A B C
OF
GOTHIC ARCHITECTURE.

A B C
OF
Gothic Architecture,

BY
JOHN HENRY PARKER, C.B.
Hon. M.A. Oxon, F.S.A. Lond.;
Keeper of the Ashmolean Museum, Oxford;
VICE-PRESIDENT OF THE OXFORD ARCHITECTURAL AND HISTORICAL
SOCIETY, AND OF THE BRITISH AND AMERICAN ARCHÆOLOGICAL
SOCIETY OF ROME; MEMBRE DE LA SOCIÉTÉ FRANÇAISE
D’ARCHÉOLOGIE; HONORARY MEMBER OF THE ROYAL
INSTITUTE OF BRITISH ARCHITECTS, ETC.
PARKER AND CO.
OXFORD, AND 6 SOUTHAMPTON-STREET,
STRAND, LONDON.
1881.

ADVERTISEMENT TO FIRST EDITION.

THIS little work is intended to serve as a stepping-stone to larger and more expensive works on the same subject, such as my “Introduction to the Study of Gothic Architecture,” my edition of Rickman’s “Gothic Architecture,” and the “Glossary of Architecture.” The same examples are not used, except a few well-known historical instances. My object has been to make it as simple and as easy as possible, so that a child may understand it. Experience shews that a child who has seen many examples, and has had the peculiar features of each style explained, does understand and remember them in a manner that appears astonishing to older people, and accurate representations of buildings of each period may be equally well understood and remembered. The knowledge thus acquired, simple and easy as it seems, and as it really is, if proper attention is given to it, will be found useful in after life, not in all parts of England only, but in all parts of Europe also. The general characteristic features of each period are the same, although the provincial character sometimes seems to preponderate; the character of each century, at all events, is the same all over Europe, and may also be easily remembered, and as a matter of fact is never forgotten.

JOHN HENRY PARKER, C.B.

Oxford,
July, 1881.

CONTENTS.

A. B. C.
OF GOTHIC ARCHITECTURE.

INTRODUCTION.

ARCHITECTURAL History can only be understood by the eye, either by seeing the buildings themselves, with time to examine the construction and the details of each period, or by accurate representations of them arranged in chronological order. This is what has been attempted in the present work; and when so arranged, any one, however ignorant of the subject, can see and understand the gradual progress and change from one generation to another. What is thus understood is also easily remembered; we can always remember what we have seen, much better than what we have only heard or read about; an accurate representation of each object is better than many pages of description, or of essays about it. The arrangement made in this little work will enable any one to understand the general principles of what are called the styles or periods of Gothic Architecture. Some persons object to this name, which was undoubtedly given originally in contempt by the admirers of the Palladian style, but it has been so generally adopted all over Europe for the last century or more, that it would be in vain to attempt to change it; it is a convenient name, which everybody understands as a general term for the different styles of MEDIÆVAL ARCHITECTURE. Dr. E. A. Freeman has ingeniously suggested that it is the architecture of the Gothic nations who conquered the Roman Empire, and one of which to be proud rather than ashamed.

Strictly speaking, the Norman is one of the Romanesque styles, which succeeded to the old Roman; but the Gothic was so completely developed from the Norman, that it is impossible to draw a line of distinction between them; it is also convenient to begin with the Norman, because the earliest complete buildings that we have in this country are of the Norman period, and the designs of the Norman architects, at the end of the eleventh century and the beginning of the twelfth, were on so grand a scale, that many of our finest cathedrals are built on the foundations of the church of that period, and a great part of the walls are frequently found to be really Norman in construction, although their appearance is so entirely altered that it is difficult at first to realize this; for instance, in the grand cathedral of Winchester, William of Wykeham did not rebuild it, but so entirely altered the appearance, that it is now properly considered as one of the earliest examples of the English Perpendicular style of which he was the inventor; this style is entirely confined to England, it is readily distinguished from any of the Continental styles by the perpendicular lines in the tracery of the windows, and in the panelling on the walls; in all the foreign styles these lines are flowing or flame-like, and for that reason they are called Flamboyant; a few windows with tracery of that style are met with in England, but they are quite exceptions.

Some persons who object to the name of Gothic, would use the name of Pointed instead; this name was proposed by the Cambridge Camden Society about half-a-century ago, but had never got into general use, and is now seldom met with. I always objected to it, on the ground that it misleads beginners in the study, who invariably consider every round-headed doorway as Norman, and every square-headed window as Perpendicular, which is very far from being the case. The form of the arch is always dictated by convenience, and is in itself no guide to the age or style of a building; the only safe guides are the moldings and details, and these require some study, but are not at all difficult to understand or remember, when a good series of examples are put before us, as I hope will be found by those who use this little book.

I should mention that this is not at all intended to supersede my “Introduction to the Study of Gothic Architecture,” but rather to serve as a stepping-stone to it, just as that leads people to want my edition of Rickman’s work, with the historical additions that I have made to it.

Rickman was the first to reduce chaos into order, and to shew that the age of a building can be ascertained by the construction and the details, on the principle of comparison with well-known dated examples, and he should always have the credit of being the first to establish this. His work was at first thought rather hard reading, and this was natural, because he trusted too much to words only; my “Glossary of Architecture” was called “Rickman made easy,” and this is true, because, by means of the excellent and accurate woodcuts of Orlando Jewitt, I was able to explain all the technical words which Rickman was obliged to use. In the present work I have avoided the use of these as much as possible, and have trusted to the eye in the numerous examples given, rather than to any words to explain them. The same persons who objected to the name of Gothic, objected also to the name of Early English for the earliest Gothic style in England; but this was undoubtedly developed from the Norman, in England, earlier than anywhere else.

The earliest pure and complete Gothic building in the world is St. Hugh’s choir at Lincoln, which was built between 1192 and 1200, St. Hugh himself having died just before the consecration in the latter year. Of this we have distinct evidence in the life of the good bishop (who was called a saint) by his domestic chaplain, the original MS. of which is preserved in the Bodleian Library, and it has only been published in my time, at my suggestion—through Sir Duffus Hardy, the assistant Keeper of the Rolls—by the Master of the Rolls in the Government series of Chronicles. The best-informed French antiquaries acknowledge that they have nothing like it in France for thirty years afterwards; they thought it was copied from Notre Dame at Dijon, to which there is considerable resemblance, but that church was not consecrated till 1230, so that the Dijon architect might have copied from the Lincoln one, but the Lincoln could not have copied from Dijon.

In England this style is only a natural development from the Norman, in which the transition had been going on for half-a-century before. At the time of the rebuilding of the choir at Canterbury, the change was making rapid progress, the work of William the Englishman there is considerably in advance of that of his teacher, William of Sens, who began the rebuilding. The eastern transepts and the Corona of Canterbury, finished in 1184, approach very near to Gothic.

The small church of Clee at the mouth of the Humber, of which the chancel and transepts and central tower were rebuilding almost at that time, are still more Gothic, and this work was consecrated by S. Hugh in 1192, as recorded by an inscription; this was the very year in which he began rebuilding the choir at Lincoln, which was finished, as we have said, in 1200. Many of the churches of the rich Norman Abbeys in the south of Yorkshire, and north of Lincolnshire, are nearly as much advanced at the same period; and the west end of the great abbey church at St. Alban’s, begun by De Cella about A.D. 1200, is also pure Gothic: of this, unfortunately, we have only a few remains.

In this work I have purposely omitted the remains of Roman villas, and of the churches between the Roman and the Norman period, of which the remains are more numerous than is generally supposed, especially the substructures, or crypts as they are called, and there are several churches of the eleventh century that do not belong to the Norman style. The Saxons appear to have been more advanced in the fine arts such as Sculpture than the Normans, but their churches were on comparatively a small scale, and were generally swept away by the Normans as not worth preserving: every one of our cathedrals was rebuilt by the Normans, and not always exactly on the same site, the old church being sometimes kept for use whilst the new one was building. Although these remains are of great interest to the antiquary, they have nothing to do with the history of Gothic architecture, which is certainly developed from the Norman, and the change did not begin till after the middle of the twelfth century, or about a century after the introduction of this style by Edward the Confessor: the remains of his abbey at Westminster are clearly Norman, and quite distinct from the Saxon character, but this style is called by the French antiquaries ANGLO-NORMAN, and this is quite correct. Normandy was then a province of the dominions of the King of England, and there are scarcely any buildings in Normandy earlier than the time of the Conquest.

The best-informed Norman antiquaries at the time of the revival of the study of Architectural History, between 1830 and 1840, made a series of excursions to the sites of all the castles of the barons who came over to England with William the Conqueror, in search of some masonry of the first half of the eleventh century. To their surprise, they found no masonry at all in any one of them; there were magnificent earthworks to all of them, clearly shewing that castles of that period were of earthworks and wood only. This is recorded in the Bulletin Monumental of the period, and the substance of the observations is given in the ABCédaire of De Caumont[A], who was their leader.

It is a mistake to suppose that the Normans brought this style with them “ready cut and dried,” it began in Normandy and in England simultaneously; the two great abbey churches at Caen were both built after the Conquest, and with English money, and they are not at all in advance of similar buildings in England; both had originally wooden roofs and ceilings only, the stone vaults were not put on until a century after they were built; we have no stone vaults over a space of 20 ft. wide before the middle of the twelfth century, either in England or Normandy. It seemed necessary to say a few words about Normandy, but for any further information about architecture in France or in other parts of Europe, I must refer the reader to my “Introduction,” in which I have given a good deal of information on the subject from personal observation.

In the present work I have purposely made long extracts from my “Introduction,” on the general character of each style, which are very often the words of Rickman himself, because I could only have said the same thing in other words, and this would rather confuse students than assist them. I have selected other examples, so that one should not be a repetition of the other in the material point, the teaching by the eye; and in those examples where I saw that a few words of description would be useful, they are added, so that this work is complete in itself for beginners, but those who wish to go on further with the subject can do so step by step. The only real way of thoroughly understanding Architectural History, is to go about and see the buildings themselves.

THE EARLY NORMAN PERIOD.
A.D. 1060-1090.

THE Norman style was introduced into England in the time of Edward the Confessor; the king himself founded the great Abbey of Westminster, and many of the buildings were begun in his time. Of this church he had completed the choir and transepts, which were sufficient for the performance of divine service, and it was then consecrated, Dec. 28, 1065, a few days only before his death. As soon as the choir of a church was ready for Divine Service, it was usual to consecrate it: the nave was called the vestibule, and was not consecrated. The nave of Westminster at that time was not built: it is probable that a nave was built in the twelfth century, but of this church we have no remains. The dormitory was in all probability building at the same time, as the monks or canons who had to perform the service in the church must have required a place to sleep in. Of this dormitory the walls and the vaulted substructure remain. The refectory also was begun at the same period, and we have the lower part of the walls, with the arcade

Westminster Abbey, A.D. 1066.

The Dark Cloister under the Dormitory, now the Schoolroom, and Windows of the Dormitory.

at the foot; the work is rude and clumsy Norman, with wide-jointed masonry, and the capitals left plain, to be painted or carved afterwards.

Soon after the Norman Conquest a great change took place in the art of building in England. On consulting the history of our cathedral churches, we find that in almost every instance the church was rebuilt from its foundations by the first Norman bishop, either on the same site or on a new one; sometimes, as at Norwich and Peterborough, the cathedral was removed to a new town altogether, and built on a spot where there was no church before; in other cases, as at Winchester, the new church was built near the old one, which was not pulled down until after the relics had been translated with great pomp from the old church to the new. In other instances, as at York and Canterbury, the new church was erected on the site of the old one, which was pulled down piecemeal as the new work progressed. These new churches were in all cases on a much larger and more magnificent scale than the old; they were also constructed in a much better manner, the Normans being far better masons than the Saxons[B].

Rubble Masonry, from Gundulph’s Tower, called St. Leonard’s, at Malling, Kent, A.D. 1070.

The earliest Norman Keep in existence.

Notwithstanding this superiority of workmanship to that which had preceded it, the early Norman masonry is extremely rude and bad; the joints between the stones are often from one inch to two or three inches wide, and filled with mortar not always of very good quality. In consequence of this imperfect construction, many of the towers fell down within a few years after their erection. It is probable, however, that the workmen employed on these structures were for the most part Saxons, as the Normans must have been too much employed otherwise during the reign of the Conqueror to execute much masons’ work with their own hands. Nor were the Norman monks established in sufficient numbers to be able to superintend all the

Westminster Abbey, A.D. 1066.

Arcade of the Refectory, now in a Canon’s garden.

works which were going on at this period; the cathedrals and large monasteries must have occupied nearly all their attention. The ordinary parish churches which required rebuilding must have been left to the Saxons themselves, and were probably built in the same manner as before, with such slight improvements as they might have gleaned from the Norman works.

The Normans themselves were, however, but little in advance of the English in the building art: the style which we call Norman correctly for this country, is called by the French archæologists Anglo-Norman, and with reason; that style was developed as much in England as in Normandy.

Gundulph, Bishop of Rochester, was the great architect of the time of William the Conqueror. The first building of his that we have remaining is the keep of his castle at Malling, in Kent, called St. Leonard’s Tower, which was built about 1070. This is of earlier character than any keep in Normandy. M. de Caumont examined the sites of the castles of all the barons who came over to England with William, and he found no masonry of that period in any one of them. Their castles had consisted of very fine earthworks and wood only[C]. Soon after this time,

Early Norman Keep at Malling, Kent, built by Gundulph A.D, 1070.

Gundulph built the keep of the castle in London called the White Tower, and the cathedral of Rochester, of which we have a part of the crypt, and some remains of the wall of the nave and north transept. The whole of this work is extremely rude; the construction is usually rubble. When of ashlar, the joints are very wide, and the capitals of the shafts clumsy.

Wide-jointed Masonry, Chapel in the White Tower, London, A.D. 1081.

St. Alban’s Abbey Church, built in the time of William the Conqueror and William Rufus, as distinctly recorded by contemporary historians, partakes of the Saxon character in many parts: we find baluster shafts in abundance, quantities of Roman tiles, and other features usually considered Saxon, but there is not the slightest doubt that the church was built from the foundations after 1077, when the work was commenced by Abbot Paul of Caen. The materials of an older church are used in it; they were probably brought from old Verulam, with the Roman flat bricks, which are largely used in the construction.

We have a strong confirmation of this in the city of Lincoln: the Conqueror having taken possession of about a quarter of the old city to build a castle upon, and Bishop Remigius having purchased nearly another quarter to build a cathedral and monastery, the Saxon inhabitants were driven down the hill on which the old city stands, and took possession of some swampy land at the foot of the hill, which they drained, and redeemed from the fens or marshes of which nearly all the low country then consisted. On this new land they built several churches. One of these, St. Peter’s at Gowts (or at the Sluices), remains nearly entire, and St. Mary le Wig-ford has retained the tower built at this period. This is an important and interesting fact in the history of architecture, as it confirms what was before only a natural supposition, and it enables us to fill up a gap: we appeared to have scarcely any parish churches of the early Norman period, but it is now evident that many of the long list of churches of the Anglo-Saxon type belong to a period subsequent to the Conquest. The tower of St. Michael’s Church, Oxford, is one of those included by Rickman as of the character supposed to be Saxon, but the imposts of the window-arches are quite of Norman character, and it was built after the Conquest. The tower of Oxford Castle was built by Robert D’Oyly in the time of William Rufus, but it has much of the appearance of the Saxon buildings, and the tower of St. Michael’s Church is part of the work of his time. Round towers built of rubble-stone are of several periods, generally early, but in a mere rubble wall there is nothing to go by as to the date; they may be of any period.

It is customary to date the introduction of the Norman style into England from the Norman Conquest, in 1066, although that important event had no immediate effect on the style of Architecture, and perhaps the remainder of the eleventh century may be considered as a period of transition, just as the last quarter of each of the three following centuries was a period of transition from one style to another; and it may be well to observe, that in all such periods, not only were buildings of a mixed character erected, but some buildings were almost entirely in the old style, others altogether in the new one: this has been called by Professor Willis “an overlapping of the styles,” and generally lasts from twenty to thirty years. In treating of the Norman period we must bear in mind that Normandy was then a province of the same kingdom, and that the intercourse between Kent and Normandy was at least as frequent and as easy as between Yorkshire and Devonshire; so that although there are certain marked provincialisms, there is no real difference or priority of style in one province over the other, after the Norman power was fully established in England. It is customary to point to the two great abbey churches at Caen, founded and endowed by William and Matilda, as models to be referred to, and as proving the great advance of Normandy over England; but this is, in a great degree, a mistake, arising from the common error of confusing the date of the foundation of a monastery with that of the erection of the existing church: a small part only of the church of St. Stephen at Caen is of the time of the Conqueror, and a still smaller part of that of the Holy Trinity, the present building of which is considerably later than the other. In both of these fine churches, the vaults, and the upper parts of the structure, were built late in the twelfth century; they had originally wooden roofs only.

The most important buildings of the time of the Conqueror and of William Rufus were the Norman castles or keep-towers, but most of these were rebuilt in the following century. The earliest Norman keep existing is the one built immediately after the Conquest, by Gundulph, at Malling in Kent, miscalled St. Leonard’s tower, as already mentioned [see page 17]. There are still some Norman keeps of this period remaining, as London; but Dover and Rochester in Kent, Newcastle in Northumberland, Appleby and Carlisle in Cumberland, Brougham in Westmoreland, Richmond and Conisborough in Yorkshire, Porchester in Hampshire, Guildford in Surrey, Goodrich in Herefordshire, Norwich and Castle Rising in Norfolk, Hedingham and Colchester in Essex, are later, and belong chiefly to the twelfth century; but most of them, if not all, were founded at this early period. Rochester has been entirely rebuilt on another site. From the uniformity of plan—a massive square tower, with a square turret at each angle of small projection, and a flat buttress up the centre of each face—and the general plainness of the work, it requires a careful examination of each of these buildings to ascertain to which period it belongs. The only parts where any ornament is to be found are usually the entrance-doorway and staircase, and the chapel, and these are commonly rather late Norman. There is frequently a solid wall in the middle, dividing the keep into two portions, with no communication in the lower parts. The passages for communication between one part of the building and another are made in the thickness of the wall, the central part having been divided by floors only, and not vaulted, in the earlier examples. Groined stone vaults, of rough stone, were introduced towards the end of the eleventh century in castles as well as churches; but rib-vaulting of cut stone not before the twelfth.

The number of churches which were commenced in the reign of the Conqueror and his successor was so great, that it is impossible to notice them all: but few of them were completed until after 1100; it was not, indeed, until after 1080 that the country was sufficiently settled for much building to be begun.

The chapel in the White Tower, London, is one of the best and most perfect examples of this period; its character is massive and plain, though the work is well executed. Its plan is oblong, consisting of a nave with narrow aisles which stand on the thickness of the walls: the walls have passages in them also in the other parts; the nave has plain barrel-vaults; the pillars are short and thick, and most of the capitals are plain, but some have a little ornament carved upon the abacus and capital, apparently some time after the construction was completed, being within easy reach.

The nave and transepts of Ely were erected by Abbot Simeon, brother of Bishop Walkelyn. Part of the west front of Lincoln was built by Bishop Remi, or Remigius, 1085-1092: the small portion which remains of this work is a very valuable specimen of early Norman, the more so that the insertion of later and richer Norman doorways by Bishop Alexander, about fifty years afterwards, enables us to compare early and late Norman work, while the jointing of the masonry leaves no doubt of the fact that these doorways are insertions, and therefore confirms the early date of the three lofty arches under which they are inserted. A comparison of the capitals and details of these two periods, thus placed in juxtaposition, is extremely interesting. The wide-jointing of the masonry and the shallowness of the carving distinguish the old work from the new. Several capitals of the later period are inserted in the older work, as is shewn on careful examination by the jointing of the masonry, and by the form of the capitals themselves: the earlier capitals are short, and have volutes at the angles, forming a sort of rude Ionic; the later capitals are more elongated, and have a sort of rude Corinthian, or Composite foliage.

The crypt and transepts of Winchester Cathedral are of this period, built by Bishop Walkelyn on a new site. Early in the twelfth century occurred the fall of the tower of this Cathedral, celebrated from the peculiar circumstances with which it was accompanied, which are thus described by William of Malmesbury, who was living at the time:—“A few countrymen conveyed the body [of the king, William Rufus], placed

Transept, Winchester Cathedral, A.D. 1079-1093.

on a cart, to the cathedral of Winchester, the blood dripping from it all the way. Here it was committed to the ground within the tower, attended by many of the nobility, but lamented by few. The next year [1097] the tower fell; though I forbear to mention the different opinions on this subject, lest I should seem to assent too readily to unsupported trifles; more especially that the building might have fallen through imperfect construction, even though he had never been buried there.” That this was really the case, the building itself affords us abundant evidence, and proves that even the Normans at this period were still bad masons, and very imperfectly acquainted with the principles of construction. The tower which was rebuilt soon after the fall is still standing, and the enormous masses of masonry which were piled together to support it, and prevent it from falling again, shew such an amazing waste of labour and material as clearly to prove that it was the work of very unskilful builders.

This example is valuable to us also in another respect: the two transepts were only partially injured by the fall of the tower; the greater part of both of them belongs to the original work; the junction of the old work and the new can be distinctly traced; and here we begin to find a difference of character in the new work, and a mark by which we can

Bay, Winchester Cathedral, c. A.D. 1095.

The window is an insertion of the fourteenth century in the Decorated style.

A.D. 1120. A.D. 1090.

Winchester Cathedral, Transept.

readily distinguish one from the other: the joints between the stones in the old work are wide, filled with a great thickness of mortar; in the new work they are comparatively fine, often leaving room for scarcely more than to pass a knife: the one is called “wide-jointed masonry,” the other “fine-jointed masonry,” and this is the best and safest distinction between early and late Norman work; the rule is almost of universal application. In confirmation of this we may cite another passage from William of Malmesbury, describing the work of his own time, and what he had probably seen himself:—“He [Roger, Bishop of Salisbury] was a prelate of great mind, and spared no expense towards completing his designs, especially in buildings; which may be seen in other places, but more particularly at Salisbury and at Malmesbury, for there he erected extensive edifices at vast cost, and with surpassing beauty, the courses of stone being so correctly laid that the joint deceives the eye,

and leads it to imagine that the whole wall is composed of a single block.” The buildings here alluded to were erected between 1115 and 1139, this may then fairly be considered as the turning-point between early and late Norman work; and here it will be convenient to pause in our history, and describe the characteristic features of early Norman work.

St. John’s Church at Chester, which was the seat of the Bishop, or cathedral, until the time of Henry VIII., was built A.D. 1075-1095, and is one of the finest examples of the Early Norman style. ([See 29.])

No clear line of distinction can be drawn between the three periods into which the Norman style is naturally divided. They run into each other, and overlap each other continually; there is no broad line between them: yet there is a very marked difference between the early Norman of the original parts of Westminster Abbey, shewn at pp. 11 and 13, of the time of Edward the Confessor, and the rich doorways and windows of Iffley, Cuddesdon, and Middleton Stoney, shewn at pp. 45 and 49, which are of the time of Henry II., or rather more than a century after those of Westminster Abbey.

THE NORMAN PERIOD, A.D. 1090-1150.

We have now arrived at the period of those rich Norman churches which may still be considered as amongst the glories of our land.

It is very remarkable that so large a number of buildings of the rich character which generally distinguishes this style should all have been built in about half a century, from 1120 to 1170 or 1180; yet such is clearly the case. The early Norman style has been already described; the late or rich Norman is chiefly characterized by the abundance of ornament and the deep cutting, the absence of which is the chief characteristic of the earlier period.

Before we proceed to describe it, a few of the buildings known to have been erected at this time may be mentioned.

Peterborough Cathedral was begun from its foundations in 1117 by John de Seez, who formed the plan of the whole of it, which was rigidly carried out by his successors, and it was consecrated in 1143; the work is very good, but not very rich. The Norman tower at Bury St. Edmund’s was commenced in the same year, 1117, and finished in 1130; the porch is an addition about half a century later. The nave of Norwich was built between 1122 and 1145: the work is still very plain, being in continuation of the previous work. Castor Church, Northamptonshire, bears an inscription recording its dedication in 1124: the tower is good, rich Norman work; the ornaments are the hatched, the square billet, and the scollop, all of very simple character, shallow, and easily worked. Furness Abbey was founded in 1127, but very little of the original work remains. In Canterbury Cathedral, the work of Prior Ernulf, under St. Anselm, was completed in 1130, and part of Rochester, where Ernulf had become bishop, in the same year; so that we need not be surprised at finding more ornament in these two cathedrals than is quite consistent with the usual character of early Norman work, and the same ornaments repeated in both these churches. St. Martin’s priory at Dover was founded in 1131; the refectory is still standing, and is a good example of plain Norman work, neither very early nor very late.

The small Norman church of Newhaven in Sussex is unusually perfect, and gives a good general idea of a parish church of the twelfth century. At first sight it looks earlier than it is; the bold projection of the buttresses indicates a later period, early Norman buttresses are very flat, the greater the projection the later

Newhaven Church, Sussex, c. A.D. 1120.

The apse is usually an early feature; in this instance the projection of the buttresses and the ornamental string round it shew it to be later. The side-window is an insertion in the Early English style.

they are, as a general rule. The spire is an early one, though that is not likely to be Norman. The belfry-windows in the tower, and the corbel-table under the eaves of the roof, are early. The porch is evidently a later addition.

At Iffley the tower is later; the original choir was square, with a flat east end, and another square bay has been added eastward at a later period, more in the Early English style.

The Augustinian priory of Dunstable, in Bedfordshire, was also founded in 1131; the original parts of the west front and of the nave are remarkably fine and rich Norman work.

In the time of William Rufus the work begun by the Norman bishops was carried on so vigorously, that, before the close of this century, every one of the Saxon cathedrals was undergoing the same process of destruction, to be rebuilt on a larger scale and in a better manner. Some of the buildings which remain to us of the work of this reign are the crypt of Worcester; the crypt, the arches of the nave, and part of the transepts of Gloucester; the choir and transepts of Durham; the nave and transepts of Christchurch in Hampshire; the choir and transepts of Norwich.

The history of Canterbury Cathedral has been so carefully preserved by contemporary records, and these have been so thoroughly investigated by Professor Willis, and compared with the existing structure, that we may almost put a date upon every stone of this magnificent fabric; it is therefore our best and safest guide in the study of the architecture of that period in England. The work in the older part of the crypt agrees exactly with that at Lincoln, and the other early Norman works above mentioned. The crypt is, however, not part of Lanfranc’s work, for it is remarkable that his church was entirely pulled down and rebuilt by his successor, St. Anselm, between 1096 and 1110, under the direction of Priors Ernulf and Conrad. Even in the time of Gervase, writing in 1170, he says, “You must know, however, good reader, that I never saw the choir of Lanfranc, neither have I been able to meet with any description of it: Eadmer indeed describes the old church, which before the time of Lanfranc was constructed after the Roman manner; he also mentions, but does not describe, the work of Lanfranc, which succeeded this old church, and the choir of Conrad, constructed in the time of St. Anselm.” From this we may fairly conclude that the work of Lanfranc was of very inferior character. It is now said by some, that parts of the walls of the present crypt at the west end belong to this early period, “after the Roman manner;” Willis considered this to be of the time of Lanfranc.

During the first fifteen or twenty years of the twelfth century, and of the reign of Henry I., there was no perceptible change of style; the numerous great works which had been begun during the preceding twenty years were carried on, and many of them were completed. During this period we have the dedications,—which shew that the work was sufficiently forward for the choir to be used,—of Ely, Rochester, Norwich, Canterbury, and some others. Several new works were commenced also, as Tewkesbury Abbey, St. Botolph’s, Colchester, St. Bartholomew’s, Smithfield, the nave of Durham, the choir of Peterborough, and Reading Abbey: but we do not find any difference between the early parts of these and those which immediately preceded them. There is no difference whatever between those built on the sites of the Saxon cathedrals, and those which were now first erected on entirely new sites.

We find in early Norman work that the chisel was very little used; most of the ornaments are such as could be readily worked with the axe, and whatever sculpture there is appears to have been executed afterwards, for it was a general practice to execute sculpture after the stones were placed, as is evident in the early work at Westminster: some of the capitals in the crypt of Canterbury are only half finished to this day, the work of carving having probably gone on until it was stopped by the great fire in 1174. If the sculpture is early it is very rude, and the work is shallow. But shallowness of carving depends partly on the nature of the material to be carved; from this cause buildings of a hard stone, such as granite, often appear much older than they really are. Baptismal fonts especially are frequently made of hard stone or marble, which admit of shallow sculpture; and rich Norman work cut shallow may be found as late as the time of Henry II.

Crypt, Canterbury, A.D. 1110.

Norman capital, with carving commenced and left unfinished.

Although the roofs of the aisles at Canterbury had been vaulted, the choir itself had a flat boarded ceiling, painted like that still remaining at Peterborough. The vault of the choir of the cathedral of Sens, from whence came William, the architect of the choir of Canterbury, is also an addition of later date. The same change was made in many other churches of that period. The builders of the early Norman period did not venture to erect a vault over so large a space; we do not find any early vault over a space above twenty feet wide, and few of so wide a span. Many of our Norman cathedrals still have timber roofs over the large spaces, and the aisles vaulted. In Normandy vaults were more frequently used than in England, even at this early period; and this was still more the case in subsequent times, for the fine open timber roofs for which some parts of England are distinguished are unknown in Normandy, where almost every village church is vaulted over.

Here it may be well to mention, that down to the early Norman period the eastern limb of a cruciform church, or the chancel of a plain oblong plan, was always short, rarely more than a single square, or at the utmost two squares, in length, and was frequently terminated by a round east end called an apse. Immediately after this period the custom of lengthening the eastern limb of the church became so general, that the original dimensions have been almost lost sight of. The history of nearly every one of our cathedrals gives the same result: first, the choir was lengthened by the addition of a presbytery, and afterwards still further by adding a lady-chapel, which did not come into fashion until quite the end of the twelfth century.

Ground-plan of Cassington Church.

Gervase and William of Malmesbury have furnished us, as we have seen, with a clue by which to distinguish the work of the early Norman period from that of a later age, namely, wide-jointed masonry, and shallow sculpture executed chiefly with the axe instead of the chisel. The best and safest test is the wide-jointed masonry, where it is found; but in some cases the joints can hardly be said to be either wide or fine; they are of a moderate width, and not of marked character either way.

The arch is generally at first not recessed at all, afterwards only once recessed, and the edges are either square, or have a plain round molding cut upon them; the zigzag ornament is used, but not so abundantly as at a later period; the dripstone is frequently ornamented with what is called the hatched molding; the billet is also used, but sparingly, and perhaps not before 1100; it is found in the early parts of Peterborough, but not in the later parts. The head of the door is generally square with a round arch over it, and the intermediate space under the arch, called the tympanum, is either left plain, or ornamented with shallow sculpture of rude character, sometimes preserved from an earlier building.

Rich Doorways form one of the most important features of late Norman work. The examples given from Cuddesdon and Middleton Stoney are good ordinary specimens, such as may be found in scores of parish churches. They are generally round-headed, very deeply recessed, and frequently have shafts in the jambs. The tympanum is frequently filled with rich sculpture, which becomes deeper and better executed as the style advances. The moldings are numerous, but not of much variety in section,

NORMAN DOORWAYS.

consisting chiefly of round and quarter-round members, but all preserving a general square outline. These moldings, however, as well as the jambs and shafts, are frequently entirely overlaid with ornament, which, though of a peculiar and somewhat rude character, produces great richness of effect; and few features of churches are more generally admired than these rich Norman doorways, which are very abundant in many parts of the country, quite as much so as in Normandy itself. The examples in England are quite as fine and as numerous in proportion as in Normandy; and these doorways were so much admired for their rich character, that they have often been preserved when the church has been rebuilt, perhaps several times. The doorways of Iffley Church are among the richest that we have anywhere; not only the very fine one at the west end, but the north and south doors.

Norman Windows are in general long and rather narrow round-headed openings, but sometimes of two lights divided by a shaft, included under one arch, more especially in belfries; in rich buildings they are frequently ornamented in the same manner as the doorways, with recessed arches, zig-zag and other moldings, as at Iffley, Oxfordshire, and sometimes with sculpture; other examples have shafts in the jambs carrying the

NORMAN WINDOWS.

arch-moldings, and others are quite plain. At Castle Rising, Norfolk, is a very rich late example, with intersecting arcades on each side, ornamented chiefly with the lozenge molding. In Romsey Abbey, Hampshire, Waltham Abbey, Essex, Christ Church Cathedral, Oxford, and very many other examples, the clerestory window has a smaller blind arch on each side of it, making a triple opening within to a single window; and the shafts of this triple opening are made to carry small shafts to the upper arches. This is a common arrangement of Norman clerestory windows: at St. Stephen’s, Caen, there is only one subarch to each light instead of two, but this arises from the arrangement of the sexpartite vaulting.

St. John, Devizes, c. A.D. 1160.

The fine circular windows with wheel-like divisions belong to this period: Barfreston, in Kent, is a good example. St. James, Bristol, is a singular one, the effect of which is rich and good. There was frequently one in the centre of the west front, which was called the oculus, or eye of the building. These large round windows are much more common on the Continent than in England. In Italy there are many fine examples, as at Toscanella, Perugia, and Assisi. The French also appear to have always had a particular fondness for this kind of window, which in the later styles becomes the magnificent rose-window, so often the glory of the French churches.

St. James, Bristol.

Norman windows are far less common than the doorways, having frequently been destroyed to make room for those of later styles; probably for the purpose of introducing the painted glass of those periods, which did not suit well with the early windows. Small circular openings are also a common feature, as in the clerestory of Southwell Minster. The zigzag molding is frequently used in the arches of windows, as at St. John’s, Devizes, p. 44; occasionally, but not so frequently, this ornament is also carried down the jambs, as at Iffley. Windows of two lights divided by a mullion were not introduced until after the Norman period. The walls being generally very thick, the opening is small and narrow on the outside of the wall, and is very widely splayed to admit more light; so that while the glass is less than a foot wide, the opening of the splay on the inner side of the wall is three feet wide.

Iffley, Oxon, c. A.D. 1166.

The Arches are generally round-headed: in early work they are plain and square-edged, with or without a recess at the angle; sometimes doubly recessed, and still square-edged, as in the early work at Westminster, p. 11, the White Tower, London, and the transept of Winchester, p. 27; sometimes molded, with plain round moldings. In the later period they are more richly molded than in the early part of the style: the chancel-arch especially is very much enriched; and the western side, facing the spectator when looking towards the altar, is generally much more ornamented than the eastern side. The chancel-arch at Iffley is one of the richest and best examples: where there is a central tower, as in that instance, both the tower-arches across the church are usually ornamented in the same manner; the side-arches, where there are transepts, are frequently much plainer, and often pointed. In the later part of the Norman style, without any other change, they are still quite plain and square-edged. In this manner the pointed arch occurs quite as early as 1150, or even earlier; at a later period they become much more common, and are gradually developed into the Early English style, which some call the “first pointed style;” but the pointed arch alone does not make a change of style.

The Small Arcades which are frequently used as decorations of the walls, and for sedilia, have scarcely any separate character; they are diminutives of the larger arches, except that the shafts are smaller and shorter in proportion: in rich work they are used both inside and outside of the walls, and frequently on the outside of the clerestory, as well as on the inside in front of the blind-story, now called the triforium. Intersecting arches occur in these arcades from a very early period; and Rickman observes, that whoever constructed them, constructed pointed arches; and he adds, “It appears as if the round and pointed arches were for nearly a century used indiscriminately, as was most consonant to the necessities of the work, or the builder’s ideas.” At Canterbury, an ornamental arcade of intersecting arches occurs both on the inside and outside of the wall in St. Anselm’s tower.

In the apse in the White Tower the arches are stilted to accommodate them to their position. The arches of the triforium are generally wide and low; sometimes they are divided by two sub-arches.

The form of the arch was at all periods dictated partly by convenience, and is not to be relied on as a guide to the date or style; but there was a prevailing fashion, and that form was usually followed at each period, unless there was some reason for changing it, which is generally obvious if we look for it. To

NORMAN ARCHES.

Triforium Arcade, Peterborough Cathedral, A.D. 1146.

This is the earliest example known of what is called Plate-tracery; this was soon followed by Bar-tracery in windows.

judge of the age of any building we must look at the general character of the work, and not seize upon some particular feature to ground any rule upon. The moldings are generally the safest guide, but even these sometimes require to be qualified by comparison with other parts.

The work is frequently quite as massive, and in all other respects of as early character, with the pointed arch as with the round one; they occur in Malmesbury Abbey Church, apparently in the work of Roger, bishop of Salisbury, A.D. 1115-1139, without any other apparent difference of character from the rest of the work. The pointed arch, taken by itself, is therefore no proof of the change of style, nor even of late work.

St. Cross Church, near Winchester, founded by Henry de Blois in 1136, has pointed arches; and the triforium has intersecting arcades, with the intervals left open as windows. To these may be added, Fountains Abbey, Yorkshire, founded in 1132: pointed arches occur in the early part of the work, which is of pure Norman character, and appears to have been built before the fire in 1140;—and Kirkstall Abbey, built between 1152 and 1182; here the work is of later character, but still pure Norman. All these are previous to the period of transition, and have not transitional moldings.

The Piers in the earlier period are either square solid masses of masonry, or recessed at the angles, in the same manner as the arches, or they are plain round massive pillars, with frequently only an impost of very simple character, but often with capitals. The round pillars are sometimes ornamented with a kind of fluting, as in the crypt at Canterbury, sometimes with a rude and shallow zig-zag pattern, as at Waltham Abbey, Durham, and Lindisfarne.

In the later period the pillars are in general not so massive as in the early part of the style, and are frequently ornamented with small shafts; and these as well as the pillars are sometimes banded, as at St. Peter’s, Northampton.

The Capitals in early work are either plain cubical masses with the lower angles rounded off, forming a sort of rude cushion shape, as at Winchester, or they have a sort of rude volute, apparently in imitation of the Ionic, cut upon the angles; and in the centre of each face a plain square block in the form of the Tau cross is left projecting, as if to be afterwards carved: this remarkable feature is found in the chapel of the White Tower, London, in the early part of the crypt at Canterbury, at St. Nicholas, Caen, and other early work, but it has never been observed in late work.

The scolloped capital belongs to rather a later period than the plain cushion or the rude Ionic, and does not occur before the time of Henry I.; as at Stourbridge, Malmesbury, and Kirkstall. This form of capital was perhaps the most common of all in the first half of the twelfth century, and continued in use to the end of the Norman style.

The capitals were frequently carved at a period subsequent to their erection, as in the crypt at Canterbury ([p. 37]), where some of the capitals are finished, others half-finished, with two sides blank, and others not carved at all. In the early work at Westminster ([p. 13]), before mentioned, this is equally evident. At Castle Ashby, Northamptonshire, is the jamb of a Norman doorway with the pattern for the sculptor scratched upon it with the chisel, but never executed.

In later Norman work the capitals are frequently ornamented with foliage, animals, groups of figures, &c., in endless variety. The abacus throughout the style is the most characteristic member, and will frequently distinguish a Norman capital when other parts are doubtful. Its section is a square with the lower part chamfered off, either by a plain line or a slight curve; but as the style advanced it had other moldings added, and the whole are frequently so overlaid with ornament that it is difficult to distinguish the section (or profile) of its moldings.

NORMAN CAPITALS.

The Bases are at first very simple, consisting merely of a quarter-round molding; then of two quarter-rounds, or two and a chamfer; or else of a round, or a chamfer and a quarter-round: as the style advanced they became more enriched, and the number of members more numerous: the earlier examples resemble the Tuscan, the later appear to be imitated from the Attic base. They always follow the form of the shaft or pillar, and stand upon a square pedestal or plinth; the angles of this square plinth being frequently filled up with some ornament, called foot-ornaments, or base ornaments: these increase in richness and boldness as the style advances, and their use was continued for some time in the subsequent style.

The Niches, or, Tabernacles, are small shallow recesses with round arches, frequently much enriched; they are chiefly placed over the doorways, and generally retain the figures which they were constructed to receive. These figures being executed in low relief upon the surface of the stone, were less liable to injury than the figures of the later styles, which are carved on separate stones and inserted. The most usual figure is that of Christ, distinguished by the cruciform nimbus. At Dorchester we have St. Peter with the key, under a semicircular arch, resting on cushion-capitals to twisted shafts, with molded bases. This example is from the font. The sculpture is at first very shallow, but becomes deeper as the style advances.

Niche with the Figure, Dorchester, Oxon.

The Moldings have been already mentioned in describing the doorways, where they are most abundantly used; they are, however, freely employed on all other arches, whether the pier-arches, or over windows, wall arcades, &c., and frequently also as horizontal strings or tablets. One of the most usual and characteristic Norman strings exactly resembles the abacus of the capital, or the impost of the pier, with a hollow chamfer under it; another is merely chamfered off above and below, forming a semi-hexagonal projection.

Norman Chamfer.

Chevron, or zig-zag, with Beads.

Norman ornaments are of endless variety; the most common is the chevron, or zig-zag, and this is used more and more abundantly as the work gets later; it is found at all periods, even in Roman work of the third century, and probably earlier, but in all early work it is used

The Star.

The Billet.

The Billet and Lozenge.

sparingly, and the profusion with which it is used in late work is one of the most ready marks by which to distinguish that the work is late. The sunk star is a very favourite ornament throughout the style; it occurs on the abacus of the capitals in the chapel of the White Tower, London, and at Herringfleet, Suffolk, and it seems to have been the fore-runner of the tooth-ornament. The billet is used in the early part of Peterborough, but discontinued in the later work, and does not often occur in late work. It is sometimes square, more frequently rounded, as in this example. The beak-head the cat’s-head, the small medallions with figures, and the signs of the zodiac, all belong to the later Norman period. In the later Norman moldings a mixture of Byzantine character is seen on the ornaments, as at Durham.

Abacus and String.

Sculptured ornament made great progress during the twelfth century. We have seen by the testimony of Gervase that the chisel was not used in the “glorious choir of Conrad” at Canterbury, which was built between 1096 and 1130, and an examination of the old work proves the exactness of his statement; all the sculptured ornament on the old work is shallow, and such as could very well be executed with the axe, which is not a bad tool in the hands of a skilful workman, and is still commonly used in many parts of England and France. On comparing this early work at Canterbury with other early Norman buildings, it is plain that they all had their ornaments executed in the same manner: the chisel is only required for deep-cutting and especially undercutting, and that we do not find on any buildings of ascertained date before 1120. The chisel was used for carving in stone in Italy and the south of France at an earlier period, but not in Normandy nor the north of France much earlier than in England. After this usage was introduced, the workmen seem to have gloried in it, and revelled in it, and the profusion of rich Norman sculptured ornament in the latter half of the twelfth century is quite wonderful.

MOLDINGS AND CAPITALS.

It has been observed, that in the sculpture of the period of the late Norman style there is frequently a certain mixture of the Byzantine Greek character, brought home from the east by the Crusaders, who had returned. This is also one of the characteristics of the period of Transition.

The Corbel-tables are at first very plain, consisting merely of square blocks at intervals, carrying the beam on flat stones which support the roof, or with small arcs between them, or merely rude triangles, like the Anglo-Saxon arches; and these are sometimes continued in late work, as at Iffley, but in general, in late work the corbels are carved, and the small arcs more or less enriched. The buttresses are usually flat and plain in early examples, but have moldings on the angles in late examples.

Norman Corbel.

Corbel-tables under the eaves of the roof are very abundant in late Norman and Transitional work, and are often proof that the walls are Norman, when this is not otherwise evident, later windows having been inserted. They are frequently square blocks of stone only, as if intended to be carved subsequently, when convenient, and this has never been done; more usually they are heads, or grotesque masks, as at Romsey.

Corbel-tables, Romsey Abbey Church.

Of these two Corbel-tables, the upper one taken by itself would be Norman, c. A.D. 1160, and the lower one Early English; being both from the same church, they may both be classed as Transitional.

The earliest Norman Vaults are quite plain, and of the barrel form, as in the chapel of the White Tower, London. In the next stage they have flat transverse arches only; they are then groined, but still without ribs: these plain groined vaults without ribs, over aisles or other narrow spaces, are often contemporaneous with the barrel vaults, and generally belong to the latter half of the eleventh century, or the beginning of the twelfth, as at Sherborne Castle, built by Roger, bishop of Salisbury, A.D. 1115-1139; at a later period ribs are introduced, at first square, then plain half-rounds, then molded, as in Peterborough Cathedral, A.D. 1117-1143, and they gradually change their form until they almost imperceptibly assume the character of Early English work.

The Norman architects did not venture to throw a vault over a wide space until very near the end of the style, and various contrivances were necessary for vaulting over spaces of unequal width, such as stilted arches, and horse-shoe arches, before the difficulty was solved by the use of the pointed arch. The absence of vaults over a wide space is a proof that the Norman was not a continuation of Roman work, as is sometimes assumed, but that there was always an interval of at least a century in which there were no masons.

Early Norman Turrets are very rarely to be met with, but there are good examples at St. Alban’s; at a later period they are frequent as stair-turrets, but have generally lost the original roof or capping; sometimes, as at Iffley, and Christchurch, Hampshire, they die into the tower below the corbel-table; in other instances, as at Bishop’s Cleeve and Bredon, they are carried up above the parapet and terminate in pinnacles; they are sometimes round and sometimes square.

St. Cross, Winchester.

At St. Cross, Winchester, there is a remarkable example, something between a turret and a large square pinnacle, rising from the top of the side wall to the level of the front of the gables, and even above it.

Norman Central Towers are very low and massive, seldom rising more than a square above the roof, sometimes not so much, the ridge of the original roof, as shewn by the weather-table on the face of the tower, being only just below the parapet. These towers were intended to be, and without doubt originally were, covered by low wooden pyramidal roofs, resembling in appearance those which we find in some parts of Normandy of the same period, there executed in stone, on account of the abundance of the material, the facility with which it is worked, and the skill of the workmen.

When the towers are not placed over the centre of the church, but at the west end, it is remarkable that the later Norman towers are more massive and not so lofty as the early ones, as at Lincoln, Jarrow, &c., already described. They are comparatively low and heavy, sometimes diminishing by stages, and having buttresses of little projection on the lower parts. The belfry, or upper storey, has frequently been added in late Norman times upon the earlier towers. The belfry windows are generally double, and divided by a shaft. Towers of the pre-Norman period are generally remarkably tall, as at Deerhurst, one of the best dated examples.

The Round Towers which are so abundant in Norfolk and Suffolk are frequently of the Norman period; some may be earlier, and others are certainly later; they are often so entirely devoid of all ornament or character, that it is impossible to say to what age they belong. The towers themselves are commonly, but not always, built of flint, sometimes of rough stone rubble, and are built round to suit the material, and to save the expense of the cut stone quoins for the corners which are necessary for square towers, and which often may not have been easy to procure in districts where building-stone has all to be imported. The same cause accounts for the frequent and long-continued use in the same districts of flat bricks or tiles for turning the arches over the doors and windows, which are either of Roman manufacture, or an imitation of the same form. Some good authorities think that the Roman form of flat bricks or tiles was long imitated in England.

Norman Round Tower, Norwich.

The Buttresses of this style were at first merely flat projections wholly devoid of ornament, and these are sometimes continued in late work; but in general, in late work there is a recess at the angle, in which a small shaft is inserted; the strings are sometimes continued round the buttresses and sometimes stop short at them, but in the latter case the buttresses have generally been added to strengthen the wall after it was erected, and are not part of the original work. In late Norman buildings the buttresses are sometimes square, and consequently have a much greater projection than the early flat buttresses. These square buttresses also have the moldings or shafts at the angles that the flat buttresses have not; an early Norman buttress never goes higher than the ground-floor, even when it is against a tower; at an angle, a flat buttress is placed on each side, nearly close to it.

Flat Norman Buttress.

Norman Porches have in general very little projection, sometimes only a few inches, but the thickness of the wall allows the doorways to be deeply recessed; they are sometimes terminated by a gable, or pediment, as at St. Margaret-at-Cliffe, Kent, where the projection is so slight that it may be called either a doorway with a pediment over it, or a shallow porch. More frequently the projection ends in a plain set-off, in which case the appearance is that of a doorway set in a broad flat buttress. There are, however, a few porches which have as great a projection as those of the succeeding styles, and the sides of these are usually ornamented with arcades: the outer archway is of the same character as other doorways. At Sherborne and at Southwell Minster there are good examples of these porches.

But the square east end is the usual characteristic of the Anglo-Norman style; the apse is comparatively a rare feature in England. In the diocese of Laon in the north of France, the cathedral and a large number of the churches have square east ends, under the influence of an English bishop, who was a leading man there in the early part of the twelfth century. The small parish church of Cassington, Oxon, has a Norman chancel with a Norman vault also. At Iffley the original chancel was like that of Cassington—one square bay; another bay eastward of this is of the Early English style; both bays are vaulted. At Cassington, the whole of the walls of the church are Norman, and the lower part of the tower, but the belfry-storey and the spire are of the Decorated style. The thick abacus shews this corbel to be of quite early Norman character.

Norman Corbel, Cassington.

The Fronts, particularly the west fronts of Norman churches, are frequently of very fine composition, having generally deeply-recessed doorways, windows, and arcades, all covered with a profusion of ornament in the later period, as at Iffley, and at Nun-Monkton, p. 73.

The Apse has been already mentioned as a characteristic of the Norman style. In England it is more frequently used in early than in late work, and is found at the east ends of the chancel and its aisles, and on the east side of the transepts; being, in fact, the places for altars, which were afterwards continued in the same situations, but either merely under windows in a flat wall, or under arched recesses which frequently remain in the transept wall, and are sometimes erroneously described as doorways.

Cassington, Oxon.

This is a small parish church, with a Norman chancel vaulted, remaining perfect; the walls of the nave are also Norman. The spire is an addition, in the Decorated style of the fourteenth century. (See the plan of this church at [p. 39].)

The custom which has been mentioned of lengthening the churches eastwards, which commenced in the latter half of the twelfth century, was carried on vigorously in the thirteenth.

At Romsey there is an apse at the end of each of the aisles, not in the large central part.

Interior of a Norman Apse, Romsey Abbey, Hants, c. A.D. 1160.

PERIOD OF TRANSITION, A.D. 1160-1195.

WE have seen that during the half-century which intervened between 1125 and 1175 an immense number of churches were built or rebuilt in England, and that the art of building consequently made rapid progress, the work becoming every year better executed, more highly finished, and of lighter character, it being one of the characteristics of a good workman not to waste his material. In the early Norman period the masonry was very bad, and, to make the work secure, great masses of material were used; but at the period to which we have now arrived the masonry is as good as at any subsequent period, and the workmen were fast discovering the various modes of economizing their material. This practice, in combination with other causes, tended greatly to introduce the change of style, and to facilitate its ready and rapid adoption, in the generality of cases, when introduced. The custom of vaulting over large spaces, which was now being commonly adopted, and the difficulty of vaulting over spaces of unequal span, also without doubt contributed largely to the use of the pointed arch.

The capitals of the period are also very characteristic, and the gradual change may be clearly traced; at first the abacus-molding is very wide, and frequently only chamfered; a little later it is molded.

Capital of Window-shaft.

Base of Niche-shaft.

Nun-Monkton, Yorkshire.

The church of Nun-Monkton, in Yorkshire, is a very curious and fine example of this great period of Transition; the details are very boldly and well executed. The rich doorway by itself would be late Norman, whereas the niches on each side of it, and the three lancet-windows in the west front, are quite Early English. The square buttresses at the angles are late Norman, and the small square tower on the point of the gable has Norman corbel-tables. The heads of the windows in the tower are of the form sometimes called the shouldered-arch. The capitals of the window-shafts are a singular mixture of the two styles; the capital itself is well-molded Early English, and there is a hollow molding by the side of the shaft, with the tooth-ornament.

Nun-Monkton, Yorkshire, c. A.D. 1220.

In the work at Fountains Abbey already mentioned, the aisles are vaulted, and the width of the aisle being greater than the space between the pillars, it follows that each compartment, or bay, of the vault was not square, but oblong; the greater length being across the aisle, where we have the semicircular arch or arch-ribs to carry the vault, the narrower space being from pillar to pillar towards the choir: we have there the pointed arch, and thus we have a succession of semicircular arches down the length of the aisle, and a range of pointed arches towards the choir: and the same on each side. But although this may account for the use of the pointed arch, it is still quite distinct from the Gothic style; we have it at Fountains in pure Norman work half-a-century before we have the same arrangement again at Canterbury, in the work of William of Sens after the fire. Here, however, we have not only the pointed arch, but it is accompanied by a general change of style,—all the accessories are undergoing a rapid change. The moldings, the ornaments, the sculpture, and all other details are of a more highly finished and a lighter style. The triforium-arcade of Canterbury Cathedral is an excellent example, with the arches pointed and recessed, abacus well-molded, and foliage in the capitals.

Canterbury, as has been pointed out, is the earliest

Triforium Arcade, Canterbury Cathedral, A.D. 1178.

In this example the general arch is semicircular, while the two sub-arches under it are pointed, recessed, and square-edged, resting on coupled shafts with capitals of foliage, and molded bases on square plinths.

and the best-authenticated example of the change of style in England which we possess, and it enables us to fix a precise date to this great change; it serves as a type for very many others which were being carried on simultaneously, or soon after. The contrast drawn by Gervase between the old church and the new one has been already quoted in describing the earlier Norman work, and need not here be repeated. It will be sufficient to say that the masonry and the sculpture in the new work are both excellent, and that the peculiar ornament known by the name of the ‘tooth-ornament’ occurs abundantly in the new work: the moldings, especially of the bases, are almost of pure Early English character.

The hall of Oakham Castle, Rutlandshire, built by Walkelin de Ferrers, between 1165 and 1191, is an excellent specimen of transitional work. It retains a great deal of the Norman character, but late and rich: the capitals are very similar to some of those at Canterbury, and more like French work than the usual English character; the tooth-ornament is freely introduced; the windows are round-headed within and pointed without, with good shafts in the jambs, and the tooth-ornament down each side of the shafts.

The triforium-arcade of St. Mary’s, Shrewsbury, is also an excellent example; the arches are pointed, but square-edged only, and in the spandrel between the two lower arches is pierced with an open quatrefoil; it is also square-edged only, while the capitals have good foliage and a square abacus molded.

St. Mary’s, Shrewsbury, c. A.D. 1180.

St. Frideswide Church, now Christ Church Cathedral, Oxford, is a fine example of late Norman and transitional work of early character. It was consecrated in 1180, and was probably building for about twenty years previously: the confirmation, by Pope Hadrian IV. (Breakspeare, the only English Pope), of the charters granting the Saxon monastery of St. Frideswide to the Norman monks was not obtained until 1158, and it is not probable that they began to rebuild their church until their property was secured. The Prior at this period was Robert of Cricklade, called Canutus, a man of considerable eminence, some of whose writings were in existence in the time of Leland. Under his superintendence the church was entirely rebuilt from the foundations, and without doubt on a larger scale than before, as the Saxon church does not appear to have been destroyed until this period. The design of the present structure is very remarkable; the lofty arched recesses, which are carried up over the actual arches and the triforium, giving the idea of a subsequent work carried over the older work; but an examination of the construction shews that this is not the case, that it was all built at one time, and that none of it is earlier than about 1160. In this church, the central tower is not square, the nave and choir being wider than the transepts, and consequently the east and west arches are round-headed, while the north and south are pointed: this would not in itself be any proof of transition, but the whole character of the work is late, though very rich and good, and the clerestory windows of the nave are pointed without any necessity for it, which is then a mark of transition.

Westminster Abbey. Rich moldings from the original church, c. A.D. 1160.

Precisely the same design occurs in a part of Romsey Abbey Church, Hampshire, and very similar ones may be seen in other places: lofty arched recesses occur in Dunstable Priory Church, Bedfordshire, where Perpendicular windows have been inserted in the triforium, but the original design was the same.

The same mixture of the features that usually belong either to the Norman or to the Early English occur in all the details of the moldings, as at Canterbury, where we have the tooth-ornament of the Early English and the chevron or zigzag of the Norman style curiously mixed together. At Cuddesdon, again, in the molding of the fine west doorway, the same mixture occurs; the dripstone is the Early English round molding; then comes the chevron, standing out so boldly detached, that it almost becomes the tooth-ornament; and under that, on a smaller scale, the actual tooth-ornament occurs. The capital from St. Thomas’ Church, Winchester, is equally curious; the abacus of a circular capital is, in fact, square-edged, with a round molding under it; and the foliage against the bell of the capital has the leaves curling over in the Early English fashion.

Moldings, Canterbury Cathedral, A.D. 1167.

These are good examples of the mixture of the chevron or zigzag with the tooth-ornament, not quite developed.

Examples of Domestic buildings of the houses of the twelfth century, in the Norman style, are rare, but we have still several remaining. At Lincoln there are two; one, on the hill, called the Jew’s House, the other, in the lower town, was the house of St. Mary’s Guild; and at Boothby Pagnel, in Lincolnshire, is a manor-house of this style: at Southampton are ruins of two houses, one called the King’s House, formerly the custom-house, the other in a low part of the town, attached to the remains of the town wall; at Minster, in the aisle of Thanet, and at the Priory of Christchurch, in Hampshire, are houses which have belonged to monastic establishments; at Warnford, in the same county, are the foundations of a hall of this period; and in Farnham Castle, also in Hampshire, part of the great Norman hall remains, now converted into the servants’ hall. At Appleton and Sutton Courtney, in Berkshire, are remains of manor-houses of this period; at Canterbury there are considerable remains of the monastic buildings of this century, among which is a fine external staircase with open arcades on each side; at Fountains Abbey, Yorkshire, there are extensive remains of the domestic buildings of pure Norman style; at Bury St. Edmund’s, Suffolk, the house called Moyses’ Hall, now used as the Bridewell, was probably the house of a wealthy Jew in the twelfth century.

THE EARLY ENGLISH STYLE.
Richard I. John. Henry III. a.d. 1189-1272.

THE great rapidity with which a decided change in the style and character of the work was taking place at this period, would appear almost incredible if it were not proved by so many instances, and especially by the well-authenticated account of Canterbury. After carefully noticing the great change which took place there during the ten years that the work was in progress, as recorded by Gervase, an eye-witness, and confirmed by Professor Willis, we shall not be much surprised to find some examples of pure Gothic work in the following ten years.

Canterbury was completed in 1184, and in 1185 St. Hugh of Grenoble, also called St. Hugh of Burgundy, was appointed bishop of Lincoln, and immediately began to rebuild his cathedral. It is therefore plain that this portion of the building was completed before 1200, and a careful examination enables us to distinguish clearly the work completed in the time of Bishop Hugh, which comprises his choir and the eastern transept, with its chapels. The present vaults of St. Hugh’s choir, and of both the transepts, were introduced subsequent to the fall of the tower, which occurred in 1240.

The architecture in the north of Lincolnshire, and the south of Yorkshire, appears to have been a little in advance of any other in Europe at that period. St. Hugh’s choir at Lincoln is the earliest building of the pure Gothic style, free from any mixture of the Romanesque, that has been hitherto found in Europe or in the world. The Oriental styles are not Gothic, though they helped to lead to it. The French Gothic has a strong mixture of the Romanesque with it down to a later period than the choir of Lincoln. St. Hugh of Lincoln certainly did not bring the Gothic style with him from his own country, Dauphiny, or from the Grande Chartreuse where he was educated, for nothing of the kind existed there at that period. Grenoble (the place from which St. Hugh was brought to England) and its neighbourhood was quite half-a-century behind England in the character of its buildings, in the time of Henry II. of England and of Anjou, in whose time this style was developed.

Nothing can well exceed the freedom, delicacy, and beauty of this work; the original arcade, of the time of St. Hugh, is of the same free and beautiful style as the additions of his successors. The foliage of the capitals is exquisitely beautiful, and though distinguished technically by the name of stiff-leaf foliage, because there are stiff stalks to the leaves, rising from the ring

St. Hugh’s Choir, South Aisle, Lincoln, A.D. 1195.

This is an unusually perfect example, with the original ornaments, of the earliest building of pure Gothic, free from Romanesque or Norman.

Beverley Minster, Yorkshire.

of the capital, the leaves themselves curl over in the most graceful manner, with a freedom and elegance not exceeded at any period. The moldings are also as bold and as deep as possible, and there is not a vestige of Norman character remaining in any part of the work. The crockets arranged vertically one over the other behind the detached marble shafts of the pillars, are a remarkable and not a common feature, which seems to have been in use for a few years only; it occurs also in the west front of Wells Cathedral, the work of Bishop Jocelyn, a few years after this at Lincoln; or perhaps under him, of Hugh de Wells.

Beverley Minster, Yorkshire, c. A.D. 1230.

Possibly the double arcade at Beverley (page 86) originated in the same manner as that at Lincoln, in St. Hugh’s choir, from the necessity for thickening the wall to make it carry a stone vault, and at the same time, a reluctance to hide the arcade in the original wall. At Lincoln they are clearly of two periods, though still in the same style. At Glasgow Cathedral, which has one of the finest crypts in existence, the work was commenced by Bishop Joceline in 1195.

The choir and transepts of Rochester Cathedral were also building soon after this time, and are a very beautiful and remarkable example of Early English. The architect was William de Hoo, first sacristan, then prior, and there is some reason to believe that he is the same person as William the young Englishman, who assisted William of Sens after his fall from the scaffold at Canterbury, and completed the work there. A young man at Canterbury in 1185, able to carry on and complete such a work, may very well have become the architect on his own account of the daughter church of Rochester in 1201-1227, and there is great resemblance in style between Rochester and the later work at Canterbury.

The Doorways are generally pointed or trefoiled, but sometimes round-headed, and in small doorways frequently flat-headed, with the angles corbelled in the form called the square-headed trefoil, or the shouldered arch. This form of opening is frequently called the Carnarvon arch, from its being so generally used in that castle; but it is often of earlier date, though it also continued in use for a long period. The rather happy name of the ‘shouldered arch’ was given to it; strictly speaking, it is not an arch at all, and the shouldered lintel, or the corbelled lintel, would perhaps be more correct.

The Dean’s Door in the Cloister, Westminster Abbey, A.D. 1250.

A very rich and rather late example of this style.

The Priest’s Door, Irchester, Northants.

The round-arched doorways may readily be distinguished by their moldings; they are commonly early in the style, but by no means always so: segmental arches also occur. Trefoil-arches are characteristic of this style.

West Door and shallow Porch of the Chapel of the Bishop’s Palace, Wells.

The chapel of the Bishop’s Palace at Wells is altogether a remarkable example of the latter part of this style; it was originally built by Bishop Jocelyn in the early part of the thirteenth century, but much altered and partly rebuilt towards the end of it. The west doorway is a very remarkable one, the arch itself being cinquefoiled, with a semicircular dripstone.

The Porches are frequently shallow, as in the example from Wells, p. 91, but there are many fine porches of the usual projection; these have sometimes very lofty gables, as at Barnack, Northamptonshire. The outer doorways are often much enriched with moldings and shafts of great depth, and the walls are ornamented on the inside with arcades and tracery.

Stanton Harcourt, East End, with triple Chancel-window, c. A.D. 1250.

A good example of the east front of a parish church of the earlier part of this style.