[Illustration: York Minster, the West Front and Nave. ]

 THE CATHEDRAL CHURCH OF

 YORK

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

 BY A. CLUTTON-BROCK

[Illustration: The Arms of the See]

 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 thegreat English Cathedrals with accurate and well illustrated guide-booksat a popular price. The aim of each writer has been to produce a workcompiled with sufficient knowledge and scholarship to be of value to thestudent of Archaeology and History, and yet not too technical inlanguage for the use of an ordinary visitor or tourist. 

To specify all the authorities which have been made use of in each casewould be difficult and tedious in this place. But amongst the generalsources of information which have been almost invariably found usefulare:--(1) the great county histories, the value of which, especially inquestions of genealogy and local records, is generally recognised; (2)the numerous papers by experts which appear from time to time in theTransactions of the Antiquarian and Archaeological Societies; (3) theimportant documents made accessible in the series issued by the Masterof the Rolls; (4) the well-known works of Britton and Willis on theEnglish Cathedrals; and (5) the very excellent series of Handbooks tothe Cathedrals originated by the late Mr John Murray; to which thereader may in most cases be referred for fuller detail, especially inreference 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 Cryptand other parts of the Minster during the restoration, which gave himopportunities for investigation now impossible. He also brought to theseobservations a learning and sagacity probably greater than those of anyother writer on English Gothic Architecture, and his little book remainsthe standard work on the history of the Minster. 

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

 A. C. -B. 

 * * * * *

CONTENTS

CHAPTER I. --History of the See and City 3

CHAPTER II. --History of the Building 30

CHAPTER III. --Description of the Exterior 47 The West Front 48 The North Transept 56 The Chapter-House 60 The Choir 61 The South Transept 63 The Central Tower 67

CHAPTER IV. --Description of the Interior 68 The Nave 68 The Transepts 80 The Chapter-House 93 The Choir 98 The Crypt 120 The Record Room 123 Monuments 125 Stained Glass 133

CHAPTER V. --The Archbishops 140

ILLUSTRATIONS

York Minster, the West Front and Nave _Frontispiece_Arms of the See _Title Page_The Minster and Bootham Bar, from Exhibition Square 2St Mary's Abbey 9Bootham Bar 15Walmgate Bar 19, 24Micklegate Bar 25The Shambles 29The Minster (from an Old Print) 35The West Front (1810) 39The East End (from Britton) 43The West Front--Main Entrance 49The Exterior, from the South-East 53The Exterior, from the North 57Bay of Choir--Exterior 62South Transept--Porch 65Seal of St Mary's Abbey 67The Nave 69The Nave--South Aisle 77South Transept, Triforium, and Clerestory 91Chapter-House--Entrance and Sedilia 97The Choir Screen 100The Choir, looking East 101Bay of Choir--Interior 103The Choir, looking West 107Compartment of Ancient Choir Stalls 110Compartment of Altar Screen 111The Choir in 1810 115The Virgin and Child (a Carving behind the Altar) 119The Crypt 121Capitals in Crypt 122, 123Effigy of Manley 125Effigy of Archbishop de Grey 128Monument of William of Hatfield 129Monument of Archbishop Bowet 132The East Window 138Effigy of Archbishop Savage 151Tomb of Archbishop Savage 152

PLAN OF MINSTER 157

 * * * * *

[Illustration: The Minster and Bootham Bar, from Exhibition Square]

CHAPTER I

HISTORY OF THE SEE AND CITY

At York the city did not grow up round the cathedral as at Ely orLincoln, for York, like Rome or Athens, is an immemorial--aprehistoric--city; though like them it has legends of its foundation. Geoffrey of Monmouth, whose knowledge of Britain before the Romanoccupation is not shared by our modern historians, gives the followingaccount of its beginning:--"Ebraucus, son of Mempricius, the third kingfrom 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 timethat David ruled in Judea. " Thus, by tradition, as both Romulus andEbraucus were descended from Priam, Rome and York are sister cities; andYork 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 verityof Geoffrey's history has been excellently well vindicated, but inDrake's time romance was preferred to evidence almost as easily as inGeoffrey's, and he gives us no facts to support his belief, for the verygood reason that he has none to give. 

Abandoning, therefore, the account of Geoffrey of Monmouth, we arereduced to these facts and surmises. Before the Roman invasion thevalley of the Ouse was in the hands of a tribe called the Brigantes, whoprobably had a settlement on or near the site of the present city ofYork. Tools of flint and bronze and vessels of clay have been found inthe neighbourhood. The Brigantes, no doubt, waged intermittent war uponthe neighbouring tribes, and on the wolds surrounding the city are to befound barrows and traces of fortifications to which they retired fromtime to time for safety. The position of York would make it a favourableone for a settlement. It stands at the head of a fertile and pleasantvalley and on the banks of a tidal river. Possibly there were tribalsettlements on the eastern wolds in the neighbourhood in earlier andstill more barbarous times, before the Brigantes found it safe to make apermanent home in the valley, but this is all conjecture. It is notuntil the Roman conquest of Britain that York enters into history. TheBrigantes were subdued between the years 70 and 80 A. D. By PatiliusCerealis and Agricola. The Romans called the city by the name ofEburacum. The derivation is not known. It has been suggested that it wastaken from the river Ure, a tributary of the Ouse, but variations of theword are common in the Roman Empire, as, for example, Eburobriga, Eburodunum, and the Eburovices. These are probably all derived from somecommon Celtic word. In process of time, perhaps in the reign of theEmperor Severus--that is to say, about the beginning of the thirdcentury A. D. --the name was changed to Eboracum: from this was derivedthe later British name Caer Eabhroig or Ebrauc. The Anglo-Saxon name wasEoferwic, corrupted by the Danes into Jorvik or Yorvik, which by an easychange was developed into the modern name of York. In the York Museum ispreserved a monument to a standard-bearer of the 9th legion, which isprobably of the period of Agricola, and it is likely that Eburacumbecame the headquarters of the Roman army in the north soon after theconquest. It became the chief military town in the island; for, whereasthe southern tribes were soon subdued, those in the north were longrebellious, and it was natural that the chief centre for troops shouldbe established in the more disturbed parts of Britain. Close to York wasthe town of Isurium (Aldborough), where remains of pavements have beendiscovered, and where it is probable that the wealthier citizens of Yorkhad their homes. Eburacum was fortified in or before the reign ofTrajan, and was connected by a system of roads with other importantRoman towns. The Roman Camp lay on the east side of the river, on ornear the site of the present minster. One of its corner towers andfragments of the wall still remain, and parts of the city gates havebeen discovered. The camp at first covered about seventy acres ofground; it was afterwards enlarged on the south. The modern streets ofPetergate and Stonegate represent the roads which passed through thiscamp, and Bootham Bar is on the site of one of the gates. Remains ofRoman pavement have been discovered below Stonegate. The city itselfspread westward over the river, and fragments of houses and tesselatedpavements have been discovered. In 1841 remains of public baths werefound; and there are many signs that there was a large population onthis side of the river. In 1854 there was found near the southern gateof the camp a tablet dedicated to Trajan, and commemorating theconclusion of some work done by the 9th legion in the year 108-9. Thiswork was perhaps the palace of the emperors. 

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

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

York is historically connected with several of the emperors. Two ofthem, Severus and Constantius Chlorus, died there, and Constantine theGreat, the son of the latter, was hailed emperor at York, if it was notthe scene of his birth. At York also were the headquarters of two of thelegions, the 9th and the 6th; and there is little doubt that in courseof 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, whichis 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 Romanhistorians, and next to nothing of the early Christian Church. There ismention of York at rare intervals, when it became connected with thegeneral history of the empire. For instance, in 208, Severus was inYork, and it became for a time the headquarters of the court. 

The Emperor Constantius died at York in 306, and there is a traditionthat hundreds of years afterwards his body was found under the Church ofSt. Helen-on-the-Walls, with a lamp still burning over it. Many churchesin the neighbourhood of Eburacum were dedicated to his wife Helena, thelegendary 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 fourthcentury the Picts and Scots began to make inroads, and it is probablethat they captured York about 367 A. D. They were shortly afterwardsdriven northwards by Theodosius the Elder. At the beginning of the fifthcentury there were further invasions repelled by Stilicho, but in 409the Emperor Honorius withdrew the Roman troops from Britain, and theRoman period in the history of York came to an end. 

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

A stone coffin, with an apparently Christian inscription, and severalRoman ornaments bearing crosses have been found and placed in the YorkMuseum, but this is all. There is no evidence, documentary or other, ofthe manner in which Christianity reached York. The Christian historiansgive us only the most meagre references to the history of the faith inBritain. Tertullian, for example, mentions that parts of the island asyet unvisited by the Romans had been evangelised by Britishmissionaries, and, if this were so, it would seem to prove that theChurch in Britain was early active and flourishing. It is not until 314A. D. That we come upon a definite historical fact. This was the date ofthe Council of Arles, convened by Constantine, to consider the DonatistHeresy, and among the bishops there assembled were three fromBritain--"Eborus, Episcopus de Civitate Eboracensi; Restitutus, Episcopus de Civitate Londinensi; Adelfius, Episcopus de Civitate Col. Londinensium" (perhaps Lincoln). These bishops are mentioned in theorder of precedence, and it would appear that the See of York at thattime was the most important, or perhaps the oldest, in Britain. Bishopsof York were also present at the Councils of Nicaea, Sardica, andArminium. With these facts our knowledge of the Roman see of Eburacumbegins and ends. The Episcopal succession probably continued for sometime after the Roman evacuation, and the legendary names of Sampson, Pyramus or Pyrannus, and Theodicus have been handed down as bishops ofYork during the struggle with the Anglo-Saxon invaders. For a long timeafter the Roman evacuation jewels and plate were discovered in theneighbourhood; and in the Pontificate of Egbert, an archbishop in theeighth century, there is a special form of prayer for hallowing vesselsdiscovered on the sites of heathen temples and houses. The great Wilfridalso, in the seventh century, speaks of recovering the sacred placesfrom which the British clergy had been forced to flee. It is unknownwhen or how York was finally captured, but in the seventh century it wascertainly in the hands of the English; though there still remained anindependent British kingdom of Elmete, only a few miles to the west ofthe city. Close to York has been discovered a large burying-place ofheathen Angles, in which the ashes were deposited in urns; the date ofthis is probably the beginning of the sixth century, and at that timethe invaders must have been settled in the country, and perhaps in thecity itself. The conquest marks a change in the position of York. Underthe Roman occupation it had been an important city for militarypurposes, and for that reason it was the seat of an important bishopric. After the second conversion of England it becomes important more andmore for ecclesiastical reasons, and when it plays a part in the historyof England it is because of the action of its bishops; from this time, therefore, it becomes necessary to say less about the city itself andmore about the see. 

After the Anglo-Saxon conquest of the North of England the countrybetween the Tweed and the Humber was divided into two kingdoms, Berniciato the north of the Tees, and Deira to the south. In the reign ofEthelfrith these two kingdoms were united, under the name ofNorthumbria. Edwin, his successor, was the most powerful king inEngland, and every state except Kent acknowledged his supremacy. 

In the troubles after the Roman evacuation, it is probable that Yorklost some of its importance, which it regained under Edwin, and becameagain the capital of England. It is at this period that the authenticecclesiastical history of the see, and indeed of England, really begins. In 601 Gregory the Great, in a letter to Augustine, gave him authorityto appoint twelve bishops in England, and among them a bishop of York, who, if his mission was prosperous, was to ordain further bishops in theNorth of England, remaining himself the chief of them, and beinginvested with the pall, the mark of a metropolitan bishop. Provision wasmade that the first bishop of York should be subordinate to Augustine, but that subsequently the question of seniority was to be decided bypriority of consecration. Thus early did the question of precedencebetween York and Canterbury arise. 

We may take it that the early Christian church had entirely died out inNorthumbria, and that prior to the mission sent by Gregory there hadbeen no effort in the southern part of the kingdom, at least, to reclaimthe inhabitants from heathendom. York was chosen as the seat of themetropolitan bishop in the north, entirely because of its importance asa city. It is after this event that it becomes chiefly remarkable forits ecclesiastical importance. Augustine died before he had followedGregory's instructions, and they were not carried out till 625. In thatyear, Justus, the fourth bishop of Canterbury, was led by unusuallyfavourable circumstances to consecrate a bishop of York and to send himto Northumbria. Edwin the king was over-lord of England, and he wishedto be allied with Kent, the only other independent kingdom in thecountry. He therefore proposed to marry Ethelburga, the daughter of theKing of Kent. She and her father were Christians, and Edwin, thoughstill a heathen, agreed that she should be allowed to take with her aChristian chaplain to Northumberland. Paulinus, perhaps a Briton bybirth, was chosen for this office, and was consecrated Bishop of Yorkbefore he set out. He has been identified with a certain Rum the son ofUrien. This enterprise met with great and immediate success, in whichpolitical reasons probably played a considerable part; and on Easterday627, the most important date in the ecclesiastical history of York, theking Edwin, his family, and many of his court were baptised there in awooden chapel temporarily erected on the site of the present minster. Immediately afterwards Edwin begun to build a church of stone, dedicatedto St. Peter, on the same site. The baptism of the king was followed bya wholesale conversion of thousands of his subjects, and it is statedthat Paulinus was forced to stay over a month in one place to baptisethe crowds who flocked to him. Paulinus was confirmed in his appointmentto the see by the king, and immediately after received the pall, together with Honorius of Canterbury, which authorised him to assemblecouncils and to consecrate bishops. The pall was not given to any of hissuccessors until Egbert (732 A. D. ). In view of the subsequent strugglesfor precedence between the sees of Canterbury and York, the followingpassage in a letter from the Pope to Edwin is of interest:--"We haveordered, " the Pope says, "two palls, one for each of the metropolitans, that is for Honorius and Paulinus, that in case one of them is calledfrom this life, the other may, in virtue of this our authority, appointa bishop in his place. " (Bede, "Eccl. Hist. , " Smith edit. , book ii. , cap. 17, p. 98. )

[Illustration: St. Mary's Abbey. ]

This early prosperity of the northern Church did not last long. In 633Edwin was defeated and killed at a battle near Hatfield, and a period ofanarchy and persecution followed. Thereupon Paulinus, with Ethelburga, the queen, fled to Kent, leaving behind him only one evangelist, by nameJames the Deacon. It is probable that the greater part of Northumbriathereupon fell back into paganism, and by the flight of Paulinus theCatholic Church, or that part of it immediately under the influence andcontrol of the bishops of Rome, lost its hold on the north, which it wasnot to regain without a struggle. The anarchy came to an end with theaccession of Oswald, a Christian, who had been converted, not byPaulinus, but by the Celtic Church of Iona. It was this circumstancewhich led to the establishment of the influence of that Church inNorthumbria. Oswald did not look to Rome or Canterbury for evangelistswhen he set to work to establish Christianity in his kingdom, but toIona, whence, in 635 A. D. , was dispatched a bishop, Aidan, who settledat Lindisfarne (Holy Island). From this time there were two influencesat work among the Christians in Northumbria--that of the older and morenational British Church which had survived the flood of heatheninvasion; and that of the later Catholic Church, which originated withthe mission of Augustine. 

The conflict between these two influences reached its height in the timeof Alfred. Oswald completed the church began by Edwin: it remained underthe rule of Aidan, as no evangelists were sent from the south to takethe place of Paulinus, though it is said that James the Deacon continuedhis missionary work in the North Riding. In 642 Oswald was killed inbattle, and Deira and Bernicia were again split up into two kingdoms. With this division came also religious difficulties between the Churchof Iona and the Catholic Church of the south. These difficultiesculminated in the Synod of Whitby, 664, at which the Catholic party, ledby the great Wilfrid, perhaps the greatest of all bishops of York, defeated their opponents. After the council, Colman, then Bishop ofLindisfarne, resigned, and his successor, Tuda by name, was killed withmany of his monks, by a pestilence at Lindisfarne. The ground thereforeseemed to be cleared for Wilfrid. At this time Oswy was king ofBernicia, and Alchfrid his son governed Deira, probably as anindependent province. Alchfrid induced Wilfrid to accept the see ofYork. Wilfrid at once set to work to strengthen the position of theCatholic Church and to destroy the influence of the Church of Iona inhis diocese. He refused to be consecrated by a bishop of the Church ofIona, sent for that purpose to Gaul. He probably was determined not toacknowledge the supremacy of any other English see over his own. He wasabsent for three years, and Oswy, who favoured the Church of Iona, tookadvantage of his absence to appoint Ceadda (Chad) to the see of York. Onhis return, after being duly consecrated, Wilfrid retired without astruggle to his own monastery at Ripon. In 669, Theodore, the Archbishopof Canterbury, intervened to make peace between the two factions, and athis instigation Ceadda resigned the see in favour of Wilfrid, who atonce began his great period of activity in the diocese. Whatever may beour sentimental liking for the older and more national Church of Iona, there can be no doubt that the Catholic Church was the chief support ofculture, learning, and civilisation in Europe, and Wilfrid was a worthyrepresentative of it. During his episcopate the see of York probablyplayed the most important part it has ever taken in the history ofEngland. At that time, more than any other, the future of learning, civilisation, and humanity was in the hands of the priests, and theEnglish _toto divisi ab orbe_ were kept in touch with the slowlyreviving culture of Europe by the cosmopolitan Church of Rome. Wilfridwas undoubtedly the best representative of that culture in England. Itwas his object not only to Catholicise the north of England, but toeducate it. He travelled continually through his vast diocese with atrain of builders, artists, and teachers. His architectural activity inparticular was very great. He repaired the minster at York, which hadfallen almost into ruins, and built large churches at Hexham and Ripon. But he was not allowed to continue his work unopposed. Egfrith hadbecome king of the whole of Northumbria, and a quarrel arose between himand Wilfrid. At last the king induced Theodore, who had formerlyinterfered in Wilfrid's favour, but who was now perhaps jealous of hisgreat activity and fame, to assert his supremacy over the north and todivide 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 authorityover him. Wilfrid retired to Rome to claim the support of the Pope. Itwas given to him, but when he returned to York, in 680, he wasimprisoned and afterwards banished. Soon after Egfrith died, andTheodore, again intervening, obtained a reconciliation between Wilfridand the new king Alchfrid. Wilfrid again became Bishop of York, butanother quarrel caused him again to resign his see, and this time forgood. During all this period there is no doubt that the Bishops of Yorkwere subordinate to those of Canterbury. The constant disorders to whichthe kingdom of Northumbria was subjected for a century, and the quarrelsbetween bishop and king, lessened the power, both civil andecclesiastical, of the kingdom. It was not till 734 that a bishop ofYork, Egbert, received the pall, which had been granted only toPaulinus, and from that time the northern archbishops seem to have beenindependent of Canterbury, especially after York fell into the hands ofthe Danes in 867. It is possible that Gregory, who directed that Yorkand Canterbury should each appoint twelve suffragan bishops, intended tomake the sees equal in every respect. The anarchy and divisions of thenorthern kingdom prevented this plan from being carried out. The kingsof Northumbria themselves, from time to time, acknowledged the authorityof Canterbury, and during the hundred years between Paulinus and Egbertthat York was without a metropolitan archbishop, the Primate ofCanterbury, without a rival, increased his power. With the advent of theDanes, however, Northumbria was naturally much isolated from the south, and the diocese of York, though smaller and poorer than that ofCanterbury, was a rival power. In fact, until the year 1072 thearchbishops of York either held themselves or appointed others to thediocese of Worcester. It was not until the Conquest that theindependence of the northern bishops was seriously questioned. Under theDanish rule two of the archbishops were probably of that race--Wolfstan, appointed in 928, and Oskytel, his successor. The Danish supremacy wasput an end to in 954, when Eadred incorporated Northumbria into thekingdom of England. From 867 to 1000, or after, York was ruled by anearl, either under the Danes or the kings of England. The city wasimportant, not only as a strongly fortified place, but as a centre ofcommerce, and it had a large population. It had as many as 30, 000inhabitants in the tenth century. There are traces of the Danishsupremacy in the language and faces of the people; in York itself Danishbeads, glass, jet and amber, and carved horns have been found. 

At the time of the Conquest, Aeldred was archbishop of York. AfterHastings he swore allegiance to William. For this act he was bitterlyreproached. It is said that he exacted a promise from William that hewould treat his English and his Norman subjects alike. He crownedWilliam at Westminster. In 1068 Edwin and Morcar, Earls of Mercia andYorkshire, broke into rebellion. They soon submitted, but the people ofYork had been roused, and remained in rebellion. On the approach of theConqueror, however, they also submitted. William built a castle in York, at the junction of the Ouse and the Foss, and garrisoned it withNormans. He then returned southwards. So soon as his back was turned, the city revolted again and besieged the castle. But William was soonupon them. He took and plundered the city, and erected another fortresson Beacon Hill. In 1069 occurred the final rebellion. A Danish fleetsailed up the Humber under Edgar, Gospatric, and Waltheof. This lastcalamity is said to have killed Ealdred, the archbishop. He hadendeavoured to make peace between conquerors and conquered, and he sawthat now a desperate struggle was inevitable. The whole of Northumbriarose as the Danes made their way up the Ouse. The Norman garrisons inYork set fire to the houses near them, and the whole city was burntdown. The minster was either wholly or partially destroyed. On the siteof William's fort at Beacon Hill there have lately been discoveredseveral deposits of silver pennies of the earliest coinage of William. These were probably hidden there by the Norman garrison. After adesperate sortie, these forts were taken. Thereupon the Danes sailedaway with their plunder, and the revolt suddenly came to an end. ButWilliam swore an oath of vengeance. He caught and destroyed a number ofthe Danes in Lincolnshire. When he reached York he found it deserted. Herepaired his castles, and then proceeded to make an example of thecountry round. His vengeance was so thorough that for nine yearsafterwards the land between York and Durham was untilled. He returned toYork to keep Christmas. It is not too much to say that the north ofEngland took centuries to recover from his vengeance. The famous libraryof York, which was destroyed in the fire, deserves a few words ofmention. It was a fine example of the educational work of the SaxonChurch. Under Egbert, and at the instigation of Bede, was founded theUniversity of York, which soon grew to great importance. Alcuin was itschief ornament, and gave lessons there in Hebrew, Greek, and Latin. Thelibrary was formed in connection with this university, and a list of thebooks in it, made by Alcuin himself, has come down to us. They consistchiefly of the Fathers and of the later Latin poets, with a few books onphilosophy and grammar. 

[Illustration: Bootham Bar. ]

Thomas of Bayeux, the first Norman archbishop, found everything at Yorkin ruin and confusion. The minster and its outlying buildings, thelibrary, and the university were destroyed, and only one of three canonsremained in residence. He increased the number of these, and appointed adean--there had not been one at York before--and otherwise changed theconstitution 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 andflourishes, under the name of St. Peter's School. In the nave of theminster there is a window known as the Chancellor's Window, andcontaining a representation of Robert Riplingham, a chancellor of thefourteenth century, lecturing to his pupils. The library was never fullyreplaced. The books at the time of the Reformation were few, and werekept in a building close to the entrance to the south transept of theminster, and now used as the archbishop's registry. This building waserected in 1415. Most of these books are still preserved. In due courseThomas rebuilt the minster, or part of it, on a modest scale. In hisepiscopate 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 Canterburywas necessary as a bond of union between the south and the north. Thomaswas at last compelled to submit to Lanfranc himself, though he madereservations with regard to his successors. In 1072 Worcester, and soonafter Lindsey and Lincoln, were taken from the see of York. The abbeysof Selby and St. Oswald in Gloucester were given to the archbishop byway of some return. Meanwhile the archbishops of York also claimedsupremacy over the northern bishops of the Isles and Scotland. Theycertainly visited and consecrated in these dioceses. After manyquarrels, these pretensions were finally disposed of at Rome. In 1154the sees of Man and Orkney were placed under the Archbishop ofDrontheim, and in 1188 the whole Scottish Church was released from anysubjection to York and placed under the direct control of the Pope. Onlyone Scottish prelate, the Bishop of Whithorn, remained a suffragan toYork, but in the fourteenth century Whithorn also was lost to thearchbishops, and became a part of the Scottish Church. 

The Bishop of Durham remained nominally in subjection to the see ofYork, but in reality he was often a greater man than his superior. In1134 the Bishopric of Carlisle was founded and placed under theauthority of the archbishops. Sodor and Man afterwards fell again underhis jurisdiction, and in 1542 the diocese of Chester was founded. Thearchbishop has now authority over nine bishoprics. But to return toThomas. In 1071 he went with Lanfranc to Rome to receive the pall. Thequestion of precedence was there argued, and the Pope decided in favourof Canterbury. Afterwards, at a synod held by William, it was decidedthat the Archbishop of York should swear allegiance to Canterbury, andmust be consecrated in Canterbury Cathedral, that the diocese of Yorkfrom that time should not extend south of the Humber, and that thearchbishop should lose his authority over the see of Worcester. On thedeath of Lanfranc, however, the dispute broke out again. For four yearsthere was a vacancy to the see of Canterbury; Anselm, the newarchbishop, was consecrated by Thomas, who took the opportunity toinsist that Anselm should not be styled Primate of all England. Thequarrel with Canterbury remained in abeyance until Thurstan wasappointed Archbishop of York (1114 A. D. ). He refused to make submissionto Canterbury, and the Archbishop of Canterbury was determined not toconsecrate him until he submitted. There was, therefore, a deadlock. Thurstan had the support of the Pope, but he was not consecrated until1119, when the Pope Calixtus himself performed the ceremony at Rheims. Thurstan obtained a Bull from the Pope releasing him and his successorsfor ever from supremacy of Canterbury, and for a time York wastriumphant. 

In the reign of Henry II. The quarrel again broke out. This time theArchbishop of York, Roger Pont L'Eveque, the builder of the Norman choirof the minster, had the support of the king, who was engaged in thestruggle with Becket. Roger, indeed, has been bitterly reviled as anaccessory to the murder of Becket. He carried on the quarrel withRichard of Canterbury, Becket's successor, and at the Council ofWestminster (1176 A. D. ) the rivalries of the two prelates came to a headin a ridiculous scene. The papal legate was present at the council, andthe Archbishop of Canterbury seated himself at his right hand. Shortlyafterwards entered the Archbishop of York, who, refusing to take a lowerplace, sat down in the lap of Canterbury. He was seized, beaten, andkicked for his pains. 

[Illustration: Walmgate Bar. ]

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

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

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

In 1265 a quarrel broke out between the Abbey of St. Mary and thetownspeople, owing to the abuse of the privilege of sanctuary possessedby the convent. Much blood was shed, and the suburb of Bootham was burntdown. 

In the reign of Edward I. York played a great part in the history ofEngland, 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 clergycontributed one-fifth of their income to the expenses of the war. TheCourts of the Exchequer and King's Bench were also removed from Londonto York, and remained there for seven years. 

At this time York was a more important city than it has been at anyperiod since the Roman occupation. It was both the civil and militarycapital of England, and its archbishops and prebendaries had greatpower. It was also, naturally, a period of great building activity. In ahundred 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 anotherParliament met there. After Bannockburn the Scots made continual inroadsinto Yorkshire. In 1319 an army of Scots, 15, 000 in number, advanced tothe very gates of York. Melton, the archbishop, hastily got together10, 000 men and fell in with the Scots at Myton, on the Swale, where hewas utterly routed, and narrowly escaped with his life. This battle wasknown in derision as the Chapter of Myton. 

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

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

It was also settled that each archbishop should carry his cross erect inthe diocese of the other, but that the Archbishop of York should send agolden 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 theminster. 

In 1392 the Court of the King's Bench again sat at York. Richard II. Visited the city several times. The archbishops Neville and Arundelplayed a great part in politics at this period. After the deposition ofRichard II. A prebendary, by name Mandelyn, who bore a great resemblanceto the king, personated him and headed a revolt, but he was captured andput 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. Afterhe had been trapped and captured, the king had great difficulty inbringing him to trial, as the Chief Justice, Gascoyne, refused to tryhim. He was finally condemned in his own palace, at Bishopthorpe, andexecuted near to the walls of the city. Henry IV. Withdrew also theliberties and privileges of the city, and the citizens had to beg forpardon on their knees with ropes round their necks. The archbishop wasburied in the minster, and his tomb was much frequented by pilgrims inthe north. 

In 1407 the rebellion broke out again, and the citizens of York wereagain severely punished. In the fifteenth century the importance of Yorkbegan to decline, and from that time it owes the position it still holdschiefly to its ecclesiastical eminence. Richard III. Visited Yorkseveral times, and gave a great cross to the minster, standing on sixsteps, each of which was ornamented with the figure of an angel. Thefigures were all of silver, and the whole was decorated with preciousstones. Richard also planned the establishment of a college of 100chaplains, and in 1485 six altars were erected for their use. But thescheme came to an end on the death of the king. York had been greatlydevoted to Richard, but it submitted to Henry VII. When he made a stateentry into the city in 1486, and it remained loyal in the rebellion ofLambert Simnel, when the rebels besieged the city, but were repulsed. 

In the reign of Henry VIII. The importance of York was steadilydeclining. He only visited the city once. The whole of Yorkshire, whichwas no doubt poorer and more ignorant than most other counties, was muchdisturbed by the abolition of the monasteries and the spoiling of thechurches, especially by the seizing of the head of St. William, thechief treasure of the minster. In 1536 the insurrection known as thePilgrimage of Grace broke out, and the city willingly received therebels. Aske, their leader, made a proclamation that all the "religions"should be reinstated in their old places: and the friars sang matins thesame night. In 1557 Aske was hanged on a gallows set upon one of thebars of York. Henry entered York, and the citizens sued for pardon, which was not granted to them until 1560. Henry ordered the removal ofsuch shrines as had not already been destroyed, and fragments of thesehave been found buried near the minster. Henry determined to establishhis authority firmly in the north, and established the famous councilwhich appointed the Duke of Norfolk their president. The council washeld in the house of the Abbot of St. Mary's. It took away most of thepowers of the Mayor and Corporation, but gave renewed importance to thecity. 

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

Much of the property taken by Henry was restored by Mary to Heath, thenext archbishop, who was the last appointed by a papal bull with theacknowledgment of the Government. Heath was deposed by Elizabeth in1559. 

In 1569 occurred another rising in the north in favour of the oldreligion and of Mary Queen of Scots, under the Earls of Northumberlandand Westmoreland. 

In Richmondshire and the Cleveland district the new prayer-books weredestroyed, and the old service restored. York itself favoured therebels, but before it could be entered a force arrived from the southand 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 weresentenced to death. The Earl of Northumberland also was afterwardsexecuted and buried in York. After the rebellion the Roman Catholics inthe diocese were much persecuted. They were forced to attend thereformed services and the Holy Communion, and their priests were hunteddown. Attempts also were made to abolish the Christmas mummeries and themiracle plays. The archbishop of this period, Thomas Young, is accusedof plundering the estates of the church in the interests of his ownfamily. 

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

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

[Illustration: Walmgate Bar. ]

During the Civil War York suffered less than many cathedral cities. In1644 it was besieged by the Parliamentary troops and the Scots underFairfax and Leslie. During the siege the minster seems to have beenspared as far as possible, mainly, perhaps, through the influence ofFairfax, but it did not escape entirely scatheless. Thomas Mace, theauthor of "Musick's Monument, " was in the city during the siege, and hethus describes the way in which the minster suffered:--"The enemy wasvery near and fierce upon them, especially on that side the city wherethe church stood; and had planted their great guns mischievously againstthe church; with which constantly in prayer's time, they would not failto make their hellish disturbance by shooting against and battering thechurch; insomuch that sometimes a cannon bullet has come in at thewindows and bounced about from pillar to pillar (even like some furiousfiend or evil spirit) backwards and forwards and all manner of sideways, as it has happened to meet with square or round opposition amongst thepillars. "

[Illustration: Micklegate Bar. ]

During the siege the citizens suffered much from the presence of thesoldiery who were billeted upon them. Each citizen, in addition togiving free quarters to as many soldiers as possible, had to pay £2 amonth for their support. The siege lasted for six weeks, and in thecourse of it the Marygate Tower, which was used as a record office forthe whole of the north, was attacked and spoiled, all the records in it, an irreparable loss, being destroyed. The city was captured soon afterMarston Moor, and the defenders obtained very good terms, marching outwith all the honours of war. The citizens also were well treated. Theywere to enjoy all their old privileges and were to be preserved fromplundering. All churches and public buildings were to be treated withrespect. A Presbyterian service was at once held in the minster by theconquerors. The Corporation presented to Fairfax a butt of sack and atun of French wine in gratitude for the good offices he had renderedthem. There can be little doubt that the great amount of stained glassstill remaining in the minster is owing to the control he exercised overthe Parliamentarians. On October the 24th of the same year theCorporation ordered that the Solemn League and Covenant should betendered to the aldermen and citizens. Then all the Royalist members ofthe Corporation were removed, and both the bishop, Williams, and thedean, Scott, were deprived of their offices. They left the country, andthe dean died in a debtor's prison in 1646. Fairfax, however, whoremained as governor of the city, maintained the minster in scrupulousrepair, and paid all the salaries of the necessary officials. A shorttime 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 thechapter-house, but there is no authority for the statement. But thecontrol of the minster was taken out of the hands of the chapter andgiven to the Corporation, and this transference was only effected by theinterference of the troops. The organ given by Charles was also takendown, and silver candlesticks and other ornaments, including the brassabout the shrine, perhaps, of St. William, and also the lectern in thechoir, were sold for the repair of the fabric and bells. In 1646 theorgan loft, the canopies over the altar in the side choir, and the fontwere removed. In 1647 a cushion was made of the dossal. The library wasleft untouched and thrown open to the public, and the keys of theminster placed in charge of the Mayor and Corporation. In place of thedean and chapter, the precentor, and chancellor--all removed--four citypreachers were chosen by the Assembly of Divines, and paid out of therevenues of the minster. Meanwhile the churches in the city suffered farmore than the minster itself. In 1646 all "superstitious pictures inglass" 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 toresist a return to the old order of things, and in 1663 there was asmall rebellion, as a result of which twenty-one persons were executedat York. Discontent, however, continued, and in 1682 it became necessaryto appoint Sir John Reresby governor of York, with a garrison of 500men. The governor said that York was one of the most factious towns inthe kingdom. About this time, also, the dean and chapter caused a riotby 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, wasburied in the minster. Party spirit still ran very high, and the mobrushed 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 theminster itself. 

The Catholic designs of James II. Were ill received in York. Hisproclamation for liberty of conscience was read in hardly any of theYork churches, and an attempt to stock the Corporation with RomanCatholics was resisted. At last there came a crisis. The king appointedJames Smith, the Roman Catholic Bishop of Callipolis, one of his fourvicars-apostolic, and in August 1688 he appeared at York. Thearchbishopric had been vacant for two years, and it was rumoured thatthe king intended to appoint Smith to the see. 

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

[Illustration: The Shambles. ]

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

CHAPTER II

HISTORY OF THE BUILDING

The architectural history of the minster is somewhat vague anduncertain, and has been the subject of several disputes. It will be aswell, perhaps, before entering into details, to give a table ofapproximate dates, both of the different parts of the minster as it nowstands and of the buildings which preceded it. These dates are mostlysanctioned by the authority of Professor Willis. 

Edwin's Wooden Chapel 627 A. D. Edwin's Minster begun (circ. ) 628 " " finished by Oswald (circ. ) 635 " " repaired by Wilfrid (circ. ) 699 " " burnt down (?) 741Albert rebuilds Minster (?) 767-780Minster wholly or partially burnt 1069Nave, Transepts, and perhaps Choir, built by Thomas (circ. ) 1080Choir and Crypt rebuilt by Roger 1154-1181Present South Transept built 1230-1241 (circ. ) " North Transept " 1241-1260 " Nave built 1291-1324 " Chapter-House built 1320 (?) " West Front of Nave built 1338Vault of Nave built (circ. ) 1354Presbytery (or eastern part of Choir) built 1361-1370 (circ. )Choir (west of High Altar) built 1380-1400 (circ. )Central Tower built 1400-1423 (circ. )South-West Bell Tower built 1433-1447North-West Bell Tower built 1470-1474Choir injured by fire 1829Choir repaired (circ. ) 1832Nave injured by fire 1840Nave repaired 1841South Transept restored 1875

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

In sixty years Edwin's church had fallen into great disrepair. It wasrestored by Archbishop Wilfrid about 669. The following account of thedilapidated condition of the building as he found it is taken from aversified life of Wilfrid, ascribed to Frithegode, a monk of the tenthcentury:--

 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 inEboraca Civitate Succensum est nono Kalendas Maii Feria prima_--that isto say, that a church was burnt down in the city of York on Sunday the23rd of April 741 A. D. It has been contended that the word _monasterium_need not of necessity mean the minster, that the word _civitas_ mayperhaps mean the diocese, the ecclesiastical state, and not the city ofYork, and that, therefore, the church mentioned may be not the minster, but some other large church in the city or diocese of York. ProfessorWillis is of opinion that this is probably the case. 

In the poem of Alcuin or Flaccus Albinus, there is a passage speaking ofa 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 notmention its locality, was a very important one. It was very lofty, andhad many porches, or apses (_porticus_ may mean either), and thirtyaltars. 

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

On the whole, therefore, it is perhaps most probable that the churchreferred to by Flaccus Albinus was the minster. If that is so, thischurch remained until it was ruined by the Danes in 1069. Then it wascertainly either wholly or partially burnt down. Thomas, the firstNorman archbishop, appointed in 1070, found the minster, the city, andthe diocese, all waste and desolate. At first he was satisfied withroofing in what remained of the cathedral and otherwise restoring it asbest he could. Afterwards, before 1080, he began to rebuild it. It isuncertain whether he rebuilt the whole church, or merely the nave andtransepts. 

Stubbs on this point seems to give two different accounts. 

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

Probably, this first passage refers to the immediate repairs whichThomas found necessary in 1070, and the second to his ultimaterebuilding of the church. 

William of Malmesbury says that he began the church from its foundationsand finished it. In the face of this positive testimony it is probablethat Thomas built not only the nave but the choir. That he did so hasbeen doubted, because the choir of his day was undoubtedly a very smallone, and was afterwards demolished by Roger. It must, however, beremembered that Lanfranc rebuilt Anselm's Norman choir at Canterbury inthe same way. It is very likely that Thomas was forced by necessity toplan his work on as modest a scale as possible, and that the pride ofRoger would not allow the choir of his minster to remain one of thesmallest 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 certainlytwenty feet narrower. This was discovered after the fire of 1840, whenremains of the side aisle walls of Thomas's nave were discovered. Thereare no data for the number of piers in this nave or for the position ofthe west front. 

The tower certainly stood on the site of the present tower, as Romanashlaring has been discovered on the north-west side of the north-westtower pier, above the vault of the side aisle, and also portions of ashaft with a base, which probably belonged to the Norman clerestory. Itwill be seen that the present piers supporting the central tower containcores of Norman work recased in Perpendicular times. 

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

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

On the one hand we have positive testimony that Thomas rebuilt the wholechurch; on the other, the walls of the crypt, as they existed up to thetime of Roger's choir, are a part of the Saxon church. Their masonry isSaxon, and they mark the lines of a chancel far too narrow to have beenthat 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 thediocese. 

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

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

As has been said, the choir of the minster remained unusually small forso important a church. The eleventh and twelfth centuries were periodsof great activity in church building, and many of the Norman architectsplanned their works on a vast scale. With the examples of Durham, Winchester, and St. Albans before them, it was natural that thearchbishops of the Metropolitan Church of York should be dissatisfiedwith the size of their own choir. It fell to the lot of Roger, the rivalof Thomas à Becket, to rebuild it. The date of his nave is approximately1154-1181. The remains of his work in the crypt show that it was in thelatest style of Norman architecture and considerably influenced byFlambard's work at Durham, with channeled and fluted pillars. The detailappears 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 wassquare at the end, and had flanking towers--two bays from theeast--which served as transepts inside. The eastern transepts of thepresent choir still keep the position and tradition of these towers. Theaisle probably ran round the east end as at Romsey and Byland. The twobays east of the tower were wider than the others. Roger, it should besaid, had been Archdeacon of Canterbury, and he was therefore wellacquainted with the "glorious Choir of Conrad" built by Anselm. There ismuch in the planning of his work to show that he was influenced by theexample of Conrad's choir. 

[Illustration: The Minster (from an Old Print). ]

At the end of the twelfth century the minster was utterly unlike thepresent building. Except in the crypt, and in certain parts of the naveand tower not visible to the casual observer, there are no vestiges ofthe work of the earlier builders. There is now no Norman work to be seenin the minster itself, and in 1200, nave, choir, transepts, and towerswere all Norman. Of these the transepts appear to have been the poorestpart. They were probably short, and had no aisles. The nave also was ofrude Early Norman character. The Early English architects havingdetermined, probably, to rebuild the nave and transepts, made abeginning with the transepts about 1230. Roger's choir, only finishedabout fifty years before, no doubt seemed to them grand enough. Thetransepts were built on a totally different scale to the rest of thechurch as it then stood. They were both longer and broader, and they hadaisles on each side of them. No doubt the object of this was to get astandard for the ultimate rebuilding of the nave. The greater width ofthese transepts made it difficult to join their aisles with those of thenave 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 Walterde Gray, archbishop from 1216 to 1265, who was buried under an arch ofhis own building, in a tomb which still remains the most beautiful, perhaps, in the minster. The north transept seems to have been begun assoon as the south was finished; it is said to have been the work of JohnRomeyn, or the Roman, an Italian, and the treasurer of York. Walter deGray probably also had a large part in the building of them. Thesetransepts are the earliest part of the existing minster. John Romeynalso built an Early English central tower in place of Thomas's EarlyNorman tower. It remained for John Romeyn the younger, son of thetreasurer, and archbishop from 1286 to 1296, to begin the rebuilding ofthe nave. It was planned on a far larger scale than the old nave, andwas wider even than the Early English transepts. The old nave had been83 feet wide, the transepts were 95, and the new nave 103. Thedifference in width between the transepts and the new nave is in theaisles. The plan of the transepts had no influence on the plan of thenave. The large triforium, small clerestory, and moderate-sized mainarches give way to a large clerestory, large main arches, andpractically non-existent triforium. These are unusual proportions inEnglish Churches of that period. At Ely, Westminster, Beverley, and manyother places, the proportions of Norman or Early English work influencedthose of the later Decorated and Perpendicular. 

The records of the building of the nave are somewhat scanty. Stubbstells us that the foundation stone was laid on April 6, 1291, and thatit was begun on the south side towards the east. It has been supposedthat the chief object of making the new nave so much wider and loftierthan its predecessor, was that it might be built round the old workwithout interfering with its utility. 

But a petition, dated 1298, states that the old nave had long sincefallen (_diu est corruita_). If this were so there was no object inrefraining from disturbing the old work. It is uncertain whether thenave had been purposely destroyed, or had fallen of its own weight. Itmay be, though we have no record of the fact, that Thomas's Norman towerfell down, as did so many Norman central towers, destroying with it somepart of the nave, and so made the rebuilding of that part of the churchnecessary. 

The nave is fully developed geometrical Decorated work. It is loftierthan the transepts, and its roof is low pitched. The main part of therebuilding seems to have been done between 1298 and 1320. The indenturefor 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 thebuilding seems to have made the builders afraid, and they erected avault of wood, but shaped and ribbed to look like stone. The outer wallsof the clerestory, and the pinnacles of the south side of the nave showvestiges of flying buttresses. It is uncertain whether these were merelyintended when a stone vault was projected, or whether they were actuallyerected, and afterwards, being unnecessary for the support of a woodenvault, were allowed to fall into disrepair. There are no flyingbuttresses on the north side, and the pinnacles are much smaller. 

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

The date of the chapter-house, and the passage connecting it with thenorth transept is disputed. Browne thinks it was begun about 1280, andfinished about 1340. He partly bases his contention on the fact that theActs of the Chapter from 1223 to 1300 are given _in Capitulo Eborum_. After 1300 _in Capitulo Ecclesiae_, or _in loco Capitulari ipsiusEcclesiae_. After 1342 _in domo Capitulari_. From this he argues that upto 1342 the chapter-house was not in existence, or unfinished, but thatit was in use from that date. The geometrical character of the tracery, and the Purbeck marble shafts used in the chapter-house might seem tosupport that view. Professor Willis, however, considers there is littlesignificance in the difference in the phrases used. _In capitulo_ simplymeans "in chapter, " and _in loco capitulari_ and _in domo capitulari_are vague phrases which may either mean a chapter-house, or a place usedfor the sittings of the chapter. At any rate, he thinks thechapter-house was not begun until after 1320, and the passage leading toit is still later. If this is the case, however, there is no reason whythe chapter-house should not have been finished in 1342, and that wouldaccount for the change of phrase in the Acts. Though, at first sight, the building appears to be Early Decorated in style, on a closerexamination it will be seen that the slender mouldings, the character ofthe carvings, and the details, especially on the outside, all point to alater date. It is curious, however, that if the building was not begununtil after 1320, the tracery was not curvilinear, as in the great westwindows, and the middle windows of the towers built about the same time. Perhaps, however, the geometrical forms were found to give the greatersupport, necessary owing to the absence of a central pillar. On thewhole, the evidence of details, particularly of the foliage in thebeautiful arcading inside the chapter-house, seem to point to its nothaving been begun until 1320 or later. 

[Illustration: The West Front (1810). ]

In 1362 John of Thoresby became archbishop. The times were unpropitiousfor building. Yorkshire was suffering much from the black death, therewas great poverty among the peasantry, and the diocese was in great needof discipline and reform. Thoresby gave himself up for nine years tothis work, and in 1361 he thought the time had come for the rebuildingof the choir. We have already seen how at York, one great work led toanother. The transepts were rebuilt that they might be in harmony withthe grandeur of Roger's choir, the nave that it might not be eclipsed bythe transepts; and now it was contended that the choir must not beinferior 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 thatevery church whatsoever should agree in the fitting decoration of eachparticular part, and that the choir in particular, where the holysacrifice of the mass took place, should be especially rich inornament. " Thereupon they decided to rebuild the choir. The foundationstone was laid on the 30th July 1361, and the work was begun at theextreme east end. There was a very good reason for this procedure. Thedesign 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 thelargest and most magnificent choir in England. It was therefore bothwider, loftier, and longer than that of Roger's, and beginning at theeast end it was possible to complete almost the whole of the portioneast of the altar as it now stands--that is to say, the presbytery, without interfering with Roger's choir. While, therefore, the presbyterywas being built, the service of the church was still carried on inRoger's choir, and only the aisles behind Roger's east end weredestroyed. Even when the four bays of the presbytery were completed, sayabout 1370, it was possible to continue the aisles of the new choirproper without interfering with Roger's work, except to pull down thetowers 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 newchoir, and their place was taken by the present eastern transepts, whichare each merely a bay of the aisle, raised to the same height as thevault 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 inThoresby's lifetime. According to Stubbs, Thoresby provided tombs forsix of his predecessors, and placed them in the choir in front of thelady chapel--that is to say, in the presbytery. 

He also says that _Idem Archiepiscopus . .. Capellam . .. Virginis MariaeMirabili 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 isnot, the work was completed by Thoresby. Thoresby died in 1373, and ifhe finished the presbytery, there was a gap of seven or eight yearsbetween its completion and the beginning of the choir. There is internalevidence to support this presumption. The presbytery, thoughPerpendicular in its main features, shows many traces of the transitionfrom the curvilinear Decorated to the Perpendicular style, especially inthe tracery of the great east window and the clerestory windows. In thechoir proper these traces have vanished, and the work, though apparentlyof the same character as that in the presbytery, is altogetherPerpendicular. A lapse of ten years in the continuity of the work wouldaccount for this change, and becomes still more probable when weconsider that the circumstances of the time were not favourable forgreat expenditure on building. The presbytery had been completedunusually quickly. Indeed, we know that £627 were spent upon it in oneyear, and this was an unusual amount. The average expenditure, forinstance, on the choir of Ely was £318. It was natural, therefore, thatthere should be a halt to collect further funds. The work of the choiritself proceeded much more slowly. There was a complaint in 1390 on thearchbishop's visitation--_quod fabrica ecclesiae negligentertardatur_--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 itsconstruction. But there is nothing unusual in this. It was customarybefore filling windows with stained glass to cover them with linen clothwhich admitted a sufficient amount of light, or to glaze them with plainglass; and it was only natural that a long time should elapse beforestained glass could be supplied to the largest window in the world. Burying was begun at the east end soon after 1400, and Scrope was buriedthere in 1405. Bowet's monument also was erected there in 1415, while hewas still alive. 

A new high altar was projected in 1418, and the new crypt was fittedwith iron work and paved in the same year. The building of the choir hadcaused a subsidence in the crypt, so the work of Roger and others wasbroken into fragments and patched together, older capitals being placedon Roger's pillars, in the condition in which we now see it. Nothing isknown of the history of the vaults of the choir and eastern transepts. Like those of the nave and transepts, they are of wood, though of thesame shape and design as a stone vault. 

The great central tower was erected between 1400 and 1423. Hithertothere had been the Early English tower of the elder John Romeyn, supported by Norman piers which, perhaps, had received a partial casingof Early English stonework. These piers were afterwards recased, notsimultaneously, but as the arches between them were erected, in thefollowing manner:--

Taking the south-western pier for an example: when the present nave wasbegun, the western face of the pier was cased with masonry, so thatthree parts still remained Norman; when the Decorated arch[1] in thetransept was erected south of it, it received a further Decorated casingon its south side; when the central tower was built, its northern andeastern faces were cased with Perpendicular masonry: so, in the case ofthe north and south-eastern piers, their eastern faces were completelycased when the choir was built, their western only when the tower was incourse of erection. To this day it may be seen that there is no bondbetween the different periods of masonry, and that the courses are atdifferent levels. 

 [1] For the explanation of the erection of this Decorated arch, see the architectural account of the transepts. 

The piers were probably completely recased by 1409. 

[Illustration: THE EAST END. From Britton. ]

Nothing is known of the elder Romeyn's tower, or the manner in which thepresent one replaced it. A great part of the new work has beenattributed to Walter Skirlawe, Bishop of Durham. It will be seen it isof 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 themasonry at the top still show, but it is impossible to say whether itwas intended to receive another storey, and if so, of what characterthat other storey was to be. At one time, as may be seen in oldengravings, it had a turret in one corner, 24 feet high; this wasprobably destroyed in the last century. 

The south-west bell tower was built probably between 1433 and 1447, thenorth-west between 1470 and 1474. They are thus both Perpendicular instyle. 

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

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

On the 2nd February 1829, Jonathan Martin, a brother of the apocalypticpainter, John Martin, and a religious maniac, hid himself during eveningservice 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. Theflames were not extinguished until the stalls, the organ, and the vaulthad been entirely destroyed. The actual stonework and carving of thechoir were considerably injured, and the glass of the great east windowitself only just avoided destruction. Martin escaped through a window ofthe transept, but was quickly captured, and discovered to be insane. Therestoration, carried on by Smirke, was begun in 1832, and on the wholewas fairly done. At any rate, the authorities of the minster may consolethemselves with the knowledge that it was absolutely necessary. Thestalls were a reproduction, as exact as possible, of the old woodwork, but the design of the throne and pulpit are original, and notsuccessful. The cost of the restoration was £65, 000, most of which wascontributed by subscription. Timber, to the value of £5000, was given bythe State, and Sir Edward Vavasour, following the example of hisancestor of the fourteenth century, supplied the stone. 

Another fire broke out on the 30th May 1840. It began in the south-westtower, and is said to have been caused by some workmen who wererepairing the clock. The whole tower, excepting its shell, including thebells, was destroyed, and the fire was not extinguished until the woodenvault of the nave had been burnt. The restoration on this occasion cost£23, 000, and was finished in a year, under the superintendence of SydneySmirke, 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 thequestion of restoring it. In his report he stated that the design of theclerestory, constructed as it was of two thin walls, was not strongenough for the weight it had to support, even though the vault was ofwood. 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 flyingbuttresses under the steep roofs of the aisles, to remove the heavyslates from the roof, and to renew the pinnacles. 

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

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

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

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

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

CHAPTER III

THE EXTERIOR

York Minster consists of a nave of eight bays and a choir of nine. Ithas a large central tower and two western towers. The main transeptsproject three bays from the nave and choir. There are also two easterntransepts four bays west of the east end, which do not project beyondthe aisles of the choir. The chapter-house lies to the east of thenorthern transept, and is connected with it by a lofty passageprojecting three bays from the transept. The east end of the cathedralis square, as in most English Gothic churches. The best views are to beobtained from the north, especially from the walls, which will be mostconveniently ascended at Bootham Bar, or from the extreme northerncorner of the close. From the walls the whole of the vast bulk of theminster may be seen, broken by the great central tower and the lofty capof the chapter-house. Other English cathedrals are more finely placed, several are richer in ornament, one or two have a more delicately variedoutline. None are so stately and so magnificent; and there is hardly achurch in Europe that appears so vast as the minster viewed from thenorth. Compared with it the great French cathedrals, with their stiltedroofs so often unbroken, except by a small flêche and with theiroutlines concealed in a crowd of flying buttresses, are apt to lookshort 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 thebuilding an air of masculine and stately repose, and of perfect finishseldom to be found in foreign churches; while the apparent uniformity ofstyle, though the architecture is of three different periods, frees itfrom the picturesque inconsequence of many English cathedrals. Yetneither inside nor outside does the minster appear to be the expressionof the spiritual aspirations of a people. It represents rather thesecular magnificence, the temporal power of a Church, that has played agreat part in the history of the nation. The archbishops of York havebeen forced by circumstances to be militant prelates, contending withCanterbury for precedence, leading armies against the Scotch, sometimeseven heading rebellions against the king; and in their cathedral theyhave expressed their ambition and their pride. 

#The West Front. #--The west front of York Minster is free from the twofaults most common to the façades of most English cathedrals. It is nota mere undistinguished ending to the church, like those at Norwich andWinchester, and it is not a magnificent misrepresentation of the heightor width of the building itself, like the west fronts at Peterboroughand Lincoln. Most of the English cathedrals are not lofty or wide enoughto give opportunities for an impressive façade, unless they are frontedwith a mere screen of masonry; but this is not the case at York. Noother Gothic church in England is so wide, and only Westminster Abbey isas lofty. The builder, therefore, was not tempted to any expedient toconceal the dimensions of his church, and so the front consists of thenatural end of the nave, of which a great part is filled by the westwindow, with a gable above it representing the space between the vaultand the roof, and with the porch below it. It is flanked by two towersbuilt in front of the aisles, with two smaller porches at the base ofeach. The three divisions of the west front are marked by buttresses, prominent and richly ornamented, one on each side of the west window andtwo at the external corners of the towers. The buttresses, covered withniches and panelling, grow narrower and less prominent as they rise, until they are cut short with three cornered caps some feet below thebattlements of the towers. The central window and the principal entranceare surrounded with niches, and there is an elaborate gable above eachof them. The west front exhibits three different styles; the lowestpart, containing the porches and the west windows of the aisle, being ofthe geometrical Decorated style; the middle portion, including the greatwest window, the gables above it, and the middle windows of the towersof the later or curvilinear Decorated; and the towers above the roof, Perpendicular of the fifteenth century. The central gable and the greatwest window are almost flamboyant in their decoration. A battlementimmediately above the central window runs right across the front. Theniches on the buttresses are in four storeys, and those on the centralpart of the front in six, of varying heights. There is also a row ofniches on the towers immediately above the ornamental gable of the aislewindows, and the upper part of each tower is covered with niches. Thegreater part of these niches above the two lowest rows do not appear tohave ever contained sculpture. The bases of the lowest row of niches arerichly ornamented with foliage. The main entrance, though small, isextraordinarily beautiful. It consists of a single arch, divided intotwo smaller cusped arches by a central pillar with a circular openingabove it, glazed and filled with six divisions of cusped tracery. Abovethe main arch is a gable, in which are five niches, the central onecontaining the figure of an archbishop. It is uncertain whether this isArchbishop John Romeyn, who began the nave, or Archbishop Melton, whofinished the west front and glazed the central window. On either side ofthe gable are statues of the Percy and Vavasour, who gave the wood andstone necessary for the building of the nave. These statues, and thegreater, part of the porch, have been restored. But even afterrestoration the fine proportions and delicate workmanship of the porchare evident. The slender shafts supporting the arches are well groupedand contrasted. The capitals, though characteristically small, are mostdelicate, and the mouldings are admirably varied with foliage, figures, canopies, and brackets for statues, formal decoration, and courses ofplain stone. These mouldings contain the history of Adam and Eve. Eventhe porches at Sienna and Orvieto, though made of far more costlymaterials, can hardly be more beautiful than was this porch at the timeof its completion. There is but little other statuary remaining on thewest front. A few figures of saints remain in the upper niches of thebuttresses, and there are fragments of sculpture on some of the lowest. The towers are 201 feet high, and are uniform in design. The front ofeach contains three large windows; the highest, Perpendicular in style, containing three lights; the middle, curvilinear Decorated, containingfour; and the lowest, the west windows of the aisle, being geometricalDecorated, and containing three lights. The middle windows to the northand south are of very curious half geometrical, half curvilineartracery. The highest and lowest windows of the towers have ornamentedgables above them, the lowest being triangular, the upper ogee-shaped. The towers are topped with large battlements and pinnacles. 

[Illustration: The West Front--Main Entrance. ]

It will be seen, therefore, that this west front is planned on the mostregular lines and the most ambitious scale. True, some French façadesare loftier, as at Amiens for instance, but, as Professor Freeman haspointed out, the effect aimed at at York is one of breadth rather thanof height, and it is an advantage that the front is not too high for thetowers to rise some way above it. It is also richly decorated and wellproportioned in the mass, and yet nearly every one, on first seeing it, must be struck by its curious ineffectiveness when its height andbreadth, its regular outline, and profusion of ornament are considered. To tell the truth, the English architects have here endeavoured to rivalthe French on their own ground, and have not succeeded. The Englishcathedral, as has been said, was not usually planned on such lines as tomake a sumptuous façade possible. Throughout the whole course of EnglishGothic architecture, the treatment of the west end is curiouslyhesitating and arbitrary. Sometimes it is altogether unambitious, as atWinchester and Norwich; sometimes boldly illogical, as at Lincoln orPeterborough; and at Salisbury, where everything else is beautiful, itis altogether unsatisfactory. In all these cases circumstances wereagainst the architect, but at York there was every opportunity for agreat architectural triumph. Yet the designer was not able to throw offhis English timidity, to forget the small English features to which hewas used, and to conceive his front as a gigantic whole. 

To begin with, he made his west window so large that every otherimportant feature of the central division of the front had to besacrificed to make room for it. In the great French façades thecustomary 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 themain porch, the bottom part of the front is bound together, and thedivisions of nave and aisle, emphasised above by the prominentbuttresses, are minimised below. This arrangement gives at once unityand variety to the whole design. The towers do not appear to be externaladditions rising from the ground, but an integral part, the very crownand flower, in fact, of the whole design. 

At York the central window is so large that it leaves but little roombelow it for the porch. This porch, though exquisite in itself, is notpushed forward, but flat with the wall, and appears a mere hole cut inthe surface. It has necessarily no connection with the entrances to theaisles; and the finest feature of the great French façades is wanting. But the size of the west window has other disastrous effects. It wouldhave been difficult, almost impossible, to assimilate an opening solarge, and of such an elaborate pattern, to the rest of the design, andhardly an effort even has been made to do so. It appears, therefore, like the porches, to have been cut bodily out of the front withoutregard for the rest of the plan, and its acute arch harmonises badlywith the gable above it. No doubt the designer saw the fault; he placedan acute ornamental gable above the window, rising to the top of thefront, and he covered the actual gable of the roof with flamboyanttracery of the same character as that on the window; but, by so doing, he merely weakened the contrast between tracery and bare spaces ofmasonry so necessary to every great design. 

The weakness of the central division is not made up for by anyexcellence in the towers. These, though fine on their lower storeys, arestrangely feeble above. They are, in fact, the worst part of theminster, and have been condemned by all critics, from Mr Ruskindownwards. In most towers of this kind there are two windows above and asingle one below. At York the three storeys of single windows give thedesign an air of monotony and weakness. Further, the highest window isnot only far too large, but is placed too low. Like the great westwindow, it appears to have been cut out of the wall. It is alsopeculiarly unfortunate that the buttresses should die into the wallbelow the pinnacles. Where a tower is buttressed, it is a natural andlogical 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 calleda kind of architectural confectionery, and the criticism is just. Thefact that the battlements and pinnacles project a few inches over thewalls of the towers, only adds to the air of weakness and instability ofthe whole. Nowhere else surely has a Gothic architect approached soclosely to the ideals of his "churchwarden" imitators of the beginningof this century. 

But these faults, though serious enough, do not include everything thatcan be said against the west front of the minster. Gothic churches haveoften been noble and triumphant works of art in spite of errors almostas grave. Unfortunately the west front suffers from a tendency firstbeginning to show itself in the middle of the fourteenth century, whichafterwards became the most serious drawback of the whole Perpendicularstyle. It is not only because the porches do not project that it appearsflat and thin. The west front of Notre Dame at Paris has no projectingporches, yet the alternations of bare spaces of wall and of rich anddeep masses of carving, the strong horizontal lines, and the deep-setwindows, give it a boldness and strength altogether wanting at York. Like all Norman and earlier Gothic work, it has this great merit, oftenmost strongly felt by people who are quite unable to explain it, thatthe design seems to emphasise, and to be dictated by, the materials inwhich it is carried out. The Norman architect never forgot for amoment--he was not skilful enough to forget--that he was building withstone. So he did not conceive of his west front as a flat space to beornamented, but as a wall to be built, and naturally his ornamentfollowed and emphasised the main lines of his building. His singlepillars, with their heavy capitals, bore witness that they were made ofgreat stones piled one on the top of the other; his simple windows weremerely openings in the wall to let in light. 

[Illustration: The Exterior, from the South-East. ]

But as masons grew more skilful, and designers more sophisticated, theyfound it pleasant to play with their material; to turn their singlepillars into bundles of clustered shafts; to fill their windows withtracery, structural at first, but afterwards as free and fantastic aslacework. The result is often beautiful. The method gave the freest playto the artist's invention, but it had its dangers, and they areexemplified at York. There the designer has evidently regarded his westfront as a large space of wall to be played with, to be decorated muchas if it were a piece of embroidery, and, in his anxiety to decorate itrichly, he has lost his sense of unity and proportion. He has forgottento 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 thewindows, and on the lines dividing the storeys, the rest of the façademay be left alone. The bare spaces of masonry only serve to give reliefto the decoration. But at York the main lines are so neglected, theyoffer so little opportunity for decoration, that the designer was afraidto leave his walls plain, lest the whole should appear lean and cold. Hehas, therefore, spun his tracery and panelling over the whole surface. Nowhere can the eye rest on a plain piece of wall; everywhere it isfidgeted by monotonous rows of niches and mouldings. In fact, it may becompared to an etching so full of unnecessary details that composition, balance of mass, and beauty of line are all smothered in them. And yetthere is much to be said on the other side. The mere size--the heightand width--go far to make the front impressive; and the detail, even nowwhen so much of it has been restored, is usually beautiful. If it is notgreat architecture, it is at least living architecture, and as suchinfinitely 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 inseveral particulars. Thus, on the south the aisle buttresses are crownedby lofty pinnacles having at their bases niches, in some of whichstatues still remain. These pinnacles appear to have been originallyconnected with the wall of the nave by flying buttresses, traces ofwhich still exist, both on the walls and the pinnacles. In Hollar'sengraving, in a later print in Dugdale's "Monasticon" (1817), and inWillis's "Cathedrals" (1742), these buttresses are represented asexisting, but the accuracy of the pictures in these books cannot betrusted. It is possible that a beginning only was made of these flyingbuttresses, and that when it was decided to place a wooden vault on thecathedral, 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 sidewas perhaps owing to the fact that a great part of it was concealed bythe archbishop's palace, yet at the present day it is certainly morebeautiful than the south. It closely resembles the exterior of thebeautiful nave of Beverley Minster, and for simplicity and delicacy ofdesign could hardly be surpassed. The bays are marked by plain aislebuttresses, terminating in three-cornered caps, with a battlement ofcusped stonework ornamented with finials behind them. The buttresses ofthe nave are plain narrow bands of stone topped with small pinnacles. The roof is low pitched; the only other decoration is given by theuniform tracery of the windows and by a crocketed gable above each ofthe windows of the aisle. 

#North Transept. #--The walls of the north transept are lower than thoseof the nave, and its roof, covered with a particularly ugly coating ofzinc, is much more highly pitched. Thus the ridges of the two roofs arepractically level, while the battlement of the transept is only on alevel with the point at which the arches of the clerestory in the navespring. The union of the two and the contrast between the low-pitchedroof of the nave and the stilted roofs of the transept are ratherawkward. It should be said that the zinc roof of the north transept wasa necessity, as the old roof of stone tiles proved to be too heavy. Butfor these inevitable differences the exterior of the north transeptblends most successfully with that of the nave, though, of course, itsdetails are altogether different. As an example of the great effect tobe attained by the lancet windows, delicate proportions, and restrainedornament of the Early English style, it has never been surpassed. Itextends three bays from the nave. The aisle buttresses end some littleway below the battlements of the aisle. There are no buttresses againstthe main wall of the transept; but it is ornamented with a row ofarches, some blank, and some pierced with the clerestory windows. Thesewindows are in groups of three separated by two blank arches. The blankarches are wider than the windows. All the arches are decorated withdog-tooth mouldings. The absence of buttresses and the continuous row ofarches cause a remarkable freedom from vertical lines in the exterior ofthe transepts, which is also characteristic of the interior. Thebattlements, both of the aisles and of the transept itself, are quiteplain. The most admirable portion of this transept is its north front, which contains the famous group of lancet windows known as the "fivesisters. " These are five very narrow and long windows separated only byslender shafts. Below them is a blind arcade almost entirely withoutornament, and above them another group of five lancet windows ofdifferent sizes, gradually diminishing from the central window to followthe outline of the gable. The details of these upper windows closelyresemble those of the "five sisters, " and they are flanked by two blindarches. The buttresses are also ornamented with blind arches, and appearnever to have been finished, as they are truncated in an unusual waywhere one would expect pinnacles. The exterior of the western aisle ofthis transept is very curious in arrangement. There is an almostcomplete absence of division into bays. There are two lancet windows toeach 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 capsa little way below the tops of the windows. Between the groups of aislewindows are blind arches narrower than the windows themselves. There isa blind arch of the same width at the southern extremity, and a widerone at the northern. The aisles, like the rest of the transept, arealmost perfectly plain. 

[Illustration: The Exterior, from the North. ]

The #Chapter-house# is connected with the eastern aisle of the transeptby a vestibule projecting three bays beyond the north front. Thisvestibule then turns eastward for two bays, at which point it joins thechapter-house. Both vestibule and chapter-house are magnificent examplesof Decorated work. Their date is doubtful, and is discussed in thehistory of the building. They are certainly among the finest works ofGothic architecture in Europe. The chapter-house is octagonal in shape, and is crowned by a lofty pyramidal roof. Its chief, almost its onlydecoration, is provided by the buttresses and the beautiful tracery ofthe acutely-pointed windows. The buttresses are of very curious design. They are joined to the wall of the chapter-house for nearly half theirheight, and up to this point are quite plain. They are then narrowedinto lofty pinnacles, and these pinnacles are connected with the wall bytwo small flying buttresses, the lower one plainly moulded and slopingupwards to the wall, the upper one being horizontal and richly decoratedwith arcading, two arcades to each side of every buttress. At the pointat which the buttress narrows into the pinnacle there are cusped gableswith gargoyles on the outer side of the buttresses. The pinnacles aredecorated with slender shafts and richly ornamented gables. The windowsof the chapter-house contain five lights. They will be further describedin the account of the interior of the building. Above them is a plainbattlement, with two rows of ornament below it, and three figures ineach bay above it. There is a very curious buttress at the point ofjunction of the vestibule and the chapter-house. It is joined to thewall of the chapter-house up to the battlement, and consists of anirregular mass of masonry ornamented as far as possible in the samemanner as the other buttresses with gables and panelling. The two baysof the vestibule nearest to the chapter-house have nothing unusual aboutthem except their buttresses. One of these is set close to the wall upto the spire of the pinnacle. All the other buttresses of the vestibule, except the one built against the buttress of the transept end, havepinnacles joined to the wall by a pierced arch of curious and ingeniousdesign. The vestibule is crowned by plain battlements like that of thechapter-house, with small square-headed windows of two lights each. Thewindows of the two bays nearest the transept end are of most unusualdesign, which will be explained in the account of the interior; thesebays are narrower than the others, that nearest to the transept beingthe narrowest of all. 

#The Choir. #--The exterior of the north side of the choir is almostidentical with that of the south; but there are some points ofdifference between the four earlier bays east of the transept and thefour later ones west of it. In particular, in the four eastern bays thetriforium passage runs outside instead of inside the building. Theclerestory windows are recessed, and in front of them, running flushwith the buttresses, is a screen of three divisions to each bay (seeillustration, p. 62). The triforium passage, hidden by the roof of theaisle, runs below the screen and the windows, and between the two. Themullions dividing the screen run straight up to the battlement. The topsof the divisions are ornamented with cusped arches of open stonework. There is a transom crossing the mullions of the screen about one-thirdof the way up. It is difficult to say what was the object of thisscreen. It must have been included in the original design, and so cannothave been added afterwards to strengthen the walls. Whether it was amerely decorative experiment or an architectural device for the purposeof allowing the walls to be pierced with very large windows for thedisplay of glass cannot now be decided. The effect from the outside isnot good. The mullions break the surface into too many vertical lines, and, with the transom, take away from the dignity and purity of outlineof the exterior. Inside, whether by a lucky chance or not, this screen, by darkening the clerestory windows, has greatly added to the effect ofthe wall of glass at the east end. There are also slight points ofdifference in the clerestory windows, showing the transitional characterof those in the four eastern bays. The windows of the aisle aredelicately moulded with capitals to their shafts, and are ornamentedwith a crocketed gable, ogee-shaped and topped with a prominent finialrising just above the battlements of the aisle. These battlements arepierced with cusped circles, below them is a cornice ornamented withfoliage. The buttresses of the aisles are decorated with gargoyles andcrowned with pinnacles of a considerable size with crocketed spires andfinials. The front of these pinnacles is ornamented with characteristicPerpendicular panelling. The buttresses of the main wall are thin andplain, and, with the pinnacles, much resemble those of the nave. Thebattlements are of pierced stonework of a common Perpendicular pattern. The eastern transepts do not project beyond the aisles. Their frontscontain very long windows of five lights, each with three transoms. Thesouthern one has strong buttresses ornamented with panelling, andgargoyles at the corners. The northern is much plainer. Their sidewindows are like those of the clerestory. Britton conjectures that theunfinished state of the stonework on the north side of the choir beneaththe window shows that a cloister or other low building was intended inthis part, which was never executed. The cornice, he says, under thebattlements is more perfect towards the western part and shows beautifulfoliage. The spouts are sculptured with bold projecting figures throughwhich the water is conveyed from the roofs. 

[Illustration: Bay of Choir--Exterior. ]

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

There was certainly not very much opportunity for a fine architecturaldesign in this east end with its great wall of glass, but, allowing forall disadvantages, it cannot be considered successful. There is nojustification for the square ends concealing the roof. They aremisrepresentations, and they are not beautiful. The decoration, with itsmonotonous rows of panelling and niches, shows the poverty of inventionoften characteristic of Perpendicular architects, and is sometimespositively ugly. The whole east front must surprise most people by itsapparent smallness. It seems merely the end of an overgrown parishchurch, and not of a great cathedral, and though that apparent smallnessis partly owing to the enormous size of the windows, which prevent anystructural division of parts, it is increased by the monotony andshallowness of the decoration. It is almost impossible, in fact, tobelieve that this is the east end of the loftiest and widest choir inEngland. 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 thenorth, though the sides are much the same. This front has three storeysof 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 laterinsertion. These windows alternate with blind arches. On each side ofthe windows are slender shafts with capitals, and dog-tooth mouldingruns round them and round the blank arches. Above these windows is alarge rose window of "plate tracery"--tracery, that is to say, in itsearlier form, in which the openings for the glass appear to have beencut out of the stone rather than the stone to have been added as a framefor the glass. This window is of a very elaborate design, and consistsof three circles, the outer being the circumference of the window; themiddle about equi-distant from the circumference and the centre, andconnected with the circumference by pillars, twenty-four in all, andcusped arches; and the inner connected with the centre in the same wayand ornamented with cusps. The spaces between the arches of the middlecircle are pierced with trefoil holes, those between the outer archesare pierced and filled with glass. The outer circle is ornamented withthree rows of dog-tooth moulding. Above this window, in the crown of thegable, is a small three-cornered window ornamented also with dog-toothmoulding. On either side of the rose window are small lancet windowswith smaller blind arches on each side of them. Both windows and archesare surrounded also with dog-tooth moulding. An arcading with shafts andcusped arches runs along the base of the front, not quite reaching theexterior buttresses. In the centre is the porch by which entrance to theminster is generally obtained. It is reached by an ascent of two flightsof steps. The porch is rather small, and not particularly remarkablearchitecturally. It consists of a single arch supported by an outer andinner group of clustered shafts. On each side of it is a small blindarch. 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 anaddition later in date than the transept itself; they are so ugly and someaningless, but they appear in the old prints of the minster, and theancient clock, with two wooden statues in armour of the date of HenryVII. , seems to have stood there from time immemorial. This clock wasremoved, with the statues, to make room for another at the beginning ofthis century, and it appears that the arches and gables were alsoaltered, which may perhaps account for their present ugly appearance. The clock is now in the north transept. It should be stated that thewhole of this front has been rather badly restored, and nearly all ofits beauty of detail is gone. The aisle fronts have upper storeysornamented with blind arches and an upper row of small lancet windows. These upper storeys do not correspond with the roof of the aisle behindthem. The aisle windows are lancet, two to each aisle. The externalbuttresses are large, ornamented with gables and blind arches, and theother buttresses are of the same character. 

[Illustration: South Transept--Porch. ]

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

#The South Side Of The Nave# resembles the north in most respects, butthe buttresses and pinnacles of the aisles are altogether different. Thebuttresses rise some way above the battlements of the aisles. They areplain to the level of these battlements, and above them are ornamentedwith niches containing figures, with blind arches above the niches. Theyare cut short by three gables, on the top of which are set loftypinnacles. The niches vary in detail, some of them having more elaboratecanopies than others. On these buttresses and on the wall of the naveare the marks of flying buttresses which have been removed, as has beenstated in the account of the north side of the nave. 

Three gargoyles spring from each buttress at the level of the battlementof the aisle. This side of the nave is only less beautiful than theother. The pinnacles, if they add to the richness of its decoration, break the simplicity of outline so admirable in the northern exterior ofthe 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 roofand 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 itcontains two long and narrow Perpendicular windows on each side, ofthree lights each, with a transom. These windows are ornamented withogee gables, and between them are three niches, one above the other, with canopies. The external buttresses are split up with verticalmouldings and ornamented with niches and panelling. The tower is crownedwith a battlement. Horizontal string courses with gargoyles divide thebuttresses at intervals. There are no pinnacles on these buttresses, andthey appear never to have been finished. It is possible that it wasintended to set another storey on the top of the present one, but thisis merely conjecture. 

This tower, or rather its Perpendicular casing, for it was originally anEarly English tower, is, with the western the latest part of theminster, but it is by no means the least beautiful. The Englisharchitects of the sixteenth century, if they were inferior to earlierbuilders in invention and vigour, were at any rate supreme in themanagement of towers. Their wonderful sense of proportion, theirhabitual use of vertical lines, and the character of their windowshelped them to build what are perhaps the finest towers in Europe, andthe central tower of York Minster is one of the finest of all. Even theabsence of pinnacles, if it is an accident, seems to be a luckyaccident, and gives this tower an unrivalled dignity and air ofrestraint suitable to the character of the whole cathedral. For whatevermay be said against certain parts of the exterior, as a whole it is oneof the most magnificent in the world. It shows best from certain pointsof view--from the north, for instance, or from the network of narrowstreets to the south. It may be contended that the central tower is notquite lofty enough compared with the two western towers for perfectsymmetry of outline; that, seen from certain aspects, it is rathersquare and box-like in appearance; that from no point of view are thewestern towers satisfactory. But the minster produces its great effectby its enormous bulk and dignity, its vast length, the variety and yetunity of its outlines, the severity and restraint of its form. 

[Illustration: Seal of St Mary's Abbey. ]

CHAPTER IV

THE INTERIOR

#The Nave. #--The most casual observer will have noticed that churches ofthe Gothic style are divided vertically into bays, and that incathedrals and large churches these bays are usually further dividedhorizontally into three compartments, the lowest consisting of the mainarch and piers, the highest of a window or windows, known as theclerestory, and the middle, called the triforium, consisting usually ofan arcade, sometimes blind, sometimes pierced, and occasionally evenglazed. This triforium fills up the space between the top of the mainarches and the bottom of the clerestory window which is covered on theoutside by the roof of the aisle. As a distinct division orarchitectural feature, the triforium arcade is not a necessary part ofthe structure. In smaller churches it seldom exists. But in mostcathedrals, as at York, a passage runs behind it, and is generally litby the holes in the arcading. As has been stated, however, the arcadingis often blank, and in such cases there might be nothing but a barespace 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 twodivisions, the main lines of which are formed by structural necessities;and yet the success or failure of an interior often depend upon thearrangement and proportion of the triforium; and the arrangement of thetriforium, its emphasis or subordination, was one of the chief problemswith which the builders of Gothic churches had to deal. Since such achurch is generally divided into three storeys, the main lines of theinterior would naturally be expected to be horizontal, and in manyinteriors of the Norman and Early English periods they are so, as, forinstance, in the nave of Wells Cathedral. But the stone vault, whichplayed so important a part in the development of Gothic style naturallyemphasised, with its ribs converging at regular intervals, the verticaldivision into bays as opposed to the horizontal division into storeys. The supports of the outside wall were gradually concentrated by the useof pinnacles and flying buttresses placed between the windows; thewindows themselves grew in size with the introduction and development oftracery and the increasing taste for the decoration of stained glass;until the final organism of Gothic architecture was attained, and thetypical Gothic Church, from being a building of three storeys, piercedby windows, became a structure made up of vertical supports, with theintervening spaces filled with glass. When this phase of development wasreached, the building became as organic in all its parts as the humanbody. Structure was ornament, and ornament structure, and the two werefused as they have never been in any other style of architecture. Decoration and variety of outline were supplied by the mere dispositionof the supporting masses, the arrangement of structural lines; to theexterior, by the flying buttresses, the pinnacles, and the windowtracery; to the interior, by the banded shafts, the capitals, thegroined ribs of the vaults, and the openings of the triforium. Outsidethe church became a framework of glorified stone scaffolding; inside, anavenue of columns rising from the ground to the vaults, withintermediate spaces of tracery and coloured glass. But before this stagewas reached there were many compromises and passing phases, and everyconsiderable church in England, until the end of the fourteenth century, may be classified and criticised, not only for its beauty, but as a linkin the development of Gothic architecture. The builders were grapplingwith both tendencies, the vertical and the horizontal; they were notconsciously working on a theory of complete vertical development; theymade progress by structural experiment, and a sensitive eye forpossibilities of beauty; and in the meantime their problem, bothstructural and artistic, was to make a happy compromise between verticaland horizontal lines. It was a problem which probably presented itselfto them in the question how they were to treat the different storeys ofthe building. Structural difficulties would be continually at war withtheir aesthetic ambitions, and the heavy stone vault made structuraldifficulties a serious matter. There was a growing desire for space, forheight and width, for light and colour. With every increase of heightand width the burden of the vault became more oppressive; with everyenlargement of windows its supports were weakened. As a rule, theEnglish builders were far less ambitious in their treatment of theseproblems than the French. Amiens Cathedral, begun at the beginning ofthe 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 structuralpossibilities, and their type became fixed. The English, with lesseconomy of support, and a lower organisation of structure, were betterable to play with their forms. So their churches present a series ofcontinual and often inconsequent experiments in the treatment andproportion of every storey, particularly of the triforium, and incompromise between vertical and horizontal tendencies. Thus at Beverley, Salisbury, and particularly in the nave of Wells, the horizontaltendency is predominant, and the triforium is both important andcontinuous, without regard for the vertical division of the bays. In theEarly English transept of the minster itself the triforium is the mostprominent feature of the design. These are all examples of Early Englishwork, but in the nave of Lichfield, which is Decorated, the triforium isstill far more prominent than the clerestory. In the same way a variousand experimental use may be noticed of the shafts dropping from thepoint at which the ribs converge. At Wells and Salisbury these shaftsreach only to the top of the triforium. They are so insignificant ashardly even to suggest a vertical division. At Beverley they cease alittle way above the capitals of the main piers, and are still veryslender. At Exeter they are much more prominent, and terminate in richcorbels reaching to the capitals of the main piers; while in the laternaves of Canterbury and Winchester, not only do they reach to theground, but they are forced so far forward, and rendered so prominent bycontinuous mouldings on each side of them, that they become the mostsignificant part of the whole structure. They seem to be the columns onwhich the vault is supported; and we have at last the avenue of stone. 

[Illustration: The Nave. ]

The nave of York Minster was built at an intermediate stage, in whichneither the vertical nor the horizontal tendency predominated. We mighthave expected, therefore, a design something like that in the naves ofExeter or Worcester; but the York builders were ambitious. They weredetermined to build a nave both lofty and wide, and with a great spacefor the display of stained glass. It seems likely, though we have noevidence to support the theory, that they were influenced by Frenchexample. There can be no doubt, as Professor Freeman has pointed out, that the design is more French than that of any other large Englishchurch, hitherto built, except Westminster Abbey. The most casualobserver will be struck at once by the large space occupied by theglass. The clerestory is unusually large; the main arches unusuallyhigh, and thus far the greater part of each bay is filled with theclerestory and the aisle windows. With so much space given to thehighest and lowest storeys, it naturally follows that the triforium isalmost squeezed out of existence. Indeed, out of a total height of 99feet, there are only about 13 between the top of the main arches and thebottom of the clerestory. It would have been almost impossible to giveso narrow a triforium a separate and independent design; and, therefore, by a device often found in French cathedrals, the triforium is merely acontinuation of the mullions of the clerestory windows. Behind thesemullions is the customary triforium passage; but the design reallyconsists only of two parts, the clerestory and the main arches. It is asif the lower part of the light of the clerestory windows were dividedfrom the rest by a transom, and pierced, but not glazed, so as to let inlight to the passage behind them. This is the first example of thistreatment, which was so happily followed in the naves of Winchester andCanterbury, in an English cathedral. In earlier examples, even where thetriforium was decisively divided into bays and had ceased to be acontinuous arcading, it was absolutely independent of the clerestory, asin the transepts of the minster. There can be no doubt that the planadopted in the nave was a convenient and logical one. It is impossibleto have every advantage; and where the designer has set his heart on awall of glass, he cannot combine it with a rich and prominent triforium. Unfortunately, the architect of the nave, though ambitious and logicalup to a certain point, did not carry his pursuit of the verticaltendency far enough. He aimed at unity and coherence in the design ofeach bay, and for the sake of that unity and coherence he was forced tosacrifice the richness and fulness of pattern given by a prominent andindependent triforium. The later builders at Winchester and Canterburymade up for this, as has been said, by the emphasis they gave to theirvertical lines. But at York, while the insignificance of the triforiumdeprives the design of all horizontal continuity, there is littleattempt at vertical emphasis. True, large shafts rise from the floor tothe converging point of the ribs of the vault; but these shafts are notforced forwards as at Winchester, but lie flat against the wall. Theyare prominent enough when each individual bay is examined, but they donot catch the eye when the nave is looked at as a whole. In the naves ofSalisbury or Beverley the eye is led on from west to east by thecircling band of the rich triforium; in the naves of Winchester andCanterbury it is attracted from floor to roof by the upspringingclusters of shafts; at York it wanders from point to point without anyprominent feature to catch it. The blank space in each bay between thewindows of the clerestory and the vaulting shafts ought to be a welcomecontrast to the curves of tracery, the clusters of pillars and mouldingsin a strong and forcible design. At York it appears to be simply a pieceof wall which requires decoration. 

Everywhere there is a lack of emphasis, not only in structure but indetail. The windows are not recessed, the capitals are small, themouldings are delicate rather than forcible. The main piers are thin, their shafts are rather monotonously and tamely divided, the mouldingsof the arches are narrow and shallow, the mullions of the clerestory andthe shafts on each side of them are unusually slender; and this ispeculiarly unfortunate in a nave, the width of which is greater bothactually and proportionately, than that of any other English Gothiccathedral. To make a successful design of such proportions, there wasneed of strong vertical lines to give it the appearance of unusualstrength: and not only the appearance but the reality. It is asignificant fact that the builders were afraid to place a stone vault ontheir nave, and thus it is a Gothic building without that feature whichgives its whole significance to the Gothic style, and by reason of whichthe 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 mostattractive features of earlier art in pursuit of a more logical design, and should then have been forced to abandon that very vault which gavetheir design all its logic. It is as if a dramatist strictlysubordinated all his characters before the central figure of the hero, and then discovered that the exigencies of the plot would not allow ofthe 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 thatsomething is wanting; he will see that his feeling is justified, when helearns that it is the first building in England of which the design isentirely dominated by the necessities of a stone vault, and yet that itis crowned by a wooden roof. But it must not be supposed that this naveis altogether to be condemned, as some critics have condemned it. Eachbay, looked at by itself, is not only perfectly logical and coherent indesign, but is filled with delicate and appropriate detail. Thecapitals, if small, are finely carved; the mouldings well contrasted andsubordinated; and the window tracery is the finest possible. It is awork of the best age of architecture with all the characteristics indetail of that age; yet it is not the work of a builder of genius, butof a careful scholar, who has imperfectly assimilated the principles ofhis masters. 

In passing this judgment, it must be remembered that we are not rashlycoming to a conclusion on insufficient data. This nave is not a merebeautiful scaffolding deprived of all its original decoration, like thenave of Salisbury. If that is somewhat cold and wanting in richness, itis 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 hasbeen renewed, it is true, but it can never have been satisfactory; andwe may assume that in essentials we see the nave now as its designersintended 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, nodoubt with the purpose of giving increased support to the tower. It isabout 263 feet long inside, and 48 feet wide, with the aisle 104 feetwide in all. Its height is about 99½ feet. Each bay is divided intotwo main divisions of almost equal height; the upper half, consisting ofthe triforium and clerestory, being only about 2 feet longer than thelower, which consists of the main arches. These two halves are dividedby a slender horizontal moulding running immediately above the crown ofthe main arches. 

The piers of the main arches are octagonal in shape and unusuallyslender. They are made up of shafts of different sizes, the larger onesplaced at the corners of the octagon, the smaller ones between them. Thegrouping of these shafts should be compared with that of the EarlyEnglish piers in the transepts. There the central mass of masonry issurrounded with shafts of Purbeck marble almost detached. Here thedifferent shafts are closely connected together and subordinated. Theearlier pier is made up, so to speak, of a bundle of shafts; the lateris a mass of masonry cut into different shapes. There can be no doubtthat in this case the treatment of the earlier pier, if less logical, ismore successful. The piers of the nave have capitals of beautifuldesign, and well executed, but rather small and shallow. The moulding ofthe arches is narrow, almost as narrow and small in detail asPerpendicular work, but, of course, much more diversified in outline. Oneach side of the main arches--that is to say, in their spandrels--is aseries of shields with coats of arms, said to be those of benefactors ofthe minster. "Murray's Hand-book" gives the arms on the shields asfollow, beginning at the north-east end of the nave:--

 1. Semé of fleur-de-lis--Old France. 2. Six lions rampant--Ulphus. 3. On a chevron, three lions passant guardant--Cobham. 4. Barry of ten, an orle of martlets--Valence. 5. A bend, cottised, between six lions rampant--Bohun. 6. A fess, between six cross crosslets--Beauchamp. 7. Quarterly, in the first quarter a mullet--Vere. 8. A cross moliné--Paganel. 9. Barry of ten, three chaplets--Greystock. 10. Billetté, a lion rampant--Bulmer. 11, 12, 13 and 14. Three water bougets--Roos. 15, 16. Five fusils in fess--Old Percy. 

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

 17, 18. Five fusils in fess--Old Percy. 19. Lion rampant--Mowbray. 20. Lion rampant--Percy. 21, 22. Blank shields. 23. Two bars, in chief, three roundels--Wake. 24. A fess, in chief, three roundels--Colville. 25. On a bend, three cross crosslets--Manley. 26, 27. A bend--Manley. 28. A fess dancette--Vavasour. 29. Three chevronelles--Clare. 30. A cross moliné--Paganel. 31. Three lions passant guardant, with a label of three points--Edward, Prince of Wales. 32. Three lions passant guardant--England. 

At the centre of each pier rise three shafts to the point at which theribs of the vaulting spring: a large shaft in the middle, with a smallerone on each side of it. There are small carved figures at the point atwhich the smaller of these shafts touch the moulding of the arches. Thecapitals of these shafts, though small, are of a very delicate design. Afew inches above the top of the main arch is a horizontal string courseor moulding dividing each bay into two storeys. As has been said, thetriforium is merely a prolongation of the lights of the clerestorywindow. These lights are five in number. The division between clerestoryand triforium is marked by a band of stone ornamented with quatrefoils. Below this is a cusped arch in each light of the triforium with acrocketed gable ending in a finial above it. The centre lights of thetriforium in each bay originally contained figures, said to have beenthe patron saints of European nations. Of these there only remains afigure in the fourth bay from the west on the south side. Near thetriforium in the opposite bay to this there projects the head of adragon carved in wood, from which the covering of the font used to hang. The clerestory windows are of uniform pattern of the style known asgeometrical Decorated. This pattern is very fine in design. It consistsof 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 onthe top of the arch of the central light is a circle fitting into thearch of the window, and ornamented with four quatrefoils, four trefoilpiercings, and other smaller lights. There are capitals to the outsideshafts of the windows, and to the main shafts of the two inner mullions. All these mullions are very delicately moulded. A separate account willbe given of the glass in these windows and those of the aisles, togetherwith the rest of the glass in the minster. There is a curious mouldingrunning round the arches of the windows and springing from the capitalsof the vaulting shafts, which bends towards those arches to a point alittle way above the capitals from which they spring, and then runsparallel and close to their mouldings. The vault is of wood covered withplaster. The ribs are elaborate in design, but not very successful. Thefact that the vaulting is not of stone deprives the mouldings and bossesof all sharpness and delicacy. From the capital of the vaulting shaftsand for about 9½ feet above them these ribs are of stone: thedivision between wood and stone is marked by a curious and heavymoulding. The aisles of the nave are bolder in design and altogethermore satisfactory than the nave itself. Like the nave they are unusuallywide and lofty. In the two farthest bays to the west, above which arethe western towers, the rough wooden roof, which has never been coveredwith a vault, may be seen. These bays are separated from the bays nextto them by strong arches with thick shafts and mouldings, which werebuilt for the support of the towers. The shafts supporting this arch onthe outer side are five in number. The shafts corresponding to them inthe other bays of the aisle, to which the ribs of the aisle vaultsconverge, are only three. All these shafts have finely-carved capitalsof leafage. The vault of the aisles is of stone, with only structuralribs, finely moulded and with carved bosses. The aisle windows are, likethose of the clerestory, of the geometrical Decorated style, but of anearlier 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. Themouldings of their arches are broad and bold, and are supported by fiveshafts with capitals. Above the three lights of the windows are threequatrefoils, pyramidally arranged. On each side of these windows, in thespace between the windows and the vaulting shafts, is plain stonepanelling terminating in an arch with a crocketed gable above it, endingin a finial which reaches to about the level of the spring of the windowarch. On each side of this gable are grotesque carved figures. A smallpinnacle is rather strangely inserted on each side of the arch at thepoint at which it springs. Below the windows there is a rich arcade, with buttresses between the divisions ending in pinnacles. Each divisionis filled with a geometrical pattern of two panels, each panel ending ina trefoil, with a circular trefoil in the head of each division, and acrocketed gable, terminating in a rich finial above it. All themouldings of this arcade are very delicate. In the north aisle, and inthe second bay from the west, is a doorway, which opened to a Chapel ofthe Holy Sepulchre, now altogether destroyed. Above this doorway is agable ornamented with foliage and a statue of the Virgin, which has lostits head, with statues of angels on either side of her, also muchmutilated. 

[Illustration: The Nave--South Aisle. ]

#The Interior Of The West End Of The Nave# contains the famous windowwith tracery of the curvilinear or flowing Decorated style, and of adesign only surpassed by the east window of Carlisle Cathedral. Theglass in this window was given by Archbishop Melton, and is almost thefinest in the cathedral. The tracery has been entirely and verycarefully restored. The window contains eight lights. These lights arecoupled 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 otherarches. The flowing curves of these ogee arches are most ingeniously andbeautifully worked into the pattern of the upper part of the window, which contains five main divisions of stonework, each like the skeletonof a leaf in shape and in the delicacy of its pattern. Of these fivedivisions the top one is made by splitting up the central mullion; twodiverge from it at the top of the lower lights; and two others curveinwards from the outside arch. The central mullion runs up almost to thetop of the arch. The mullions are alike in moulding and size. Below thewindow is the west door, the head of which is filled with ancientstained glass. There is a gable above it, running up to the bottom ofthe window and containing three niches. There are kneeling figures oneach side of the gable, so that the top of it may have held a figure ofChrist. All that portion of the west end not occupied by the window andthe porch is filled with storeys of niches and arcading. The loweststorey consists of a rich arcading, each division of which is ornamentedwith geometrical tracery closely resembling that of the arcading of theaisles. These divisions are marked by pinnacles. Above this is anotherrow of arcading of much the same character, except that it is about halfas high again as the lower storey. Each division of this arcadingcontains two niches for statues, and above the niches are gables. Abovethe gables the divisions are filled with tracery closely resembling thatof the lower arcade. This second arcade reaches to the bottom of thegreat window, which is marked by a string course running across thewhole part. On each side of the gable of the porch is an extra nicherather clumsily fitted in. Above the string course the arcading is notso rich as below. The third storey consists of long niches ornamentedmerely with arches, gables, and pinnacles between each niche. The fourthis of much the same character, but that the divisions are shorter andhave no gable above them. The last storey consists of plain panellingornamented at intervals by gables. The west windows of the aisle areshorter than the other aisle windows, but have tracery of the samecharacter. The aisle doorways are plain, but over both are somesculptured figures. Those over the north door appear to represent ahunt. In the middle a woman is setting a dog on to two beasts, andbehind them there is a man blowing a horn. At the sides are twoquatrefoils, set in which are figures (1) of a man attacking another mandrinking, and (2) one man driving another away. The sculpture over thesouth door was destroyed in the fire of 1840, but a careful restorationof it has been made. It consists of a man in the middle fighting with adragon, 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 manand woman fighting. The ends of the aisles are also ornamented witharcading in three storeys, the lowest of which is like the lowest storeyof the arcading at the west end of the nave; the second a smaller seriesof niches ornamented with gables and pinnacles; and the third a singlearcade on each side of the window, filled with geometrical tracery andresembling those on the sides of the other aisle windows. 

It cannot be said that this mass of niches and arcading at the west endis either ingenious or successful. Arcading is a very beautifuldecoration 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 anirregularly-shaped mass of wall which there is no need to decorate, itlooks incoherent and confused. Had the wall been left bare it would haveafforded an excellent contrast to the elaborate pattern of the centralwindow. As it is, this decoration seems to be conceived in a spirit, ofwhich there are further evidences in the decoration of the west front ofthe east end--the spirit of a builder determined to display themagnificence of his resources even at the expense of symmetry andrefinement. This is a weakness that might be expected in the designer ofa 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 themonuments of the church. 

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

#The Transepts. #--The minster is generally entered by the door at thesouth end of the south transept, and this is perhaps an advantage, as itintroduces the visitor at once to the finest view of the interior andone of the finest architectural views in the world. 

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

The climax of a domical church is obviously the dome. That is the centreand dominating feature of the whole design, and all the lines of thebuilding should lead up to it. But in a Gothic interior the climax is atthe east end. In the Middle Ages the high altar, blazing with jewels, plate, and costly embroidery, naturally drew all eyes to it. From thewest end, therefore, the altar as a point of attraction was without arival. But, as the visitor drew near to the transepts, the lantern, ifit existed, suddenly discovered itself and distracted his attention fromthe altar. And when seen directly from below it had not the overpoweringimpressiveness of the dome. It was apt to be too narrow and dimly lit, too much disconnected from the system of the whole building to producean overpowering and harmonious effect. But at York, when the minster isentered by the south transept, the east end is not seen at all, and thelantern, with all its height and vastness, is seen at once. Even asviewed from the west end, the choir is shut off from the rest of thechurch by a heavy screen, and the view eastward is broken andineffective. But those very qualities of the interior which lessen thebeauties of the nave increase the grandeur of the transept view. Thegreat width of the church has enabled the lantern to be so large asalmost to give it the effect of a dome. And the opening of the lanternis so lofty, 180 feet indeed from the floor to the vault, as to lessenthe appearance of emptiness that might otherwise result from the greatwidth of the transepts. The dimensions of this part of the church areall enormous, and only comparable to those of the dome and transepts ofSt. Paul's. The length of the transepts, each of them four bays long, is223 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 Englishcathedral, and they have many other unusual features. Taken inconjunction with the lantern, they produce an effect to be found in noother Gothic church in the world. In England there are none so wide andso lofty. In France there are interiors even loftier, but in France thetransepts are seldom a prominent feature of the design. Often they donot project beyond the outer wall of the aisles of the nave, and oftenerstill there is no central tower large enough to allow of a lantern atall. It is a great piece of good fortune, also, that the five vastlancets of the north transept end, known as the five sisters, still keeptheir beautiful original glass. If we look at these windows and considerhow utterly ineffective they would be if they were glazed with plainglass, we can understand how little remains of the original beauty ofthe interior of Salisbury. 

When these transepts were planned, the minster had a Norman nave andchoir, far narrower and smaller in every way than the present nave andchoir. There is no doubt that the transepts were begun with theintention of rebuilding the whole church. At that time it was not amongthe largest of English cathedrals, and the aspiring and ambitiousarchbishops naturally desired to have a cathedral worthy of theirposition in the church. They therefore planned their transepts withoutany regard for the then existing proportions of the rest of thebuilding, 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 andsmaller nave and choir, and afterwards to fit their new and larger naveand choir to these transepts. This necessity accounts for and explainsmany of the peculiarities of the transepts. 

There is one peculiarity in particular, the arrangement of the baysnearest to the piers supporting the lantern, which must strike everyobservant visitor at once, and the explanation of which was onlydiscovered by the patient and penetrating investigations of ProfessorWillis. 

For the purpose of explaining this peculiarity of arrangement, the twobays of the west side of the south transept nearest the south-west piersupporting the lantern may be taken as an example. 

It will be seen that their arrangement is most irregular--in fact, theycan hardly be called bays at all. For instance, the main arch nearest tothe pier is much wider than the main arch next to it, and this latter isfilled with masonry. It will be noticed, also, that the pier between thetwo arches is Decorated in style, and not Early English, like the restof the transept. Further, the triforium and clerestory do not accord intheir division with the main arches. There is no triforium, but merely ablank space of wall with a small ornamental opening, next to the pier ofthe lantern; and this blank wall only covers a small part of the spaceover the arch below it. Near to the centre of that arch is a vaultingshaft, and south of it a full-sized division of the triforium, with afull-sized division of the clerestory above it, and the division fillsthe space above both the remaining half of the first arch and the wholeof the smaller second arch. It is as if the _strata_ of the building hadbeen broken by a violent change, and this is exactly what happened. Ashas been said, the old Norman nave and choir had much narrower aislesthan the present nave and choir; consequently, the bays of the transeptnearest 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 thearches of the Norman aisles which at that point joined on to them. Butwhen the far wider aisles of the present nave and choir were built thesenarrower arches did not fit them, and their outside piers blocked up thecentre of the new aisles. The builders of the nave therefore determinedto remove these piers and to alter the whole scheme of the arches, so asto make them fit the new aisles. By an extraordinary and daring feat ofengineering skill, they were able to do so without disturbing thetriforium and clerestory above them. This was effected in the followingmanner:--The pier in the middle of the new aisle was removed, togetherwith the whole of the narrow arch which it supported on the one side andthe wider arch which it supported on the other. No doubt, in themeantime the upper storeys of the two bays were kept from falling bytemporary props. A pier in the Decorated style was then placed so thatthe arch above it fitted the arch of the new aisles, and the twoarches--the narrower one nearest the pier of the lantern, and the widerone beyond it--were made to change places bodily, so that the same spacewas occupied by the two together as before, and it did not becomenecessary to disturb the rest of the piers. This narrower arch was thenwalled up to give support to the lantern. Meanwhile, of course, withthis new arrangement, the upper storeys of the bays did not correspondwith the arches below them. The narrower upper division was now over thewider lower arch, and _vice versa_. It should be said that the triforiumof the division next to the piers of the lantern was built blank, because, being so much narrower than the other bays, it would have beenimpossible to give it decoration of the same character, and also becausea solid space of blank wall would give better support to the tower. Anaccount has been given in the history of the building of the minster andthe manner in which the piers of the lantern gradually received theircasings. The daring shown in this alteration of the transepts and thedisregard for continuity of design are very characteristic of thebuilders of the period. They lavished extraordinary labour on beautifuldetail, but they cared very little how one part of that detail fitted inwith another. The spirit of their art was entirely opposed to that ofthe renaissance architects, for the success of whose designs uniformityand continuity of plan and detail were absolutely necessary. It iscurious, also, that these very builders who were so daring and soprofuse of ornament, were often very careless in matters of structure, and at times were even guilty of something very like jerry-building, asthe account of the restoration of the south transept will show. Thevaulting of the transepts is also most unusual and well worthy ofattention. It raises many problems which have been little noticed bymost investigators of the history of the minster. 

Like the vault of the nave, it is of wood, and dates probably from thebeginning of the fifteenth century. In the north transept it is coveredwith plaster; in the south this has been removed by Mr Street, and oakpanelling inserted. It has been stated that the vault of the nave andchoir, though wooden, resembles a stone vault in form and structure. Notso that of the transepts, which is a curious compromise between the formof the ordinary vault of stone and the simple barrel roof. It is anattempt, in fact, to combine the advantages of both. 

It is the merit of groined vaulting that it emphasises the division intobays, and is capable of great richness of structural decoration. On theother hand, it involves a great loss of height, for the ridge of thevault can be little higher than the top of the clerestory windows, andit cuts off the whole space covered by the roof above it from thebuilding which it covers. The structure of the vault will be perhapsmost easily understood if it is conceived as a flat roof of stone of thesame height as the top of the clerestory, supported by fan-shapedbrackets springing from a point between the clerestory windows, andrising and spreading out until they reach the central ridge of thevault. 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 theroof above it. This sacrifice of space is obviated by the barrel roof, which nearly approaches to the shape of the outside roof, and fits intoit without the loss of space entailed by the vault. But the barrel roofdoes not readily submit to a structural division into bays, or astructural decoration by means of ribs and bosses such as ornament andemphasise the divisions of the intersecting vault. 

Wishing, as has been said, to combine the advantages of both forms, thedesigners 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 convergebetween the bays of the building and meet at a point on a level with thebottom of the clerestory. The roof, therefore, has at first sight theappearance of a vault, but it remains a barrel roof divided by ribs allthe same; and this will be evident so soon as it is remarked that thetop of the roof is not on a level with the top of the clerestory, butsome way above it. It is, therefore, not to be conceived as a flat roofsupported by brackets, but as an almost circular roof ornamented anddivided by structurally unnecessary ribs. Indeed, it would be altogetherimpossible to combine a vault with such a clerestory as is found inthese 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 thanan arched clerestory; and the clerestory of these transepts, consistingas it does of a row of five lancet windows, is flat at the top. A barrelroof, 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 withmagnificent effect. It is very rare in England. It is always verydifficult to decorate. The fifteenth century builders having for somereason or other decided on the form, and being but little accustomed toit, determined to treat it like a vault. They covered it with a networkof ribs, and where these ribs met they placed bosses. They also causedthese ribs, as far as possible, to take the same direction that thestructure of a real vault would give to them. No doubt the ribs servesome useful purpose as a support to the roof, especially as that roof isslightly pointed and not circular, like the barrel roof proper; but thewhole effect is unfortunate. The artistic merits of the real vault areevident. It is logical, capable of much structural decoration, and itdetermines 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 explainthe plan of the building below it, but it is easily adaptable, and ithas a simplicity and a marked grandeur of its own. The roof at York hasnone of this simplicity. To the most casual visitor it is puzzling andcomplicated. To the eye which looks farther, which seeks for the logicof its construction, it is still more puzzling. It may deceive thecareless observer with the idea that it is a vault, but it will notconvince him that it is a good one. It is a work of great ingenuity, butnot of great art. It is impossible to say what was there before it. Ifwe knew, we might be able to understand why the builders of thefifteenth century hit upon such a form; and it may be that they wereforced by structural necessities to do so. Some space may perhaps beallowed to a conjecture on the subject. It will be remembered that whenthe present transept was built no part of the present nave or choir wasexisting; 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 casingof those piers, all date from a period later than the transepts. TheNorman 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 mustalso have been far higher than the roof of the then existing nave; and, consequently, of the four arches supporting the central tower, those tothe north and south must have been very much higher than those to theeast and west. If the transepts had had a vault originally, thisarrangement would have been plainly impossible, as a vault would havecovered up a great part of the east and west arches. But, though theshape of the clerestory makes it plain that a vault was never evenintended, it seems very unlikely that the north and south arches wereoriginally loftier than those east and west. If we suppose that theywere all originally designed and built of the same height, we shall finda 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, thenatural 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 farloftier nave was built, it, of course, became necessary to heighten thewestern of the four arches supporting the tower, and afterwards to gothrough the same process with regard to the eastern arch. At such atime, when the choir was completed, the two arches east and west wouldbe much loftier than the two north and south. Before rebuilding thetower it would naturally occur to the builders to raise the north andsouth arches to a level with the others, and to do this it would benecessary to raise the roof. In such a case it would be quite naturalfor the builders to hit upon such a roof as at present exists. Theywould have before them already the example of a wooden vault in thenave, and for the sake of uniformity they would be inclined to maketheir new roof as much like that vault as possible. Having the size andheight of their arch settled before they designed their roof, the roofwould of necessity be shaped to fit the arch, and this would be the mostconvenient roof for the purpose under the circumstances. This theorywill explain why a new roof was required in the fifteenth century, andit also helps to explain other difficulties. For example, it is hard tounderstand why the transepts, being so wide, are not loftier, and whytheir original design made a vault impossible. But if we remember thatthey were originally additions to a much lower nave and choir, we shallsee 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 madethem of the same height, and vaulted them, they would be far too widefor their height. He therefore determined, we will suppose, to make awooden roof which would sacrifice as little of the height of histransepts as possible, and yet allow them to fit on to his nave withoutany appearance of incongruity. 

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

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

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

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

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

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

The chief drawback to the design lies in the exceeding prominence of thetriforium, owing to which the eye is drawn to the middle storey, ratherthan led up from the floor to the roof. And as this middle storeyconsists of a single bold arch in each bay, it has not the merit ofhorizontal 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, thetransept should be examined bay by bay if the beauties of plan and ofdetail are to be appreciated, and these beauties, at least those ofdetail, are abundant. 

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

The differences between the east and west sides of the south transeptare as follow:--

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

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

The arcade in the eastern aisle is shorter than in the western, and doesnot reach to the ground. 

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

Their capitals are richer, and, curiously enough, apparently later indetail. 

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

In the north transept the moulding between the clerestory and triforiumis 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 thesouth transepts. 

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

As has been said, the proportions of the bays in the transepts are verydifferent to those of the nave. The triforium is much larger, and theclerestory much smaller. The main arches, slightly smaller in proportionthan those of the nave, are extraordinarily rich and beautiful indetail. Their mouldings are very complex and deep, and are varied withdog-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. Thoseof Purbeck are ringed half-way up. The Decorated piers are altogether ofstone, and not ringed at all. The arrangement of the shafts is not quiteso bold and various as in some other Early English work--the choirs ofEly and Worcester, for example. 

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

[Illustration: South Transept, Triforium, and Clerestory. ]

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

They support three shafts each, one large and two very slender, as inthe 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, areconsiderably out of plumb, owing to the great weight of the lantern, andperhaps to the inferior material used in the transepts. 

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

In the heads of the smaller arches are quatrefoil openings decorated inthe same way. The mouldings of the large arches are very bold, andornamented with dog-tooth; those of the lesser arches are less bold andplainer. 

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

The clerestory consists of an arcade of five divisions, the three middlebeing windows, the outer ones blind. The clusters of shafts dividingthem are very rich and thick. 

The mouldings of the arches are broad and deep, the dog-tooth ornamentbeing profusely used. Above the arches is a cornice decorated withfoliage. 

The vaulting shafts terminate in the wooden ribs of the roof, withoutthe 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 workin the whole of the minster is to be found in these aisles. Below theaisle windows runs an arcade with trefoiled arches, which is very plainand 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 theaccount of the interior. That arrangement is not particularly happy onthe outside. It is even less so when seen from within. This is partlythe result of the stained glass of different periods now in the windows, and partly of the scattered and confused spacing of the windowsthemselves. Inside, as well as outside, the great rose window appearsmuch too large for its position, and the vaulting, raised to allow thewhole of it to be seen, fits awkwardly round it. 

The north end of the transept, however, is one of the most triumphantsuccesses in the whole minster. Its plan is magnificently simple. It isalmost 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 withthem, 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 ofgigantic and aspiring simplicity and vigour both inside and outside. They fill a given space in so obvious and efficient a manner, that itmight seem that no other way of filling it could have occurred to thearchitect: 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 ofluck however that they still retain their ancient glass--Early Englishglass of the simplest design, and of a beautiful silvery greyish greentint. 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 oneach side. A single shaft runs between each window. 

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

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

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

#The Chapter-House# and #Vestibule. #--The vestibule leading to thechapter-house is entered at the north-east end of the north transept bya doorway of very curious design. It consists of two arched openingsseparated by a pier. Above the two arches is an acutely-pointed gable, within which, supported by the arches, is a circle with cinquefoiltracery. Above the gable is a further arch, the ribs of which join thegable at its exterior angles. This arch is further connected with thegable by a rib running horizontally through the crown of the gable, andbelow 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 thetop 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 certainblank space of wall at any cost. It is certainly an original effort, butit cannot be called either beautiful or logical. 

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

The vestibule is a lofty and narrow passage running three bays northfrom the end of the transept, and then turning at right angles andrunning two bays east until it reaches the chapter-house itself. Justinside the vestibule will be seen the point at which the Early Englishwork of the transept is interrupted by the Decorated work of thevestibule. There is no attempt at continuity. The Early English arcadingbreaks off just below the first Decorated window; the Early Englishshafts above it run close to the Decorated shafts of that window; whilethe Early English vaulting rib is cut off near its crown. It wouldappear from this that a passage to the chapter-house was begun anddiscontinued before the building of the chapter-house itself. Thepresent vestibule was certainly built after the chapter-house, and theexterior parapet mouldings of the chapter-house may be seen within thevestibule, showing that it was almost an afterthought. Over the doorwayleading into the vestibule is a pattern of blind tracery. Here, and onmany portions of the roof and walls of the vestibule, are traces of oldpaintings. The windows are still filled with their magnificent originalglass. The three bays running north are of unequal size, that nearest tothe transept being the smallest, and that farthest away the largest. 

The tracery of the two smaller windows is most curious and unusual. Thesmallest is also of a very odd shape, being almost as narrow as a lancetwindow, with, however, a rather obtuse arch. It is divided into twolights, which rise without further tracery to about three-quarters ofthe height of the whole window. Into the upper part are crowded fivetrefoils of different shapes, and piled one on the top of the other. Themouldings of the shafts have a slenderness and delicacy characteristicof the whole of the choir and the vestibule. The slenderness is one ofthe chief arguments for the later date assigned to them. All the shaftshave rich capitals. The next window is filled with even more curioustracery. It is divided into four lights, rising only to almost half theheight of the whole window. The central mullion is thicker than theother two. Above these lights are two gables, to the crown of which thetwo side mullions run, through an arch below them. Above the gables aretwo more arches with trefoils in their heads, and in the crown of thewindow a circle cinquefoiled. The unusual feature of the design is thegables with the lights running through them. They were probably insertedto strengthen the wall. The next three windows are of splendid design, resembling that of the clerestory of the nave, but richer. All themouldings are of the same character. Under the windows runs an arcade ofblind tracery, two lights to each division, with a cinquefoil ornamentedwith a sculptured boss above. These bosses contain alternately foliageand human heads wreathed in foliage. The capitals are also ornamentedwith 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 redground. The vestibule, as a whole, is one of the most beautiful parts ofthe minster, not less for its fine proportions and detail than for itsmagnificent 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, butplainer in decoration. It consists of a large arch divided into twosmaller arches, each of which contains a door. In the head of the largerarch is a quatrefoil, at the bottom of which are two carved brackets forsculpture. Between the two smaller arches is a niche, with a canopydecorated with a double row of gables and finials. The niche contains astatue of the Virgin Mary and Infant Christ, so mutilated that little oftheir ancient beauty is left. Below this niche are four narrow shaftswith capitals. On each side of the doors is a rich cluster of shafts, boldly cut and varied, with finely-carved capitals. The mouldings of themain arch and of the two subordinate arches are plain, but much thickerand bolder than those of the western doorway. On each side of the mainarch are plain niches with small carved brackets. This doorway on theinner side is divided by a cluster of shafts, and above it is an oblongpiece of masonry ornamented with arcading enclosed in an obtuse arch. Above the outer arches of the arcading, on each side, is a niche withsculpture. 

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

Between the windows are clusters of shafts which support the ribs of thevault. These shafts have fine capitals, and are separated from thewindows 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 bothfor its richness and curiously beautiful design. It consists of a seriesof canopies, six to each bay, under each of which is a seat forming thehalf of an octagon. At each angle of these seats is a shaft of Purbeckmarble. The seats, or niches, are divided from each other also by shaftsof Purbeck marble. The use of Purbeck marble, both here and in thedoorway of the chapter-house, is worthy of note. It is unusual after theEarly English period, and might be advanced as an argument of the earlydate of the chapter-house. In the bay which contains the entrance, thereis a seat on each side of the doorway. The capitals of the Purbeckmarble shafts are carved with unusual richness; but it is the canopieswhich demand most attention. They are flat at the top, and each isdivided into three bays in front, the central bay being divided from theother two by pendants richly carved with foliage of the same characteras the capitals of the shafts. Between the shafts and the pendants aretrefoil arches, one to each bay, and above the arches and pendants aregables crossing each other and ending in finials of carved oak leaves. Where the gables cross each other are carved heads and figures. Thesculpture of the arcade as a whole is the finest in the cathedral, andsome of the finest in England; but the art of the Gothic sculptorreaches its culmination in these heads. In grotesqueness, fertility ofinvention, and perfect fitness as decoration they could hardly besurpassed. The canopies are decorated at the top with a cornice ofcarved grapes and vine leaves. Above them is a passage running round thewhole chapter-house and passing behind the vaulting shafts and throughthe masses of masonry between the windows. The vault is of wood, thoughribbed and painted to give it the appearance of stone. This vault isarranged so that the ribs diverge from the vaulting shafts until theyreach the central octagon of the roof. At this point they converge tothe boss in the middle of the central octagon. This boss is modern. Theroof was restored in 1845. Before this time it was painted with figuresof kings and bishops, and the bosses were covered with silver. Themodern decoration of the roof is dull and trivial in design andoffensive in colour. During the same restoration many of the marbleshafts were replaced and the floor was paved with tiles, with a mostunfortunate effect. The east window has also been filled with very badmodern glass. In fact, restorers have done their worst to thechapter-house; but, luckily, their work is not irreparable. We may hopethat some day the glass, the tiles, and the paint on the roof will allbe removed. This chapter-house marks the farthest point reached in thedevelopment of such buildings. It differs from the chapter-houses atLincoln, Salisbury, Westminster, and Wells in that it has no centralpillar, and this absence of a central pillar is supposed to be itsspecial glory. No doubt the pillar was an inconvenience when the chaptermet, and the architect was given a fine opportunity for the display ofhis mechanical ingenuity when he decided to do without it. But there canbe no doubt that a central pillar or cluster of shafts such as is foundat Wells, would be more beautiful. And as the architect at York wasafraid to vault his chapter-house with stone, his mechanical ingenuitywas not put to so severe a test after all. And yet, though we may regretthe beautiful central pillar as we find it at Wells or Lincoln, thereare other respects in which this chapter-house surpasses all its rivals. In size, in richness of decoration, in boldness of outline, and inaerial lightness it is unequalled. Above all, it still contains sixwindows of magnificent stained glass. Even now it seems to justify itsboastful inscription:

 Ut Rosa flos florum, sic est Domus ista Domorum. 

[Illustration: Chapter-House--Entrance and Sedilia. ]

#The Choir# is separated from the rest of the church by a very elaboraterood screen, which was built _circa_ 1475-1505, and is therefore thelatest part of the original building. It is a fine example of Gothicwork of the latest period, and though, the details are of courseinferior to those of thirteenth century work, and the parts are smalland rather crowded, the whole effect is one of great richness andmagnificence. 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 filledwith statues of the Kings of England from William the Conqueror to HenryVI. The statue of Henry VI. Alone is modern. It has been said that theoriginal statue of this king was regarded with so much reverence as tohave aroused the anger of the iconoclasts of the Reformation. At anyrate, it was destroyed, and an image of James I. Set in its place. Thishas been happily removed in the present century, and a statue of HenryVI. , a fair work, by the hand of Michael Taylor, a local sculptor, hasbeen inserted. The original statues are unusually good for their period, and it has been suggested that the details of their dress show someconsideration for historical correctness. The same consideration was notgiven to the hair, for it has been pointed out that the Normans wereclean-shaven and wore short hair, whereas the statues of the Normankings have beards, moustaches, and long hair. The kings are dressed inrobes of state. The legs of Stephen alone are exposed. The hands of theConqueror are broken off. On the pedestals are the names of the kings, with the length of their reigns. They begin on the north side. Thefigures of angels above the canopies of the niches are made of plasterdesigned by Bernasconi, who also restored other parts of the screen. 

The central archway is unusually rich and delicate for the period inwhich it was built. It is somewhat obtuse in form, and is surmounted byan ogee pediment or outer moulding. On each side are four narrow shaftswith carved capitals, an unusual enrichment in this period. Betweenthose shafts are rosettes and rows of foliage. The bases, both of theshafts, the pedestals, and the buttresses, are very long, as is usual inlate Perpendicular work. The arch itself has four divisions ofornamented mouldings, with plain mouldings between them. The ogeemoulding is richly decorated with foliage, and terminates in a loftyfinial reaching to the top of the screen. Below this finial is an emptyniche with a kind of ball-flower ornament at the base. On each side ofthis niche is an angel with a censer, with rich foliage below. Theinterior of the screen under the central arch is vaulted with carvedbosses. The niches are divided from each other by buttresses decoratedat intervals with pinnacles. The pedestals are long, and richlyornamented with tabernacle work. The greater part of the ornament of thescreen is massed in the canopies. These canopies are made up of threeinner arches, cusped, immediately above the heads of the kings, and fiveouter arches, cusped and gabled, round them. Round these outer arches isa mass of pinnacles, with three larger, richly-ornamented pinnacles, andtwo smaller, above them. Above these are three small figures, apparentlyplaying on musical instruments, with other figures of the same size, oneon each side of the buttresses. These figures, in their turn, have abovethem canopies of much the same character as those below. Above thesecanopies is a row of panelling with the plaster angels of Bernasconiabove it, at the beginning of the cornice. The rest of the cornice ismade up of a row of sculptured ornament and a row of cusped archesterminating in the "Tudor flower" ornament, alternating with rows ofplain moulding. 

[Illustration: The Choir Screen. ]

The chief fault of this screen is its heaviness, which the mass ofornament is not bold enough in its parts to lighten. The centralentrance is not cleverly managed, and seems cut out of the screen, as ifto make a way into the choir at all costs. This screen should becompared to the beautiful rood screen at Exeter, with its three boldarches and its simple yet delicate decoration. After the fire in 1829 itwas proposed to remove it, and one is almost tempted to regret that itwas not removed. The nave at York would be enormously improved by acloser connection with the choir. Under any circumstances the nave mustbe somewhat cold and ineffective; it would be far less so if the eyecould pass with scarcely a break into the sumptuous choir. The naves ofEnglish cathedrals are too apt to look like splendid museums rather thanplaces of worship, and this is peculiarly the case with the nave atYork. Doctor Milner has stated, though apparently without authority, that this screen was taken from the Abbey Church of St. Mary, close tothe cathedral. It is difficult to understand how it could have fitted somuch narrower a building. 

[Illustration: The Choir, looking East. ]

[Illustration: Bay of Choir--Interior. ]

The choir itself, with the retro-choir or Lady Chapel, is divided intonine bays. It is considerably the largest and loftiest in England, beingover 100 feet high and 99 wide. The altar is three bays from the eastend, and one bay west of the altar are the eastern transepts. The choirwas begun at the east end in 1361, and finished in 1405. There aredifferences between the earlier work east and the later work west of thetransepts, which will be pointed out, though the plan of both is thesame. 

The plan, allowing for differences in detail caused by the change ofstyle, is very like that of the nave. It is, therefore, an interestingexample of a Perpendicular building carried out on the lines of anearlier Decorated design. When the east end of the choir was begun(1361) the Gothic style was fast reaching its fullest development inEngland. The nave of Winchester, a contemporary building, is the finestexample of that development. There, as has been pointed out, thevertical division made by the vaulting shafts and the mouldings on eachside of them becomes the most important feature in the design. Thewindow tracery is planned merely as a frame for glass, and not as adesign interesting in itself. Decoration supplied in earlier work bycarved foliage, deep and various mouldings, and elaborate tracery, givesway to a system of lines emphasising construction as completely aspossible. The contrasts between masses of ornament and blank walls, which play so great a part in earlier Gothic, disappear; and the onlycontrast is between the orderly lines of the stone and the kaleidoscopicdecoration of the windows. Architecture loses much of its fancy and itsdelicacy, but becomes more logical, more reasonable, and more organic. 

In the choir of the minster this change is only half carried out. Thereis a much greater emphasis of line than in the nave, and there is lessdelicacy of detail; but the vaulting shafts are no more important, andthe window tracery still plays a considerable part in the design. Hencethe choir lacks that air of decision, that extreme lucidity, to be foundin the design of the nave at Winchester. If it were not for the choirfurniture, the stalls, the throne and pulpit, and the altar, this wantof decision in the design would be much more evident than it is. But thebuilders of this choir are not therefore to be blamed. They designed itas a choir, counting, no doubt, on the effect of the furniture, and as achoir it must be judged. It might have been expected, perhaps, that abuilding designed on the lines of the nave, but without the beauty ofdetail of an earlier age, would show all the faults of that nave and fewof its beauties. But this is not the case. The architects were certainlymost skilful; they had the immense advantage of seeing the design of thenave actually carried out, they understood its faults, and by a fewdexterous alterations they produced a "fair copy" of it, avoiding mostof those faults, and keeping all its structural merits. 

As in the nave, the triforium is merely the continuation of theclerestory, the proportions, of the western bays at least, are almostthe same as those of the nave, and the whole is covered again with awooden vault, plastered and ribbed to look like stone; and yet that airof leanness, flatness, and emptiness, the chief fault of the nave, isalmost entirely avoided. 

A comparison of the differences in the two designs, and a demonstrationof the small means by which the success of the later one is produced, must be both interesting and instructive, but, to be fully carried out, it would require more space than can be given in this book. We mustconfine ourselves, therefore, to pointing out some of the more obviouschanges. 

The most curious and important, perhaps, is to be found in the treatmentof the triforium. In the earlier bays east of the eastern transept thistreatment is the same in essentials as on the nave. That is to say, thetriforium is on the same plane as the clerestory, and the triforiumpassage runs outside the building. But when the choir proper was begun, after an interval of some years, the architects, seeing, no doubt, thatthe older design was flat and somewhat wanting in relief, were seized bya happy idea. They set the clerestory windows some inches back, so thatthey were no longer level with the interior wall and with the triforium, and placed the triforium passage in its customary place. The differencein the design may be easily observed both inside and outside thebuilding. 

By this simple change, a greater relief and depth, a greater contrast oflight and shade, was given to the whole design; and this withoutbreaking its continuity or harmony in any degree. 

The following differences in plan and detail between nave and choir mayalso be remarked:--

Besides the transom dividing clerestory from triforium to be found inthe nave, there is a second transom in the choir crossing the openingsof the triforium. This gives a greater fulness and complexity to thedesign. 

In the eastern bays, below the openings of the triforium, the bases ofthe mullions are elongated to about two feet in length, and between themare cusped arches. These arches and the mullions themselves are set on aslanting ridge, like the mullions of the triforium in the transepts. 

The vaulting shafts also do not terminate altogether at the point atwhich the ribs of the vault converge, but the outer ones rise some tenfeet higher than the central one, until they are cut short by thespreading ribs of the vault. This is a difference characteristic of thePerpendicular style, which tends to an interweaving of lines, and anabolition of capitals, where possible. 

The mouldings of the main arches also are broader than on the nave, andthe clusters of the piers bolder. 

It must also be remembered that, as the floor of the choir risesgradually to the east, the proportions of the eastward bays arematerially altered, and the main arches are smaller relatively to theclerestory than in the nave. There is no doubt that this change is afortunate one. It is also lucky that it occurs in that part of thebuilding which otherwise differs least from the design of the nave. 

Finally, it must be remembered, in accounting for the greatereffectiveness of the later work, that a choir design is made fordifferent conditions, and has different objects in view, from that of anave. 

It has often been remarked that the nave of York, examined bay by bay, is logical and satisfactory enough. It is only when it is regarded as awhole, and judged as an avenue of stone, that its faults are evident. 

But the choir is not to be judged as an avenue of stone at all. 

It is cut in half by the altar. Its lower storey is concealed by thestalls, and its continuity broken by the eastern transepts. 

In the nave, the lowest storey is the weakest. The thin pillars and thebroad arches make too little division between the nave and the aisle. The whole is seen at a glance, and there is little of the mystery andshadow generally to be found in a large Gothic interior. Also the actualdesign of the pillars is poor. They do not fit well on to the archesabove them. They seem almost insecure. 

If these faults exist in the choir, they are concealed by the stalls, and east of the altar by the change in proportions. The choir itself islike an enormous college chapel. The aisles exist, but play no part inthe design, which still culminates in the splendid blaze of glass fromthe eastern transepts and the great east window, and once culminated onthe still more splendid blaze of the altar. 

[Illustration: The Choir, looking West. ]

The retro-choir, far too short and wide to be judged as an avenue ofstone, is still more dependent for its effect on its glass. As most ofthat glass luckily remains, it is a miracle of airy splendour; one maysee from it what were the objects, and how great the success of themuch-maligned Perpendicular architects at their best. 

It is still the custom to regard Perpendicular architects as altogetherinferior to their predecessors; an opinion partly arising, no doubt, from Mr Ruskin's eloquent exposition of the principle that beauty ofdetail is the most vital and important part of architecture; and partlyfrom the general idea that older work is always better than later. ButPerpendicular artists were not altogether retrogressive. In somerespects they adapted their design more completely to their materialthan the older men. Their woodwork, for instance, completely shook offthe forms of stone. Their glass, in spite of all that has been said, isbetter decoration of a given space than the patterns of the Decoratedperiod. This is particularly evident in the nave and choir of theminster, for the original glass remains on many of the windowspractically undisturbed. The earlier glass is more delicate, and purerin colour. Its designs are often more interesting pictorially. Look atthe window simply as an isolated example of stained glass, and you willcertainly prefer the earlier work. Look at it as a patch in a wholesystem of decoration, and you will be inclined to prefer the later. Thewonderful success, as decoration of fragments of ancient stained glasspieced together almost at random, goes to prove, almost as clearly asthe pictorial errors of modern designers, that a stained glass windowshould be conceived, not as a picture, hardly even as a pattern, but asa simple arrangement of broken patches of colour. This is what thedesigners of the windows in the choir have done, for they have seen thatby that means, and not by the representation of architectural forms, they obtain the best contrast with the real architectural forms of thebuilding. At their best, the windows of the choir remind one of patchesof coloured sunlight on running water. It is true that these windows arereally filled with pictures, but these pictures are only an excuse and astimulus for the inventions in pure colour of the designer. Without themhis work might seem merely kaleidoscopic. It is his great merit that hehas never allowed his representation of actual things to interfere withhis decorative purpose. 

[Illustration: Compartment of Ancient Choir Stalls. ]

To sum up, then, this choir has not the delicate and spiritual beauty ofthe choirs of Lincoln or Ely. That is never found even in the finestwork of Perpendicular architects; but for stateliness and magnificenceit has not a rival in England. These qualities may be best appreciatedstanding midway between the two transepts and in front of the altar. From that point glittering screens of glass and soaring shafts of stoneare to be seen on all sides; the whole effect is one of triumphant lightand space and colour, not to be surpassed by the splendours even ofMoorish or Italian architecture. 

To pass to a more detailed description: the original stalls wereirretrievably ruined by the fire of 1829. An illustration of one ofthese stalls from Britton is here given. They appear to have beenmagnificent examples of Perpendicular woodwork, and their destruction isan irreparable loss. There were twenty of them on each side of the choirand twelve at the west end. The modern stalls erected in the thirtiesare a simple imitation, better perhaps than original work of the periodwould have been--better, certainly, than might have been expected--butspirit-less in execution. The modern bishop's throne and pulpit are noteven tolerable. They replaced a throne and pulpit erected in 1740, and, like the stalls, destroyed in the fire. 

[Illustration: Compartment of Altar Screen. ]

The fine Perpendicular altar screen was also destroyed by the fire. Thepresent screen is a careful and very successful reproduction of it. Ithas been glazed with very good effect. 

The reredos, designed by Street, with reliefs by Tinworth, is made ofterra-cotta and wood, and is not successful either in colour or pattern. The carvings represent the first hour of the Crucifixion. 

The clerestory windows are Perpendicular in style, and contain fivelights. Though the design is not beautiful in itself, like that of thegreat east window, it makes an admirable frame for glass. There arecertain differences in detail between the windows of the eastern baysand those of the western. The windows of the eastern bays are almosttransitional. Certainly their Perpendicular character is not fullydeveloped. Thus some of their upper compartments diverge to the left andright, whereas the windows in the choir itself are made up of paralleland vertical divisions. In the eastern windows, also, a transom runsthrough the upper lights of the windows, which is not found at thewestern. The tracery of the eastern window is even more filled withtransitional characteristics. As a pattern of tracery, it is wanting incoherence and subordination, and these faults are painfully evidentoutside. But it is so vast, and filled with such magnificent glass, thatthe tracery seen from the inside seems hardly more important than theleads of the glass, and the whole is to be judged simply as a great wallof glass supported where necessary by stonework made as unobtrusive aspossible. 

There are differences also in the eastern and western windows of theaisles, especially in the interweaving and subordination of the lines ofthe mouldings, but these differences are not so obvious as in theclerestory. 

The change in the placing of the clerestory window and of the triforiumpassage has been pointed out. 

Among other and minor differences the following may be remarked:--In theeastern bays the capitals of shafts in the triforium run round theshafts of the main arch of the window. 

In the western bays the arches between the mullions of the triforium arecinquefoiled (they are trefoiled in the eastern bays), and the bases aremuch shorter. 

All the mullions of the clerestory windows have capitals. The twocentral mullions, as in the nave, are thicker than the rest. They risealso to the head of the arch. The two outer lights are coupled by anarch above them. The upper lights are broken up into a number ofdivisions, vertical and parallel in the choir proper, slightly varied indirection in the retro-choir. The mouldings are as elaborate and ascarefully subordinated as in the earlier work of the nave. 

Below the transom dividing triforium from clerestory is a row ofpanelling divided by the mullions of the triforium, which, as in thenave, are merely a continuation of the mullions of the clerestory. Thearches of the triforium are not ornamented with a gable, as in the nave, but with a moulding decorated with crockets and ending in a rich finial. The capitals of the main vaulting shafts are very curious. They consistof an ordinary row of carved foliage with three pendants ending in smallcarved figures with cinquefoiled arches between them. The outermouldings of the main arches are cut short by the small outer vaultingshafts. A little way below them are small heads, as in the nave. Thecapitals of the main arches are like those of the nave, but theirfoliage is more disconnected. On the north side of the choir are figureson the capitals. Mr Browne, the enthusiastic and laborious historian ofthe minster, has supposed these figures to represent scenes in therebellion in which Scrope took part. If the ordinary date given to thechoir be accepted, it was built before that rebellion. But Mr Browne hasendeavoured to prove that the choir was built later than is usuallysupposed. It is impossible in this book to do more than mention thecontroversy started by him, and to say that, in the opinion of ProfessorWillis and others, he has not made out his case. In the four easternbays brackets and canopies for statues are attached to the vaultingshafts below the capitals of the piers. Those east of the altar werebadly altered and restored after the fire of 1829. It should bementioned two eastern bays are narrower than the rest for the bettersupport of the eastern wall of glass, and the western bays for that ofthe tower. In the spandrels of the main arches are coats of arms, mainlyof benefactors. The following is a list of these, taken from Murray'shandbook to the minster, and beginning at the north-east end of thechoir:--

 1. Two keys in saltire--Chapter of York. 2. Six lions rampant--Ulphus. 3. Three lions passant guardant, a label of three points, each charged with three fleur-de-lis--Thomas, Duke of Lancaster. 4. Three lions passant guardant, a border--Edmund of Woodstock. 5. A bend between six lions rampant--Bohun. 6. Checky, a fess--Clifford. 7. A cross floré--Latimer. 8. Barry of ten, three chaplets--Greystock. 9. The instruments of the Passion. 10. Three estoiles of six points, a border--St. Wilfrid. 11. Two keys in saltire, a border engrailed--St. Peter. 12. Two swords in saltire, a border engrailed--St. Paul. 13. Seven lozenges conjoined, 3, 3, and 1--St. William. (Archbishop and Patron Saint. ) 14. On a bend, a lion rampant--Musters. 15. A chief, three chevronelles interlaced in base--Fitz-Hugh. 16. On a saltire, a crescent--Neville. 17. 18. A fess dancette--Vavasour. 

Those on the south side, beginning at the west end, are as follows:--

 1. A cross--St. George. 2. A cross floré between five martlets--Edward the Confessor. 3. Three crowns, 2 and 1--King Edwin. 4. Barry of six, on a chief, two pallets between as many esquires based--Mortimer. 5. Six lions rampant, 3, 2, 1, with a horn on the west side of the shield (referring to the famous gift of lands)--Ulphus. 6. A lion rampant--Percy. 7. Quarterly, 1 and 4 a lion rampant for Percy, 2 and 3 three luces hauriant for Lucy--Percy. 8. A bend, a label--Scrope of Masham. 9. Six osier wands interlaced in cross--Bishop Skirlaw. 10. A bend, a border charged with mitres; over all a label--Archbishop Scrope. 11. Three water bougets--Roos. 12. A saltire--Neville. 13. On a cross five lions passant guardant--City of York. 14. Three fusils in fess--Montague. 15. A fess between six cross crosslets--Beauchamp. 16. A lion rampant--Percy. 17. France (ancient) and England (quarterly), with a label of three points--Edward, Prince of Wales. 18. France (ancient) and England (quarterly). 

The vault of the choir is of wood, like that of the nave; it is animitation of the vault destroyed by the fire of 1829. It is covered witha network of ribs that obscure the main structural lines of thevaulting. 

The aisles of the choir are of much the same size, design, andproportion as those of the nave. Their vault is of stone. The windowsare filled with tracery of an unusual transitional character, andaltogether more beautiful and interesting than that of the clerestory. They are divided into three lights, each terminating in a very obtusearch. Above these arches are three others, also obtuse and hardlypointed. Short mullions run from the points of the lower arches to thepoints of the upper. Above the upper arches are three irregular-shapedopenings, arranged pyramidally, the two lower being quatrefoiled, theupper sexfoiled. The whole is a curious mixture of vertical and flowinglines. They represent a design, as it were, of which the tracery isarrested half-way in its process of stiffening from the curved lines ofthe Decorated style to the straight of the Perpendicular. Here, as inthe clerestory, the mouldings are delicately varied. The central shaftsalone of the mullions have capitals. On each side of every window arethree shafts, all with capitals. 

[Illustration: The Choir in 1810. ]

Below the windows runs an arcade of very simple panelling, fourdivisions to each window, and two trefoiled arches in each division. There is also panelling of the same character on each side of thevaulting shafts between the windows. The windows of the eastern bays aremore sharply pointed than the others. The vaulting shafts of the aisleshave capitals of carved foliage and wings of leafage on a level with thetop of the arcade below the windows. The windows next to the east endhave only two lights. 

The eastern transepts stand between the four western and the foureastern bays. They mark the position of the eastern transepts and towersin Roger's Norman choir, and are of rather unusual design. They are ofonly one bay in width, and do not extend beyond the aisle walls. Theytherefore represent a bay of the choir, of which the clerestory andtriforium are removed, and the aisle roof is raised to the height of theroof of the choir itself. Both outside and inside their effect ismagnificent. Their north and south walls are filled with enormouswindows, containing splendid glass. Of these windows, that on the northcontains scenes from the life of St. William, and is known as the St. William window; that on the south, scenes from the life of St. Cuthbert, and is known as the St. Cuthbert window. Both have had their mullionsrecently restored. 

These windows are divided into five lights, and are crossed by threetransoms. Below these transoms, in each light, are cinquefoiled arches. The upper lights closely resemble those of the clerestory in design, andare of the same size. The main arch in these transepts remains, and isof the same character as that of the other main arches. Above it in eachcase is a gallery with panelled openings. Above the main arch, on eachside of the transept openings, are thick clusters of shafts. The lowerpart of the windows has double tracery, like the great east window, andthe east windows in the Chapel of Nine Altars at Durham, the innertracery consisting of open lights about a foot off the actual tracery, containing the glass, and of exactly the same design. On each side ofthe windows are five canopies and brackets. The arches east and west ofthe transepts and opening into the aisles are of the same character asthose opening into the choir. Above them are windows of the same sizeand design as those of the clerestory. 

In the spandrels of the arches are coats of arms as follow:--

#North Transept--East Side. # 1. A chief, three chevronelles interlaced in base--Fitz-Hugh. 2. A bend, a label of three points--Scrope of Masham. 

#North Side. # 1. Three escallopes--Dacres. 2. A fess between six cross crosslets--Beauchamp. 

#West Side. # 1. On a saltire, a martlet--Neville. 2. A bend--Scrope of Masham. 

#South Side. # 1. Checky, a fess--Clifford. 2. A cross floré--Latimer. 

#South Transept--East Side. # 1. A lion rampant--Mowbray. 2. A lion rampant--Percy. 

#West Side. # 1. A fess dancette--Vavasour. 2. A blank shield. 

#North Side. # 1. A fess between three cross crosslets--Beauchamp. 2. Three escallopes--Dacres. 

The stone carving of the retro-choir, as the earlier work cast of thetransepts is generally called, was greatly injured by the fire. Afterthe fire five of the canopies on the piers were renewed by the mason ofthe minster, who treated them according to his own sweet will. Thecanopies on the piers next to the altar screen remain untouched. Theeastern bays of the aisles are of the same character as the rest. Theeast end of the choir is chiefly filled by the great east window, whichfits into its position better than the west window of the nave, but notentirely satisfactorily. The mouldings of its arch are decorated withniches containing figures, and following the curve of the arch. Thiscurve does not run parallel to that of the vault, which is less acute. The window itself is set back a little way from the wall, and on eachside of it are mouldings with occasional niches. The outside mouldingsof the window run straight up through the outside mouldings of the arch, and are cut short by the ribs of the vault. This inter-penetration ofmouldings is found also on the aisle side of the main piers of thechoir, and is more characteristic of later German Gothic than ofEnglish. The wall between the outer mouldings of the window and theboundaries of the choir is filled with shallow niches, two rows to eachside and four niches to each row. These perhaps were never meant tocontain figures, and are more like panelling than niches. The upperoutside niches on each side are cut into by the ribs of the vault. Belowthe east window is a row of quatrefoils, and below them nine divisionsof panelling, in unequal portions, and of the same simple character asthat in the aisles. The upper halves of the three central panels arefilled with niches with rich canopies, each canopy being divided intothree parts. The east end below the windows is now chiefly filled withuninteresting monuments of the later archbishops. There is no doubt thatthe aisles of the choir and the whole of the retro-choir could be betterwithout the greater part of the monuments in them. The magnificent tombof Archbishop Bowet is almost the only fine one to be found in theretro-choir. 

[Illustration: The Virgin and Child (a Carving behind the Altar). ]

There has been a considerable controversy about the position of the LadyChapel founded by Archbishop Thoresby. This controversy, in which MrBrowne has endeavoured to prove that Thoresby's Lady Chapel was placedon the north side of the nave, is far too long and intricate a businessto find a place in this book. It is enough to say that the otherauthorities seem unanimously to be of the opinion that the altar of theLady Chapel was under the great east window, where an altar, used forHoly Communion, is now placed. Thither, it is said, Thoresby removed thebodies of certain of his predecessors. And the tombs of six of thesewere existing in the seventeenth century, when drawings were made ofthem by Torre, the antiquary. 

Brasses were placed over the burial-places of these archbishops, andwere mostly destroyed in the Civil War. 

The great east window, like the windows of the transepts, has a doubleplane of tracery reaching to about half the height of the whole. Betweenthe two planes a passage runs at the base of the window, between twodoors which lead to staircases in the turrets on each side of thewindows. These staircases, in their turn, lead to a gallery across thewindow on the top of the inner plane of tracery. The view from thisgallery is very fine. The window itself contains nine lights, and theseare divided by two mullions, thicker than the rest, into sub-divisionsof three lights each, each sub-division terminating in an arch formed bythe curving of the mullions. From the top of each of these arches risesanother mullion, the two outer being soon cut short by the arch of thewindow, the central one curiously splitting into two thick branches toright and left in straight lines until they also are cut short by thewindow arch. The rest of the upper lights are filled with an infinitenumber of small divisions, in which the occasional presence of curvedlines shows the transitional character of the design. The window iscrossed by three transoms, the two lower at equal distances, the upperclose to the one below it. The gallery across the window is formed bythese two upper transoms. The glass in the choir, as in all the rest ofthe church, is described in a separate chapter. 

The entrance to the crypt is from the north aisle of the choir as it wasin ancient days. There are still remains of the original vestibule tothe crypt, and also the bases and one of the jambs of the Norman doorleading to it. 

#The Crypt# itself is very interesting, not only for its own sake, butfor the light it throws on the history of the building of the minster. The fire of 1829 gave Professor Willis and Mr Browne the opportunity tomake elaborate and prolonged investigations, to which we owe much of thelight which has been thrown upon problems connected with the choirs ofThomas and Roger. 

Before this fire, the only crypt whose existence was known of, was asmall chamber under the platform of the high altar, no wider than thecentral aisle of the choir, and only equal to a bay and a half of thataisle in length. The greater part of this crypt was Norman in character. The vault was supported by six Norman pillars, and the ribs of the vaultwere apparently Norman. But the side piers were Perpendicular, and thetransverse arches of the ribs four-centred, as in late Perpendicularwork. There can be little doubt, Professor Willis says, that this cryptwas a mere piece of patchwork put together, when the present choir wasbuilt, out of old materials which came readily to hand, with the objectof giving support to the platform of the altar, and to provide chapelsand altar room beneath it. 

[Illustration: The Crypt. ]

After the fire of 1829, the existence was discovered of a large crypt, stretching westward of the altar platform, and extending under the wholeof the rest of the choir and its aisles. Of this crypt, only the pillarsand the lower part of the walls remained. 

At the west end of this crypt a portion had been enclosed in walls andfilled up with earth. The eastern part was vaulted, and had stout Normanpillars at the side, while in the middle were two rows of smaller singlepillars. The earth has since been removed, and the building laid open, repaired, and vaulted. 

The thicker pillars are of elaborate late Norman work, diapered in amanner recalling the piers of the nave at Durham. The vault was ribbed. These pillars were, no doubt, erected by Roger Pont l'Evêque, and enableus to understand what the character of his choir must have been. 

The walls enclosing the western part of the crypt are of peculiarinterest. They are made up of three partitions. The outer wall, 3 feet 6inches thick, is, no doubt, the work of Roger. The middle wall, 4 feet 8inches thick, is faced with herring-bone work, and this, and thecoarseness of its workmanship, prove it to be of great antiquity. It isalmost undoubtedly Saxon, and has been supposed, though on slenderevidence, to be part of the original church begun by Edwin in theseventh century. A bit of this wall is now bare, and may be seen. 

[Illustration: Capitals in Crypt. ]

The third wall is only 2 feet thick. It probably was also erected byRoger, but it is composed of older materials of an early Normancharacter. It may be from Thomas's choir, if, as is probable, theearlier choir which Roger pulled down had been built by Thomas. Thestone of this wall is of the same coarse sandstone as the remains ofThomas's apse under the north transept, and there are traces of plasteron the stones showing that they had been used for the interior of abuilding. 

No doubt the outer wall was erected by Roger as a support for hismassive piers, for which purpose the middle wall alone would have beeninsufficient. Roger also probably added the thin inner wall, and filledthe whole with earth, for the same purpose. 

Close to the remains of the Norman doorway before mentioned, is a lowarch, and the portion of an apse, no doubt the work of Thomas, the apsebeing the eastern termination of his transept. 

[Illustration: Capitals in Crypt. ]

It was from his examination of the side walls of this crypt thatProfessor Willis was able to support his conjectures as to thedimensions and character of Roger's choir. Thus he traced it to theeastern transept of that choir, in the same place as the present easterntransepts, and deduced from the extra thickness of the wall in that partthat those transepts had been capped by towers. Beyond this the cryptwas filled up with graves, and there is now no access, but during therepairs he was able to trace so much of the walls as to make it plainthat Roger's choir had a square ending, and also to mark the situationof the east end of that choir. 

#The Record Room. #--A chantry founded by Archbishop Zouch, but rebuiltin 1396, during the erection of the present choir, is now utilised asthe record room, and contains the fabric rolls, and other documentsconcerning the building and constitution of the minster. 

The vestry and treasury date from the middle of the fourteenth century;like the record room they lie to the south of the choir. 

In the vestry is the famous horn of Alphus. It was given by Alph, orAlphus, son of Thorald, a little while before the Conquest. Alphus laidit on the altar of the minster, as a sign that he gave certain lands tothe church. The horn is made out of an elephant's tusk. The wide end ofthe horn is ornamented with carvings of griffin dogs, a unicorn, and alion eating a doe. This carving shows a strong Eastern or Byzantineinfluence, and may well have been of Byzantine workmanship. The horn waslost during the Civil War, but found by Lord Fairfax, who gave it backto the minster. The silver gilt chain now attached to it was added in1675. The vestry also contains an oak chest finely carved with the stagof St. George, and dating from the early part of the fifteenth century, and the fine pastoral staff plundered from James Smyth, the Roman Bishopof Callipolis, in the streets of York at the time of the deposition ofJames II. 

Here also is the Mazer Bowl or Indulgence Cup of Archbishop Scrope. Itis of wood, with a silver rim, and three cherubs' heads for feet. Roundthe rim is the following inscription:--

 "Recharde, Arche Beschope Scrope grantis on to alle tho that drinkis of this cope x dayis to pardune, Robart Gubsone, Beschope Musm grantis in same forme aforesaide x dayis to pardune, Robart Strensalle. "

The cup was originally given to the Corpus Christi Guild, and afterwardspassed to the Cordwainers Company. When the latter were dissolved (in1808), the bowl was presented to the minster. 

The vestry also contains three silver chalices and patens taken from thetombs of archbishops; the rings of Archbishops Greenfield, Sewall, andBowet, also taken from their tombs; and an ancient chain, probablydating from the fifteenth century. 

 * * * * *

The minster, for all its size, age, and importance, contains curiouslyfew tombs of interest. Though most of the earlier bishops were buriedwithin its walls, not more than three of their monuments are reallyremarkable. Only one member of the royal family, William of Hatfield, the infant son of Edward III. , lies there, and very few persons ofdistinction. It is not proposed therefore to give a description of anytombs, except such as are notable for beauty or interest. 

#Monuments In The Nave. #--In the north aisle, three bays from the westend, is a monument of late Perpendicular work, said to be the tomb ofArchbishop Roger, who died in 1181. It is possible that his bones weretransferred here from the choir, though there is no record of suchtransference. This tomb was opened and restored in 1862, when some bonesand remains of ecclesiastical vestments were found in it. Therestoration appears to have been arbitrary and inaccurate. 

[Illustration: Effigy of Manley. ]

The tomb is recessed in the wall of the aisle, and consists of a lowerstorey for the coffin with a flat top, with a front of open stone workin eight divisions, each containing a quatrefoil. Above is a very obtusearch with plain mouldings, with a row of "Tudor flower" ornaments on thetop, and a figure of the Virgin in the middle. There are two birdsholding scrolls in their beaks on either side of her. These have beenchanged by the ingenious restorers into eagles bearing ears of wheat. 

All other monuments of importance in the nave were destroyed by thePuritans, or at the Reformation. 

A word must be said, however, as to the tomb and shrine of St. William, the patron saint of the minster. 

William Fitzherbert was a great-grandson of the Conqueror, and anopponent of the monks. He was expelled from his episcopacy in 1147, butreturned to it in 1153. He is stated to have performed a miracleimmediately on his return, and died about immediately afterwards in1154. He is said to have been poisoned, whilst celebrating mass, out ofthe holy chalice itself. It was perhaps the peculiar atrocity of his endwhich gave him so great a reputation for sanctity. During his life hedoes not seem to have been distinguished above other archbishops forlearning, piety, or good deeds. He was not canonised until 1284. It isdifficult to understand either why the minster had not obtained a patronsaint before this time, or why the choice eventually fell upon St. William. No doubt the authorities felt the want of a shrine fit to beenriched by the visitations of pilgrims, and were encouraged by theexample of the shrine of St. Thomas of Canterbury to obtain one as soonas possible. We can only suppose that they chose St. William for want ofa more distinguished patron. At all events, his shrine never obtainedthe celebrity of that of St. Thomas of Canterbury, and in after yearswas probably regarded as inferior in sanctity and interest even to thatof Archbishop Scrope in the minster. 

He had originally been buried in the nave, where, exactly, is not known, but it is said that even before his canonisation his tomb was visited bypilgrims, and was the occasion of miracles. When he was canonised, the8th of June, the day of his death, was appointed for his festival. 

The visit of Edward I. To York in 1283-4 was chosen by ArchbishopWickwaine as the occasion for the translation of St. William's relicsfrom his old tomb in the nave to his shrine in the choir. The ceremonywas performed with great pomp in the presence of the King and of hiswife Eleanor. William became one of the King's patron saints, and Edwardgave various gifts of jewels to his shrine. 

In the Acta Sanctorum for June 8th, St. William's day, it is recordedthat "Corpus ab imo in altum, a communi loco in chorum Venerabiliter esttranslatum. "

"His body was translated with all reverence from the lowest to thehighest place, from a common position to the choir. "

The shrine was probably placed behind the high altar, and afterwardsbetween the reredos and the eastern screen, as at Durham and St. Albans. The bones themselves were deposited in a portable _feretrum_, so thatthey might be easily carried in procession. 

As in the case of Thomas à Becket, the original place of William'sburial still remained an object of veneration. 

It was at the eastern end of the nave, and was covered with a greatsuperstructure, so large that processions, it is said, were obliged todivide and march to each side of it. 

The head appears to have been kept in a silver jewelled chest separatefrom the rest of the body. It was exhibited to worshippers who gaveofferings to it. At the Reformation the head was seized by one Layton, afterwards Dean, and a follower of Thomas Cromwell; its seizure was oneof the chief causes of the Pilgrimage of Grace. 

At this time, also, the shrine was demolished, and also thesuperstructure over the saint's original place of burial in the nave. Itis said that no remembrance was left of the spot except a tradition thatthe saint had lain under a long marble slab in the nave of the church. 

In 1732, during the repairing of the nave of the minster, Drake, thehistorian of York, obtained leave to search under the said slab, andthere found a coffin of stone, containing a leaden box, in which werebones wrapped in sarcenet. There was no inscription by which the remainscould be identified, and they were again buried. 

Archbishop Melton was buried near the font, as it then stood, at thewest end of the minster. In 1736, when the new pavement was laid, thestone covering his grave was taken up, and a lead coffin was discovered, containing the bones of the archbishop. On the top of the coffin was achalice and paten of silver-gilt. Inside the coffin was the pastoralstaff, but no ring or vestments. The archbishop was re-buried in thesame place. 

#Monuments In The South Transept. #--In the eastern aisle is the tomb ofArchbishop de Grey, who died in 1255. This, one of the two or threereally fine monuments in the church, is Early English in style, and hasbeen very little damaged. It consists of an effigy, with a canopysupported by nine pillars above it. The figure of the archbishop isclothed in full canonicals. In his left hand is a crozier, and his rightis raised to bless. The feet trample on a dragon, into the mouth ofwhich enters the butt end of the crozier. On each side of the figure isa shaft ornamented with bunches of leafage at regular intervals. Roundthe head of the archbishop is a gable cusped with censing angels on eachside of it. 

The pillars supporting the canopy have fine capitals, and above them arecusped arches, with richly-carved scroll work in their spandrels. Aboveis a further tier of arches, supported by short shafts, also havingbeautiful capitals. Above these arches are gables covered with crockets, and on the gables are elaborate finials. These finials are an additionof the beginning of the century, and are of plaster. They are the workof an Italian sculptor, Bernasconi by name, and, considering thecircumstances, are unusually good. Round the tomb is a railing, presented by Archbishop Markham, also of the beginning of the century, and of very poor design. 

[Illustration: Effigy of Archbishop de Grey. ]

To the south of this tomb is the large and elaborate modern monument toArchdeacon Duncombe, which has nothing, either in workmanship or design, to recommend. 

To the north is the tomb of Archbishop Sewall de Bovill, who succeededArchbishop de Grey. His sepulchre, says Drake, was much frequented afterhis death by the common people, who reported many miracles to be done atit. The tomb consists of a plain slab of marble, with a cross upon it, supported by twelve low pillars, with plain capitals, and trefoiledarches. 

#Monuments In The North Transept. #--In the eastern aisle of the northtransept is the beautiful tomb of Archbishop Greenfield, who died in1315. This tomb belongs to the most fully-developed period of theDecorated style. It is ornamented with arcading in front, with gables, each partition divided by buttresses with pinnacles. Above it is acanopy with a richly-foliated arch, and a gable with crockets, terminating in an elaborately-carved finial, with a statue of thearchbishop in the act of benediction on the top. On each side arebuttresses, with elaborate pinnacles. The statue of the archbishop is amodern addition. On the tomb itself are the remains of a brass. In 1735this tomb was opened, and a ring discovered in it. Close to the tomb wasthe altar of St. Nicholas; and the archbishop was buried in thisposition because he died on the festival-day of that saint. This tomb isalso remarkable for the fact that the lunatic Martin hid himself behindit, in 1829, before setting the minster on fire. 

Near at hand, in the same aisle, is the tomb of Dr Beckwith (died 1843). 

In the west aisle is a monument to Archbishop Vernon Harcourt (died1847). 

Behind the walled-up arch also in this aisle is a tomb, said to havebeen erected either to or by Thomas Huxey, who was treasurer of Yorkfrom 1418 to 1424. Huxey himself, however, was buried to the south ofthe tomb. It consists of a slab, with the figure of a corpse below itinside a grating. 

[Illustration: Monument of William of Hatfield. ]

#Monuments In The Choir. #--We find here many monuments, but few ofeither beauty or interest. In the westernmost bay of the north aisle isthe tomb of William of Hatfield, second son of Edward III. , who died atthe age of eight, in 1344. The effigy of the prince is fine, though muchdamaged. Canon Raine has pointed out that the canopy is ornamented withthe Plantagenista. The head was formerly supported by two angels, whichhave been destroyed (Britton). The feet rest against a lion. Drakerelates that the vergers in his time asserted that this was the son ofthe Emperor Severus, buried at Acombe Hills, and carried thence to thecathedral. The statue appears to have been removed from its properplace, and neglected for a long time. 

One bay east, and on the opposite side of the aisle, is the tomb ofArchbishop Savage, who died in 1507. This is one of the latest of theGothic works in the cathedral. It is a plain oblong, with four panels, containing coats of arms on each of the larger sides. It is surmountedby an effigy of the bishop, with mitre and crozier. Drake states thatabove it was a wooden chantry, of which there are now no traces. Thename, _Thomas Dalby_, on the inscription on the tomb, is that of anarchdeacon of Richmond, who is said to have erected the monument. Farther east, the outer wall of the aisle, as also of the southernaisle, is almost covered with pompous and ugly monuments, few of themremarkable either for their design or for the fame of the persons towhom they were erected. The best, perhaps, is that to Lionel Ingram, whodied at the age of six. It is Jacobean in style, and has a patheticLatin inscription setting forth the unusual virtues of the child. 

The tomb of Archbishop Sterne, at the east end of the aisle (1683), isan example of almost everything that a monument should not be. West ofthis is the tomb of the unfortunate Scrope, beheaded by Henry IV. It isof little interest in itself, and was restored after the fire of 1829;but in the Middle Ages thousands of pilgrims flocked to it, and it wasfor a time more popular than the shrine of St. William himself. HenryIV. Forbade offerings to be made to it, and gave these orders to theclerk of the cathedral. 

"Y faces mettre sur la terre entre les pilers et par bonne espace dehors beilles fuystes et grosses piers de bonne hautesse et lacune iffintgils i soyent continuellement pour faire estoppoil a les faux foles quey beignont par couleur de devotion. " The offerings were not, however, thus checked. Close by was the Chapel of St. Stephen, in which was thechantry of the _Scropes_, and so many offerings in memory of thearchbishop were deposited there that it increased in riches up to theReformation. 

Farther west, between the aisle and the retro-choir, is the cenotaph ofArchbishop Markham (died 1807), who was buried in Westminster Abbey. 

To the north of the eastern altar is the tomb of Archbishop Rotherham, died 1500. It is a plain monument, Perpendicular in style. The top is alater addition; the whole was restored after the fire of 1829. The tombwas opened when a new pavement was laid in 1736, and a vault wasdiscovered to run under it, in which were bones and a wooden head--"apiece of extraordinary sculpture for that age"--with a stick thrust intothe neck to carry it on. 

Under the east window are the tombs of Archbishops Frewen (died 1664), and Sharpe (1714), the latter being, perhaps, the ugliest and mostabsurd in the minster. 

In a line with the monument to Rotherham is the effigy of ArchbishopMatthew (died 1628). His tomb is on the south side of the retro-choir, and an unknown monument, with bases of pillars which once, no doubt, supported a canopy. This has been attributed to Sewall de Bovil, who, however, is buried in the south transept. Between the retro-choir andthe south aisle is the beautiful tomb of Archbishop Bowet (died 1423). This is one of the finest Perpendicular monuments in the country, andfar the finest in the minster. The stone which covered the grave wasremoved from it and used for the pavement in 1736, and the remains werelaid bare, showing the archbishop's episcopal ring. 

The canopy consists of an arch of a curious elliptical shape, over whichare three clusters of tabernacle work, with pinnacles between them. Thecurious manner in which these clusters are joined to the arch beneaththem, with fan tracery projecting outside the arch, should be noticed. The whole has been much destroyed. 

At the east end of the south aisle of the choir stood the altar of AllSaints, founded by Bowet. 

A bay west of this is the tomb of Archbishop Matthew (died 1628), andnorth of it is that of Archbishop Musgrave (died 1860). 

In the south aisle are the tombs of William Wentworth son of the greatEarl of Stafford (died 1695); Archbishop Lamplugh (died 1691); andArchbishop Matthew Hutton, (died 1757). All of them, like most of theother tombs in the choir, remarkable only for ugliness. 

[Illustration: Monument of Archbishop Bowet. ]

#Stained Glass. #--Undoubtedly the chief glory of the minster is itsglass. There are 25, 531 square feet of ancient stained glass in thechurch--at least twice as much, that is to say, as in any other Englishcathedral, and perhaps more than in any other church in the world. Andthis glass is of all periods. There are fragments of Norman in the fivesisters and in some of the windows of the nave; Early English in thefive sisters; Decorated in the nave, and Perpendicular in the choir. Further, the glass is almost all of very high quality--far higher, forinstance, than that in King's College Chapel, Cambridge--and of infinitevariety of effect. It ranges from the simple, almost uniform scheme ofthe five sisters, to the strong contrasts, definite forms, andglittering colours of the great west window. 

It would require years of investigation and the writing of a large bookto give an adequate description of this glass, and this has not yet beendone. Facts, both as to its origin and subsequent history, are almostaltogether wanting. As we see them to-day, the windows are in almostinextricable confusion. At some time or another, perhaps at theReformation, or during the Civil Wars, the glass has been removed fromits setting, and afterwards carelessly pieced together. It is now in thecondition of a puzzle wrongly arranged. Outlines of figures have beenfilled with scraps of different colours, male heads fitted to femalebodies, or inserted alone in incongruous surroundings, and glass of oneperiod mixed with glass of another. Add to this that the glass wasgenerally renewed and restored by one Peckett about 1780, who insertedpatches and curious geometrical patterns of his own manufacture whereverpossible, and an idea may be obtained of the difficulties which willbeset anyone who tries to write an adequate book on the subject. It isonly possible here to point out the main characteristics of thedifferent windows and some of the chief points of interest about them. 

The glass in the nave is mostly Decorated, with occasional Norman, EarlyEnglish, and later insertions. Except in the three west windows, it isvery fragmentary, and includes many of Peckett's additions. 

The great west window is one of the most perfect in the church. Itmeasures 56 feet by 25, and is almost entirely filled with its originalglass, said to have been given by Archbishop Melton in 1338. This isremarkable not only for the purity and boldness of its scheme ofcolours, but for the admirable way in which the design of the glass fitsthe elaborate pattern of the tracery. It will be noticed that both thefigures and the architectural ornaments are in bolder relief than in theearlier glass of the five sisters, or the later of the choir. Some ofthe faces of the figures have been restored by Peckett, but not so as tointerfere with the decorative effect of the whole. The window containsthree rows of figures, the lowest a row of eight archbishops, the next arow of eight saints, including St. Peter, St. Paul, St. James, and St. Katharine, and above this a row of smaller figures unidentified. Thewindow at the west end of the north aisle is also very fine. It containsa Virgin and child, and St. Katharine with her wheel. In one of thesmall lights above is a figure of St. Peter, crucified head downwards. 

The kneeling figure below is obviously a later insertion, as may be seenfrom the incongruous colour of the arch above it. 

The first window from the west in the north aisle of the nave is plain. The other windows are filled with fragments. In the third of these thetop lights have been filled by Peckett, and contain the date of theinsertion, 1779. The rest of these windows are free from Peckett'sadditions. 

The second of these windows from the east is particularly worthy ofattention. It is said to have been given by a guild of bell-founders. Itwas probably the particular gift of the Richard Tunnoc who died in 1330, after holding the office of Lord Mayor of York. Perhaps he was the headof the guild. 

This window contains a most interesting representation of the casting ofa bell, with an inscription, "Richard Tunnoc me fist, " and also ofTunnoc kneeling and receiving the blessing of an archbishop, probablyMelton. Above the figure of Tunnoc is the picture of a small window, andthis certainly goes to prove that the window was given by Tunnochimself. There are bells in the borders of the lights and other parts ofthe design. 

The west window in the south aisle is as fine as its fellow in the northaisle. It contains a representation of the Crucifixion, in which thehead of Christ is a later insertion, perhaps of the eighteenth century. The figure below, as in the corresponding window in the north aisle, isalso of later date. 

The first window from the west end is plain. The glass in the otherwindows is rather finer, and less fragmentary than in the north aisle. 

The second window appears to have been largely restored. The tabernaclework is very crude in colour. It contains figures of St. Laurence, St. Christopher, another saint, and three coats of arms below. The toplights are fine, and perhaps of Perpendicular date. 

The third window is one of the richest in colour in the minster, withits gorgeous arrangement of crimsons, greens, and blues. There areinscriptions by Peckett, with the date at the bottom, 1789. His deepblues on the top lights are particularly unfortunate. 

The sixth window is also very bright. It probably contains Normanfragments. All the windows except the fifth contain insertions byPeckett. 

The clerestory window contains fragments and coats of arms. 

In the westernmost light of the second window from the west, on thenorth side, are portions of an Early English Jesse window. The wheel ofthis window, and those of the next five, also contain fragments of EarlyEnglish glass. And in the lower lights of the fifth and seventh windowsfrom the west are remains of the same date. 

The wheels in the clerestory windows on the south side of the nave allcontain Early English glass, except the third from the west. There isalso some Early English glass in their lower lights. 

The transepts contain less of their original glass than any other partof the minster. In the south transept there are fragments ofPerpendicular glass in the east aisle, including figures of Michael, Gabriel, and St. William, and also Perpendicular fragments in the westaisle. The lowest row of windows at the south end of the transept hasbeen filled with painted figures by Peckett, only better than the worstefforts of the Gothic revival. The figures represent Abraham, Solomon, Moses, and St. Peter. The glass in the five sisters, as has been said, is Early English of the simplest and most beautiful design. The colour, an almost uniform scheme of greyish green, is a curious contrast to thevivid blues and yellows of the period which preceded it, and examples ofwhich may be seen in the choir of Canterbury. The pattern is anelaborate but restrained arrangement of the foliage of the PlantaBenedicta (herb benet). The plain border surrounding the Early Englishglass was inserted in 1715. At the foot of the central light is a panelof Norman glass, the subject of which is either the dream of Jacob, orDaniel in the lion's den. 

The glass in the west aisle of the north transept is modern, and of theworst character. A window by Mr Kempe in the east aisle is almost theonly good example of modern glass in the minster. 

The glass in the lancets above the five sisters is modern. 

The glass in the choir is almost wholly Perpendicular. As in the nave, it is very fragmentary and disordered. The change in the character ofthe design will be easily noticed. The Perpendicular glass is not soclear and delicate in colour, and the architectural and other patternsare less pronounced. As has been said before, however, this glass, regarded simply as decorative, is perhaps superior even to that in thenave. 

Mr Winton, to whom throughout in this short notice of the windows we aremuch indebted, has pointed out that the earliest Perpendicular glass inthe choir is contained in the third window from the east in the southaisle; in the third and fourth windows from the east in the northclerestory; and in the fourth clerestory window from the east on theopposite side. These windows date from the close of the fourteenthcentury. There is also an early Perpendicular Jesse in the third windowfrom the west in the south aisle of the choir. The other windows of thechoir aisles east of the small eastern transepts, as well as the glassin the lancet windows on the east side of the great western transeptsappear, he says, to be of the time of Henry IV. ; the rest of the glassin the choir is of the reigns of Henry V. And VI. , chiefly of thelatter. He notices, also, that the white glass in the windows isgenerally less green in tint than usual, and that he has learnt from MrBrowne that it is all of English manufacture. 

The great east window was glazed by John Thornton of Coventry. The termsof the contract for this work, dated 1405, are extant. They provide thatThornton shall "portray the said window with his own hand, and thehistories, images, and other things to be painted on it. " It was to befinished within three years. Glass, lead, and workmen were to beprovided at the expense of the chapter, and Thornton was to receive 4s. A week, £5 a year, and £10 at completion, for his trouble. 

The window is 78 feet high and 32 feet wide, and contains nine lights. It is entirely filled with old glass, except for certain pitches ofmodern glass, rather crude in colour, and inserted, it is said, afterthe fire of 1829. It contains 200 panels of figures. The subjects in theupper part are from the Old Testament, reaching from the creation of theworld to the death of Absalom. The lower part contains illustrationsfrom the Book of Revelations. In the lowest row of all arerepresentations of kings and archbishops. 

In the top lights are figures of prophets, saints and kings. At the apexof the window is a representation of the Saviour in Judgment. 

This window is probably the finest example of Perpendicular glass inEngland. The windows in the south aisle are rather fragmentary. In thefirst two from the west the top lights are empty. 

The second window is remarkable for the delicate modelling and drawingof the heads. The head of the Virgin reminds one of one of Lippo Lippi'sMadonnas. That of an old man with a beard in the central light is Germanin character. If these are compared with the crude and simple design ofthe heads in the other windows, it will be obvious that they are of adifferent origin. Nothing, however, is known of their history. 

The third window has borders by Peckett. It contains the Jesse notedbefore. 

The fourth window is very fragmentary. It contains a beautiful figure ofa saint in one of the top lights; the other top lights are by Peckett. In the central division, at the bottom, is the name of ArchbishopLamplugh, with a coat of arms. (Lamplugh's tomb is close to thiswindow. )

The last of those windows contain painted glass given by Lord Carlislein 1804, and bought from a church at Rouen. It is a representation ofthe Visitation, Mr Winton says, taken from a picture by Baroccio, anddates from the end of the sixteenth century. The upper lights containthe original glass. 

The east window of this aisle is very fine in colouring, and fairlycoherent in design. The subject is not clear. 

In the north aisle the east window is also very fine. It contains arepresentation of the Crucifixion, with St. John, St. James, and theVirgin. The first window from the east is very fragmentary. 

[Illustration: The East Window. ]

The next three are among the finest in the minster. Their beautiful andunusual arrangement of greys, browns, and blues, should be particularlynoticed. Their top lights are empty. 

The other three windows contain paler, and less interesting glass; theirtop lights also are empty. The last of these was given by ArchbishopBowet. 

The two great windows in the small north and south transepts containscenes from the lives of St. William and St. Cuthbert respectively. Theyare 73 feet long by 16 feet wide. They have both been restored, buttheir glass is mostly original. The St. Cuthbert window was probablygiven by the will of Longley, Bishop of Durham, who died in 1437. Itcontains, beside subjects from the life of St. Cuthbert, figures ofmembers of the house of Lancaster. 

The glass in the clerestory is fragmentary, and contains restorations byPeckett. 

The glass in the chapter-house and vestibule is chiefly decorated. Thereare, however, fragments of Norman and Early English glass in the upperlights of the vestibule windows. The glass in the chapter-house itselfdates from the time of Edward II. And Edward III. The design is chieflymade up of medallions and shields. There are some modern restorations inthe glass; and one of the windows--there is no difficulty indistinguishing it--is wholly modern. All the glass, excepting theunfortunate modern example, is of the finest quality. 

CHAPTER V

THE ARCHBISHOPS OF YORK

#Paulinus# (627-633). The origin and even the nationality of Paulinusare unknown. It is said that he was sent from Italy by Gregory the Greatto assist Augustine in Kent. Nennius states that Edwin of Northumbriawas baptised by Rum, the son of Urien. It has been supposed that thisRum may have originally gone to Italy, and there taken the name ofPaulinus, and that consequently Paulinus was a Briton; but this is mereconjecture. For over twenty years Paulinus remained with Augustine; butin 625 a marriage was arranged between Edwin, King of Northumbria andoverlord of England, and Ethelberga, daughter of Ethelbert, theChristian King of Kent. Edwin, though still a Pagan, agreed thatEthelberga should be allowed the free exercise of her religion, and thatshe should bring a chaplain with her, who might preach the Christianfaith when and where he chose. 

The office was given to Paulinus, and before setting out he wasconsecrated Bishop of the Northumbrians by Archbishop Justus. For somelittle time Edwin remained Pagan, but he allowed his daughter to bebaptised so soon as she was born. Finally, a conference took placebetween Paulinus and the nobles of Northumbria, probably atLondesborough, as a result of which Edwin, two of his children, and manyof his court were baptised at York on Easter Day, 627; while the heathenhigh priest Coifi took the chief part in destroying a great temple atGodmandham. 

But in 633 Edwin was killed in battle, and Paulinus fled with the Queenback to Kent. He was created Bishop of Rochester, where he remaineduntil his death, 644. Afterwards he became the patron saint ofRochester. 

633-664. After the flight of Paulinus the country relapsed intoPaganism. When Oswald, a Christian, became King of Northumbria, heapplied not to Canterbury but to Scotland for a missionary to hiskingdom, and this was the beginning of the rivalry between the Britishand Roman churches in Northumbria. Aidan, a monk of Iona was sent, andbecame Bishop of Lindisfarne (635-657). He was succeeded by Finan(651-661); Colman (661-664); and Tuda (664-5). But these men cannot beaccounted bishops of York. None of them received the pall, which, indeed, was given to no bishop of York between Paulinus and Egbert(735). 

#Ceadda# and #Wilfrid# (664-678). Wilfrid, who had been educated inItaly, became Bishop of York, with jurisdiction over the whole ofNorthumbria. He refused, however, to be consecrated by a Britishprelate, and went to Gaul for that purpose. He was away three years, and, in his absence, Oswi, the King, appointed Ceadda (St. Chad) to thesee. Ceadda was of the British Church, and was consecrated by the Bishopof Winchester. Wilfrid, when he returned, went to the monastery ofRipon, and lived there in retirement. 

In 669 Ceadda retired, and Wilfrid became Bishop of York. Ceadda wasmade Bishop of Mercia. 

Wilfrid did not obtain the pall, but exercised the powers of aMetropolitan. He restored the dilapidated cathedral, and built minstersat Hexham and Ripon. 

He quarrelled in course of time with Egfrith, King of Northumbrian whoinduced Theodore, in 678, to divide his diocese into fourbishoprics--York, Lindisfarne, Hexham, and Witherne. Wilfrid went toRome to appeal to the Pope. His appeal was successful, but when hereturned in 680 he was imprisoned, and afterwards banished. But in 686Theodore intervened again, and reconciled him to the king. He was firstgiven the sees of Lindisfarne and Hexham, and afterwards York, but hesoon quarrelled with the king again, and left Northumbria. It isuncertain whether Wilfrid died in the possession of the see or not. Hedied, 711, aged 75. He was buried at Ripon. In 940 his bones wereremoved to Canterbury by Odo. 

#Bosa# (678-705?) was educated under St. Hilda at Whitby. He retired infavour of Wilfrid in 686, but afterwards was reinstated. He was thefirst archbishop to be buried in the cathedral. 

#St. John# of Beverley (705-718) was also a pupil of St. Hilda and ofTheodore of Canterbury, who made him Bishop of Hexham, 687. Thevenerable Bede was his pupil, and speaks of many miracles which heperformed. He enlarged the church at Beverley, and founded a monasterythere. He was famous for his piety and good works. In 718 he resignedhis see, and retired to Beverley, where he lived privately for aboutfour years in his own foundation. He was buried in the church there. Hewas canonised in 1037, and his relics were translated and placed in agolden shrine. 

#Wilfrid II. # (718-732) had been a pupil of St. John. He is said to havebegun the dispute between York and Canterbury for precedence. Littleelse is known of him. 

#Egbert# (732-766) was brother to Edbert, King of Northumberland, and, it is said, "by his own wisdom and the authority of the King, greatlyamended the state of the Church in these parts. " Gregory III. Gave himthe pall in 735, and he was acknowledged Metropolitan Archbishop in thenorth. He founded the famous school at York, where Alcuin was educated, and also the library. 

#Albert# (766-782) had been a master at Egbert's school, and had greatlycontributed to its renown. He also played a large part in theestablishment of the library. He retired to the monastery at York, anddied there, 782. He was succeeded by #Eanbald I. # (782-796), #EanbaldII. # (796-812), #Wulfsy# (812-831), #Wigmund# (837-854), #Wilfere# or#Wulfere# (854-890), #Ethelbald# (895), and #Redewald# or #Redward#(928). 

#Wulstan# (928-956) was raised to the see by Athelstan, who was now Kingof England. He was imprisoned by Edred in 952, at Jedburgh, but wasreleased soon after, and restored to his bishopric at Dorchester. Hedied two years after his release at Oundle in Northamptonshire, and wasburied there. He was followed by #Oskytel# (956-972), and #Ethelwold#(972). 

#Oswald# (972-992) had been made Bishop of Worcester in 961, and heldthat see, together with York. 

After his elevation to the sees of Worcester and York, he became a greatreformer of monasteries, and founded that of Ramsey in the Isle of Ely. He was a strong opponent of married clergy. He died suddenly atWorcester, after washing the feet of beggars, as was his custom. He wasburied at Worcester, and miracles occurred at his tomb. He wasafterwards canonised. 

#Adulf# (992-1002) had been Abbot of Peterboro', and succeeded to bothsees held by Oswald. 

#Wulstan# (1002-1023) was also Bishop both of York and Worcester, but in1016 one Leofsi was appointed his suffragan at Worcester. He died atYork, but was buried at Ely, where there is said to have been a pictureof him under the lantern. 

#Alfric Puttoc# or #Pulta# (1023-1050) was Archbishop of York alone. Heis said to have incited Hardicanute to set fire to the city ofWorcester. He was a liberal benefactor of the church and college ofBeverley, and built a magnificent shrine of the tomb of St. John. Hedied at Southwell, and was buried at Peterboro'. 

#Kinsi# (1050-1060) had been a monk at Peterboro', and chaplain toEdward the Confessor. 

#Ealdred# or #Aldred# (1060-1067). He was successively a monk atWinchester, Abbot of Tavistock, and Bishop of Worcester. He is said tohave made his way by money and bribes to the see of York, with which hecontinued to hold Worcester. He had been much employed by Edward indiplomatic work. When created Archbishop of York, he went to Rome withthe famous Tosti to obtain his pall. This the Pope refused, havingheard, it is said, of his Simoniacal practices. But the Pope afterwardsrelented, on condition that he should resign the see of Worcester--thishe did. 

Once established as archbishop, Ealdred showed great activity as abuilder and benefactor, especially at Southwell and Beverley. He alsobuilt a new cathedral at Gloucester. 

He crowned Harold, and afterwards William. For this Drake calls him "ameer worldling and an odious time-server. " He is said, however, to haveexacted an oath from William that he would rule Normans and Saxonsalike. Afterwards he excommunicated William for disregarding his oath, but William is said to have bought him off. 

Hearing of the Danish invasion in 1069, he is said to have sickened atthe news and died of a broken heart. Thus he escaped witnessing thevengeance exacted by William upon the north. 

#Thomas# of Bayeux (1070-1100) was the chaplain of the Conqueror. He hadassisted William with all his fortune in the invasion of England. In histime, the quarrel for precedence broke out with Canterbury. Thomasrefused to make a profession of obedience to Lanfranc, and appealed tothe Pope, and both went to Rome. The Pope, however, discreetly referredthe matter back to the king, and at a synod held by William it wasdetermined that Thomas should swear allegiance to Lanfranc, but not tohis successors, and should be installed in Canterbury Cathedral; alsothat the Humber should be the southern boundary of his diocese, and thatWorcester should be added to the see of Canterbury. 

Thomas found his diocese in a miserable condition, owing both to theDanish invasion and the barbarities of the Conqueror. He rebuilt theminster, called back the frightened canons and made a provision forthem. He appointed a dean, treasurer, precentor, and chancellor. He diedat Ripon, and was buried at York. 

#Gerard# (1101-1108) was translated from Hereford; he was a kinsman ofthe Conqueror. Like Thomas he refused to submit to Canterbury, and hisconsecration was delayed until he submitted at the command of the Pope. 

#Thomas# (1108-1114) was the nephew of Thomas of Bayeux, and chaplain toHenry I. He also refused to acknowledge the supremacy of Anselm, and inconsequence his consecration was delayed. Anselm dying, forbade anybishop to consecrate him until he had made his submission. At lengthThomas submitted, and was consecrated by the Bishop of London. He diedat Beverley, and was buried in the minster. 

#Thurstan# (1114-1140) was the son of a prebendary of London, andchaplain to Henry I. Like his predecessors, but with more determination, he continued the quarrel with Canterbury. He refused to make hissubmission to Archbishop Ralph, who therefore refused to consecrate him. Thurstan was supported by three successive Popes, and was at lengthconsecrated at Rheims by Calixtus II. Thus he alone succeeded inavoiding any submission to Canterbury. Henry I, taking the side ofRalph, deprived him of his lands, but the Pope issued a bull freeing himfrom all subjection to Canterbury, and threatened Henry withexcommunication. In 1121 Thurstan returned triumphantly to York, andHenry submitted. The quarrel was revived by William de Corbeil, Ralph'ssuccessor, who was appointed papal legate as a compromise. Thurstan'svictory over the Scots at the Battle of the Standard is perhaps his mostfamous achievement. #William Fitzherbert# (St. William, 1143; deprived1147, restored 1153-1154). On the death of Thurstan the see was notfilled without a contest. The chapter chose Henry of Selby, Abbot ofFécamp, but the Pope refused his consent unless he would give up hismonastery at Fécamp, and thereupon the choice fell upon William, who wasa great grandson of the Conqueror. His election was not popular, especially among the monks. Accusations were made against him in Rome, where his election was bitterly opposed by St. Bernard and others. ThePope, however, agreed to allow his consecration, if the Dean of Yorkwould swear that his election had not been corruptly procured by theking. William was consecrated in 1143, at Winchester, and the pall sentto him in 1145. Meanwhile, Eugenius III. Had become Pope, and freshaccusations were made against William, who went to Rome to meet them, but was suspended by the Pope, who, on hearing that certain followers ofthe archbishop had plundered the monastery of Fountains, deprived himaltogether. (1147. )

Thereupon, #Henry Mordac# (1147-1153), the Abbot of Fountains, and likeThurstan, a friend of St. Bernard, was elected in his place. Stephen atfirst refused to receive him, but was induced to do so on the conditionthat the Pope would acknowledge Stephen's son heir to the throne ofEngland. Mordac died at Beverley in 1153. 

Meanwhile William had remained at Winchester. On Mordac's death he wasre-elected. On his return to York, after it is said, performing amiracle, he died almost immediately, and so suddenly as to cause areport that he was poisoned at mass. He was buried in the cathedral, andpilgrims began to visit his tomb almost immediately after his death. Before long many wonderful cures were reported there, but it was notuntil one hundred and fifty years after his death that he was canonised. William is said to have performed thirty-six miracles after his death, and a list of them was once hung up in the vestry. 

#Roger De Pont L'Evêque# (1154-1181) had been Archdeacon of Canterbury, and chaplain to Henry II. He was consecrated by Theobald of Canterbury, but without a profession of obedience. He is said to have instigated themurder of Becket. It was certainly after a conference with Roger thatHenry uttered the words which led to the death of the archbishop. 

Roger also was the hero of the famous and ridiculous scene in 1176 atthe Council of Westminster, when Robert of Canterbury having seatedhimself on the right of the papal legate, Roger, refusing to take aninferior seat, placed himself in Robert's lap. The unfortunate Roger waspulled off, beaten with sticks, and flung upon the ground. 

Roger, however, was a good administrator, and charitable. He rebuilt thepalace, and the choir of the minster, and also began a new minster atRipon. After his death the king seized on his personalty. He was buriedin the cathedral, and his tomb, though of much later date, is in thenave. 

#Geoffry# (1191-1207), the illegitimate, and only faithful son of HenryII. , was appointed only after ten years' interval, during which time theking took the revenues. He was early in life made Archdeacon, and thenBishop of Lincoln. He afterwards became Chancellor of England. He wasonly ordained priest when he obtained the archbishopric. He had swornnot to go to England while Richard was away on his crusade, but hereturned immediately after his consecration at Rheims, and was clappedinto prison at Dover. He was, however, soon released, and went at onceto York. There he proved a better bishop than was expected, according toStubbs, though Drake shrewdly remarks that "that author has made saintsof every prelate he writes on. " It is certain that he quarrelled alwayswith John and Richard, or with the canons of York. At length he wassuspended by the Pope, appealed, and was reinstated. Richard, on hisreturn, seized all his goods, spiritual and temporal, but Geoffryobtained their return by payment of a sum of money. John also seized hisgoods, and Geoffry excommunicated all concerned in the seizure. He wasfrom time to time reconciled with the king, but after a final rupturefled to Norway, where he died in 1212. 

#Walter De Grey# (1216-1255) was only appointed after the see had beenvacant for nine years, during which time John of course kept therevenues. The dean and chapter elected Simon Langton, brother ofStephen, Archbishop of Canterbury; but John would have none of him, andwas supported by the Pope. Walter de Grey was therefore chosen at thedesire of the king. He died just before the outbreak of the Barons' war. 

He conferred many benefits on his diocese, and built the south transeptof the minster, where is his beautiful tomb. He is said to have builtthe west front of Ripon Minster. 

#Sewal De Bovill# (1256-1258) had been Dean of York. After the death ofDe Grey the see remained vacant for some time, the king saying that hehad never held the archbishopric in his hands before, and was thereforein no hurry to let it slip out of them. He refused his consent toSewal's election for some time, who, however, obtained a dispensationfrom Rome. He afterwards quarrelled with the Pope about the election tothe deanery, and was excommunicated. This sentence lay heavy on thearchbishop, and is said to have brought him to his grave. According toStubbs, he began to "squeak" at last, and called for absolution on hisdeath-bed. His tomb is in the south transept. 

#Geoffry Of Ludham# (1258-1265) had been that Dean of York over whomSewal fell out with the Pope. When elected, he was still under thePope's ban. He went to Rome, however, and by bribery and much troubleobtained his pall. Little is known of him except that in 1260 he laidthe city of York under an interdict. 

#Walter Giffard# (1266-1279) had been Bishop of Bath and Wells, and LordChancellor of England. He was with others entrusted with the regency ofthe kingdom during the absence of Edward I. In 1275. 

#William Of Wickwaine# (1279-1286) had been Chancellor of York. He diedat Pontigny, and was buried there. 

#John Le Romeyn# or #Romanes# (1286-1296) was the son of that treasurerof York, an Italian, who had built the north transept and central towerof the minster. He had been precentor at Lincoln. He began the nave ofthe cathedral as it now stands. He died suddenly, near Burton. 

#Henry Of Newark# (1298-1299) had been Dean of York. Owing to the warsin Europe, he did not go to Rome, and was consecrated in his own church. 

#Thomas Of Corbridge# (1300-1304) had been Chancellor of York. He wasconsecrated at Rome. He was said to be a great and learned divine. Hewas buried at Southwell. 

#William Greenfield# (1306-1315) was related to Giffard a pastarchbishop, and had been Dean of Chichester, Chancellor of Durham, andChancellor of England. He died at Cawood. His beautiful tomb is in thenorth transept of the minster. 

#William De Melton# (1317-1340) was of lowly origin. He was elected in1315, but not consecrated until two years after, owing to the interesteddelays of the Pope. He took a large part in civil affairs, especially inthe war with the Scots, by whom he was defeated at Myton-on-Swale. Hisarmy was filled with clergy, and the battle was derisively known as theChapter of Myton. In 1325 he became Lord Treasurer of England, andsupported Edward in his troubles. He even intrigued against Edward III. , it is said, in 1330, and was arrested for treason, but soon acquitted ofthe charge. 

He completed the nave of the minster, and glazed the great west window. He died at Cawood. His grave in the north aisle of the nave was openedwhen the present pavement was laid down in 1736, and a chalice and patentaken from it. 

#William La Zouche# (1342-1352) had been Dean of York. When Edward III. Set out for the French wars he left Zouche warden of the northern partsof the kingdom, and as such he defeated the Scots at Neville's Cross, near Durham, 1364. He built, or began, a chantry on the south wall ofthe choir, which was destroyed by Thoresby. He died at Cawood, and wasburied in the nave of the minster. 

#John Of Thoresby# (1352-1373) had been the King's Proctor at Rome, Master of the Rolls, Bishop of St. David's and Worcester, and LordChancellor of England. He drew up a famous catechism in Latin translatedinto English. In his time the controversy between York and Canterburyfinally came to an end. The Archbishop of Canterbury was to be styledPrimate of All England, the Archbishop of York, Primate of England. Eachalso was to be allowed to carry his cross erect in the province of theother. 

In 1361 he began the present choir of the minster, contributing £200 ayear to it during his life. He died at Bishopthorpe. It has been saidthat Urban VI. Made him a cardinal, but this is probably not true. Hewas buried in his own Lady Chapel. #Alexander Neville# (1374-1388) was aCanon of York, and high in the favour of Richard II. Consequently, onRichard's overthrow he was imprisoned in Rochester Castle, whence heescaped, and was translated to St. Andrews in 1386, but the Scots wouldhave none of him, not acknowledging Urban as Pope. Thereupon, it issaid, he fell to teaching a school at Louvain, where he died in 1392. 

#Thomas Fitzalan# of Arundel (1388-1396), son of the Earl of Arundel, was translated to York from Ely, and had been Lord Chancellor. He was agreat benefactor to the church and manors of the see, and gave muchplate for the service of the minster. He was in 1390 translated toCanterbury, the first Archbishop of York to be so advanced. 

#Robert Waldby# (1397-1398) had been an Augustinian friar and professorof theology at Toulouse. He was created Archbishop of Dublin and Bishopof Chichester before his translation to York. He died and was buried atWestminster. 

#Richard Scrope# (1398-1405) was the son of Lord Chancellor Scrope, andwas himself Lord Chancellor of England and Bishop of Lichfield. Hereceived his preferment from Richard II. , of whom he was a firmsupporter, though for a short time he submitted to Henry IV. The historyof his famous rebellion with the Percys, and the trick by which he wascaptured, is well known. He was taken to his own palace at Bishopthorpe, and there Gascoign, the famous Chief Justice, greatly to the king'swrath, refused to try him. He was condemned to death by a creature ofthe king, not even a judge, and beheaded near to York. He was buried inthe minster, and was long lamented and almost worshipped by the people. 

#Henry Bowet# (1407-1423). After Scrope's execution the see remainedvacant for over two years. In the meantime, Thomas Longley, Dean ofYork, and Robert Halom or Hallam were nominated to the see, but, fordifferent reasons, were not confirmed in the appointment. Bowet had beenBishop of Bath and Wells. He built a great hall to his castle at Cawood, where he died, and was buried in the east end of the cathedral, near thealtar of All Saints, which he had built. His beautiful tomb may still beseen. 

#John Kemp# (1426-1452) had been Bishop of Rochester, Chichester, andLondon. He was the nominee of the king and the dean and chapter, asopposed to the Pope, who proposed Fleming, Bishop of London. The Pope, whose power was fast decaying in England, at length submitted. Kemp, whowas, it is said, of humble birth, rose to be Cardinal, first of St. Balbria, and afterwards of St. Rupria. He was translated finally toCanterbury. 

In 1432 he went as ambassador to the Council of Bale. He built agatehouse to the palace at Cawood. He died soon after his translation toCanterbury. 

#William Booth# or #Bothe# (1452-1464) had been a lawyer, and Bishop ofLichfield. He repaired the palaces at Southwell and York, and died atSouthwell, where he was buried. 

#George Neville# (1464-1476), by the interest of his brother Warwick, the king-maker, became Bishop of Exeter at the age of twenty-three. Hewas not thirty when made archbishop. His installation was the mostsplendid ceremony of the kind hitherto seen, but his tenure of the seewas marked by many troubles. When Edward IV. Was captured by Warwick atOundle he was given into the custody of the archbishop, who treated himwith great courtesy and freedom, so that he soon escaped to London. Soonafter Edward captured the archbishop and imprisoned him; but soonreleased him and restored him to his see. Again he was arrested for hightreason and sent to Calais, the king having plundered all his plate andjewels. He was imprisoned for four years, and died soon after hisrelease. His tomb was unknown, but Drake speaks of a grave found underthe Dean's vestry about 1735, which, from its contents, must have beenthat of an archbishop, and perhaps of Neville. 

#Laurence Booth# or #Bothe# (1476-1480) had been Bishop of Durham andLord High Chancellor; he died at Southwell, and was buried there. 

#Thomas Scott# or #De Rotheram# (1480-1500) had been Bishop of Rochesterand Lincoln, and Lord High Chancellor. He was imprisoned in the Tower byRichard III. , for delivering up the Great Seal to the Queen on the deathof Edward IV. , but was soon released. He completed Lincoln College, Oxford, and gave a "wonderful rich mitre" to the minster. He was buriedin the Lady Chapel, where his tomb still remains. 

#Thomas Savage# (1501-1507) had been Bishop of Rochester and London. Hewas nominated by the king, confirmed by the Pope, and installed bydeputy. He was buried on the north-west side of the choir, where histomb remains. 

[Illustration: Effigy of Archbishop Savage. ]

#Christopher Baynbridge# (1508-1514) had been Dean of York, Dean ofWindsor, Master of the Rolls, and Bishop of Durham. In 1511 he becameCardinal of St. Praxede. He was sent by Henry VIII. To the court of thePope as King's Proctor. There he died, poisoned by a servant. He wasburied at Rome, in the church of St. Thomas the Martyr. 

#Thomas Wolsey# (1514-1530). The facts of the life of this famous manare too well known to need repetition. He was at once Bishop of Durhamand Archbishop of York, and afterwards Bishop of Winchester andArchbishop of York. In 1515 he was created Cardinal of St. Cecilia, andpapal legate. It is said that Wolsey never was at York, though he wasarrested at Cawood after his disgrace. 

#Edward Lee# (1531-1544). The king delayed a year before he appointedEdward Lee, his almoner, to the vacant see. In 1536, when the Pilgrimageof Grace broke out, he was seized by the rebels and carried toPontefract Castle, where he was compelled to take an oath that he wouldsupport the rebel party. His tomb is in the choir. 

#Robert Holgate# (1545-1554) was translated from Landaff. He supportedHenry in the Reformation. He was even married. When Mary came to thethrone his wife and his riches were taken from him, and himself castinto the Tower. After a year and a half's imprisonment he was released, and died soon after at Hemsworth. 

[Illustration: Tomb of Archbishop Savage. ]

#Nicholas Heath# (1555-1559) had been Bishop of Landaff, Rochester, andWorcester, and, under Mary, Lord President of Wales and Lord Chancellor. The Bull of Pope Paul IV. Appointing him to York is the lastacknowledged in England. He obtained much of the property from the Queenwhich Henry VIII. Had alienated from the see. On the accession ofElizabeth, Heath was deprived, though he had proclaimed her Queen. Heretired to Cobham in Surrey. The queen appears to have punished him onlyfor his opinions, since he remained a firm Papist. Elizabeth evenvisited him at Cobham. He died in 1579. 

#Thomas Young# (1561-1568) had been Bishop of St. David's, and waspresident of the Council of the North. It is said he provided for hisfamily by settling the best estates of the prebends upon them. Late inlife he married, and, it is said, pulled down the great hall in thepalace at York that he might give the lead to his son. He died atSheffield Manor. 

#Edward Grindal# (1570-1576) had been Bishop of London. He was aPuritan, and afterwards was translated to Canterbury. 

#Edwin Sandys# (1577-1588), when vice-chancellor of CambridgeUniversity, supported the cause of Lady Jane Grey. For this he wasthrown into prison, and afterwards fled to Germany. He returned on theaccession of Elizabeth, and was made Bishop of Worcester, and afterwardsof London. He died at Southwell, where he was buried. 

#John Piers# (1588-1594) had been Dean of Christchurch, Oxford, Bishopof Rochester, and Bishop of Salisbury. 

#Matthew Hutton# (1595-1606) was translated from Durham. His monument isin the south aisle of the choir. 

#Tobias Matthew# (1606-1628) was also translated from Durham. Hismonument is in the south aisle of the choir. 

#George Monteign# (1628) had been Bishop of Lincoln, London, and Durham. He died within a month of his enthronement. 

#Samuel Harsnett# (1628-1631) was translated from Norwich. He had beenmaster of Pembroke Hall, Cambridge, where he was ejected for scandalouspractices. He died unmarried, and on his tomb described himself as_Indignus Episcopus Cicestriensis, indignior Norvicencis, indignissimusArchiepiscopus Eboracensis_. 

#Richard Neile# (1632-1640) was Dean of Westminster in 1605. LordBurghley was his patron, and he became Bishop of Rochester, Lichfield, Lincoln, Durham, and Winchester; more sees than any other English bishophas ruled over. He was a supporter of Laud, and a courtier. He died in1640. 

#John Williams# (1641-1650) had been Dean of Westminster, Bishop ofLincoln, and Lord Chancellor. In the first year of Charles's reign hehad the seals taken from him, and was sent to the Tower. When Episcopacywas abolished, he returned to Wales, his native country, where it issaid he joined the Roundheads, and changed his lawn for buff. He wasburied at Llandegai Church. 

#Accepted Frewen# (1660-1664) had been Bishop of Lichfield nominallysince 1644. As his name shows, he was of Puritan family, but becamechaplain to the king. His monument is in the choir. 

#Richard Sterne# (1664-1683) had been Bishop of Carlisle. He wasexpelled from the mastership of Jesus College, and imprisoned by thePuritans. He had been chaplain to Laud, and was present at his death. His monument, unusually hideous, is at the east end of the cathedral. 

#John Dolben# (1683-1686) was translated from Rochester. He died of thesmall-pox at Bishopthorpe. His tomb, also very ugly, is in the northside of the choir. 

#Thomas Lamplugh# (1688-1691). The see of York remained vacant until thelanding of William III. Lamplugh, then Bishop of Exeter, posted toLondon to carry the news of the invasion to the king and to assure himof his loyalty. James thereupon appointed him Archbishop of York. Hequickly, however, gave allegiance to William, and was confirmed in hissee. He assisted at William's coronation. His monument is in the choir. 

#John Sharp# (1691-1714) had been Dean of Norwich and Canterbury. Hewrote an account of the lives and acts of his predecessors, fromPaulinus to Lamplugh. He was Anne's chief ecclesiastical adviser, aposition he never abused. He died at Bath. 

#Sir William Dawes# (1713-1724). He had been chaplain in ordinary toWilliam III. , Prebendary of Worcester, and in 1707 Bishop of Chester. Heis said to have lost the bishopric of Lincoln by a bold sermon whichoffended Anne. 

#Lancelot Blackburne# (1724-1743) was the subject of many slanderousstories, among others, that in his youth he had been chaplain on apirate ship. He was certainly in the West Indies in his youth. He becameSub-dean of Exeter, and was forced to resign that office in 1702. In1704 he was reinstated. He became Dean of Exeter in 1705, and Bishop in1717. He is said to have been raised to the see of York for havingmarried George I. To the Duchess of Munster. His manners were certainlyfree. Horace Walpole speaks of him as "the jolly old Archbishop of York, who had all the manners of a man of quality, though he had been abuccaneer, and was a clergyman. But he retained nothing of his firstprofession except his seraglio. " He died in London, and was buried inSt. Margaret's Church, Westminster. 

#Thomas Herring# (1743-1747) was chaplain to the king. In 1732 he becameDean of Rochester, and in 1737 Bishop of Bangor. He was an ardent Whig, and when the '45 rebellion broke out raised £40, 000 in defence of theGovernment, besides stirring up the people. For these good services hewas translated to Canterbury. He died of dropsy in 1757. 

#Matthew Hutton# (1747-1757) was also translated from Bangor; and fromYork to Canterbury. He died in 1758. 

#John Gilbert# (1757-1761) became Dean of Exeter 1726, Bishop of Landaff1740, and of Salisbury 1749. 

#Robert Hay Drummond# (1761-1776) was the second son of ViscountDapplin, afterwards Earl of Kinnoull. He was chaplain to George II. , Bishop of St. Asaph in 1748, and of Salisbury in 1761. 

#William Markham# (1777-1807) had been headmaster of Westminster School, Beatham. He became Dean of Rochester 1765, Dean of Christ Church 1767, and Bishop of Chester 1771. In the same year he became tutor to thePrince of Wales and Prince Frederick. He was buried in WestminsterAbbey. 

#Edward Vernon Harcourt# (1808-1847) was the youngest son of LordVernon. He became Bishop of Carlisle in 1791. He was a member of theQueen's Council during George III. 's incapacity, and one of the firstmembers of the Ecclesiastical Commission (1835). During his primacythere were two fires in the minster, and he gave largely to therestoration fund. In 1838 he declined the renewal of the Harcourtpeerage. He died at Bishopthorpe. 

#Thomas Musgrave# (1847-1860) was the son of a Cambridge tailor. He wasa Whig by politics, and in 1837 was appointed Dean of Bristol. In a fewmonths he was preferred to the bishopric of Hereford. He is buried inKensal Green cemetery. 

#Charles Thomas Longley# (1860-1862), became headmaster of Harrow Schoolin 1829, first Bishop of Ripon in 1836, and Bishop of Durham in 1856. Hewas translated from York to Canterbury in 1862. He supported the Liberalparty in Parliament. He died in 1868 at Aldington. 

1863-1891--#William Thomson# (translated from Gloucester). 

1891--#William Connor Magee# (translated from Peterboro'). 

1891--#William Dalrymple Maclagan# (translated from Lichfield). 

[Illustration: Plan Of York Minster. 

DIMENSIONS. Feet. Length (Interior) 486 " Nave (to Choir Screen) 262 " Choir 224 " Transepts (north and south) 223Breadth, Nave and Aisles 104 " Choir and Aisles 99 " Transept and Aisles 93Height, Nave (interior) 99 " Choir( " ) 102 " Central Tower 198 " Western Towers 196Area 63, 800 sq. Ft. ]

W. H. WHITE AND CO. LIMITEDRIVERSIDE PRESS, EDINBURGH

 * * * * *

 BELL'S CATHEDRAL SERIES

 EDITED BY

 GLEESON WHITE AND E. F. STRANGE. 

_In specially designed cloth cover, crown 8vo, 1s. 6d. Each_. _Now Ready. _

CANTERBURY. By Hartley Withers. 2nd Edition, revised. 36 Illustrations. SALISBURY. By Gleeson White. 2nd Edition, revised. 50 Illustrations. CHESTER. By Charles Hiatt. 24 Illustrations. ROCHESTER. By G. H. Palmer, B. A. 38 Illustrations. OXFORD. By Rev. Percy Dearmer, M. A. 34 Illustrations. EXETER. By Percy Addleshaw, B. A. 35 Illustrations. WINCHESTER. By P. W. Sergeant. 50 Illustrations. LICHFIELD. By A. B. Clifton. 42 Illustrations. NORWICH. By C. H. B. Quennell. 38 Illustrations. PETERBOROUGH. By Rev. W. D. Sweeting. 51 Illustrations. HEREFORD. By A. Hugh Fisher, A. R. E. 34 Illustrations. LINCOLN. By A. F. Kendrick, B. A. 46 Illustrations. WELLS. By Rev. Percy Dearmer, M. A. 43 Illustrations. SOUTHWELL. By Rev. Arthur Dimock, M. A. 37 Illustrations. GLOUCESTER. By H. J. L. J. Massé, M. A. 45 Illustrations. YORK. By A. Glutton-Brock, M. A. 41 Illustrations. 

 _In the Press. _

DURHAM. By J. E. Bygate. ST. DAVID'S. By Philip Robson. ELY. By T. D. Atkinson, A. R. I. B. A. WORCESTER. By E. F. Strange. ST. PAUL'S. By Rev. Arthur Dimock, M. A. BRISTOL. By H. J. L. J. Massé, M. A. CHICHESTER. By H. C. Corlette, A. R. I. B. A. WESTMINSTER. By Charles Hiatt. ST. ALBANS. By Rev. W. D. Sweeting. CARLISLE. By C. K. Eley. RIPON. 

_Uniform with above Series, now Ready. _ST. MARTIN'S CHURCH, CANTERBURY. By the Rev. Canon Routledge. BEVERLEY MINSTER. By Charles Hiatt. 

Opinions of the Press. 

"For the purpose at which they aim they are admirably done, and thereare few visitants to any of our noble shrines who will not enjoy theirvisit the better for being furnished with one of these delightful books, which can be slipped into the pocket and carried with ease, and is yetdistinct and legible. .. . A volume such as that on Canterbury is exactlywhat we want, and on our next visit we hope to have it with us. It isthoroughly helpful, and the views of the fair city and its noblecathedral are beautiful. Both volumes, moreover, will serve more than atemporary purpose, and are trustworthy as well as delightful. "--_Notesand Queries_. 

"We have so frequently in these columns urged the want of cheap, well-illustrated, and well-written handbooks to our cathedrals, to takethe place of the out-of-date publications of local booksellers, that weare glad to hear that they have been taken in hand by Messrs George Bell& Sons. "--_St. James's Gazette_. 

"Visitors to the cathedral cities of England must often have felt theneed of some work dealing with the history and antiquities of the cityitself, and the architecture and associations of the cathedral, moreportable than the elaborate monographs which have been devoted to someof them, more scholarly and satisfying than the average localguide-book, and more copious than the section devoted to them in thegeneral guide-book of the city, a need the Cathedral Series now beingissued by Messrs George Bell & Sons, under the editorship of Mr GleesonWhite and Mr E. F. Strange, seems well calculated to supply. The volumesare handy in size, moderate in price, well illustrated, and written in ascholarly spirit. The history of cathedral and city is intelligently setforth and accompanied by a descriptive survey of the building in all itsdetail. The illustrations are copious and well selected, and the seriesbids fair to become an indispensable companion to the cathedral touristin England. "--_Times_. 

"They are nicely produced in good type, on good paper, and containnumerous illustrations, are well written, and very cheap. We shouldimagine architects and students of architecture will be sure to buy theseries as they appear, for they contain in brief much valuableinformation. " --_British Architect_. 

"Half the charm of this little book on Canterbury springs from thewriter's recognition of the historical association of so majestic abuilding with the fortunes, destinies, and habits of the Englishpeople. .. . One admirable feature of the book is its artisticillustrations. They are both lavish and satisfactory--even when regardedwith critical eyes. "--_Speaker_. 

"There is likely to be a large demand for these attractive handbooks. "--_Globe_. 

"Bell's 'Cathedral Series, ' so admirably edited, is more than adescription of the various English cathedrals. It will be a valuablehistorical record, and a work of much service also to the architect. Theillustrations are well selected, and in many cases not mere baldarchitectural drawings but reproductions of exquisite stone fancies, touched in their treatment by fancy and guided by art. "--_Star_. 

"Each of them contains exactly that amount of information which theintelligent visitor, who is not a specialist, will wish to have. Thedisposition of the various parts is judiciously proportioned, and thestyle is very readable. The illustrations supply a further importantfeature; they are both numerous and good. A series which cannot fail tobe welcomed by all who are interested in the ecclesiastical buildings ofEngland. "--_Glasgow Herald_. 

"Those who, either for purposes of professional study or for a culturedrecreation, find it expedient to 'do' the English cathedrals willwelcome the beginning of Bell's 'Cathedral Series. ' This set of books isan attempt to consult, more closely, and in greater detail than theusual guide-books do, the needs of visitors to the cathedral towns. Theseries cannot but prove markedly successful. In each book abusiness-like description is given of the fabric of the church to whichthe volume relates, and an interesting history of the relative diocese. The books are plentifully illustrated, and are thus made attractive aswell as instructive. They cannot but prove welcome to all classes ofreaders interested either in English Church history or in ecclesiasticalarchitecture. "--_Scotsman_. 

"A set of little books which may be described as very useful, verypretty, and very cheap . .. And alike in the letterpress, theillustrations, and the remarkably choice binding, they are idealguides. "--_Liverpool Daily Post_. 

"They have nothing in common with the almost invariably wretched localguides save portability, and their only competitors in the quality andquantity of their contents are very expensive and mostly rare works, each of a size that suggests a packing-case rather than a coat-pocket. The 'Cathedral Series' are important compilations concerning history, architecture, and biography, and quite popular enough for such as takeany sincere interest in their subjects. "--_Sketch_. 

 * * * * *

LONDON: GEORGE BELL AND SONS. 

 * * * * *

Transcriber's Notes:

1) Words and phrases which were italicized in the original have been surrounded by underscores ('_') in this version. Words or phrases which were bolded have been capitalized. 

2) Obvious printer's errors have been corrected without note. 

3) Author's errata have been applied without note. 

4) In the extract of the _Times_ review, a line was lost in scanning. The missing text has been replaced with "city, a need" to complete the affected sentence.