In the year 1077 Paul, a monk of St. Stephen’s, at Caen, and a relative
of Lanfranc, was appointed to the abbacy; and, during the first eleven
years of his tenure of office, he had “constructed the entire church”
“of the stones and tiles from the ancient city of Verulam.” I presume,
however, that this statement of Matthew Paris must be taken with some
abatement, as we do not find the dedication to have taken place till
1115.
The church thus erected, though homely in material and of simple
workmanship, was stupendous in its scale and prodigiously massive in its
construction.
[Illustration: Fig. 248.--St. Stephen’s, Caen.]
It is curious that, while the Abbot of St. Stephen’s, when made
Metropolitan of all England, was content to copy his abbey church for
his metropolitan cathedral, a plain monk of the same monastery, when
made head of the first English abbey, should go so far beyond his former
church in the scale of his new one.
A glance at the two plans will show the extent of the difference (Figs.
250, 251). While at St. Stephen’s the nave (including the façade) has
nine bays, that of St. Alban’s has thirteen; while each transept of the
former church had two bays and one apsidal chapel, those of the latter
had each three bays and two chapels; and, while the choir at Caen had
only two bays besides the apse, that at St. Alban’s had four.
[Illustration: Fig. 249.--Lincoln Cathedral.]
The western façade, too, differed in that while that at Caen had towers
which closed in the ends of the aisles, those at St. Alban’s projected
wholly beyond their side walls; thus increasing the width of the front
by double that of the aisles. The effect of all these changes upon the
dimensions of the buildings was that, while St. Stephen’s was only 300
feet long, St. Alban’s was 465; that while the transept of the former
measured 140 feet in length, that at St. Alban’s was 210 feet; and that
the widths of the two western façades were respectively 88 feet and 155
feet.[25]
The design, though of the most rigid and almost gaunt simplicity, was
admirably proportioned; and, when compared with Norman churches of more
kindly material, seems like the block model rather than the finished
structure. The cause of this was the use, almost to the entire exclusion
of finer material, of the Roman tiles from Verulam. With these, not only
a great part of the mass of the walls, but the pillars, arches, windows,
string-courses, and other parts usually formed of stone, are almost
exclusively constructed.
[Illustration: Fig. 250.--St. Stephen’s, Caen.]
One might fancy that a vast structure erected of such materials might
have a very picturesque appearance, and that the rich and deep red of
the brick, alternating with an equal quantity of coarse mortar in the
joints, and interspersed with rough flint work, might give to the
general colouring of the edifice a warmth of tone, and a richness of
texture which, on a general view, might more than make up for its
ascetic plainness. But, oh! tell it not in our Belgravian Gath; neither
publish it in the streets of our Tyburnian Ascalon! These Norman
builders, like too many of their descendants in our own day, had no such
artistic notions, but rejoiced in encrusting the whole,--within and
without,--with one uniform coating of the smoothest and whitest plaster!
St. Alban’s, when viewed from the ruins of Old Verulam, must have looked
like a sort of “Moel Wynn,”--_a white mountain_; or, like the creation
of a spell of Merlin,--hewn out of a single block of marble (Fig. 252)!
Our romantic old Mediævals were not proof against such fascinations, for
we find
[Illustration: Fig. 251.--Plan, St. Alban’s.]
St. Wilfrid glorying in having washed the York Minster of his day
“whiter than snow;” and at Peterborough, it was the boast of one of the
abbots, that he had so skilfully whitewashed his cathedral, that it
appeared as if cut out of a single stone! But let us take comfort. Abbot
Paul had not sunk to so low a depth! He had an eye to the sister arts;
and we find him recorded as having enriched with painting the vaulting
of the apse behind the high altar. Nor did he stand alone in his taste
for such decorations; for we find now that every part of the plain old
plastered walls, pillars, arches, and vaulting has been so enriched at
different periods, the western side of the great piers of the nave
being richly painted with figures and subjects as the reredoses of the
altars placed against them.
[Illustration: Fig. 252.--St. Alban’s Abbey at the close of the 11th
century.]
With such artistic relief as this, added to the stern and massive
grandeur of its parts and the stupendous scale of the whole, and adding
also the gorgeousness of the shrine of the Proto-martyr, and of the
numerous altars and other objects which imparted beauty and solemnity,
one may well imagine that the internal effect, notwithstanding the
absence of architectural detail, was as noble as it must have been
unique.
The roofs, internally, may be proved to have been masked by level
ceilings, no doubt gorgeously painted like that which still remains over
the contemporary church at Hildesheim in North Germany, or that but
recently executed by Mr. Burges, aided by the charming art of Mr.
Poynter, over the nave of Waltham Abbey. The present painted ceilings
are, no doubt, the lineal successors of the Norman ones.
In the midst rose the stupendous piers and arches which sustained the
tower, between which the open lantern soared high above the church,
while beneath this lofty centre of the stupendous cross were ranged the
stalls of the monastic choir.
I illustrate this wonderfully dignified and impressive structure by
several drawings of the whole and of parts. It will be seen from this
how simply and almost exclusively it trusts to the most elementary
principles for its architectural effect. First, to its general grouping
and proportions, which are a perfect model of a typical Norman church,
bereft of its usual details; and, secondly, to the simple principle of
divided orders, which I have before explained, but used in nearly all
instances without the aid of decorative shafts or mouldings.
The proportions of the internal elevation are such that, if the entire
height of the wall be divided into nine parts, four go to the main
arcade, two to the triforium or gallery, and three to the clerestory
(Fig. 253).
[Illustration: Fig. 253.--Sectional view of Nave, St. Alban’s.]
The arches of each are of three orders, and are, for the most part,
without shafts; the section of the jamb and arch being the same, severed
only by a simple impost. A broad pilaster buttress runs up the face of
each pier from floor to ceiling.
[Illustration: Fig. 254.--St. Alban’s Abbey. Balusters.]
In the transept, however, the triforium is differently designed, being
subdivided into coupled arches, and supported by stone shafts. Many of
these shafts are balusters (most likely of Offa’s church) made use of
again, with the addition of a Norman capital and base, and sometimes
eked out in length by the interposition of Roman tiles (Fig. 254). Like
the balusters I have had the opportunity of examining at Dover and at
Jarrow,[26] they bear evident marks of having been turned in a lathe.
The outer wall of the gallery storey has been removed, but of its former
existence there is distinct evidence; the mark of the roof, as seen
against the transepts, showing that the aisle walls have been lowered by
some 8 or 9 feet. Only three bays of the aisles retain their vaulting,
which is of the most typical form of groining. It is capable of almost
certain proof that the roofs were throughout devoid of parapets. The
transept fronts were divided up the middle by a wide pilaster buttress,
and flanked by similar ones. Their windows, as nearly all others, are of
the greatest simplicity; three recessed orders in jambs and arches
alike, with imposts to the two outer ones: above the springing line,
however, of the gables, were ranges of double windows divided by stone
shafts. Each transept has a staircase in its western angle which runs up
into an ornamental round turret, with four double windows in its upper
stage, and was most likely crowned with a cone. These staircases led
into the triforium passages and into the roof.
[Illustration: Fig. 255.--Belfry Stage of Tower, St. Alban’s.]
The tower has three stages above the ridges of the roofs. The lower one
has plain windows lighting the lantern; the second has, on each side,
two pairs of double windows; and the upper storey has two such windows
of large scale. The tower is flanked with pilaster buttresses merging in
the upper storey into round turrets.
I will next take Winchester Cathedral. York would have claimed
precedence as a metropolitan church, but its Norman remains are so small
in extent as to neutralise its claims. I may mention, however, that
Professor Willis (whose marvellous perception of antiquarian evidence
enables him to describe, almost with precision, buildings of which the
common observer would conclude that no relic or evidence exists) has
shown us that the Norman cathedral at York (begun soon after 1070), was
a structure of prodigious magnitude, and exceeded in the width of its
nave any church in England; measuring 50 feet from centre to centre of
its piers.
Winchester may be said, in these early days, to have rivalled London as
the capital of England; for it had been the capital of that Saxon
kingdom which brought all the others into subjection, and whose kings
became kings of England; while London--the capital only of Essex, a
kingdom subordinate to Kent--owed its greatness simply to its river.
We have already seen that the cathedral, founded by Birinus in the
seventh century, had been rebuilt by Athelwold and Elphege in the tenth
century.
In 1079 it was again rebuilt by Bishop Walkelyn, a chaplain and relation
of the Conqueror, and finished about 1093.
Walkelyn’s Cathedral exceeded in vastness even Abbot Paul’s stupendous
work at St. Alban’s. Its nave was of eleven bays, besides two vast
western towers. Its transepts each had four bays; its eastern arm four
bays, besides the apse, which had a surrounding aisle, and was flanked
by two small towers.
Its length, independently of an eastern chapel, was 485 feet; or,
including this chapel, 530 feet. The length of its transept was 225 feet
(it was double-aisled, that at St. Alban’s being unaisled), dimensions
which exceed those of St. Alban’s, and leave those of Lanfranc’s
metropolitan church far in the background. The width, too, of the nave
and its aisles was greater than that of St. Alban’s.
The architecture of this vast temple was of stern simplicity, though,
being carried out in stone, it was much more fully developed than that
of St. Alban’s. It was, in fact, a full and typical development of the
Early Norman, with every feature complete, though all in their plainest
garb.
All which now remains of this date is the transepts and the crypt (Fig.
257) of the eastern arm, and they may be described as the text-book of
Norman in its earlier form. The transepts, as before stated, were doubly
aisled, and (as Canterbury, Ely, and at Caen) a gallery crossed the
outer bay of each, supported on a massive round pillar, so as to render
the upper aisle continuous.
The plan of the piers of the transept, which probably gives us also that
of the rest of the church, is very perfect and typical (Fig. 256).
[Illustration: Fig. 256. Winchester Cathedral.]
Their figure may be generated by the process I have described in my last
lecture. Take a block of wall about half as long again as its thickness;
cut out from each of its angles the recess of an order; substitute half
or three-quarter shafts for the part which supports each order; and the
pier proper is complete. It still needs, however, supports for the
vaulting of the aisle on the one side, and for the central roof on the
other. The former is given by adding to that side a pilaster of equal
size with the transverse rib of the vaulting, and substituting for its
front portion a demi-shaft; the latter by a similar projection with the
addition of two smaller shafts on its flanks. Nothing could be more
perfect or more typical than this arrangement. The capitals are
everywhere of the cushion type, in its simpler form; the arch-orders
square, and without labels. The entire height of the wall being divided
into three, the upper, or clerestory, may be said to occupy one-third;
the remainder being divided between the great arcade and that of the
gallery, or upper aisle, in the proportions of about four and three.
The gallery, or triforium pier, is similar in plan to that below, but
the arch is divided into two widths, in the sub-order, by a central
shaft bearing two smaller arches. The clerestory, in its more typical
bay, is divided into three widths by small shafts, the side spaces being
low arches, and the central one being considerably elevated, and
containing the window.
Through this storey passes the passage in the thickness of the wall,
which ought more properly to be called the triforium.
The transept elevation is divided vertically into two compartments by a
large pilaster buttress, both without and within, and is externally
flanked by similar buttresses. In height it is divided into three
storeys, ranging with those of the interior, already described, the
aisles naturally containing two of these storeys; the upper of which has
small windows in the sides, and large ones in the gables. The windows
are (as a rule) shafted singly, without and within, with a deep splayed
jamb internally filling the interval. Those of the upper storey of
transepts fronts are arranged internally to correspond with the
clerestory. The gable of the south transept is enriched with
intersecting arcades.
Unfortunately, the central tower, of the early period, fell shortly
after its erection, rebelling, as it was thought, against the ungrateful
task of overshadowing the body of the detested Rufus.
This untoward behaviour has had the effect of rendering the work
imperfect; for, had the crossing remained, one could supply the choir
and nave with a fair amount of certainty. As it is, we cannot make any
imaginary restoration, for the whole of the centre, with the adjoining
bays, has been rebuilt in a later Norman style, influenced by a morbid
fear of a second catastrophe, which led to an undue bulkiness in the
piers, where better foundations and harder material would have supplied
sufficient security. Let us hope that no second Rufus may be buried
beneath the shadow of our precious monuments of art-history! The tower,
however, as rebuilt, is a noble work, though of small height. That such
stumpiness of proportion was not viewed as essential to the style, we
have practical proofs at St. Alban’s, Tewkesbury, and Norwich; so we may
safely conclude that, like the needless bulk of the renewed piers, it
was the result of the fear that their power would again refuse to canopy
the red-haired king, who still lay in the midst of the church, though
removed a few feet from being under the tower.
The crypt (Fig. 257), which gives us the form of the original sanctuary
and eastern chapel, is a fine example of the Early Norman where used
for simple purposes. The columns bear some resemblance to those of King
Edward’s work at Westminster, though much lighter. Their proportions,
however, cannot be seen, owing to their being buried deep in earth,
which is, I am sorry to say, not the only barbarism for which the
chapter there are responsible.
[Illustration: Fig. 257.--Crypt, Winchester Cathedral.]
The nave, as is so well known, was converted into another style by
Wykham and his predecessor, Eddington (Fig. 258); the last-named of whom
must, I suppose, have destroyed the two western towers, if ever they had
been carried up. We know them only by their foundations.
In the same county are the two noble minsters of Christchurch and
Romsey, the former of which I will mention presently; meanwhile I will
carry you in thought to Ely, where Walkelyn’s brother, Abbot Symeon,
undertook, a little later and in his extreme old age, the reconstruction
of his abbey church on a vast scale. The parts built or commenced
building by Symeon were the eastern arm, the transepts, the central
tower, and probably a bay of the nave; for, be it
[Illustration: Fig. 258.--The Nave, Winchester Cathedral.]
remembered, the eastern arm was, not in those days, as afterwards became
customary, the choir, but rather the sanctuary, or, more correctly, the
sanctuary and presbytery conjoined. The choir,--that is to say, the
stalls for the monks or canons who sat in choir,--was under the central
tower, and often ran a little into what we call the nave. It resulted
from this that, in cases where funds did not permit the completion at
first of the entire building, it was customary to build from the east
end up to the second or third pillar of the nave, so as to provide for
the actual requirements, and also to give an abutment to the central
tower.
[Illustration: Fig. 259.--Plan, Ely Cathedral.]
Abbot Symeon’s plan was formed on the largest scale (Fig. 259). His
transepts had each four bays in length, and, like those of his brother’s
church at Winchester, were aisled on both sides. He also built the
gallery across the transept, as at Canterbury and at Winchester. His
eastern arm was of four full bays, added to which was a smaller bay and
an unaisled apse. The aisles of the eastern arm were square-ended. The
pillars of the transept were generally round, though in some cases
clustered, and their capitals were totally different from those used by
his brother, being a quaint reminiscence of the Corinthian.
The proportions of the interior, in point of height, differ from those
of Winchester; and it would seem, that the height being divided into
three, one was here given to the gallery or triforium, the remainder
being divided between the great arcade and the clerestory, with
proportions of four to three; so that the main arcade retaining the same
proportion as at Winchester, there is more triforium and less
clerestory, differences which were increased in building the nave.
The galleries, originally built across the ends of the transepts, were
removed during later, though still Norman, times; and an arcade of
slight projection substituted. The clerestory differs from Winchester in
the arches of the three openings springing at equal height, and the
plans of the piers differ considerably. Those in the transepts (as
before said) are round and clustered, the latter consisting of the
customary group of three shafts on its lateral faces, with a single
shaft at back and front, for the vaulting and the roof, making together
a perfectly uniform group of four larger and four smaller shafts (Fig.
260). The round columns have a shafted pilaster attached to them on the
side facing the aisle (Fig. 261).
[Illustration: Fig. 260. Fig. 261.