by a very elaborate rood screen, which was built circa 1475-1505, and is therefore the latest part of the original building. It is a fine example of Gothic work of the latest period, and though, the details are of course inferior to those of thirteenth century work, and the parts are small and rather crowded, the whole effect is one of great richness and magnificence. This screen consists of a central doorway into the choir, and of fifteen niches with rich canopies and bases, seven to the north, and eight to the south, of the central doorway. The niches are filled with statues of the Kings of England from William the Conqueror to Henry VI. The statue of Henry VI. alone is modern. It has been said that the original statue of this king was regarded with so much reverence as to have aroused the anger of the iconoclasts of the Reformation. At any rate, it was destroyed, and an image of James I. set in its place. This has been happily removed in the present century, and a statue of Henry VI., a fair work, by the hand of Michael Taylor, a local sculptor, has been inserted. The original statues are unusually good for their period, and it has been suggested that the details of their dress show some consideration for historical correctness. The same consideration was not given to the hair, for it has been pointed out that the Normans were clean-shaven and wore short hair, whereas the statues of the Norman kings have beards, moustaches, and long hair. The kings are dressed in robes of state. The legs of Stephen alone are exposed. The hands of the Conqueror are broken off. On the pedestals are the names of the kings, with the length of their reigns. They begin on the north side. The figures of angels above the canopies of the niches are made of plaster designed by Bernasconi, who also restored other parts of the screen.

The central archway is unusually rich and delicate for the period in which it was built. It is somewhat obtuse in form, and is surmounted by an ogee pediment or outer moulding. On each side are four narrow shafts with carved capitals, an unusual enrichment in this period. Between those shafts are rosettes and rows of foliage. The bases, both of the shafts, the pedestals, and the buttresses, are very long, as is usual in late Perpendicular work. The arch itself has four divisions of ornamented mouldings, with plain mouldings between them. The ogee moulding is richly decorated with foliage, and terminates in a lofty finial reaching to the top of the screen. Below this finial is an empty niche with a kind of ball-flower ornament at the base. On each side of this niche is an angel with a censer, with rich foliage below. The interior of the screen under the central arch is vaulted with carved bosses. The niches are divided from each other by buttresses decorated at intervals with pinnacles. The pedestals are long, and richly ornamented with tabernacle work. The greater part of the ornament of the screen is massed in the canopies. These canopies are made up of three inner arches, cusped, immediately above the heads of the kings, and five outer arches, cusped and gabled, round them. Round these outer arches is a mass of pinnacles, with three larger, richly-ornamented pinnacles, and two smaller, above them. Above these are three small figures, apparently playing on musical instruments, with other figures of the same size, one on each side of the buttresses. These figures, in their turn, have above them canopies of much the same character as those below. Above these canopies is a row of panelling with the plaster angels of Bernasconi above it, at the beginning of the cornice. The rest of the cornice is made up of a row of sculptured ornament and a row of cusped arches terminating in the "Tudor flower" ornament, alternating with rows of plain moulding.

The chief fault of this screen is its heaviness, which the mass of ornament is not bold enough in its parts to lighten. The central entrance is not cleverly managed, and seems cut out of the screen, as if to make a way into the choir at all costs. This screen should be compared to the beautiful rood screen at Exeter, with its three bold arches and its simple yet delicate decoration.