THE INTERIOR
#The Nave.#--The most casual observer will have noticed that churches of
the Gothic style are divided vertically into bays, and that in
cathedrals and large churches these bays are usually further divided
horizontally into three compartments, the lowest consisting of the main
arch and piers, the highest of a window or windows, known as the
clerestory, and the middle, called the triforium, consisting usually of
an arcade, sometimes blind, sometimes pierced, and occasionally even
glazed. This triforium fills up the space between the top of the main
arches and the bottom of the clerestory window which is covered on the
outside by the roof of the aisle. As a distinct division or
architectural feature, the triforium arcade is not a necessary part of
the structure. In smaller churches it seldom exists. But in most
cathedrals, as at York, a passage runs behind it, and is generally lit
by the holes in the arcading. As has been stated, however, the arcading
is often blank, and in such cases there might be nothing but a bare
space of wall in its place, for all the practical purpose it serves.
Since, therefore, its form is not dictated by considerations of utility,
there is far more variety in its treatment than in that of the other two
divisions, the main lines of which are formed by structural necessities;
and yet the success or failure of an interior often depend upon the
arrangement and proportion of the triforium; and the arrangement of the
triforium, its emphasis or subordination, was one of the chief problems
with which the builders of Gothic churches had to deal. Since such a
church is generally divided into three storeys, the main lines of the
interior would naturally be expected to be horizontal, and in many
interiors of the Norman and Early English periods they are so, as, for
instance, in the nave of Wells Cathedral. But the stone vault, which
played so important a part in the development of Gothic style naturally
emphasised, with its ribs converging at regular intervals, the vertical
division into bays as opposed to the horizontal division into storeys.
The supports of the outside wall were gradually concentrated by the use
of pinnacles and flying buttresses placed between the windows; the
windows themselves grew in size with the introduction and development of
tracery and the increasing taste for the decoration of stained glass;
until the final organism of Gothic architecture was attained, and the
typical Gothic Church, from being a building of three storeys, pierced
by windows, became a structure made up of vertical supports, with the
intervening spaces filled with glass. When this phase of development was
reached, the building became as organic in all its parts as the human
body. Structure was ornament, and ornament structure, and the two were
fused as they have never been in any other style of architecture.
Decoration and variety of outline were supplied by the mere disposition
of the supporting masses, the arrangement of structural lines; to the
exterior, by the flying buttresses, the pinnacles, and the window
tracery; to the interior, by the banded shafts, the capitals, the
groined ribs of the vaults, and the openings of the triforium. Outside
the church became a framework of glorified stone scaffolding; inside, an
avenue of columns rising from the ground to the vaults, with
intermediate spaces of tracery and coloured glass. But before this stage
was reached there were many compromises and passing phases, and every
considerable church in England, until the end of the fourteenth century,
may be classified and criticised, not only for its beauty, but as a link
in the development of Gothic architecture. The builders were grappling
with both tendencies, the vertical and the horizontal; they were not
consciously working on a theory of complete vertical development; they
made progress by structural experiment, and a sensitive eye for
possibilities of beauty; and in the meantime their problem, both
structural and artistic, was to make a happy compromise between vertical
and horizontal lines. It was a problem which probably presented itself
to them in the question how they were to treat the different storeys of
the building. Structural difficulties would be continually at war with
their aesthetic ambitions, and the heavy stone vault made structural
difficulties a serious matter. There was a growing desire for space, for
height and width, for light and colour. With every increase of height
and width the burden of the vault became more oppressive; with every
enlargement of windows its supports were weakened. As a rule, the
English builders were far less ambitious in their treatment of these
problems than the French. Amiens Cathedral, begun at the beginning of
the thirteenth century, is structurally as daring as can be. Salisbury,
but for its spire, a later addition, is comparatively modest and timid.
The French builders quickly reached the limits of structural
possibilities, and their type became fixed. The English, with less
economy of support, and a lower organisation of structure, were better
able to play with their forms. So their churches present a series of
continual and often inconsequent experiments in the treatment and
proportion of every storey, particularly of the triforium, and in
compromise between vertical and horizontal tendencies. Thus at Beverley,
Salisbury, and particularly in the nave of Wells, the horizontal
tendency is predominant, and the triforium is both important and
continuous, without regard for the vertical division of the bays. In the
Early English transept of the minster itself the triforium is the most
prominent feature of the design. These are all examples of Early English
work, but in the nave of Lichfield, which is Decorated, the triforium is
still far more prominent than the clerestory. In the same way a various
and experimental use may be noticed of the shafts dropping from the
point at which the ribs converge. At Wells and Salisbury these shafts
reach only to the top of the triforium. They are so insignificant as
hardly even to suggest a vertical division. At Beverley they cease a
little way above the capitals of the main piers, and are still very
slender. At Exeter they are much more prominent, and terminate in rich
corbels reaching to the capitals of the main piers; while in the later
naves of Canterbury and Winchester, not only do they reach to the
ground, but they are forced so far forward, and rendered so prominent by
continuous mouldings on each side of them, that they become the most
significant part of the whole structure. They seem to be the columns on
which the vault is supported; and we have at last the avenue of stone.
[Illustration: The Nave.]
The nave of York Minster was built at an intermediate stage, in which
neither the vertical nor the horizontal tendency predominated. We might
have expected, therefore, a design something like that in the naves of
Exeter or Worcester; but the York builders were ambitious. They were
determined to build a nave both lofty and wide, and with a great space
for the display of stained glass. It seems likely, though we have no
evidence to support the theory, that they were influenced by French
example. There can be no doubt, as Professor Freeman has pointed out,
that the design is more French than that of any other large English
church, hitherto built, except Westminster Abbey. The most casual
observer will be struck at once by the large space occupied by the
glass. The clerestory is unusually large; the main arches unusually
high, and thus far the greater part of each bay is filled with the
clerestory and the aisle windows. With so much space given to the
highest and lowest storeys, it naturally follows that the triforium is
almost squeezed out of existence. Indeed, out of a total height of 99
feet, there are only about 13 between the top of the main arches and the
bottom of the clerestory. It would have been almost impossible to give
so narrow a triforium a separate and independent design; and, therefore,
by a device often found in French cathedrals, the triforium is merely a
continuation of the mullions of the clerestory windows. Behind these
mullions is the customary triforium passage; but the design really
consists only of two parts, the clerestory and the main arches. It is as
if the lower part of the light of the clerestory windows were divided
from the rest by a transom, and pierced, but not glazed, so as to let in
light to the passage behind them. This is the first example of this
treatment, which was so happily followed in the naves of Winchester and
Canterbury, in an English cathedral. In earlier examples, even where the
triforium was decisively divided into bays and had ceased to be a
continuous arcading, it was absolutely independent of the clerestory, as
in the transepts of the minster. There can be no doubt that the plan
adopted in the nave was a convenient and logical one. It is impossible
to have every advantage; and where the designer has set his heart on a
wall of glass, he cannot combine it with a rich and prominent triforium.
Unfortunately, the architect of the nave, though ambitious and logical
up to a certain point, did not carry his pursuit of the vertical
tendency far enough. He aimed at unity and coherence in the design of
each bay, and for the sake of that unity and coherence he was forced to
sacrifice the richness and fulness of pattern given by a prominent and
independent triforium. The later builders at Winchester and Canterbury
made up for this, as has been said, by the emphasis they gave to their
vertical lines. But at York, while the insignificance of the triforium
deprives the design of all horizontal continuity, there is little
attempt at vertical emphasis. True, large shafts rise from the floor to
the converging point of the ribs of the vault; but these shafts are not
forced forwards as at Winchester, but lie flat against the wall. They
are prominent enough when each individual bay is examined, but they do
not catch the eye when the nave is looked at as a whole. In the naves of
Salisbury or Beverley the eye is led on from west to east by the
circling band of the rich triforium; in the naves of Winchester and
Canterbury it is attracted from floor to roof by the upspringing
clusters of shafts; at York it wanders from point to point without any
prominent feature to catch it. The blank space in each bay between the
windows of the clerestory and the vaulting shafts ought to be a welcome
contrast to the curves of tracery, the clusters of pillars and mouldings
in a strong and forcible design. At York it appears to be simply a piece
of wall which requires decoration.
Everywhere there is a lack of emphasis, not only in structure but in
detail. The windows are not recessed, the capitals are small, the
mouldings are delicate rather than forcible. The main piers are thin,
their shafts are rather monotonously and tamely divided, the mouldings
of the arches are narrow and shallow, the mullions of the clerestory and
the shafts on each side of them are unusually slender; and this is
peculiarly unfortunate in a nave, the width of which is greater both
actually and proportionately, than that of any other English Gothic
cathedral. To make a successful design of such proportions, there was
need of strong vertical lines to give it the appearance of unusual
strength: and not only the appearance but the reality. It is a
significant fact that the builders were afraid to place a stone vault on
their nave, and thus it is a Gothic building without that feature which
gives its whole significance to the Gothic style, and by reason of which
the design of this nave came to be what it was. It is a curious paradox,
that the builders of York should have abandoned one of the most
attractive features of earlier art in pursuit of a more logical design,
and should then have been forced to abandon that very vault which gave
their design all its logic. It is as if a dramatist strictly
subordinated all his characters before the central figure of the hero,
and then discovered that the exigencies of the plot would not allow of
the introduction of the hero at all.
The most casual observer, on first entering the nave of York Minster,
must have a vague feeling of disappointment, a consciousness that
something is wanting; he will see that his feeling is justified, when he
learns that it is the first building in England of which the design is
entirely dominated by the necessities of a stone vault, and yet that it
is crowned by a wooden roof. But it must not be supposed that this nave
is altogether to be condemned, as some critics have condemned it. Each
bay, looked at by itself, is not only perfectly logical and coherent in
design, but is filled with delicate and appropriate detail. The
capitals, if small, are finely carved; the mouldings well contrasted and
subordinated; and the window tracery is the finest possible. It is a
work of the best age of architecture with all the characteristics in
detail of that age; yet it is not the work of a builder of genius, but
of a careful scholar, who has imperfectly assimilated the principles of
his masters.
In passing this judgment, it must be remembered that we are not rashly
coming to a conclusion on insufficient data. This nave is not a mere
beautiful scaffolding deprived of all its original decoration, like the
nave of Salisbury. If that is somewhat cold and wanting in richness, it
is the fault of later ages, which have deprived it of its stained glass.
At York the greater part of the stained glass remains. The vault has
been renewed, it is true, but it can never have been satisfactory; and
we may assume that in essentials we see the nave now as its designers
intended us to see it.
To pass to a detailed description, the nave is divided into eight bays,
of which the two nearest the lantern are narrower than the rest, no
doubt with the purpose of giving increased support to the tower. It is
about 263 feet long inside, and 48 feet wide, with the aisle 104 feet
wide in all. Its height is about 99½ feet. Each bay is divided into
two main divisions of almost equal height; the upper half, consisting of
the triforium and clerestory, being only about 2 feet longer than the
lower, which consists of the main arches. These two halves are divided
by a slender horizontal moulding running immediately above the crown of
the main arches.
The piers of the main arches are octagonal in shape and unusually
slender. They are made up of shafts of different sizes, the larger ones
placed at the corners of the octagon, the smaller ones between them. The
grouping of these shafts should be compared with that of the Early
English piers in the transepts. There the central mass of masonry is
surrounded with shafts of Purbeck marble almost detached. Here the
different shafts are closely connected together and subordinated. The
earlier pier is made up, so to speak, of a bundle of shafts; the later
is a mass of masonry cut into different shapes. There can be no doubt
that in this case the treatment of the earlier pier, if less logical, is
more successful. The piers of the nave have capitals of beautiful
design, and well executed, but rather small and shallow. The moulding of
the arches is narrow, almost as narrow and small in detail as
Perpendicular work, but, of course, much more diversified in outline. On
each side of the main arches--that is to say, in their spandrels--is a
series of shields with coats of arms, said to be those of benefactors of
the minster. "Murray's Hand-book" gives the arms on the shields as
follow, beginning at the north-east end of the nave:--
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 the
ribs of the vaulting spring: a large shaft in the middle, with a smaller
one on each side of it. There are small carved figures at the point at
which the smaller of these shafts touch the moulding of the arches. The
capitals of these shafts, though small, are of a very delicate design. A
few inches above the top of the main arch is a horizontal string course
or moulding dividing each bay into two storeys. As has been said, the
triforium is merely a prolongation of the lights of the clerestory
window. These lights are five in number. The division between clerestory
and triforium is marked by a band of stone ornamented with quatrefoils.
Below this is a cusped arch in each light of the triforium with a
crocketed gable ending in a finial above it. The centre lights of the
triforium in each bay originally contained figures, said to have been
the patron saints of European nations. Of these there only remains a
figure in the fourth bay from the west on the south side. Near the
triforium in the opposite bay to this there projects the head of a
dragon carved in wood, from which the covering of the font used to hang.
The clerestory windows are of uniform pattern of the style known as
geometrical Decorated. This pattern is very fine in design. It consists
of five lights, the two outer of which are grouped in a single arch,
with a quatrefoil piercing in its head. Between these two arches and on
the top of the arch of the central light is a circle fitting into the
arch of the window, and ornamented with four quatrefoils, four trefoil
piercings, and other smaller lights. There are capitals to the outside
shafts of the windows, and to the main shafts of the two inner mullions.
All these mullions are very delicately moulded. A separate account will
be given of the glass in these windows and those of the aisles, together
with the rest of the glass in the minster. There is a curious moulding
running round the arches of the windows and springing from the capitals
of the vaulting shafts, which bends towards those arches to a point a
little way above the capitals from which they spring, and then runs
parallel and close to their mouldings. The vault is of wood covered with
plaster. The ribs are elaborate in design, but not very successful. The
fact that the vaulting is not of stone deprives the mouldings and bosses
of all sharpness and delicacy. From the capital of the vaulting shafts
and for about 9½ feet above them these ribs are of stone: the
division between wood and stone is marked by a curious and heavy
moulding. The aisles of the nave are bolder in design and altogether
more satisfactory than the nave itself. Like the nave they are unusually
wide and lofty. In the two farthest bays to the west, above which are
the western towers, the rough wooden roof, which has never been covered
with a vault, may be seen. These bays are separated from the bays next
to them by strong arches with thick shafts and mouldings, which were
built for the support of the towers. The shafts supporting this arch on
the outer side are five in number. The shafts corresponding to them in
the other bays of the aisle, to which the ribs of the aisle vaults
converge, are only three. All these shafts have finely-carved capitals
of leafage. The vault of the aisles is of stone, with only structural
ribs, finely moulded and with carved bosses. The aisle windows are, like
those of the clerestory, of the geometrical Decorated style, but of an
earlier and simpler, uniform, design. They each contain three lights,
and there is no variation or subordination of mouldings in the mullions.
Unlike the clerestory windows, they are somewhat deeply recessed. The
mouldings of their arches are broad and bold, and are supported by five
shafts with capitals. Above the three lights of the windows are three
quatrefoils, pyramidally arranged. On each side of these windows, in the
space between the windows and the vaulting shafts, is plain stone
panelling terminating in an arch with a crocketed gable above it, ending
in a finial which reaches to about the level of the spring of the window
arch. On each side of this gable are grotesque carved figures. A small
pinnacle is rather strangely inserted on each side of the arch at the
point at which it springs. Below the windows there is a rich arcade,
with buttresses between the divisions ending in pinnacles. Each division
is filled with a geometrical pattern of two panels, each panel ending in
a trefoil, with a circular trefoil in the head of each division, and a
crocketed gable, terminating in a rich finial above it. All the
mouldings of this arcade are very delicate. In the north aisle, and in
the second bay from the west, is a doorway, which opened to a Chapel of
the Holy Sepulchre, now altogether destroyed. Above this doorway is a
gable ornamented with foliage and a statue of the Virgin, which has lost
its head, with statues of angels on either side of her, also much
mutilated.
[Illustration: The Nave--South Aisle.]
#The Interior Of The West End Of The Nave# contains the famous window
with tracery of the curvilinear or flowing Decorated style, and of a
design only surpassed by the east window of Carlisle Cathedral. The
glass in this window was given by Archbishop Melton, and is almost the
finest in the cathedral. The tracery has been entirely and very
carefully restored. The window contains eight lights. These lights are
coupled in pairs by four arches with a quatrefoil in the head of each,
and again formed in groups of four by an ogee arch above the other
arches. The flowing curves of these ogee arches are most ingeniously and
beautifully worked into the pattern of the upper part of the window,
which contains five main divisions of stonework, each like the skeleton
of a leaf in shape and in the delicacy of its pattern. Of these five
divisions the top one is made by splitting up the central mullion; two
diverge from it at the top of the lower lights; and two others curve
inwards from the outside arch. The central mullion runs up almost to the
top of the arch. The mullions are alike in moulding and size. Below the
window is the west door, the head of which is filled with ancient
stained glass. There is a gable above it, running up to the bottom of
the window and containing three niches. There are kneeling figures on
each side of the gable, so that the top of it may have held a figure of
Christ. All that portion of the west end not occupied by the window and
the porch is filled with storeys of niches and arcading. The lowest
storey consists of a rich arcading, each division of which is ornamented
with geometrical tracery closely resembling that of the arcading of the
aisles. These divisions are marked by pinnacles. Above this is another
row of arcading of much the same character, except that it is about half
as high again as the lower storey. Each division of this arcading
contains two niches for statues, and above the niches are gables. Above
the gables the divisions are filled with tracery closely resembling that
of the lower arcade. This second arcade reaches to the bottom of the
great window, which is marked by a string course running across the
whole part. On each side of the gable of the porch is an extra niche
rather clumsily fitted in. Above the string course the arcading is not
so rich as below. The third storey consists of long niches ornamented
merely with arches, gables, and pinnacles between each niche. The fourth
is of much the same character, but that the divisions are shorter and
have no gable above them. The last storey consists of plain panelling
ornamented at intervals by gables. The west windows of the aisle are
shorter than the other aisle windows, but have tracery of the same
character. The aisle doorways are plain, but over both are some
sculptured figures. Those over the north door appear to represent a
hunt. In the middle a woman is setting a dog on to two beasts, and
behind them there is a man blowing a horn. At the sides are two
quatrefoils, set in which are figures (1) of a man attacking another man
drinking, and (2) one man driving another away. The sculpture over the
south door was destroyed in the fire of 1840, but a careful restoration
of it has been made. It consists of a man in the middle fighting with a
dragon, with sword and shield, and at the sides in the quatrefoils (1)
Delilah cutting the hair of Samson, and Samson and the lion; (2) a man
and woman fighting. The ends of the aisles are also ornamented with
arcading in three storeys, the lowest of which is like the lowest storey
of the arcading at the west end of the nave; the second a smaller series
of niches ornamented with gables and pinnacles; and the third a single
arcade on each side of the window, filled with geometrical tracery and
resembling those on the sides of the other aisle windows.
It cannot be said that this mass of niches and arcading at the west end
is either ingenious or successful. Arcading is a very beautiful
decoration where it is employed, as in a triforium, in single storeys,
to cover a definite even space. But where it is used to fill up an
irregularly-shaped mass of wall which there is no need to decorate, it
looks incoherent and confused. Had the wall been left bare it would have
afforded an excellent contrast to the elaborate pattern of the central
window. As it is, this decoration seems to be conceived in a spirit, of
which there are further evidences in the decoration of the west front of
the east end--the spirit of a builder determined to display the
magnificence of his resources even at the expense of symmetry and
refinement. This is a weakness that might be expected in the designer of
a London hotel, but not in a great mediæval architect.
The nave was fitted with benches, seats, and a very mean-looking organ,
in 1863. It is lit by gas jets round the capitals of the piers.
The tombs of the nave are described in a general account of the
monuments of the church.
The present pavement dates from 1731. It was laid down according to the
design of William Kent, under the direction of Lord Burlington, the
amateur architect of Burlington House. The stone was given by Sir Edward
Gascoigne from Huddlestone. Some of the gravestones were also used for
the work. The work cost £2500, which was collected by subscription. The
pavement, though inoffensive, is not in keeping with the rest of the
church.
#The Transepts.#--The minster is generally entered by the door at the
south end of the south transept, and this is perhaps an advantage, as it
introduces the visitor at once to the finest view of the interior and
one of the finest architectural views in the world.
Mr Fergusson has called the "lantern" the weak point in the system of
Gothic, or rather of English Gothic, architecture (for in French
churches there is usually no lantern), and there is something to be said
for his view.
The climax of a domical church is obviously the dome. That is the centre
and dominating feature of the whole design, and all the lines of the
building should lead up to it. But in a Gothic interior the climax is at
the east end. In the Middle Ages the high altar, blazing with jewels,
plate, and costly embroidery, naturally drew all eyes to it. From the
west end, therefore, the altar as a point of attraction was without a
rival. But, as the visitor drew near to the transepts, the lantern, if
it existed, suddenly discovered itself and distracted his attention from
the altar. And when seen directly from below it had not the overpowering
impressiveness of the dome. It was apt to be too narrow and dimly lit,
too much disconnected from the system of the whole building to produce
an overpowering and harmonious effect. But at York, when the minster is
entered by the south transept, the east end is not seen at all, and the
lantern, with all its height and vastness, is seen at once. Even as
viewed from the west end, the choir is shut off from the rest of the
church by a heavy screen, and the view eastward is broken and
ineffective. But those very qualities of the interior which lessen the
beauties of the nave increase the grandeur of the transept view. The
great width of the church has enabled the lantern to be so large as
almost to give it the effect of a dome. And the opening of the lantern
is so lofty, 180 feet indeed from the floor to the vault, as to lessen
the appearance of emptiness that might otherwise result from the great
width of the transepts. The dimensions of this part of the church are
all enormous, and only comparable to those of the dome and transepts of
St. Paul's. The length of the transepts, each of them four bays long, is
223 feet from north to south, in itself the length of a large church;
their width is 93 feet, the height to the summit of the roof, 99 feet,
and to the top of the lantern, 180 feet.
The transepts, therefore, are unusually prominent, even for an English
cathedral, and they have many other unusual features. Taken in
conjunction with the lantern, they produce an effect to be found in no
other Gothic church in the world. In England there are none so wide and
so lofty. In France there are interiors even loftier, but in France the
transepts are seldom a prominent feature of the design. Often they do
not project beyond the outer wall of the aisles of the nave, and oftener
still there is no central tower large enough to allow of a lantern at
all. It is a great piece of good fortune, also, that the five vast
lancets of the north transept end, known as the five sisters, still keep
their beautiful original glass. If we look at these windows and consider
how utterly ineffective they would be if they were glazed with plain
glass, we can understand how little remains of the original beauty of
the interior of Salisbury.
When these transepts were planned, the minster had a Norman nave and
choir, far narrower and smaller in every way than the present nave and
choir. There is no doubt that the transepts were begun with the
intention of rebuilding the whole church. At that time it was not among
the largest of English cathedrals, and the aspiring and ambitious
archbishops naturally desired to have a cathedral worthy of their
position in the church. They therefore planned their transepts without
any regard for the then existing proportions of the rest of the
building, but as it was impossible to rebuild the whole minster at once,
they found it necessary to fit their new transepts on to the older and
smaller nave and choir, and afterwards to fit their new and larger nave
and choir to these transepts. This necessity accounts for and explains
many of the peculiarities of the transepts.
There is one peculiarity in particular, the arrangement of the bays
nearest to the piers supporting the lantern, which must strike every
observant visitor at once, and the explanation of which was only
discovered by the patient and penetrating investigations of Professor
Willis.
For the purpose of explaining this peculiarity of arrangement, the two
bays of the west side of the south transept nearest the south-west pier
supporting the lantern may be taken as an example.
It will be seen that their arrangement is most irregular--in fact, they
can hardly be called bays at all. For instance, the main arch nearest to
the pier is much wider than the main arch next to it, and this latter is
filled with masonry. It will be noticed, also, that the pier between the
two arches is Decorated in style, and not Early English, like the rest
of the transept. Further, the triforium and clerestory do not accord in
their division with the main arches. There is no triforium, but merely a
blank space of wall with a small ornamental opening, next to the pier of
the lantern; and this blank wall only covers a small part of the space
over the arch below it. Near to the centre of that arch is a vaulting
shaft, and south of it a full-sized division of the triforium, with a
full-sized division of the clerestory above it, and the division fills
the space above both the remaining half of the first arch and the whole
of the smaller second arch. It is as if the _strata_ of the building had
been broken by a violent change, and this is exactly what happened. As
has been said, the old Norman nave and choir had much narrower aisles
than the present nave and choir; consequently, the bays of the transept
nearest to the piers of the lantern were narrower than the other bays,
so that their main arches might be exactly of the same size as the
arches of the Norman aisles which at that point joined on to them. But
when the far wider aisles of the present nave and choir were built these
narrower arches did not fit them, and their outside piers blocked up the
centre of the new aisles. The builders of the nave therefore determined
to remove these piers and to alter the whole scheme of the arches, so as
to make them fit the new aisles. By an extraordinary and daring feat of
engineering skill, they were able to do so without disturbing the
triforium and clerestory above them. This was effected in the following
manner:--The pier in the middle of the new aisle was removed, together
with the whole of the narrow arch which it supported on the one side and
the wider arch which it supported on the other. No doubt, in the
meantime the upper storeys of the two bays were kept from falling by
temporary props. A pier in the Decorated style was then placed so that
the arch above it fitted the arch of the new aisles, and the two
arches--the narrower one nearest the pier of the lantern, and the wider
one beyond it--were made to change places bodily, so that the same space
was occupied by the two together as before, and it did not become
necessary to disturb the rest of the piers. This narrower arch was then
walled up to give support to the lantern. Meanwhile, of course, with
this new arrangement, the upper storeys of the bays did not correspond
with the arches below them. The narrower upper division was now over the
wider lower arch, and _vice versa_. It should be said that the triforium
of the division next to the piers of the lantern was built blank,
because, being so much narrower than the other bays, it would have been
impossible to give it decoration of the same character, and also because
a solid space of blank wall would give better support to the tower. An
account has been given in the history of the building of the minster and
the manner in which the piers of the lantern gradually received their
casings. The daring shown in this alteration of the transepts and the
disregard for continuity of design are very characteristic of the
builders of the period. They lavished extraordinary labour on beautiful
detail, but they cared very little how one part of that detail fitted in
with another. The spirit of their art was entirely opposed to that of
the renaissance architects, for the success of whose designs uniformity
and continuity of plan and detail were absolutely necessary. It is
curious, also, that these very builders who were so daring and so
profuse of ornament, were often very careless in matters of structure,
and at times were even guilty of something very like jerry-building, as
the account of the restoration of the south transept will show. The
vaulting of the transepts is also most unusual and well worthy of
attention. It raises many problems which have been little noticed by
most investigators of the history of the minster.
Like the vault of the nave, it is of wood, and dates probably from the
beginning of the fifteenth century. In the north transept it is covered
with plaster; in the south this has been removed by Mr Street, and oak
panelling inserted. It has been stated that the vault of the nave and
choir, though wooden, resembles a stone vault in form and structure. Not
so that of the transepts, which is a curious compromise between the form
of the ordinary vault of stone and the simple barrel roof. It is an
attempt, in fact, to combine the advantages of both.
It is the merit of groined vaulting that it emphasises the division into
bays, and is capable of great richness of structural decoration. On the
other hand, it involves a great loss of height, for the ridge of the
vault can be little higher than the top of the clerestory windows, and
it cuts off the whole space covered by the roof above it from the
building which it covers. The structure of the vault will be perhaps
most easily understood if it is conceived as a flat roof of stone of the
same height as the top of the clerestory, supported by fan-shaped
brackets springing from a point between the clerestory windows, and
rising and spreading out until they reach the central ridge of the
vault. As the vault is, but for these brackets, in its essence flat,
there must of necessity be a great sacrifice of space between it and the
roof above it. This sacrifice of space is obviated by the barrel roof,
which nearly approaches to the shape of the outside roof, and fits into
it without the loss of space entailed by the vault. But the barrel roof
does not readily submit to a structural division into bays, or a
structural decoration by means of ribs and bosses such as ornament and
emphasise the divisions of the intersecting vault.
Wishing, as has been said, to combine the advantages of both forms, the
designers of the transept roof have given it the shape of a barrel roof,
and have covered it with a network of ribs, some of which converge
between the bays of the building and meet at a point on a level with the
bottom of the clerestory. The roof, therefore, has at first sight the
appearance of a vault, but it remains a barrel roof divided by ribs all
the same; and this will be evident so soon as it is remarked that the
top of the roof is not on a level with the top of the clerestory, but
some way above it. It is, therefore, not to be conceived as a flat roof
supported by brackets, but as an almost circular roof ornamented and
divided by structurally unnecessary ribs. Indeed, it would be altogether
impossible to combine a vault with such a clerestory as is found in
these transepts, for a vault is a roof designed to fit a pointed arch.
Its spreading supports make it impossible to adapt it to any other than
an arched clerestory; and the clerestory of these transepts, consisting
as it does of a row of five lancet windows, is flat at the top. A barrel
roof, on the contrary, will fit any kind of buildings, but,
unfortunately, it is seldom successful, except in round-arched churches.
To some of these--as, for example, in Auvergne--it has been applied with
magnificent effect. It is very rare in England. It is always very
difficult to decorate. The fifteenth century builders having for some
reason or other decided on the form, and being but little accustomed to
it, determined to treat it like a vault. They covered it with a network
of ribs, and where these ribs met they placed bosses. They also caused
these ribs, as far as possible, to take the same direction that the
structure of a real vault would give to them. No doubt the ribs serve
some useful purpose as a support to the roof, especially as that roof is
slightly pointed and not circular, like the barrel roof proper; but the
whole effect is unfortunate. The artistic merits of the real vault are
evident. It is logical, capable of much structural decoration, and it
determines and explains the whole plan of the bays both inside and out.
The merits of the barrel roof are also evident. It also is logical,
though in a less degree than the vault. It does not determine or explain
the plan of the building below it, but it is easily adaptable, and it
has a simplicity and a marked grandeur of its own. The roof at York has
none of this simplicity. To the most casual visitor it is puzzling and
complicated. To the eye which looks farther, which seeks for the logic
of its construction, it is still more puzzling. It may deceive the
careless observer with the idea that it is a vault, but it will not
convince him that it is a good one. It is a work of great ingenuity, but
not of great art. It is impossible to say what was there before it. If
we knew, we might be able to understand why the builders of the
fifteenth century hit upon such a form; and it may be that they were
forced by structural necessities to do so. Some space may perhaps be
allowed to a conjecture on the subject. It will be remembered that when
the present transept was built no part of the present nave or choir was
existing; and only the core of the piers supporting the present tower.
The tower itself as we see it, the arches over the pier, and the casing
of those piers, all date from a period later than the transepts. The
Norman nave and choir, existing when these transepts were begun, were,
of course, much less lofty than the present nave and choir. If,
therefore, the roof of the transept was of its present height, it must
also have been far higher than the roof of the then existing nave; and,
consequently, of the four arches supporting the central tower, those to
the north and south must have been very much higher than those to the
east and west. If the transepts had had a vault originally, this
arrangement would have been plainly impossible, as a vault would have
covered up a great part of the east and west arches. But, though the
shape of the clerestory makes it plain that a vault was never even
intended, it seems very unlikely that the north and south arches were
originally loftier than those east and west. If we suppose that they
were all originally designed and built of the same height, we shall find
a very plausible reason for the form which the present roof has taken.
In such a case the transept must have had a flat wooden roof, the
natural covering to a clerestory of such a design, and must have looked,
with its great width, very squat and low. But when the new and far
loftier nave was built, it, of course, became necessary to heighten the
western of the four arches supporting the tower, and afterwards to go
through the same process with regard to the eastern arch. At such a
time, when the choir was completed, the two arches east and west would
be much loftier than the two north and south. Before rebuilding the
tower it would naturally occur to the builders to raise the north and
south arches to a level with the others, and to do this it would be
necessary to raise the roof. In such a case it would be quite natural
for the builders to hit upon such a roof as at present exists. They
would have before them already the example of a wooden vault in the
nave, and for the sake of uniformity they would be inclined to make
their new roof as much like that vault as possible. Having the size and
height of their arch settled before they designed their roof, the roof
would of necessity be shaped to fit the arch, and this would be the most
convenient roof for the purpose under the circumstances. This theory
will explain why a new roof was required in the fifteenth century, and
it also helps to explain other difficulties. For example, it is hard to
understand why the transepts, being so wide, are not loftier, and why
their original design made a vault impossible. But if we remember that
they were originally additions to a much lower nave and choir, we shall
see that their architect, having determined on a plan of great width,
was in a difficulty. If he made his transepts much higher than his nave,
the effect, both inside and out, would be very irregular. If he made
them of the same height, and vaulted them, they would be far too wide
for their height. He therefore determined, we will suppose, to make a
wooden roof which would sacrifice as little of the height of his
transepts as possible, and yet allow them to fit on to his nave without
any appearance of incongruity.
He may also have expected that a loftier nave would soon be built, and
set a temporary roof on his transepts which could be easily removed and
adapted to new requirements.
Be that as it may, the transepts are altogether a curious patchwork, yet
when entered from the south end they seem almost entirely satisfactory,
since the eye is so engrossed by the magnificence of the five great
lancets of the north front, and the great height of the lantern, that it
is unable to take note of any smaller and less satisfactory details.
The two transepts are alike in the arrangement of their bays and in the
general lines of their design, though they differ wholly in the
arrangement of their fronts, and in many little points of detail.
Their bays are planned on wholly different proportions to those of the
nave and choir. There every bay is divided into two main divisions, and
the main arch is nearly half of the whole. Here the divisions are
three--a main arch, a very large triforium, and a smaller clerestory.
The ornamental details are very rich and bold, but the design, taken as
a whole, is not altogether excellent. Professor Freeman says bluntly
that "the feeble clerestory and broad and sprawling triforium are
unsatisfactory." This is true enough, but the whole effect is far better
than might be expected. The great width of the transepts in proportion
to their length, and the great size of the lantern, coupled with the
fact that they are not vaulted, makes one apt to forget that they are
divided into bays at all, and to regard the whole as a gigantic hall
divided into three storeys and magnificently decorated.
The plan of the bays, like that of the decorated part of the choir at
Ely and the nave of Lichfield, is probably a reminiscence of Norman
proportions. It is certainly better suited to the bold outlines and
masses of the Norman period.
Here, as in the nave, the main piers are rather thin. The triforium
appears to be "sprawling," because it consists of a single great arch in
each bay, sub-divided into four smaller ones. The clerestory is small
rather than feeble. Its five lancets, though not large, are boldly
decorated with shafts, carvings, and mouldings.
The chief drawback to the design lies in the exceeding prominence of the
triforium, owing to which the eye is drawn to the middle storey, rather
than led up from the floor to the roof. And as this middle storey
consists of a single bold arch in each bay, it has not the merit of
horizontal continuity, found, for example, in the triforium at Beverley,
and does not lead the eye, once directed to it, from bay to bay.
Like the nave, therefore, though for very different reasons, the
transept should be examined bay by bay if the beauties of plan and of
detail are to be appreciated, and these beauties, at least those of
detail, are abundant.
There are some differences of detail between the east and west sides of
the south transept, and also between the south and north transepts. The
east and west sides of the north transept are practically identical,
except for the fact that a Decorated pillar without Purbeck marble
shafts has replaced an original Early English pillar on the west side of
the north transept. This was probably made necessary by the height of
the tower.
The differences between the east and west sides of the south transept
are as follow:--
The windows in the southern bay of the west aisle are blank. They are
pierced on the eastern aisle.
The vaulting ribs of the western aisle are plain. They are elaborately
moulded in the eastern aisle.
The arcade in the eastern aisle is shorter than in the western, and does
not reach to the ground.
There is a niche against the north-west pier of the tower, but none on
the north-east.
There is a leaf moulding above the clerestory on the eastern side. The
same moulding on the west is plain.
The eastern moulding of the main arches on the eastern side is
dog-tooth. It is plain on the west. The other mouldings of the main
arches are also differently arranged.
The spandrels of the triforium are decorated with circles of carved
foliage, five to each bay, on the west side. These are absent on the
east.
The north transept differs from the south in the following respects:--
The arches of the arcade at the north end of the north transept are
trefoiled. They are plain at the south end of the south.
The main piers of the north transept have a ridge running down their
alternate stone shafts. This ridge is wanting in the south.
Their capitals are richer, and, curiously enough, apparently later in
detail.
In the clerestory of the north transept there are large dog-tooth
mouldings between the Purbeck marble shafts wanting in the south
transept. There is also more dog-tooth in the arch mouldings of the
clerestory of the north transept than of the south.
In the north transept the moulding between the clerestory and triforium
is dog-tooth. It is plain in the south transept.
The arcades of the aisles are practically the same in both aisles,
except for the differences noted between the east and west aisle of the
south transepts.
There are two rows of dog-tooth moulding round the windows in the aisles
of the north transept, but only one in the south.
The clerestory shafts in the aisle of the north transept are bolder than
in the south, and the capitals, especially on the east side, are more
elaborate and beautiful.
The extra Decorated pillar on the west side of the north transept has
already been noted.
The ends of the transepts are, of course, entirely different in
arrangement. Purbeck marble is used lavishly all over the transepts; as,
for example, alternately with stone in the main piers, on the shafts of
the aisles, and in the triforium and clerestory. The main vaulting
shafts are altogether of Purbeck.
The arcade at both ends of the transepts is entirely without Purbeck
marble.
In the south front the shafts of the lowest row of windows are
alternately of Purbeck and stone. The arcading above the door is wholly
Purbeck, with dog-tooth mouldings of stone. The shafts of the central
windows are Purbeck with alternate dog-tooth mouldings, and there are
Purbeck shafts at the side of the rose window.
There are also Purbeck shafts on each side of the door, beginning above
the arcade below.
In the north front, the shafts of the five sisters and of the five
lancets above them are alternately marble and stone.
As has been said, the proportions of the bays in the transepts are very
different to those of the nave. The triforium is much larger, and the
clerestory much smaller. The main arches, slightly smaller in proportion
than those of the nave, are extraordinarily rich and beautiful in
detail. Their mouldings are very complex and deep, and are varied with
dog-tooth and billet ornament.
The piers are perhaps too thin, though beautiful enough in themselves.
They are made up of alternate shafts of Purbeck marble and stone. Those
of Purbeck are ringed half-way up. The Decorated piers are altogether of
stone, and not ringed at all. The arrangement of the shafts is not quite
so bold and various as in some other Early English work--the choirs of
Ely and Worcester, for example.
The capitals are finely carved, though small. Those in the north
transept are rather richer than those in the south.
[Illustration: South Transept, Triforium, and Clerestory.]
The corbels of the vaulting shafts, which are placed just above the
capitals of the piers, are very large and richly decorated with four
rows of foliage.
They support three shafts each, one large and two very slender, as in
the nave. On each side of the larger shaft is a dog-tooth moulding.
The main arches, especially on the east side of the south transept, are
considerably out of plumb, owing to the great weight of the lantern, and
perhaps to the inferior material used in the transepts.
The triforium consists of a single great circular arch in each bay. It
is divided by a thick central cluster of shafts into two smaller arches,
and these in turn are divided by slenderer piers into two smaller arches
still. In the head of the largest arch is a cinquefoil opening
ornamented with cusps and dog-tooth moulding.
In the heads of the smaller arches are quatrefoil openings decorated in
the same way. The mouldings of the large arches are very bold, and
ornamented with dog-tooth; those of the lesser arches are less bold and
plainer.
The shafts of the triforium run down on to a gabled sill which cuts into
their bases. There is the same arrangement in the choir.
The clerestory consists of an arcade of five divisions, the three middle
being windows, the outer ones blind. The clusters of shafts dividing
them are very rich and thick.
The mouldings of the arches are broad and deep, the dog-tooth ornament
being profusely used. Above the arches is a cornice decorated with
foliage.
The vaulting shafts terminate in the wooden ribs of the roof, without
the division of a capital, about two feet above the string course.
The aisles are vaulted, as in the rest of the minster, with stone.
The shafts supporting the vault are very richly clustered and varied.
The mouldings also are broad and deep; in fact, some of the finest work
in the whole of the minster is to be found in these aisles. Below the
aisle windows runs an arcade with trefoiled arches, which is very plain
and simple in its details.
The ends of the transepts, as has been said, are altogether different.
The arrangement of the windows of the south front is described in the
account of the interior. That arrangement is not particularly happy on
the outside. It is even less so when seen from within. This is partly
the result of the stained glass of different periods now in the windows,
and partly of the scattered and confused spacing of the windows
themselves. Inside, as well as outside, the great rose window appears
much too large for its position, and the vaulting, raised to allow the
whole of it to be seen, fits awkwardly round it.
The north end of the transept, however, is one of the most triumphant
successes in the whole minster. Its plan is magnificently simple. It is
almost entirely filled by two rows of lancet windows, the five sisters,
and five much smaller windows of graduated sizes above them.
The five sisters are, no doubt, the largest lancet windows in England,
and it was a bold idea to fill almost the whole of that great front with
them, but the boldness was entirely justified by the result.
It might perhaps have been expected that, like other gigantic openings,
they would dwarf the frame surrounding them. But this is not the case.
They are enormous, and they appear enormous. They have an effect of
gigantic and aspiring simplicity and vigour both inside and outside.
They fill a given space in so obvious and efficient a manner, that it
might seem that no other way of filling it could have occurred to the
architect: that he was forced by a lucky chance to place them there.
That, of course, is the greatest triumph of genius. It is a piece of
luck however that they still retain their ancient glass--Early English
glass of the simplest design, and of a beautiful silvery greyish green
tint. Without it, no doubt, their effect would be entirely different.
The great size and height of the lantern has already been mentioned.
The wooden vault is covered with ribs elaborately reticulated.
There are two windows with simple Perpendicular tracery and transoms on
each side. A single shaft runs between each window.
Below the windows there is an arcade of ten ogee arches on each side of
the lantern, with pinnacles between. Above this arcade is a row of
quatrefoils.
Below each division of the arcade are figures alternating with bosses of
foliage.
In the spandrels of the main arches are coats of arms with angels above
them.
#The Chapter-House# and #Vestibule.#--The vestibule leading to the
chapter-house is entered at the north-east end of the north transept by
a doorway of very curious design. It consists of two arched openings
separated by a pier. Above the two arches is an acutely-pointed gable,
within which, supported by the arches, is a circle with cinquefoil
tracery. Above the gable is a further arch, the ribs of which join the
gable at its exterior angles. This arch is further connected with the
gable by a rib running horizontally through the crown of the gable, and
below this rib, on each side of the gable, are circles quatrefoiled.
From the finial at the top of the gable rise three ribs running to the
top of the arch above.
It is impossible to understand the intention of this strange design,
unless we suppose that the architect was determined to cover a certain
blank space of wall at any cost. It is certainly an original effort, but
it cannot be called either beautiful or logical.
The dates of the chapter-house and the vestibule are very doubtful. The
question is discussed in the account of the building of the minster. It
may be mentioned here, however, that the vestibule is later in date than
the chapter-house itself.
The vestibule is a lofty and narrow passage running three bays north
from the end of the transept, and then turning at right angles and
running two bays east until it reaches the chapter-house itself. Just
inside the vestibule will be seen the point at which the Early English
work of the transept is interrupted by the Decorated work of the
vestibule. There is no attempt at continuity. The Early English arcading
breaks off just below the first Decorated window; the Early English
shafts above it run close to the Decorated shafts of that window; while
the Early English vaulting rib is cut off near its crown. It would
appear from this that a passage to the chapter-house was begun and
discontinued before the building of the chapter-house itself. The
present vestibule was certainly built after the chapter-house, and the
exterior parapet mouldings of the chapter-house may be seen within the
vestibule, showing that it was almost an afterthought. Over the doorway
leading into the vestibule is a pattern of blind tracery. Here, and on
many portions of the roof and walls of the vestibule, are traces of old
paintings. The windows are still filled with their magnificent original
glass. The three bays running north are of unequal size, that nearest to
the transept being the smallest, and that farthest away the largest.
The tracery of the two smaller windows is most curious and unusual. The
smallest is also of a very odd shape, being almost as narrow as a lancet
window, with, however, a rather obtuse arch. It is divided into two
lights, which rise without further tracery to about three-quarters of
the height of the whole window. Into the upper part are crowded five
trefoils of different shapes, and piled one on the top of the other. The
mouldings of the shafts have a slenderness and delicacy characteristic
of the whole of the choir and the vestibule. The slenderness is one of
the chief arguments for the later date assigned to them. All the shafts
have rich capitals. The next window is filled with even more curious
tracery. It is divided into four lights, rising only to almost half the
height of the whole window. The central mullion is thicker than the
other two. Above these lights are two gables, to the crown of which the
two side mullions run, through an arch below them. Above the gables are
two more arches with trefoils in their heads, and in the crown of the
window a circle cinquefoiled. The unusual feature of the design is the
gables with the lights running through them. They were probably inserted
to strengthen the wall. The next three windows are of splendid design,
resembling that of the clerestory of the nave, but richer. All the
mouldings are of the same character. Under the windows runs an arcade of
blind tracery, two lights to each division, with a cinquefoil ornamented
with a sculptured boss above. These bosses contain alternately foliage
and human heads wreathed in foliage. The capitals are also ornamented
with leaves and curious animals. The vault is of richly-moulded ribs,
and on each side of these is a pattern of white lozenges on a red
ground. The vestibule, as a whole, is one of the most beautiful parts of
the minster, not less for its fine proportions and detail than for its
magnificent stained glass.
#The Chapter-House# is entered by a doorway of most beautiful design,
planned in the same manner as the western entrance of the cathedral, but
plainer in decoration. It consists of a large arch divided into two
smaller arches, each of which contains a door. In the head of the larger
arch is a quatrefoil, at the bottom of which are two carved brackets for
sculpture. Between the two smaller arches is a niche, with a canopy
decorated with a double row of gables and finials. The niche contains a
statue of the Virgin Mary and Infant Christ, so mutilated that little of
their ancient beauty is left. Below this niche are four narrow shafts
with capitals. On each side of the doors is a rich cluster of shafts,
boldly cut and varied, with finely-carved capitals. The mouldings of the
main arch and of the two subordinate arches are plain, but much thicker
and bolder than those of the western doorway. On each side of the main
arch are plain niches with small carved brackets. This doorway on the
inner side is divided by a cluster of shafts, and above it is an oblong
piece of masonry ornamented with arcading enclosed in an obtuse arch.
Above the outer arches of the arcading, on each side, is a niche with
sculpture.
The chapter-house itself is octagonal in form, being divided into eight
bays. Seven of these are filled with windows, the eighth, that over the
entrance, being ornamented with blank tracery of the same design as that
of the windows. These windows are very acutely arched, and their tracery
is of the geometrical Decorated style. They contain five lights, each
light terminating in a trefoiled arch. The central light has further a
very acute arch above it, also filled with a trefoil. The two outer
lights on each side are joined together by an arch above them, in which
is a cinquefoiled circle. Above are three circles arranged pyramidally,
each containing nine cusps. The mullions enclosing the central light are
thicker than the others. All the mullions are broken up into very
slender shafts with capitals. It may be safely said that for elegance,
symmetry, and the ingenious filling of a given space, the tracery of
these windows is not surpassed in Europe.
Between the windows are clusters of shafts which support the ribs of the
vault. These shafts have fine capitals, and are separated from the
windows by blank spaces of wall set at an obtuse angle to the windows,
so that the shafts are pushed forward. Below is an arcade, famous both
for its richness and curiously beautiful design. It consists of a series
of canopies, six to each bay, under each of which is a seat forming the
half of an octagon. At each angle of these seats is a shaft of Purbeck
marble. The seats, or niches, are divided from each other also by shafts
of Purbeck marble. The use of Purbeck marble, both here and in the
doorway of the chapter-house, is worthy of note. It is unusual after the
Early English period, and might be advanced as an argument of the early
date of the chapter-house. In the bay which contains the entrance, there
is a seat on each side of the doorway. The capitals of the Purbeck
marble shafts are carved with unusual richness; but it is the canopies
which demand most attention. They are flat at the top, and each is
divided into three bays in front, the central bay being divided from the
other two by pendants richly carved with foliage of the same character
as the capitals of the shafts. Between the shafts and the pendants are
trefoil arches, one to each bay, and above the arches and pendants are
gables crossing each other and ending in finials of carved oak leaves.
Where the gables cross each other are carved heads and figures. The
sculpture of the arcade as a whole is the finest in the cathedral, and
some of the finest in England; but the art of the Gothic sculptor
reaches its culmination in these heads. In grotesqueness, fertility of
invention, and perfect fitness as decoration they could hardly be
surpassed. The canopies are decorated at the top with a cornice of
carved grapes and vine leaves. Above them is a passage running round the
whole chapter-house and passing behind the vaulting shafts and through
the masses of masonry between the windows. The vault is of wood, though
ribbed and painted to give it the appearance of stone. This vault is
arranged so that the ribs diverge from the vaulting shafts until they
reach the central octagon of the roof. At this point they converge to
the boss in the middle of the central octagon. This boss is modern. The
roof was restored in 1845. Before this time it was painted with figures
of kings and bishops, and the bosses were covered with silver. The
modern decoration of the roof is dull and trivial in design and
offensive in colour. During the same restoration many of the marble
shafts were replaced and the floor was paved with tiles, with a most
unfortunate effect. The east window has also been filled with very bad
modern glass. In fact, restorers have done their worst to the
chapter-house; but, luckily, their work is not irreparable. We may hope
that some day the glass, the tiles, and the paint on the roof will all
be removed. This chapter-house marks the farthest point reached in the
development of such buildings. It differs from the chapter-houses at
Lincoln, Salisbury, Westminster, and Wells in that it has no central
pillar, and this absence of a central pillar is supposed to be its
special glory. No doubt the pillar was an inconvenience when the chapter
met, and the architect was given a fine opportunity for the display of
his mechanical ingenuity when he decided to do without it. But there can
be no doubt that a central pillar or cluster of shafts such as is found
at Wells, would be more beautiful. And as the architect at York was
afraid to vault his chapter-house with stone, his mechanical ingenuity
was not put to so severe a test after all. And yet, though we may regret
the beautiful central pillar as we find it at Wells or Lincoln, there
are other respects in which this chapter-house surpasses all its rivals.
In size, in richness of decoration, in boldness of outline, and in
aerial lightness it is unequalled. Above all, it still contains six
windows of magnificent stained glass. Even now it seems to justify its
boastful inscription:
Ut Rosa flos florum, sic est Domus ista Domorum.
[Illustration: Chapter-House--Entrance and Sedilia.]
#The Choir# is separated from the rest of the church by a very elaborate
rood screen, which was built _circa_ 1475-1505, and is therefore the
latest part of the original building. It is a fine example of Gothic
work of the latest period, and though, the details are of course
inferior to those of thirteenth century work, and the parts are small
and rather crowded, the whole effect is one of great richness and
magnificence. This screen consists of a central doorway into the choir,
and of fifteen niches with rich canopies and bases, seven to the north,
and eight to the south, of the central doorway. The niches are filled
with statues of the Kings of England from William the Conqueror to Henry
VI. The statue of Henry VI. alone is modern. It has been said that the
original statue of this king was regarded with so much reverence as to
have aroused the anger of the iconoclasts of the Reformation. At any
rate, it was destroyed, and an image of James I. set in its place. This
has been happily removed in the present century, and a statue of Henry
VI., a fair work, by the hand of Michael Taylor, a local sculptor, has
been inserted. The original statues are unusually good for their period,
and it has been suggested that the details of their dress show some
consideration for historical correctness. The same consideration was not
given to the hair, for it has been pointed out that the Normans were
clean-shaven and wore short hair, whereas the statues of the Norman
kings have beards, moustaches, and long hair. The kings are dressed in
robes of state. The legs of Stephen alone are exposed. The hands of the
Conqueror are broken off. On the pedestals are the names of the kings,
with the length of their reigns. They begin on the north side. The
figures of angels above the canopies of the niches are made of plaster
designed by Bernasconi, who also restored other parts of the screen.