Mb
ill's wmm mmi (s i »llfl
II
I[5 ml
Ejj M‘ 'msÈì
i ll,,, ■
RIBH
pips
aMa
■wi ll iflr
Hri
II SIH a« .te
I! »}M«H
j a «

SlffSSl
Jwvv’K* ».’ì)i
■	lüSi
■	111«
li Ilii
BÉ ÄM
ili WM
i l [fliwH

fcj! if^sM?i%ÌtSe
ûbkt^mm
mi«« im
l;i il Ir ■».;
|i .Äs «fe# a
II
! k > -- ‘: -♦ l- : .,t.	. ' :	- \ ••	_ ..7 -
IÖÜI
ÉièiliÂ^^feÉil^Âl-PlÂlÂiè^^lÂpâSil^ÉlI

. *^8i3P®.
s$t*tèïkA /••»■■
|9mD
/ ^ *, . ’ ^ * * ' *• ' » •/
J^|||^ *7||V^ ^*ÿ„' ^ £yÿipct' ' ; ^V\~^1.* ^’17 ‘I 7'*^ *1,	^ s ÏJr'y^ ^?^H'V; ? *‘^4* V* ' ^^^
mm
œssKSsœTs^
..«»» » vi„ jhi ■	:„, .■■...;  —■au-«u&^jiSj
aaysasggaEæffi\
■
s

T
i
I
I y
\
»
V
l«

I
HISTORICAL AND DESCRIPTIVE ACCOUNT
OF THE
METROPOLITAN CATHEDRALS
OF
CANTERBURY AND YORK
A
WITH NUMEROUS ENGRAVINGS :
FORMING
VOLUME I.
Zï)t ©atijettral
BY JOHN BRITTON, F.S.A.
ETC. ETC. ETC.
W. H. Bartlett, del.
GREEN COURT GATE-HOUSE, CANTERBURY.
SL. Williams, sc.
LONDON:
LONGMAN, REES, ORME, BROWN, GREEN, AND T. LONGMAN, JUN. PATERNOSTER ROW;
AND THE AUTHOR, BURTON STREET.
M DCCCXXXVI


*JPI^.XX
£^fjTHEPRAIj &K1TI^UITIE S.
. hritto ris Mestory Scc.oT Canterbury Cathedral.
mA W	lEMfejp^r g«&.*gIBIBììjj&^ il £üi units:
JET TBE ItGAF ß CïiEEW» .
pl’ ffHE E-EVP (5Ì^CT!' (ŸE MOB-RiE, EC. A Hvî-^iZÜV/^Â-T tìF CANTERI] UJLY} See.
Cl Ais Flatéas in.scïîbecl|E»tb.e
^ Au J.ÜUii.
Xondorty^PuàUsheâ/Jifaffj^&zi.bi/^tan^ma/vSc aTaternoster 'Jfr w.
IPrint ecLT?vlIavwtn*<L.
Engraved dy J.Le Xeoxx.Ä
\

y*.*

#
V’ * r
ITHE
HISTORY AND ANTIQUITIES
OF
THE METROPOLITICAL CHURCH
OF
anterïmrg
♦
ILLUSTRATED BY
A SERIES OF ENGRAVINGS,
OF
VIEWS, ELEVATIONS, PLANS, AND DETAILS
OF THE
awïuttftu ve of tfwt Eirifur:
WITH
BIOGRAPHICAL ANECDOTES OF THE ARCHBISHOPS, ETC.
BY
JOHN BRITTON,
FELLOW OF “ THE SOCIETY OF ANTIQUARIES, OF LONDON,”
HONORARY MEMBER OF “ THE ANTIQUARIAN SOCIETY OF NEWCASTLE-UPON-TYNE,” HONORARY SECRETARY AND TREASURER TO “ THE LONDON ARCHITECTS' AND ANTIQUARIES’ SOCIETY,” HONORARY MEMBER OF "THE NORWICH SOCIETY OF ARTISTS;”
HONORARY SECRETARY TO " THE WILTSHIRE SOCIETY;”
ETC. ETC. \
2£ontion :
PRINTED FOR LONGMAN, HURST, REES, ORME, AND BROWN, PATERNOSTER ROW ; THE AUTHOR, BURTON COTTAGE, BURTON STREET;
AND JOSEPH TAYLOR, 59, HIGH HOLBORN.
1821.tOAW STACK
C. Whittinghain, College House, Chiswick,TO
JESSE WATTS RUSSELL, ESQ.
OF
ILAM HALL, DERBYSHIRE.
DEAR SIR,
Haying long experienced your kind and generous Patronage in the approval and encouragement of my Literary Works, I embrace this opportunity of inscribing the present Volume to you. When at College, you had the good taste and good sense to cultivate an acquaintance with the Antiquities of your native country; to study the Fine Arts, and to seek pleasure and information from the exhaustless treasures of polite Literature. These will all contribute to render your progress through life cheerful and intellectual,—a solace and pleasure to your friends, and highly beneficial to that young family, which by your own and your amiable Lady's paternal care and example, it is hoped will secure honour to themselves, and reflect it on their Parents.
Accept my sincere and warm thanks for the protection you have afforded to my literary progeny, and believe me, it will be both a pride and pleasure to render any future work entitled to a continuation of the same liberal and discriminating patronage.
I remain, dear Sir,
Your obliged Servant,
J. BRITTON.
November 13, 1821.PREFACE.
There is not an edifice in England, excepting Westminster Abbey Church, that has attracted more of public attention, or been more fully illustrated by the author and artist, than the Cathedral of Canterbury. By the list of books and prints, at the end of this volume, we shall find evidence to justify this remark. Though aware of the fact, I thought it right and expedient to introduce the metropolitan church of Canterbury into my series of cathedrals ; for I was also aware that many of its architectural features had never been published. The sections and elevations of its towers, nave, choir, transepts, and crypts have not been previously offered to the public ; and these are indispensably necessary to display its construction, and exemplify its history. Without sections and strict geometrical elevations we can never attain correct information as to the curvature and proportions of arches—the true contour of columns, capitals, and bases—with the relative projections and recesses of various other members in our antient buildings. With these we are furnished with satisfactory data, either for practical imitation or for antiquarian inference. Had this species of illustration been adopted by a Hollar, a Loggan, or a Vertue, and had writers on Christian architecture in the seventeenth or eighteenth centuriés made themselves acquainted with the same subject, much irrelevant dissertation and trifling controversy would have been avoided. But the majority of mankind, in all ages, and on all subjects, prefer the pretty to the useful ; and seek rather to amuse the fancy than inform the mind. Hence picturesque views, and artificial effects of light and shadow7, of black and white, have been repeatedly and continually published and republished in our antiquarian embellishments*. By a natural progress of taste and science, for these improve with age and must last for ever, wre are at length commencing and adopting a right course ; and I am persuaded that, in a very short time, we shall be fully and explicitly informed of every thing respecting our national antiquities in general, and more especially that of architecture. Zealous in this cause myself, I am anxious to awaken the same zeal in others; habitually fastidious, I also wish to encourage the same spirit in my readers and friends ; for by the union and exertion of zeal and fastidiousness, we shall be able to advance rapidly and correctly in our search after truth. The history and the science of Christian architecture are intimately con-
* In “ the Chronological Illustration of the Christian Architecture of England,” I have given nearly the whole of the eighty prints, belonging to the volume, in a light and rather slight style of execution, and mostly in elevation and section, for the purpose of showing the forms and proportions of the various architectural members with precision and accuracy. This volume is intended to embrace a comprehensive review and illustration of the Christian Architecture of England.
b6
CANTERBURY CATHEDRAL.
truth. It seeks to ascertain the causes, motives, actions, and influence of those intrepid and daring reformers who encountered perils, and even death, in advocating a new system, and disseminating new doctrines. Anterior to the introduction of the Christian tenets in Britain, which appealed to the sensibility, reason, virtue, and interest of mankind, all is dark and doubtful ; and from the fluctuating state of society, from foreign and domestic wars, from the stubbornness of old customs and habits, and from the natural tendency of prejudices we find it extremely difficult, nay, almost impossible to attain a knowledge of the real state of man, and the true state of the nation, for some centuries after the Christian advent. It is true that many learned and acute wTiters have exerted themselves to elucidate the early annals of our country; but, from the want of authentic materials, they have not afforded that satisfaction which is required. In adverting to the ancient history of Canterbury, we shall meet with some doubts and difficulties in our progress. Our object and end, on the present occasion, will be to adopt the probable and positive, and reject the irrational and false. It will also be our direct province to elucidate the history of the cathedral, and incidentally allude to such subjects as are directly or intimately connected with it.
Canterbury claims a high antiquity among the cities of Britain, and is preeminently distinguished in the annals of the kingdom, with which its ecclesiastical history is closely connected. Its origin however is unknown; and we shall not contend for the veracity or probability of those accounts which refer its foundation or establishment to Rudhu-dibras or Lud-hii-dibras, king of the Britons, who is said to have lived nearly 900 years before the commencement of the Christian era1. Indeed, there cannot be a doubt but it was a settlement of the aboriginal inhabitants, antecedent to the arrival of Julius Cæsar. Of this the various names by which it has
1 Geoffry of Monmouth, in his “ Chronicon sive Historia Brittonum” ascribes the foundation of the city to the abovementioned king ; but the marvellous tales of this author rather entitle him to a place in the list of fabulists than to rank amongst authentic historians. Holinshed also inserts the same story in his “ Çhronicles of England," i. 446. ed. 1807. He calls the king Lud-hurdibras. See Higden's “ Polichronicon," p. 198. 213.ORIGIN AND EARLY HISTORY OF CANTERBURY.
7
been designated appear a sufficient indication. It was known to the Britons by the appellation of Caer-ceint, or “ the City of Kent,” and the word Durovernum or Dorobernia, by which the Romans distinguished it, is evidently derived from the British name Durwliern2. The advantages offered by à pleasant valley abounding with springs, and watered by a river which branched into various streams and thus formed several islands, at the same time enriching the soil, were not likely to be long overlooked. We have therefore reason to believe that the “ city of the Kentishmen” Was of some importance at a very early period. Numerous discoveries and vestigia, both civil and military, conclusively prove its occupation as a Roman station3. The Saxons, in the idiom of their own language, denominated the city, Cantwara-byrig and Cantwara-wic, a name of the same signification with that by which it was known to the Britons. When the Roman Durovernum became disused, the Saxon word was latinized into Cantuaria ; and, in the improvement of the English language, became finally settled into Canterbury. During the Anglo-Saxon domination in Britain this city was the capital of the Kentish kingdom4. It is represented as “ a famous city,” “ the metropolis of Kent;” and before the end
2	Nennius, who wrote in the ninth century, calls it by the above name; and Mark the Anchorite, who lived in the tenth century, places Cair-ceint in his list of the principal cities of Britain.—Gunn's “ Historia Brittonum,” p. 46. In the Itinerary of Antoninus it is called Durovernum. There is some difference among antiquaries in their etymological solutions of this word, but all are agreed in deriving it from the British language. Camden, in his “ Britannia,” Gough's ed. i. 215, derives it from Durwhern, which is said to signify “ a rapid stream” or “ river.” Iceland, from Dur-avona, “ the river water.'ÉjLambard, from Dur-ar-guerne, “ the water near the fen or marsh S|and Pennant, from Dwr-aber, “ the mouth of the water.” A charter granted by Kenulph, King of Mercia, in 810, says of Canterbury, “ In civitate famosa, quæ antiquo vocabulo Dorovernia dicitur.” Carta antiqua, ap. Somners’ Antiquities of Canterbury,” p. 1. Battely’s ed. 1703.
3	The remains of the Roman roads, leading from this city to Portus Rutipensis, Portus Dubris, and Portus Lemanis are still perceptible in many places. Numerous coins, various vessels, and pieces of pottery have been dug up here; fragments of buildings, arches, altars, and tesselated pavements have been also discovered, and numerous Roman bricks have been found incorporated in the city walls. See Beauties of England and Wales, viii. 753.
4	“ Caput Imperii.”—Florilegus ad an. 596.	“ Metropolim Angliæ Cantuariam.”—Henry of
Huntingdon, lib. vi. sub. an. 1011.	“ Cantiopolis.”—Richard of Cirencester. See Madox's
Firma Burgi, p. 2.8
CANTERBURY CATHEDRAL.
of the sixth century it was encompassed with a wall, and the monastery of St. Augustine was erected, “ sub orientali muro civitatis5.”
Having given an account of the introduction and establishment of Christianity in Britain in the “ History, &c. of Winchester Cathedral,” and detailed many facts relating to its progress and influence in the north of Britain in my “ History and Antiquities of York Cathedral,” it will be unnecessary to repeat in this place what has been detailed in those works. In the former volume will be found an inquiry into the identity and probable history of King Lucius, who is said to have been the first person to found a church at Canterbury, and to embrace and practise the Christian doctrines. The accounts left us concerning him are so obscured by fable and intermixed with legend that little credence can be attached to the allegations of those writers who ascribe to him the erection or foundation of several churches and archbishopricks.
Whoever was the actual founder of the first church in Canterbury, or the first person who taught the principles of Christianity in that place, it will be as impossible to determine as it will be useless to inquire. It is sufficiently attested by the writings of Bede and other authorities, that two churches were built here by those Romans who had been converted to a belief in the Saviour of the World6. These structures were standing at the time of Augustine’s mission into Britain, which took place in the year 596.
Previous to his arrival there was a congregation settled in Canterbury, under the care of Luidhard, chaplain to Bertha, Queen of Kent7. It is not therefore to Augustine that the entire honour of converting the
5	Somner’s u Antiquities of Canterbury,” ut sup. 4.
6	Bede’s “ Ecclesiastical History,” translation, 1723, 8vo. lib. i. c. 25. In c. 26 he says, “ Whilst as yet the Romans inhabited BritainH Stephen Birchington de vit. Stì. Augustini, ap. “ Anglia Sacra,” vol. i. p. 1. Thos. Rudborne, Hist. Wint. ibid. 251.
7	This princess was daughter of Cherebert, King of France. On her marriage with Ethelbert she stipulated for the free exercise of her religion, and brought over with her the above bishop and several other ecclesiastics, who performed their devotions in one of the Roman churches. These proceedings tended much to abate the prejudices existing against Christianity, and were favourable harbingers to Augustine and his associates. Bede’s Eccles. Hist. 1. i. c. 25, ut sup, Henry’s History of Great Britain, voi. iii. 190. ed. 1800.INTRODUCTION OF CHRISTIANITY.
9
inhabitants of Britain can be awarded, notwithstanding the august title of “ Apostle” which was bestowed on him by the infatuated monkish writers of old.
The story of Augustine’s mission which Somner designates as “ trite and vulgar,” and “ needs no repetition,” is however too intimately connected with the history of this see to be passed over without some notice. St. Gregory, who was then pope, prompted by his zeal for the propagation of Christianity, and compassionating the state of the Anglo-Saxons, who were without the pale of the Gospel dispensation, resolved to attempt their conversion, and for this purpose sent Augustine, with forty other monks, into Britain. These landed in the Isle of Thanet, and a messenger having informed King Ethelbert of their arrival and object, that prince received them favourably, and assigned to them a residence in Canterbury, “ the metropolis of all his dominions.” He is described to have given up his palace for their use, and bestowed on them one of the two churches above-mentioned. Ethelbert was soon converted to the new faith, and subsequently manifested his piety and zeal by extending the privileges of the monks, and securing to them their possessions in perpetuity by a charter8. The Pope addressed an epistle to him, and accompanied it with presents. When the pall was transmitted to Augustine, he was directed to ordain twelve bishops in his own province, and to send one to York. At the same time the church at Canterbury was made metropolitan, and Pope Gregory decreed it to be paramount to all others in the kingdom ; “ for where the Christian faith was first received, there also should be a primacy of dignity 9.”
Boniface the Fifth, in a communication to Justus, the fifth in succession from Augustine, writes, “ We will and command you, that the metropolical
8	Somner’s “ Antiquities of Canterbury,” ed. 1703. 82. Steph. Birch, and Tho. Rudborne, ut sup. They had liberty “ freely to preach, and build, or repair churches in all places.” Bede's Eccles. Hist, ut sup. 1. 1. c. 26.
9	Battely ap. Somner, ut sup. 37 & 82. To the Roman pontiff much more praise is due than to his missionaries ; for he evinced a comprehensive, liberal, and truly Christian mind, as may be inferred from his instructions to Augustine, and judicious answers to the questions of that punctilious and uncharitable monk.
BIO
CANTERBURY CATHEDRAL.
see of all Britain be ever hereafter in the city of Canterbury : and we make a perpetual and unchangeable decree, that all provinces of this kingdom of England be for ever subject to the metropolical church of that place10.”
The king, with the authority of the court of Rome, enjoined the clergy to continue in their monastic mode of life; hence this establishment became what was called a “ cathedral monastery,” where the bishop was nominally and de jure, abbot; but the duties attached to the office were performed by a subordinate person presiding more immediately over the monks, who were cathedral canons. Previous to the time of Archbishop Wilfrid, however, a period of more than two hundred years, the archbishop appears to have lived in common with his monks, and personally superintended the affairs of the community. This monastery was governed by the rules of St. Benedict, and was the first settlement of that order in Britain. Augustine’s progress and success in the work of conversion was rapid and astonishing11; for it is related that the Saxons became as anxious to embrace the new religion, as they had formerly been to persecute its professors. The instructions given by the Pope to Augustine contain some curious facts relating to the existing and previous state of religion in Britain : “ The temples of the idols (says his holiness) ought not to be destroyed, but the idols within them to be destroyed ; let holy water be made and sprinkled in the said temples, let altars be erected, and relicks placed.” He proceeds to urge the necessity of converting those edifices from the “ worship of devils” to that of the true God.
The see, founded under circumstances so propitious, rapidly acquired possessions, and as its wealth increased, its influence became extended. The veneration inspired by an institution so august and imposing was enhanced by the preaching, sanctity, and benevolence of its members. Numerous grants and donations of lands, manors, and churches, afford a convincing proof of the zeal and enthusiasm which the doctrines and precepts
10	Malmsbury “ de Gentis Pontif.” 1. i. p. 208.
11	He is described to have baptised no fewer than ten thousand persons in one day ! Gervas, col. 1632, ap. Henry’s “ History of Britain,” ut sup. 192.ST. LAWRENCE AND KING EADBALD.
11
of Christ had inspired. The registers of Christ Church exhibit upwards of fifty donations made within two hundred years after the time of St. Augustine12.
On the death of Ethelbert, and at the succession of Eadbald, his pagan son, Christianity, which had been established with much trouble but with apparent stability, was threatened with total ruin13. The three sons of Sebert, King of the East Saxons, who were pagans, and the King of Kent who had apostatised, became the avowed enemies of the Christians; and infidelity gained strength from their influence.
The Bishops of London and Rochester, who had been appointed by Augustine, abandoned their charge and left the country; and Lawrence, the successor of Augustine, was prepared to follow their example; but a real or pretended miracle opportunely occurred to prevent his design.
The story is thus related The night before his departure, having slept in the church, St. Peter, “ the most blessed prince of the apostles,” appeared, and after upbraiding him for his intention of deserting his flock, and forgetting the sufferings of the apostles, terminated his harangue by inflicting a severe castigation on the prelate. Next morning Lawrence went to King Eadbald, and exposing his lacerated shoulders, told his majesty in what extraordinary manner the stripes had been inflicted. The king gave full credence to the relation, returned to the faith he had deserted, and afforded that protection to religion so necessary to its prosperity14.
This happy change in the affairs of the church induced Mellitus, Bishop of London, to return; but not being able to regain possession of the see which he had left, he repaired to Canterbury, at the invitation of Eadbald, where he became successor to Lawrence. The most memorable act of Mellitus was the subduing a fire, which threatened the destruction of the church, by the efficacy of his prayers ! Honorius, the fifth archbishop, divided his diocess into various bishoprics, and is said by Godwin to have been the first to subdivide the province into parishes; but the latter
12	Somner, ut sup. ap. 36. Battely, ib. 5.
13	Ibid. 65. Hasted’s “ History of the City of Canterbury,” &c. fol. 1799. p. 285.
14	Godwin’s “ Catalogue of the Bishop’s of England,” 1615, p. 50.12
CANTERBURY CATHEDRAL.
assertion is disproved by Seiden. At this time the Pelagian controversy engrossed the attention of the clergy.
Honorius died in 653, and his pious successor Trithona, or Deus-dedit, was the first native of Britain who filled the see. The court of Rome, always anxious to increase its power and extend its authority, found a favourable opportunity, on the death of Wighard for the personal election of an archbishop by the pope. Yitalian accordingly nominated Adrian, an abbot of Thiridanum, and Andrew, a monk, neither of whom would accept the dignity. Theodore, a Grecian, was therefore, appointed at the intercession of the same Adrian, but the pope, apprehensive that he might introduce the customs of the Greek church, sent the abbot with him as a spy or monitor.
In virtue of the legantine power with which he was invested, he extended his authority over the whole body of the clergy, and was the first prelate who fully exercised his archiépiscopal powers to bring all the British churches to uniformity of discipline and worship15. He instituted schools, and established new sees in diocesses which were too extensive for the government of one bishop, and is the first who divided the country into parishes, and made a regular provision for the parochial clergy16. To encourage the erection of churches, he obtained a grant from the different kings of the heptarchy, to vest the right of patronage in their founders. Battely conjectures that archdeacons were first introduced into the church by Theodore, and adduces several reasons in support of his opinion. In the celebrated dispute with Wilfrid, the archbishop maintained “ that all controversies should be settled in the provinces where they arose, and that the authority of the metropolitans should be final and unappealable.” Innet tells us, “ he changed the whole face of the Saxon church, and did more towards enlarging the authority of the Archbishops of Canterbury and the Bishops of Rome than all his predecessors had done since the
15	“ Cui omnis Anglorum Ecclesia manus dare consentiret.” Bede, b. iv. c. 2.
16	The nomination and settling of parishes must have taken place posterior to 673, for in a council held by Theodore in that year, the word parochia signified the district or diocess of a bishop. Innet’s “ Origines Anglicanæ,” i. 78.STATE OF THE CHURCH FROM 760 TO 831.
13
coming of Austin.” In his time there were four councils held, in the second of which Mercia was divided into five bishoprics17. Brithwend his successor was equally tenacious of his rights and privileges, and firmly opposed papal usurpation.
Cuthbert, the eleventh archbishop, procured licence from the Pope and King Eadbert to appropriate the church for the sepulture of the archbishops and royal family, and also to attach cemeteries to those places of worship built within the walls of cities18. Dying in 760, he wras buried privately, to evade any opposition that might be made by the monks of St. Augustine’s, who claimed the privilege and honour of having the custody of the archbishops’ bodies.
Bregwin, who succeeded Cuthbert, was interred with similar secrecy ; but on this occasion the monks were determined to assert their right; and, in pursuance of their resolution, Lambrith the abbot came with an armed force to Christ Church, with the intention of carrying off the bodies, but not succeeding in this attempt, he appealed to Rome. To terminate the dispute, Lambrith was elected archbishop, which produced a reconciliation between the contending monasteries. In this prelate’s time, Offa, King of Mercia created an archbishopric at Lichfield, by which the province of Canterbury was considerably reduced; but Athelard, successor to Lambrith, procured the restoration of those lands which had been taken out of the diocess. In 803 a council was called at Cloveshoo, where the decree of the Pope for restoring the see to all its an tient rights and dignities was confirmed, and everlasting damnation was denounced against all who should hereafter attempt to tear the coat of Christ, i. e. to divide the province of Canterbury19Wilfred wras also a considerable benefactor to the cathedral, recovering and securing to it many possessions, and bestowing on it many valuable donations20. The institution of deans is supposed to have taken place near this epoch, Ceolnoth being the first whose name is to be found on record.
About this time the plague or some other pestilential disease raged in
17 “ Origines Anglicanæ,” i. 73.	18 Battely, ut sup. 133.
19 Spelman’s Concil. i. 324. ap. Henry’s History of Brit. iii. 240.	20 Battely, ut sup. 67.14
CANTERBURY CATHEDRAL.
the city, and only five of the ecclesiastics survived its ravages. When Ceolnoth was élécted in 830, there was such a scarcity of monks that he was under the necessity of employing secular canons to officiate in the cathedral. The calamities of the clergy were increased by the repeated invasions, wars, and cruelties of the Danes, which kept the country in a state of alarm, and the bishops in daily perib Plegmund was consecrated in 891. He presided in several councils, and encouraged the building of churches, but no alteration in the see appears to have taken place during his government ; norm that of Athelm and Wulf helm, his immediate successors. Archbishop Odo, who was consecrated in 941, endeavoured to render the church independent of all control. For this purpose he promulgated, in 943, his famous pastoral letter, since called the “ Constitutions of Odo,” in which he arrogantly and presumptuously says, “I strictly command and charge that no man presume to lay any tax on the possessions of the clergy, who are the sons of God. I command the king, the princes, and all in authority to obey, with great humility, the archbishop and bishops, for they have the keys of the kingdom of heaven21.” Besides these constitutions, séveral ecclesiastical canons were enacted about this time, tending to increasè the influence and independence of the clergy, and the devotion and subjection of the people. From these canons it appears that paganism was not yet completely eradicated ; for it was decreed* that those who continued to use pagan rites and ceremonies should be excommunicated.
The celebrated Dunstan exerted his utmost influence for the aggrandisement of the Benedictine ordër. No sooner had he attained the archiépiscopal chair, but he employed all his ihfluence to enforce the celibacy of the clergy, and he was almost equally zealous in degrading the seculars; but his ambition, tyranny, and arrogance at last drew the royal displeasure on himself and the monks of his order, who were expelled from several monasteries, and replaced by seculars. The government was however too weak to resist the influence which the monks had acquired,
z* Spelman Concilia, 1. i. p. 416.BURNING AND REPAIRING OF THE CHURCH.
15
and they were again reinstated. The murder of this haughty priest in his own cathedral is one of the most memorable events connected with the fabric and the place. In 1011 the Danes, whose descents in England were accompanied, with circumstances of the most shocking cruelty, landed at Sandwich, and laid siege to Canterbury, which they set fire to, and carried by assault. The monks, with their venerable archbishop, Elphege, retired to the cathedral; but motives of humanity prompted him to come forth, and endeavour, by his intercession, to stop the indiscriminate carnage which the ferocious invaders were perpetrating in the city. His entreaties had no effect on the implacable barbarians, who gagged, bound, and forced him back to the church, that he might there witness the murder of his spiritual assistants, while the lead, melting from the roof, which had now caught fire, increased the horror of the scene and the torments of the devoted ecclesiastics. The bishop, after a tedious confinement, was at last barbarously murdered22. Livingus, his successor, found the cathedral nearly destroyed, and the ecclesiastics either murdered or dispersed, which so affected him that he retired until the accession of King Canute, when he returned, and commenced the repair of the church. This work was completed by Agelnoth, who was assisted by the munificence of Canute, who granted to the monks the entire revenues of the port of Sandwich, and, as a proof of his devotion, took the gold crown from his head, and placed it on the high altar23. Stigand, who was archbishop at the Norman invasion, by his firmness preserved many of the ancient privileges of the people of Kent. Lanfranc made many regulations for the government of the Benedictines, and procured the restoration of twenty-five manors belonging to this see. He also rebuilt a great part of the cathedral, and promoted the erection of other sacred edifices. Previous to this
Gough’s Camden’s Brit. i. 211, where a full account of this transaction is given from the chronicle of Ditmar of Merspurg, a contemporary writer.
23 Somner says that the port of Sandwich was only restored to the monks of this cathedral, it having been originally granted to them by Ethelred; but no allusion to a previous grant is to be found in Canute’s charter, in the Customal of Sandwich, published in Boys’s “ Collections for a History” of that Borough.16
CANTERBURY CATHEDRAL.
epoch, the head of this convent had been styled Dean, but it was now changed to that of Prior. The revenues of the church, which had been previously divided between the archbishop and convent in common, were now ordered to be divided into equal parts between the prelate and the monks. After his death, which happened in 1089, William Rufus kept the archbishopric in his own possession for some years, and applied its revenues to his own purposes. In a severe sickness he nominated Anselm to the see, but recovering from his indisposition he demanded one thousand pounds from Anselm as a consideration for the see, and exacted a certain sum annually from him. These impositions compelled the prelate at last to quit the kingdom, when the king seized the whole temporalities, and appropriated the revenues to his own use. Henry the First recalled Anselm, who, intent on increasing the power and influence of his see, prevailed on the king to give up the right of investiture to the archbishops of Canterbury24. He exerted himself much to render his church magnificent, and the service pompous ; for in those days an imposing and splendid ceremonial was most effectual for attracting the people to religion, and producing liberality to the clergy.
Ralph was elected in 1114, a prelate who was extremely jealous of the prerogatives of his church, and would never allow the king to put on his own crown, as that ceremony was a peculiar right of the archbishops on all occasions25. His successor William Corboil was invested by the Pope with the title of “ apostolic legate throughout England.”
Thomas Becket’s name has been rendered famous by his bold attempts to support papal authority, and strenuous exertions to render the church superior to all civil judicature. To check the ambition of the clergy, and protect the prerogatives of the crown, the “ Constitutions of Clarendon” were drawn up and signed by the lay and spiritual lords, although the latter had previously refused their assent unless the words “ saving the rights and privileges of God and the church” were added. The murder
24- This was the first shock to the authority of the English church, and opened the way to all the ensuing usurpations.H-Innet’s “ Origin. Angl.” ii. 491.
2,5 Collier’s “ Ecclesiastical History of England,” voi. i. p. 315. fol. 1708.DEVOTION TO DECKET I—BISHOPS AND MONKS.
17
of the archbishop at length put an end to those disputes and controversies, which were but ill calculated to advance religion. This prelate was more profitable to the cathedral after his death than he had been during his life, for being canonized as a saint, and many pretended miracles having been wrought by his relics, his tomb became one of the most prolific sources of revenue the church had ever possessed. After his death, the interior was suffered to remain in dirt and filth, and the performance of divine service was suspended for a whole year, as a penance for the crime of his death taking place there26. Considerable dissensions ensued in electing a successor to Becket, and still greater in the election of Baldwin27. But an end was put to all these differences between the bishops and monks, by Pope Innocent III. in 1206, deciding in favour of the latter, and excluding the former from all share in the election of a metropolitan. Baldwin endeavoured to abridge the power of the monks, who had made strong opposition to his election ; and with this view procured a bull from the Pope, and also the king’s assent for establishing a college of seculars at Hackington, near Canterbury. The monks, aware of the consequences, appealed to Rome, and made so strong an opposition to the undertaking, that the archbishop was obliged to relinquish his design28. On the death of Hubert Walter, the monks were much at variance among themselves respecting the appointment of a successor, but at last Pope Innocent III. compelled them to elect Cardinal Langton, who, being at Viterbo, was there consecrated by his Holiness on the 17th of June, 1207. This proceeding was highly resented by King John, who wrote to the Pope complaining of it as an “ encroachment on his prerogative,” and stat_
2,6 In commemoration of the translation of Becket’s body to his shrine in 1220, fifty years after his death, a jubilee was observed every fiftieth year. “ At the fifth celebration of this solemnity, in 1420, the concourse of people is said to have been one hundred thousand, all of whom were well entertained fifteen days, the time this jubilee lasted." Todd's “ Catalogue of Christ Church Library," 110. See Battely’s Appendix, part i.
27	Occasioned by the controversy between the monks and bishops. Battely, ut sup. 48.
28	Pope Celestine sent a bull to the Bishop of Bath and Wells, after the death of Baldwin, ordering the chapel at Hackington to be demolished, which was immediately done by the monks, without waiting for the king’s permission. Gervas. Chron. x. Script, col. 1572. ap Innet’s Origin. Angl. ii. 355.
C18
CANTERBURY CATHEDRAL.
ing that “ if the satisfaction he demanded was denied, he would break off all communication with Rome.” The king was ultimately compelled, however, to bend to the plenitude of ecclesiastical power, but not before all the censures of the church had been employed against him, and he was obliged to sign an instrument, engaging “ to obey the Pope in all things.” These distractions were terminated by the death of John, in 1216. Canterbury had now become celebrated as a place of frequent pilgrimages. The extraordinary character, life, death, and canonization of Becket gave to the cathedral a notoriety which it had never before possessed; and it became the interest of the ecclesiastics to keep alive the veneration inspired by the miraculous property which was said to belong to the relics of the martyr. In the time of Langton a solemn translation of the remains of St. Thomas, from the crypt into a costly shrine in the Chapel of the Holy Trinity took place with a pomp and splendour so expensive, that a debt was entailed on the cathedral, which required the prudent exertions of several succeeding prelates to liquidate29. We thus see the court of Rome gradually gaining an ascendancy over the British church, and influencing the ecclesiastical affairs of the kingdom, notwithstanding the opposition made to papal authority both by the kings and the archbishops. On the accession of Edmund of Abingdon to this see, he found the oppressions and exactions of the court of Rome so flagrant and unjust, thatheleftitand retired to France.
On the death of Boniface, the monks of Christ Church elected their
29 Nearly all our chroniclers and historians bear testimony of the extravagance, parade, and ostentation of the monks of Christ Church on this occasion. It is a curious fact, as related by Lord Lyttleton, in his Life, &c. of Henry II. from the ledger books of Christ Church, that during one year there were no oblations made at Christ’s altar, and only <£4. Is. 8d. at that of the Virgin Mary; whilst the amount at Becket’s was £954. 6 s. 3 d. In another place his lordship writes, “ One is ashamed to repeat all the shocking absurdities, which the zealots of those times were not ashamed to ascribe to the power and wisdom of God, operating, as they pretended, to the honour of this prelate.” Not even the vulgar, but even the most exalted were willing dupes: the Archbishop of Sens, in a letter to the Pope, “ told his holiness very gravely, that the wax lights, which were placed about the corpse of Becket, before his interment, happening to go out in the night, he rose up and lighted them again himself; and that after his obsequies were performed by the monks, as he lay on his bier, he lifted up his right hand, and gave his benediction to all the assembly then present.”—History of Henry II. voi. iv. book v. p. 370.CONTENTIONS BETWEEN THE POPE, AND KING, AND THE BISHOPS. 19
sub-prior William de Chillenden, but the Pope declared him unworthy of the dignity, and nominated Richard Kilwardby, whom the monks were obliged to admit. Edward the First, coming to the crown shortly afterwards, assembled a council at Westminster, and, before restoring the archbishop’s temporalities, protested that such restitution wras of his “ mere grace and favour, and not of any right,” as the Pope had rejected William de Chillenden “ contrary to his prerogative, to the laws of the realm, and to the liberties of the English church.” This protestation had no effect on the Pope, as he afterwards refused to confirm Robert Burnell, who had been elected as Kilwardby’s successor on the recommendation of the king, and appointed John Peckham in his stead.
Heavy and unjust exactions were sometimes made by the Roman pontiff on the clergy, and this prelate’s elevation was not gratuitous, for the Pope charged him four thousand marks for the favour conferred, and King Edward I. demanded two thousand more for sowing the church lands, and for the crops then growing upon them. Peckham was also obliged to expend two thousand more in repairing his houses and castles, which he found dilapidated; and the expenses of his enthronization feast amounted to an additional two thousand30. The archbishop, on his election, found the “ rents and profits pillaged and wasted;” and it is not therefore astonishing that he should consider the Pope’s demand, accompanied with a threat of excommunication, as “ horrible to the eye, and dreadful to the ear|* particularly, as he had written to him requesting the restoration of five thousand marks, which had been alienated by his predecessor. On the 14th of August, 1289, the king, then residing in St. Augustine’s monastery, invited the archbishop to dine with him, who accordingly went, and had his cross borne before him. The monks of that house, jealous of their own liberties and privileges, refused to allow the bishop to make an entry in that manner. He was therefore stopped at the gate, and required to make a written acknowledgment that he came by the special invitation of the
30	The pompous, irrational, and pantomimic ceremonies of thè archbishop’s enthronization, are detailed in Archdeacon Battely’s volume.
31	“---horribilis in aspectu, & auditu terribilis.”—Parker’s “ Cantuariensis Archiepiscopi,”
by Drake, 291.20
CANTERBURY CATHEDRAL.
king, and that his public entry should not afterwards prejudice the rights of the convent. The archbishop, however, refused to comply, and the king immediately commanded him to leave the place. Though he obeyed this mandate, he subsequently opposed the monarch by passing some resolutions at a council, which wrere intended to uphold the rights and privileges of the church against the personal will of the king. Incensed at this procedure, the monarch assembled a parliament the same year, and, among other proceedings, abrogated all the resolutions of the archbishop’s council. Regardless of these acts, the prelate summoned another convocation, and wrote a spirited letter to the king, in defence of his own authority.
Edward the First extorted certain subsidies from the clergy, which were thought unjust and oppressive, to counteract which both in spirit and practice, Archbishop Winchelsea procured a bull from the Pope, inhibiting any further exactions, without licence from the holy see. Provoked at this proceeding, and regardless of the pontiff and the priests, he immediately seized on much of the property of the latter. Our prelate and his see jointly suffered in this contest, for the former was suspended and the temporalities of the latter were seized and appropriated by the king. Edward II. however reinstated the one, and refunded the other; and the archbishop speedily assembled councils, wherein many decrees were passed for the government and security of the church.
In the time of Simon Mepham there was a controversy between the monks of St. Augustine’s and the archbishop about certain pieces of land. The Pope being appealed to, decided the casein favour of the monks, and the archbishop was amerced in the sum of <£121032. Having gone on a metropolitical visitation to the see of Exeter, John Graundson, then bishop, met him with an armed force, and effectually opposed his entrance to that city.
The Pope having gradually assumed the right of nominating to vacant sees, and excluding all interference on the part of the king, Edward thé Third wrote to his holiness, complaining of so unjust an extension of his
32 Godwin calls it but <£700, p. 131. The prelate did not however pay it, but was declared contumacious, and died under a sentence of excommunication.RIVALRY OF YORK AND CANTERBURY.
21
authority. The Pope seemed to concede a little, but between him and the king, the monks of Christ Church appear to have been deprived of any influence in the election of their archbishop; for having nominated Thomas Bradwardin, the Pope, at the intercession of the king, arbitrarily superseded their choice by the appointment of John Uflord, or de Offord. This prelate did not long survive his elevation, and the second election of Bradwardin was confirmed. Papal influence had by this time become much lessened, but the holy see was still tenacious of maintaining at least the appearance of authority over the British church. The monks, with the king’s approbation, elected Simon Islip, but the Pope, not having been consulted on the occasion, refused to consecrate him; yet conscious of the impotency of pontifical power in England, although he rejected the election of Islip, and proceeded “ ex plenetudine potestatis,” to fill up the vacant see, he thought it prudent to make his choice coincide with that of the monks, and therefore issued his bulls of confirmation.
Islip was a strict disciplinarian, and sternly enforced the observance of the ecclesiastical laws. Synwel, then Bishop of Lincoln, finding the austerity of the archbishop unpleasant, procured from the court of Rome ari exemption from his jurisdiction, but the archbishop prevailed on the Pope to revoke this privilege.
The controversy concerning the right of the Archbishop of York to bear his cross in the province of Canterbury being revived about this time, was finally settled by the decision of the king, who ordained, that “ the Archbishoppe of Yorke should beare his crosse in the others province, yeelding all preeminence otherwise unto Canterbury, but that in token of subjection, every archbishoppe at his entrance should offer an image of golde to the value of £40, at the shrine of St. Thomas, the same to be sent by some knight or doctor of the law, within the space of two monethes after his inthronization33.” Archbishop Islip lived extremely economical, and took every means of aggrandizing his cathedral34.
33	Godwin's Cat. of Bishops, 141.
34	He sold his right to twenty-six deer from the forest of Arundel, which had beeh formerly granted to Archbishop Boniface, for two hundred and forty marks. At his death he bequeathed one thousand sheep to the convent, to be kept as a perpetual stock. Ibid. 142. Battely, 73.22
CANTERBURY CATHEDRAL.
In the time of Simon Langham, who next filled the see for about two years, the papal power received a shock which it never afterwards recovered. The archbishop was bigoted in favour of monks, and ejected the secular clergy from Canterbury College, in order to settle regulars in their place. One of those who were thus displaced was the celebrated John Wickliffe, who declaimed against the oppressions of prelacy, and vehemently inveighed against monkish institutions. About the same time, Pope Urban the Vllth, thinking, from the successes of Edward the Illd in France, that a favourable opportunity had arrived for demanding the tribute which King John had come under an obligation for himself and his successors to pay to the holy see, very haughtily required payment, and appointed commissioners to enforce obedience, if the king should prove refractory. But after some days deliberation in parliament it was resolved, instead of conceding to the demand, that “ if the Pope should, by any means whatever, attempt to support his unjust pretensions, the whole nation would unite with all its power to oppose him.” From this time the papal power declined, and the English church gradually became emancipated from the degrading subjection to an overbearing hierarchy. On the death of William Wittlesey, the monks elected Cardinal Langton35, who had formerly presided over them; but the king was so displeased with their choice, that he threatened to banish them from the kingdom : and the Pope, finding his power insufficient for their protection, refused to confirm the election, and translated Simon Sudbury from London.
William Courtney was a zealous defender of episcopal rights, and threatened the city of Canterbury with an interdict, for interfering with ecclesiastical affairs, and also prosecuted the bailiffs of Romney for a similar offence. In his visitations he met with considerable opposition, especially from the Bishops of Exeter and Salisbury, whom he severely censured for so doing. This severity put an end to all future opposition to metropolitical visits.
In 1411, Archbishop Arundel, intending to visit the University of Oxford, was opposed36. This occasioned a litigation in the Court of Chancery, where it was decreed, “ that the whole university, and all orders, persons,
35	Godwin supposes the cardinal here mentioned was called Adam Easton, p. 146.
36	Hasted’s Hist. Cant. 334.DISSOLUTION OF THE PRIORY.
23
and faculties in it, should be fully subject to the visitation of the archbishop, and his successors,” &c. and “ on any interruption to it, their liberties should be seized into the king’s hand;” “ and for every such offence, the Chancellor of the University, or other officers, should pay to the king £1000. During the government of this prelate the king decreed, that “ no bishop should thenceforth be translated to another see against his will and consent.”
Religion underwent a very considerable revolution during the turbulent reign of Henry VIII. ; and the part that Archbishop Cranmer acted in those unsettled times is amply developed in English history. He was a zealous and constant friend to the Reformation, to which his life was ultimately sacrificed. Gilpin has written an admirable and interesting “ Memoir of Cranmer.”
In this reign commenced those transactions which led to the dissolution of the priory, an event, says Battely, which “ w7as not wholly and entirely executed at one blow, but by degrees.” The first act was the abrogation of such festivals as happened in harvest time, i. e. from July 1st to September the 29th, among which was that of the translation of St. Thomas. This took place in 1536; and in 1538, the feast of St. Thomas was specially prohibited, and the service for his festival abolished, when, instead of fasting, as had been the custom formerly, Archbishop Cranmer “ gave a fair president of disowning all regard to this feast,” by “ supping upon flesh in his parlour.” In 1539 a proclamation was issued, in which Becket was declared to have been a traitor to his prince, and ought not to be esteemed a saint. His images and pictures were ordered to be removed from all churches, his name erased from all books, and the service appropriated to him for ever disused, under the pain of his majesty’s indignation, and imprisonment at the king’s pleasure.
A commission, dated at Westminster, 31 Hen. VIII. was directed to the Archbishop of Canterbury, &c. for the dissolution of Christ Church Priory, empowering nine, or any three of those to whom the commission was directed, to draw up a surrender in form, which being signed and sealed by the prior and convent, the commissioners were to take possession of the monastery, make an inventory of all the goods, chattels, and other property, and carry all the jewels, plate, and money to the master of the jewel24
CANTERBURY CATHEDRAL.
house at the Tower of London. These instructions were acted upon immediately, and the ecclesiastics were discharged on certain pensions.
The profligacy and immorality which were said to prevail in these societies was the ostensible pretext for their dissolution. This charge does not appear to have been proved against the monks of Christ Church, nor was it proved that this house merited the appellation of “ a little Sodom,” which the Bishop of Sarum bestowed on it. The riches which these establishments had accumulated proved an irresistible temptation to the avaricious Henry, and thè state of society enabled him to carry his measures into effect. The age of superstitious darkness had partly passed, and people had acquired juster ideas of morality than to believe that sin could be computed for by riches, or that salvation was ensured either by liberality to the clergy, or the observance of ceremonies.
The Pope cited Cardinal Pole, who had been appointed successor to Cranmer, to answer such charges as might be preferred against him; but the queen strenuously supporting the archbishop, his holiness saw that the most prudent course was to drop the prosecution, which he accordingly did, declaring that the cardinal had been falsely accused.
Matthew Parker was promoted to the see of Canterbury by Queen Elizabeth. He strictly adhered to the discipline of the church, and in consequence incurred the displeasure of the government and the puritans ; but he was too firm to be frightened from what he conceived to be his duty. The civil commotions continued to distract the country, and Archbishop Laud fell a victim to the fanaticism of the times, on a charge of endeavouring to subvert the laws, the rights of parliament, and the Protestant religion. From this time the church establishment was completely abrogated, but at the restoration, the ancient system was restored, and William Juxon was promoted to Canterbury. Having thus pointed out a few leading facts respecting the history of the see, its progress through numerous struggles with monarchical and pontifical tyranny, and its serene settlement in Protestant doctrines and establishments, it will be our duty, in the next chapter, to investigate the history, and explain the peculiarities of the cathedral church.mm M
HISTORICAL NOTICES OF THE CATHEDRAL:—ITS FOUNDATION, SUCCESSIVE ADDITIONS, ALTERATIONS, AND PRESENT CONDITION.
It is generally agreed, that, as early as the third century, an edifice, appropriated to Christian worship, had been reared in Canterbury by the christianized Romans. Of the legend of Lucius, the converted British prince, to whom the building of certain early churches is by some ascribed, I have already expressed my doubts1. The title of the British apostles, Fugatius and Damianus, to this honour, is equally problematical2. All this, however, as well as the supposed destruction of the church in the Diocletian persecution, and its rebuilding in the fourth century, are mere conjectures3. We know nothing positive of any ecclesiastical fabric at Canterbury previous to the arrival of St. Augustine; and the repeated destructions to which the churches were subjected have not left any architectural members of early British or Roman workmanship for our guide or inference.
St. Augustine, on his arrival in Britain, a. d. 597, is said to have founded two churches in Canterbury, one of which, dedicated to St. Martin, wras actually used as a place of Christian worship, under the patronage of Bertha, the queen of Ethelbert4. This church, of which Liudhard was bishop,
* History, &c. of Winchester Cathedral, p. 12—14. Lingard, solicitous for the fame of Lucius, quotes as authorities for the conversion of the Britons, in the second century, Tert. cont. Jud. p. 189; et Origen, Horn. vi. in Luc. and Horn. vi. in Ezech.—Autiq. Ang. Sax. Church, p. 3.
2 Nennius, p. 108, edit. Bert.—Ang. Sac. ii. p. 667.
Battely’s Somner, ii. p. 2—4.
4 “ In civitate Doroberniæ, quæ modo Cantuaria dicitur, B. Augustinus, ecclesiam reperiens antiquo Romanorum fidelium opere factam.” “ Fuerunt enim in eadem ecclesia monachi in-
D26
CANTERBURY CATHEDRAL.
was, by order of the queen, transferred to the Missionaries, who were so successful that, as the legend goes, the king and ten thousand people were baptized in one day5 ! St. Martin’s Church was accordingly found too small for the accommodation of the converts, and the king liberally gave up his palace to be appropriated to public assemblies for their use.
Whether this palace was on the site of the present cathedral, or whether it was only adjacent to one of the Roman churches which Augustine repaired, we have not sufficient evidence to determine. If we are to trust Bede6, St. Augustine dedicated to our “ blessed Saviour” the church which he found standing in the “east part” of Canterbury; but this must evidently have been the Church of St. Martin, and not Christ Church, which is nearly in the midst of the city. If, again, we follow the old documents published by Somner7, we have no less than two statements; one of which says, that Christ Church was founded by Lucius8, and another, that Ethelbert’s palace was converted into the cathedral9. The Adesham MS. still more explicitly says that the church of Canterbury was founded on the site of the palace10.
This consecrated palace, then, or repaired church, St. Augustine, after being ordained a bishop, dedicated, as the register informs us, to Christ
habitantes, sed in numero pauci.”—Thom. Rud. Hist. Wint. in Ang. Sac. i. 251. Bertha was buried at Rome, according to Montfaucon; who saw in the Church of St. Ambrogio this inscription : Hie Bertce Regime ossa. Diar. Ital. ii. 30.
5	Gervas. Col. 1632. ut supr. p. 10.
6	Bede, Hist. Eccles. c. i. 1. 33.
7	Somner, Append. No. xxvii. c. Edit. Battely.
8	Fundatio Ecclesiæ Christi Cantuariæ ab antiquis temporibus jacta fuit per Lucium Britannorum Regem, Christi primum professorem.—Sed institutio monasticae vitae in eadem ecclesia Christi Cantuariæ fuit a tempore Beati Augustini Prothodoctoris Angliae, sicut ait Beda, in libro primo Eccles. Hist, gentis Anglorum. c. 33. (ut supr.)
9	Æthelbertus Rex, anno regui sui xxxv. ad fidem Christi per sanctum Augustinum conversus, statini palatium suum eidem Augustino & successoribus suis infra civitatem Doroberniam perpétué dedit, ut ibi sedem metropolitanam in ævum haberent. An. Dom. 507. Donat. Eccles. Cant. Somner, App. No. xxxvi.
»° In quo (videlicet palatio), fundata est Ecclesia Cantuariensis & in nomine Sancti Salvatoris dedicata. Somner, App. No. 36.EARLY CHARTERS, ETC.
27
our blessed Saviour; on which account it still receives the name of Christ’s Church
. Respecting these early records and charters, howëvër,* it may be proper to remark, that they are all of very doubtful authority, having for the most part been either forged ór interpolated by the monks for interested purposes12.
For the space of a hundred and thirty or forty years after the death of Augustine, there seems to have been nothing recorded concerning the additions or repairs of the original fabric, though there is no doubt that these must have been considerable, from its having been left unfinished by Augustine, and continuing to be the metropolitical church of England13. In 743 Cuthbert, the eleventh bishop in succession from Augustine, obtained a licence to have the archbishops interred in the cathedral, in preference to St. Augustine’s abbey; and, for this purpose, he had a chapel erected near the east end of Christ Church, which he dedicated to St. John the Baptist, and consecrated for the sépulture of himself and all future prelates of the see14.
When Odo was promoted to the archbishopric in 941, he found the roof of the church in a very ruinous condition ; the walls of unequal heights, from decayed portions of them having fallen ; and the rafters loosened and
11	Regist. Cant. A. Brompton, col. 733, and Kilburne, p. 58.
12	The charters already quoted, Somner thinks, were drawn up from Bede’s history by persons who did not understand it; and Spelman and Causabon agree with this writer, and with the Saxon Chronicle, “ that Canterbury had no written charters nor muniments before 694— 731.” Hasted, p. 288. Both Eadmer and Gervase say, that in the three conflagrations which the church sustained, almost all its ancieut records and privileges had perished. Eadrn. Hist. Nov. i. 9; and Gervas. Col. 1292—1310.
13	It is worthy of remark, that, during this period, the revenues of the church were, if we are to trtìst the charters, much increased by donations of manors, &c. more than fifty of which are recorded. Somner’s App. No. 36; and Dugd. Monast. i. 18. About the year 669, Benedict Biscopius accompanied Theodore from Rome, and brought with him several glaziers, painters, and stone masons, who, we may suppose, would be partly employed by Theodore in repairing his cathedral. Vit. Sanct. 298. Bede 1. iv. c. 18.
14	For this lie is highly commended by Gervase, Col. 1641; and most virulently abused by Thorn, Col. 1773, for his treachery, as he calls it, to the mothér church of St. Augustine. Decem Script.28
CANTERBURY CATHEDRAL.
ready to fall15. Anxious to repair these dilapidations, the good archbishop caused the decayed roof to be taken down entirely, the ruined portions of the walls to be rebuilt, and the new roof of the church covered with lead16. In this work Osbern informs us, that Odo spent three years, during which time it was, by the influence of his prayers, miraculously protected not only from tempests, but even from rain ; for though it rained abundantly in the adjacent country, not a drop fell during those three years within the walls of Canterbury17! We learn from the same authority, that the church was the most capacious then known; and Battely is inclined to believe that it was the original fabric built by the believing Romans, and repaired by Augustine18. Odo died probably in 958, and was buried, says Osbern, in his own cathedral, on the south side of Christ’s altar, in a tomb built of a pyramidal form19.
The next remarkable era in the history of the cathedral was in 1011, seventy-three years after it had been repaired by Odo, a minute account of which is given by Eadmer, or, as he chooses to call himself, Osbern. After the invaders had taken the city, they set fire to the church by piling up wooden vessels against its walls for the purpose of consuming the roof, and melting the lead. This is said to have run down on the heads of the monks; and such of them as attempted to escape were either forced back into the fire, or put to the sword20.
15	Osbern (Eadmer), in Vit. Odon. Ang. Sacr. ii. 83.
16	Osbern, ut supr. Mr. Dallaway remarks, that this was a very early application of lead for the purpose of roofing. Wild’s Canterbury Cathedral, p. 2.
17	In tribus annis nec tamen intra ambitum solius ecclesiae sed nec intra muros totius civitatis imber aliquando descenderet ; cum videres omnia civitatis pomaria aquis infundi. Osbern, in Vit. Odon. William of Malmesbury expresses his doubts of this miracle—Nisi quod dicam incredibile videatur, says he, nec pluviae stillicidium loci madefecerit ambitum. De Gest. Pont. i. p. 201. ed Franc.
*8 Antiq. Canter, ii. 6.
19	Bishop Godwin, in his “ Catalogue of the Bishops," mistakes this tomb for Archbishop Mepham’s.—Hasted. 292. This tomb was celebrated for the miracle of the Holy Spirit, in form of a dove, appearing during mass, and resting over the remains of the “ venerable Odo."— Osbernus de Vita Odonis Aug. Sac. part ii. p. 86.
20	Wharton’s Angl. Sacr. ii. 136. See p. 15, above.LANFRANC’S CHURCH.
29
According to Battel y, p. 6, “ the old walls of the church seem to have been made of stone and brick, after the Roman manner of building, and the inside of it to have been plain, without any large stalls, or seats of wood.”
From this period to the time of Canute, the church remained in the roofless and dilapidated condition in which it was left by the conflagration. When this celebrated monarch found leisure from his wars, he caused the churches which had suffered injury from Danish hostility to be repaired, and, amongst others, that of Canterbury; tò which he presented, in 1023, his gold crown, and restored to it the port of Sandwich, with its liberties, as already stated21. His munificence to this cathedral is ascribed, by some, to the respect which he had for Agelnoth, who had presided as archbishop for eighteen years22.
The church was again consumed by fire a few years previous to the accession of Lan franc to the see, in 1073; but of this we have no perfect account23. Eadmer, however, who mentions this conflagration, has given us the following curious notices of the old building24.
It appears to have consisted only of a body, in the form of a parallelogram, with ailes (alce), and a tower on each side near the western end, under which were the north and south entrances, or porches. Near the wall,- at the east end of the church, was an altar of unhewn stone, cemented with mortar, which had been erected by Archbishop Odo for the reception of the body of Wilfrid, Archbishop of York. Westward from this was another altar, dedicated to Christ our Saviour, where divine service was daily celebrated. Farther westward was a flight of steps leading dow;n to the choir aud nave, w hich wrere both upon the same level : there was, at the bottom of the steps, a passage into the undercroft, which extended beneath the eastern part of the church. This crypt was con-
11 Battely’s Antiquities, ii. 7.
22	Matthew of Westminster says, that Canute was induced to this by the persuasion of Queen Emma; and also, which is more probable, by his wish to conciliate the English. Somner, i. 85.
23	Battely, pt. ii. p. 7.—Hasted’s Canter. 113.
14 Eadmer, ap. Gerv. Doreb. de Combust. & Repar. Dorob. Eccl. inter x. Script, col. 1291.30
CANTERBURY CATHEDRAL.
strocted with a lofty arched or vaulted roof (fornix), in imitation of the Confession ary in St. Peter’s Church at Rome. Separated from the west end of the undercroft by a strong stone wall, was the tomb of St. Dunstan, over which was a large and lofty monument of â pyramidal form, and at the head of it an altar for the mâtin service! The chorus' psallentiunt, or choir, was between the steps or passage in the undercroft and the nave ; and, to prevent the singers from being disturbed by the crowds in the church,' was separated from these parts by' “ a fair and decent partition.’^ About the middle of the length of the nave, on each side without the walls, were two towers, beneath which were entrances into the nave. At the south door, or hostium, was an altar dedicated to St. Gregory, and in it a law court was held for hearing secular pleas and controversies25. Beneath the north tower was the altar of St. Martin, and a passage communicating with the monastery : here also were the cloisters forthe novices. On the west a flight of steps, “as from its structure there was no other approach,” led up to a chapel or oratory, dedicated to the Virgin Mary, in which was also the altar of the Virgin, containing the head of St. Astro-burta; and against the wrest wall the pontifical chair of the archbishop, described to have been “ a fair piece of work, made of large stones, cemented together with mortar.” This description corresponds with the present old stone chan now placed in Becket’s crown.
Lanfranc was astonished at the ruinous condition of Christ’s Church, and “ àlmost despaired of seeing that and the monastery re-edified;” This work, however, he began with great spiriti, and, in the spdce of sèven years, nearly completed it, “ in a new and more magnificent manner and form of structure than hadt hardly in any place-before'been made use of in this
as This proves, according to Seiden (Pref. x. Script.), the great antiquity of the church or chapel where such courts have been held. We know, however, very little concerning this court. Eadmer says, “ Quod hostium in antiquorum legibus regum suo nomine sapius exprimitur. In quibus etiam omnes querelas totius regni, quæ hundredis vel comitatibus uno vel pluribus, vel certe in curia regis non possent legaliter diffiniri, finem inibi sicut in curià regis summi, sortiri debere discernitur.” He adds, “Forenses lites & secularia placita exercebantur, &c/?—Eadmer, apud Gervas. de Comb. & Rep, Eccles.'Cant, inter. x. Script, col. 1292.LANFRANc’s WORK,
m
kingdom, which made it a precedent and pattern for succeeding structures of the same kind;”
By mistaking the words of Eadmer, it has been doubted whether Lan-franc rebuilt the whole, or only a part of the church; but, by collating the passage with what has been said by Gervase and Radulf, there can be no doubt that he “ overturned from the foundation what was old, and nearly perfected the new edifice.” Eadmer indeed says, that his reason for giving a particular description of the old building, was, to authenticate the ancient writings concerning it, as the “ old things have passed away, and all that now exists is new'26 ” Yet Mr. Dallaway thinks that Lanfrane only repaired it from the ground upwards. Gostling27 and Ledwich28 examined minutely the more antient parts of the remaining structure, and they found, that not only the walls of the choir were, crooked, and marked with innovations, like the patchings of different architects, but that the undercroft was to be considered as an “ Iseum, or chapel of Isis, or an early imitation of Roman models.” It is worthy of remark, that some of the existing ornaments are very similar to those observed by Dr. Thos. Shaw29 among the ruins of Carthage. Gostling thinks the undercroft to be coeval with that of Grymbald at Oxford, which he considers to be of the ninth century30. He also thinks, and Mr. Denne agrees with him, that the girdle, as he terms it, or range of small pillars with fantastic shafts and capitals, on the outside of the south wall, with the plain columns support ing intersecting arches, were prior to the age of Lanfrane, though made use of by him when he repaired the church. Mr. Denne supposes these to have been the work of Odo31.
16 The passages are subjoined: “ Ædificavit et curiam (Palace) sibi ecclesiam praeterea, quam spacio septem annorum a fundamentis, ferme totam perfectam reddidit ”—Ead. (ed. Seiden) p. 7, 8. È Veterem ecclesiam combustam inveniens funditus erer£î7.”|jS$|*Incendn reliquias nova omnia constructurus evertit funditus.'’—“ Omnia innovans a fundamentis vetera evertit." Gervas, Dorobern. Col.-1291—1654. Decem. Script.
27 Walks round Canterbury, p. 78.	7,9 Archæologia, viii.
19 Travels, &c. in Barbary, &c. fol. J738.
30 See “The Architectural Antiquities of Great Britain,” where are views, with apian, &c. and a history and description of that crypt.	31 Archæologia, x. 46.32
CANTERBURY CATHEDRAL.
Lanfranc then, according to Eadmer, in the compass of seven years, rebuilt the whole church, from the foundation, together w'ith the palace and monastery, the wall encompassing the court, and all the offices belonging to the monastery within that enclosure. It has been doubted whether it was possible for him to have executed so large a work in so short a period, but we know too little of his means and resources to make such an inference, in contradiction to the express testimony of his precentor Eadmer.
Of the state of Lanfranc’s church, we have a detailed and singularly precise account, by Gervase the monk32. From this we learn, that in the midst of the church was a tower, like a centre in the midst of a circumference, supported by very large pillars, and having a gilt cherub on a pinnacle, whence it was called the Angel Steeple33. Westward from the tower, but in some measure separated from it by the pulpit, was the nave or hall of the church, supported on each side by eight pillars, terminating at the west end by two lofty towers with gilt pinnacles. In the middle of the centre tower was the altar of the holy cross. Above the pulpit, and placed across the church, was a beam, which sustained a great cross between two cherubs, and the images of St. Mary and St. John the apostle. In the north aile was an oratory, and an altar of St. Mary. The great centre tower had a transept, called wings, both on the north and south side of it, and in the centre of each w7as a strong pillar, which received the arch springing in three parts from the wall31. The south transept had an organ placed above the arch, and beneath it a portico stretching towards the east, through which was an entrance to the east part of the church. Between this portico and the choir was a space divided into
32	Gervas. Dorob. de combust. & repar. Dorob. eccles. inter x. Script, apud Twysden, ed. 1652.
33	Somner, by mistake, gives the name of Angel Steeple to what is called Arundel Steeple, for the obituary of the church says expressly that the high tower, called the Angel Steeple, stands in the middle of the church.—In medio ecclesiae, viz. inter chorum & navem ecclesiæ."— Angl. Sacr. i. 147.
34	*t Fornicem a parietibus prodeuntem, in tribus sui partibus suscipiebat."—Gervas. loc. citat.ARCHBISHOP LANFRANC*.—CHOIR OF CONRAD.
33
two, by a descent of a few steps into the undercroft, and an ascent of many steps into the upper part of the church, namely, the choir and its side ailes. The north transept had likewise two porticos, containing its altars of St. Blaise and St. Benedict, and the sepulchres of Archbishops William, Ralph, andEgelnoth, and also of Wulf helm, Athelm, and Chelnoth : in this part the portico was highly ornamented. Between the divided space and the portico was a solid wall, before which was the gate of the cloister. The pillar which stood in the middle of this transept, and the arch resting on it35, were afterwards destroyed to give more ample space for the altar of St. Thomas the Martyr. Steps ascended from this transept to the tower, and from the tower to the choir; but from the tower to the transept there was a descent by the new gat e (hostium) ; and likewise from the tower to the nave was a descent by two doors (valvas). Besides rebuilding the cathedral in this unusual style of magnificence, Lanfranc furnished it with ornaments and rich vestments, and dedicated it to the Holy Trinity, and not as it had before been, to the Blessed Saviour.
Lanfranc died in 1089, and after an interval of four years, the see was bestowed on Anselm. This prelate was involved in difficulties and embarrassments in the beginning of his primacy, in consequence of his successive disputes with his sovereigns, William Rufus and Henry I. On his reconciliation with the latter, in 1106, he employed himself in improving and adding to the splendour of his cathedral; and he is said to have expended nearly the wdiole of his revenues in rebuilding and adorning the choir. The superintendence of this undertaking he entrusted to priors Ernulph and his successor, Conrad36. The former of these demolished, and afterwards began rebuilding the part of the church between the east end and the great tower, in such a style of splendour that, according to William of Malmsbury, it surpassed every other choir in England; particularly in the transparency of its glass windows, the beauty of its marble pavements, and the curious paintings of the roof37. Ernulph, in 1107,
35 “ Fornix ei innitens.”-—Gervas. loc. citat.	36 Eadmer. Hist. Novor. 26, 35, 108.
37 De Gest. Pontif. i. 234.
E34
CANTERBURY CATHEDRAL.
was succeeded by Conrad, who completed this part of the building in 1114, with so much magnificence that it was denominated the glorious choir of Conrad™. This edifice is described by Gervase39, with an exordium to the following effect.—“ Since, therefore, the choir of Conrad, gloriously finished in our time, has been miserably destroyed by fire, in order that the memory of so great a man, and so noble a work, might not perish, we shall proceed to describe it, though in a style simple and unadorned.” The monk then proceeds to describe this new choir with much precision, as follows :—
On passing from the great central tower, the eastern pillars of the choir were seen jutting out from a solid wall, like semipillars or pilasters. It was supported by eighteen pillars, nine on each side, in a direct line, and at equal distances ; and beyond these were six other pillars extended, in the form of a semicircle. Arches were thrown both from the ninth pillar on each side, and from pillar to pillar, as well round the circular parts as over those in a direct line ; and on these arches was reared a solid wall, in which were several small and obscure windows. On this wall was erected an ambulatory, called the triforium, and an upper range of windows. The roof extended over this inner wall, and was finely painted, to represent heaven or the firmament.
At the bases of the pillars surrounding the choir and presbytery was a wall, or rather a concatenation of marble slabs40, which divided the choir from the side ailes, and enclosed the former with the presbytery, the high altar, and the altars of St. Alphage and St. Dunstan. Beyond the eastern bending of it, and behind the high altar, was the patriarchal chair, made of one stone, in which the archbishops were wont to sit on their festivals, during the intervals of mass, till the consecration of the elements, and then
38 Considering that the choir had been but very recently erected by Lanfranc, it seems rather singular that Anselm should have destroyed and reedified it. But the historians of the church attest the fact. It is probable that his object was to enlarge the church as well as to make it more magnificent.
3£* Apud Decern Script, ut supra.
40 Gostling says that this wall is not of marble, but of stone, and about eight feet high.TRANSEPTS :—ALTARS, ETC.
35
they descended by eight steps to Christ’s altar. Between the choir and the presbytery were three steps. At the eastern corners of the altar were two pillars of wood, embellished with gold and silver, and supporting a huge beam, which rested on the top of the capitals : on this beam was placed a glory, or gilt image of our Lord (Majestas Dei), with images of St. Dun-stan and St. Alphage on each side, and also seven shrines, adorned with gold and silver, containing many relics. Between the columns stood a golden cross, in the centre of which were sixty crystals set in a circle. The crypt was of equal length and breadth with the choir.
In the outer wall of the church, beginning from Lanfranc’s transept to the upper transept, were three windows and five pillars, corresponding with those of the choir, and arching from them. From these five pillars began the north transept, which extended to the breadth of two arches. From the fifth and seventh of these pillars the side walls of the transept proceeded northward, forming two arched porticos or spaces in the wall. The wall towards the east from the northern transept had a great window opposite to the altar, near which was the high tower of St. Andrew, and under it the crypt of the Holy Innocents. On the south side the wall continued likewise from Lanfranc’s transept and the centre of St. Michael’s chapel, and in the same order reached to the upper south transept, which had likewise two porticos. In the south part w as the altar of St. Gregory, where lay the Archbishops Bregwin and Plegmund ; under which, in the crypt, was the altar of St. Owen, Archbishop of Rouen. In the other portico was the altar of St. John the Evangelist, wdiere lay the prelates Ethelgar and El uric; and in the crypt underneath was the altar of Paulinus, where was buried Syrici us, the archbishop; before the altar of St. Owen was the altar of St. Katharine. From this transept the wall continued to a window collateral with the high altar and enlightening it, corresponding to the other side. There was also a building on this side, called St. Anselm’s tower. From these two towers the walls formed a swreep to the chapel of the Holy Trinity, which was a continuation of the building. In this was an altar to the Holy Trinity, where Becket said mass the day of his consecration, and afterwards frequented both before and after his exile. At this altar lay St. Odo, Archbishop of Canterbury; and St.36
CANTERBURY CATHEDRAL.
Wilfrid, Archbishop of York. On the south side, Archbishop Lanfranc ; and on the north, Archbishop Theobald. In the crypt were two altars. On the south side, St. Augustine’s; on the north, St. John Baptist’s. Near the south wall lay Archbishop Ethelred ; and on the north, Eadsine. In the middle of the chapel was a pillar which supported the roof, and from it arches were thrown all around41.
We are told by Archbishop Parker that the cathedral was again in flames, and fell by fire in 1130; but as this event is not mentioned by Gervase, who expressly wrote on the« Conflagrations” of the church, and enumerates three memorable events of this nature, nor by any of the old historians; and, as the archbishop adds, that it was rebuilt by William Corboil, and dedicated in a style of great magnificence in the presence of the king, the queen, and the king of Scotland, on the 4th of May, the same year^it may be concluded that the fire was only very partial42.
Of the state of the cathedral at this period, a very curious representation is preserved in a drawing by Edwyn, who appears to have been a monk of Canterbury in the time of King Stephen43. This drawing Dr. Milles
41	Gervas. de combust, et repar. Dorob. Eccles. Decem Script. Edit. Twysden. 1652.
42	After mentioning a destructive fire which happened in London, in 1130, Archbishop Parker adds, “ Eodemque anno Ecclesia Christi Cantuariæ simili flagravit incendio atque concidit, quam Gulielmus (Corboil) iterum extruxit, et splendido ac magnifico apparatu dedicavit, Rege, Regina, äc Davide Scotorum Rege, et utriusque regni proceribus praesentibus.” De Antiq. Rritan. Eccles. Hanov. 1605. p. 126. ' Ex Archivis.
The notice which Gervase takes of the dedication of the cathedral by Archbishop Corboil plainly shows that he had only repaired it. “ Ecclesiam Cantuariæ a Lanfranco fundatam et consummatam, sed per Anselmum auctam, cum honore et munificentia dedicavit.’" Decem Script, col. 1664.
The seal of the See was renewed on this occasion. The inscription on it was, “ Sigillum Ecclesiae Christi Cantuariæ primæ Sedis Britanniæ and on the reverse, B Ego sum Via, Veritas, et Vita.”
43	This delineation is preserved in a curious triple Latin Psalter of St. Jerome, transcribed by the monk Edwyn or Eadwin, and deposited among the MSS. of Trin. Coll. Library, Cambridge. An illuminated portrait of this literary monk is also prefixed to the Psalter. See “ An Account of two Ancient Drawings” with Engravings, in Vetusta Monumenta, voi. ii. pi. 15, 16. See also list at the end of this volume.REPAIRS AND ADDITIONS TO THE CHURCH.
37
concludes was made between the years 1130 and 1174. It displays the north side of the cathedral with two towers at the wrest end—one at the centre called the angel steeple, two near the east end, two cloisters, and various monastic buildings and appendages.
In il74 the church again suffered by fire: when the whole choir, from the angel steeple to the east end, together with the chapel of the Virgin, and several offices belonging to the monastery are said to have been destroyed. The angel steeple, the nave, and the western transepts were uninjured. Of this fire a particular account is given by Gervase, who witnessed it. Some houses near the old gate of the monastery, says he, taking fire, the wind carried the sparks to the top of the cathedral and set fire to the timber of the roof. The accident was not discovered till the flames had made a passage through the roof by melting the lead. The burning roof fell down into the choir, where the stalls of the monks being inflamed increased the conflagration. To renovate the edifice, both French and English architects were consulted ; and the plan of William of Sens (Senonensis) being most approved, he was intrusted with the work. He began the new parts in 1175, and in four years successively completed four pillars and three bays of vaulting to each aile of the choir; three bays of the large vaulting over the choir from the great tower towards the transept, besides carrying up the walls over the pillars, and forming the upper windows of that part; and also the large bay of vaulting where the east transept crosses the choir.
This bold undertaking excited, as Gervase says, much admiration and praise; but the improvements of this enterprising architect were unfortunately interrupted in 1178, by his falling from a scaffold fifty feet high. He continued to give instructions from his bed to the workmen; but ill health obliged him at last to retire to France. William Anglus, or the Englishman, was employed to succeed him, and he proceeded to raise the vault to the north and south parts of the transept, and completed the east end of the choir, Trinity chapel, and the round tower, called Becket’s crown, from its foundation. In 1220, the chapel and altar, which had been consecrated to the Holy Trinity, were dedicated to St. Thomas the Martyr, whose relics were removed thither.38
CANTERBURY CATHEDRAL.
Such are the curious and interesting particulars furnished by two early writers ; and these are the more valuable from being recorded by persons resident on the spot, and contemporary with the events described : they are also very valuable to the architectural antiquary, from their minuteness and technicality.
Subsequent to this period we do not meet with any notice of reparations or additions till 1304, when Henry de Estria repaired the whole choir, constructed three new doors and a pulpit, also the admirable organ-screen, and two new’ gables in the chapter-house ; the expenses of which are said to have amounted to upwards of £800.
Archbishop Sudbury, who came to the see in 1376, rebuilt the transept north and south of the tower from the foundations ; and also, it is conjectured, the chapel of St. Michael on the east side of the south wing44. The nave, cloisters, and part of the chapter-house45 are ascribed to Thomas Chillenden, who was prior from 1391 to 1411, assisted by Archbishops Courtney and Arundel. The former of these prelates, in whose time the building of the nave was begun, contributed towards it 1000 marks; and prevailed on Richard II. to bestow £1000. more for the same purpose. He also gave by will £200. and upwards to be expended by his executors in building a part of the cloister adjoining the nave. Archbishop Arundel is recorded to have given 1000 marks towards the erection of the nave which was finished in his time;46.
The chantry of Henry IV. was erected about 1412, but by what architect is not recorded. About forty years afterwards, Prior Goldstone, the first of that name, at the expense of Archbishop Chichely, built the south-west tower and porch, and the Virgin Chapel on the east of the Martyrdom. Prior Goldstone, the second of the name, assisted by Archbishop Morton,
44	Battely ascribes the work to Sudbury, but without any authority. II. 22.
45	As Henry de Estria repaired the chapter-house in 1304, it must have been erected previous to that date. The style in which it is built is that which prevailed from 1250 to 1280. The name of Chillenden is on the stone work of the great western window, which was probably constructed by him. The arms of Archbishops Courtney and Arundel are also in some parts of the stone work.
46	Angl. Sacr. v. i. p. 61, 62.RUINOUS STATE OF THE CHURCH, ETC.
39
built the centre tower, called Bell Harry steeple, about 1515, and designated their names in hieroglyphics or rebuses on the walls ; by three gilded stones, for Goldstone ; and the letters Mor and a tun, for Morton.
Notwithstanding the circumstantial details here given of the history of this edifice, we find no record of the building of the north-west tower, nor of the towers on the west wall of the eastern transept, the tower in the chapel of St. Andrew, the lower part of the chapter-house, and the octangular building, or baptistery, at the northern end of the eastern transept. The dates of these respective members of the fabric can therefore only be conjectured, or inferred from the peculiar styles of each ; but these evidences may now be generally relied on.
Many alterations and restorations have been madeat subsequent periods: but few of these minor works are recorded. During the last two or three years some useful and judicious improvements have been making, by taking away many of the iron railings which surrounded and were inserted in the monuments, and by cleaning and repairing those monuments.
The following statement, drawn up in 1662 by a person belonging to the church after the Restoration, taken from a manuscript in the cathedral library, presents a deplorable account of the dilapidations which the church and archiépiscopal see suffered during the Rebellion.
“ By the king’s favour and goodness we were put in a capacity for doing that good whereof we are here about to give the world an account, and to stop the black and slanderous mouths of our professed enemies, after many years of adversity and suffering. We shall first recount the sad, forlorn, and languishing condition of our church at our return. It looked more like a ruined monastery than a church, so little had the fury of the late reformers left remaining of it but the bare walls and roof.
“ The windows (famous both for strength and beauty) were generally battered and broken down ; the whole roof, with that of the steeples, the chapter-house and cloister, extremely impaired and ruined both in timber-work and lead ; water tables, pipes, and much other lead cut off, and with the leaded cistern of one conduit purloined ; the choir stripped and robbed of her fair and goodly hangings; the organ and organ-loft, communion table,40
CANTERBURY CATHEDRAL.
and the best and chiefest of her furniture, with the rail before it, and the screen of tabernacle-work richly overlaid with gold behind it, goodly monuments shamefully abused, defaced, and rifled of brasses, iron grates, and bars ; the common dortor, affording good housing for many members of the church, with the dean’s private chapel, and fair library above it quite demolished ; books, &c. sold; houses ruined, stables also, and pulled down; common seal, registers and other books, records and evidences seized and distracted, many irrecoverably lost, others repurchased at great price; goodly oaks set to sale; generally what was money-worth made prize of and embezzled ; the goodly cathedral made a den of thieves.
“ For materials and workmen (beside £100. yearly for ever, as per statute,) £4148. 2s. 10d.
“ Set out £1000. more to carry on the work, for organ, communion table, with plate, and other necessary utensils and ornaments.
“ Total of what we have expended, and, by decree of chapter, are obliged to expend.upon our.church and other pious and public uses since the Restoration, is upwards of £10,000.”mm- æ.
DESCRIPTION OP THË FORM, ARRANGEMENT, AND CONSTRUCTION OF THE CHURCH OF ITS EXTERIOR AND INTERIOR BEAUTIES AND DEFECTS :— REMARKS ON ITS STYLES OF ARCHITECTURE, AND ON THE VARIOUS PORTIONS OF THE EDIFICE; WITH REFERENCES TO THE ACCOMPANYING PRINTS.
From the earliest annals of the Christian Church, in Britain, to the pre-* sent time, Canterbury has been pre-eminent in history and influence. Its cathedral has also participated in that eminence and that influence : for it was the system of the old catholic prelates to augment their powers and riches by an ostentatious display of wealth. Hence churches were not only progressively enlarged in size, but progressively augmented in decoration and every species of enrichment. Every succeeding age, and almost every succeeding prelate and abbot, seemed to regard it as necessary or politic to make some addition, or add some new adornment to his church. We find this exemplified in the history of the cathedral now under notice; and we also find that some very extensive as well as expensive re-edifica^ tions were made in the fabric, without any apparent reason, and certainly without any ostensible cause. (See p. 31,33. ante.) It is true that this edifice was often consumed or greatly injured by fire, and it appears that each new erection was raised in a style, and on a scale to surpass its predecessor. This laudable practice of the ecclesiastical architects was calculated to stimulate and bring into action all the energies of genius. It is a singular andj at the saine time, a lamentable fact* that there was no talent either
F42
CANTERBURY CATHEDRAE*
required or exercised in the country, but in architectural works. Excepting in this art, we hear of nothing truly mental in the early annals of the nation. Savage warfare—unnatural and irrational superstition—bondage of the many and tyranny of the few characterise the remainder of the people. It is really delightful to contemplate architecture as a beautiful, elegant, and dignified art, standing alone in this gloomy desert, to watch its progressive advancement in variety and gracefulness, and to see it attract, by its magic influence, the sister arts of painting and sculpture within its vortex. We may also infer that many of the sciences were necessarily cultivated as essential aids to architecture, and were in various ways and at different times called on to support and adorn their legitimate parent. Architecture, therefore, is not only entitled to our admiration, but to our gratitude. In infancy it was a crude science; in maturity it was, and is, an elegant art. The cathedral now under review warrants these remarks; and at once exemplifies the powers, capabilities, varieties, and merits of Christian architecture. This, like genuine Christianity, is genial, tolerant, expansive, and appeals both to the heart and fancy of man. That heart, indeed, must be flinty, and fancy phlegmatic, which can be unmoved by the present Cathedral of Canterbury. It is an edifice of great extent and amplitude ; considerable variety and intricacy ; in some parts grand and imposing, and in many others curious, beautiful, and interesting. Considered in its historical relations, as well as to its architectural characteristics, it naturally awakens associations and expectations of varied and imperious interest. In the fabric itself, and in its constructive history, w7e expect to find much to excite, as well as to gratify curiosity ; we look for satisfactory data to illustrate Gothic or Christian architecture : at this place, and in this very fabric, we expect to find some unquestionable examples of Anglo-Saxonic, Anglo-Normanic, and all the progressive styles and varieties of ecclesiastical building; if we fail in finding all that may be wished, we shall still meet with much to gratify and reward our researches.
By the aid of the accompanying prints, and a few descriptive remarks toCHRIST CHURCH GATE.
43
each, I hope to furnish the reader, whether he may be personally ac* quainted with the building or not, with a satisfactory account of the exterior and interior characteristics of the whole.
Canterbury Cathedral is placed in a flat level part of the country, and has therefore no picturesque advantages from situation. It is seated near the north-eastern extremity of the city, and was formerly surrounded by a lofty embattled wall, which is said to have been raised by Lanfranc, and which enclosed the whole precincts of the church. These walls extended about three-quarters of a mile, and were provided with fortified gatehouses. The cathedral precincts were occupied by three courts, respectively denominated the court of the church, the court of the convent, and the court of the archbishop. Parts of the walls remain, and two of the gatehouses are also left to show their sizes, forms, and destinations. That to the south-west, denominated Christ Church Gate, which Somner calls “a goodly, strong, and beautiful structure, and of excellent artifice,” was built by Prior Goldstone in 1517, as an inscription on it formerly showed. This inscription was on a string-course or cornice, on the south front, and extended the whole width of the building; it was “ Hoc opus constructum est An. Dom. millesimo quingentessimo decimo septimo.” This gatehouse consists of three stories or divisions in height; the lowest being occupied by the gateway or passage, having a carriage archway and a lateral doorway. Over this is a floor of chambers, and above that another floor, with windows in each front, surmounted by an embattled parapet. The whole southern exterior of this building is covered with tracery, panels, niches, canopies, shields of arms1, among which are the arms of the see, and those of Archbishop Juxon, with various sculpture. The doors are also ^charged with carvings. At the extremities are two octagonal towers, which formerly rose above the other parts of the building. In the centre
1 Among the armorial bearings are those of the See impaling Warham ; again impaling Beeket, and on a third shield, impaling Morton. On different shields are the cognizances of Henry VII. and the arms of some of the nobility of his time.44
CANTERBURY CATHEDRAL.
is a bold canopied niche, which is said to have been occupied by a statue of our Saviour. On each side are two other empty niches.
The other principal Gatehouse to the cathedral precincts is on the north of the church, and at the north-west angle of the green court. It is a large massive pile, with a spacious circular archway for carriages, and a small lateral doorway for foot passengers. In Edwyn’s drawing it is called Porta-Curia, and was the principal entrance to the priory court and its surrounding buildings. The architectural ornaments and mouldings of the arches resemble those of Anselm’s Tower on the south of the cathedral. This building is generally referred to Lanfranc’s time.
On the north of this gateway are, or lately were, some very curious and interesting remains of antient architecture, belonging to the old monastery. A staircase, supposed an unique example, with open decorated arches on each side, is certainly, says Carter, “ a great curiosity, and presents an air of much grandeur.” This artist has fortunately preserved a plan, elevation, and details of it, in his work on “ The Antient Architecture of England.” Modern improvements, as they are termed, or rather indiscreet alterations, I fear, have tended to obliterate, or destroy many of the fine architectural features of these old and venerable buildings.
We now proceed to examine and describe the exterior features of the cathedral, the chief parts of which are delineated in Plates 1. III. IV. V. VI. VII. XIX. and XXII.
The south and west sides of this edifice are easily approached and examined by the visitor; but the north side and east end are mostly bounded by private gardens, obscured by houses, and shut out from public approach by walled enclosures. We cannot help regretting this circumstance, for the present fabric, as well as all the great churches of the country, should be placed in open areas, not only for the purpose of being minutely and fully examined by the curious stranger, but to protect their walls and foundations from injury. Externally Canterbury Cathedral presents great diversity of form, character, and appendages. At the west end are two towers of disproportionate sizes, heights, forms, ages, andWESTERN TOWERS.
45
features; between which is a central division with a porch and doorway at the bottom, a large window above, and a window of a singular form, almost square with rounded ends, in the pediment. The north-western Toiver diminishes towards the upper story; it has merely flat pilaster sort of buttresses, and is constructed with small squared stones. The walls are thick, the openings little and narrow, and the windows have semicircular heads, with scarcely any ornament. It is singular that this tower was not pulled down when the nave and the south-west tower were rebuilt : some authors attribute this building to Lanfranc, but I must refer it to an earlier date. It has long borne the name of the Arundel Steeple, because that prelate caused an octagonal spire to be raised on it, and placed five bells within its walls. At the south west angle of the west front is another Tower, bearing the name of Chichele, from having been commenced by that prelate. Unlike the building just noticed, this has bold graduated buttresses at each angle, adorned wdth niches, pediments, &c., and its upper three stories are perforated by two windows in each face : crowning the whole is an open embattled parapet, with a clustered octangular pinnacle at each corner, and four other smaller pinnacles rising from the middles of the sides. At the southern base of this tower, and uniting with its buttresses, is the beautiful entrance porch, which, with the tower, appears to have been finished by Prior Goldstone. The exterior surface of this porch is adorned with niches, pedestals, canopies, tracery, and sculpture ; and its vaulted roof is nearly covered with groined ribs, and shields with armorial bearings. The parts here described are represented in Plate I., showing the plan of the whole, and Plates III. and VI.
The southern side of the church presents various and diversified features, forms, and styles. It is of great length and height, and is divided into several dissimilar parts. Between the western and centre tower is the nave and its aile, with eight lofty windows to the latter; and the same number, in the clere-story, to the former. Between these windows are bold, strong buttresses to the aile, connected with flying buttresses to the upper story of the nave. Each of these buttresses is divided into three tiers or stages, and is crowned with a pinnacle. One of these buttresses46
CANTERBURY CATHEDRAL.
&c. is shown in PI. III. and others in PL VII. Projecting, at right angles, from this aile is the south wing of the western transept; which has one large window on the west side, ranging and corresponding with those of the aile ; also a larger wrindow to the south, of eight dayes, with transoms and much tracery, in the arch. The pediment is adorned with paneling and tracery mullions. At the south-west angle is a newel staircase, surmounted by a very rich octangular pinnacled turret. At the junction of this transept with the nave and choir is the great central tower, which is distinguished for magnitude of form and decorated finishing. At each corner is a sort of octagonal tower, the angles of which are finished with squared mouldings or pilasters crowned with pinnacles. Between these eight pinnacles rises an octagonal turret, finished by a spire pinnacle. The sides of the tower are occupied by two deeply recessed windows in each story, divided by a pilaster, and each pair again separated by mouldings, panels, &c. The forms, proportions, &c. of this part of the building, both externally and internally, are shown in Plates IV. and VII. ; and the exterior of the south transept is also delineated in the latter plate. Branching from this transept eastward is an extraneous building, having a monumental chapel, dedicated to St. Michael, on the ground-floor, and an apartment over. It is rather singular that this building does not range in right lines with the transept or aile of the choir. (See Plan, PL I.) North of this chapel we are presented with an elevation of the aile of the choir, with the clere-story above, St. Anselm’s tower, and the south wing of the eastern transept; all of which are in the circular style, and generally regarded as the wrork of Lanfranc and his immediate successors. Beneath the aile windows is a series of blank, semicircular, and intersecting arches, springing from sculptured capitals, and these resting on columns. This architectural dressing abounds with various eccentric ornaments. Some of the shafts are circular, some octagonal, some plain, others adorned with spiral and zigzag mouldings, foliage, &c. : the capitals are charged with human figures, beasts, birds, foliage, &c. ; and the arch-mouldings have hollows, torusses, billets, &c. See Plate XXII. b. D. See also Plate I. By the plan it will be seen that there areTRINITY CHAPEL :—BECKEt’s CROWN.
47
two semicircular bays on the east side of this transept, and also two others on the opposite transept. A view of part of this transept, and an elevation of the western side of it, with St. Anselm’s tower, are shown in Plates V. and VII. The upper story of the same tower is represented more at large in Plate XXII. a. and c. The decorations of this member are numerous and capricious. Almost every stone is sculptured into some figure, whilst the archivolt mouldings, pateras, and string-courses are covered with numerous zigzag and other ornaments. One of these arches, cut in a single stone, iê of the pointed form. East of the transept already named is the lower part of another staircase tower, and a chapel, projecting from the main walls, having a semicircular end towards the east, and disposed in a line converging towards the centre, or altar end. The exterior wall of this chapel, as well as its attached tower, have been very much altered, as a large window has been formed in the wall towards the south-east, in the place of a small one. A view from this chapel, showing the form and style of its arch-mouldings, columns, &c. constitutes Plate IX. Eastward of this chapel we meet with a distinct and peculiar style of architecture, in the whole of the Trinity Chapel, t. t., u. u. in Plate I., and in Bechet's Crown, w. An elevation of two divisions, externally, of this chapel are shown in Plate XIX. b. ; and in this the architectural antiquary will remark the semicircular and pointed arches, of the same age and with the same dressings. The buttresses and pinnacles of this elevation are peculiar, and deserving attention. The architrave of the double pointed window springs from a sort of pilaster buttress, which rises from the base of the building. Each buttress is terminated by a peculiar finish, having a pedimental coping with a bird as a finial. The same style and character prevail all round the Trinity Chapel externally; and the curious and unique building, called Bechet's Crown, at the extreme east end of the edifice, presents corresponding forms and details. Externally it has a heavy, dull effect, but its interior is fine and impressive.
The north side of the cathedral, in general arrangement and members, very nearly resembles the south ; but the whole cannot be seen. Some old buildings modernized, and new buildings, without any architectural48
CANTERBURY CATHEDRAL.
features, are raised on the ground close to, ór very near the whole of this side, from the principal transept to the east end. Some old monastic buildings, formerly the priory, are very curious and interesting ; and have been adapted for dwelling houses for the dean and prebendaries. Attached to the north wall of the Trinity chapel, and between two of its buttresses, is the chantry chapel for Henry IV. and his queen. On the buttresses of this side are several inscriptions, probably of workmen employed in the building2. Connected wdth the same side of the Trinity chapel is an old building called the Treasury, of the same age as Anselm’s tower already described. It is built partly of flint, and partly of squared stones, and its exterior wall is adorned with two tiers of ornamented arcades, with flat buttresses and string-courses. It is raised on arches and columns. Attached to this building are several other parts of another monastic edifice. Although the exterior of this noble cathedral may be Regarded as very curious and interesting to the architectural antiquary, and really presents many singularities of form, disposition and enrichment, it is not calculated to produce such an impressive effect on the stranger as a few other English cathedrals. As already remarked, its north elevation is almost wholly obscured from view ; and its south, west, and east sides can only be seen partially, from disadvantageous stations. From the south-west the most extended view is obtained ; but this merely embraces a part of the church : it is necessary to move to several stations, at different distances, to inspect the whole of the south side. Still from the circumstance of its having two towers at the west end, one in the centre, of large and lofty character, two others combined with its eastern transept—from the variety of lines and forms in having two transepts and projecting chapels—and from the singularity of the circular towrer at the east end, and diversity of styles, forms, and characteristics in its many members, Canterbury Cathedral cannot fail to arrest the attention of every inquisitive stranger, and arouse more than common emotions in the rniuds of the architectural antiquary.
2 See Gough’s “ Sepulchral Monuments,” voi. ii. pi. xv. p. 282.NAVE AND AILES.
49
The interior indeed will be found much more impressive and interesting than the exterior. This consists of a nave and ailes, a short transept with two chapels, a choir and ailes elevated above the level of the nave by a flight of steps; another transept of larger dimensions than the former, with two semicircular recesses on the east side of each, and two square towers to the west; a presbytery, east of these, with steps to the altar and ailes continued ; two chapels on the north and south sides of the altar, flights of steps behind the altar to the Trinity Chapel, which has ailes, and a circular building at the east end, called Becket’s Crown. On the north of these buildings is a cloister and a chapter-house; also a small octangular building called the baptistry. Between the latter and the cloister is a long passage with old semicircular arches, connecting the cathedral with some very ancient buildings to the north.
On entering the church, from the south porch, the stranger is immediately impressed with the loftiness, narrowness, solidity of piers and arches, and uniform beauty and harmony of the Nave and its ailes. On each side of the nave is a series of nine clustered columns or piers, sustaining the wall of the triforium, which is closed except by a few small openings. Over these is a row of clerestory windows. The ailes are lofty and narrow, and the windows partake of the same character; but the whole is marked by solidity and strength. The arrangement of the tracery of the roofs of the nave and ailes is indicated in the ground plan, Plate I. by which the relative widths of the openings, and solid parts may be readily perceived. The plan of one of the piers is shown at n. It will be seen that the piers under the western towers, as well as those beneath the central tower, are much larger than the others. The lower parts of the two western towers are open to the nave and to the ailes ; and the vaulting of both is adorned by elaborate tracery, with circular openings in the middle. The whole western end of the nave is occupied by a large handsome win-r dow divided into seven upright bays, by six mullions ; and again divided horizontally into six compartments, or series of openings with cinquefoil heads. This window is filled with painted glass, representing full length figures of saints, apostles, sovereigns, armorial bearings, &c. Plate III.
G50
CANTERBURY CATHEDRAL.
shows the whole arrangement, forms, and dressings of the interior of the west end, as well as elevations of the eastern faces of the two towers, the buttresses, and part of the south porch. This is made to join and form part of two buttresses. By the scale and figured measurements the heights and widths may be readily seen. This plate and Plate IV. display the elevation of the piers of the nave, and those under the great tower. The latter plate also represents the narrow and lofty form of the arch of the north aile, a section of the triforium above, an elevation of half an open screen that extends across the nave, and another across the north aile. Beyond this screen and on the top of a flight of steps is shown the organ screen, sustaining that instrument, above which is a section of the vaulted roof with its ribs, and over that the high pitched roof. This leads the eye to an elevation of half, and section of the other half of the tower, which has already been noticed. On the north or left of this is an elevation of the western face of the north transept, and part of the great window of the chapter-house. Beneath is a section of five divisions of the eastern walk of the cloister, with the entrance doorway to the martyrdom. The east side of the interior of the south transept is shown by section, which displays its two divisions with arches, windows, the ascent to the aile of the choir, and a further flight of steps to the Trinity Chapel. The lower arch on the right opens to the chapel of St. Michael. A view of the clustered columns of the nave with the arches, the steps to the choir and its north aile, with the screens across the nave and north aile, constitute Plate XVI. The screens or braces across the nave and ailes, already named, appear to have been constructed by Prior Goldstone, to strengthen the piers. On the south screen is an inscription of non nobis, fyc. with the letters T. P. and a shield charged with three stones for Thomas Goldstone, prior. The four arches of the tower are lofty, light, and elegant ; and the columnar piers on which they rest manifest strength and durability. Above the arches are panels in the spandrils, a row of blank windows, communicating to a gallery in the wall ; and above this tier is a series of eight lofty windows, two in each face, forming a lanthorn to the tower. From the angles and centre spring numerous ribs, forming a fine display of fan-tracery, with a circular opening in theORGAN SCREEN.
51
centre. This opening is about six feet in diameter, and was formed for the purpose of admitting bells, and building materials to be raised to, or lowered from the upper part of the tower. A flight of several steps leads from the nave to the choir and its north aile ; and another series communicates from the wing of the south transept to the south aile of the choir. On the right of the latter is a descent to the crypt, whilst another approach to the same is by steps in the north transept. These numerous and various flights of stairs, as well as the different levels of the nave and transepts, with the choir and crypt, constitute peculiar and very picturesque features in the edifice now under notice. In looking up these steps from the nave, and down from them into either transept, or up the nave, or obliquely through the retiring arches, many interesting and beautiful views are obtained. At the top of the steps is the elegant and highly enriched royal Screen or organ gallery ; which may be designated royal, not only from its splendid style of sculpture and enrichment, but on account of its kingly statues3* According to Battely this screen as well as the steps to it were raised by Prior Henry de Estria, who presided forty seven years over his monks ; and expended on this work alone £839. Among the many splendid organ screens of this country there ^re few excelling that of Canterbury. It is a fine specimen in design, and beautiful in execution. Its western face presents an arched doorway in the centre, with a series of three niches on each side, having a pedestal, canopy, and statue to every niche. These features are all represented in Plate XXI. and the doorway in Plate XX. The effect of this opening, with its many mouldings and ornaments, is striking and beautiful. It consists of a series of receding arches, some rising from columns, and others being continuations of mouldings from the floor. The inner arch is considerably reduced in height by a screen, covered with tracery and niches, which rest on an arch richly adorned with sculpture. This appears to have been an afterthought, or contrivance, merely to reduce the size of the door; and, though it may be considered an
3 This organ was originally erected for the commemoration of Handel in Westminster Abbey Church, and afterwards removed to its present station.52
CANTERBURY CATHEDRAL.
ingenious and rather pleasing design, if the filling up had been absolutely necessary, yet it now breaks in and injures the beauty of the doorway. The two upper pedestals and canopies, in the deep hollows over the arch, cannot be regarded as examples of good design; for to place statues in such positions, apparently falling on the spectator, must create rather fear than pleasure4. In the other features of this doorway, and particularly its elegant spandrils, there is much to admire, and therefore worthy of imitation. In the canopies over the royal statues there is a beautiful combination of acute and tapering pediments, pinnacles, and mullions, with a rich mass of crockets and finials. The six statues are distinguished for their graceful forms, good proportions, and fine style of drapery. It will be seen, by the print, that the sculptor has varied this drapery with more than common taste. Each differs from the others, and each is disposed in easy, graceful, simple folds. The heads and hands are all varied without any appearance of exaggeration. One of these statues supports the model of a church in his left hand; and has been supposed to represent “ King Ethelstan, the founder of the church;” but I should rather consider it to be meant for the monarch who reigned when the screen was built, viz. Edward II. The other statues are commonly understood to represent John, Henry III. Edwards I. and III. and Richard II. By the crowns and costumes they are evidently meant for monarchs; but it is not so easy to identify them. Three of them are represented with beards, but the others with smooth chins. Mr. Carter, in his “ Antient Sculpture and Painting,” has given rough and slight etchings of these statues ; but certainly from as rough and slight sketches. His accompanying short account is merely an extract from Gosling’s “ Walk.”
In turning away from the organ screen the spectator takes a fresh glance at the nave, with its fine western window; looks up with admiration at the lanthorn, scrutinizes the buttress-screens between the arches, and then turns his eyes to left and right, to descry the characteristics of the south
4 It is said that these niches were formerly occupied by twelve silver statues of the apostles ; whilst the centre niche, over the doorway, was graced with a statue of the Virgin Mary.becket’s martyrdom deans chapel.
53
and north transept. The former of these has been already noticed, and the latter may be said to resemble it in general forms and detail ; with the exception of some varieties in its monuments, open screen to the virgin chapel, entrance to the crypt, and doorway to the cloisters. This transept is the memorable scene of Becket’s martyrdom5; and is therefore viewed with strong emotions of indignation and sympathy by the priors catholic, whilst the protestant contemplates it with mixed sensations of sorrowr and commiseration for the bigotry, superstition, and savage ferocity of his forefathers. The architectural antiquary will have other and more pleasing sensations in examining the beauties and even wonders of the architecture around him 3j-in viewing the splendid and highly wrought monument of Archbishop Wareham, see Plate VIII. with his sepulchral effigy, see Plate XXIY the interesting monument of Archbishop Peckham with its wood effigy, see Plate XVIII. ; and the very beautiful open screen between the transept and Virgin Chapel, shown in Plate VIII. ; and a compartment of it more at large, Plate XXVI. Behind this screen is the very elegant and curious Chapel, popularly called the Deans, because some of the Deans have sepulture within it, or the Virgin Mary Chapel, because dedicated to the holy Virgin. This apartment has two windows on the north and one to the east, all of which are very fine, and abundantly adorned with sculpture round their exterior mouldings. At the east end was an altar, now destroyed ; but some very elegant pedestals and tracery still remain to show the original style in which the chapel was finished.
/%In this spot was raised a wooden altar, in which was preserved the point of a sword, said to have been the instrument of Becket’s death. A small piece of the pavement, on which the brains of the prelate fell, was carried to Rome as a sacred relic : and some larger stones, sprinkled with his blood, wrere conveyed to Peterborough, and made into an altar by Prior Benedict when he was abbot of that monastery.
The large windows in the north and south ends of this transept are divided into several bays, and charged with stained glass. According to the Rev. R. Culmer, one of the preachers in the cathedral at the commencement of the civil wars, the north window was at that time filled with very fine and interesting paintings : the greater part of which he contributed to demolish,—to batter to pieces, and thus destroy this “ idolatrous window," yet “ many thousand pounds,” he says, “ had been offered for it by outlandish priests.”54
CANTERBURY CATHEDRAL.
The fan tracery of its roof is also a proof of its original character. From shameful dilapidations, and the introductions of several tasteless monuments, this sacred building has been greatly injured. Among these deformities I cannot omit to notice and reprobate the design and effect of an altar-tomb, the side and ends of which are covered by a mass of sculptured representations of human bones.
The Choir, with its ailes, are dissimilar in style, character, and forms to any other part of the church ; and from the authenticated particulars of the time of erection are peculiarly interesting to the architectural antiquary. From the evidence of Gervase, as already detailed, we are fully informed of the enlargements and improvements made by the “ glorious” Conrad; and we shall perceive by the plan and plates, that many of the parts built by William of Sens are still remaining to gratify and instruct us. The choir, properly speaking, extends from the organ screen to the eastern transept, and is bounded on the north and south by a series of six columns with screens between. These, with their capitals and bases, are peculiar to Canterbury ; and manifest an originality of design in the architect. I cannot ascertain that they resemble any of the ecclesiastical specimens on the continent. The sculptured ornaments of the capitals have a general appearance to those of the Corinthian order; but the columns are of the same diameter at the base and at the top. These columns are alternately circular and octagonal. Two of the capitals to the circular columns are delineated with the forms and ornaments of the architrave mouldings, Plate XXV. 7 and 8; whilst fig. 5 shows one of the original octagonal shafts surrounded by eight slender pillars of purbeck marble, and surmounted by additional columns and mouldings. This is the style and character of the four clustered columns at the junction of the eastern transept with the choir : and these additional members constitute, perhaps, the earliest examples of detached clustered columns. Elevations of them are shown in Plates XI. and V. as well as a column of the choir. The capitals and bases, Nos. 1, 2, 3, and of Plate XXV. are from the south wing of the east transept, and evidently variations of the same style; 4 is from the aile of the choir, and 6 from the nave. Over the range of arches of the choir is a triforium,PRESBYTERY :—CHOIRS :—TREASURY.
55
consisting of a series of arches with clustered columns; and over them is the clerestory. East of the choir to the altar is the presbytery ; which corresponds very nearly in style of columns, arches, &c. with the choir. The forms and ornaments of the whole of the north side of this are displayed, Plate XI., and a view of the upper part of the south side constitutes Plate XVII. From what has been already stated, (p. 40.) we may conclude that most of the fittings up, or furniture, of the choir is of the time of Charles the Second ; when a large sum of money was expended to replace some of the objects that had been destroyed and sold during the civil wars. We cannot therefore expect any appropriate or tasteful designs here. Indeed the stalls and seats are mostly plain wainscot; and the altar screen is designed in imitation of the Corinthian style of architecture. The greatest beauty of this screen is a glazed opening near the centre, through which a fine perspective view is obtained of the Trinity Chapel, &c. The wings of the eastern transept, as well as the ailes of the choir, display several interesting features of antient architecture: and I feel little hesitation in referring the side walls and arcades of the latter, as well as the lower parts of the transept, to Lanfranc’s time. A section of the eastern side of the north wing is shown in Plate V. with its crypt beneath, a semicircular arch to the aile, and two pointed arches to semicircular chantries. Above these are three rows or tiers of arches, windows, &c. ; in which the pointed, semicircular, elongated, and flattened arches are variously and capriciously combined. The north end of the north wing is shown in elevation, in Plate XI. H.
Proceeding from the wing, already noticed, towards the east end, we come to the Audit Room, see Plan, 34, the Vestry, x. and the Treasury, z., all projecting from the north wall of the aile. The two latter are strong vaulted rooms, calculated and probably intended to preserve the rich vestments, gold and silver vessels, relics, and other valuable articles belonging to the high and other altars of the church. Various charters and other muniments are still deposited in large cope chests, &c. in the treasury. The audit room is modern, having been built in 1720. The56
CANTERBURY CATHEDRAL.
vestry was formerly the chapel of St. Andrew, and corresponds nearly in form and situation with the chapel of St. Anselm on the opposite side of the altar.
At the eastern extremity of the ailes just noticed, as well as behind the high altar, are three flights of steps leading to the Trinity Chapel, which, as already narrated, was built by William the Englishman, A. D. 1173, &c. This is a very fine and interesting part of the building. Its style of architecture has the united characteristics of the latest circular, with its solidity, solemnity, and stability, and the first pointed, with its more light, lofty, and tapering forms. Perhaps there is not a building in England or on the continent to be compared with the one under notice. Its crypt and columns, with the vaulting and floor; the columns above, with their superincumbent arches, some semicircular, some pointed ; the style of the triforium and clerestory ; also the side walls, windows, ailes, vaulting, roofing, buttresses, &c. separately constitute so many fine features of Christian architecture, and collectively exhibit a masterly and novel design, calculated to delight and gratify both the architect and antiquary. The form and arrangement of this chapel, as generally called, are displayed in the ground plan, Plate I. ; the interior view, looking east, is represented in Plate X. which shows the semicircular eastern end, the painted windows in the upper story, the converging groins of the roof, the bold and deep triforium, and the double columns, which separate the centre from the ailes. It also indicates the curious tesselated or Mosaic pavement, and the monument of Edward the Black Prince, with three others. An elevation of the north side of this chapel, Plate XI. shows its connexion with the circular aile at the east end, and junction of that with Becket’s Crown; also its combination with the presbytery by two flights of several steps, a section of the floor and vaulting, between the crypt and chapel, and the roof above all. Thé true forms and relative proportions of three arches of the chapel, with the triforium and clerestory arches and windows above, as well as of the arches of the crypt, are here delineated. In the midst of the Trinity chapel was formerly placed a gorgeous and sumptuous shrine andBECKETTS SHRINE.
57
chantry raised to the memory of “ St. Thomas the martyr;” and here pilgrims and devotees of all nations and conditions were wont to resort, to offer up prayers and present oblations. From what has been already stated, p. 17 and 18, we learn that the monks of Christ Church converted Becket’s murder into a source of vast revenue, and extended popularity. It is no wonder that the shrine and chapel were adorned with splendour, pomp, and parade ; nor can we wonder much, considering the customs and superstition of the age, that “ Canterbury pilgrimages” were frequent and numerous. The paving stones around the shrine are said to have been evidences of the frequency of devotional kneeling, by being nearly worn through. The immense value and ostentatious splendour of Becket’s Shrine are thus described by Erasmus, who saw it shortly after the dissolution. In a chest or case of wood was “ a coffin of gold, together with inestimable riches, gold being the meanest thing to be seen there ; it shone all over, and sparkled and glittered with jewels of the most rare and precious kinds, and of an extraordinary size, some of them being larger than a goose’s egg;” most of them were the gifts of monarchs. Stow, in his “ Annals of Henry VIII.” more circumstantially describes it, by saying, “ it was builded a man’s height, all of stone ; then upwards of timber, plain ; within the which was a chest of yron, containing the bones of Thomas Becket, scull and all, with the wounde of his death, and the peece cut out of his scull layde in the same wounde. These bones {by the commandment of the Lord Cromwell) were then and there brent. The timber work of this shrine on the outside was covered with plates of gold ; damaskd with gold weir, which grounde of gold was again covered with jewels of golde, as rings ten or twelve cramptd with golde wyre into the sayde grounde of gold, many of those ringes having stones in them; broaches, images, angels, pretious stones, and great orient pearles. The spoile of which shrine in golde and pretious stones filled two greet chests, such as six or seaven strong men could doe no more than convey one of them at once out of the church6.”
6 “ Annals of Henry VIIL”
H58
CANTERBURY CATHEDRAL.
We need only recount a few illustrious pilgrimages to exemplify these remarks. In 1177 Philip, Earl of Flanders, visited Canterbury with a numerous retinue, and was met by King Henry II. Next came William, Archbishop of Rheims, with a train of followers ; Louis the Seventh, King of France, visited the shrine in 1179, in a pilgrim’s garb, and was met by the superstitious English monarch. On this occasion a vast concourse of the nobility, &c. of both nations assembled. The French monarch presented a rich cup of gold, with the famous jewel called the Regal of France, which was seized by Henry Y III. and set in a thumb ring. The French king also granted one hundred muids or tuns of wine tobe sent annually by himself and his successors (see Rymer’s Fœdera, xii. 166). Other monarchs and nobles followed this example. The most memorable event perhaps connected with this place was the inhuman, silly, and disgustingly degrading penance and punishment which our Henry II. voluntarily subjected himself to at Becket’s shrine. Lord Lyttelton has particularised this event, from which we learn that the king, on approaching Canterbury, alighted from his horse, and walked barefoot about three miles over rough stones. He prostrated himself before the tomb, and remained some time in prayer, directing the Bishop of London to proclaim to the people that he was not accessary to the death of Becket. He then commanded all the monks to scourge him ; and afterwards continued his prayers at the tomb, where he remained all day and night on the bare stones and without food. He was also clad in sackcloth, and after paying his devotions, &c. to all the altars of the church, he bequeathed a revenue of forty pounds a year for wax candles to be always burning about the tomb. He then returned to London, exhausted and ill.
Opening by a lofty arch from the aile of the Trinity Chapel is that unique and curious building or appendage of the church, called JBeclcefs Crown. The lower part of this, to the vaulting over the first range of windows, appears to correspond in style and date to the Trinity Chapel ; as may be seen in Plates XI. and XIV. The former is a view looking into the crown from the Trinity Chapel ; and shows the lower range of windowsBAPTISTERY :—-CRYPT.
59
with the clustered columns as seen beneath the arch of entrance and the range of open arches over the windows. It also displays the large antient stone chair or throne, in which the archbishops are usually enthroned. Some of the windows are filled with thick old stained glass ; and the walls have been covered with fresco paintings, most of which are now obliterated.
A section of this building with its crypt is given in Plate XI. ; in which the thickness of the walls, and of the floor, a profile of one of the buttresses, and the modern finishing at the top are delineated.
A passage from the north end of the east transept communicates with the library, the deanery, prebendal houses, &c. At an angle of this passage is an antient and curious octagonal apartment, containing an elaborate font, and known, says Gosling, “ by the name of Bell Jesus.” This name was given in consequence of its having been built in imitation of a large bell. The font which stood in the nave till 1787 was the gift of Dr. Warner, Bishop of Rochester, and prebendary of this church in the time of Charles I. The lower part of this building, called a baptistery, is older than the superstructure. It has a doorway and windows or open arches, and in the centre is a cluster of pillars, from which spring ribs, extending beneath a vaulted roof. The arches are semicircular, and have been decorated with zigzag mouldings, and the capitals and bases of some of the columns are still ornamented with sculptures.
The remaining parts of the church to be noticed are the Crypt, the cloisters, and the chapter-house. The first may be regarded as the largest, the finest, and the most interesting in England. In extent, construction, and ornamental detail it must alike excite the admiration of the architect and the antiquary. Whilst the first may derive from a minute examination of it much useful knowledge in designing for foundations, piers, and vaulting; the latter will find in its architectural style and adornment a fertile theme for inquiry and speculation. The age of the oldest part, i, e. from the western end to the eastern extremity of the circular aile has not been ascertained ; and consequently is a source of controversy. Some refer its erection to the Anglo Saxons, others to the first prelate under the60
CANTERBURY CATHEDRAL.
Norman dynasty. Ledwich7 and a few antiquaries have dated its origin in 742. Gosling confidently asserts it was built “ about two hundred years before Lanfranc’s time ;” and founds his opinion on its similarity to the crypt under the eastern part of St. Peter’s Church, at Oxford; which he believes to be of Grimbald’s age ; i. e. about A. D. 900. My valuable correspondent and friend, the Rev. W. Coneybeare, has very satisfactorily shown that the crypt at Oxford is subsequent to the Norman conquest; and by a fair analogy we may ascribe this crypt to Lanfranc’s execution8. The plan of the crypts, Plate II. and section, Plate XI. display the forms, extent, arrangement, and relative proportions of the various open as well as the constructive parts. By the latter plate we perceive the heights of the vaults, thickness of the floor, forms and proportions of the columns and arches, &c. The Plan shows that the great crypt consists of a large central space between a continued range of square piers, from the west to the east end, divided into three parts by two rows of small columns; another aile or open space extends all round the outside of the piers, and is bounded by the outer wall. Branching off from this aile are two vaults or open spaces with a single column in the centre of each, and semicircular recesses on the east side. The northern transept has a doorway and arched passage, which formerly communicated with the priory. Its vaults have only plain ribs from column to pier, with plain vaulting between. This is the style of the other parts of the crypt, excepting that of the south transept, where the whole surface of the vaulting is covered with intersecting ribs. This singular design is said to have been formed in consequence of Edward the Black Prince having founded a Chantry Chapel here, and endowed it with the manor of Vauxhall, near London, for two chaplains to pray c< for his own soul,” &c. Among the ornaments at the intersection of the ribs is a shield with the arms of the founder.
There is a regular entrance doorway in this transept, by a descent of
7	Archæologia, v. 180. See voi. x. for Denne’s and Essex's opinions referring it to an earlier time.
8	See Architectural Antiquities of Great Britain, voi. i. v. for the arguments adduced by my correspondent, and to vol. v. for a plan, section, &c. of this crypt.VIRGIN CHAPEL:—EAST CRYPT.
61
steps, being the approach to a church or chapel which has been fitted up in the south aile of the crypt, and appropriated to a sect of Walloon and French refugees, some of whom sought refuge in this city from the cruelties of the Inquisition in the time of Edward VI.
Plate XIII. is a view of the large crypt from a point near the Virgin Chapel, at 8; and is introduced more for picturesque and local effect than for architectural illustration. At the semicircular end of this crypt is a part inclosed by a screen which has lateral doorways. This was a chapel sacred to the Virgin, and from the style of the screen and altar was formerly an elegant inclosure. 44 This chapel,” says Erasmus, “ was not showed but to noblemen and especial friends. Here the Virgin Mother had a habitation, but somewhat dark, inclosed with a double sept or rail of iron for fear of thieves; for indeed I never saw a thing more laden with riches : lights being brought, we saw more than a royal spectacle, in beauty it far surpassed that of Walsingham.” Immediately behind the Virgin Chapel and semicircular range of columns are two very large insulated columns that are evidently subsequent to the crypt, and yet are of very early date. Their office and purport are not immediately apparent ; but we may be sure they were not placed there heedlessly or wantonly. See Plate II. figs. ii. iii.
Near the semicircular end of the great crypt are two chapels or crypts projecting from the outer walls. That on the north side, e, is used as a private cellar; and the other to the south is a dark, dank vault. The inner or semicircular, letter i, has been completely walled up; but on a recent examination was found to be ornamented with much painting on the roof and walls. East of the crypt already described, and communicating with it by a double arch in the centre, having a double column between, and two lateral arches, is the Crypt under the Trinity Chapel; the plan of which assumes a very uncommon form, nearly that of the usual horse-shoe arch. Its vaulted roof is sustained by a series of eight large double columns; with two small slender columns in the middle. As shown in the view, Plate XV. and section, Plate XI; some of the arches are semicircular and some pointed, and wrere thus formed from the propor-CANTERBURY CATHEDRAL.
'62
lionate divisions in turning the semicircular end. Strength, solidity, and grandeur are the characteristics of this design. Its construction is likewise very skilful and ingenious. The buttresses are proportioned to their connecting piers ; being large and of bold projection as thè spaces between each two are perforated for two windows. At the extreme east end, and communicating with the crypt described, is another beneath Becket’s Crown.
Emerging from the crypts and passing across the martyrdom, the stranger is conducted to the Cloister, which is a large quadrangular ambulatory or covered walk, with a wall on one side and a series of open windows with mullions and tracery on each of the other sides. The extent and arrangement of this are detailed in the ground plan, 39. The vaulting of the cloisters is ornamented with various ribs, and at the intersection of them are numerous armorial shields and sculptured bosses. It is said there are nearly seven hundred coats of arms. In these cloisters are several doors and openings of various styles and characters. Immediately connected with the east walk of the cloister is the Chapter-House, a spacious and lofty apartment. It is of an oblong shape, as shown in the ground plan, and the lower part of its sides is enriched with a continued series of columns and arches, rising from the stone seats. Its vaulting consists of boards divided into numerous panels. See Plate XV. for a view looking east, and Plate XXVI. for an elevation of one of the blank arches with columns, &c. surrounding the lower part. At the east end is a large and lofty window, beneath which is a triple stone seat, with canopies, &c. A large window also ornaments the west end ; below which is a doorway to the cloisters, and some small windows or openings on each side.Cfjaju
ACCOUNT OF THE PRINCIPAL MONUMENTS, MOSAIC PAVEMENT, AND PAINTED GLASS.
Previous to the year 748, there had been no interments within thi& church ; but about that time Archbishop Cuthbert obtained a bull from the Pope, and a licence from King Eadbert, to bury within the walls of his cathedral. This soon became a source of revenue and token of honour ; and many distinguished personages were progressively deposited in the national metropolitan church. To inquire into the times and names of all these would lead us into a lengthened disquisition; I shall, therefore, confine myself to short notices of the most eminent monuments.
Like most other cathedrals dedicated to the celebration of the rites of the Roman Catholic Religion, this suffered considerably from the ruthless and undistinguishing zeal of the Reformers in the reign of Henry VIII. ; and subsequently during the rebellion against King Charles I. At the last epoch, says Battely, it was “ spoiled by the hands of sacrilege, which have defaced the monuments, torn off the brass, on which were the effigies, arms, epitaphs, and inscriptions, so that they are lost irrecoverably1.” Another deplorable picture of sacrilege has been given in a previous page. Canterbury Cathedral, however, has not suffered so severely from the ravages of fanatic rage and time as many other sacred edifices ; so that there are remaining among the tombs a considerable number of curious and interesting specimens of monumental architecture and sculpture, and
1 Antiquities of Canterbury, Part ii. p. 31.64
CANTERBURY CATHEDRAL.
also various memorials of persons of eminence. A few particulars of these it is presumed will prove acceptable to the reader*
On the north side of the chapel of the Holy Trinity is the monument of King Henry the Fourth, and his second Queen, Joan of Navarre2. It is an altar tomb of alabaster, richly sculptured, and was formerly gilt and painted. Each side is adorned with five tabernacled niches, with projecting canopies and pedestals, and divided by panels, buttresses, and pinnacles. On the top are the recumbent effigies of Henry and his consort, crowned and habited in royal robes : at the feet of the king is a lion, and at those of the queen two dogs. The inscription has been removed, and the monument otherwise much damaged ; the hands of the queen and the finely sculptured canopies that were placed at the heads of the figures being broken off. The sides of this tomb, as well as the two effigies, are finely executed in alabaster, and not, as Battely says, in stone. Over the tomb is a canopy which has been very richly carved, painted, and gilt : the word soveraigne is repeated on the frieze: against the pillar at the feet is an angel holding a shield with the arms of France and England, Evereux and Navarre. Projecting from the outer wall, near the monument, is a chantry chapel, raised at the same time as the tomb, and appropriated for a priest to officiate at a private altar. [See the will of the king in Nichols’s Royal and Noble Wills, 4to. 1780. See also Sandford’s Genealogical History, &c. 275. 2d edit.]
The monument of Edward the Black Prince stands beneath the arch opposite to that just described. It is an altar tomb of gray marble, the ends and sides of which are richly adorned with quaterfoil panels and
a By his Will, dated 21st day of January, 1408, he directs his body “ for to be beryed in the church at Caunterbury, aftyr the descrecion of my cousin, the Archbyshcopp of Caunterbury.” He further ordains that there be a “ chauntre perpetuali of two preestes for to sing and prey for my soul,” after such ** ordinaunce” as his aforesaid cousin may think best.
Attached to the column at the head of the monument is a curious antient painting, representing the murder of Becket. The picture is much defaced and injured ; but Carter, in his work of “ Specimens of Antient Sculpture and Painting,” has preserved a copy of it, and Dr. Milner has annexed a description and comment.MONUMENT OF EDWARD THE BLACK PRINCE.
65
sixteen copper shields, on which are alternately enamelled three ostrich plumes, and the prince’s armorial bearings, being those of England and Old France quarterly, with a file of three points : over the former arms is a label with the motto ich dien, and over the latter another with the word houmout. On the tomb is a recumbent copper statue, gilt, of beautiful execution, the hands joined as in prayer, and the figure completely armed. The head is supported by a helmet, having a leopard for the crest, and the feet rest against a lioness, couchant. On a brass plate surrounding the upper verge of the tomb, is inscribed a long epitaph in the French language3. Above the monument is a canopy extending from pillar to pillar, and over it hangs the trophy of the prince’s arms, consisting of the helmet and crest which he wore in battle; his surcoat of velvet; and the scabbard of his dagger4 with his gauntlets. His shield is suspended against a pillar at the head of the tomb.
A large altar monument, of gray Sussex marble, in the centre of St. Michael’s Chapel, with three recumbent figures of alabaster, was erected by Margaret Holand, daughter of Thomas, Earl of Kent, to the memory of her two husbands, John Beaufort, Earl of Somerset, and Thomas, Duke of Clarence, second son of Henry IV., and of herself. The figures of the Earl and Duke are both represented in armour, and are counterparts of each other ; that of the latter being merely distinguished
3	This tomb was erected in compliance with the last Will of the Black Prince, in which it is particularly described. “ Et volons qe entour là ditte tombe soient dusze escuchons de laton, chacun de la largesse d’un pie, dont les syx seront de noz armez entiers, et les autres six des plumez d’ostruce, et qe sur chacun escuchon soit escript, c’est assaveir’ sur celiez de noz armez et sur les autres des plumes d’ostruce, houmout. Et paramont la tombe soit fait un tablement de laton suzorrez de largesse a longure de meisme la tombe, sur quel nouz volons q’un ymage d’ov’eigne leve de latoun suzorrez soit mys en memorial de nous, tout armez de fier de guerre de nous armes quartillez et le visage mie, ove notre heaume du leopard mys dessous la teste, de l’ymage.’tìNichols’ Royal Wills, 4to. p. 67. The number of the shields on the monument is sixteen instead of twelve ; and the shields with ostrich feathers have the motto ich dien, whilst houmout is on the labels over the arms. This last word signifies, in the German language, haughty, or high spirited. See Stothard’s “ Monumental Effigies.”
4	The weapon itself is said to have been taken away by Oliver Cromwell.
I66
CANTERBURY CATHEDRAL.
by a circle round the helmet. The statue of the lady, lying between the other two, represents her habited in a mantle, kirtle, and surcoat, and having a ducal coronet. The sides of the tomb are ornamented with panels, which, in Weever’s time, had coats of arms.
Many of the prelates who sat in the archiépiscopal chair previous to the reformation were interred in this cathedral ; and of the monuments erected in memory of them, there are several which deserve to be described, as being interesting specimens of antient sculpture and of architectural design. One of the oldest is a tomb supposed to have been raised to inclose the remains of Archbishop Theobald. It is placed against the wall of the southern aile of the Trinity Chapel, and is ornamented on one of the sides and at the ends with trefoil arches upon small columns. These columns have a species of foliage up their sides, and their spandrils are filled with similar work. On the lid, or top, is a series of four quaterfoils in lozenges, in each of which is a head in alto relievo : the four are said to represent the ecclesiastical preferments of Theobald to the successive dignities of prior, abbot, archbishop, and legate. This monument is supposed to have been removed from the spot where the body was interred in the south aile of the nave; or more probably was made up as a shrine after the rebuilding of this part of the cathedral.
Most of the monuments of the archbishops are placed either at the entrance to, or around the choir: those for Reynolds, Hubert Walter, Kemp, Stratford, Sudbury, and Meopham, are in the south aile of the choir; whilst those for Chichele and Bourchier are on the north side.
In a recess beneath a window of the south aile, is an altar tomb, attributed to Archbishop Hubert Walter. It is ornamented in front with a tier of cinquefoil headed arches, the spandrils of which are filled with trefoils. On the tomb is an effigy in pontifical robes.
The tomb of the distinguished prelate, Cardinal Langton, is a stone chest, with a cross carved on it, projecting from the wall of St. Michael’s Chapel, in which it is fixed.
Against the north wall of the north transept, or martyrdom, is the tomb ascribed to Archbishop Peckham. It is surmounted by an acute pedi-PECKHAM, MEOPHAM, AND SUDBURY^ TOMBS.	67
merit above a pointed arch, with trefoil divisions, crockets, and a finial, and supported at the sides by ornamental buttresses. In front of an altar tomb is a series of small niches with trefoil heads, crocketed pediments, and pinnacles, with a range of small statues of mitred personages. The statue of an archbishop, carved in wood, more injured by violence than by time, lies on the tomb. This is generally considered to belong to Peckham, but Mr. Brayley, in Beauties of Kent, thinks it of earlier date. See View of the Tomb, Plate XVIII.
The monument of Archbishop Reynolds, with his effigy reclining on it, is placed near that of Hubert Walter. Its front is ornamented with arches and an embattled cornice.
Archbishop Meopham’s monument constitutes a screen to separate the south aile of the choir from the Chapel of St. Anselm, and consists of five pointed arches on each side, rising from clustered pillars, and finished by an embattled cornice. Three of the arches range over the tomb, and the two extreme arches form doorways to the chapel. The tomb itself, of a shrine-like form, is raised on a plinth, and placed beneath the three inner arches, and is pierced with three arched openings. In the spandrils of the doorways are groups of small statues, most probably intending to represent some events in the life of the prelate. This tomb is of polished black marble, the pillars before it of purbeck marble, and the other parts of fine freestone. See Plate IX.
Beneath the great window of Anselm's Chapel was interred Archbishop Bradwardine, to whose memory there is a low, unadorned, and uninscribed tomb.
A monument for Archbishop Sudbury fills up an arch on the south side of the presbytery, and has been an interesting and beautiful piece of architectural design. At present it is much mutilated, deprived of its effigy, statues in the niches, finishings to the pinnacles, &c. It consisted of a large and lofty altar tomb, raised on a base, with five divisions of housings or niches, eight clustered buttresses, which supported a very rich canopy with various sculptured ornaments. This is shown in Plate XXII. with a view beneath its canopy to the altar steps, &c.68
CANTERBURY CATHEDRAL.
On the south side of the choir is a tomb erected for Archbishop Stratford. It is surmounted by a canopy supported by slender clustered buttresses, and ornamented with crocketed pinnacles and finials, in six divisions, three on each front. The tomb, on which lies the canopied statue of the prelate in a pontifical dress, is decorated in front with pointed arches, supported by slender columns.
The cenotaph for Archbishop Courtney, who was buried at Maidstone, is placed under an arch to the eastward of the monument of the Black Prince. It is an altar tomb, on each side of which are nine pointed arches, and above them several small blank shields. On the top lies a statue of the prelate with the pontifical habit and insignia, and his hands raised in the attitude of prayer.
In the aile of the north transept is a sumptuous monument to Archbishop Chichele. It presents the combined powers and arts of architecture, sculpture, and painting; being architectural in form and design, and decorated with statues and painting. At the extremities of an altar tomb, supporting an effigy of the prelate, are two polygonal towers, surrounded by two rows of niches, with statues, and the whole surmounted by a canopy, richly carved. The sides of the tomb are pierced by cinquefoil headed arches, between which is a statue, representing an emaciated human figure, clad in a sheet. The tomb still retains two long inscriptions. See Plate VIII. for a view of the monument, and Plate XXIV. for a delineation of the effigy.
The monument of Archbishop Kempe, in the south aile of the choir, consists of an altar tomb surmounted by a lofty and elaborate canopy, raised on three arches, over which are ranged clustered pinnacles and niches. Above the canopy is a cornice, on which are small angels and blank shields placed alternately. The tomb has no effigy ; but the front of it is adorned with three quaterfoils in panels, separated by small pointed arches.
In the north aile of the choir is the lofty and fine monument of Archbishop Bourchier. The tomb, which is constructed oî breccia, is large and of considerable height. The front is sculptured with three ranges of quaterfoils in squares, in the uppermost of which the quaterfoils are placedTOMBS OF MORTON, WARHAM, AND WOTTON.	69
alternately with pairs of small blank niches ; above these are other niches surmounted by crocketed pinnacles forming a range of canopies. Over the tomb, springing from slender columns, rises a surbased arch with a vaulting of interlaced work. The outer border of the arch is adorned with flowers and Bourchier’s knots, alternately; and the spandrils with quaterfoils. The frieze has shields of arms and other decorations. The summit of the monument is crowned with an open screen, composed of rich tabernacled niches, separated by open arch-work, and a cornice of foliage.
In the great crypt, beneath one of the arches, is an altar tomb, with an effigy to the memory of Archbishop Morton. The whole soffit of the arch, as well as the inner faces of the piers, have been covered with the ornaments of this monument; which consisted of niches, canopies, &c., with several episcopal and other statues, the cardinal's cap and personal ornaments, and the letters Mor, with a figure of a tun, or cask.
A splendid and truly elegant monument, or sort of open chantry, adorns the north transept, and commemorates Archbishop Warham. It is raised against the north wall, beneath the window; and consists of an altar tomb supporting an effigy, and surmounted by an architectural canopy, and terminated at the head and feet with panelling, tracery, &c. The whole is executed in fine white stone, and was cleaned and repaired in 1796, at the expense of the dean and chapter. See view of this monument, Plate VIII. and of the effigy, Plate XXIV.
On the north side of Becket’s Crown is a plain tomb, to commemorate Cardinal Pole, the last prelate interred in the cathedral.
The monument of Dr. Nicholas Wotton, Dean of Canterbury, who died 1566, is on the north side of Trinity Chapel. He was privy counsellor to Henry VIII., Edward VI., Queen Mary, and Queen Elizabeth, and was regarded as an eminent statesman, and employed in numerous foreign embassies. The statue of the dean is placed on a sort of sarcophagus, holding a book, and kneeling before a desk. The sides of the desk are impanelled with his arms. At the head of the tomb, against a double column òf the chapel, is a tablet with an epitaph detailing the most memorable events of his life.70
CANTERBURY CATHEDRAL.
In the Chapel of the Virgin, or Deans Chapel, as sometimes called, are interred the following Deans; Rogers, Fotherby, Boys, ' Bargrave, Turner, and Potter.
The tomb of Dean Fotherby; who died in 1619, is adorned, or rather disfigured, with sculptured representations of human skulls and bones, apparently attached to the sides of the monument.
Dean Boys is commemorated by an altar monument, on which is a sculptured representation of him, seated in his study, where, according to Dart, he died suddenly, in the year 1625.
Among the older monuments in this cathedral is that of Joan Burg-hersh, Lady Mohun, situated near the east end of the great crypt, and erected at her own expense during her life : it is now much mutilated. Her effigy lies on a tomb, beneath a canopy of cinquefoil arches and triangular pediments, rising from heavy buttresses. She was a liberal benefactress to the church, and died in the reign of Richard II.
The tomb of Isabel, Countess of Athol, is ornamented at the sides with shields of arms in quaterfoils, within square compartments; and on the top is the effigy of the Countess, now much defaced. She died at Chilham, in 1292.
Against the north wall of the Chapel of St. Michael is a monument in commemoration of Lieutenant Colonel William Prude, who was killed at the siege of Maestricht, in July 1637, and whose figure is represented in armour, with one knee on a cushion.
Eastward from this are several monuments of the Thornhurst family. That to the memory of General Sir Thomas Thornhurst, Knt. displays the effigy of that officer, who (after serving with great bravery in Germany and Holland), fell in the Duke of Buckingham’s unfortunate expedition to the Isle of Rhé, in 1627, and of his wife Barbara, daughter of Thomas Shirley, Esq. On the base are figures of their three children, kneeling.
In the south part of the west transept is a monument commemorating the learned Dr. Meric Casaubon, son of the celebrated classical commentator, Isaac Casaubon. He died in 1671, in his seventy-fifth year, having been canon of this cathedral during forty-six years.MONUMENTS AND WINDOWS.
71
In the north aile of the nave is the monument of Orlando Gibbons, a famous musician of the seventeenth century, organist of the chapel royal. His bust is placed in a circular niche, beneath a pediment of the monument.
Among the monuments of the last century, is one for Admiral Sir George Rooke, who took Gibraltar from the Spaniards, and another to the memory of Dr. Thomas Lawrence, the friend and physician of Dr. Johnson. There is also a monument of more recent date, bearing a piece of sculpture from the chisel of Turnerelli. The design represents a wounded officer, supported by the Genius of Britain, intended to commemorate Lieutenant Colonel John Stuart, who was killed at the battle of Roleia, August the 17th, 1808.
Before the Reformation, the Cathedral of Canterbury appears to have been adorned with much painted glass. The chapel of the Holy Trinity, in which was the shrine of St. Thomas Becket, seems to have been particularly distinguished in this manner, so that “ his history might have been completed from it VllBut much that had been spared at the Reformation was subsequently destroyed by the Puritans. Somner has given an account of the pictures and inscriptions of twelve windows, of which the remains have been collected and put together in two, near the door of the organ loft. The subjects of these are Scriptural histories.
The great window at the w est end of the nave is divided by mullions and transoms: the uppermost compartment contains the arms of Richard II. The second range displays six small figures between the arms of his two consorts ; Ann, daughter of the Emperor Charles IV., and Isabella, daughter of the King of France ; the third stage has ten saints ; the fourth, the twelve Apostles and two other figures; below these, in the uppermost range of the large compartments, are seven figures of our kings, standing under canopied niches.
Another window, deserving attention, is that in the chapel called the Martyrdom, the magnificent donation of Edward IV. The three lower
5 Gostling's Walk, &c. p. 311, 312.72
CANTERBURY CATHEDRAL.
stages consist of seven compartments each, and reach up to the springing of the arch ; above which, the upper part is divided into four rows more of small ones. This window was nearly demolished by the puritanical reformers, an account of whose operations is given by one of their ringleaders, Richard Culmer, generally styled Blue Dick, who was appointed one of the six preachers in the cathedral at the beginning of the civil wars. In describing his own performance, he says, “ A minister was on the top of the city ladder, near sixty steps high, with a whole pike in his hand, rattling down proud Becket’s glassie bones, when others then present would not venture so high6.” The havoc committed on this window, however, was partly confined to what, in the language of fanaticism, were termed superstitious images, and the portraits and arms of the family of Edward IV., with three ranges of prophets, apostles, and bishops, are still left to enable us to form a judgment of its original beauty.
The eastern window in the chapel of the Virgin Mary, now called the Deans’ Chapel, is peculiarly rich in decoration. Besides some armorial shields of the family of Bourchier, it has among the mouldings a line of oak and vine leaves, terminating in canopied niches of rich patterns.
In the eastern window of St. Michael’s Chapel are ornaments representing the devices of different branches of the family of Margaret Holand, whose magnificent tomb has been described. Several other windows contain much fine stained glass, but mostly made up of miscellaneous pieces and fragments. Gostling’s “Walk” enumerates most of the subjects in his time.
In Trinity Chapel, in the front of the spot where stood Becket’s shrine, is a piece of tesselated or mosaic work, on either side of which the pavement is composed of Norman tiles, containing in circular compartments several curious and grotesque devices ; among others, the signs of the zodiac : but the figures are now almost obliterated.
6 Gostling, from Culmer’s Account entitled “ Cathedral News from Canterbury/!Cfjap. Irj.
BIOGRAPHICAL ANECDOTES OF THE ARCHBISHOPS OF CANTERBURY.
In tracing the history of this very antient and important archbishopric, the leading and most generally interesting events and characters which appear in its earliest records, in connexion with the see itself, have necessarily been noticed.
I have now only to mention such characters with biographical anecdotes as, although rather incidental than essential to the history of this diocess and of its prelates, seem calculated to diffuse additional interest over these pages; and to increase, by intellectual associations, the pleasure of examining the venerable cathedral of Canterbury, or of its graphic illustrations here submitted to the reader.
But as it is not the history of the Anglo-Saxon or of the English Roman Catholic Church that is expected by the readers of this work, it will here be almost unnecessary to revert to the remote periods of pretended miracles, monastic austerity, and papal supremacy ; since those ages afford few examples of literary eminence or splendid actions in the ecclesiastical wrorld. The appearance of these phenomena is closely connected with the invention of printing ; and, to the honour of this country, with its emancipation from papal domination and intolerance. Nevertheless the dark and dreary void which intervenes between Augustine and Cranmer is relieved by a few bright spots ; amongst the most illustrious of which, is the character of Theodore, to whom I have already alluded. He was as
K74
CANTERBURY CATHEDRAL.
much distinguished for liberality and genuine piety as for learning and manly independence. He firmly maintained the decrees of the councils ; and resolutely contended that all controversies should be settled in the provinces where they arose, and that the authority of the metropolitans should not be subject to the papal jurisdiction1. Baronins is much embarrassed, to reconcile this independence of spirit with the injunctions of Gregory and the supremacy of the see of Rome; and can only exculpate the primate by supposing that he was furnished with legatine power2. It is rather singular that, notwithstanding the independent refusal of Theodore to bow to pontifical authority, he should be designated by the Pontiff, Agatho, by the unusual title of “ archbishop and philosopher3.”
The famous Penitentiary of Theodore, which is still extant, gives us a curious view of his notions of discipline4. In it he teaches that sins are of various classes according to their degrees of enormity, which are determined by their being public or private, and by considering their consequences, the intention of the offender, and the time, place, and circumstances of committing them. He also lays down rules for penalties suited to these several classes of sins, and prescribes forms for consolation, exhortation and absolution, with the duties and obligations of those who received the confession of the penitent. This confession was public, and not private or auricular as has been asserted. He seems also to have permitted priests to marry ; for in his Canons it is said, “ As to matrimony,
1 Previous to this time the authority of the archbishop had not extended beyond Kent. See
Origiues Anglicanæ, i. 74.
3 As the greater number of historians and antiquaries have copied this from Baronius without investigation, I was inadvertently led into the same statement, (p. 12.) which further research has shown to be a mistake.
3	Parker Eccles. Ant. lxxxii. 5. For the differences between Theodore and Wilfred, Archbishop of York, see History and Antiquities of York Cathedral, pp. 16—19. See also my History and Antiquities of Lichfield Cathedral, p. 15.
4	Edit. 4to. with notes by Petit. Paris, 1679. Mr. Lingard observes that Theodore’s Penitentiary published by Petit has so many interpolations that it is impossible to distinguish the original from the spurious matter. Antiq. Anglo-Saxon Church, p. 71.ARCHBISHOP THEODORE.
75
that none be allowed to any but what is lawful. Let none commit incest5.” This was a measure of prudence, since he was an advocate for celibacy himself; but as he says in his Penitentiary, p. 7, “he did not wish to abolish the usage of England.” He was also a shrewd and enlightened politician, for he had the address to establish Canterbury as the metro-political see of all England, which it has ever since remained. Besides he was among the first to institute parishes6, or define parochial districts, for the purpose, as it appears, of affording to places remote from cathedrals the benefits of a resident clergy.
The literary institutions of Theodore are still more interesting. He founded the library of Canterbury, and among other books which he brought with him to England, were copies of Homer’s Iliad7, &c. David’s Psalms, and the Homilies of Chrysostome, some of which books were extant about a century ago. At Canterbury and other places in Kent8, he instituted seminaries for education in which, assisted by Abbot Adrian, he read lectures on “ divinity, philosophy, arithmetic, geometry, astronomy, and sacred music and so successful was he in teaching, that many of his scholars, as Bede, who was his pupil, informs us, “were able to speak Greek and
5	Litigarti has endeavoured to explain this away, but not very sucessfully. He has also attempted to overturn even a stronger document referring to the practice of the clergy, from the Northumbrian laws ascribed to Wulfstan, namely, “ If a priest dismiss one wife (cpena) and take another, let him be anathema." Lingard translates, “ concubine" as if it had been poji-cpæna, for cpena was always taken in a good sense. Johnson’s Eccles. Laws, dccccl. 35. See Lingard’s Antiq. of the Anglo-Saxon Church, 2d edit. p. 70—75.
6	Whitaker in his “ History of Manchester," ii. 369, refers this event to an earlier time, and concludes that Theodore did not institute parishes.
7	Lambard says he saw some of these, particularly the “ Homer and some other Greke authours beautifully written in thicke paper, with the name of this Theodore prefixed in the fronte." Perambulation of Kent, p. 233. edit. 3576.
8	He is said also to have formed a similar school at Cricklade, in Wiltshire, but there is no evidence for this besides the etymology of the name, which is derived by the monkish historians from Greek-lade, because Theodore being a Greek himself encouraged Greek learning there. It is variously written by old authors; Crekelade, Crecanford, Cricgelade, Crecagelade, and Grekislade. Gough thinks the derivation as much strained as Lechlade would be from Latinlade. Camden’s Britannia, i. 96.76
CANTERBURY CATHEDRAL.
Latin as well as their mother tongue.” The example extended to the courts of kings, the castles of the nobility, and even the women caught the general enthusiasm; for the nuns we are told were accustomed to read the Scriptures with the commentaries of the fathers, together with profane history, grammar, and poetry ; and in the epistles of St. Boniface arò still extant several erudite letters by English ladies of this period9.
Brithwald the secondhand not as Polydore Yirgit says the first Englishman called to the see, was as firm an opponent of the self-assumed jurisdiction of Rome as Theodore had been. According to the Saxon Chronicle, he was the first who caused written charters to be given to confirm grants and donations10. He is also said to have been the first who was styled the “ primate of all Britain.” But notwithstanding the philosophic spirit which Theodore had tried to diffuse, superstition now began to prevail; relics were held in extravagant veneration ; stories of dreams, visions, and miracles, were circulated and believed; and the impious and demoralizing doctrine was publicly taught, “ That whoever put on the habit of a monk was immediately pardoned all the sins of his former life.”
Archbishop Nothelm, a Londoner, is said to have assisted the venerable Bede in compiling his history.
Odo, the Dane, had the merit of rising to eminence from abject poverty, having been disinherited by his heathen parents for adhering to Christianity. When he became primate, however, he forgot his former humble station, and assumed a more lofty tone of command than any of the former prelates had ventured to do. From his Canons, framed at London, we learn that there were several dues besides those claimed by the clergy, and also that penalties were exacted for committing certain crimes. In his Pastoral Letters, Odo blushes not to write, “ I strictly command and charge, that no man presume to lay any tax on the posses-
9	Annal Bened. ii. 143. Lingard, Antiq. &c. p. 318.
10	This furnishes an additional proof that the document published in Somner’s Appendix, purporting to be a deed granted to Augustine, is nothing but a forgery executed many years afterwards.ARCHBISHOPS DUNSTAN AND ÆLFRIC.
77
sions of the clergy, who are the sons of God. I command the king, the princes, and all in authority to obey, with great humility, the archbishops and bishops ; for they have the keys of the kingdom of heaven n.”
St. Dunstan, “ the Prince of Monks,” as Malmsbury called him, was descended from a noble family in Somersetshire, and educated at Glastonbury, where, by his penances, and by affecting the life of an anchorite, he attracted great attention. He was at last crafty enough to obtain so much influence over King Edred, as to have the command, not only of the government, but of the treasury of the kingdom, from which he drew large sums in order to aggrandize the Benedictines. Edwy, who succeeded Edred, would not submit to the counsels and peculations of the monk ; but he soon found that Dunstan’s power was not to be shaken by banishment. A successful rebellion having been excited against Edwy, his brother and successor, Edgar, made Dunstan Bishop of Worcester, and afterwards Archbishop of Canterbury. He was one of the most rigid persecutors of the married clergy; for which he is,much praised by the old monkish historians. He required penitents, among other things, to confess the sins committed in their skin, bones, sinews, gristle, hair, marrow, and by every thing soft or hard, wet or dry12. The miracles ascribed to him are unusually numerous and superlatively incredible13.
Ælfric was one of the very few individuals who cultivated literature during that age of ignorance, the century preceding the conquest. This
" Johnson’s Eccles. Law, dcçccxliii. 1, 2.	12 Idem, dcccclxiii. 8.
13 See “ Butler’s Lives of the Saints/’ III. May 19, and the works to which he refers. It ought, however, to be observed, that the most antient and authentic account of St. Dunstan is to be found in his Life written by a contemporary, and preserved in MS. in the Cottonian Library, Cleop. B. 13; also published in that immense compilation of thè Bollandists, Acta Sanctorum, Maii, tom. iv. p. 346. This early biographer omits the ridiculous miracles with which Osbecn and other monastic writers have adorned, or rather degraded, the life of their hero.—Dunstan had the undoubted merit of possessing some acquaintance with the fine arts. William of Malmesbury praises him for his skill in the sculpture of gold and silver, and in music; and informs us that he gave a fine organ to Glastonbury Abbey, which the historian thus describes ; “ Organo, ubi per œneas fistulas musicis mensuris elaboratas, dudum conceptas, follis vomit anxius auras.”78
CANTERBURY CATHEDRAL.
prelate was the scholar of Ethelwold, Bishop of Winchester, and was successively raised to the sees of Wilton and Canterbury. He was styled “the Grammarian,” from his having written a grammar of the Latin language14.
Stigand, is chiefly famous for having resisted the power of William I. whom he refused to crown, because he was “ a murderer and usurper,jgfor which refusal, and for lack of bigotry, he was deposed and imprisoned. The monkish historians affirm, that like Judas his “ bowels gushed out.”
Lanfranc, an Italian, who came to England in the train of William the Conqueror, has already been distinguished in a previous chapter for his exertions in rebuilding the cathedral. In my History of York Cathedral, will be found an account of the memorable disputes between Lanfranc and the Archbishop of York, concerning the supremacy of Canterbury. Lanfranc seems to have been among the first of our English prelates who maintained and preached the doctrine of transubstantiation; the consequences of which have been so extensively felt15.
St. Anselm, Abbot of Bee, in Normandy, having been invited to visit England, to quiet the terrors of conscience wffiich assailed Hugh Lupus, the powerful and tremendous Earl of Chester, in the year 1092, was, not long after, prevailed on with great difficulty to allay the remorse of W illiam Rufus, by accepting the see of Canterbury. The king had appropriated its revenues for several years after the death of Lanfranc, till being seized with an alarming fit of illness, he insisted on raising Anselm to the prelacy, and soon after recovering, deeply repented the step he had taken. The archbishop wras engaged in a perpetual contest with Rufus, in
14 There are also extant Saxon translations of a part of the Old Testament, published by Thwaites, Oxford, 1699; and other theological productions which are attributed to the archbishop ; (See Lingard’s Ant. of A. S. Ch. p. 423-5.) ; though some suppose they were the works of another prelate of the same name. See E. R. More’s " De tribus Ælfricis Comment.” and Wharton’s Ang. Sac. v. i. p. 125.
Is The term transubstantiation, is said to have been first used in the letters of Peter de Blois, who was Chancellor of Canterbury in 1170-80.ARCHBISHOPS ANSELM AND BECKET.
79
support of the privileges of the church, and in persecuting the married clergy, and trying to suppress the fashionable extravagances of the laity in point of dress16. Ah anecdote of Anselm, related by William of Malmesbury, is curious, as it gives us some idea of the state of the arts at this period. He was under the necessity of travelling to Rome; and on his return, knowing that he was to be waylaid by banditti, he disguised himself to deceive them. They learned his intention, and sent an artist to Rome, who made so exact a delineation of his features, that the archbishop, who found he should be known in any dress, was obliged to travel much out of his road to avoid his enemies17. He was canonized in the reign of Henry VII. His works, relating to Divinity, are very numerous, and were repeatedly published during the sixteenth and seventeenth centuries.
Thomas Becket, one of the most famous of the Archbishops of Canterbury, was the son of a London merchant by a Syrian woman. When he was only Archdeacon of Canterbury, he was made Chancellor of England by Henry II., and by his courtly manners and splendid method of living, became a great favourite with that monarch. He was politic enough to perceive, however, that this would be incompatible with the situation of Archbishop of Canterbury, and when he was elevated to the see, became a most austere and bigoted monk. He resigned the Chancellorship without consulting the king; and exerted all his influence to uphold the usurpations and severities of the church. So far, indeed, did his assumption of power proceed, that the king at last obliged him to confine himself within the precincts of his church; but he said he was prepared to die a martyr in defence pf the ecclesiastical authority. He did suffer death, being murdered in his own cathedral. The circumstances of this assassination, as well as of the penance of the king, the alleged miracles performed at Becket’s tomb, and the crowds of pilgrims which flocked thither are well known to most readers. It is scarcely necessary to mention, that these pilgrimages have given rise to two very distinguished
16	See Eadmer, Histor. Novor, p. 16, &c. Hume's Hist, of Eng. v. i. ch. 5.
17	De Gest. Pontif.80
canterbury cathedral.
productions of English genius, Chaucers Tales18 and Stothard’s picture of the Canterbury Pilgrims 19.
Hubert Walter, Bishop of Salisbury, soon after his return from accompanying Richard Cœur de Lion to the Holy Land, was elected to the see ; and at the same time filled the offices of Lord Chancellor and Chief Justiciary of England, being deputed to these offices by the king, who was detained a prisoner in Austria. He formed the moat and the wall round the Tower of London, and would have founded a college at Lambeth, but was prevented by the jealousy and machinations of the monks. See my History, &c. of Salisbury Cathedral.
Stephen Langton, (a Cardinal and Chancellor of the University of Paris,' though an Englishman by birth,) was, in spite of the opposition of King John, raised to the archiépiscopal see, by the authority of the pope. After the degrading submission of the king to Pandulph, the pope’s legate, the archbishop absolved him from the terrible censures of the church, which he had incurred. But this prelate is more deserving of notice, as having greatly assisted in Avresting from his weak and tyrannical sovereign, the famous Magna Charta, which was probably drawn up under his direction from a copy of the Saxon laws, which the archbishop is said to have shown to the assembled barons, previous to the meeting at Runni-mede20. Hume says, Langton was “ a man, whose memory, though he was obtruded on the nation by a palpable encroachment of the see of Rome, ought always to be respected by the English21.” We are indebted to this great prelate for the division of the books of the Bible into chapters22.
It is, perhaps, worth observing, that Bennet Langton, Esq. the much respected friend and correspondent of Dr. Johnson, was descended from the same family with the archbishop23,
18	A new and very neat edition of these Tales is recently published by Pickering, London.
19	This very interesting national picture is in the possession of J. P. Miles, Esq. of Leigh Court, near Bristol. A very beautiful engraving has been made from it.
20 Matth. Paris, Hist. Maj. p. 1*67.	21 Hist, of Eng. v. ii. eh. 11. p. 65. 8vo. edit.
** Hen. Knyghton Hist.	32 Boswell's Life of Johnson.ARCHBISHOPS BONIFACE, PECKHAM, AND WINCHELSEY.	81
Boniface, a prelate of a hasty and turbulent disposition, engaged in a dispute with the Bishop of London, in 1250, concerning the visitation of the Priory of St. Bartholomew, in Smithfield ; and taking offence at the conduct of the sub-prior, he attacked him in public, beat him severely, and tore his rich cope24.
John Peckham, a learned divine, was raised to the metropolitical see by the pope, in consequence, as it is reported, of a simoniacal contract to pay his holiness the sum of four thousand marks. It is added, that the money not being punctually remitted, the pontiff threatened Peckham with excommunication. But however irregular the conduct of this prelate may have been, he took care severely to punish the offences of others. He did not spare the faults of the clergy, and his treatment of Sir Osbern Gifford shows that he paid little deference to the rank of an offender. This licentious baron having carried off two nuns from the monastery of Wilton, Archbishop Peckham first issued against him a sentence of excommunication ; and, having thus brought him to submission, granted him absolution on the following severe terms. After interdicting him from all future connexion with nuns or nunneries, he ordered that he should be publicly scourged on three successive Sundays, in the church of Wilton, and as many times in the church and market-place of Salisbury ; that he should fast a certain number of months ; that he should wear no linen for three years ; and that he should relinquish his knighthood* as to dress and title, and swear to wfear none but russet-coloured clothes until he had spent three years in the Holy Land. “ If (says Bishop Godwin) some of our gentlemen were now and then thus served, they would not be so wanton as they are25.”
Archbishop Peckham was a violent persecutor of the Jews. Besides other works, he wrote a Treatise on Perspective, first printed at Venice, 1504, of which there are several editions.
Robert Winchelsey was a prelate who experienced the extremes of
2+ Stowe, (from Matth. Paris) in his Survey of London. 1618. fol. p. 712. 7,5 De Praesulibus Anglicanæ.
L82
CANTERBURY CATHEDRAL.
good and evil fortune. Having opposed the arbitrary imposts levied on the property of the clergy by the king in 1297, he was, together with the general body of the ecclesiastics, declared exempt from the protection of the laws, his goods were confiscated, and the monks of Canterbury were severely punished for relieving him. Deprived of all the appendages of his rank, he was glad to find a retreat in the house of an obscure country clergyman, where he boarded with a single servant till the death of his unrelenting persecutor enabled him to regain his high station26. The remaining part of his life was spent in peace. He feared no man, and like his predecessor Peckham, chastised the immorality of the great, as in the case of John Warenne, the powerful Earl of Surrey, whom he prosecuted as an adulterer, on account of his keeping a beautiful mistress, and obliged him to dismiss her. The charities of Winchelsey were immense. In time of scarcity, it is related, that five thousand persons were fed twice a week at his palace. He is even said to have sought out bashful distress with a delicacy in that age very unusual.
Walter Reynolds, who succeeded Winchelsey, was raised to the primacy by that imprudent prince, Edward II. “ Not,” says the monk of Malmesbury, “ as a man of learning, but for his great skill in theatrical plays.” Reynolds also held the offices of Treasurer and Chancellor to the ill fated Edward, and was one of those courtiers who deserted him in his distress27.
Simon Meopham, though a man of spirit and activity, was involved in disputes and difficulties, which exposed him to repeated misfortunes, and at last occasioned his death. In his own diocess, the friars of St Augustine opposed him, and being supported by the pope, excommunicated him and made him pay a heavy fine. A more distressing insult awaited him. He began a progress through the diocesses of his suffragans, and was received with all customary honours at Rochester, Salisbury, and other places. But on his approach to Exeter, the bishop, John Grandison, disrespectfully refused him admission, having raised an armed force to obstruct his pro-
46 Walt. Hemingford, v. i. p. 109
47 Battely’s Antiq. of Cant. p. 72.ARCHBISHOPS STRATFORD, BRADWARDIN, AND LANGHAM.	83
gress. The proud spirit of the primate could not brook this humiliation. He returned toward the metropolis crest-fallen, and died.
John Stratford, a native of Stratford on Avon, administered the affairs of the kingdom, while Edward III. was reaping immortal glory by his arms in France. Stratford is stated to have crossed the Channel two and thirty times in the public service, besides making several journeys into Scotland. He was so benevolent that he distributed alms to thirty-nine poor people during the whole of his primacy.
Thomas Bradwardin though he enjoyed the metropolitical see but a very short time, dying forty days after his consecration, was a person of too much celebrity to be passed by without notice. He was chancellor of the diocess of London, and was appointed confessor to King Edward III. whom he attended during his expeditions to France. After his return, he was made Prebendary of Lincoln, and subsequently Archbishop of Canterbury. He wrote a theological work, “ De Causa Dei28,” and several treatises on geometry and arithmetic; and he was considered as one of the greatest mathematicians that lived before the revival of learning. Chaucer ranks him with St. Augustine29 and the Roman philosopher Boethius.
“ But I ne cannot boult it to the bren,
As can the holy doctor seynt Austin Or Boece, or the bishop Bradwardin."
Nun's Priest’s Tale.
Simon Langham found the see so oppressed with debt that he summoned all the clergy of his diocess to a synod, in which he obtained from each sixpence in the mark towards its liquidation. His attempt to turn out the seculars from the college of Canterbury, which was contrary to the will of the founder, incited them, with the famous Wickliffe at their head,
18	Lond. 1618. pub. by Sir H. Savile.
19	Not the Anglo-Saxon missionary, but St. Augustine, Bishop of Hippo, in Africa, in the fifth century.84
CANTERBURY CATHEDRAL.
to inveigh strongly and openly against the oppression30. In 1368, he was created a cardinal, on which he resigned the archbishopric; though he seems afterwards to have repented of this step, and endeavoured in vain to recover his metropolitan seat.
Simon de Sudbury, born at Sudbury in Suffolk, after having been chaplain to Pope Innocent VI. and auditor of the Rota at Rome, was elected to the see of Canterbury to appease the king, who was displeased with the re-election of Cardinal Langham. Sudbury was murdered on Tower Hill, in the insurrection raised by Wat Tyler.
Henry Chicheley, or ChicheU, was born at Higham Ferrers, Northamptonshire, where he afterwards established a college, built a church, and an alms-house. He was likewise the founder of Bernard’s (now St. John’s) and All Souls Colleges, Oxford, of which university he had been an alumnus. He erected at Lambeth the great tower of the palace, called the Lollards’ tower, from the sectaries so denominated having been imprisoned there. He appears to have held a middle course between those who favoured and those who opposed the pretensions of the see of Rome, evidently leaning, as far as prudence dictated, to the liberty of the English church31. Worn out with age and infirmities, after he had filled the archiépiscopal chair for twenty-nine years, he wrote to Pope Eugenius for leave to resign ; but he died before the pope’s answer arrived32.
The Honourable Thomas Bourgchier, or JBourchier, son of the Earl of Ene and the Countess of Suffolk, was promoted to the metropolitan see on
30	Wickliffe was wont to walk about with his feet naked, and clothed in a long russet garment. Leland’s Collect. III. 409.
31	Spencer’s “ Life of Chichele,” 8vo. Lond. 1783. In his letter to the king, he says, that care should be taken “ that everich of the ministers hold hem content with her own parte ; and that your poore pepul he not pyled, nor oppressed with exactions thorgh wycli thei schold be the more fehle to refresche you owne liege lord in time of nede,” &c. Appendix, 195.
32	See id. Appendix.ARCHBISHOPS WARHAM AND CRANMER.
85
the death of Archbishop Kempe. To this prelate has been ascribed the introducing of the art of printing into England, an honour to which he has no just claim33, Bourchier has, by some historians, been calumniated as avaricious; but the liberal sums which he left to various institutions at his death, besides what he expended during his life, acquit him, we think, of the charge. He had the honour of crowning three kings, Edward IY, Richard III, and Henry VII.
William Warham, who succeeded Henry Dene, was a stern persecutor of the Lollards, and an enemy of heresy. The superior abilities, however, of Cardinal Wolsey made Warham little more than the shadow of an archbishop, and persecution seems to have been the only road left him to attain distinction. In the notorious case of the divorce of the Queen, Warham affixed to the deed the name and seal of Bishop Fisher without his consent. This, with his abject flattery of Henry on all occasions, gives us rather an unfavourable view of his character.
Perhaps no man ever encountered so many difficulties in public life as the succeeding prelate, Thomas Cranmer, who was consecrated March 13, 1533. Imbued with the Lutheran doctrine, and well convinced of the scandalous state of the church, he was also satisfied of the illegality of the marriage of King Henry VIII. with his brother’s widow, the point in dispute between the English monarch and the court of Rome. Cranmer exhibited a curious instance of casuistry in protesting, previously to his taking the requisite oath to the pope, “ That he did not intend, by taking that oath, to restrain himself from doing what he thought to be his duty to God, his king, and his country.” He proceeded to declare the marriage
33 Collier, in his Ecclesiastical History ; Bailey, in his English Dictionary, and other writers, have attributed the introduction of printing into England to Archbishop Bourchier, in the reign of Henry VI. This art, however, was first practised in this country by Caxton, in the following reign. The mistaken statement depends on the authority of Rich. Atkins, who, in 1664, published a quarto pamphlet, intitled “ The Original and Grouth of Printing in England,” &c. * in which is a groundless and improbable story of Caxton and one Turnour having been employed by Henry VI. and Archbishop Bourchier, to inveigle a printer from Haarlem. See Typographical Antiquities, last edit, by Dibdin. 1810. 4to. voi. i. p. 6*2, 64, and 96.86
CANTERBURY CATHEDRAL.
void between Henry and Catherine, which the pope solemnly confirmed the following year; and this event produced a complete separation of the English from the Roman church, attended with every demonstration of implacable hostility; the English universities and bishops declaring “ that the Bishop of Rome had no more authority in England, by the word of God, than any other foreign bishop.” Every practicable expedient was immediately adopted under Cranmer’s auspices to give effect to this new and important decision, which was too bold and violent to be established without bloodshed. The Bishop of Rochester, and the learned, but weak, bigoted, and superstitious Sir Thomas More, were amongst the earliest and most distinguished victims of this policy. The king being acknowledged supreme head of the church, appointed Cromwell his vicegerent, and soon effected the suppression of the monasteries ; exceeding in this respect the views of Cranmer, who wished some of them to be preserved for schools and hospitals, and by this partial opposition displeased the king34. The archbishop procured a new English version of the New Testament to be made by nine eminent Greek scholars, who each translated a part, which was then submitted to the bishops. Nearly in a similar manner he afterwards had the Old Testament translated, not without great and rancorous opposition. He also introduced, in the course of this reign, English prayers into the service of the church.
Still religion remained unaltered in spirit; the new head of the church considered himself fully authorized to dictate, under the most dreadful penalties, the creed to be believed by men, and the worship to be offered to the Almighty. Cranmer was not exempt from participation in this species of persecution ; nor is it easy to see how the ecclesiastical head of a church, established by law, can avoid interference with the right of private judgment. In 1539, the remaining tenets and ceremonies of the church of Rome were secured to the English church by a most severe penal statute, commonly called “ the bloody act,” which passed in spite of the resolute and energetic opposition of Cranmer ; who, foreseeing its
34 Strype’s Life of Cranmer, p. 7*2.ARCHBISHOP CRANMER.
87
dreadful consequences, sent away his wife to her friends in Germany. The king, being informed of the archbishop’s alarm on account of his opposition to this act, sent him assurances of the continuance of his esteem.
It is not necessary here to trace the wavering, arbitrary, and absurd conduct of the conceited and sanguinary monarch, who now professed to regulate the faith of this persecuted nation. Cromwell fell a victim to these proceedings, and Cranmer found himself, as well as the reformation he had laboured to establish, in imminent danger. An attempt was made by the popish party to get him imprisoned preparatory to a vague and groundless accusation of heresy; but he was saved by a returning fit of the king’s personal friendship for him, after the order for his arrest had been given.
The Romish party which had marked Cromwell and Cranmer for destruction, as their most dangerous enemies, had taken advantage of the interference of the former in promoting the unfortunate marriage of Ann of Cleves with the king, to bring the vicegerent into the royal displeasure, which was then the unerring harbinger of mock trials and merciless executions. Cranmer had the magnanimity to defend his disgraced and ill fated friend; an instance of independence and courage rare in any court, but unprecedented, except by himself, in that of Henry VIII. After Cromwell had been sacrificed to the interest of Queen Catherine Howard, and that lady’s party had seen her elevation to the throne of England, the painful and dangerous office of denouncing her to the king, for the infidelity which brought her to the scaffold, devolved on Cranmer. He executed this office with skill and integrity ; and by the ruin of the queen and her party, avenged, in some degree, the wrongs of Cromwell.
Although it was Cranmer’s principle of reform, not to shock the prejudices of the people by violent changes, he was too much inclined to enforce compliance with the measures on which he had determined. In the reign of Edward VI. he proceeded with unabated vigour in the work of the Reformation, which had languished during the latter years of the last king. A liturgy and articles of religion were now agreed on. During this reign he consented to the death of several persons on account of their88
CANTERBURY CATHEDRAL.
opinions, and oven urgently pressed Edward VI.’to the burning of Joan Boucher, or Joan of Kent, for heresy, much against the inclination of the king, who.protested that the archbishop must be responsible for the act; by which appeal the latter was much shocked and disconcerted 3^H
On Mary’s succession, finding the mass restored at Canterbury, and the Roman Catholic rites every where returning, Cranmer wrote a protest against these proceedings ; and was soon afterwards committed to the Tower. He was compelled to hold a mock disputation, and was adjudged a heretic for the opinions he maintained. After being detained in prison a considerable time he was condemned to the flames. A recantation made under the fear of death, proved insufficient to save him, as the queen’s resentment for his having pronounced her mother’s divorce was not to be appeased. He now abjured his deeply repented recantation, and perished with heroic fortitude, burning first the hand which had signed the memorial of his weakness.
The character of Cranmer has been concisely drawn by Mr. Gilpin. “ He was a sincere promoter of the Reformation, and had abilities admirably adapted to such a work. He was a calm dispassionate man; had a sound judgment, and a very extensive knowledge, but he had conversed little in the world ; and was very open to the attacks of malice and knavery, and was unacquainted with any methods but those of gentleness and persuasion, which indeed went a considerable way to promote his ends36.”
On the death of Cranmer, Cardinal Pole was immediately raised to the see of Canterbury, and superintended the church during the atrocious persecutions which have consigned the memory of Mary’s reign to everlasting infamy. He was, however, a mild and benevolent prelate ; and cordially disapproved of the sanguinary proceedings to which Gardiner and the rest of the infatuated clergy encouraged the fanatical queen. Burnet says his mildness and gentleness might have been much more dangerous to the
35	Burnet’s History of the Reformatio».
36	Life of Hugh Latimer, in Select Biography, voi. i. p. 54. The latter part of Mr. Gilpin’s eulogy may be considered as rather inconsistent with the conduct of Cranmer in recommending to King Edward YI. the punishment of heretics by death, as in the instance already noticed.ARCHBISHOPS PARKER, ABBOT, AND LAUD.
89
Reformation than the persecuting spirit of his colleagues, had his councils prevailed. Archbishop Pole survived Queen Mary only sixteen hours.
Dr. Matthew Parker, a man who had suffered considerably from the persecutions in Mary’s reign, was on the accession of Elizabeth appointed to fill the archiépiscopal throne of Canterbury, vacant by Pole’s decease. Such was the humility and primeval piety of this prelate that he for a long time declined the dignity offered to him. He was a firm supporter of the royal prerogative and a bitter enemy to puritanism, though he was not, perhaps, sufficiently zealous in reforming the clergy; whose licentiousness was one of the chief causes of the increase of those sectaries. He was a profound scholar, and I have had repeated occasion in the course of my literary labours to mention, with praise, his learned work on British Antiquities. Besides other publications which do credit to his industry, he wrote a small treatise on the Marriage of Priests, occasioned by the persecutions he himself had suffered in the early part of his life for having dared to marry. His numerous benefactions, both during his life and at his death, manifest the liberality of his character ; and his encouragement of learned men was no less spirited and laudable.
George Abbot is characterized by Clarendon as of a morose disposition and as ignorant of the constitution of church and state, and (what is very uncommon in a primate) as equally ignorant of the “ interests of the clergy.” Other writers, among whom are Godwin and Anthony a Wood, speak of him in very honourable terms. There is one circumstance related of him which is very creditable to his feelings. Having unfortunately killed a park-keeper when shooting at a deer, the accident gave him so much pain of mind that he kept the anniversary of it all his life with fasting and humility, and settled an annuity on the poor man’s widow.
William Laud was translated to the see of Canterbury in 1633. At a period remarkable for the violence of party spirit, and the close intermixture of religion and politics, this learned and ardent genius was destined to maintain the tottering cause of the “ divine right of kings,” and the duty of passive obedience in their subjects. These doctrines he maintained with the most devoted and relentless zeal, and, it may be added, most conscien-
M90
CANTERBURY CATHEDRAL.
tiously. When we consider the short period which at his entrance into public life had elapsed since the settlement of any thing like order and tranquillity in the church of England, and the then unsettled state of that of Scotland ; together with the swarms of fanatical dissenters who then infested society; we shall not be surprised that his efforts to support what he considered the decent solemnities of the church, and the salutary authority of the episcopal order, betrayed him into superstitious fopperies, and ecclesiastical arrogance. In the star chamber and high commission courts, Laud distinguished himself as a supporter of unconstitutional and irresponsible authority. It was his fate to fall by a tribunal equally unconstitutional and unjust with those in which he had presided. The rebel parliament accused him of high treason; for endeavouring to subvert the laws of the protestant religion, and the rights of parliament. The articles detailed, against him, charge him with popery in various ways ; but it is certain that, wdiatever he might think of certain points of difference between the Roman and English churches, he had no thoughts of an absolute surrender of the reformed religion. But in his own works there is abundant evidence of a wish for reconciliation with the Roman church, of acknowledgment of its precedence, and of its notions of the royal prerogative and the authority of the church, long since generally exploded. He laments, in speaking of the Earl of Strafford’s fall, that it was the misfortune of that nobleman to serve a monarch who knew not how to be, or to be made great. In this calamity it was his own lot to participate. After a trial in which every principle of justice and decency was violated, and a defence remarkable for talent and moderation, he was condemned to death, and suffered on Tower Hill with great fortitude.
The accession of Charley the Second, at first a concealed and afterwards an avowed papist, opened a new and interesting era of church history. The three great parties—the Roman Catholics, the Established Church, and the Dissenters were all in active exertion. Episcopacy being re-established, the see of Canterbury was nominally filled by William Juxon, who had attended Charles I. to the scaffold, while Gilbert Sheldon was really at the head of ecclesiastical affairs. The endeavours of Charles toARCHBISHOPS SHELDON AND SANCROFT.
91
promote the interests of the Roman Catholics* under colour of general toleration, produced several attempts at an amicable union of religious parties, in which Sheldon distinguished himself on the episcopal side. On the death of Juxon, Sheldon succeeded to the primacy. One of his earliest acts was an arrangement with Lord Clarendon, by which the clergy ceased to tax themselves in convocation, and were permitted to vote at elections, as freeholders.
The nonconformists being the chief obstacle to the toleration of the papists, the severest laws were enacted against them, in the passing and execution of which, Sheldon was deeply concerned; but real danger was also apprehended from the Roman Catholics, and the Test and Corporation Acts were passed as a defence against them. Every attempt to enforce uniformity in religion produced, as it always will, increased dissensions. Sheldon was on the whole a benevolent man, and expended great sums in charity; he was also a distinguished encourager of learning; and founded the Theatre at Oxford. In 1675 he died, and was succeeded by William Sancroft, Dean òf St. Paul’s. He was one of the seven resolute bishops who refused to publish the illegal declaration of James II. professing to favour liberty of conscience, but really dispensing with legal penalties, and intended to introduce popery. For this affair the bishops were sent to the Tower, and shortly afterwards brought to trial and acquitted37.
When the blind zeal of James II. had roused a spirit of opposition which drove him from the throne, Sancroft was one of the eight bishops whose scrupulous consciences could not digest the oath of fealty to the new monarch, regarding James as the lawful possessor of the throne. They maintained the independency of the church on the king and parliament; and, being deprived of. their sees, founded a new party called the Nonjurors; and. treated the new bishops as usurpers and intruders. In this quarrel the whole nation was quickly involved.
That these prelates acted conscientiously in refusing to take the oath of
For a particular account of this important trial with several new and interesting circumstances relating to it, see Dr. D'.Oyly's “ Life of Sancroft,” voi. i. chap. 5.92
CANTERBURY CATHEDRAL.
allegiance to William III. it would be uncandid to doubt. A pleasing anecdote illustrative of the temper and feelings of the deprived primate is preserved by Dr. D’Oyly. “The archbishop remained at the house in the Temple for about six weeks, [after his deprivation] and appears to have received there the visits of his friends in all ranks of life. Amongst others, Thomas, Earl of Aylesbury, called to pay him a visit. The prelate received him at the door of his apartment, which was opened by himself. The earl, struck with this circumstance as a mark of humiliation, and with the total change of every thing around, from what he had formerly seen in his visits at Lambeth Palace, burst into tears. As soon as he recovered his power of speech, he told him how deeply he was affected with what he saw, and how unable he was to suppress his grief. 1 O, my good lord,’ replied the archbishop,** rather rejoice with me, for now I live again38.’ ” On the deprivation of Sancroft, Dr. John Tillotson, Dean of St. Paul’s, was next selected to fill the vacant metropolitan chair. His qualifications were, great learning, piety, and moderation; with a thorough knowledge of the schemes and arts of the Roman Catholics. He had been chaplain to Charles II. but never enjoyed the favour of that monarch. The dean attended the unfortunate Lord Russel after his condemnation, and in vain preached to that firm nobleman the doctrine of non-resistance; in opposition to which he himself afterwards became Archbishop of Canterbury. On this occasion he was, perhaps, actuated by a hope of saving the life of his auditor. Though he was, by his mild disposition, well qualified to heal the prevailing dissensions in religion, the high Tory party, by their assertion of the invalidity of parliamentary deprivation, regarded him in the light of an usurper. His spirits became much depressed in consequence of this opposition; and he had not enjoyed the primacy three years wrhen he was struck with a fatal palsy, and died, Nov. 23, 1694. King William is said to have expressed himself on this occasion in these words : “ I never knew an honester man, and I never had a better friend.” Tillotson’s Sermons are generally known and much admired. His fortune
38 Life of Sancroft, voi. i. p. 470.ARCHBISHOPS TENISON, WAKE, POTTER, AND HERRING.
93
was greatly reduced by his taking possession of the see, and by his benevolence and liberality. His posthumous sermons were sold by his widow for two thousand five hundred guineas. A pension of <£400 was granted to her, which was afterwards increased to £600.
Dr. Thomas Tenison succeeded Archbishop Tillotson, whom he much resembled in character. But the advantage which he enjoyed of less turbulent times contributes nothing to the interest excited by his primacy in history. He was much involved in a dispute on the right of the lower house of convocation to hold intermediate assemblies between one general session and another. Tenison was a man of great benevolence, and the author of several sermons.
Dr. William Wake, who succeeded him, was remarkable for his charities, and for his literary works. He wrote “ The State of the Church,” which settled the question respecting the power of the prince over ecclesiastical synods within his realm. Wake held a correspondence with some of the doctors of the Sorbonne relative to a projected union between the English and Gallican churches ; in which he has been said to have carried his concessions too far. “ This correspondence,” says a judicious writer, “ is worthy of attentive perusal; as it will show that all the concessions were tendered by the French divines ; and may temper violence against the Catholic religion, by exhibiting it as making approaches to the English worship, when held by moderate men39jf^
John Potter, who is best known by his learned and useful work, the “Antiquities of Greece,” was a native of Wakefield, in Yorkshire, and after having been Bishop of Oxford, was translated to the see of Canterbury. He seems to have maintained the rights of the church with sufficient firmness and dignity, without having had recourse to the harsh and offensive measures which characterized many of his predecessors.
Thomas Herring, a native of Walsoken, Norfolk, was translated from York to Canterbury, where he was much esteemed for his moderation and humility.
39 Grant’s Summary of the History of the English Church and Sects, &c. voi. iii. p. 129.94
CANTERBURY CATHEDRAL.
Thomas Secker is one of the most distinguished prelates who have filled the chair of Canterbury. He was born at the village of Sibthorp? Nottinghamshire, his father being possessed of a small independency, and what is singular, a protestant dissenter. At the age of nineteen, he was a proficient not only in Latin and Greek, but in French, Hebrew, Chaldee, and Syriac. He first turned his attention to medicine, on account of some religious scruples ; but these being removed by farther study and inquiry, he was induced to take orders. Secker was distinguished for his learning, benevolence, and liberality; and above all, for his simplicity, frankness, and good sense. He arranged his time with the most exact regularity ; but though he never allowed indolence to encroach on his hours, he was always ready to admit those who visited him from friendship or on business. He was long afflicted with the gout, and his thigh bone becoming carious, broke in consequence of the disease, and put an end to his life in a few days.
The honourable Frederick Cornwallis, son of Lord Cornwallis, was translated from the bishopric of Lichfield and Coventry to the see of Canterbury, where his benevolence and affability procured him universal respect. He held the primacy fifteen years.
John Moore, the son of a tradesman in the city of Gloucester, by his talents, learning, and piety, raised himself to the highest dignity of the church. In early life, he was tutor to the sons of the Duke of Marlborough, through whose patronage he was afterwards promoted. It his highly creditable to his filial affections, that when a tutor, he assisted his father, who had failed in business, out of his small annual stipend. ,
Charles Manners Sutton, the present respectable, and dignified archbishop, was advanced from the see of Norwich to this primacy in 1805. Those who have had the best opportunities of seeing and appreciating his grace’s character, represent him as a man of learning, urbanity, and moderation.Seal# foi' th&L.zrtr
lo feet. nJ
Drawn ^MeasTxred^y G. L. Taylor-Esq ^EdwBCresj’E^mpS^MtóqRI
V ■ ‘
zec Scale of feet.
ce a m	ië mr ■ ■ mbjliLp
Engi-aved Ey E. Gladwin.
m
GKOTJITD PüLAEEs PPATTSjOF PARTS &c.
London. Fufflished May i. ifei, l'y Lonaman Sc Cl Paternoster Low.
Printed Toy Cox 8c Barnett.FE.
DESCRIPTIVE NOTICES OF THE PLATES.
Th e general measurements of the church, as to lengths and heights, will be found on tire plates of plans and sections.
Plate I. Ground Plan, &c.-Ba. western porch and doorway, with groining:—b. south porch shown in Plate V I. :—c. c. nave, with the disposition of its groins on the ceiling, and forms and proportions of its clustered colurnus, one of which is defined more at large, h:—d. d. south aile:—e. e. north aile:—g. north-western tower:—and h. south-western tower with the forms of the groining to each, and the enlarged piers :— j. south end of transept®—k. martyrdom, or north end of transept:—l. space beneath the great tower, with the number of steps:—m. m. choir with the stalls and seats on each side, and plans of two of its columns, e.g:—N. south aile:—o. north aile:—p. south end of eastern transept:—q. north end of ditto:—r. presbytery, with monuments and screens at each side, and steps to the altar s:—plan of one of its clustered columns, b:— T. T. Trinity chapel:—and u. its aile, with plan of a pair of its columns, d. and profile, c :—w. Becket’s crown, with plan of one of its clustered columns, a:—X. Anselm’s chapel:—y. vestry :—z. treasury.
The small figures refer to the following parts and monuments :—1. doorway to the cloisters from the north aile of the nave:—3. entrance to St. Michael’s, or the warrior’s chapel :—4. entrance to the Virgin, or dean’s chapel :—5. the general entrance to the crypt :—6. doorway to the cloister : —7. Archbishop Warham’s monument:—8. Archbishop Peckham’s monument:—9. staircase to upper parts of the church:—10. Lady Holand’s monument:—11. stairs to crypt:—12 and 13. stairs through the walls:— 14. organ screen:—15, 16. monuments of Archbishops Walter and Rey-96
CANTERBURY CATHEDRAL.
nolds:—17. Kempe:—18. Stratford :—19. Sudbury:—20. Mepham:—21. Black Prince:—22. Courtney.—23. Cardinal Chatillon:—24.Theobald:— 25. Pole :—26. Dean Wotton :—27. Henry IY. :—and 28. his chantry chapel:—29. Archbishop Bourchier :—30. Chichele:—31. stairs to the crypt, and to the upper galleries, &c. of the transept:—32. niche in the wall, formerly a doorway:—33. font and circular room:—34. audit room: —35. library :—36. eastern window of Virgin Chapel, with rich tracery work, and pedestals, &c. beneath and at the sides :—37. a singular instance of a portrait on copper, of Dean Bargrave, for a monumental memorial :— 38. chapter-house :—39. area of cloisters :—40. ruins of an antient building, called the Dormitory; and 42. doorway to ditto:—41. entrance doorway to another old building:—43. a long old passage:—44. doorway to the cellarers lodgings, with several columns on each side, nearly facing which are the bases for lavatories, &c. :—45. old doorway, with an oblique circular hole through the wall of very unusual character :—46. doorway, with a smaller lateral opening, the bishop’s entrance.
Plate II. Plan of the crypts; A. principal and the usual entrance:— B. another entrance, but now closed up :—c. principal space of the crypt divided into three parts, by two rows of small columns with large bases and capitals; and separated from the ailes, d. d. and e. e. by large piers: —F. is the north wing of the crypt, with doorway to stairs, 3 ; and another doorway, 4. to the priory buildings ;, an opening in the wall, 5, most likely to a staircase ; and a semicircular recess at 6 ; where as in the other corresponding recesses were formerly altars, with piscinas, closets, &c. :—g. south wing of crypt, with doorway to stairs at 2 ; an entrance doorway at 14; and an enclosed place at 15:—h. a chantry vault, now entirely darkened with stairs to it from the chapel above, but now closed up;—i. a chantry chapel, with numerous paintings on the roof and sides :—k. a corresponding crypt, now used as a private cellar :—l. entrance to the crypt under the Trinity chapel :H-m. centre of ditto:—n. and o. its aile:—and p. beneath Becket’s crown:—at 18, and 19. are doorways to the crypt:—and at 20. 20. are piers which seem to have been cased, or enlarged, when the Trinity crypt was built;—11. 11. two large pillars singularly placed be-♦CATH]EIM£ AIL ART T1 (ÇHTITIE §
JP Xa ©HI

Drawn. "bvJEdwf- Cresy & G-.L.Taylor IEscp*Architect s,
JBrittcrûs History See, of Canterbury Cathedral,
Engraved “by G. Gladwin.
£CTMElllî (Ö ATHHIDmAIL (S3HIUJIESIHI,
TPSLAN- OT TÌE CRlfFTaj
&j@nta?n, J&tfr cLrh&c^FuZv&i&zi iy longrfftarv Sc Œ,laterrw^terJtow. TrizrtecLTsy' Co3:& JB arnett.

2 86 F&et -.»
V

#
\

i' CATMJEDÄALf ANTIQUITIES.
rüL rfÄ.
------	-	~ deale of to\ , ,....., , f	. W ....~	-	---------
MeasuredfcDrawn. by Edwrtl^sy\Esq?&ONTaylor EsipArclm^-t:*. Brittons lìsstory Sec si. Canterbury Cathedral.
■	H	esnsmciEE

SECTION OF NAVE & AILES AT THE WEST EN© î WITH ELEVATION OF THE TWO TOWERS, TO THE KÏV? THOMAS C! OOMBE- IXT). JPJ&EBF.NDAICYOF CANTERBURY.
This Plate is inscribed by the
- AUTHOR
London, Published, May i.jSzi, by Longman Sc C°. Paternoster Row.
Printed, ibv Jîavwaxd../
\

hl .
,.: 'ï$T Inifer
SïCTIOJT OP S <■ TUAK SJET T fcPAET OP TOWPTEt: BLIBFATIÜR OP PT« TRANSEPT Ä? PART OP TOWER c
JL<md<?n. TiibUshed- Dec^z^SzzÎbv -Lvnqman, % O’.FatemffjterJRojv.
’	Trin.te d lyv TLscvwajrâ..r»
rFJl.. y.
CACTE; SStAt* AJTTUqmitie s .
I
Drawn, "by DcLwf Cresy *^J^ylor E-s^^ Architect ö.
*%rit£enis S^wr^^^Sôrfi^ûcnteriiirv ûtÆÀAsaSi/A
IS	y/
li»«*!®, Tw I-Ie feix.
(SABBTTD^DH»
SECTION OTT® SMAJLÜT TâÆt.T S EI“ T s Se EIDEWAMOW OF1 THE W> SIBE OFf^if TltAIfSETT, $£ o S
ïqægW[i^tatrmn- Sc (TSJ^aterriûsteir ~gS3
Ttrirvtecl ~by Cox Sc Bécmet-t.

S /(H /ègmWM	„	IPX,. ~vi.
ce w: ii iE3b m mmmSrn^Bi (Swwmes■L
.	'?	:	TIEW Oï TIE mSTElI TO¥ï»S.
DOYLY, D. D. T. R. S. HOMES TIC CHjäPI^ilN TO TME ^ÎRC 71 BISHOP OF C^iNTEHB URY ice. icc.icc.
This Plate is ms ens d "by the
a	AUTHOR.
rrintedly Ha.yward.\
<
V
I
I
/

,K

#*


•1
4
*
tf*-
**

y
k
%

\
\
*

CENT fe AL, TOWEÄ, SOU. 1 '"ÌANSEPT
T( ' TOHSJAiCBS PEA ÜC H,R3Q.ff	/JZTR1’~, This Plat e is Ins cribs- --Ly^ [T X'LIO'K.
Pxinted "by 'Hayward-.	'	tI
f
+■
I
;
\
l
•Ç
I(CATHEIpLÆL, ATW^TTTITTm S
IPLoYM,
wäeiiam’s momiJMEirir &e,
TO ’WTLiXi.TAM: ZMLA3sT!s1TNG JE S Q. 7ML1?.. ^îTS!\AD3fIKER. SclidTROW ÛF^41TTIQTZ4RIAN J^UBZIC^TIOTTS.
'-Oils -Plate is ins crïbecL by the ._rT,TTTT^-T,
■ Bf	-AXTTITOIt .
.LortdonrFilòiLsiveÄ- J^ajox i **1823, byXoru/rnarv2a C?rPa£errioste*'~Row.
PjrirrtecLTsy Havwaid..>

*•
»
*4
T4	S
*
c
•c

/
r

* y
«
4

■** . *
?
^4\cATi:::£	I *^ *&•,••*	*'?•£'. ■ ■	. •	■	3pjl.„ ix
I

■>Tiiì'^'rry ■Arail; h ©canone- kaBt.
TO BoHN' COIma ESQ. OF TLVMOi rTH...-?it . IDMIKER .<• 'HATRCA' Pfl si A TI {1VAB1A1T TUBLTCATIOITS. This fla' e is inscrihedwit.il #e:u ! iironts ofeste^ni hy the^ TIt0r,
, [\:rüsh£cL Jib!;’ tyZongman, K c IWtenwsterJiow.
PrurtecLljv Ha.vwai*cL./
l

• • * *
«DESCRIPTION OF THE PLATES.
97
neath the rough vaulting, and apparently without impost or archivolti— 7. the lady chapel:—8. monument for Lady Mohun:—9. altar tomb.
Plate III. Section of the nave and ailes at the west end, with elevations of the two towers. The principal measurements are engraved on the plate.
Plate IV. Section of south transept and half of tower, ivith elevation of the west side of the north transept ; half of the tower, and west end of the chapter-house. This plate has been fully described, p. 46 and 50.
Plate Y. Section of the north wing of the eastern transept, with the roof above, and crypt beneath ; elevation of the east end of the Trinity Chapel, with the steps to, and behind the altar; the latter being removed to show the architecture. One of the columns of. the choir with the vaulting of the south aile • and an elevation of the western face of the south wing of the transept, with the tower, called St. Anselm’s. This wing is built with small stones.
Plate YI. View of the two western towers from the south-west angle, in which the porches, with the great western window ; the singular gable window, and the varied styles and character of the two towers are delineated.
Plate VII. A view of the central tower from the south-west angle, the south wing of the west transept, three divisions of the south aile of the nave, part of St. Anselm’s tower, &c.
Plate YIII. View in the martyrdom, or north wing of the western transept, showing Archbishop Warham’s monument on the left, the screen before the Deans’ Chapel, and the groined ceiling of that beautiful chapel. The skill and taste displayed by the engraver of this plate merit my thanks.
Plate IX. View from St. Anselm!s Chapel, showing one of the semicircular arches with its many mouldings, and the character of the capitals beneath ; also thé fine screen and tomb of Mepham. Over the screen is seen part of the architecture of the presbytery.
Plate X. View of the Trinity Chapel, looking east, showing the double columns with their foliated capitals, and the pointed arches; also the series of arches, clustered columns, &c. of the triforium, and the windows of the clerestory. The ribbing, and mode of forming and constructing the roof over the semicircular end, deserve notice and investigation.
. N98
CANTERBURY CATHEDRAL.
Plate XI. Section of the Trinity Chapel, with the crypt; also of Becket’s crown and its corresponding crypt. The subjects of this plate have been described p. 54, 60, excepting the letters of reference :—a. section of the small column in the centre of the crypt, with a profile of its capital a. and base d. :—b. larger column, with profile of the capital :— c. profile of base of ditto :—e. small column in the middle part of the crypt, with its arch mouldings and great pier beyond:—f. screen and entrance doorway* to the Virgin Chapel g. upper part, or parapet, of Becket’s crown:—h. north end of eastern transept, with timber work of roof:— i. a vaulted room between the floor of the west end of the Trinity Chapel and the circular aile of the large crypt. Two compartments of the screen on the north side of the altar, between that and the aile, are shown.
Plate XII. View of the crypt under the Trinity Chapel, looking north east. Here we see the large doubled column, with pointed and semicircular arches, the forms and disposition of the ribs and groins, &c.
Plate XIII. View of the crypt, looking north west. On the right hand is shown part of the screen that inclosed the Virgin Chapel; also a column with spiral mouldings, and an octangular capital, from which springs a plain groined vaulting. The number of columns, in succession from this point of view, present a very picturesque and intricate appearance/ From the rings at the intersection of the groins, it is presumed that the whole crypt was illuminated by suspended lamps on particular occasions.
Plate XIV. View looking into JBeckefs crown. The ribs and arch mouldings of this building and of the Trinity Chapel are abundantly charged with the zigzag and other ornaments : the columns are tall and slender, with one or two bands to each, and the capitals are sculptured into foliated scrolls, &c. Directly facing the entrance arch, the window is filled with painted glass. In the middle is the antient archiépiscopal chair.
Plate XV. View of the chapter-house, looking east. This view shows the series of columns and arcades which extend round the lower part of the room, with a perforated frieze above ; three blank windows ; over this an arched roof carved into numerous panels, and the great eastern window, with the fine canopied stall beneath.\
| N
✓CATWiKIMiAIij AP' ' : 'A; :. Iff IE S
LrmMn,PutIisfmt Jim-e iti&gz, è» J^ru/man - &■ C°^Taiempstar Hew.
■Printed. W Cox A* Barnett-V*? V

«
y	■
fr
t
♦
**
ft

*
V

Jtr
fr
London, /it bit shed fy J.oru/nM/i A- < J)tfenu>sta' Row, jJcs.ri,ib1
\Marsus
SIK^ÄllIÄilS

■HUliH
|^BH
■p
HHl
lliiifii»
iäfi >‘'ä’.' i
■m jSffï
I ÊmÉÊmSmmM
mÊBM
WÊÊ0
SwSSwâiÎMIwJ
>S®SB
wi>?W
W^BÊ
«Biitw;

§«|
■BiiliiiiiiiliiSÿim

)><.W»»»»»
AN ADMIRER Sc PATRON OF ANTIQUARIAN tWHLTCA PIONS.«
■tf

\
«
I
I-/
)CATHEimATL. ANTIQUITIES.
TL. XIV.
,.	S&iJ^Rjüïifljftyy Cathedral.	lEiigr scved. "bv- "U7! D e elDle.
JJEHKKXÄj Q^ÖW^i/
TO THE HW^tÂ^B3L,E|^fcjiÉl!:JGII pjficv ¥.A> FRÊTìSdCDrìHY~■ OJ7 CTCJcÆrjB AA T . ■' SB
msda]*#' Va.e	■
f	. "- '■ 't.	by ^û/vjma/b Sc £f,.Pdtemdster'CBk?w.
IP rout, c d Toy H avwéLrd.%
i

I

I
H
\•#


IT
if
1
* V
•?*
«
r
i*in im Ji^k~	PL.r/.
Drawn Tdv G. C aXtermole .	.	Engraved tv W.Deeble.
SAifilrH v&wmvmLkEa (DÆwî^mA
CHAPTER H©U■I JL©ÖK'. ' -r 1 IE,AS T0
TO JOHTST ETEiWMATST ESQ.-ARCHITECT. ThisPlaxe is	n.'.oüves of esteem bv theAXJ-Tlî0ic,
Lcndxms,Hd>lished. JuÄui,i822/byZcngrrwri8c C?,Tat&rrwsterJlow.
Printed "bv Cot ir Barnett.NI
*
4
CATELKMAL ANTIQUITIES.
Hfl H • lOf J
Drawribry G.Cattermole.
(satmlukibail
VIEWFIOMHoADLE OF KffVTE EOOKJHO §„E,
TO MAJOR RHODE ESQ? TUT_AT)MTRF, 7? icTATROTT OFKNTIÇTZARLA2T WORKS.
This Plate is inscribed. "by the ATTmTT.^
*	m	AUTHOR.
Zondon J\cbZis?iecL3fovri2zz, byZorupnanic C? Paternoster How*
Frixtte d."fcrp C ox Sc C?
Engr ave d by H .WinMe s.4•IV
iml ,xv.ini
||gfj
Mrigr^S d. W. Wrn.Td.eH
Drawn ~by G-.CaBermöIe.
(&o! fmi
VIEW î?F jk^J&tE ■ 0|"iCHC I H*5«ITH. ÂfcN’ï* (p’ÿtfmfcBOEIJB fcJdP RGi: TTC ';,ESOa _A	^FFllRER OF RLmÊéZfABMN FT/BIÆWxIOïM-
l’j i i s^P Ì fiT^fîâ in scrïb'ecSçpr th.ft*'1.
/. ondan., PuJb	FccEi, i8<2Î^ÿQ orujrriarv Sb C? FoXerrw stcr Iww.
TrbitecL "by Cccs. 8c C?*
«
I

«
%a
•4f

'0
\
■Jk
I
<K
?
•h

\CAT’JECEIDM.AXi AKTrQCTTlDB S	■_______________________________________________ __________________________Fl^.XVÏlII»
TO IVOÎ &■ 'EFFIG-IT, EOE archbïsjhlof peckham, ! .ondort, t 'i. l'Ushed- May i.ißzi,by Longman %c C° Patemaster' FLow.
Pri-cLted "bvCoxiÂ: BsLfaett-#
\CAT HE DIR A IL ISTI QUITTEES ,

Drawn bv G Cattermole.
SAKf 31 m,MIJIT €AT3FQ1]®M^JL OETUTMCSBI
- ■ ! ■'	liillli! 1 lill'f! I! ili ■ 1
	:ipl| i
! 1 ■B	iS!
Ml Ü	,lflB|€ ATHEES AL AN TjMnfllH S.
P&.XXI.
-------------------- —"ni'	ofM\ ittif.rrrrJ' :r~ " _ f	-	,3	T_".:	*[*’»*•J .—1	~	|
Drawn, toy G.C atterraci e.	J3riztorC$ .History kc o-f; Canterbury Cathedral. .	Dt cira. Dy- J.lC Jiexix.

EFFIGIES« OF ENGLISH MONAmCHS, IN' TEDE OTRGAN SCHEEN.
TO THE KETfPIÏÏRARD AH'DRflW'S.nTVF.S.A. IXEJlN OT WCANTERSTTICT. gc C . This Plate is respe£i-fnlly.inscribed-~by j britton
Zondon, Pub/iafzed- May 1, ÆfëtfMœBnamar?, k ('°. Taterno.oar Aiow.
-Plaint ecL b v ila-ywarä—II
■* -X
»
«CATHBBTRÆ ANTKQUITIE S

Britton'.r History gee of : Canterbury Cathedral
(D A;?ï T 2E 3B IB UI J BSf (3 AT HIËID) IBA IB (S SAJI BCD SI
PARIS Oil ST ANSELMS TCVEPAc.
ijOruie'Ti, Published JLay i.iSti, by ILontpnan, A CCFatemosterliow.
IParmtecL "by Cox & CBaxnett.s
»
» '
\
*

i1 uL4Jj ATTTlTiQiUÏ'::‘IEK
0 iHi o X :
CW
5 -
*W «s
•	’ I" :i
;,mä
Lrawa Tay o .0 att er moi e.
.Brittons Misto ry 1er rf Gmterlnay Cathedral-.
- E.t,clx' d 1) vef.LeKexix.
c.iiwwig)R3©xDjLtefr (SÄspjHmra&Aa,! cfcrsn&ciHr
MOHU.MÏSNT TO /JP.aTM *■ gimoBuiof.
Lenden, Tulliiked Dee*i,:iSzi,fy Lonqman le C‘L. Talenta ster Jtcw.
Pointed. ~bjr Cox & -Baum-elt.
À
•m
a
4
4
■lér-
\rjjfjp?KIÜfrXT; JlKTIçiCl'i 'ES.
I3 JL. Ill’
: Drawn, "h y G. C at ter mole.
J-'rü&hlf	-»y	,>C l'mterl’iiÆ Cathedral.
A;*fiMfeTA= iat e at ibi at a at tibia ma ibi
'..JÌFJFIGIiiìa* (MF ARCJECfe^« DHICHA^Y TL :: &"W.\. !tHAM 2.3.
En^rav«! b\- Hilaria.
ZûndtTuJ'ublisïir.-, JulynSzi, 'bvZ#n>?.,;n:n &• CtJPaternsjterJitm-.
Print e d. ~bv Cox &r 3 a;rn.ett.
i.




\CATHEDHAIL AMTIÖOTTIE S.
WH
Ì. I 3 . t.S.TRAKMfrt 4. Ó. fffl liÄ»&H MATE ,
bfj. jmM ^ tffoterjt#ïr&r-K. iv.
Prrnteä bvlia.vwQ.rcL.CATIIEOKAIL, ANTIQUITIES.
PT,. 1XTI »

Z
I
7
___V)
1	X
II	tt:.
ÏÏ
2
T

,A._1
■r
;
__■
I
, I
D
■__
mm
		
	s	V	
r^_i			V.
1		1
X»
'em
* Infj.2
+	i
3
=d=
■
=4
=H	A
X
g>,
Ur am byE C att ercnöle.
JSrittsrCs History Sec cf Canterbury CathedruL.
SANTIS HaBUES-T CATMIffiKAIL fflBOTmSIE
1.IPAR.T OF SCREEN T© BEAMS OTAPÏL.
2oAJR«aoæ bhapter house«
I oridere, dub Ushed Jii2yj.,dJzi,Ttj deno mare Sc Cf,JPaterru>jterJiow.
ZP^intecLtv Cox & Barnett.
Engraved, “by- J.Ee lieux.mDESCRIPTION OP THE PLATES.
99
Plate XVI. View from the north aile of the nave looking south east.
Plate XVII. View from the north aile of the choir, looking south west, and representing one of the doorways to the choir, Chicheley’s monument beyond,—the steps to the Trinity Chapel, &c.
Plate XVIII. An elevation of Archbishop Pechham's monument, is a pleasing and highly enriched design. The buttresses at the ends, with panels, sculptured pediments, figures, and embattled turrets;—the series of niches, pinnacles, pediments, and statues, on the face of the tomb ;—and the highly decorated pediment, with boss in the tympanum, all combine to make this an interesting monument. Its wooden effigy is unusual.
Plate XIX. A. Elevation of one compartment of the east side of the south wing of the eastern transept, displaying the arch and semicircular recess, with window and piscina, &c. ; an arcade above, a triforium over, with semicircular and pointed arches, and a gallery with window in the clerestory. B. Elevation of two buttresses, with windows, &c. on the exterior south side of the Trinity Chapel.
Plate XX. Doorway to the organ screen; already described p. 51; as has also Plate XXI. at p. 51, and Plate XXII. at p. 46, 47, &c.
Plate XXIII. Perspective view of Archbishop Sudbury's monument, which is much mutilated, and deprived of a statue and its other figures. Part of the triforium of the presbytery is shown over the monument, and the steps seen behind the altar, between the tomb and its canopy.
Plate XXIV. Effigies of Archbishop Chichele, 1:—and Warham, 2, 3.
Plate XXV. Capitals and bases already noticed, p. 54.
Plate XXVI. 1. Doorway and part of a screen between the Deans' Chapel and the Martyrdom. See Plate VIII :—and 2. one compartment of the arcade round the lower part of the chapter-house.fLizt of 3$oofe&	ani» sprint#,
THAT HAVE BEEN PUBLISHED RELATING TO
«CANTERBURY CATHEDRAL;
ALSO,
A LIST OF ENGRAVED PORTRAITS OF ITS ARCHBISHOPS.
THIS LIST IS SUBJOINED TO GRATIFY THE BIOGRAPHER, THE CRITICAL ANTIQUARY, AND THE ILLUSTRATOR ; AS WELL AS TO SHOW, AT ONE VIEW, THE SOURCES WHENCE THE CONTENTS OF THE PRECEDING PAGES HAVE BEEN DERIVED, AND THE FULL TITLES OF THE WORKS REFERRED TO IN THE NOTES.
Numerous documents relating to Canterbury Cathedral are preserved in the Cottonian library. Amongst the MSS. in the Cathedral library are eighteen volumes of old Registers relating to the Cathedral; consisting of Charters, Records, &c. a list of which will be found in Tanner’s “ Notitia Monastica.” Kent. XII.
In William of Malmsbury “ De Gestis Regum Anglorum” lib. i. infer Savillii, t( Rerum Anglicarum Scriptores post Redam prœcipui, ex vetustissimis codicibus manuscriptis nunc primum in lucem editi fi Franc. M.DCI. f. 10, is an account of Augustine’s arrival in Kent, &c. ; and in “ De Gestis Pontificum Anglorum fi of the same writer, p. 195, is an account of the foundation of the Archbishopric, with its history, &c. under the successive Archbishops to the death of Radulph, anno 1122. In “ Henrici Archidiaconi Huntindoniensis Historiarum,” lib. iii. p. 320, in the same work of Sir H. Saville, is an account of Augustine’s Mission and Settlement, the Epistles of Pope Gregory to him, &c. with the Lives of several of Augustine’s successors. In Roger HovedenB Annalium Pars prior et posterior,” p. 401, &e. will be found notices of the cathedral and the archbishops.
Gervase, a Monk of Christ Church, wrote an Account of the Burning and Reparation of the Church in 1174,—Lives of the Archbishops from Austin to Herbert, &c. which were published in Twysden “ Hist orice Anglic ance Scriptores Antiqui Decem,” Lond. 1652, fol. Frequent references are given to this work by Somner and Battely. In the above volume is also published, “ Chronica de Rebus gestis Abbatium Cantuariensiumfi to the year 1375; by Guilielmus Thorn, Cantuariensis.
“ A Perambulation of Kent : conteining the Description, Hystorie, and Customes of that Shyre. Written in the yeere 1570, by William Lambarde, of Lincolnes Inne, Gent, first published in the Yeare 1576; and now increased and altered after the Author’s owne last Copie.” Lond. 1596, sm. 4to. bl. letter—2d ed. 1656, octodecimo, contains several notices concerning the see and cathedral of Canterbury.
In 1644 was published “ Cathedrall News from Canterbury fi by Richard Culmer, preacher of God’s word at Canterbury, commonly called Blue Dick. This contains an account of the havoc made in the Cathedral by the reformers, or Iconoclasts, &c.
“ The Antiquities of Canterbury ; or, a Survey of that ancient City, with the Suburbs and the Cathedrall, Ôçc. sought out, and published by the Industry and good Will of William Somner fi was published in 1640, in 4to. with a plate of the Font. A new edition of this work, by Nicholas Battely r Yicar of Beaksborn, was afterwards produced with the title “ Antiquities of Canterbury, in two PartsM With several plates. Lond. 1703, fol. The first part was a reprint of Somner’s work. The second, written by Battely, was intitled, “ Cantuaria Sacra; or, the Antiquities of the Cathedral and Metropolitical Church,” &c. twenty plates.
In Weever’s “ Funeral Monuments,” Lond. 1631, fol. 2d. edit. 1767, 4to. is an account of the foundation of the church, and notices of several persons interred in it.
“ The Pope's Warehouse ; or, the Merchandise of the Whore of Rome,” 8vo. published by Titus Oates, in 1676, contains a catalogue of the “ Reliques formerly in the Cathedral of Canterbury fi from a MS. book called “ Memoriale Multorum Henrici Prioris.”
InDugdale’s “ Monasticon Anglicanumfi is an account of Christ Church, appended to which are numerous charters, registers, lists, &c. from which the History is drawn up : the most important ofLIST OF BOOKS, ESSAYS, AND PRINTS.
101
these are, “ The names of the manors belonging to the Priory of Christ Church/' &c. “The temporalities of the Archbishop and Prior of Canterbury/' “ The spiritualities and temporalities of the Archbishop of Canterbury/' &c. from a valuation made in the time of Richard II. “ Donationes Maneriorum/' &c.	“ Privilegia Ecclesiae Christi Cantuariæ concessa ab Æthelredo
rege, A. D. 1006.'’	“ Transcriptum libri qui dicitur Dom. Dei Regis de Maneriis Prioratus."
“ Carta Regis Willielmi de Sak et Sokne." “ Carta Regis Henrici de Geld and Danegeld." “ Incorporatio Ecclesiae Cathedralis et Metropoliticae." “ Nomina Ecclesiarum, quas prius Abbatiis reddidit Will, rex Anglorum/' “ Confirmacio de usu Mitrae et aliis insigniis Priori concessis." “ Intronizatio Willielmi Warham," “ Valor Ecclesiasticus/' temp. Hen. Vili. &c. &c.
The “ True Copies of some Letters occasioned by the Demand for Dilapidations in the Archiépiscopal See ef Canterbury,” by Archdeaôon Tenison, Part. I. 1716, 4to. This produced a “ Letter/' to the author, “ detecting several Misrepresentations in his Pamphlets," signed Henry Farrant, 1717, 4to. ; and was quickly followed by the tf Survey and Demand for Dilapidations in the Archiépiscopal See of Canterbury, justified against the Cavils and Misrepresentations contained in some Letters lately published by Mr, Archdeacon Tenison/' signed John James, 1717, 4to.
The Third Part of a “ History of Kent, by John Harris, D.D." Lond. 1719, fol. contains the “ Ecclesiastical History” of the County.
In 1726 the Rev. J. Dart published the “ History and Antiquities of the Cathedral Church of Canterbury, and the once adjoining Monastery&c. in folio. The historical and descriptive part of this work is chiefly extracted from Somner and Battely; but there are also many deeds and extracts from the MSS. preserved in the Cottonian library. It is embellished with sixty-one plates of views, monuments, &c. engraved by J. Cole.
“ An Accurate Description and History of the Metropolitan and Cathedral Churches of Canterbury and York,” 1756, fol. The plates belonging to Dart’s book wTere purchased by Mr. Hildyard, of York, who reprinted and published them in this volume.
“ An Historical Description of the Cathedral and Metropoliti cal Church of Christ, Canterbury,” containing “ an Account of its Antiquities, and of its Accidents and Improvements since its first Establishment." 8vo. 1772.
An Account of the Cathedral is published in “A Walk in and about the City of Canterbury, with many Observations not to be found in any Description hitherto published,” by Wm. Gostling*, M.A. 1774, with 2 plates, sm. 8vo. In 1777 a second edition was published, with twenty-four prints.
f< A new Topographical, Historical, and Commercial Survey, &c. of the County of Kent," by Charles Seymour, 1776, includes a minute account of the ancient and present ecclesiastical state of Kent.
“ The History and Antiquities of the three Archiépiscopal Hospitals, and other Charitable Foundations at and near Canterbury," by Mr. Duncombe and the late Mr. Battely, Lond. 1785, contains a Letter from Mr. Essex on Canterbury Cathedral. See Nichols's Bib. Top. Brit, No. XXX.
Hasted’s “ History and Topographical Survey of the County of Kent,” in 4 vols. fol. Cant. 1778, contains an account of the antient and present ecclesiastical state of the county, &c. In voi. iv. is a south prospect of the Cathedral, the same plate as is given in Duncombe's Description of the Cathedral:—Ichnography of the Church, as„built by Lanfranc, and of the Crypt as at the dissolution of the Priory in 1540 :—An Engraving after Eadwin’s drawing of the Cathedral and Priory :—-Plan of the Cathedral, Cloisters, and other Buildings, as in 1787:—Christ Church Gate :—Stone Cofiin found in the Cathedral.
In 1797 the same author published a work in 12 volumes, 8vo. under the same title. In voi. xii. is a View of the Cathedral, from an original drawing by J. Johnson, 1654 :—Canterbury Cathedral, J. G. Wood, del. J. Newton, sculp :—Coffin of Archbishop Islip ;*4-An ancient drawing of the City and ChurchH-Dean Wotton’s Monument, R. Pollard, sc. New titles, with the words second edition, were printed in 1801.
The same author published the K History of the Ancient and Metropolitical City of Canterbury, Civil and Ecclesiastical ; of the Cathedral and Priory of Christ Church, and of the Archbishops,” &c. Cant. 1799, fol. In the preface to this work is a short review of such works as have
* Gostling lived upwards of 50 years within the precincts of the Cathedral ; and it is a curious fact, that he was unable to leave his room through age and infirmity during the whole time he was employed on this work.102
CANTERBURY CATHEDRAL.
been published concerning the Cathedral ; and in the list of documents from which the author derived information, are the MS. collections of the late Rev. Mr. Lewis, of Margate, now in the Lambeth library, and a MS. folio, of Captain Monins, who was treasurer of the revenues W the Cathedral, from 1648 to the Restoration. The work contains an account of the Ecclesiastical Jurisdiction, Archbishop's Palace, Precincts of Christ Church, History of the Cathedral and of the Priory, Account of Monuments and Burials, ancient and present state of Christ Church, origin of the Archdeaconry, and foundation of the Deanery, lists and biographical accounts of the Archbishops, Archdeacons, Deans, Priors, and Canons, &c. The work is also embellished with several prints.
“ An Historical Description of the Melropolitical Church of Christ, Canterbury ; containing an Account of its Antiquities,” &c. This was compiled by the late Mr. John Burnby, an attorney of Cambridge, although from an Elegy by the Rev. John Duncombe being inserted, it is generally attributed to the latter. A second edition was printed in 1783, with a preface containing Remarks on Gothic Architecture, and a print of a south prospect of the cathedral.
“ Twelve Perspective Views of the exterior and interior Parts of the Metropolitical Church of Canterbury ; with two Ichnographic Plates and an Historical Account. By Charles Wild, 1807,” large 4to. The letter-press is attributed to the Rev. James Dallaway.
“ Vestiges of Antiquity, or a Series of Etchings and Engravings of the ancient Monastery of St. Augustine, with the Cathedral,” &c. illustrated by a corresponding account, by T. Hastings, Esq. 1813, contains Bell Harry Tower, from the cloisters : T. Hastings, del. W. Woolnoth, sc.—Christ Church Gateway, &c.
“A Graphical Illustration of the Metropolitan Cathedral Church of Canterbury,* ’ &c. By William Woolnoth, Lond. 1816, imp. 4to; accompanied with twenty engravings, representing views and details of the church, monuments, &c.
In “ ArchœologiiC are the following subjects relating to Canterbury Cathedral:—Number of Knights’ Fees contained in the Archbishoprick, voi. ii. 335—The Use of Marble in the Cathedral, iv. 105—A Description of the Capitals in the Crypt, with a plate, with Observations on ancient Churches, by Mr. Ledwich, viii. 176—179—Observations on the Cathedral, by the Rev. Samuel Demie, x. 37- 49—Of the Erection of St. John’s Chapel, x. 37, 38—-Remarks on the Undercroft, x. 41.45—The Mosaic Pavement in Trinity Chapel, x. 155—Evidence of a Lavatory appertaining to the Benedictine Priory of Canterbury Cathedral, and Observations on Fonts, by the Rev. Samuel Denne, xi. 108—153—A Description of the Font, xi. 143—148—A brief Survey of a Part of, as described by Eadmer and Gervase, by the Rev. Samuel Denne, xi. 375. 396—Observations on the Monument, called the Tomb of Theobald ; and an Account of two ancient Inscriptions on Lead discovered there, with three plates, by Henry Boys, xv. 291—299—Account of the Building of Canterbury Cathedral, from Geivase of Canterbury, with Observations in an Essay on Gothic Architecture, by George Saunders, Architect, xvii. 17, &c.
ACCOUNTS OF ARCHBISHOPS, &c.
Amongst the 18 volumes of Registers before mentioned one contains " Nomina Monachorum eccl. Christi Cantuar. ab anno 1207 ad 1486, fyc.” “ Nomina eorundem ab anno 1486 ad 1507, quo die singuli obierunt, per Dom. T/ios. Cawston, Monachum”
“ Historia Archiepiscoporum Cantuar. ab Augustino ad Gul. de Witlesey,,> MS. Cot. Lib. Julius, B. III.
In Wharton’s “ Anglia Sacra,” Lond. 1691, fol. part I. are given tl Stephani Birchingtoni Historia de Archiepiscopis Cantuariensibus, a prima sedis fundatione ad an. 1369.
“ Willielmi Chartham Historiola de Vita Simonis Sudbury,” fyc. “ Excerpta ex Chronico Cantuariensi de Roberti Winchelsey, Archiepiscopi rebus Gestis “ Dies Obituales Archiepiscoporum Cantuar. ex Obituario Ecclesiœ Cantuariensis.”
“ Henrici de Estria Catalogus de Successione Archiepiscoporum Cant fyc,
“ Successio Archiepiscoporum Cant, ex Annalibus vetustis Roffensìbus”
“ Radulphi de Diceto Indiculus de Temporibus Archiep. Cant”
“ Canonici Lichfeldensis Indiculus de Successione Archiep. Cant ”
“ Dissertatio de vera Successione Archiep. Cant.3*
“ Dissertatio de duobus Elfricis.”
“ Historia de Decanis et Prioribus Ecclesiœ Cant.”LIST OF BOOKS, ESSAYS, AND PRINTS.
103
“ Historia de Institutione Archdiaconatus Cantuariensis.”
“ Chronicon Cœnobii S. Crucis Edinburgensis.”
“ Nomina Martyrum, Confessorum et Virginum, quorum Corpora in eccl. Metropolìtica Cantuar. Sepeliuntur, MS. Cot. Lib. Claudius,” B. ix. 2.
“ Obituarium hujus eccl.” MS. ib. Nero, C. ix. 1.
In Willis’s “ History of the Mitred Parliamentary Abbies and Conventual Cathedral Churches,” voi. i. p. 235, is an account of the Priors.
In Le Neve’s “ Fasti Ecclesia} Anglico,” p. 1 and p. 525, we have lists of the Archbishops, Deans, Archdeacons, and Prebendaries of this Church.
In Dugdale’s (tMonasticon Anglicanum/’ folio, 1819, voi. i. 81, is given a list of the Bishops, with Biographical Notices. In the Appendix is a list of the Priors, and “ The names of the Monks of the late Monastery of Chryst Church in Canterbury, with their offices, rewards, and pensions,” and “ The names of the late religious persons of the house of Christ Church in Canterbury, which were appointed to depart the same house, with the yearly pensions assigned and allotted to every of them the ivth day of April, anno xxxi. Hen. VIII. &c.
In Leland’s Collectanea, vol. i. 19, is an extract “ex Vita S. Ælphegi;” 203, names of some of the Archbishops; i. 203, list of ditto ; iv. 117, names of the Saints buried in the Church.
Ex libro Godselini quem Scripsit de Vita St. Augustini, iv. 8.
In Dart’s “ History of Canterbury ,” p. 21, is a copious list of “ Anniversaries of Archbishops, Bishops, and others of distinction, observed in this Church.”
“ A Catalogue of Bishops, containing the Succession of Archbishops and Bishops of the Provinces of Canterbury and York, from the glorious Revolution of 1688, by John Samuel Browne.” London 1812, 8vo.
“ Some Account of the Deans of Canterbury, from the new Foundation of that Church by Henry VIII. to the present Time. To which is added, a Catalogue of the MSS. in the Church Library, by Henry John Todd, M.A.” Cant. 1793, 8vo.
“ The Life of Henry Chichele, Archbishop of Canterbury, by O. L. Spencer.” Lond. 1783, 8vo.
“ Vita Henrici Chichelei Archiep. Cantuar” Oxon. 1617, 4to.
In English, added to “ Bates’s Lives,” 1699, 8vo. “ Stemmata Chicheleana, or a Genealogical Account of some of the Families from Thomas Chicheley, of Higham Ferrers” &c. Oxford, 1765, 4to. Supplement to ditto. Oxford, 1775, 4to.
“ Life of Archbishop Morton,” written by Dr. Budden, Principal of New Inn, Oxford. Lond. 1607, 8vo.
In Gilpin’s “ Life of Latimer, Bishop of Worcester,” Lond. 1755, 8vo. is given a character of Archbishop Warham.
“ The Life of Thomas Cranmer, Archbishop of Canterburyby W. Gilpin. Lond. 1784, 8vo. There is also an account of him in Butler’s “ Memoirs of Catholics.”
“Life of Archbishop Cranmer; wherein the History of the Church, and Reformation of it during the Primacy of the said Archbishop are greatly Illustrated,” by John Strype, M.A. With cuts. In three books, with an Appendix. Lond. 1694, folio;—new edit. Oxford, 1812, 2 vols. 8vo. A Portrait and Memoir of Cranmer in Lodge’s “ Portraits of illustrious Persons.”
Reginaldi Poli Vita. Venetiis, 1563, 4to.
Life of Reg. Pole. By T. Phillips: 2 vols. 4to. Many parts of this were very objectionable, and some of the strictures on personal character very unjust; whence many authors replied to the same, and Phillips was induced to publish an Appendix with replies to his opponents.
Matthew Parker, the second Protestant Archbishop of Canterbury, published in 1572, fol. “ De Antiquitate Britannicae Ecclesiae, et Privilegiis Ecclesiae Cantuariensis cum Archiepiscopis ejusdem reprinted at Hanover, 1605, fol.—edit. Sam. Drake, Lond. 1729, fob*
In 1574 appeared “ The Life of the 70th Archbishopp of Canterbury, presently sittinge Englished, and to be added to the 69 lately sett forth in-Latin.” Imprinted 1574.
“Life and Acts of Matthew Parker, first Archbishop of Canterbury in the reign of Queen Elizabeth, under whose Primacy and Influence the Reformation of Religion was happily effected ; with an Appendix.” By John Strype, M.A. Lond. 1711, folio.
“ Life and Acts of Archbishop Grindal; with an Appendix. By John Strype, M.A.” Lond. 1710, folio.
* Parker’s share in this work is doubted.— Watt’s Bibliotheca Britannica, under Parker.104
CANTERBURY CATHEDRAL.
“ Life of Archbishop Whitgift,” by Sir Geo. Paule, 1699, 8vo. Reprinted in Wordsworth’s Ecclesiastical Biography, 6 vols. 8vo.
“ Life and Acts of Whitgift,” by John Strype, M.A. Lond. 1718, folio.
et The Life of Dr. George Abbot*, Lord Archbishop of Canterbury, reprinted with some additions and corrections, from the Biographia Britannica, with his Character, &c. by the Right Honourable Arthur Onslow. Guilford, 1777, 8vo.—Memoir and Portrait of Abbot in Lodge’s “ Portraits of illustrious Persons.”
“ Cyprianus Anglicus ; or, the Life and Death of Archbishop Laud,” by Peter Hevlin, D.D. Lond. 1644,1668, 1671, fol. Dub. 1719, fol.
“ Account of the Life and Death of Archbishop Land, by E. W. who was an Eyewitness of his Doings in his Life, and an Earwitness of his Sayings at his Death.” Lond. 1645.—History of his Troubles and Trials, written by himself; to which is prefixed, his Diary. Lond. 1695, fol.
“ A Breviate of the Life of William Laud, Abp. of Canterbury; extracted, for the most part, out his own Diary, &c.” By William Prynne. Lond. 1644, folio.—Memoir and Portrait of Laud in Lodge’s “ Portraits of illustrious Persons.”
“ A Letter out of Suffolk to a Friend in London, giving some Account of the last Sickness and Death of Archbishop Sancroft,” 1694. Republished in the Somers Collection.
“ Nineteen familiar Letters of Archbishop Sancroft to Mr. (afterwards Sir Henry) North, of Mildenhall, Bart. &c.” 1757, 8vo.
“The Life of William Sancroft, Archbishop of Canterbury, compiled principally from original and scarce documents ; with an Appendix. By George D’Oyley, D.D. F.R.S. Lond. 1821, 8vo. 2 vols.
“ Life of the Most Reverend Dr. Tillotson, Lord Archbishop of Canterbury, by Thomas Birch, D.D.” Lond. 1752, 8vo. Second edit, enlarged, 1753. Also prefixed to Tillotson’s Works, 3 vols, folio, 1752.
“ Memoirs of the Life and Times of Archbishop Tenison, with his Will.” 8vo.
“ Review of the Life and Character of Archbishop Seeker,” 4to.
Life of Seeker, by Bishop Porteus, prefixed to his Works, 6 vols. 8vo. 1814.
Accounts of St. Anselm, in Nichols’s, Leicestershire, i. p. 22, 357—Of Archbishop Arundel, id. i. p. 249—Of Archbishop Baldwin, id. i. p. 81—89—Of Archbishop Bradwardine, id. i. App. 102— Of Archbishop Chicheley, id. i. p. 331, 607—Of Archbishop Islip, id. i. p. 262,329 ; App. 62,109 —Of Archbishop Kilwarby, id. i. p. 295; App. 104—Of Archbishop Courtney, id. i. p. 263.
PRINTS.
In addition to the Prints already noticed are the following: A curious View, or Plan of the Cathedral and Monastery of Christ Church, as they appeared between the years 1136 and 1174, engraved, by Direction of the Society of Antiquaries, from a Drawing by the Monk Eadwyn, in Vetusta Monumenta.HBecket’s Shrine, by Vaughan, from a MS. in the Cottonian library.—South View of the Cathedral, by Hollar; ditto, by Ogilby.—South-west View, by James Collins, 1715.— The West front, by B. Green.
In “ Etchings from Original Drawings of Antiquities in the County of Kent,” by Fred. W. L. Stockdale. Lond. 1810,1811, 4to. are Plates of “ the Cathedral, taken near the ruins of St. Augustine's Abbey, Stockdale, del. from a sketch by G. Shepherd.
A large aquatinta print, showing u a South-west View of the Cathedral,” was engraved by F. C. Lewis, from a drawing by J. Buckler. The same view is reduced, etched, and published by J. C. Buckler, in his volume of “ Views of the Cathedral Churches of England,” &c. 4to. 1822.
A View of the Choir, looking East, drawn and etched by F. Nash, w as published in 1805.
Two Prints from ancient drawings, one representing the “ Cathedral Church and Monastery at Canterbury,” and the other, “ the Effigies of Edwin the Monk ;” with a Dissertation on the subject, are published in “ the Vetusta Monumenta.”
The following Prints are in Carter’s “ Ancient Architecture,” published in folio, 1795 : “ Stairs of Register’s Office,” plan, elevation, and detail, p. xxix. desc. 25 :—“ Interior, south side of Cathedral, eastern end, with Undercroft, P. S. and D.” p. xxxvii. 82 :—“ Part of Columns and x\rchitraves,” D- p. xxxiii. xxxiv. desc. 29 :—“ Cathedral Avenue,” P. E. and D. p. lii. desc. 41 :— “ Exterior of Little Cloister,” P. E. and D. p. lxviii. 49 :—“ Cathedral, exterior Division of South Front, P. E. and D.”p. lxxi. 50 :—“ St. Dunstan’s Font, p. xxiv. desc. 13.
* An account of this Archbishop is given in Clutterbuck’s History, &c. of Hertfordshire, folio, i. 196.ENGRAVED PORTRAITS OF ARCHBISHOPS.
105
In the “ Antiquarian and Topographical Cabinet,” is a Print of Christ Church Gate.
. In Monumental Effigies’7 are the etchings of “ Henry the Fourth and his Queen, Joan of Navarre,” with side views of ditto, 2 plates:—“Edward the Black Prince,” front and side view, 2 plates :—“ Archbishop Stratford,” front view. These prints are accompanied with coloured details, all drawn and etched, in an accurate and beautiful manner, by C. A. Stothard.
In Gough’s “ Sepulchral Monuments” voi. ii. are the following Prints relating to this Cathedral: Two Prints of Archbishop Chichele’s Monument: 1. a View of the north side of the same : another front View of his Effigy, with parts. Three of the Monument to Archbishop B our chier : 1. North side of the Tomb : 2. Four small Statues : 3. Ornaments, Arms, and Devices. Two of the Monument of Archbishop Morton : 1. View of the same, and part of the Crypt: 2. Front View of his Effigy, and View of the “ Lily Pot.” Two of the Monument of Margaret Boland and her two Husbands : 1. View of the Monument, with details of the Armour: 2. Front View of the three Effigies. Inscriptions on the buttresses on the north side of the Choir. All these prints are engraved in a careless style, from slight and inaccurate drawings by Schnebbelie.
In a new work, now publishing, “ Britannia delineata” are, 1. A View of the S. E. end of the Cathedral, drawn on stone by W. Westall ; and, 2. A View of the Crypt, by Hulmandel.
ENGRAVED PORTRAITS OF THE ARCHBISHOPS OF CANTERBURY.
1.	St. Dunst an : from an illuminated MS. in the Cotton library in the British Museum, published in Strutt’s “ Chronicle of England,” voi. ii. pi. iii. p. 145.—St. Dunstan on his throne, with a crozier and tongs. Imaginary. Bromley’s Cat.
2.	St. Thomas a Becket: Print from a Painting on Glass, in Canterbury Cathedral, representing the murder of the Archbishop, engraved by J. Carter, and published, with a Dissertation, in Carter’s “ Ancient Sculpture” &c. :—Print of Becket, by W. Hollar, 12mo:—Small oval, in a surplice, by L. Vosterman:—Oval, with emblems, by Westerhout, folio. Three last imaginary. Brom.
3.	Henry Chichely: wh. len. from the Bust in All Souls College, engraved by F. Bartolozzi. The painting from which the next prints were engraved was taken, it is said, from some other person of the Chichely family. Portrait, fol. by Burghers, prefixed to his Life, by Duck, 1699, 8vo. Burghers.—“ Founder of All Souls,” 1437, mez. Faber. Brom.
4.	William Warham: large fol. from a drawing in the King’s Collection, by Holbein, etched by R. Dalton :—in fol. by G. Vertue, from a painting by the same artist in Lambeth Palace :— in 8vo. by G. Vertue.
5.	Thomas Cranmer : sm. fol. engraved by A. Blooteling:—in the set of Founders, mez. by J. Faber:—in Verheiden “ Effig. Theol.” 1602, by II, Hondius, 1599:—in Bolt’s “Lives of the Reformers,” mez. bv R. Houston very fine Head in Thoroton’s “Nottinghamshire,” 1678, fol. 139, by D. Loggan :•—ann. ætat. 57, fol. by Vertue, from Holbein :—prefixed to Strype’s “ Ecclesiastical Memorials,” 1694, fol. by R. White, from Holbein :—anonymous ; cœlari f. Gul. Cartwright, fol. from Holbein:—with a long beard, in the “ Ileroologia:”—in the print of the Five Bishops, who suffered Martyrdom in 1555, viz. Cranmer, Farrer, Hooper, Latimer, and Ridley, in five ovals, by R. White.
6. Reginald Pole :■—in “ Imagines XII. Cardinalium,” 1598, by T. Galle :—in the “Academie des Sciences,” by de Larmessin :—in the Crozat Collection, fol. by the same, from S. Piombo :— Prefixed to his Life, by Phillips, 4to. by Major:—in Burnet’s “ Reformation,” by R. White:—in “ Albi Eloges Cardinal.” By F. Wyngarde :—in the “ Heroologia:”—small in Imperialis “ Museum Historic.”
7.	Matthew Parker : æt. 70,1573, a bell on a table, arms at the four corners, 8vo. by R. Berg, i. e. Hogenberg, very scarce :—like the last, from an illumination in C. C. C. Camb. by M. Tyson :—prefixed to his Life, by Strype, 1711, fol. by Vertue:—prefixed to “De Antiq. Brit. Eccles.” fol. 1729, by the same:—in Burnet’s “Reformation,” by R. White:—in the “Heroologia.”
8.	Edmund Grindal: æt. 61,1580, prefixed to his Life, by Strype, 1710, fol. by VanderGucht: —fol. by Vertue:—in the “Heroologia.”
9.	John Whitgift : prefixed to his Life, by Strype, fol. by Vertue, 1717:—prefixed to his Life, by Sir G. Paule, 1699, 8vo. by R. White:—prefixed to the same, 1612, 4to. a wood cut :—in the
^MHeroologia.”
10.	Richard Bancroft : by Vertue, sm. folio.
o106
CANTERBURY CATHEDRAL.
11.	George Abbot: in Lord Clarendon’s “History/’ 8vo. by Vander Gucht:—in Birch's “ Lives/’ by Houbraken, folio :—in the title page to Abbot’s “ Description of the World,” 1635, 12mo, by W. Marshall :—by S. Pass, 1618, 4to :—looking to the left, 4to ; a rare print, by the same engraver :—prefixed to Abbot’s “ Exposition of the Ten Commandments,” fol. by J. Payne, 1632:—4to. by R. VaughanM-fol. by Vertue.
12.	William Laud:—oval engraved, by J. Garret:—prefixed to “ Life of Laud,” by Prynne, 1644, 4to, by Hollar, from Vandyck:— sm. oval, by Hollar:—the same copied by D. Loggan, la. fol. :—tied by a cord, 12mo. by W. Marshall:—small, reeling, prefixed to Fuller’s “Argument against the Eccelsiastical Commissioners,” 1641, by the same engraver:—sm. 4to. by Pieters :— 4to. mez. by Taylor, from Vandyck Bin the set of Loyalists, by Vertue :—from portrait by Vandyck, in the Houghton Collection, mez. by Watson, 1779 :—with a View of his Execution, fol.—There is a satirical print of Archbishop Laud, with Henry Burton, wh. len. very scarce :— fol. by R. White:—“Only Canonicali Prayers: no Afternoon Sermons,” wood cut, 4to. rare.
13.	William Juxon : in the set of Loyalists, by Vertue:—in Lord Clarendon’s “ History,” 8vo. by the same.
14. Gilbert Sheldon : ad vivum, by Loggan, fol.:—large 4to. by Vertue:—ha. len. mez.:— 8vo. mez.
15. William Sancroft: 8vo. by Elder:—8vo. by Vander Gucht:—ad vivum, by Loggan, 1679, la. fol.—by Sturt :—prefixed to the “ Convocation Book,” 1690, 4to. by R. White. There are several Prints of Archbishop Sancroft with the six Bishops who were committed to the Tower in 1688 ; of which one in large folio, by R. White, is supposed by Bromley to be the original:—by Henry Meyer, from an original painting by Luttrell, at Lambeth Palace; prefixed to Dr. D’Oyly’s “ Life of Sancroft.”
16.	John Tillotson: folio, by Vander Bank, from M. Beale:—the same, altered and made older by R. White:—when Dean of Canterbury, fol. by Blooteling, from Sir P. Lely:—by Vander Gucht, from Sir G. Kneller M-by Vertue, from ditto:—in Birch’s “Lives,” by Houbraken :—prefixed to the edition of his works, by Birch, 1752, fol. S. F. Ravenet :—mez. by J. Simon :—la. fol. by Vertue, from Kneller :—prefixed to his “ Sermons,” 8vo. ad vivum, by R. White:—12mo. by the same, from Kneller:—la. fol. by the same, from M. Beale:—12mo. by the same:—with a Dutch inscription:—in the centre of a large sheet of letterpress, the Life of John Tillotson, 1740, 4to.
17.	Thomas Tenison: oval, 4to. mez. by E. Cooper:—prefixed to his Life, 8vo. by Vertue:— la. fol. by R. White :—by P. Vander Banck, altered from a portrait of Archbishop Lamplugh, by Sir G. Kneller
18.	William Wake: mez. by E. Cooper, from T. Gibson:—mez. by Faber, from J. Ellys : — oval frame, canonical habit, la. fol. by Vander Gucht :—holding a cap, in Gwillim’s “ Heraldry,” 1724, by the same :—oval, 4to. mez. by J. Sympson, from Gibson :—mez. by G. White, from the same artist.
19.	John Potter: oval frame, la. fol. by Vertue, from Dahl:—ha. len. la. fol. by the same, from T. Gibson:—an etching. See Gulst. Cat. p. 118.
20.	Thomas Herring: mez. by M‘Ardell, from S. Webster:—la. fol. by B. Baron, from Hogarth:—mez. by Faber, from Hudson:—with his Speech, 1745:—by C. Mosley, from Hogarth.
21.	Matthew Hutton: mez. by J. Faber, from T. Hudson, 1754.
22.	Thomas Secker : mez. by M‘Ardell, from Hudson :—oval frame, mez. by the same, from T. Willes.
23.	Frederick Cornwallis: æt. 58,1768, mez. by E. Fisher, from N. Dance.
24.	John Moore : by J. Jones, from Romney.
PORTRAITS OF DEANS OF CANTERBURY.
1.	John Boys: in the title to his works, 1629, fol. by J. Payne. Doubtful.
2.	Isaac Bargrave: sm. oval, by Vander Gucht.
3.	George Stanhope: sitting holding a book, mez. by Faber, from J. Ellys:—oval frame, prefixed to his “ Explanation of the Fpistles and Gospels,” 1706, 8vo. by Vander Gucht :— sitting, prefixed to his “ Devotions,” 1730, 8vo. by J. Sympson, from Ellys :—4to. mez. from M. Dahl.
4.	William Freind : a sm. oval, by T. Worlidge.% <Kf)rottolo ôtcaï Ht$t of tïje gircptéfiop# of ©anted) tup,
WITH
THE CONTEMPORARY KINGS OF ENGLAND.
1
2
3
4
5
G
7
8
9
10
11
12
13
14
15
ARCHBISHOPS.
Consecrated, or enthroned.
Died.
&tt0Ïo=Soaxon Dgnastg.
From...............
Augustine			 598
Lawrence					 611
Mellitus			 619
Justus		Rochester	 624
Honorius		
[See vacant 1 yr. 6 months.] Deusdedit, or Adeodatus ®	
[Vacant 3 years, 8months.] Theodorus			May 26, 668
Berohtwald		
Tatwin, orStadwin“*			June 10, 731
Noth el mus ... . 				 735
Cnthhert		Hereford	 741
Rregwyn1 2 3 4 5...,.,				Sept. 29, 759
Tiambritb j or Jeanbert®T			r.	 763
f Athelard, Edhelard, or ) 1 Edelred	$ Wilfred, or Vulfhred		Winchester...July21, 793
..Feb. 2, ..April 25, .aNov. 10, ..Not. 30,
...July 14,
..Sept. 20, ...Jan. 9, ..Aug. 1, ...Oct. 16, ...Oct. 25, .. Aug. 23, ..Aug. 11,
...May 12,
March 23,
Buried at
619
624
633
653
Canterbury
Canterbury
Canterbury
Canterbury
Canterbury
664
Canterbury
690
731
734
741
758
762
790
Canterbury
Canterbury
Canterbury
Canterbury
Canterbury
Canterbury
Canterbury
803
Canterbury
829
Canterbury
16
17
Feolgeldus, Feogildus, ? Fleogildus,orTheogild $
CeolnothjEylnothetus,} or Filnothus........S
June 27, 829 Aug, 26, 830
Aug. 28, 829 Canterbury Feb. 4, 870 Canterbury
18
19
20 21
< AtbeldredjEtbered, or
( Athelred...........
[Vacant 2 years.]
Plegmund..............
Athelmus, or Aldhun....
Wulfhelm, or Wlfelme..,
!
Winchester.. June
Wells
Wells
7,
22
Odo
Winchester,
23
Elsine, or Lippe
Winchester.
872
891
924
935
941
958
	June 30, 889	Canterbury	
	Aug. 2. 923	Canterbury..	
	Feb. 12, 934	Canterbury	
	 941	Canterbury	
	July 4, 958	Canterbury		
	 959	Winchester 		
	
Kings.
OF KENT.
Ethelbert.
Ethel ber t.
Eadbald.
Eadbald.
Ercombert.
Ercombert.
Egbert, Lothair. Wibtred, Edbert. Edbert.
Edbert.
Edbert, Ethelbert. Alric.
Al rie.
f Ethelbert, Pren, ( Cuthred.
Baldred.
OF WESSEX. Egbert.
f Egbert, Atbelwulf, <Ethelbald, Athel-[ bright, Athelred.
OF ENGLAND. Alfred.
Edward the Elder. Athelstan.
Athelstan.
f Edmund, Eadred, I Edwin.
Edwin.
1	The time of his death is not ascertained. His epitaph, preserved by Bede, mentions the day, but not the year.
2	According to the Saxon chronicle, Justus died in 627.
3	In Saxon, FjliiSona. After the death of this prelate, Wigard, or Damianus, an Englishman, was elected bishop 664; but going to Rome for consecration, he died of the plague. To supply the vacancy thus occasioned, the pope nominated Adrian, an Italian abbot, but he declined the offer, and recommended Theodore, who was accordingly consecrated.—God. 53. Le Neve’s Fasti. 2. Parker’s Cant. Arch. 79*
4 Called also Scadwin and Cadwin.—Godwin, 55.	5 Bromton calls him Lizegwinus.
6 Lambertus, or Iambertus.—Parker’s Antiq. Brit. EccleS.No.
24
25
26
27
28
29
30
31
32
33
34
35
36
37
38
39
40
41
42
43
44
45
46
47
48
49
50
51
52
53
54
55
56
57
58
59
7 J
10
H
12
13
befoi
14
15
revei
CANTERBURY CATHEDRAL
Consecrated or Enthroned.
Died.
l'rom.
London............. 960
Selsey.............. 988
Winchester7......... 989
Wilton............. 996
Winchester........ 1006
Wells.............. 1013
................. 1020
......I.......... 1038
London........... 1050
....May 18, 938
...Dec. 3, 989 ....Oct. 27, 994 .Nov. 17, 1006 April 20, 1012
.June 12, 1020
...........Oct. 27, 1038
...........Oct. 29, 1049
Ejected............. 1052
^ttQlo=jSorman Bpastg.
Winchester........ 1052
..........Aug. 28, 1070
.Dec. 4, 1093
Rochester.......... 1115
...........Feb. 19, 1123
Deposed.......	1070
..........May 27, 1089
April 22, 1109
.Oct. 18, 1122 .Dec. 19, 1136
gbaxon %im Htotorefr
Jan. 8, 1139 ,June 4, 1162
.................. 1174
Woreester, May 18, 1185 Wells.............
Nov.
1193
June 18, 1207 1....... 1230
...........April 2, 1234
5 Consecrated... 1245 )
^Enthroned...... 1249)
	29,	1272
March	5,	1279
|Sept|12,		1294
, Febl	is,	1314
	19,	1328
	9,	1334
	19,	1349
	20,	1349
	4,	1366
...Oct. 11,		1368
. April	6,	1376
	5,	1382
..........April 19, 1161
Murdered, Dec. 29, 1170
.Feb. 19, 1184 fijg...M 1190 .Dec. 26, 1191
July 13, 1205 Canterbury
Buried at
Canterbury .
Canterbury , Canterbury Canterbury Canterbury,
Canterbury
Canterbury
Canterbury
Jumieges...
Winchester Canterbury.
Canterbury .
Canterbury. Canterbury .
Canterbury , Canterbury.
Canterbury........
Aeon, in Palestine. Bath.............I
.July 9, 1228 Aug. 3, 1231
Resigned
...........Aug. 25,
........i.. Aprii 27 •
Resigned....Nov. 28,
...........June	6,
Beheaded...June 15, ...........July	31,
.Nov. 17, 1240
..July 18, 1270
........ 1278
1292 1313 1327 1333
1348
1349 1366 1368 1374 13S1 1396
.Dec. 8, .May 11, .Nov. 18, . Oct. 12,
Canterbury .. St. Gemma 11
Soissy, in Pontiniac12
StlColumb, in Savoy
Viterbo, in Italy.....
Canterbury.........
Canterbury.........
Canterbury.........
Canterbury.........
Canterbury.........
Canterbury.........
Canterbury ........
Westminster Abbey
Canterbury........
Canterbury.........
Canterbury 15......
ory, &c. of Winchester Cathedral.	8 Otherwise Aluricns.	9 Called also Els
rTs after the news of the death of Baldwin arrived in England, but died before consecration, eve, says, he was buried in Canterburs' Cathedral.
there, but his body at Fontiniac.—Le Neve, 5. Parker’s Ecoles. Cant. 262. God. 113. of the kingdom, and dean of Lincoln, was nominated to the see by a papal bull, dated October :. i. 118.
lester, was chosen archbishop May 10,1366, but declined the promotion.—God. 143. Le Neve, at Maidstone, where it is believed he was actually interred, agreeably to his wish in a codic buried in Exeter, desiring his executors to lay him “ in loco designato Johannis Boteler Armi;No.
60
61
62
68
64
65
66
67
68
69
70
71
72
78
74
75
76
77
78
79
80
81
82
83
84
85
86
87
88
16 ]
Althc
17 i
A CHRONOLOGICAL LIST OF ARCHBISHOPS, ETC.
Consecrated or Enthroned.
Died.
Cotise of Hamaster.
Buried at
From...................
York.......Feb.	19,	1397
St. David’s, July	19,	1414
Wells......Aug.	23,	1443
York.......Dec.	11,	1452
..Feb. 22, 1413 ..April 12, 1443 ..May 24, 1452 March 21, 1454
Canterbury
Canterbury
Canterbury
Canterbury
Ely
of §9orfc.
Jan. 23, 1455
March 29, 1486
Canterbury
fernst of ^uïfor.
Ely........Dec. 9, 1486
Salisbury17.............1
London....March 9, 1504
...........March	30,	1533
1..........March	22,	1555
............Dec.	17,	1559
York........Feb.	15,	1575
Worcester...Oct. 23, 1583
..........Sept.	15,	1500
...........Feb.	15,	1502
...........Aug.	23,	1532
Burnt....March 21, 1555
...........Nov.	17,	1558
............May	15,	1575
...........July	6,	1583
...........Feb.	29,	1603
Canterbury
Canterbury
Canterbury
Canterbury Lambeth... Croydon.... Croydon ...
?^ouse of Sbtuart
London.....Dec.	20,	1604
London......May	4,	1611
London....Sept.	19,	1633
London....Sept.	20,	1660
London.....Aug.	31,	1663
.I..I......Jan.	27,	1678
............May	31,	1691
Lincoln.....May	16,	1695
............Nov.	2,	1610
............Aug.	4,	1633
Beheaded....Jan. 10, 1644
............June	4,	1663
............Nov.	9,	1677
Deprived....Feb. 1, 1690
............Nov.	22,	1694
............Dec.	14,	1715
î^ottso of ï^anobeu
Lincoln......... 1715
Oxford.......... 1737
York............ 1747
York............ 1757
Oxford.......... 1758
Lichfield....... 1768
Bangor.....April	26,	1783
Norwich....Feb.	28.	1805
...Jan. 24, 1737 ... Oct. 10, 1747 March 13, 1757 March 19, 1758 ...Aug. 1, 1768 March 19, 1783 ....Jan. 18, 1805
Lambeth .... Guildford... London.....
Oxford.....
Croydon....
Fresingfield
London.....
Lambeth....
Croydon
Croydon
Croydon.
Lambeth
Lambeth
Lambeth
Lambeth
a charge of high treason, and during the two years of his exile Roger Walden, dean of York, oued, on the accession of Henry IV. he was declared an usurper and expelled.—God. de Præs.
installed.—Mon. Ang. i. 86.
See History, &c. of Salisbury Cathedral.110
CANTERBURY CATHEDRAL
& (Scrimolo girai ütèt of lift ^viox& of iffl&nst OHmtv!)1*
No.
PRIORS.
Appointed.
No.
PRIORS.
Appointed.
No.
1
2
3
4
5
6
7
8 9
10
11
12
13
14
Henry....;.....
Ernulph........
Conrad........
Gosfrid........
Ailmer.........
Jeremiah.......
Walter Durdens, Walter Little....
Wibert.........
Odo............
Benedict.......
Herlewin.......
Alan...........
Honorius........
1080
1096
1126
1129
1137
1153
1167
1175
1177
1179
1186
15
16
17
18
19
20 21 22
23
24
25
26
27
28
Roger Norris		.... 1189
Osbern de Bristo			.... 1190
Geoffry		.... 1191
John de Chetham		1205
Walter (3d)		
John de Sittingborn		.... 1222
Roger de la Lee		.... 1234
Nicholas de Sandwich.... ....	.... 1244
Roger de St. Elphege2	 Adam de Chillenden		1. 1258 .... 1270
Thomas Ringmer		.... 1274
Henry de Eastry...		.... 1285
Richard Oxenden		.... 1331
Robert Hath brand			.... 1338
	
29
30
31
32
33
34
35
36
37
38
39
40
41
42
PRIORS.	Appointed.
	.... 1370
Stephen Mongeham	 1	.... 1376 .... 1377
	.... 1391
John Woodnesbnrg		.... 1411
William Molasti	 ...	.... 1428
John Sarishury		.... 1438
John Elham 		.... 1446
Thomas Goldstone		.... 1449
John Oxney	«		.... 1468
William Petham	 .	.... 1471
William Sellynge 		.... 1472
Thomas Goldstone (2d)	 Thomas Goldwell3		.... 1495 .... 1517
	
a dljwmolostfal Hist of the Srans of Canterûuty,
SINCE THE REFORMATION.
No.	DEANS.	Appointed, or admitted.
1	Nicholas Wotton		April 8, 1541
2	Thomas Godwin		Mar. 10, 1567
3	Richard Rogers		
4	Thomas Nevil		
5	Charles Fotherby			May 12, 1615
6	John Boys		May 3, 1619
7	Isaac Bargrave	|	Oct. 14, 1625
8	George Aglionby			 1643
9			 1643
10	John Tillotson			Nov. 1672
11	John Sharp			
12	George Hooper		
13	George Stanhope			 1703
Died, or removed.
......Jan. 26, 1567
Bishop of Wells, 1584
.......May 19, 1597
......May 2, 1615
....March 29, 1619
.....Sept. 26, 1625
..........Jan.	1643
..........Nov.	1643
......Oct. 31, 1672
D. of St. Paul’s 1689 Archbp. of York 1691 Bp. of St. Asaph 1703 .....March 18, 1728
No.
14
15
16
17
18
19
20 21 22
23
24
25
DEANS.
Appointed, or admitted.
Died, or removed.
Elias Sydall.....*....
John Lynch ...H....I..
William Friend........
John Potter...........
Hon. Brownlow North ..
John Moore.....;......
Hon. James Cornwallis..
George Horne..........
William Buller........
(Folliott Herbert Wal-
(ker Cornewall.B.....
Thomas Powis..........
S. G. Andrewes........
April,
...Jan.
•June,
.. Oct. . Sept. .April .Sept. ..June
M Jan.
..May
1728
1734
1760
1766
1770
1771 1775 1781 1790
.....iDec. 24, 1733
.......May 25, 1760
......Nov. 26, 1766
......Sept. 20, 1770
Bp. of Lichfield, 1771 Bp. of Bangor, 1775 Bp. of Lichfield, 1781 Bp. of Norwich, 1790 Bp. of Exeter.. 1792
1793
Bp. of Bristol.. 1797
1797
1809
1	The internal government of the church òf Canterbury, before the Reformation, may be divided into three periods : —1. From the time of Archbishop Augustine to Wilfred, when the prelate governed alone 2. From Wilfred to Lanfranc, during which time the church was regulated by deans:—3. From Lanfranc to the Reformation, during which there were priors, and no deans. On the dissolution of the priory the chapter was instituted. Of the early deans little is known except their names.
2	Roger de St. Elphege died in 1262, and the priory seems to have continued vacant, in consequence of the residence of archbishop Boniface abroad, till 1270.
3	He held the priory till 1540, when it was dissolved, and Goldwell retired on a pension.& ©ïjrouoïoQîcal Œafcïe
OF THE
AGES AND STYLES OF DIFFERENT PARTS OF THE CATHEDRAL AND ADJACENT EDIFICES.
Kings.	Archbishops.	Date about.	Parts of the Building.	Described.	Plates.
			N. W. Tower	,		45, 47, 49		III. VI.
William Conq...	Lan franc		1080	(The great Crypt is supposed by Gostling and others to be of the ninth I < century. Denne and Essex attribute it to an earlier period ; other wri-> ( ters, with more probability, refer it to the age of Lanfrane	)	60, 61		II. XIII.
					
Henry I.		Anselm		1114	fThe towers of St. Andrew and St. Anselm are supposed by some writers! < to be the oldest portions of the present superstructure; and to have> (_ belonged to the building finished by Prior Conrad	y	(45,46,47,)	I. IX. XXII.
				(49, 67....)	
Henry IT				1175	The Choir begun by William of Sens		45, 54, 55, 67 (47,54,56,)	I. XVII. XXV. X. XI. XIV. XIX. B.
	Baldwin		1184	( Finished by William the Englishman, who also built the eastern Transept, ) ( Trinity Chapel, Becket’s Crown, and Crypts beneath	$		
				(58,60.... )	
Edward I		Rob.Winchelsea	1504	$ The Choir and Chapter-house repaired, and the Organ Screen built by ) ( Henry de Estria	)	51, 58, 62		XV. XX. XXI. XXVI.
Richard II		( Simon de ) ( Sudbury )	1379	(The great Transept built by Archbishop Sudbury, who is supposed to have ) ( also erected the Chapel of St. Michael	)	46, 50, 54, 55	IV. V. XXV.
Henry IV		Thomas Arundel	1400	(The Nave, part of the Cloisters, Arundel Steeple, and part of the Chapter-) ( house built by Prior Chillenden, Archbishops Courtney and Arundel.... )	15, 49, 50, 54	I. III. XVI. XXV.
			The south pace of the Cloister built by Arundel.		
	Henry Chichely	1410	(The south west Tower begun:—finished between 1449 and 1468 by Prior) ( Goldstone and Archbishop Chichely	)	45, 47,49		III. VI.
		1412	The Chapel of Henry IV. built.		
Henry VI		John Stafford....	1447	Dean NeviPs Chapel built.		
TTrltxrsnvl TV		Thos. Bourchier	1468 1472	The Chapel of the Virgin Mary built by Prior Goldstone.				47, 62, 69		vili. XXVI. IV. VII.
			( The Central Tower begun by Prior Sellynge :—finished by the second Prior )	46, 50		
			( Goldstone, in 1517	)		
TJpnrv VTTT	Win. Warham...	1517	Christ Church Gate House, leading to the Cathedral Monument			Vili.
JULtsIllY f 111						INDEX.
King John, 18 ; his monument, 65, 66 ; anecdotes of, 80.
Laud, abp. 24; account of, 89; lives of, 104; portraits of, 106.
Lawrence, abp. story of, 11.
Lichfield made an archbishopric, 13.
List, chronological, of archbishops, 107 ; of priors, 110 ; of deans, ib.
Livingus, abp. 15.
Lucius (king), supposed founder of a church at Canterbury, 8 ; doubts of his history, 25.
M.
Mepham, abp. his quarrel with the monks, 20 ; monument of, 67 ; account of, 82.
Mohun, lady, monument of, 70.
Monuments described ; of Henry IV. and his Queen, 64 ; Edward the Black Prince, ib ; Margaret Holand, 65 ; abp. Theobald, 66 ; abp. Walter, ib; cardinal Langton, ib; abp. Peckham, ib ; abp. Reynolds, 67 ; abp. Mepham, ib; abp. Bradwardine, ib; abp. Sudbury, ib ; abp. Courtney, 68 ; abp. Chichele, ib. ; abp. Kempe, ib. ; abp. Bourchier, ib. ; abp. Morton, 69 ; abp. Warham, ib. ; dean Wotton, ib.; cardinal Pole, ib.; dean Fo-therby, 70 ; dean Boys, ib. ; lady Mohun, ib. ; the countess of Athol, ib. ; colonel Prude, ib. ; sir T. Thornhurst and family, ib. ; Dr. Meric Causaubon, ib. ; Orlando Gibbons, 71; admiral Rooke, ib. ; Dr. Thomas Lawrence, ib. ; lieut. col. Stuart, ib.
Moore, abp. 94.
Morton, abp. his monument described, 69.
N.
Nave of the cathedral described, 49, Pis. III. XVI.
fl
Odo, abp. his constitutions, 14; supposed miracle of, 28.
Organ screen, 51 ; royal statues in, 52 ; Pis. XX. and XXI.
P.
Painted glass, account of, 71, 72.
Papal usurpations, 20, 21, 22.
Parker, abp. 24 ; account of, 89 ; life of, 98.
Pavement, Mosaic 72.
Peckham, abp. his disputes with Edward I. 19; his monument, 53, PI. XVIII.
Plague at Canterbury, 13, 14.
Plegmund, abp. 14.
Pole, cardinal, 24; his tomb, 69 ; account of, 88.
Portraits, engraved, of archbishops, 105; of deans, 106.
Potter, abp. 93.
Prints, list of, 112.
R.
Ralph, abp. 16.
Reynolds, abp. monument of, 67.
Roman roads from Canterbury, 7.
S.	>
Sancroft, abp. anecdotes of, 91.
Seeker, abp. 94.
Screen, organ, 51 ; Pis. XX. XXL; altar, 55. Sheldon, abp. 91.
Somner, mistake of, 32.
South door of the cathedral, lawsuits tried at, 30.
St. Martin’s church, 25.
Stigand, abp. 15, 78.
Stratford, abp. monument of, 68 ; account of, 83. Sudbury, abp. rebuilt part of the cathedral, 38; his monument, 67, PI. XXIII. ; account of, 84.
Sutton, abp. 94.
T.
Table, chronological, of ages and styles of parts of the cathedral, 111.
Tenison, abp. 93.
Theobald, abp. his supposed monument, 66,97. Theodore, abp. account of, 12; anecdotes of, 73, 75.
Tillotson, abp. 92.
Tower, central, described, 46, Pis. IV. VII. ;
western, 45, PI. VI.
Transepts, north and south, 52, 53.
Treasury, 48, 55.
Trinity Chapel, 47, 56, Pis. X. and XL
V.
Vestry, 55.
Virgin Chapel, 61.
U.
Undercroft, opinions of Gostling and Demie concerning its age, 31, 60 ; described, 59.
W.
Wake, abp. 93.
Walter, abp. monument of, 66.
Warehara,abp. 85; his monument, 53, Pls.VIII. XXIV.
Wilfred, abp. 13.
William of Sens rebuilt the cathedral, 37.
--------the Englishman, finished the cathedral,
37.
Winchelsea, abp. his disputes with Edward I. 20 ; anecdotes of, 81.
Window, painted, destroyed in the civil wars, 53, 72.
Wotton, dean, monument of, 69.
C. Whittingham, Chiswick.NCATHEMSAJL ANTI(Ç)TTITIE § .
PL,.XXII
im]œ (DATISIÎEB2)IEA3L (DOTJIRCDIHU
BOOl^WAT IN' TILS ORGAN" SCKEEN".
to John sanders,esq? architect, F.s.d.Scc.Scc. Ibis'Plate is inscribed. 'with sentiments of esteem/by the ^rTTf. -.p.
Z û izderi', TuMished -dug? 1,161g. by Longman Sc Cf'Paternoster How -
THE
HISTORY AND ANTIQUITIES
OF
THE METROPOLITICAL CHURCH
OF
otrft;
ILLUSTRATED BY
A SERIES OF ENGRAVINGS,
OF
VIEWS, ELEVATIONS, PLANS AND DETAILS
OF THE
&tTïnt«tutr of tûat Œïrifiir :
WITH
BIOGRAPHICAL ANECDOTES OF THE ARCHBISHOPS.
BY
JOHN BRITTON, F.S.A.
Sonticm i
PUBLISHED BY LONGMAN, HURST, REES, ORME, AND BROWN, PATERNOSTER ROW; THE AUTHOR, 10, TAVISTOCK PLACE; AND J. TAYLOR, 59) HIGH HOLBORN.
1819.C. VYhillinghaul, College House, Chiswick.TO
THE RIGHT WORSHIPFUL
GEORGE MARKHAM, D.D.
DEAN OF THE CATHEDRAL AND METROPOLITICAL CHURCH
OF
ST. PETER, OF YORK;
AND TO
THE CANONS AND RESIDENTIARY
OF THE SAME CHURCH;
WHO HAVE MANIFESTED MUCH LAUDABLE CARE IN PRESERVING THE STABILITY, AND RESTORING THÈ INJURED PARTS OF THEIR CATHEDRAL ;
AND WHO ARE THEREBY ENTITLED TO THE THANKS OF ALL LOVERS OF
ANCIENT ARCHITECTURE,
THIS VOLUME IS RESPECTFULLY INSCRIBED,
BY THEIR OBEDIENT SERVANT,
JOHN BRITTON.
December 1,1818.1
■j*
/
y
N
ï

ÌPREFACE.
Sir William Chambers, in his “ Treatise on Civil Architecture,” very properly and judiciously remarks, “ to those usually called Gothic Architects, we are indebted for the first considerable improvements in construction: there is a lightness in their works, an art and boldness of execution to which the antients never arrived, and which the moderns comprehend and imitate with difficulty. England contains many magni-ficent examples of this species of architecture, equally admirable for the art with which they are built, the taste and ingenuity with which they are composed. One cannot refrain from wishing that the Gothic Structures ivere more considered, were better understood, and in higher estimation than they hitherto seem to have been. Would our Dilettanti, instead of importing the gleanings of Greece; or our Antiquaries, instead of publishing loose, incoherent prints, encourage persons duly qualified to undertake a correct, elegant 'publication of our cathedrals, and other buildings called Gothic, before they totally fall to ruin, it would be of real service to the arts of design ; preserve the remembrance of an extraordinary Style of Building, now sinking fast into oblivion ; and at the same time publish to the world the riches of Britain in the splendour of her antient Structures.”
These reflections are at once honourable to the head and heart of the profound architect of Somerset House : and it cannot but excite regret, that they have hitherto failed to produce any ostensible effect in the country. Such a work has not been produced, nor is it likely to be undertaken by a Society, or under national or royal patronage. Our Dilettanti Society seems to consider the “ Gothic” edifices of their own country unworthy of study, or illustration ; whilst they are expending thousands of pounds in publishing representations of the sculptural and architectural fragments of antient Greece. This may be laudable, and may amuse and interest a few persons. The Society of Antiquaries of London, have evinced a more decided English feeling, and have made an attempt to cany into effect the suggestions of Sir William Chambers. They have published plans, elevations and sections of three cathedrals, but not in that “ correct and elegant” manner recommended by the architect, and desired by artists. It is rather a curious fact, that some of the best engravers employed in the present work were engaged, when apprentices, in executing some of the plates for that publication: now they are matured in experience, and distinguished for their skill and taste. We are therefore enabled at the present time to render a small plate more
aVI
PREFACE.
accurate and satisfactory than many of the former engravers could do in one of double its size. Hence we only require private or public patronage to produce embellished works that shall be an honour to all the artists employed, to the country in which they are produced, and be equally beneficial to the amateur, architect, and man of general science.
An humble individual, without fortune, and without any other patronage than every sincere literary character is entitled to expect, has ventured to undertake such a work, in the arduous, expensive, and delicate task of illustrating the architecture, and developing the history of our national cathedrals. He has already completed those of Salisbury, Norwich, Winchester, and York, and has made active and expensive preparations for those of Lichfield, Oxford, Peterborough, Canterbury, See. Though he is not commonly disposed to complain, or to be querulous, he cannot help noticing a marked difference between the private patronage bestowed on this work and some others which have heretofore been devoted to the same subject. Bentham, for his “ History of Ely Cathedral,” and Millers, in a small, but well written “ Description” of the same church, were exempted from the heavy charge of engravings, and consequent risk of publication, by having the plates presented to their respective works. They were also relieved from the unjust and impolitic tax of giving eleven copies of their books to certain rich public libraries, and from which an author has a right to expect assistance rather than oppression. Yet, having those difficulties to contend with,—at a vast expense hitherto unknown, and inexperienced in literature,—without that encouragement from the dignitaries of the respective cathedrals, which might be reasonably expected;—without the patronage of any one society, public body, or any noble Mecænas of literature, the author has now produced four volumes; and from an increased and growing zeal towards the subject, he hopes that life and health will enable, and the public encourage him, to prosecute the work till he has illustrated the remaining cathedrals. To the public, generally, he is indebted and grateful, for they have purchased eight hundred copies at least of his work : but many persons must be surprised that even this sale has not covered the expenses of its execution by above twelve hundred pounds. He is induced to make this declaration to show, that he is not likely to derive a fortune from the work ; and as he cannot afford to sacrifice all his property and labour in prosecuting it, he hopes that the public libraries will be generous and just enough to forego their claims; and that those gentlemen who really approve or admire the “ Cathedral Antiquities,” will recommend it to a more extensive sale.
To the Worthy Dean of York, the Dean of Ripon, the Rev. Archdeacon Eyre, the Rev. F. Wrangham, the Rev. C. Wellbeloved, Richard Drake, Esq., and William Mills, Esq., the author presents his thankful acknowledgments for many favours.ttótotp anö Antiquities
OF
THE CATHEDRAL CHURCH OF YORK.
mm s* •
ORIGIN AND EARLY HISTORY OF YORK, OR EBORACUM:—FIRST ESTABLISHMENT OF CHRISTIANITY, AND OF A CHURCH, IN THAT CITY I—INFLUENCE AND PROGRESS OF PAULINUS, THE FIRST NORTHERN PRELATE:—ORIGIN AND ESTABLISHMENT OF THE ARCHBISHOPRICK1—ACCOUNT OF THÈ SAME UNDER THE SAXON PRELATES.
To elucidate the history of the Cathedral of York, we must necessarily inquire into the origin and progress if Christianity in the northern parts of Britain; but to do this effectively and comprehensively, would involve us in a disquisition too diffuse for the object and intention of the present work. Our more immediate purpose is the Cathedral, or Minster; the history of which is so blended and combined with other collateral and coincident subjects, of a provincial and ecclesiastical nature, that we must occasionally advert to them.
From a very remote period, York has occupied a distinguished place among the cities of Britain. Soon after the Roman conquest of the island it was chosen as a seat of imperial government and residence. Among other causes that occasioned this selection,, wras its eligibility òf situation,8
YORK CATHEDRAL.
on a navigable river ; which was accessible, by ships, from the only British sea frequented by the Romans. Sufficiently removed from the eastern coast to command a ready communication with the western, York was peculiarly adapted to become the principal station of the Roman armies, who were employed to reduce, or repel, or guard agaihst the incursions of the untractable inhabitants of the northern part of the island.
In treating of the early history of Britain, it has generally been customary to employ the language of exultation, and even of triumph, in speaking of the final return of Julius Cæsar to the continent. This is no novelty : the same was done by his rivals in Rome; men who envied, while they dreaded his talents and successes. To Roman invaders and conquerors Britain must acknowledge herself indebted for the introduction of many of the useful and elegant arts of life: but it is a singular and lamentable fact, that other nations who subsequently associated and incorporated themselves with the romanized Britons, became degenerated in manners and customs, and contaminated those who, we may suppose, were initiated in the laws, polity, and arts of the Romans.
That Britain was blessed with the light of the Christian religion soon after its subjection to the Roman empire, may be readily believed: evidences of the fact, however, are apparently less numerous and less cogent than some historians seem disposed to admit. But having already taken particular notice of this interesting event in “ the history, See. of the Cathedral of Winchester,,y the author must forbear to dilate on it here, and proceed to state what more immediately appertains to that of York.
It generally happens to towns, as it does to persons, to have attained a ^considerable degree of importance before their names are mentioned in historic record. Their origin, progress, and aggrandizement are unnoticed, until, by that very aggrandisement, they fill a distinguished station in the community to which they severally belong. Of the truth of this assertion topographical history in general bears abundant testimony. In the annals of the world no city, no state, and no people, has occupied or engrossed indeed, public attention equally with Rome in the various periods of its existence. But the origin of that famed city is confessedly obscure, nay,ORIGIN AND EARLY HISTORY OF YORK.
9
unknown ; for until the commencement of the war against the Phoenician colonists of Carthage, no semblance of authentic Roman history can be traced, even in the writings of Livy himself.
That York was a place of fixed habitation, or a town, such as the early Britons possessed, two thousand years ago, when the Romans penetrated so far into the island, is not to be doubted. It is not, however, certainly mentioned by its romanized name, Eboracüm, until nearly the end of the third century ; although so early as A. D. 80 the Roman army had advanced, with however but questionable success, much farther towards the northern extremity of the island. The site of York was within the limits of the Brigantes, who possessed a widely extended region, which stretched from sea to sea across the middle of Britain. Petilius Cerealis, the Roman commander, who in the reign of Vespasian, about the y ear? J, arrived in Britain, is stated by Tacitus1, in his life of his father-in-law Agricola, to have invaded the Brigantes, and after many sanguinary conflicts to have subdued them. Their principal town, of course, was .immediately occupied and garrisoned by the Romans. Placed in the angle of confluence of two rivers, by which it was secured from hostile incursion, one side only of the inclosure demanded an artificial fortification. It is also to be remembered that the Romans seldom, if ever, chose for their-places of residence, or of government, situations not previously occupied by the people of the country2.
1	The expression civitas Brigantum, employed by Tacitus, has been, by some writers, conceived to indicate Eboracum as the capital of that .tribe. This, however, is an error; for the Roman writers, from Caesar to Tacitus, used the term civitas to signify a state, or a community of cives, or citizens. Nor was* it until a much later period that the word was used to denote a city or town.
2	Notice qf Eboracum occurs in the Itineraries ascribed to the Emperor Antoninus. But the date of his very important document is quite uncertain. Antoninus Pius began to reign in 139 ; and this lieutenant in Britain, Lollius Urbicus, pushed his conquest of the northern parts of the island much beyond the limits of any preceding general. Caracalla, the son of Severus, was also named Antoninus ; but he arrived at empire in 210. The Itineraries, as they now appear, are evidently the result of progressive surveys. The continental parts may have been formed on the geographic operations instituted by the command of Julius Cæsar ; but that much later improvements and additions were made to them is evident from the mention of Constantinople, which was founded in the beginning of the fourth century of the Christian era.10
YORK CATHEDRAL.
Under the Romans, York became progressively of high importance. To resist the assaults of the Caledonians of the north, notwithstanding their repeated overthrow by Agricola, that commander, in the year 81, constructed a chain of forts across the narrow isthmus in the middle of their country, between the rivers Forth and Clyde. About forty years afterwards the Emperor Hadrian personally visited Britain, and finding the northern Britons continually breaking in upon the Roman provinces, and committing wanton destruction, he caused a new vallum to be raised and strongly fortified, across the country from the mouth of the river Tyne, on the east, to the Solway Firth on the west3. This was repeatedly assailed and was also frequently broken through by the Caledonians. To repel these daring and unconquerable tribes, the Roman general, Lollius Urbicus, governor of Britain about A. D. 138, commanded another and stronger mound to be raised across the country from the Firth of Forth, on the east, to the Firth of Clyde, on the west, by which he separated, and seized a large tract of Caledonian territory. This new boundary being formed in the reign of Antoninus Pius, has been ever since distinguished by his name. The last defence being equally unavailing as the former, and the Romans driven within the wall of Hadrian, the Emperor Séverus himself, with his sons Caracalla and Geta, entered Britain in 207, and at the conclusion of a disastrous expedition against the northern Britons, returned to Eboracum, There he fixed his residence, whilst his army was engaged in constructing a wall of stone, as an additional and stronger mode of defence. This was nearly parallel with Hadrian’s vallum. During these operations Severus died, and was interred at Eboracum in the year 214. Soon after his death, the island was agitated by various commotions ; particularly by the assumption of an empire independent of Rome, in the person of Carausius, who, though at first opposed by the continental mon arch s, was at length formally recognized by the joint emperors Maximinian and Dioclesian. He was however assassinated in this city A. D. 293, by Constantius
3 See “ the Itinerary of Richard of Cirencester,” with Notes by Mr. Hatcher, in which, and on Ihe above passage, it is rationally remarked, that this was only a rampart of earth connecting the different stations, or fortified posts, on its course.FIRST ESTABLISHMENT OF CHRISTIANITY.
11
Chlorus, who about that time entered Britain with a hostile army to oppose Alectus. After an expedition into the northern parts of the island, he also fixed his abode in this city, where he died in 306, and was succeeded by his son, Constantine, who was first saluted emperor in Eboracum, and was afterwards called the Great. Thus this place was a second time distinguished by the death of a Roman emperor, and by the inauguration of another who was son and successor to the last.
Though the sanction of many historical records induces us to believe that the Christian religion had made some progress in Britain very soon after the Roman invasion, yet we have no satisfactory proof that it had acquired any degree, not only of national, but of local stability, till the reign of the Emperor Constantine. This prince, on succeeding his father, professed himself a convert to the Christian faith, and continued to evince the warmest zeal for the propagation of the newly promulgated tenets, from a persuasion that they were better calculated than any other for the ultimate happiness of mankind. As early as the year 314 he convened a general council of the church at Arles, in Gaul, qn the subject of, the Donatisi heresy4; and among the bishops assembled on that occasion were three from Britain. Their names and their order of precedency were, Eborius episcopus de civitate Eboracensi, Provincia Erit.:—Restitutus episcopus de civitate Londinensi, Provincia superscripta.—Adelfius episcopus de civit. col. Londinensium. Here the bishops of York and London are clearly designated, but the residence or see of the third prelate cannot be so easily inferred ; nor does it come within the scope of this work to examine the disputed opinions of antiquaries on the subject.
To the piety of Edwin, the Saxon king of Northumbria, must be referred the origin of the See of York, and of that august structure, the history of which it is the Authors immediate object to elucidate. This monarch, in the early part of the seventh century, married Ethelburga, sister of Ebald,
4 This heresy took its name from Donatus, an African bishop, who, in the beginning of the fourth century, fomented strong dissensions in the church, in consequence of what he conceived to be an undue appointment to a vacant bishoprick. For a circumstantial account of this subject, see Mosheim’s Eccles. Hist. 8vo. edit. 1774, voi. i. 327, &c.
Bm
YORK CATHEDRAL.
the sovereign of Kent, and daughter of Ethelbert, the first prince of that district who embraced Christianity. In what way the conversion of Edwin was effected, wrho had previously adhered to the idolatrous worship of his ancestors, cannot now be ascertained, unless we lend our credence to the legend which ascribes it to a miracle produced for the occasion ; but though this has the sanction of Bede, and other writers, it would not obtain ready belief in the minds of the philosophical readers of the nineteenth Century. It appears evident, however, that Ethelburga, his queen, was principally instrumental to it; her attachment to the Christian religion being most sincere and devoted. She was accompanied to Northumberland, from her father’s court, by a foreign ecclesiastic, named Paulinus ; who, according to the historical record, baptized the king in the city of York, on Easter-day, April 12, 627, the whole court, with a multitude of the common people standing during the ceremony5. From this epoch may be dated the first regular establishment of a Christian church in York ; the king having caused a little wooden structure to be erected preparatory to his baptism, around which a more regular church was raised, but which was not finished till the reign of his successor, Oswald. The small wooden chapel, or oratory, was constructed, according to Bede, in great haste, “ citato opere6,” and it was at the desire of Paulinus that the larger building was commenced. The example of the king’s conversion, we may fairly presume, produced a powerful effect upon his subjects. The people of Northumbria, and of some adjacent parts, evinced the greatest anxiety to be baptized, while, abjuring paganism, they were daily admitted to participate in the rites of the Christian dispensation. This favourable disposition in the Northumbrians gave to their Apostle, Paulinus, the fullest assurance of ultimate success, while, at the same time, it necessarily demanded his unremitting attention; and we find him, while accompanying the king and queen to the royal villa Adjefrin, or Yeverin, stopping in one place thirty-six days7, to baptize and instruct the crowds of votaries who flocked to him for that purposè. These were baptized in a river, which, accord-
5 Bede, Histor. Eccles. Smith's edit, folio, lib. ii. chap. xiv. p. 95.
6-7 Ibid, ibid.PAULINUS—PALL.
■
ing to Smith, is the Bo went, and vast numbers had the ceremony performed in the S wale, near which river the prelate was often accustomed to sojourn with the king.
Paulinus being now appointed by the king to the see of York, received the Pall8 from Honorius, the successor of Boniface, which was accompanied by a letter to Edwin, commending that monarch for his services in the cause of Christianity, and exhorting him to further labours9. It appears from this letter that another pall10 was sent at the same time to Honorius, the successor of Justus, Archbishop of Canterbury, and the fifth prelate of Kent from Augustine. The passage in the pontiff’s letter, which refers to the two palls, may serve to elucidate the question of precedency between the sees of York and Canterbury. “ And we (says the Pope) have ordered two palls, one for each of the metropolitans, that is, for Honorius and Paulinus, that in the event of either of them being called from this life to. the Author of his being, the other may, in virtue of this our authority, appoint a bishop in his place11.” Honorius concludes by observing, that he was induced to grant this permission, from his regard for the king, and in consequence of the long distance between the papal see and the parties, which must necessarily occasion much delay in transmitting communications.
It thus appears that Paulinus was the first prelate, according to any authentic account, who assumed the archiépiscopal title in York, for little credit is to be given to those writers, who state that a person named
8	The Pall is so named from the Latin pallium, a cloak or mantle, originally a Greek upper garment, as the toga was a Roman. The ecclesiastical pallium was at first a full and magnificent vestment, intended to remind the bishop of the necessity of conforming his conduct to the dignity of his appearance. The chief part of the ornament and symbol of authority, however, was a long narrow piece of white woollen cloth, suspended over the shoulders before and behind, impressed with a red cross. This pall being duly consecrated, and applied to the tomb of St. Peter in Rome, is transmitted to each metropolitan, who, on its reception, is authorized to assemble a council, consecrate a bishop, or a church, ordain a priest, &c.
9	Bede, Histor. Eccles. Smith's edit, folio, lib. iL chap. xvii. p. 98. .
JO
11 Ibid, lib. ii. chap. xvii. p. 98.
Ibid, ibid.14
YORK CATHEDRAL.
Sampson, by some called Sanxo, enjoyed that dignity in the time of Lucius12. Doctor Heylin, however, includes that name in his list of the Archbishops of York, but Godwin questions the veracity of the remote historians on this subject. He observes, “ The first archbishop that ever York had, our histories say was named Sampson, appointed by King Lucius; the verity whereof I cannot but suspect in regard of the name; for I find not that the names of the old Hebrews or Christian saints were yet in use
For six successive years the labours of Paulinus appear to have been crowned with uninterrupted success, when an event occurred which at once darkened his fair prospects, and subjected those numerous converts who were the objects of his pious solicitude, to the deadly vengeance of relentless persecution14. Edwin, under whose protection the venerable archbishop had propagated the doctrine of Christ with so much effect, having incurred the enmity òf sovereigns who were incapable of appreciating his excellent qualities, had his territories invaded by Cadwallo, the monarch of Wales, in conjunction with Penda, King of the Mercians16. This league was attended „with consequences as fatal to Edwin as they were disastrous to the Christian cause. The king fell in a desperate battle which was fought near York16 in October, A.D. 633, and his death was followed by an indiscriminate slaughter of his subjects, the ferocious invaders sparing neither age nor séx. Penda, being a Pagan, massacred the Christians without remorse, and Cadwallo,, who the historian informs us, was “ Pagano sevior,” more cruel than a Pagan, though a nominal Christian, was yet more atrocious and sanguinary than his ally, from the hatred he indulged against the name and religion of the Angles. The head of King Edwin having been cut off, was carried to the church of York, which was then building, and there deposited in the aile or porch of Pope Gregory.
12 For some observations on King Lucius, as his history has been obscured and distorted by legendary fables, the reader is referred to the “ History of the Cathedral of Winchester,” p. 13.
14 Bede, lib. ii. chap. xiv. p. 05.
u Godwin's Cat. p. 555. 15 Ibid. chap. xx. p. 101.
16 Ibid.paulinus: 627, &c.
15
But though Christianity in this part of the Heptarchy was thus to receive a dreadful shock for a time, yet the work of conversion, which had been previously effected; was founded on too solid a basis to yield to the assaults of Pagan hostility. How long the church of York continued without a pastor, after Paulinus was obliged to fly with the queen into Kent, to the court of King Ebald, her brother* does not clearly appear; but, according to the most authentic historians, it was at least twenty years,.while some say thirty17. It must be observed here, however, that Paulinus, previously to the persecution which drove him from his see, carried the light of the Gospel into some districts south of the 'Humber* and Bede asserts,, that he built in Lincoln a church of exquisite workmanship, in which he afterwards consecrated Honorius to the Bishoprick of Canterbury, then vacant by the death of Justus18. This ordination, it appears* was in conformity with the previous regulation of Pope Gregory, and which we have seen specifically noticed by his successor* Honorius, in transmitting the Palls19.
. Osric and Eanfrid, the successors of Edwin, forsaking the Christian faith20, and returning to their former idolatries, the persecution continued against the Christians with unabating violence till the reign of Oswald, the brother of Eanfrid 2V. a most pious monarch, who delivered his country from the ravages of the Britons, after having completely defeated their immense army in a battle, in which their cruel sovereign paid with his life the penalty of his« enormities. All that could be done to re-establish Christianity was effected by Oswald ; but suchwas the distracted state of the country, in,consequence of the previous desolating hostility, that we may naturally presume it required no inconsiderable time before its
17	Godwin’s Cat. p. 559..
18	It may be supposed, from the passage in Bede* that Canterbury was not yet raised to an archbishopric; he says,. “Honorium pro eo consecravit episcopum,” if the fact had not been previously ascertained by the letter of Pope Gregory to Augustine. Bede, lib. ii. chap. xvi. p. 97. Indeed much ambiguity is occasioned by that want of accuracy in the use of epithets, which is frequently met‘with in the older writers.
19	Ibid. ibid. chap, xviii. p. 99.	20 Bede, lib. iii. chap. i. p. 103. 21 Ibid. chap, xxiii. p. 127.16
YORK CATHEDRAL.
institutions could be again restored. Accordingly we find that Northumbria, in the absence of an immediate successor to Paulinus, was occasionally visited by Cedd22, then Bishop of the Eastern Saxons, who exhorted and preached to the people. This Cedd had three brothers, Cynibill23, Caelin, and Ceadda, who, as well as himself were all in holy orders, and celebrated for their piety. The latter was ultimately appointed to fill the vacancy in the See of York, being sent by King Alchfrid24 to Deusdedit, Archbishop of Canterbury, for ordination, who having died before he arrived, the ceremony was performed by the Bishop of the West Saxons25, with two assistant bishops of the British nation. The appointment of Ceadda to this dignity, who had previously been Abbot of Lestiiigham26, was not however at first contemplated. It was assigned by the king to a priest named Wilfrid, whom he sent to France to be ordained; but this ecclesiastic tiring the patience of his sovereign by too long a delay, Ceadda was put into the archiépiscopal chair in his absence. That the latter was worthy of the honour thus conferred upon him, may be inferred from the humility with which he resigned it, when superseded by Wilfrid, under the direction of Theodore, Archbishop of Canterbury, who considered that Ceadda was not regularly and duly called to the See27. “ If you have known me,” says the excellent prelate, “not to have duly assumed the episcopal office, I willingly retire from that office, as never having deemed myself worthy of it, but being called upon to assume it; in obedience, I reluctantly consented2®.” But the archbishop admiring his humility, declared that he ought not to be dismissed from the episcopal throne, and ordained him a second time,
22 Bede, lib. iii. chap. xxii. p. 127.	23 Ibid. p. 128.
24 Drake, contrary to the authority of Bede, says, Egfrid. Vid. Bede, lib. iii. chap, xxviii. p. 137.	25 Ibid. &c.
26	The church at this place, supposed to have been built by St. Cedd, now remains, and is a singular and curious specimen of ancient ecclesiastical architecture. A plan, view, and account of it, will be given in “The Architectural AntiquitiesVol. V.
27	Bede, ibid. lib. iv. chap, ii. p. 143.
28 Ibid. ibid.CEADDA AND WILFRID: 669 TO 709.
17
agreeably tb the discipline of the Catholic church. Ceadda after having filled the archiépiscopal chair with examplary piety for about three years, now retired to his monastery, whence he was soon afterwards called by the same Theodore, who made him Bishop of Lichfield, A. D. 66929. Here he died, March 2, 6723a, after a life devoted with unremitted perseverance to the sacred duties which he had to discharge.
Wilfrid3i, who was now invested with the archiépiscopal dignity, was descended from an obscure family in the north32, but his father having contrived to render certain services to some persons at court, whom he happened to meet accidentally, his son was by them presented to the Queen, Eanfled, who finding him a youth of great natural talents, sent him for his education to a man named Cudda33, who from being counsellor to the king was become a monk of Lindisfarn or Holy-Island. Evincing as he grew up, an inclination for the church, he was sent to Rome at the age of twenty, by the queen, his patroness, and Ercombert, king of Kent, in order to become intimately acquainted with the merits of a controversy about the celebration of Easter, in which at that period all the polemical disputants were engaged.
Omitting those events which are not necessary to our immediate purpose, we shall now observe that Wilfrid some time after his succession to the See of York, was obliged to withdraw from the archiépiscopal chair34, and retire into Sussex, through the jealousy of Theodore, who fearing lest the influence of the northern archbishop might eclipse his own dignity,
29 Bede, ibid. lib. iv. chap. ii. p. 143.	30 Ibid. p. 146.
31	The reader will find, in Gale’s Scriptores, a full account of this prelate by Eddius Stephanus, who wrote his life as early as the year 720.
32	Godwin, p. 559.
33	Godwin calls this man Cedda, and doubts whether he may not have been the prelate of that name whom Wilfrid ultimately superseded. He says, “ Therefore shee sent him to one Cedda, that of a Councellor and Chamberlaine to the King, had become a monk of Lindisfarn; whether it might not bee the man before-mentioned I discerne not." Godwin, Cat. p. 560.
34	Godwin, p. 155.18
YORK CATHEDRAL.
induced ,King Egfride to favour his scheme of creating two or three bishopricks under Wilfrid, which might act as a control on the extent of his jurisdiction. To this the latter strenuously objected ; but though he went to Rome, and obtained the Pope’s consent that no innovation should be made in his see, yet so determined was the king to carry the measure which the rival prelate proposed, that Wilfrid had no other alternative than submission or banishment. He chose the latter, and after an absence from his see of ten years, was recalled by King Aldfrid to resume again his archiépiscopal functions, but being so unfortunate as to incur the displeasure of this monarch also, he was once more obliged to repair to Rome, to clear himself upon oath of some imputed offence. Returning to England with the Pope’s letters in his behalf, he was again reinstated, and died at TJndalum, now called Oundle, in Northamptonshire, A.D. 70933.
The diocess of York having been divided by Theodore into four parts 36, immediately after the first departure of Wilfrid from his see, four prelates were appointed in consequence, Eata, Humbert, Trumwyn^ and Bosa. The latter was invested with the circumscribed jurisdiction of York, but was, however, obliged to give place to Wilfrid upon his return from Rome; yet the second exile of this persecuted prelate put him again in possession of the see, where he died, much esteemed for his meekness and piety. On the death of Bosa, who was the first archbishop that was buried in York, John was nominated his successor, and Wilfrid, when once more recalled to his archiépiscopal charge, wras unwilling to displace him 37 from a chair which he himself had now no desire to fill, while he devoted the remainder of his days to the government of Hexham
35	Bede, lib. v. chap. xix. p. 204.
36	A modern writer, of no common excellence, (the Kev. John hingard), attributes this measure not to the jealousy of the primate, but to the impossibility òf one prelate being sufficient for so vast an extent of country, as that which came within his jurisdiction. “No powers,” he says, “of any individual were adequate to dioces so extensive ; and Theodore, from the moment of his arrival in England, had formed the design of breaking them into smaller and more proportionate districts.” Antiq. of the Anglo-Saxon Church, p. 54.
37	Godwin's Cat. p. 563.DISPUTES BETWEEN YORK AND CANTERBURY.
1.9
Monastery, though ostensibly reinstated in his former dignity. John, commonly called St. John of Beverly, being thus left, in the undisturbed possession of York, was, on the decease of Wilfrid duly recognised as his successor, and having enjoyed the Archiépiscopal dignity for above thirty-three years, then resigned it, -with the consent of his clergy: but provided for his chaplain, Wilfrid, the appointment to the vacant chair. During the five, years that Wilfrid II. governed the See of York, commenced that memorable dispute about priority or precedence in ecclesiastical jurisdiction, which for ages afterwards was so warmly contested between this See and Canterbury38. Egbert, his successor, has the merit of having re-established the Archiépiscopal dignity of York, by procuring the restoration of the Pall, which had been withheld from it since the days of Paulinus. The intermediate prelates were simply styled bishops, and did not, according to the account in Warton’s collection, assume a higher title. It there appears that “ Cæteri episcopi inter Paulinum et Egbertum nihil altius quam simplicis episcopi vocabulo anhelarunt/’
A detailed history of this See from the time of Egbert to that of Thomas, the twenty-fifth archbishop, who succeeded to it soon after the Conquest, would present only a narrative of unimportant changes, blended with improbable events which, it would neither be useful nor instructive to record. It must, however, be observed, that this is said with regard only to that part of its history which may be strictly termed ecclesiastical, for the changes which the edifice itself experienced during that time will be noticed in a subsequent place.
. The controversy between the two Metropolitan Sees, which had been kept up for ages before with occasional modifications of asperity, was at length to be decided in the reign of the Conqueror, though the successors to the See of York continued to urge their unavailing pretensions, for a considerable time afterwards. The king having appointed an ecclesiastic, named Thomas, who wras of the same country with himself, to the vacant See of York, the latter refused to profess obedience to Lanfranc, Arch-
38 War ton, Ang. Sac. Part I. p. 66.
C20
YORK CATHEDRAL.
bishop of Canterbury. This necessarily revived the contest which had been comparatively suspended for a long time; and both prelates having proceeded to Rome, to urge their respective claims before the Pope, he referred them back to the English king, who in a council which he called at Windsor, A. D. 1072, pronounced by Hugh, the Pope’s Legate, his decree in favour of Canterbury39. That See founded its claim to precedency on three propositions, or facts: against which the Northern See contended with more of sophistry than argument. It stated, that Gregory the Great, created the two archbishoprics, with powers perfectly independent of each other; and that their respective prelates took alternate precedency according to the seniority of their consecrations, till Lanfranc, ambitious to domineer over the clergy, as his master did over the laity of England, assumed an undue right over the See of York. Referring to the question of antiquity, York sought an argument in the story of king Lucius, to which we shall not a second time advert. But in conclusion that See insisted, that comparing the extent of their respective jurisdictions, she, though presiding over the more limited space in England, had the larger in Britain ; as embracing the entire kingdom of Scotland. Besides that, if the bishoprics of Worcester, Lichfield, and Lincoln, of which she had been unjustly deprived, were again restored, she might vie with Canterbury even with respect to English territory40. It is not however of much consequence, or interest, to trace the history of these ecclesiastical contentions ; which after all only serve to show the folly and weakness of man, when he suffers pride to domineer over reason. Pope Gregory in a letter to Augustine, Archbishop of Canterbury, says, “ Let your jurisdiction not only extend over the bishops you shall have ordained, or such as have been ordained by the Bishop of York, but also over all the priests of Britain, by the authority of our Lord Jesus Christ41.” Another passage from the same writer :—
39	R. de Diceto, col. 484. Bromton, 970. Gervas, 1653. Knyghton, col. 2345, 2348.
40	Drake’s “ Eboracum,” book ii. ch. i. p. 414.
41	William of Malmesbury, as translated by Sharpe, p. 363.DISPUTES BETWEEN YORK AND CANTERBURY.
21
“ Boniface to Justus, Archbishop of Canterbury. Far be it from every Christian, that any tiling concerning the city of Canterbury be diminished or changed, in present or future times, which was appointed by our predecessor Pope Gregory, however human circumstances may be changed : but more especially by the authority of St. Peter, the Prince of Apostles, we command and ordain, that the city of Canterbury shall ever hereafter be esteemed the Metropolitan See of all Britain; and we decree and appoint immutably that all the provinces of the kingdom of England shall be subject to the Metropolitan Church of the aforesaid See. And if any one attempt to injure this church, which is more especially under the power and protection of the holy Roman Church, or to lessen the jurisdiction conceded to it, may God expunge him from the book of life, and let him know that he is bound by the sentence of a curse.”
For a series of years after the decision of king William in favour of Canterbury, the Prelates appointed to York continued refractory in their obedience to the rival See. Gerard, the successor of Thomas, being actuated by this spirit, remained a long time without consecration, and submitted at length only at the express command of the Roman Pontiff. The See of York was much indebted to the liberal benefactions of this prelate. He procured from the king, besides other grants, the impropriation of the church of Laughton42, which being given to the chapter, was annexed to the chancellorship. Having also obtained the churches of Driffield, Kil-lam, Pocklington, Pickering and Burgh, he added them in like manner to the Metropolitan See. Thomas II. by whom Gerard was succeeded, having persisted with even more obstinacy than his predecessors in the same resolution not to profess obedience to Canterbury, was however like them necessitated to do so in the end, but not before he was anathematized by Anselm43, who died, leaving him under the interdict. Several regulations were made in the See by this archbishop. He constituted two prebends, placed canons at Hexham, gave various tracts of land to the college of Southwell, and purchased from the king the same immunities for them, which the prebendaries of York, Beverly, and Ripon enjoyed44.
42 Godwin’s Cat. p. 578.	43 Ibid.	44 Ibid. p. 579.22
YORK CATHEDRAL.
The ecclesiastical events connected with this See from the period here referred to, down to the time of the Reformation, may be found detailed in the voluminous works of various writers; but their particular or relative interest does not appear to demand a recital, or even analysis here. Without adverting to subordinate matter, it must suffice to carry our subject forward to the year 1514, when the famous Thomas Wolscy, was installed by proxy in the Metropolitical chair.
This wily ecclesiastic, who forms so prominent a figure in the annals of England, though called to the See, never officially visited York ; and being made in the following year, 1515, Cardinal a latere by Leo X. 45, he gave up his whole time to those ambitious intrigues which ultimately ended in his humiliation and disgrace. After having for a long time managed with considerable address the capricious temper of his tyrannical master, he was at length banished to his diocess by the machinations of his enemies, and fixed his residence some time at Scroby, and afterwards at Cawood Castle, in Yorkshire46. Whether he effected any particular changes in the See during the short time he was in the active discharge of his archiépiscopal duties, does not appear from history; but it is certain that his pastoral care in that limitted interval, was marked with the most zealous devotion and earnest solicitude47.
The Reformation had made great progress during the time of Edward Lee, the successor of the deceased cardinal; and it was now that the general alienation of church property which took place at this period, deprived the See of York of the manors of Beverly, Southwell, Skidby, and Bishop-Burton; all of which were exchanged with the crown for the dissolved Priory of Marton-cum-membris48. It does not appear that Archbishop Lee was at all engaged in promoting the business of the Reformation, but in the prelate who after him was advanced to the See, the king found a ready and fit instrument for his purposes. This man, whose name w^as Robert Holgate, being translated from Landaff to York49, surrendered to the crown, in one morning, no less than thirteen manors in
4S Carte’s Hist, of England, voi. iii. book xv. p. 19.	46 Ibid. p. 101.	47 Ibid.
48 Drake, book ii. cb. i. p. 451.	»	49 Rymer, Fcedera, tom. vi. pars. iii. p. 122.BISHOP HOLGATE.
23
Northumberland, forty in Yorkshire, six in Nottinghamshire, and eight in Gloucestershire ; all belonging to the Metropolitan See50. As an indemnity for these unworthy cessions, he received from the monarch thirty-three impropriations and advowsons, which came to the crown by the dissolution of some monasteries in the north. These alienations greatly impoverished the See, while at the same time the archbishop, who passively-consented to them, amassed considerable wealth for himself, which however, the eventful state of the times did not suffer to remain very long in his possession.
On the accession of Mary to the throne, Holgate was obliged to vacate his See, which was now conferred uponNicholas Heath, a man of more consistent and disinterested principles51. The bull of Pope Paul IV. confirming his election, bears date II Kal. Julii, anno 1555, and is the last instrument of that kind preserved in the archives of York. On the third of October following the pall was sent him for the plenary administration of his office, and on the subsequent twenty-second of Januaiy.he was solemnly installed in person52.
This prelate during the time that he continued in the exercise of his archiépiscopal functions, employed his good offices with the queen to procure the restoration of some of that property which had been wrested from the See by her arbitrary father. He succeeded in recovering several
50 Drake, book ii. chap, i' p. 452,
sl The following is a copy of the royal licence issued to the dean and chapter for the election of a successor to the ousted prelate; as given in Rymer's Fœdera, tom. vi. pars. iv. p. 35.
Rex et regina dilectis Nobis in Christo Decano sive in ejus absentia, Vicedecano et capitulo Ecclesiæ Cathedralis et Metropoliticæ Eborum, Salutem. Cum ecclesia nostra cathedralis et Metropolitica praedicta jan\ sit notorie pastoris solatio destituta, nos alium vobis eligendi in archiepiscopum et pastorem licentiam per presentes duximus concedendam. Mandantes quod talem vobis eligatis in archiepiscopum et pastorem, qui sacrarum literarum cognitione ad id munus aptus, Deo devotus, nobis et regno nostro utilis et fidelis ecclesiaeque nostrae prædictæ necessarius existât.
In cujus rei Szc.
Teste rege et regina apud Westmonasterium xix. die Februarii.
Per Breve de Privato Sigillo.
52 Godwin’s Cat. p. 624. Torre, p. 473.24
YORK CATHEDRAL.
manors, among which was the lordship of Ripon : Southwell also was obtained, and Drake justly observes, that “ the See of York owes to queen Mary and this archbishop more than a third part of its present revenues53.”
The first prelate of this See that publicly professed the reformed religion, was Thomas Young. He is, however, represented as a character every way inferior to his immediate predecessor ; and while he resorted to the most sordid expedients to accumulate wealth for himself and his family, he not only neglected the interests of the See but degraded his own character.
The successors of Young present nothing to the historian worthy of particular detail in their metropolitical character, till we come down to that memorable epoch the commonwealth. In those eventful days, we find John Williams presiding over the diocess of York. Having been engaged both for and against the royalists his character has been praised and censured. An ample memoir of him has been written by his chaplain, Dr. Hacket.
After the death of Williams, the See of York continued vacant ten years, the hierarchy being annulled by the ruling fanatics. On the restoration however, Accepted Frewen, the son of a puritanical rector of that name, was nominated to the archbishopric, and is supposed to have expended fifteen thousand pounds in certain improvements, which were rendered necessary by the injury the church had sustained during the protectorate. The period of the revolution was not marked with any particular occurrence with regard to this See, and the lives of the succeeding prelates are rather distinguished for “ the noiseless tenor of their way” than for any memorable traits of archiépiscopal polity.
Eboracum, book ii. chap. i. p. 453.mw. m.
HISTORICAL NOTICES OF THE FABRIC; ITS FOUNDATION, SUCCESSIVE ADDITIONS, ALTERATIONS, AND PRESENT CONDITION.
Having briefly noticed the chief historical events connected with the establishment of the see of York, it is our province in the next place to inquire into the original erection and subsequent alterations of its cathedral. It has already been seen that at the baptism of King Edwin, April 12, 627, a small chapel or oratory was constructed of wood for that purpose. By the persuasion of Paulinus the monarch was soon afterwards induced to commence a regular and appropriate church of stone1, which was intended to inclose and protect the former Christian penetrale, as it might perhaps not inaptly be called. But Edwin was not permitted to see the completion of the edifice which he had thus piously begun ; for scarcely were the walls raised when he was slain in battle at Hatfield chase in Yorkshire, in 633. Eanfrid, the son of Edwin’s predecessor, Edelfrid, then returned from exile, and on succeeding to the throne of Bernicia, was necessarily involved in the war against Cadwallo. But his fate was more unfortunate than that of Edwin, for he was basely slain by the British king, to whom he went with only twelve followers to sue for peace. Oswald, the brother of Eanfrid2, having slain Cadwallo and established his own authority, among
1	Bedæ, Hist. Eccl. lib. ii. ch. xiv.
2	Oswald is by several writers styled the successor of Edwin. The reason given by Bede for the omission of Eanfrid’s reign, which was about a year, is the apostacy of that monarch from the Christian faith. “ To this day (says he) that year is looked upon as unhappy and26
YORK CATHEDRAL.
many other pious acts, prosecuted, and it is supposed, completed the church which had been begun by Edwin3. According to Bede this church was quadrangular, as there is every reason to suppose all the churches of the Saxons then were4. Oswald, who was subsequently canonized, reigned according to Bede nine years; so that the church must have been completed before 642. But St. Oswald was about that time slain in battle-by Penda, the pagan king of the Mercians. The victors ravaged Northumbria, and the Christian edifice probably suffered from their fury. Wilfrid, who was'- appointed to the See in 669, found the church rapidly hastening to decay. Its dilapidated condition and its restorations by that prelate are minutely described by Eddius, who wrote about the year 7205. He remarks, that the timbers of the roof were
hateful to all good men; as well on account of the apostacy of the English kings, who had renounced the faith, as of the outrageous tyranny of the British king. Hence it has been agreed by all men, that treat of the time of the reigns of kings, , to abolish the memory of those perfidious persons, and to assign that year to the reign of the following king, Oswald, a man beloved by God.” Bedæ Hist. Eccl. lib. iii. c. 1.
3	Drake states that Oswald undertook to finish the building about 632 ; but this date is evidently too early, as Edwin was killed in 633, and Oswald did not commence his actual reign till a year afterwards. Torre, on the other hand, assigns the year 634 as the date of Edwin’s death.
4	Bedæ Hist. Eccl. lib. ii. c. 14. The words are “per qiiadrum” which Bentham cites in proof that the ancient Saxon Churches “ were mostly square, or rather oblong.” Hist, of Ely, p. 29.
Igitur, supra dicto rege regnante, beatæ memoriæ Wilfrido Episcopo Metropolitano Ebo-racæ civitatis constituto, Basilicæ Oratorii Dei in ea civitate a sancto Paulino Episcopo in diebus olim Eadwini Christianissimi regis primo fundatae et dedicatae Deo, officia semiruta lapidea eminebant. Nam culmina antiquata tecti distillantia, fenestraeque apertae avibus nidificantibus intro et foras volitantibus, et parietes incultae omni spurcitia imbrium et avium horribiles manebant. Videns itaque haec omnia sanctus Pontifex noster, secundum prophetam Danielem, “ horruit spiritus ejus” in eo quod domum Dei et orationis quasi speluncam latronum factam agnovit, et mox juxta voluntatem Dei emendare excogitavit. Primum culmina corrupta tecti renovans artificiose plumbo puro tegens, per fenestras introitum avium et imbrium vitro prohibuit, per quod tamen intro lumen radiebat. Parietes quoque lavans, secundum Prophetam, “ super nivem dealbavit."—Vita, S. Wilfridi Epis. Ebor. Auctore Eddio Stephano. Gale xv. Scriptores, Voi. i. p. 59.SAXON CHURCHES, BY WILFRID.
27
rotten, the walls decayed, the windows destitute of glass, or other material, whereby the interior was exposed to the injuries of the weather; and the birds were the undisturbed inhabitants of the ruined edifice. Wilfrid with zealous activity commenced an effectual repair. He strengthened the walls, renewed the wood-work of the roof, and covered it with lead, glazed the windows6, and white-washed the walls. Noi* did this eminent prelate and architect confine his exertions merely to restoring the ancient temples of religion. The churches of Ripon and Hexham were founded and built by him7; and from their magnitude and decoration naturally excited the admiration and praises of contemporary writers.
We cannot easily account for the conduct of our prelate in his architectural works. It appears that he merely repaired and adorned the cathedral church, but his biographer represents him as munificent, and even extravagant in founding and building other sacred edifices. He is said to have laid the foundation of nine churches, ór, as Mr. Hughes8 says, “ Minsters;” and finished some of these in a costly and
6	The glass for this purpose must have been imported, since Bede informs us that the artt>f making glass was introduced into this kingdom by the Abbot Benedict in 675. The windows thus glazed by Wilfrid had been originally furnished only with linen curtains and lattices of wood. William Malmesbury, De Gestis Pontif. lib. iii.
7	Eddius mentions the church of Ripon as a lofty edifice, supported by various columns and porticoes (cap. I7)HA more particular description of Hexham Minster, is given by Richard, Prior of Hexham, who wrote about the year 1180. He says, St. Wilfrid laid the foundations deep in the earth, for the crypts and oratories, and the passages leading to them. The walls, which were of great length, were raised to an immense height, and divided into three several stories or tiers, and were adorned with varied hewn square columns. He decorated the walls themselves, and the capitals of the columus, as also the coved ceiling of the sanctuary, with histories, statues, and various figurés in relief, cut in stone, with variety of coloured pictures of wonderful beauty. -He particularizes some other parts of the building. Rie. Prior Hagustald, lib. i. c. 3. William of Malmesbury also pronounces it, even in his age, to be a building of singular elegance, notwithstanding the injuries it had sustained. He ascribes its excellence to the taste of Wilfrid himself, as well as to the artizans and artificers whom he encouraged by his munificence to come over from Rome to engage in the undertaking.
8	Horæ Britannicae, vol. ii. p. 370.
D28
YORK CATHEDRAL.
novel manner: that of Hexham, in particular, is described by Eddius9, as having its foundation deep, and being provided with subterraneous rooms, or crypts, artfully disposed. It had also large buildings above ground, raised with hewn stone, and supported by various pillars, with porticoes or arches. The height and length of the walls are mentioned as wonderful, aud said to contain winding passages and staircases, ascending and descending.
The cathedral thus restored by Wilfrid was destroyed by fire in the year 74110, and a few years afterwards Archbishop Egbert commenced the erection of a new church, which was finished under the direction of Albert11, his coadjutor and successor in office. The superintendence of the building was entrusted to Eanbald, who afterwards became archbishop, and the celebrated Alcuin12. Egbert survived the consecration of the building only ten days. This structure is described by Alcuin as of considerable height, supported by columns and arches, covered by a vaulted roof, and provided with large windows. It had also porticoes and galleries, and thirty altars, the latter of which were adorned with various orna-
9 Vita S. Wilfridi, c. 22.	IO R. Hoveden. Annal, pars prior, ad ann. 741.
" This prelate is omitted by William of Malmesbury in “ Gest. Pontif. Angl.” and is merely named by Godwin (De Præsul). But from Alcuin’s poem we learn, on the very best authority, that he was a most pious and learned man, and the founder of the library, attributed by William of Malmesbury to Egbert. Alcuin, De Pontifie: et Sanctis Eccl. Ebor. Gale xv. Script. 1691, voi. i. p. 727, &c.
x* This great luminary of his age requires our notice. He was a native of York, and under the patronage of Egbert and Albert, conducted the famous school at that time established there. In returning from Rome, which he had visited to procure the pallium for Eanbald, he was introduced to Charlemagne. That potentate, desirous of adding literary honours to the fame he had acquired in arms, solicited and obtained the assistance of Alcuin in reviving learning throughout his dominions, became his first pupil, and his example was followed by the chief nobility of France. After contributing in an eminent degree to the restoration of science, beloved and honoured by his royal patron, and by all the noble and enlightened persons of his time, Alcuin died at the abbey of St. Martin, lamented as the pride of his age, and the
benefactor of the empire.NORMAN CATHEDRAL.
29
ments13. From this period we do not find any historical notices respecting the alterations and repairs of the church for nearly three hundred years. Yet it is highly probable that it suffered from the devastations of the Danes, whose predatory bands, during that interval, frequently ravaged the country from the Humber to the Tyne, and were several times in possession of the city of York. But in 1069, those ferocious warriors were invited by the Northumbrians to assist them in throwing off the tyrannical yoke of William the Conqueror. A dreadful struggle ensued. The Norman garrison, besieged in York castle by the allies, burnt down the adjoining houses for their own protection ; but the flames, spreading beyond their intended object, destroyed the greater part of the city, and the cathedral fell in the common ruin14.
Soon after this misfortune, Thomas, a canon of Bayeux, and chaplain to the king, was elected to the See. By his exertions the ruined cathedral soon rose again more capacious and elegant than before ; but its prosperity was of short duration; for in 1137 it was again destroyed by an accidental fire, which consumed at the same time St. Mary’s Abbey, and thirty-nine parish churches15. It appears that Thurstan, the archbishop, intended to rebuild the church: since we find that soon after the fire an indulgence was granted by Joceline, Bishop of Sarum, reciting, “that whereas the Metropolitical Church of York was consumed by a new fire, and almost subverted, destroyed, and miserably spoiled of its ornaments and therefore releasing to such as bountifully contributed towards the re-edification of it, forty days of penance enjoined16.
13 “ Hæc nimis alta domus solidis suffulta columnis Suppositae quæ stant curvatis arcubus, intus Emicat egregiis laquearibus atque fenestris ;
Pulchraque porticibus fulget circumdata multis,
Plurima diversis retinens solaria tectis Quæ triginta tenent variis ornatibus aras.v
Alcuin de Pontif. ut supra.
'4 Simon Dunel: Hist. Angi. Scriptores x. coi. 178.
,s Drake's Eboracum, book ii. chap. ii. p. 473.	16 Ex MSS. Torre, p. 2.30
YORK CATHEDRAL.
But notwithstanding thèse endeavours to raise the money requisite for rebuilding the cathedral, the work was not commenced till the . time of Archbishop Roger (1171), who rebuilt the choir with its vaults17. In 1227, Archbishop Walter Grey issued indulgences of forty days relaxation, by the profits of which he was enabled to erect the south transept18. In the reign of king Henry III. John le Romayne, treasurer of the church, built the north transept, which he completed in 126Ò. He also erected a handsome tower, or steeple, in the place which the great lantern tower now occupies. His son, John le Romayne, the archbishop, laid the foundation of the nave on the 7th April, 1291. This grand work, with two towers at the west end, were finished in about forty years from the commencement, by the activity and liberality of Archbishop le Romayne, and his successor, William de Melton19. The latter is said to have éxpended seven hundred pounds of his own money in this work. But the greater part of the expense was defrayed by the usual expedient of indulgences, aided probably by briefs, for asking alms and benevolences. An indulgence is extant, dated—Kalends of February, 1320, whereby William de Melton grants forty days relaxation to all contributors to the restoration of the late prostrate fabric20. The materials for building the nave were furnished by Robert de Vavasour, who granted the use of his quarry near Tadcaster, not only for the building, but for the future reparation of the church, and by Robert de Percy, Lord of Bolton, who gave his wood at Bolton to be employed in thç timber work of the roof, &c. The memory of these noble benefactors is preserved by statues, both at the western and eastérn ends of the cathedral; in the western part the statue
17 Stubbs Chron. Pontif. Eccl. Ebor.	18 MSS. Torre. See Appendix. No. I.
19	This appears from a table in the vestry containing these words :
an. Dorn. MCGXCI.
3lnceptum est noöum opus corporis eccï. Cfcor. per ^Männern Eoinanum ardjtepm. ejuSDem et infra xl. annos quasi completum per Cïïtï 'ïteïmum De î^eïton arcljiepiscopum. ,
20	MSS. Torre, p. 3.	.	.BUILDING A CHOIR.
31
of Vavasour is represented with a rude block of stone, and that of Percy with a piece of wrought timber21.
Archbishop John Thoresby, on succeeding to this See in 1352, determined to pull down the old choir, which had been built by Archbishop Roger, and to substitute a structure more suitable to the elegance of the body of the church. For this purpose he issued his brief, dated 1st March, 1352, to ask and collect alms for the use and consummation of the fabric. Having raised a considerable sum, the old building was taken down in pursuance of a resolution of the chapter22; and on the 29th July, 1361, the same archbishop laid the first stone of the new choir23. In the same year he granted an indulgence of forty days to all contributors to the pious work. He was further assisted by Innocent VI. who issued indulgences of two years and two quarters for the same purpose. The Chapter of York also laid an imposition of the twentieth part of all ecclesiastical benefices within their jurisdiction, to promote the works. Urban V. granted an indulgence of one year, in 136624 ; and Urban VI. granted to the dean and chapter the revenues of the church of Misterton for ten years. Walter Skirlaw', then archdeacon of the East Riding, made a large donation, and Thoresby himself expended of his ow n money, above one thousand seven hundred pounds. The materials of his mansion at Shireburn, then in a ruinous state, were also applied in constructing the works of the choir25.
By these and similar means the archbishop and his successors were enabled not only to build the present choir, but to take down the old central tower, erected by John le Romayne, and to substitute in its place
21	The original figures being much defaced were taken down in 1813, and new statues raised in their respective niches.
22	Appendix. No. II.
23	The table in the vestry, already mentioned, records this fact thus :
En. Dom. M. C CC. LX I. inceptum egt notum opus c$ori eccï. <£bor. per ^Männern Be Cfjurgtt]? arcfjiepigcopum.
24	Appendix. No. III.	as Appendix. No. IV.32
YORK CATHEDRAL.
the elegant lantern tower which now adorns and illumines the centre of the edifice26. This tower was most probably erected by Walter Skirlaw, chiefly at his own expense ; and his arms, on shields, are affixed to the inside of the building. The rest of the structure (except the towers at the west end) was finished between 1405, when Archbishop Bowett (whose arms appear in the sculpture and on the windows) was appointed to the See; and 1420, when the dean and chapter granted out of their revenues a full tenth to the use of the fabric then newly built27. The present towers at the west end appear to have been raised by John de Birmingham, or Bermingham, about the year 140228. His name, with a figure of a bear, is cut in bold relief on the west face of the southern tower.
The date of the erectiou of the magnificent building called the Chapter House, cannot be accurately ascertained from any records now remaining. It is generally ascribed to Archbishop Walter Grey, as a figure in the window over the entrance corresponds with the representation of that prelate on his tomb, and the arms of several of his contemporaries are painted in some of the other windows : but this part of the church, with its vestibule, are evidently posterior to the decease of Grey, as will be shown in the next chapter.
The building used as a Vestry, was anciently a chapel, founded by Archbishop Zouch about 135029, who intended it for the place of his interment, but died before it was finished. The original building was demolished at the time of the new erection of the choir, and the present one raised in its stead by the executors of Zouch, and endowed as a chantry for prayers for the soul of that prelate.
At the period of the Reformation, the furious zeal which demolished so many beautiful monuments of antiquity, did not spare York Cathedral; nor did the fanatics of Cromwell’s time omit here their pious practices of destroying the figures, and epitaphs on the tombs, and stealing the brasses.
*® Agreements between the chapter and plumbers for covering parts of the church are still preserved among the cathedral records; extracts from which will be given in the sequel.
27 Torre, MSS. p. 7.	i8 Drake’s Eboracum, p. 485.
29 Stubb's Chron. Pontif. Ebor. in vita Gul. Zouch.PAVEMENT--WINDOWS—LIBRARY.
33
The numerous grave-stones stripped of their ornaments, and otherwise injured, disfigured the church; the old pavement was therefore taken up, and the present one laid down in 1736, according to a plan drawn by Mr. Kent under the direction of Lord Burlington. The stone for this purpose was the donation of Sir Edward Gascoigne, of Parlington, from his quarry at Huddlestone, in Yorkshire; and even some of the old marble grave-stones were cut up, and appropriated to this work. The expenses amounting to two thousand five hundred pounds, were defrayed by a subscription among the noblemen and gentlemen of Yorkshire. It is however to be regretted that the noble amateur architect did not adapt the design of his pavement to the style and character of the edifice ; instead of disposing it in a sort of Roman pattern. It appears however to have been admired at the time, as a plate was engraved of it.
Many of the windows in the church are still adorned with stained glass; and we have reason to infer that the whole were originally thus embellished. Most of them were most likely glazed at the eras of building the respective porticoes. The time, 1405, and conditions of executing the large eastern windows, are recorded in a document still preserved among the cathedral archives.
The present library is a building which was formerly a chapel belonging to the episcopal palace. For many years this chapel was in a dilapidated condition, but has been lately repaired under the judicious direction of the dean and chapter, and now exhibits a beautiful and pleasing specimen of the earliest pointed style. The first library of the cathedral was founded by Albert30, and included the collection of his predecessor, Egbert. In Alcuin’s poem already referred to, the highest encomiums are bestowed on this library. Many of the most celebrated ancient theological and classical works, are there enumerated, some of which are no longer extant31. They were principally obtained by the indefatigable exertions
30 Egregias condens uno sub calmine gazas.
Alcuin, de Pontif. Ebor. ut supra, p. 730.
31 Illa invenies veterum vestigia patrum
Quicquid habet pro se Latio Romanus in orbe34
YORK CATHEDRAL.
of Albert; who, as the poet assures us, repeatedly visited the continent in search of valuable manuscripts to add to his collection. But this repository, with its choice contents, was destroyed by the fire occasioned by the Normans in 1069: and the library, afterwards formed by Archbishop Thomas, shared a similar fate in 1137. We meet with no farther account of a library in this cathedral till in the reign of Henry VIII. Leland describes it as almost destitute of good books. At length the widow of Archbishop Matthews, about 1628, bestowed on the church the books of her late husband, amounting to about three thousand volumes. To these many important additions have since been made by purchase, donation, and bequest, particularly the laborious collections of Mr. Torre, and the Rev. Marmaduke Fothergill32.
Graecia vel quidquid transmisit clara Latinis ;
Hebraicus vel quod populus bibit imbre superno,
Africa lucifluo vel quidquid lumine sparsit.
Quod pater Hieronymus, quod sensit Hilarius, atque Ambrosius præsul, simul Augustinus et ipse Sanctus Athanasius quod Orosius edit acutus;
Quidquid Gregorius summus docet, et Leo papa,
Basilius quidquid, Fulgentius atque coruscans Cassiodorus item Chrysostomus atque Johannes.
Quidquid et Athelmus docuit, quid Beda magister,
Quæ Victorious scripsere, Boetius, atque Historici veteres Pompeius, Plinius, ipse Acer Aristoteles, rhetor quoque Tullius ingens.
Quid quoque Sedulius, vel quid canit ipse Juvencus,
Alcuinus, Clemens, Prosper, Paulinus, Arator,
Quid Fortunatus vel quid Lactantius edunt;
Quæ Maro Virgilius, Statius, Lucanus et auctor Artis grammaticae ; vel quid scripsere magistri.
Quid Probus, atquæ Phocas, Donatus Priscianusve Servius, Euticius, Pompeius, Comminianus.
Invenies alios perplures, lector, ibidem Egregios studiis, arte et sermone magistros,
Plurima qui claro scripsere volumina sensu ;
Nomina sed quorum præsenti in carmine scribi.
Alcuin de Pontif. ut supra, p. 730.
32 Drake’s Eboracum, p. 483.©Da»* æ*
DESCRIPTION OF THE FORM, ARRANGEMENT, AND CONSTRUCTION OF THE CHURCH:—OF ITS EXTERIOR AND INTERIOR BEAUTIES AND DEFECTS:— REMARKS ON ITS STYLES OF ARCHITECTURE, AND ON THE VARIOUS PORTIONS OF THE EDIFICE : WITH REFERENCE TO THE ACCOMPANYING PRINTS.
Among the ecclesiastical edifices of England, the Minster, or Cathedral of York, which is preeminent in size, has also generally been considered unequalled in architectural beauty. It has obtained the unqualified and indiscriminating praise of some writers, who have laboured to enhance its grandeur and elegance by depreciating the beauty of other cathedrals. But the historian and critic who hopes to maintain the character of impartiality, and to secure the approbation of the judicious antiquary, must adopt a different course of procedure. It will be his duty to notice and particularize the peculiar and individual features and characteristics of the structure ; and if in doing this he feels it expedient to allude to corresponding parts in other buildings, his criticism will not be partial, nor will his opinions be the result of prejudice. Well knowing that a great variety of style and design is exhibited in our cathedrals—convinced that each has its distinguishing character—its peculiar beauties and imperfections—he will avoid the common error of those local critics who exalt the edifice to which circumstances have attached their investigations, by an unfair and invidious comparison with others. Such comparative estimates have too frequently been instituted between the cathedrals of York and Lincoln, by writers, who have displayed and exaggerated the excellencies,
E36
YORK CATHEDRAL.
and concealed the defects, of the favourite building; while they have pointed out all the blemishes, and passed over all the beauties of its rival.
That York Cathedral is a noble, a magnificent, and even a sublime structure, will be readily allowed by the impartial and discriminating antiquary :—that it is peculiarly imposing and impressive as a whole must also be admitted, and that it presents many beautiful features and details few persons will have the temerity to deny. The Cathedral of Lincoln has, however, many local and individual beauties, which command admiration ; and which, on comparative examination, may appear to excel the corresponding parts of York. It would be bordering on impertinence and folly to pronounce in general terms on the preeminence of either. Each has its own and its exclusive beauty ; each is entitled to the careful study of the architect and antiquary; and each has its peculiar monuments, architectural details, and history. Let us, therefore, avoid illiberal, partial, and petty comparisons : let us examine with a view to admire and understand, and not to depreciate : let us prove ourselves citizens of the world, and not citizens of a small insulated spot. By allowing the mind to wander over extended space, and dwell on numerous objects, its sphere of enjoyment is much increased ; whereas when confined to a small space, it necessarily becomes contracted in its powers of appreciation.
By the accompanying engraved illustrations, and the following descriptive particulars, it is hoped that even the stranger to York Cathedral will be enabled to judge of its form, extent, and styles of architecture, and likewise of its beauties and blemishes. As a distant object this edifice assumes a lofty and imposing aspect. Its three towers are seen preeminent above the city houses, and the parochial churches ; whilst the numerous crocketed pinnacles, at the w^est end and gables, display at once intricacy, variety, and picturesque beauty. Though this church has not the advantage of a lofty, or scarcely an elevated site, yet it appears very high by comparison with its neighbouring buildings; and is seen like a noble forest tree amidst a shrubbery from every approach to the city. It is difficult to point out any single spot that commands it to the greatest advantage, yet from the rampart between Micklegate and the water tower,DISTANT VIEW AND WALLS.
37
it may be regarded as peculiarly magnificent and fine. Hence the three towers, with their pinnacles, open parapets, and bold sculpture, are seen to rise sublimely above the houses. Indeed it may be compared to a mountain starting out of a plain : and thus attracting all the attention and admiration of a spectator. The petty, humble dwellings of men appear to crouch at its feet: whilst its own vastness and beauty impress the observer with awe and sublimity. It aspires heaven-wards, and thus denotes its pristine appropriation. From the station now alluded to (see Plate XII.) is seen a congregated mass of houses, with the guildhall, and two or three towers, to the right of the cathedral; whilst in the middle distance is presented the busy traffic of the navigable Ouse; to the left the eye is pleasingly relieved and soothed by an open lawn, with the picturesque ruins of St. Mary’s Abbey, beyond which is a peep into a distant tract of country. The foreground is both curious and picturesque. On the brow of a high bank, with a steep scarp and counterscarp, is an embattled wall, with a terrace walk of communication on the inside : at irregular intervals are projecting bastions, for the purpose of enfilading the wall1. This fortification extended round the whole city, excepting at the places where the river intersected it. On the opposite banks, at these points, there were fortified towers, from which chains formerly extended across the river.
The approaches to the Cathedral are all unfavourable. They are from the east, the west, and the south ; and on each of these sides, the houses are built so near the church, that the spectator is placed too close, and too
1 As the fortified Walls of York constitute not only a peculiar, but a highly interesting historical feature to the city, it is truly lamentable to witness the wanton and vulgar dilapidation to which they are daily subjected. Instead of being cautiously protected and preserved by those persons whose duty it is to guard and uphold them, and who are invested with an annual income for that purpose, they are suffered gradually to moulder away. Indeed they are sometimes battered down for the materials to be appropriated to a hog-stye, or for some other equally trivial purpose. The four ancient fortified gates, or bars, are also fast approaching to ruin. One of these, Monk-Bar, is probably the most curious and perfect specimen of this sort of architecture in the kingdom : and therefore is very interesting to the antiquary and architect. Let us hope it may be preserved for centuries; for every age will enhance its worth and curiosity. I have had plans, elevations, and sections of it made by Mr. Pugin.38
YORK CATHEDRAL.
much beneath it to examine it to advantage. All the parts appear distorted and abrupt. Thé higher members are seen, by the rules of perspective, as vanishing or dipping too quick to be pleasing; and the nearer parts seem unpleasingly large. Thus, instead of harmony and symmetry, we have discordancy and disproportion2. Besides, the critical spectator seeks in vain for places to view either the west end, the south side, or the east end. He cannot see the whole of either from any one station: and if he wishes to represent them in drawing, he must sketch the parts from various points, and combine and display them by the rules of art. Thus the views of the western front (PI. X.), the east end (PI. VI.), the south-east sides (PI. VII.) may be considered as imaginary ; but as it is our object to display and elucidate the architecture of the building, we deem it oùr duty to do this in the best possible manner, regardless of modern appèn-dages or extraneous objects. At the east end of the church, some houses approach it within a few yards; as they do also at the west end, and south-west angle. On the south side is the church of St. Michael le Belfry, and a continued range of houses, with the deanery, &c. all of which preclude any general view of the Cathedral.
The Cathedral Church of York, though not strictly regular, uniform, and insulated, may be said to be very nearly all of these: for excepting à small building attached to the south-west angle of the south transept, and
2 It seems almost incomprehensibly strange, that the ostentatious architects and proprietors of our Cathedrals did not secure them against encroachment : and did not thus exhibit them to the best advantage at every approach. To them ground-rents were not so much matters of calculation, as at the present day : to them the house of God was paramount to évery other terrestrial object: and to this they seem to have devoted all their skill, riches, and influénce. Yét from the time of their original erection to the present day, we find that nearly all the cathedrals have been progressively invaded by dwelling-houses, shops, warehouses, and, in some instances, even inferior buildings. It is no uncommon thing to see public houses, chimneys, sinks, water-closets, stables, pig-styes, &c. attached to, or cut into the walls of some of our sacred edifices. A better taste, however, is at length excited, and many of these “ nuisances have been abated.” At York, in particular, much improvement has been made, and much more is intended to be done : some buildings have been taken down, and a large open area formed on the north side of the church: but it is hoped that an equal space may yet be laid open on its south and western sides.WEST FRONT.
39
two vestries on the south side of the choir, it is not united to any building or external object. It may be regarded as very nearly regular and uniform in arrangement and style of architecture : although we recognise a progressive, and very gradual change, from the transepts through the eastern end, chapter house, and western parts of the building. The whole edifice may be said to consist, internally, of a nave, with its two ailes ; a transept ivith two ailes, and à lahthorn in the centre; a choir, and eastern portion, or lady chapel, with two ailes, vestries òr chapels on the south side; and a chapter room, with a vestibule on the north side. The peculiarities and styles of these parts, as well as of the exterior, will be fully explained in the subsequent description; in which we shall first point out the distinguishing features of the exterior.
West Front.—The situation of the magnificent west front (Plate X.3) is vèfy unfavourable to the display of its beauty. It is confined in a narrow area by a wall and by some small houses; the approach from the south-west is by a gate; of which only the front arch, with a postern is left standing, and this so ruinous and dirty as barely to deserve preservation. The direction of the adjacent streets makes it impossible to view this august façade, except in a diagonal direction. The dean and chapter have, however, generously determined to remedy the worst of these inconveniences, by pulling down the houses on the south and south-west sides of the Minster yard, and removing rubbish that has accumulated at the west end of thé church:	A very spacious area has been cleared on the north side of
the navë, where the archbishop’s palace and other large buildings formerly stood ; a yard has been obtained, enclosed with a stone wall and arched gate, furnished with commodious shops for workmen, and storehouses for building materials. Some an tient buildings, which abutted against the north-west towrer, have been very lately taken dowm.
Two uniform towers, strengthened at their corners with buttresses which diminish at four divisions as they ascend, rise from the western ends of
3 It is to be regretted that a spectator cannot place himself in any one situation to obtain a favourable view of the whole front. The present view has been drawn from plans and elevations, and partly sketched on the spot, from a court near Mr. Drake’s house.40
YORK CATHEDRAL.
the ailes of the nave. Between these towers the front of the middle aile is carried up to the same height as its side walls, and an open battlement runs across the whole breadth, round the towers, and continues along the sides of the nave. A number of niches, adorned with a beautiful variety and richness of sculpture, cover almost the whole front, and are wrought in each of the principal buttresses, as well as in the walls between them* The chief feature of the middle division is a grand window, an unrivalled specimen of the leafy tracery that marks the style of the middle of the fourteenth century. From the arch of this window rises an acute gable, or pediment, the point of which, rising above the line of the battlement, is pierced into open tracery; behind which is seen the proper gable of thé roof, adorned in front with tracery mouldings, similar fo the window7, and crowned at top by battlements of open work raking on the sides, up to a tabernacle on the apex or summit4. The principal door has a gable over its arch with strait sides, but not so high pitched as that over the great window. The door-way is divided by a slender pillar into two smaller arches, above which is a circular glazed compartment, with tracery. The size of this door-way hardly appears sufficient for its conspicuous use, or suitable to so vast a fabric ; and its division into two parts (though common in almost all chief entrances of churches, from the reign of King John till after that of Edward III.) also diminishes the boldness of the effect ; especially w ith reference to the two lateral door-ways, w hich are not divided. The whole porch of the ’middle door, with all the lower niches, as well as various other parts, are of new w ork, and do equal credit to the artists who restored them and to their munificent employers. This door-way is showm at large, Plate XI.
The lower parts of the towers preserve a correspondent design to the sides of the fabric. In front of each is a window7 exactly like the rest in the ailes, only not brought so low7 at bottom, to make room for the doors. The form of the western towers, from the open battlement that surrounds
4 The pinnacle of this has been restored in the late repairs. It was wanting when Malton’s elevation was drawn, but is shown, as complete, in Baker’s view engraved by yivares in 1750.WEST FRONT.
■
them at the height of the nave, is very simple. A window on each side is the principal feature. The canopy of each window, it may be observed, exhibits a change of style from the lower windows, the lines not being carried to a strait angle, but curved to suit the shape of the arch, which is high pitched. The double buttresses at each angle diminish in three breaks, all elegantly finished with crockets, &c. but cease under the cornice, which runs entirely round the towers, even at the angles, as in Grecian and Roman buildings. Above this cornice rise eight lofty square pinnacles, and a battlement of similar design to that below, but loftier and more elaborate. The walls of the upper portion of the towers are beautifully adorned with niches, pinnacles, gables, and other ornaments5.
The only alteration that might perhaps be wished in this part of the structure, would be, that the buttresses had been carried up into the pinnacles ; as the cornice at the angles and the oversetting of the pinnacles beyond the line of the walls look awkward and unsafe.
It has been supposed that the niches of this front were formerly occupied by statues6, but this was never the case, whatever the architects might design; for no fragments, or marks of fastenings were found when the repairs were going on, which must have been seen if statues had ever been put up. Over the western door are statues of Archbishop Melton, of Percy, and of Vavasour, which have been restored from the mutilated
5	The Stone of which the lower part of the west front is constructed was brought from Bramham Moor, near Tadcaster, about ten miles from York ; but that of the two towers was probably obtained from the quarries of Stapleton, near Pontefract : for among the archives of the Duchy of Lancaster, (Somerset Place), is a grant, dated 17th July, 1400, 1st Henry IV. to the Dean and Chapter to be exempt from the payment of tolls and other customs in the river Air for stone to be carried to York Cathedral for the new works. The stone of the lower part is of a greyish colour when exposed to the Weather ; the grit is fine, but has sadly failed in preserving its substance where delicately cut, as almost all the sculpture is much mouldered ; and even the ashler work, or plain walling, owing to the slow but continual decomposition of its surface, has never acquired the fine russet that clothes the exterior of Lincoln and Peterborough Cathedrals, or the neighbouring fabric of Beverley-Minster.
6	They are so represented in Carter’s View, which was engraved for the Gentleman’s Magazine for August, 1809.42
YORK CATHEDRAL.
originals by Taylor of York. Some other statues,^ but mostly mutilated, occupy niches in vaÿous parts of this front. The geometrical forms and proportions of the western towers, both externally and internally, are shown in Plate XIX.
Nave, Exterior.—The nave is divided into seven parts, by buttresses, and consists, as usual, of two stories. On the north side it is finished in a plain style, the aile having no pinnacles over its broad and massive buttresses; this part was antiently blocked up by the Archbishop’s palace and other buildings, though it is now entirely laid open to view. PI. IY. shows part of this side. The once lofty pinnacles of the south aile have suffered severely from time, and are now so much decayed as to display only shapeless fragments, and the finials, or tops, are quite gone ; the entablatures on which the battlements stand have an enrichment of finials peculiar to this church. One compartment of this side of the nave is shown in PI.. XVIII. which displays the forms and ornaments of the two windows, the pinnacles, the parapets, buttresses, &c, On the north side, near the west-end, is a stair-case in the buttress; also a small arch or two of very antient style. In the angle between the north transept and the nave, the ruinous effect of the settlement of thé great tower may be traced, though the most unsightly blemishes have been removed or concealed. Part of the transept was, by this settlement, crushed down nine inches, and the nave was brought down almost as much. The windows of the upper story, on the north side of the nave, had wooden muliions till lately, when stone was introduced, conformably to the rest.
The central tower bears evident marks of the Tudor style. On each of its four sides are two large windows, with two tiers of muliions, bounded on each side by compartmented buttresses. The heads of the windows and heights of the buttresses have sweeping pediments. The battlements are richly perforated in masonic compartments. At the angles of the parapet some imperfections seem to occur; or more probably this tower was never completely finished, as an indication of tin arch meets the eye, which seems to set all architectural conjecture at defiance.SOUTH TRANSEPT.
43
Plate Vili, exhibits the front of the South Transept, which was completed about the year 1227, early in the reign of Henry III. This superb elevation is divided by buttresses into three parts7 corresponding with the division of the interior into three ailes. In the central compartment is the porch, which is approached by a spacious double flight of steps. , This porch was some years since partly restored and partly re-constructed ; the antient clock over the entrance, adorned with two wooden statues in the armour of the time of Henry VII. was removed to make room for the present modern dial : and several of the columns and arches, and the pediment were at the same time altered. The innovation, however, produced but very little improvement; but it might be very easily made to correspond with the other parts. On each side are two windows, and above it, three large lights occupy the whole of the central compartment. Over these appears the great circular window', which forms the noblest decoration of this transept. See Plate IX. It consists of two concentric circles of small columns and trefoil arches; the centre and spandrils of which are pierced. The four octangular turrets at the angles are certainly more modern than the date of the transept, and the centre pinnacle has been brought from some other part of the building. It is to be regretted that the vestries on the east, and other small offices against the west side of the transept, are allowed to disfigure this side of the church.
The sides of this transept are divided into bays, by buttresses similar to those of the front; in each bay are two windows, separated by a slender outtress. An elevation of one compartment of this part of the building is seen in Pl. XV.
The early date of the erection of this transept is evinced by its acutely pointed arches, and slender pillars with plain or slightly ornamented capitals, its narrow and acutely pointed windows, destitute of mullions (except in the central window, which is probably a modern insertion,) and its angular pediments; while the octangular turrets and pinnacle of the
7 The “ Guide to the Cathedral of York” mentions this part as distinguished by the absence of prominent buttresses. Ed. 1815, p. 4044
YORK CATHEDRAL.
gable, however rich in the decorations of more modern works, are injurious to the simplicity and harmony of the original design.
The Exterior of the North Transept exhibits the finished neatness and plainness of the first period of the pointed style. The ailes have two lancet lights, in each bay, divided by slender buttresses, neatly canted at the angles and with mouldings. The elevation of one side is seen in Plate XIV. The upper story is adorned with a continued series of small arches, three in each bay being pierced for windows. The turrets at the angles are evidently unfinished, as they are left without spires ; and the point of the gable, ends abruptly, without even the decoration of a cross. The door into the west side of this transept is almost blocked up by the wall of the north aile of the nave ; the buttress of the new work is carried over it upon an arch turned upon a buttress of old work. The five long single lights in the north end have a bold and striking effect : under them runs a series of arches, with trefoil heads. See Plan and Elevation (PI. XXVIII.)
The Exterior of the Choir displays some striking features and peculiarities. On each side is a projection above the ailes, called the Little Transept, with a lofty window rising from the middle of the aile to nearly the top roof of the choir, and with side windows over the ailes. East of these the clerestory windows are inserted in the inner part of the wall, and an open screen is constructed before them. This is peculiar to the present church, in England, but a similar feature prevails in some of the churches on the Continent. The great eastern window has a similar screen of mullions and tracery, internally.
The unfinished state of the stone work on the north side, beneath the windows, shows that a cloister, or other low building, was intended in this part, but which seems not to have been executed. The cornice under the battlements is more perfect towards the eastern part, and shows beautiful foliage ; the spouts are sculptured with bold projecting figures, through which the water is conveyed from the roofs.
The East End of the building is extremely beautiful. In Plate VI. it is shown from an imaginary station, as the whole cannot be seen from anyCHOIR EXTERIOR.
45
one point. Four very lofty pinnacles, rising from the buttresses, form the chief outline: they are finished with an open crown, or coronet, out of which rise the crocheted spires. Over the centre and ailes are open work parapets, which run horizontally, and are of different patterns. In the centre is a square turret, which is not very graceful, and which appears to have been built merely to support the finial, &c. of the great eastern window. The spires, at the corners of the ailes, are rather too slender for a beautiful proportion, and their crockets want boldness. The great window in the centre has a lofty arch, over which is a fine sweeping ogee moulding with foliage canopy, remarkable for its fine curve and lofty termination. The buttresses are adorned with niches, with pedestals and canopies, which were formerly filled with several statues, three of which only remain.
These appear to represent a figure of an archbishop, seated, holding a church in his left hand, and his right raised; much larger than life. A statue of Vavasour is in tolerable preservation : it has a belt, a short doublet, and hose or boots, drawn up above its knees, but no mantle : the countenance is that of an elderly man. Another statue, which seems to have been a graceful figure, but now reduced by the weather to a ragged appearance, is said to represent Percy : he wears a mail gorget and mantle ; his helmet, on which stands a lion (his crest), is on the top of the niche ; and a lion, or dog, is at his feet. These two figures hold in their right hands samples of their benefactions to the church. All the older parts of this end are most lamentably mouldering away. The open tracery of the parapets is reduced to a skeleton ; and all the crockets and projecting grotesques are mere shapeless pieces of crumbling stone.
From the top of the chapter-house we have a most complete view of the north side of the choir. The canopies of the aile windows are here carved to the shapes of the arches ; the buttresses do not run up into such tall pinnacles as those on the south side of the nave, and they have neither statues nor niches. The upper windows do not stand so deeply recessed in the walls, which gives them a flat look. No arched or flying buttresses46
YORK CATHEDRAL.
have ever existed in this part. The form of the four upper windows, east of the Little Transept, is partly concealed by a series of open tracery, over which the parapet is carried; the exterior appearance of this is rather intricate than beautiful ; but the effect produced within, by subduing the side lights for the more brilliant display of the great east window, sufficiently evinces the reason and skill of this design.
The windows nearest the great tower, here, as well as in the nave, are somewhat contracted in breadth, and the farthest bay towards the east is also narrower than the rest ; the reason of this latter irregularity is not very apparent..
Having noticed the general and particular features of the exterior of the church, it will be our next object to point out the peculiarities and characteristics of its interior. In doing this we shall proceed to notice successively the transepts, the nave, the choir, the east end, the vestries, the crypt, the chapter house, and the monuments.
The architectural styles and proportions of the transept are displayed in Plates I. Vili. IX. XIII. XIV. XV. XVII. and XXVIII. and from these it will be seen that the early pointed style prevails. Clustered detached columns, with bands, bases with deep and bold members, and capitals, richly and fancifully sculptured :—arches, with acute and with obtuse heads, also nearly semicircular, are seen. Indeed this part of the minster, though possessing some very fine and interesting features, is very irregular and discordant. As shewn in the plan, PI. I. the transept consists of three great divisions ; i. e. one large central space, and two side ailes. These are separated from each other by clustered columns and pointed arches ; and it will be seen, on reference to PI. XIV. that these columns and arches are all varied in forms, proportions, and ornaments. This dissimilarity is most remarkable in the two arches nearest the central tower, one of which is entirely filled up with masonry, and which was probably done to serve as buttresses to the tower. The breadth of the central part of the transept is very striking. The roof is of wood, arched, and adorned with ribs and knots, in imitation of those of the nave and choir, and great ingenuity isNORTH AND SOUTH TRANSEPTS.
47
displayed in its adaptation to the more antient stone work. Originally the ceiling was much lower, and the springing of stone ribs may clearly be traced between the windows in the sides of the south transept; but when the great tower was erected, the superior height of the arches of that required the roof within the transepts to be raised sufficiently to include them. The transepts at the northern and southern extremities are very dissimilar to each other. The elevation of that on the north side (PI. XXVIII.) presents five tall lancet windows, strangely called the five siéters. Above these is a series of five other lancet windows of varied heights, the upper parts of which rise above the vaulted roofi Beneath the sills of the lower windows is a series of blank arches, with trefoil heads. There is a passage of communication from the stair-case-turret, at the no.rth-Nyest angle, at the base of the windows, through the great pier, and between the upright mullions of the windows, as shewn in the plan of Plate XXVIII. At the north-east corner of this transept is the entrance to the chapter-house, the door-way of which is of singular form and ornament Through the eastern wall is another door-way, which is supposed to have led to an older chapter-house than the present. The capitals of the columns, thé brackets, the mouldings of arches, the bosses, &c. of this part of the transept are all enriched with bold and elaborate sculpture.
The south transept nearly corresponds with the opposite, but is not so regular, nor is it so well finished. Its middle story is rather richer in detail. The springings of the stone vault, as originally intended, are plainly seen between the arches of the second story. The clustered shafts they rise from, as also in the other transept, rest on corbels of elegant foliage, similar to some in Lincoln and Ely Cathedrals, instead of forming part of the columns below, as is the case in the nave. (See Plate XV.)
The connection of this transept with the tower, the nave, and the choir, shows that great alterations have been made. Originally each of the transepts had three uniform bays, beyond the ailes of the nave and choir, but when the latter were rebuilt, the length of the transepts was so far encroached upon, that the centre of the arches, nearest to the tower, occupies the site where a column once stood.48
YORK CATHEDRAL.
Nave.—On entering the nave, from the west end, the vastness of its dimensions produces an imposing and even an awful effect ; and the mildly glowing lights which its “ storied windows” diffuse, tinge every part with a delightful warmth, like the empurpled atmosphere of a fine summer evening. The simplicity of its principal lines soon strikes the eye of the spectator. (Plates XYI. and XVIII.) The pillars are remarkably plain, and consist of three quarter shafts or columns, alternately larger and smaller, attached to a solid pier; part of these rises up quite to the springing of the groined roof, whilst the remainder support the vaulting of the ailes, and the principal side arches. The bases and capitals are very simple, and rather flat; the latter are, however, wrought in sharp foliage.
Above each of the principal arches, which are all highly pointed, is a spacious window of five lights in breadth. Between this and the arch is an open triforium of unusual formation. It consists of five openings between mullions, with trefoil heads and acute pediments. In the centre opening was a statue.
The ailes display a grandeur unequalled in this kingdom, possessing the loftiness of those of Westminster without the narrowness of that beautiful structure. The windows have a striking resemblance to those of Westminster, only enlarged to three lights in breadth, and the arched heads enriched with three quatrefoils instead of one. The wall, below the windows, is adorned with paneling and tracery, with light crocketted gables, divided by corresponding pinnacles. This mode of decoration began about the time of Edward I. to supersede the little arches which had hitherto been retained from the old circular style. An examination of the detail of ornaments in this part affords a curious instance too of the communication preserved amongst our antient artists ; a screen and some ornaments of the cloisters in Lincoln Minster being apparently worked from the same patterns.
In advancing up the nave, the interior of the great tower, or lantern, is gradually developed. The vastness of the clustered piers, that bear aloft the arches, is constructed so happily as to confine the view to the most admirable parts. The gorgeous front of the antient rood-loft immediatelyNAVE,
49
before us is peopled by several figures of our an tient sovereigns. The arched roof of the choir appears to great advantage in the distance, and makes us regret that the perspective should be interrupted by the case of the organ.
Nothing finer than the interior of the lantern could be imagined. The gallery is at once elegant and simple, the windows of a size sufficient to fill the whole interior with a brilliant light, just adorned with a small quantity of coloured glass to prevent a glaring effect.
The niches, panels, See. of the west end, beneath the great window, nearly correspond with the exterior, as do also the ornaments of the door, the gable over it, &c. These doors are separated by a slender pier, the inside of which is adorned with a beautiful small niche, which is new work. The windows under the towers are not painted. The vaults beneath the western tower are in the incomplete state in which those at Beverley and Lincoln were left till very late in the fifteenth century.
The windows on each side above, formerly open to the nave, are now blocked up. In the north aile (PI. XXI.) is the tomb said to contain the remains of Archbishop Roger: its sides are perforated, and the coffin within is visible, but there are good reasons for considering it a comparatively modern work. In the arches of the gallery under the clerestory windows are some mutilated remains of statues which stood formerly over the crown of each of the great arches of the nave. Over the fifth arch on the north side, looking east, is a great wooden figure of a dragon, wdiich formerly served as a lever to lift the cover off the font. The arch of the ceiling is apparently depressed and flattened, which appears more conspicuous where it joins the acute arch of the central tower. The size and design of the columns, as well as the filling up of the archivolt mouldings, have been often characterised as flat and tame, when compared to the styles of the transepts and of the wrest end. The architectural character and ornaments of the north aile of the nave are displayed in Plate XXI.
Between the nave and the choir is a splendid Stone Screen, which now50
YORK CATHEDRAL.
sustains the organ8. From not being uniformly divided, it offends the eye when viewed from the centre of the nave. As an architectural and sculptured object it is at once spendid and gorgeous. Its western face, or exterior, is covered with a superabundance of niches, canopies, brackets, pinnacles, crockets, finials, statues, masks, &c. It seems that the artist was^ determined to charge every part with ornaments ; and to exert the fullest latitude of fancy in giving variety and intricacy to its complicated members. Near its centre is an arched door-way of entrance to the choir, the exterior moulding of which assumes the ogee shape and terminates with a richly sculptured finial. This archway, with two of its lateral niches and statues, are displayed in Plate XXII. The whole screen consists of a series of fifteen compartments of niches, with corresponding pedestals, canopies, and statues. These statues, says Dr. Milner, from William the Conqueror, down to Henry V., are of the natural size, in antient regal dresses, enriched with singular ornaments, and in high preservation9.” The same learned writer contends that the costume and features of,those effigiès have been executed from satisfactory authorities ; yet he remarks that the Normans, both before and after their invasion of this country, shaved their faces and their upper lips, and cut their hair short, whereas the statues of the four Anglo-Norman monarch^ are represented with long beards, mustachios, and long curled hair. The dresses are apparently robes of state, and nearly resemble those used by churchmen. They cover the whole body and hang over the legs, excepting that of Stephen, whose legs are exposed. The hands of William I. are broken off: William Rufus holds a sword in his right hand, and Henry I. has a scepter in the same position. The.robes of the two latter statues are
8	Dr. Milner says, this screen was taken from the Abbey Church of St. Mary, in York; but this seems very improbable, and is without any evidence.
9	Carter, in his “ Antient Sculpture and Painting,” has given a series of etchings of fourteen of these statues : but in a rough coarse style, and not accurately drawn. Dr. Milner has illustrated the subject by along dissertation.ORGAN—SCREEN :—CHOIR.
51
richly ornamented with embroidered work, &c. Each of the remaining statues has some variation in costume and in appendages. On the pedestals are the names of each monarch, respectively, with the period of his reign : thus, beginning on the north, Willm Conqr. rex an. 21 :—Willm Rufus 14 : —Henri Primus 33:—Step, rex 19:—Henr. Sedus 37 :—Richas. Prim, rex : —Jokes rex 18 :—Henri Tertius rex 56:—Edward. Primus rex 35:—Edward. Sedus rex 20 :—Edward. Tertius rex 32 :—Rich. Sedus rex 22 :—Henr. Quart, rex 14 :—Henr. Quint, rex 10. The fifteenth statue, representing Henry VI. is the workmanship of Michael Taylor, a sculptor of this city, and occupies the place of one of James I. Many of the smaller parts of the screen have been restored by Bernasconi. From the last statue of the series being that of Henry VI. it has been inferred that the screen was executed towards the end of hi« reign. It is also traditionally said that the original statue of “ that weak, but reputedly pious monarch,” was taken down “ to prevent the stupid adoration of the lower ranks of the people.”
After passing through the screen, just described, the visitor is introduced to the Choir, which is grand in scale and rich in adornment. On each side is a series of twenty stalls, with twelve at the west end, beneath the organ. These are of oak, and are peculiarly rich in their canopies and carved decorations. Each seat, or stall, has its moveable miserecordia, with * projecting rests for the elbows, from which rise two detached slender columns, supporting an elaborate canopy. The style and character of these stalls are delineated in Plate XXIII. and in Plate XXXIV. The former plate also displays the general architecture and fitting up of the choir, with the Cathedra, or Archbishop’s Throne on the south side, built in 1740, and the pulpit, opposite. Both of these are of modern workmanship, and do not harmonize with the stalls. At the eastern end of the choir is the altar-table, raised above the regular floor, by a series of fifteen steps. Behind it is a handsome screen, with mullions, tracery, a parapet, &c. Its open days, or lights, are filled with plate glass, which affords a viewr of the elegant eastern window. The architectural character of this screen is shown in the plate of the choir above referred to, and one
G52
YORK CATHEDRAL.
compartment of it is delineated in Plate XXXIV. Previous to the year 1726, a large wooden screen, painted and gilt, not only obscured the present stone screen, but shut out the fine eastern window from the choir. On comparing the present screen, as a separation óf the choir from the east end of the cathedral, with the arrangement of other cathedrals, its superiority and beauty are very evident.
The little transept, as we must call it for distinction’s sake, was a fine contrivance of the architect. Standing against the pulpit, or on the opposite side, its effect is uncommonly beautiful. The lines of the sides become diversified without breaking off, and the interior, with the lofty windows at each end and at the sides, are peculiarly elegant.
On the north side of the altar, over the grated window that lights the crypt, is an -an tient pew, or gallery, to which there is an ascent by a flight of narrow stairs, of solid blocks of oak. The exterior of this gallery is very neat, and it is certainly older than the Reformation. A little bow window in the north side gives a complete view into the aile, and opposite to it is a very small loop-hole in the stone wall, which afforded a view into the room behind the high altar. It had also a door into that room. The floor is boarded, in which is a strong trap door.
Behind the stalls of the choir are closets, some of which are used as vestries by the singing men : modern stair-cases have been constructed, leading to, the galleries erected above, and which disfigure the view into the ailes. These closets are fronted, next the ailes, by open screens of oak, some of which are of excellent carving, and more elaborate than others. In the centre of the choir stands a desk for the vicars-choral to chaunt the litany in; it is enclosed in a pew of carved wood. The brazen eagle-stand is modern. Its pillar is not elegantly formed, and the position, at one side of the choir, is not so well chosen, as if placed in the centre.
• There were antiently three altars in the choir, viz. St. Stephen’s, our Lady’s, and the high altar in the centre. On each side of the latter was a door-way to the apartment between the screens, where the archbishop used on solemn festivals to put on some of his robes; and which was sometimes improperly styled the “ Sanctum Sanctorum” here as in other places. AEAST END, INTERIOR.
53
gallery was constructed above the an tient altar-screen, where some of the minstrels who assisted in the solemnities of high mass are thought to have been stationed ; it would also serve for setting up the wax-lights and for other decorations so profusely made use of in those splendid ceremonies.
The roof of the choir is of a loftier pitch than that of the nave, and is actually higher by some feet. The ribs are also more numerous, and cross each other in angular compartments: from their number, however, they take off the leading distinction of the main ribs.
East of the altar-screen is a large open space, occupied by various monuments. These are of such heterogeneous styles, sizes, and characters, that they materially injure the effect of the scene. Whilst those at Winchester enhance the beauty and interest of the place, these disfigure and disgrace the noble architecture to which they are attached.
The walls in the ailes are panelled with mouldings, which partly correspond with the windows. Niches fill up the spaces between the windows and pilasters. The gallery over the great arches is rather injured by the height of its openings being divided by a stone-rail, which was placed as a guard to those persons who were admitted to view the processions or other grand ceremonies below. The open gallery beneath the clerestory windows, and forming a part of each, is richer than that in the nave: each division being crowned by a curved canopy, finished with crockets. The ailes are groined in the simple style of the nave. The eastern bay is the narrowest.
The splendid east window may be said to vie with that at the west end of the nave in its architectural design and glazed enrichment. Its height and breadth nearly correspond with the space of the choir : and the number of historical subjects represented on the glass amount to nearly two hundred. The soffit to the arch has a series of canopies running up to the crown of it. Each of these is occupied by a projecting bust instead of a whole length figure. The outer rim of the arch is wrought into little tabernacles filled with half length figures. The design of the great east window is at once fine and simple. See Plate XXV. Three chief divisions are formed54
YORK CATHEDRAL.
by two large mullions, and each division of which is again separated into three lights, whilst all the upper part, from the springing of the arch, is fitted into compartments half the breadth of the principal lights. The chief mullions are strengthened by another series, which are connected with them ; the upper part, forming a narrow gallery, is carried across upon this double work, but is so light as not to obstruct the view of the glazing. The view from this gallery is inconceivably grand and beautiful. The whole length of the interior of the church is shown in a perspective of more than five hundred feet; all obstruction of the choir with its screens lying far beneath the eye. The mild lustre of the western window is fully displayed at the termination. Eight large niches fill up each side of the window in four double tiers; but these were never intended for statues, as some of the bases are sloped up, and leave no room for a figure.
The glazing of this great window is much mutilated and disarranged by unskilful repairs. The figures are in general from two feet two inches to two feet four inches high, and the heads are most beautifully drawn. Some of the Blessed Virgin resemble the turn observable in Raphael’s paintings. The bases, &c. of the columns at the east end are bolder than in the nave. Each column has a projecting bracket and canopy for a large statue.
On the south side of the choir are three Chapels or Vestries ; the first of these is paved with small tiles, some of which shew traces of painting. Here is a piscina and two brackets; one of the latter represents a man tearing open a lion’s jaws, the other a lion and a dragon fighting. All the north and west sides are recessed with numerous wainscot cupboards of antient work : that at the west end has an inner closet. Several old chests and presses remain here, particularly two vast old chests for copes, made to suit the form of that vestment, when doubled, each being a quadrangle of six feet six inches diameter. These chests are peculiary strong : the lids are decorated with iron scrolls and hinges ; one, in particular, is of the same fashion as those on the chapter-house doors. Here is a very strong small trunk for money, and an old chest with two holes to receive alms.CRYPT.
55
In the western window, at 7 in the ground plan, is a Well opening in the thickness of the wall into a little recess, but closed by a door ; it is called St. Peter's Pump. In the window is a stone trough, into which the water is drawn by a common pump.
Beneath the altar is a small crypt, which is entered by eight steps from the ailes of the choir, and four more steps descend into the body of it. The broken floor exhibits the sites of three altars, (Torre says four). The pavement is of antient glazed square tiles, alternately painted blue and yellowish white. Two quatrefoils, pierced through the base of the screen, formerly afforded a gleam of light to the middle altar, but these are now built up. The basin of a piscina, for the south altar, remains richly carved, but broken. See View of Crypt, Plate III. and Plan of ditto, with Capitals, Plate II.
This crypt has four ailes, from east to west, each of three arches, supported by short columns; the sweep of the arches on the eastern side is cut off by the solid part of the foundation of the altar-screen. The whole columns are five feet six inches in height. The arches are groined, with ribs crossing, but without key stones.
The side piers* or half columns, are octagonal, with capitals of more modern and plainer work. The side arches are wrought with cheverons, and were constructed to be seen from the ailes ; these are fronted by arches obtusely pointed, built when this part of the church was erected. The great columns of the choir do not stand upon the walls of this crypt, but on the outer sides, as shewn at h. h. Plate II. in the plan. It may be presumed that this curious structure was not taken to pieces at the rebuilding of the choir, but was partly altered or repaired, as seems to be indicated by the octagon piers at the sides, &c. In this crypt is a lavatory, like that at Lincoln, but its base is quite plain ; it has a hole in the centre for a pipe. This drain is covered by a figure like a monkey crouching over its cub. In one of the western arches next to this lavatory is a Well. The light is almost excluded by Archbishop Dolben’s tomb on the south side, and by some stone coffins and tombs, placed against the north windows. These vaults have certainly extended farther eastward,56
YORK CATHEDRAL.
but it is impossible to say how far ; very probably they were planned in a semicircular sweep at the east end, as at Canterbury, Winchester, and some other Anglo-Norman churches.
The six round columns have antient capitals, each of which is ornamented : the bases of the three eastern columns consist of a torus, with a hollow beneath, splayed to the squares of an octagonal plinth. See Pl. II. b. The centre column of the western range stands on a reversed capital, which has had a round abacus, but has since been chopped to a square at the bottom. The two side columns of this row have other bases, seemingly intended for thicker columns. See Plan, a.
Branching off from the north transept is the approach, or vestibule, to the Chapter-House, the interior of which is of large dimensions and produces a very solemn and impressive effect. It is a regular octagon. Seven fine arched windows fill as many of its sides ; the other is solid, with tracery on the walls, to answer the pattern of the windows. The whole circumference, belowT the windows, except at the entrance, is occupied by forty-four canopied stalls of stone, for the canons who composed the chapter. (See a representation of one compartment of these canopies Plate XXXI10.) The canopies of these stalls afford early specimens of that beautiful tabernacle work, as we are accustomed to call it, which soon afterwards was more elaborately ornamented. The columns of the stalls are of Petworth marble: the lines of their canopies are not very complex, but the sculpture is executed with great skill and spirit.
Numerous small busts, with most ludicrous expression of countenance,
10 This view shows several varied specimens of sculpture, in the execution of which the artists appear to have given unbridled scope to their fancies. Here are personations of strength, in Samson and the Lion ; of vice punished, by the monsters tearing out the tongue and eyes of a man : contrasted to which are three varied countenances, expressive of serenity, humility, and modesty: next to these is a sort of buffoon’s head, forcing open his wide spread mouth. Beneath the heads are two enriched pendants, or drops, and on each side is a detached shaft, with rich foliated capitals. The critic who will give himself the trouble to compare the representation of these masks, with views of the same by Mr. Halfpenny, will find considerable differences : and I am sorry to say to the prejudice of the York artist. Mr. Mackenzie finished his drawing on the spot, and has given very accurate portraits of the objects.CHAPTER-HOUSE.
57
form a principal ornament ; some of which have been supposed to be memorials of the ridicule passed upon the religious orders by the secular clergy ; but from a close examination we shall find that they have not such allusion. The roof is groined in a simple and elegant form : there is no pillar in the centre, as in some earlier structures of this class. The vaulted roof is of wood, and was, till lately, adorned with paintings and gilding: some large panels are yet preserved that were taken from it at the repair: it is now plastered and coloured like stone. The piers and windows have also been washed of a plain stone colour. The stalls and entrance are suffered to retain the faded indications of their antient splendour. Over the door is a row of niches, formerly filled with thirteen statues. The largest in the middle is thought to have represented Jesus Christ, and the others his twelve apostles. These images were probably of metal, and are even said to have been of silver; but they are not mentioned in the inventory in the Monasticon. Two smaller figures of stone remain in niches. The blank window above has been painted with figures of saints, but these are now washed over. The piers between the windows are perforated by a narrow gallery, which runs quite round the whole building, over the stalls. The glazing in the upper compartments exhibits many arms of founders and benefactors ; the larger lights are filled with aground of greyish panes, diapered with brown. This ground is surrounded by a foliated border, and interspersed with small historical groups, all in rich colours. The preservation is, upon the whole, very perfect, buttile harmonious effect is destroyed by the introduction of narrow slips of clear glass. An elevation, with plans, of one compartment of the chapter-house, is given in Plate XXXII. The only furniture in this room is an antient table, covered with old tapestry, and adorned with arms, being-part of the antient hangings of the choir.
There are two arches of entrance, divided by a pier, or clustered pillar. See Plate XXVII. This pillar is adorned with a statue of the Virgin Mary carrying the infant, in a fine niche. The doors themselves are covered with iron scrolls.
The Vestibule of this exquisite room is peculiarly interesting in its archi-58
YORK CATHEDRAL.
tecture and sculpture. The sides are apparently all windows, with beautiful tracery ; and the walls below are adorned in a corresponding style. The style of this part is a little later than that of the chapter-house itself ; but it was undoubtedly erected immediately after ; and, from a close examination, we have no hesitation in affixing its date to the reign of Edward I. A door-way, now blocked up, is visible on the north side of this entrance. Several grave-stones of the coffin shape remain. The entrance to the vestibule, from the transept, is of singular design, and consists of two doors of open wood work, with a clustered column between. See Plate XXVIII.
A small portion of ornamental arches, &c. of the same style as the transept, is shown just within the vestibule, on the left hand. This is part of the transept wrhich was not altered to suit the newer work of the chapter-house. See Plate XXXII. f.©ïjajp.
ACCOUNT OF THE MONUMENTS, ETC.
Very few of the monuments of this church are interesting, either as works of art, or subjects of antiquity. The judicious little Guide says, “ Ponderous Corinthian columns, supporting pyramids, kneeling effigies in the dress of Elizabeth’s days, winged cherubs, deaths’ heads, hour-glasses, and other emblems of mortality, are not perfectly congruous with the magnificent building, to the walls of which they are attached.” A few only of these tombs will therefore be noticed in the ensuing pages.
Plate XVII. represents the monument of Archbishop Walter de Grey, situated in the east aile of the south transept. (See Plan a.) This beautiful relic of the thirteenth century consists of two stories, or tiers of trefoil arches, supported by eight slender columns, with capitals of luxuriant foliage, sustaining a canopy divided into eight niches, with angular pediments, decorated with elaborate finials. These are enriched with the figures of birds, foliage, &c. and the sweep of the pediment has several crockets running up its exterior moulding. On a flat tomb, under the canopy, is an effigy of the archbishop in his pontifical robes, as seen in Plate XXXVI. Fig. a. This monument is inclosed by a bronzed iron railing, of rich and elaborate workmanship, erected by the late Archbishop Markham. Behind the tomb are seen parts of the nave and choir : also a tomb ascribed to Archbishop Godfrey de Ludham, otherwise Kimeton, who died in 1264. It is coffin-shaped, under a canopy of trefoil arches, marked (b) in the ground plan.
H60
YORK CATHEDRAL.
Plate XXYI. represents the tomb of Archbishop Henry Bòwet, situated beneath an arch at the east end of the church (t). This is a peculiarly fine specimen of the architecture which prevailed in the early part of the reign of Henry VI. The canopy is an elliptical arch ; each front of which is splayed outwards in radiated tracery, to suit the forms of three divisions of tabernacle work, with most delicate pendents between. The inside of the arch is adorned with fine tracery. Upon the arch, and within the double front of pinnacles, rise three lofty tabernacles; each containing a statue standing upon a column, or pedestal. These figures are rather too much concealed by the pinnacles. The modern tomb, which forms a base to this superb canopy, is so broad as to produce the appearance of an inclosed chapel. The slab which originally covered the tomb was cut up to be used in the pavement. The present worthy Dean of York has had this monument carefully repaired and restored. In the accompanying plate is represented part of the back of the altar-screen, with a view into the small north-east transept.
Plate XXIX.—The tomb of Archbishop Thomas Savage was erected by his chaplain, Thomas Dalby, Archdeacon of Richmond, and restored by the Dean and Chapter in 1813. It may be regarded as one of the latest examples of the elegant English style, which, towards the end of the sixteenth century, was corrupted and debased by the intermixture of Grecian and Roman architecture. An arch of strait lines, forming an obtuse angle, just rounded at the springing, covers the tomb, on which lies the statue of the prelate. In the cornice, which is flat on the top, an inscription is wrought, interrupted by five large projecting figures of angels holding-shields of arms. These arms again occur in the spandrils, supported by unicorns, with angels throwing up their censers in the angles. The front of the tomb, and the lower part of the piers, have been renewed. The effigy of the archbishop (PI. XXXVI. b.) has been a piece of fine sculpture; it has now lost the upper part of the crosier, and the right hand which held a book. Beyond the clustered column is shown one of the entrances to the crypt, and on the ground are two Roman coffins of extraordinary size and character, which will be hereafter noticed. .ANTIENT MONUMENTS.
61
Plate XXXVI. c. the effigy of a knight, who bears on his shield and sur-coat the arms of Mauley1. This figure, which belongs to the fourteenth century2, is called by the Vergers the son of the Emperor Severus ; and another figure, which lies near it, is by them denominated Severus ; both these are stated to have been brought from Acombe Hills, where, according to vulgar tradition, Severus was interred ; but the whole story is totally unfounded. The figure called Severus has curled hair, a flowing beard, long garments, and a cross on the breast ; the head lies on a cushion, and the feet rest on a lion. Although some writers have attributed this performance to the time of the Saxons, there seems every reason to believe it is a sepulchral monument of the fourteenth century3.
Several anlient monuments of the archbishops are worthy of notice, although inferior to those which are represented in the plates. That of Roger, in the north aile of the nave, is generally esteemed the oldest in the church, but that fact seems very questionable4. The tomb of Sew al de Bovil is at the east end (r), whither it has been removed from the south side of archbishop Grey’s tomb. In the north transept is an elegant monument attributed to William de Grenefeld (Plan e.), enriched with tracery and pinnacles, and supported by buttresses. At the east end of the cathedral is the tomb of Archbishop Rotheram, formerly adorned with brass shields and scrolls: on it is a marble stone, removed from the tomb of Dean William de Langueton, who died in 1275, as appears by the remains of the inscription. A monument ascribed to the unfortunate Richard Scrope, is at the east end of the cathedral (Plan o.), but part of it is probably of a much more antient date. It is chiefly built of freestone, of a coffin shape, covered with a slab of spotted black marble, and has been
1	These are shown in Plate LXXX. of the History of the Cathedrals of Canterbury and York.
2	Gough’s Sepulchral Monuments, vol. i. part ii. p. 178, says the arrangement of the arms is not common.
3	Gough’s Sepulchral Monuments, ut supra.
4	Mr. Gray considered it not older than 1315. Gray’s Works and Life, by Mason, voi. ii. p. 184.62
YORK CATHEDRAL.
surrounded, at the top, by a rim of brass. The sides are ornamented with plain shields in quatrefoils.
The east end of the church also contains the monuments of the Archbishops Sterne (Plan m.), Frewen (Plan p.), Matthew (Plan q.), Sharpe (Plan s.), and Piers (u.) In the south aile of the choir are those of Lamplugh5 (Plan w.), Hutton, and Dolben(Plan z). As the dates and some particulars relating to these prelates are given in other parts of the work, it will here be sufficient to say, that these tombs, notwithstanding the labour and expense profusely lavished in erecting them, display examples of every fault which shquld be avoided in monumental sculpture and architecture.
From these the spectator will turn with pleasure to the exquisite little alabaster statue of Prince William de Hatfield, the second son of King Edward III. Plate XXXIV. centre. This royal youth, who died at the early age of eight years, is here represented in a recumbent posture (f). He is habited in a doublet, finely flowered, with long sleeves, a mantle with foliated edges, plain hose, and shoes richly ornamented with flowers ; his head is adorned with a narrow chaplet, and a magnificent belt encircles his loins. The head was formerly supported by two angels, which have been destroyed, probably by some zealot who could endure no superstition but his own. The feet rest against a lion6. This statue, which was long neglected, now lies under a beautiful canopy in the north aile of the choir. It is to be regretted that the face is much injured,
5	Lamplugh and Dolben, although habited as bishops of the Protestant church, have received from the sculptor the additional insignia of the mitre and crosier.
6	A front view and profile of this interesting piece of sculpture will be found in Stothards* “ Monumental Effigies.” Prince William was born at Hatfield, near Doncaster, on which occasion Queen Philippa, his mother, gave five marks per annum to the neighbouring abbey of Roche, and five nobles to the monks there ; which sums, when he died, were transferred to the church of York, where the Prince was buried, to purchase prayers for his soul; and are to this day paid to the Dean and Chapter out of the impropriation of the rectory of Hatfield, as appears by the Rolls. Drake’s Eboracum, p. 490, note.ANTIENT MONUMENTS.
63
The north transept (d) contains a table-tomb of Purbeck marble, in memory of John Haxby, treasurer of the church, who died January 21, 1424. On this tomb, according to an tient limitations of the church estates, payments of money are still occasionally made. Underneath the tomb, and within an iron grating much broken, is a figure of a wasted corpse in a winding sheet.
The remaining monuments, with the dates of the deaths of the persons they commemorate, are chiefly as follow : South aile of the nave, James Cotrel, Esq. August 17, 1595. South transept, Elizabeth Eymes, February 3, 1583. North aile of the east end, Bryan Higdon, LL.D. Dean of York, June 5, 1539. (Plan g.) Sir Henry Belasyse and Dame Ursula his wife7, (Plan h.) Henry Swinburne, LL.D.8 1656. Sir William Ingram, Knight, LL.D. Master in Chancery, and Commissary of the Archbishop’s Prerogative Court of York, July 24, 1625. The Right Hon. Charles Howard, Earl of Carlisle, Governor of Jamaica, and Ambassador of Charles II. to Muscovy, Sweden, and Denmark, February 24, 1684. The same monument commemorates Sir John Fenwicke, who was executed for high treason in 1696, and Lady Mary, his w idow, daughter of the Earl of Carlisle (k). The Honourable Henry Medley has a monument decorated wfith marine trophies, August 5, 1747 (1). John Dealtry, M. D. a figure of the goddess of health bending over an urn, March 25, 1773. The monument erected “ by the public love and esteem of his fellow citizens,” to the memory of that distinguished patriot Sir George Savile, who represented the county of York in Parliament for twenty-five years, January 9, 1784. The Right Honourable Frances Cecil, Countess of Cumberland, wife of Henry Lord Clifford, the last Earl of Northumberland ofthat name,
7	No date appears on this monument. Sir Henry Belasyse was born in 155&, son of Sir Wm. Belasyse, of Newborough ; created a baronet, June 29, 1611, on the first institution of that dignity; father of Thomas, the first Viscount Fauconberg. Dame Ursula was daughter of Sir Thomas Fairfax, of Denton.
8	This learned Civilian rose from the rank of a Proctor to that of Commissary of the Exchequer, and Judge of the Prerogative Court of the Archbishop of York. His Treatise on Last Wills and Testaments is still in high estimation.64
YORK CATHEDRAL.
February 4, 1643; this is a table-tomb, supported by four clumsy balusters. (n.)
East end of the church.—Frances Matthew, the widow of Archbishop Matthew, and the principal benefactress to the cathedral library, May 8, 1629. Henry Finch, Dean of this church, September 8, 1728, and Edward Finch, his brother, residentiary, February 14, 1737. South aile of east end, Ann Bennet, wife of Dr. J. Bennet, 1601. The Right Honourable William Wentworth, Earl of Strafford, son of the unfortunate minister of Charles I. October 16, 1695. This monument contains a statue of the earl, and another of a lady, but it does not appear which of his two wives is represented by the latter figure (v). The Honourable Thomas Watson Wentworth, nephew of the said Earl, October 6, 1723, a statue in a Roman jdress. A figure of Faith, by Mr. Westmacott, consecrated to William Burgh, Esq. LL.D. December 26, 1808. Nicholas Wanton, Esq. March 2, 1617. Sir William Gee, 1617; and Jane Hodson, wife of Dr. Phineas Hodson, September 2, 1636, who died in parturition of her twenty-fourth child, yet (says her epitaph) in the prime of life and bloom of beauty.
The inner vestry, or council room, contains a large press, in which many evidences and registers of the church, with several curious antiquities, are preserved. Among the latter is a wooden head, found at the time of removing the pavement in the tomb of Archbishop Rotheram; as this prelate died of the plague, it seems probable that he was immediately and unceremoniously interred, and that an image was afterwards solemnly buried in the church, dressed in the insignia of the deceased prelate9. In this press are also three silver chalices, taken from the graves of three of the archbishops ; several rings found in the tombs of Sewal, Grenefeld, Bowet, Nevil, and Lee; a superb pastoral staff, of silver, given by Catherine of Portugal, Queen Dowager of England, to Smith, her confessor, when nominated by James II. in 1687, to be one of his Catholic bishops; a canopy of gold tissue, and two small coronets of silver gilt, given by the city for the service of James I. upon his passing through
9 Drake’s Eboracum, p. 447.ANTIQUITIES IN THE VESTRY.
65
York from Scotland, in his way to London. The most important, as well as the most curious an tient relic, is a large ivory horn, which was formerly handsomely adorned with gold, and suspended by a chain of the same metal ; an inscription on it states that the horn was given to the Cathedral by Ulphus, Prince of West Deira, with all his lands and revenues. Being lost, Henry Lord Fairfax at length restored it. The Dean and Chapter ornamented it anew, A. D. 1675.
Camden mentions this horn, and cites an an tient author, who thus describes the donation of which it served as a token, “ Ulphus governed in the western part of Deira, and on account of an altercation between his elder and younger sons, about the succession to his domains after his death, he presently made them both fairly equal. For he repaired immediately to York, and filling the horn, from which he usually drank, with wine, and kneeling before the altar, he gave all his lands and rents to God and Saint Peter, Prince of the Apostles10.” By this horn the church holds several lands of great value, not far from York on the east, and which are still called “ de Terra Ulphi11.”
Mr. Sheriff Hornby presented to the cathedral a curious antient bowl, given by Archbishop Scrope to the Cordwainer’s Company in the year 1398, and presented by that body, on their dissolution in 1808, to Mr. Hornby, as à mark of esteem. The inside of the cup contains the Cordwainer’s arms, richly embossed ; and upon the rim is the following inscription in old English characters:—Richard Arche beschope Scrope
GRANT UNTO ALL THO THAT DRINKIS OF THIS COPE XLTI DAYES TO PARDON.
Robert Gobson beschope mesm grant in same forme aforesaid xlti
DAY IS TO PARDON. ROBERT StRENSALL.
Here is also an antient chair, in which, it is said, several Saxon Kings have been crowned. It is used by the Archbishop at ordinations, &c.
A catalogue of the numerous vessels and ornaments of gold and silver,
10	Camden’s Britannia (1600) p. 630.
11	This endowment was made about 1036, as shewn by Mr. Gale in a tract on the subject of this horn in the first volume of Archæologia, p. 168.66
YORK CATHEDRAL.
jewels, and other treasures belonging to this church before the Reformation, is printed in Dugdale’s Monasticon, voi. i. p. 169, &c. These valuables consisted of mitres, chalices, pastoral rings, vials, thuribles, and other vessels, crosses, images, gospellaries, relics, &c. Among the latter were the following:—some bones of St. Peter; part of the hair of St. William; the arm of St. Wilfrid, inclosed in a silver arm ; two thorns of the crown of our Saviour ; a tooth of St. Apollonia ; part of the brain of St. Stephen ; and a cloth stained with the blood of Archbishop Scrope.
In the north aile of the choir are two an tient stone coffins, which were discovered under ground at Clifton, about a mile north of the city. Each consists of a single block of stone, measuring seven feet long, two feet one inch wide at bottom, and one foot ten inches deep. The top is also of one stone. A skeleton was found in one of the coffins.©ïjap. m
BIOGRAPHICAL ANECDOTES OF THE ARCHBISHOPS OF YORK.
In the preceding pages many biographical notices of the Archbishops, as connected with the history of the church and see, have necessarily been introduced. The present chapter will contain such anecdotes of prelates as appear to be of general interest, and have not already been noticed.
Aldred presided over this see, when his friend and patron, King Harold, fell in the battle of Hastings. The politic bishop, finding resistance hopeless, officiated at the coronation of William of Normandy, and exacted from him an oath that he would protect his English subjects equally with the Normans. He had sufficient resolution afterwards to reproach the new monarch with the breach of this oath, and to threaten him with an excommunication, which the conqueror deprecated with great humility.
The succeeding Archbishops, Thomas, Gerard, and Thomas II. have been already noticed in the preceding account of the controversy between the sees of Canterbury and York. In the time of Thurstan, the next in succession, an accidental fire destroyed the cathedral in 1137; and the following year David, King of the Scots, ravaged the northern counties at the head of a numerous army. On that occasion Archbishop Thurstan exerted himself with the greatest activity in collecting a force at Thirsk, where the northern barons soon assembled with their vassals. Having elected the renowned Walter L’ Espec to the chief command, they advanced to Cotton Moor, near Northallerton, and raising the consecrated standard, defeated their enemies with tremendous slaughter1.
1 Chalmers’s “ Caledonia,” voi. i. book iv. ch. ii.
I68
YORK CATHEDRAL.
On the death of Thurstan, in 1140, William, a nephew of King Stephen, was elected, but deprived by the Pope in favour of Henry Murdac. The king at first rejected the latter, but after some years delay confirmed his appointment. William, having survived Murdac, was at length consecrated, but was poisoned a few months afterwards. Roger of Bishopbridge then succeeded, who has already been frequently mentioned as the founder of the old choir. Upon his death Henry IL retained the temporalities of the see for several years ; and, according to his last request, Geoffry, his natural son by Rosamond Clifford, was nominated to the archiépiscopal throne by Richard I. In the life-time of Henry II. Geoffry had been appointed to the bishopric of Lincoln, although he had never taken ecclesiastical orders. He kept possession of the temporalities of that see for several years, during which time he was fighting valiantly the battles of his father, against the Scots, and the legitimate, but rebellious, sons of the unfortunate Henry. At length Geoffry was compelled by the Pope to resign his bishopric ; in lieu of which he obtained the chancellorship and several minor appointments. He accompanied his father in his last expedition into France, and distinguished himself no less by his courage than his filial affection. Henry loved him as he merited. “ Geoffry,” said the unhappy monarch, “ is indeed my son—the others are bastards.” Although Richard fulfilled the last desire of his father in appointing Geoffry to the see of York, he made him pay exorbitantly for his favour. During the absence of his brother in Palestine, Geoffry experienced much hostility from Wm. de Longchamp, the chancellor, but had the triumph of witnessing the total ruin of his enemy. The remainder of his life was passed in perpetual contentions with his brothers, Richard and John, the Pope, and his own canons. He seems to have been a man of a haughty and unyielding spirit, better calculated for the command of armies than the ecclesiastical government of a province. It is said by Mr. Gray, that he commenced the south transept, which was finished by his successor Walter Grey.
Of Sewal de Bovil, Godfrey de Ludharn, otherwise de Kimeton, Walter Giffard, and William Wickwane, nothing particularly interesting is re-ARCHBISHOPS THORESBY AND SCROPE.
69
corded. John le Rom ay ne, precentor of Lincoln, was the next archbishop, whose works in the cathedral have been already noticed.
His successors were Henry de Newark, Thomas de Corbridge, William de Grenfeld, and Williàm de Melton, the latter of whom completed the nave of the church. At the head of an undisciplined multitude he engaged the Scots at Myton, in 1319, but was defeated. The next archbishop was William de la Zouch, whom King Edward the Third, then engaged in his French wars, appointed warden of the northern parts of England. In 1346, the Scots having again invaded the kingdom in great force, Queen Philippa, with the archbishop, marched against them, and at Neville’s Cross, near Durham, totally defeated them, and made their king, David Bruce, prisoner. In 1352, John Thoresby, bishop of Worcester, an eminent divine and canonist, was promoted to this see. He received his education at Oxford, was made keeper of the great seal in 1347, and soon afterwards consecrated bishop of St. David’s, from which see he was translated to that of Worcester. In his time the controversies between the two archiépiscopal sees were finally settled by the mediation of King Edward the Third, on behalf of this prelate and Simon Islip, archbishop of Canterbury. The zeal and liberality of Archbishop Thoresby, displayed in erecting the choir and great tower of the cathedral, have been already noticed. But the work which reflects the most honourable lustre on his memory, is his ‘ English Exposition of the Ten Commandments’, which he required the clergy of his diocess diligently to read to their parishioners. This treatise was discovered by Mr. Thoresby, the antiquary, among the records in the archbishop’s register office at York, and is printed in the appendix to his “ Vicaria Leo di ensis ”
Alexander Nevill, Thomas Arundel, Robert Waldby, and Richard le Scrope, were then successively appointed to the see. The latter was brother to William le Scrope, Earl of Wiltshire, and treasurer of England, and was promoted to this see from that of Lichfield and Coventry. This learned and virtuous prelate was a firm adherent of Richard the Second ; and his just detestation of the usurper who deposed that ill-fated monarch, led him to head the insurrection of 1405, for restoring the lawful order of70
YORK CATHEDRAL.
succession2. This enterprise was defeated by the treacherous policy of the Earl of Westmoreland ; who, by consenting to the terms proposed by the archbishop, persuaded him to disband his forces. But the sincere and unsuspecting prelate was no sooner left defenceless than he was made prisoner. The king required Sir William Gascoigne to try him for high treason : but the judge refused ; declaring, that by the constitution, neither his highness, nor any body in virtue of his commission, could be authorized to sit upon the life of a bishop. Upon this, Henry appointed Sir W. Ful-thorp, a judge, expressly to condemn the archbishop, which he did, without trial, charge, or indictment. The unfortunate Scrope was immediately beheaded, but persisted with great fortitude in justifying his enterprise.
The prelates who were afterwards appointed to this see were not remarkable for any important actions, until Cardinal Thomas Wolsey obtained the see in 1514. In a preceding chapter this great statesman and his successors, Lee and Holgate, have been noticed.
Nicholas Heath, the successor of Holgate, was deprived on the accession of Queen Elizabeth, on account of his adherence to the Roman Catholic religion ; but such was his character for integrity, wisdom, and learning, that he was allowed to pass the remainder of his days in unmolested retirement.
Thomas Young, Edmund Grindall, and Edwin Sands, were the succeeding archbishops of York. The latter published, in 1583, a volume of sermons, “ the style and manner of which,” says Mr. Drake, “ far exceed any thing I have yet met with amongst the English writers of that age3.” John Piers, Matthew Hutton, Tobias Matthew, George Monteign, and Richard Neile4, then successively held this see, and upon the death of the latter in 1640, King Charles the First appointed John Williams. This prelate and his successor, Accepted Frewen, have been already mentioned. Richard Sterne, bishop of Carlisle, who had been chaplain to Archbishop
2 See Richardi Scrope, Archiepisc. Ebor. Articuli adversùs Henricum IV. Angliæ Regem.
Warton’s Anglia Sacra, pars ii. p. 362.	3 Eboracum, p. 455.
4 Some account of this prelate is given in the History of Winchester Cathedral.ARCHBISHOPS DOLBEN, LAMPLUGH, AND SHARP.	71
Laud, and attended him on the scaffold, succeeded Frewen. During the common-wealth he was obliged to keep a school for his maintenance. Hé wrote a treatise on logic, was one of the translators of the Polyglot Bible, and is supposed to have been the author of the popular volume called “ The whole Duty of Man” This see was, after his decease, bestowed on John Dolben, bishop of Rochester, nephew of Archbishop Williams. He had borne arms for Charles I. and was wounded both at the battle of Marston-Moor, and in the defence of York. After his decease, in 1688, the see remained vacant for two years. At the expiration of that period, the Prince of Orange landed, when Thomas Lamplugh, bishop of Exeter, after vainly endeavouring by his advice to sustain the cause of King James in his own diocess, left it, and proceeded to London, where the falling monarch rewarded his fidelity in a time of general defection by appointing him to the see of York. He contributed, with the Earl of Strafford, to the expense of replacing the organ, which had been removed in the reign of Charles 1.5 He made several liberal donations of ornaments for the use of the church, erected the innermost rails of the altar, and paved the enclosed space with black and white marble.
Dr. John Sharp, dean of Canterbury, succeeded Archbishop Lamplugh in 1691. This eminent prelate was chiefly indebted for his success to the patronage of Sir Heneage Finch, who, in 1672, obtained for him the archdeaconry of Berkshire. When Sir Heneage was made lord keeper, he committed to Dr. Sharp the care of inquiring into the characters of all candidates for benefices in the disposal of the seal ; a delicate trust, which he executed most conscientiously. He was afterwards chaplain to Charles II. and to his successor. In the reign of James he boldly vindicated the reformed religion, and successfully opposed the tyranny of the Roman Catholic church. This conduct drew on him the king’s resentment; he was suspended from the exercise of his functions, and otherwise persecuted. In officiating before the Prince of Orange and the Convention, he prayed for King James; which circumstance at first gave some offence,
5 Drake’s Eboracum, p. 522.72
YORK CATHEDRAL.
but was satisfactorily explained by the archbishop, whose character was in the highest estimation. He was promoted to the deanery of Canter bury, November 25, 1689. He declined, from motives of delicacy, succeeding any of the bishops who were deprived for refusing to take the oaths of allegiance to William and Mary ; but on the death of Lamplugh, he was consecrated archbishop of York, in 1691. On the accession of Queen Anne he was sworn a privy counsellor, and appointed lord almoner. He opposed the intended promotion of Swift to an English mitre, cautioning the queen “ to be sure that the man whom she was going to make a bishop, was at least a ChristianFor this insinuation, it is said, he afterwards asked Swift’s forgiveness. In 1713, finding his health decline, he recommended Sir William Dawes, bishop of Chester, as his successor, and soon afterwards died. He was the intimate friend of Tillotson, and it was said of them, that the two metropolitical sees were filled by the two best preachers of their time. His Sermons, in 7 vols. 8vo. have always been admired. He also wrote “ Remarks on the English, Scots, and Irish money6.” His life is impartially narrated in Todd’s Account of the Deans of Canterbury.
Sir William Dawes, his successor, presided over this diocess about ten years, generally honoured and respected. He was particularly distinguished in the parliamentary debates of his time, without attaching himself to any party. He wrote a poem called “ An Anatomy of Atheism,” and several theological works, which, with a memoir of his life, were published in 3 vols, in 1773.
Lancelot Blackburne, bishop of Exeter, was then promoted to York. He was succeeded by Thomas Herring, bishop of Bangor, who obtained this preferment through the unsolicited recommendation of the lord chancellor, Hardwick. His excellent sermons, delivered at Lincoln’s Inn Chapel, had procured him the friendship and esteem of the chancellor. On the commencement of the rebellion, in 1745, this prelate exerted himself most strenuously in defence of the religion he professed, and the
Published in Nichols's Bibliotheca Topographica Britannica, voi. vi.ARCHBISHOPS HUTTON, GILBERT, DRUMMOND, MARKHAM, ETC. 73
monarch to whom he had sworn allegiance. He was rewarded, in 1747, by translation to the see of Canterbury, and Dr. Matthew Hutton, bishop of Bangor, w7as appointed to this see ; whence, upon the death of Archbishop Herring, he was translated to that of Canterbury. Dr. John Gilbert, bishop of Salisbury, was then promoted to York7. He was succeeded by the Hon. Robert Hay Drummond, who was also promoted from Salisbury. On his death, in 1776, William Markham, bishop of Chester, was advanced to the see of York8, over which he presided thirty-one years, universally beloved for his benevolent and amiable disposition. After having successively presided over the great seminaries of Westminster and Christchurch, his amiable character and extensive learning recommended him as worthy to direct the education of their Royal Highnesses the Prince Regent and the Duke of York ; an event which led to that rank which he so honourably reached and so creditably filled. By his assistance the churches of York, Ripon, and Southwell were repaired, ornamented, and beautified. He died, November 3, 1807, in his eighty-ninth year, and was buried in the cloisters at Westminster Abbey9.
Upon the death of Archbishop Markham, the present noble prelate, Edward Venables Vernon, then bishop of Carlisle, was translated hither. His grace was born in 1757, educated at Westminster school, and afterwards removed to Christchurch, Oxford. He next became fellow of All Souls College, chaplain to the king, and prebendary of Gloucester, canon of Christchurch in 1785, and in 1701 bishop of Carlisle.
7* See History, &c. of Salisbury Cathedral.
8	This eminent prelate was a native of Ireland, and born in 1724. He became head master of Westminster school in 1753, and obtained the deanery of Rochester in 1765. In 1767, he was presented to the deanery of Christchurch. He was chaplain to King George II. and also to his present majesty. In 1771 he was advanced to the see of Chester, and in 1776 translated to the archbishopric of York, on the death of Dr. Drummond, and appointed lord high almoner to the king, and visitor of Queen's College, Oxford.
9	Gentleman’s Magazine, for November, 1807.74
YORK CATHÉDRAL.
DESCRIPTION OF, AND REFERENCES TO THE PLATES.
Plate I. Ground Plan of the Whole Church, with references to the monuments, indications of groining, plans of some columns, to a large scale, and horizontal measurements of the edifice. The roman capitals, from a. to w. refer to different members and parts of the church ; and the small letters to sites of monuments, &c. The three door-ways in the western front are pointed out a. b. c., whilst d. d. shows the nave, e. e. the ailes, and e*. e##. the bases of the two towers:—f. north transept, with its two ailes i. and k. g. the south transept, with its ailes i. and k. : —the south aile to the choir is marked l. l., whilst m. m. shows the north aile :—n. the organ-screen :—o. the altar :—p. space behind the altar, sometimes called the Lady chapel :—q. r. vestibule to the chapter-house :—s. t. and u. vestries, formerly chapels :—v. consistory court :—w. record-room.
The figures i. n. hi. iv. and v. in Plan, refer to corresponding figures at the sides, where the plans of the columns, &c. are defined more at large.
The small letters refer to the sites of the following tombs, &c.—a. Archbishop Grey :—b. Archbishop Kimeton:—c. Font:—d. Treasurer Haxley: —e. Archbishop Grenfeld :—f. Prince William de Hatfield’s effigy, &c. an elevation of which is given in the centre compartment of Plate XXXIV:— g. door-way, near which is affixed the table of foundations, and the monument of Dean Higdon:—h. Sir Henry Bellasis:—j. Chancellor Swinburne : —k. Charles Howard, Earl of Carlisle :—1. the Hon. Henry Medley ; Dr. John Dalby’s monument ; Sir George Saville’s, Bart, monument :—m. Archbishop Sterne’s monument:—n. Countess of Cumberland :—o#. Archbishop Scrope’s tomb o. Archbishop Rotherham :— p. Archbishop Frewen:—q. Archbishop Matthews :—r. Archbishop Sewal’s tomb :—s. Archbishop Sharp ; near it is a tomb to Dean Finch and his brother, the Rev. Edward Finch, residentiary :—t. Archbishop Bo wet’s splendid monument ; near it is a tomb to the Hon. T. Watson Wentworth :—u. Archbishop Piers:—v. Wm. Wentworth, Earl of Stafford, near it a monument by R. Westmacott, R. A. to Wm. Burgh, LL.D. :—w. Archbishop Lamplugh, and near it a monumentCAT KEP IE. AIL ANTIQUET HE g.
.F Xi, X.
GI&OXTITO PLA^;
WITH INDICATION'S O T GROINING, MONUMENTS fcc.
London, '.Published .De-cTi.idid, dy Longman k C? Paternoster Howy
\
4(CATHE DIESAI. ANTIQUITIES
FL » II
CATPITALS ßcCoOY THE CMYFT.
X ondon,TubIzshed Jan? i.iözß, by dcngrnjzn, Sc C° JaZerrurster Row.N
V»
V
*•»

rt
Jf
/
I

»t0 TT it ° nr n ii kl ML
i ùLLMV TvroartuLvo)
• ALjy '0j cy -irtnußuoq nq 'gigi'i-njvf	qnq-'uopvoj
mm-m m sq 'lUQvq.s'v 'djoouris' jo syuvnu/rjsw S'
spvq^iuosnn si. vjvqj; sjip oog^sxnoHTCxBJOii^^.SQmp srqog Qxeods>[eqsfj jo wÊÊBâ '(['W AHÉ(L blVRJVR' 4P
amvxriy ü ii-K X KMcaKrm6 hi®
H IMÉ I ^	ipj^
____________’'[DXpTïfOq yj-QX. /°	Ruo3sn£[ suoyyiug' uoj. ‘ wz'uwpvjY' T fiq (nnmju(f v zuoug 'qqooç y fiq 'pyA.vuSvgX
*


■V
/
*
I/
m
»
iCAT«»ISA'L	5-TïSS.

VIE W OF XTCEäpF3JR,Tl£ TRANSEPT &c.-
^ -THÈ REV? CHA* VT^LBEIOVEB; CF YüFK^ic Plate^ MÉRfe
■with. ^^Bimems of i^le^ri.'by- ^«TT JB|L '	j, wiStiSiCtniT-JP Sc CS-SPatcr.noster Jfcvj.
A>

ÄATHEBEAl AI TT T QUI TIE I
PL. V.
Drawn, fc Etch'd try E.Elore.
J3rùtt07ïs History ico. cf Tòrte Cathedral.
■V|pfW OIF pHOE "'BL^PTJEK.	JçA. FÂO΀'.^læiB|
/; THOMAS LISTER PAR|:eMeS9^dI	Literature.
“ffciS ELBte ^fejciitx'd "by
' - J. MEITTOTsT.
l.cnd*>n.Tid^is?ied A	^ ItyXongman Sc CSJfotérnffî(&j£&)v.#
xâ
V	*
i
\


/CATHEDRAL ANTIQUITIES
FI^VX.


i^fgçay
1	iSSlf
@	lllf!jl,
1	llllll
	
Ü	§Ë^ÊÈÊM
	M
Drawn try D.Ma,ak.e:rizie.
Britton's History &cc. of lorh Cathedral.
Engraved, try J Le Eeux.
'im& m. «wrMsiÄEAiL MH I
fi—!if THE JeSTT EI D o
Ti JOHN CllOSSE, JCS.R !S Q ? ¥. S. .Y.This Mateiginsctab^^HStoi testimony- of friendship by
■UTHOll.
J.,	•//. I'ltNuhed Octïi.iSig, ^M/png/noTi h C°TaZerrwsteyIiow.
V
V
1
»
r
< g
I
o.
X
ê
%

ìV-. \y i>\ <m . *ie.	JBrittcrts History Sec. of York Cathedral. EngT av e d. "by R. Sands T3JE.IE ŒAT|1BIIEIQ)IEaB (0AJffJHI, "VIEW FROM TME S.E. TO SIR JOHN EDWARD SWINBURNE, BART.-A PATRON OF THE FINE ARTS, îc ANTIQUITIES. This nate is iuscriUed U>r ^ ATJTHOTU
	iondon.,TubUshed June-x, idzg, by Longman &c C? laterno ster How-1 Vinte d- "by Cox. 8c Ü arn ett ./Drawn "by Ï. Mackenzie.
JBriXton’s History %cc.af Jbrk Cathedral. .
^mK\K CJKTM	CM¥1ECgH
TIEW 03F TELE SOUTH TRANSEPT.
TO TH£ RE Vf GEORGE MARKHAM D.31 DEAJSf OF THE CATJTE'DRdL CHURCH OF YORK, a zealous guardian of its fabric.
This Hate is inscribed by	__
J J. BRIT TOR.
l.oruLon, Published Dec*i,idiSt by Zicriamati, Sc C?Paternoster Row.
ingravet "by J.Le Kexuc.
piuvmnL
CATinamAE antiquities.et
#& ■.of'York CaLhx .ira]
y..cwinecy£m yæ ■<, ayerion;«»
Circolar Windowj %^ÉN Transept»
1° ‘VAl.l'F.H I. \MSPI-N FAWKES <tf Family IbulEsq. a getferous pair m of Antiqua^M Literature ÄT th fiu-'Arts,
this pirite is inscribed "by,U5RITT0N. /,. -va /. >n .Pul'Î.L\'h<‘/f . lp/rl .1. hi/é by 1. onyrn/in GŸPatt'rno.vtrrRow.
■V/a/a/ADESCRIPTION OF THE PLATES.
75
to Archbishop Hutton:—x. Sir Wm. Gee:—y. Archbishop Dolben:—z. Jane Hodson; opposite to which is a large monument to Archbishop Savage, —1. south entrance door-way :—2. staircase to record-room :—‘3. door-way from north transept :—4. door-way from east aile of the same :—5. door-way to vestibule of chapter-house :—6. door-way to chapter-house:—7. St. Peter’s pump :—8. door-way to vestry.
Plate II. Plan and capitals of columns in crypt. The letters a. b. c. d. e. F. and g. mutually refer to each other :—h. h. plans of columns in choir : *—I. I. stairs from ailes to crypt:—k. a lavatory :—l. altar, &c.
Plate III. View of the crypt, looking north, in the execution of which the draftsman has endeavoured to imitate the effect as wTell as the architecture. In the fore-ground is a stone with the word civitati.
Plate IV. shows part of the north aile and clerestory of the nave;— the north side of the central tower;—the north transept;—the vestibule to the chapter-house;—and the chapter-house.
Plate V. displays the chapter-house, from the north-east ;—the centre tower ;—the north small transept, and part of the north side of the choir.
Plate VI. View of the east end, from an imaginary station. See p. 44.
Plate VII. View of the whole church, also taken from an imaginary station, at some distance from the south-east angle. It represents the east end, in perspective;—the whole south side of the choir, with the small transept, and the vestries ;—the east and south sides of the south transept; —two sides of the centre tower ;—and the two western towers.
Plate VIII. shows the chief elevation of the south transept, with the character and details of its buttresses, door-way, windows, pinnacles, &c. also the small transept, and parts of the south side of the choir. The perspective of the circular window, in this view, has been censured as inaccurately drawn;—I own it is rather unpleasing to the eye; but the very skilful artist who drew it, avers that he has delineated the leading lines by perspective rules ; and that he can vouch for their accuracy.
Plate IX. displays the splendid circular, or wheel window’, with its members and ornamental mouldings, more at large. The raking moulding of the pediment is adorned with two different ornaments ; and the small
K76
YORK CATHEDRAL.
triangular window in the centre* as well as the niches in the spandrils, are charged with an ornament which was yery commonly used in the architecture of the early part of the thirteenth century ;—in the back ground of the gable is seen part of the tower.
Plate X. View of the splendid west front, which has been noticed, p. 39.
Plate XI. View of the great western door-way, with the niches at the sides, and above it ; also a view into the nave, already noticed, p. 40.
Plate XII. has been described, p. 37.
Plate XIII. View of part of the north transept, looking across under the lantern to the south transept. Although much labour and skill has been employed on this plate, it is not successful. From a peculiar quality of copper, or ingredient in its composition, the engraver found it impossible to produce those nice gradations and tones of colour, which were requisite to give a pleasing variety and effect to the view. From this specimen, and the view of the crypt, it may be inferred, that it is not judicious to attempt dark effects in representing interiors of buildings.
Plate XIV. Elevation of vestibule to chapter-house ;—of the wrest side of the north transept, with half of the west face of the centre tower;— and section of the north aile and north walls of the nave, and of the nave ; also elevation of the eastern side of the south transept, with sections of the south wall of the centre tower and roof, and south end of the south transept. The architect will readily understand and appreciate this mode of dissecting a building, and well knows that it is the only satisfactory way of showing the true forms and proportions of arches, columns, windows, &c. Indeed such engravings render description almost unnecessary, and when studied and fully appreciated by antiquaries, will prevent much futile and irrelevant disputation about the forms of pointed, semicircular, and other arches. The letters refer as follows:—a. three different windows, with intermediate buttresses of the vestibule to the chapter-house: —b. side aile and clerestory of the north transept :—c. entrance door-way, with buttress of the aile built over it:—d. north aile of nave, with view info the aile of the choir :—e. and g. great piers of tower :—f. organ-screen, with organ; beyond which is shown the fine east window:—h. stone screen, with door-way to the south aile of the choir :—i. arch, now closed
»
/CATIIUEDBAL. ANTIQUITIES
Drawn "bv Edw. Blore.
JJrittonJs History iso. trf Yorte Cathedral.
TOTEM! (C AT îïïl WAW TEATL (DlBIUTlMIIïL
WE» T FR ONT.
TO THE RIGHT DEVE EDWARD VENABLES VERNON, D. C.E. LORD ÆCIIBISITOT OF YORK, TRIMATE OE E2TGLAND, Æc. See. See.
This Plate is respe ctfoJLy inscribed "by j briiSpon.
Engraved "by J.Ee Ketix.
London., Published Julu i ,181a. bu Icnamnn K- C?Paternoster Row.
* V
CATHEDRAL ANTIQ UTTIE S *
PIv.XT.
v> .	CRNTltëJR DOOÄ-WAY TO TME WEST FRONT
TO JOHNBROADILE^ESQ^KS.A.OF KIRK ELLA, A LIBERAL TATRON OE TOPOGRAPHICAL Sc ANTIQUARIAN LITERATURE,
This Plate is inscribed, "by Ms sincere friend
the AUTHOR.
LondonTub lis LU May ij.8i5, by Lena man k C9Paternoster Row.
i
CATHEBELAX antiquities.
[OR : . IT TON S HIST >RY •' '. OF YORK CATHEDRAI.
PL. XII.
Engraved ,Vy3. R awie.
y^w Jfîrom niip' jRajrapajpts.
TO HENRY BP< ALLEY* F.S(,>.E8.A.AN ADMIRER <U L|I’RC|N t» ANTIQUARIAH LITERATURE, This Plate ■ in.-cribed by
TTIK ALTI1AR.
J,3/uf#n-;PubtiskA { jlitgît'?/S)#, fÉ b.m./ma/i P !'?Pii/rr>ojr,r P.>tv.
I
Drawn "by‘F.Maclcenz!®!^
'* V
i

rVIEW FIOM Kr. to S. TffiABTS3E3PT.
TO THF, KKVf FRANCIS 1VRÄN G HAM, M. A F. R. S. DOMESTIC CHAPLAIN TO HIS GRACE THE AR CUBI SHOT OF YORK;
AUTHOR OF 'MANYEMINENT LITERARY WORKS tec. tee.	lliis TIate is Inscribed "by L BRITTo:N
.ZondorifTnblished April i. i8l0. by Longman <£■ CìTùL-master How.>HA ii'ihiu«^i|	H
KL, XIV
7«
K !!,][< V A;/l.‘ 1! O :T o F I'-T (!) F/Fl /V:7 /V/V /77717. \ ■ \ >,V /: >y
li , & SKCTIOîi O.F 8 0UTÏÜ ’Î'HA^ÎJK:."'’,
. 1 relui cd, l/us li,Uc is inscrits-J iss y y,,/,
fa/ija/i ■/‘uh/iskrs/ Marsh 1.1$;3, by Lorujmnn & i°. Vais/na^U-r !ij>w. >d bu Ha/rwani .
Vrin/t</Mim&IJLMV TTSMMHXV:])f /

1cathëbkal æ t ï q r it he s ,
]pjLo ixvn.
fnyravcd by \ freie, from a. Drawing by Ma.r.U. for frlttoiis History See. of York Cathedral.
\ ,v vv TiiK nav»:.
Tr THE VF.TY BEVdMOBEB:.I 7MA’7V7.7-/J.' r,:iJ:l)U.OVE,X>..;x J)w: of Eipcn.k Frehendaiy oflllstow. in this Cathedral.
This l\'ate\Ls inserii f rr TJjriUon
muü'iMàd'iis’ted TaM[..iii'c be Mn,’man Celi Ut.---.oster 'tic'.




Mp 'NCTÄK'.^S p'JI? AKCIHIIïJ ' ÏOP WAI-TÏ ! G KAY.
I du- .hhV.'\JOHN h)	• rhdeaccn WN<Stint• '>am I	’.ys admirer	tJu\> FUite is instzihed
mf/ wwitù/L /, /jTj e / ’ -^jp v/ ■ h.rJ.OuO (\’f.r/ /Si/, r: /..>//. »/Hr .v / '. 'p./ter/wet,*
y



CATHIE AIL A^TIDÇOTTJIKS,

MAVIS'.__ COMPARTMENT, INTERIOR fc EXTERIOR.
Engraved ~by JFLLe Keux, from, a Drawing Toy Ddw.dBlore, for Britton's History See. o~f TorTc Cccthedral.
iV H1 ID)3E■ H )EIBI ::’Eei,
J,',rdr/i/ BuhlisZu’d JiinfUSlS. by I eng man &■ Cl Paternoster Bow.ff
C^THK^AL ANTIQUITIES.
mmmàmm
Dracwn "by E d:vH Blare.
Jìritùm's Si-stjTy tee.c’r JK’/'A* Catftedml.
Engraved, "by H.Le Keux..
ELEVATION &» SECTION OF THE “WE ST EOT),
TO JOHN SHAW, ESQR F. S._A.ORCHITECT$cc. This Plate is inscribed firn sentiments of esteem,"by T
- J . ±51x11 1 UJN
Zondon,2\iblishod Jfdyl.Jdld, by Rcnyrnan l? C?Ritorno ster Rovi’.\
I

»
\
i
»■
%1 'ATM E Fi)». /• IL A ; •! •ji'ÜQWTI E S .

m ,m< cr:ATriii3E	e,j	~
« ■ chi1 K' (c tiri 1! 1e it ; \ all s »

'/'uNi.f/i, J • Iu/ì	>1 '{<///?- w. ' <'j jl
H y yIPX, o XXX
CATHEBIAL AN'TXÇTJÏTIES o
Dramly F.Mackmzie.	”	Prütrnjs SLstaru kc.sfTcfk Cathedral.	Xo.gr ave à. ïjy HJL e Ke-cr.
TO 3 T EM) OT ATTTÆ ÛT HAVTS*
r<? richard drake, esq* of YORK, __ a. zealoms admirer of Axitiquities;
This Plate is ins crib ed, "by j brittoh
L Û adcn, Published March 1. iSia.ky Leng man fc C: Paternoster How.\
»

n

I
*

/DESCRIPTION OF THE PLATES.
77
up, to serve as a buttress to the tower :—k. Archbishop Grey’s Monument :—1. section of south porch, with the walls and windows above.
Plate XV. contains an elevation of one compartment of the south transept, exterior and interior.
Plate XVI. View of the nave, looking east, shows the style and character of this portion of the cathedral. A very slight effect of light and shade has been designedly given to this plate, and, I hope, to the satisfaction of the judicious critic,
Plate XVII. has been described in p. 59.
Plate XVIII. An elevation, interior and exterior, of one compartment of the nave, in which the beautiful parapets are shown as nearly perfect.
Plate XIX. West end. The architectural and decorated character of this splendid example of ecclesiastical architecture, is carefully and accurately delineated in this plate ; and it may be confidently said, that it has never before been faithfully displayed to the public. It is a truly exquisite and interesting specimen of this decorated style, and therefore deserving not only of minute representation, but diligent study and admiration. The plan shows the forms and proportion of the buttresses, doorways, windows, and clustered columns ; the panelling of the interior walls, the niches in the buttresses, the steps, and the disposition of the groining of the nave:-r-a. stair-case at south-west angle:—b. door-way to the south aile:—a. centre door-way:—c. door-way to north aile:—d. stair-case:— f. stair-case, cut in a buttress on the north side, and which appears to have belonged to an extraneous building.
Plate XX. details :—a. a statue with pedestal and canopy :—two shields of arms, and fragments of two statues over a door, from the north aile of nave:—b. c. sculpture over the doors at the west end, interior:— D. and F. fragments of sculpture in niches, at the west end :—e. a bracket,
Plate XXL View in the north aile of the nave, looking west, showing the style of the panelling, &c. beneath the windows ; also the door-way and window at the west end of the aile. On the right hand is the niche containing the tomb, said to enclose the remains of Archbishop Roger.
Plate XXII. Perspective elevation of the door-way in the organ-screen, with the effigies of King John and Henry HI. See p. 50.78
YORK CATHEDRAL.
Plate XXIII. A view of the choir, looking east, displays the style of architecture and the stall-work of this very splendid part of the cathedral. As this view embraces such a profusion of ornaments, it has been deemed most advisable to leave the plate in outline, rather than attempt to give effect by covering over any parts.
Plate XXIV. Elevation of one compartment of the choir, or rather south side of the east end.
Plate XXV. Elevation and section of the centre part of the east end, showing the mullions and ramifications of the great window, the niches beneath, and at the sides, with indications of the subjects in the glass.
Plate XXYI. View of Archbishop JBowet's elegant monument, looking north-west. See p. 60.
Plate XXYII. Elevation of the door-way to the chapter-house, with one door open, to show part of the stalls and window within, and the other door closed to represent the richly wrought iron-work.
Plate XXVIII. Elevation and section of the end of the north transept, with plan. See p. 44.
Plate XXIX. View of Archbishop Savage's Monument. See p. 60.
Plate XXXI. Capitals and pendants in the chapter-house. See p. 56.
Plate XXXII. Windows in the chapter-house, No. 1 ; and in the vestibule, No. 2; with plans of each, No. 1. a:—plan of pier, with a passage behind it, n :—principal mullion, c. ; the plans of which are drawn more at large at a. b. and c. at the upper part of No. 2. At e. is shown a plan of three of the niches, with their detached columns of marble, and groining beneath the canopies. The windows, f. g. No. 2, show singular varieties of the forms of the arch, and tracery:—d. plan of pier.
Plate XXXIII. Architectural details from different parts of the building; the names of which are inscribed to each.
Plate XXXIV. Elevation of a stall in the choir :—of a compartment in the north aile of the choir, at f. in the ground plan:—and of one compartment of the altar-screen.
Plate XXXVI. Effigies of Archbishop Grey, a. See p. 59 :—of Savage, b. See p. 60 :—and of Mauley. See p. 61.I
/
I
/CATHEMRAL ANTIQUI T.ÌIE
in
1. .ITT
iüï'tcwii "bv Df.Mackenzie-
JBritto n's History See. erf York CctfhoeLreiL.	D'in
Y{(ü)lKE CATI1]D)M,)L
OIOIR , LOOI'mO EAST.
TO THE EEVY JAMES S TAN 1ER CLARKE , 'L.LT)._Y.'R.S.ITREARTA7V TO II. R .TI. THE PT ITT CE. JIEGF.N T, &e. tcc. Scc. and antlior of several interesting' pr Plications-------This Plate is inscribed by ^ ivr.itTON
aved Djv Edm*? Tn rrel
,4?1tdV7L J\e.b lisi led Jlllv 2 , lS'J 0 , bv TiVUjmum Sr t'f l^aYcr) W.rtfr Jit > w-
A.
V*
/Iß of*
Drawn ~bv F.Mackenzie.	5	1	*	Jo	to	.	3o	/W	5o Dtclied-bvADvigin.
''■Settle!—i-------->	»- Î---;------- -- - • i Ì.......	I......	...........4—------- -----~====rrz4-rrz^-: ————j fett
for S ritte n't JfLstjry Sec. of ITork Cathedral..
I>TTJS®TOR %s EXTEBIOR OE CJSKÏIR.
I aruit/ n. Published Aug*1,1818, by Zonyrnan k C? Paternoster Row.
Ti

*

f
IGATHTE IDEAE AHT%(Q)"Ö1TTES,
FL. XZV.
I I I
I ■ ■ ■ I 1I I I 11 ■ ■ ■ I


fitìg,

itali
r'<A •
Süfi
i m...jy
\WÊM
B
Sr;

fâj
(ei
.ti
■


B
«
«
B
MlHASi
f IB ■*	fS s.	m* ] I	■hß ?J\it	grx	8 Hi	'■: \l II IF* J V *a 1 Hi ||.^V->NA- 1 •■’iSfeii?: ' - Uli ' ■ i ■	(V Ä- Hi	
V\Üÿ..-'Zr' ( •,■;	v«x>oav‘' e.^c£$.	—— gl	äiliä -j/CD-;	■	S'- fcgS$,. ; :'v çfyjT; HU p xuNXvH	Ifél	-v
■	; X'Yxi.v..	B	Kx	|3x>	SM Hlilli'öG. 4ft illi) - £ ' pr	m lx.	Si
H	.C ... M / vJ ' ^ — li!.	■ ■			; . Il [1 i H	X* r/ 4 -. A/X X';..	
1	W ■ rtr * y.- A iPfSi • ^BBE	Iff.	E1B i^jLi	\n	 .'a*; ./?	 j^irx-r	■»* ,k a.fflflfld 1E : ; , V* L I |g ; III	I /' •-.	■ HI
Xl							
taf
E
ss

m

m
Ä.
i3Bl
3*
i±
fi®
liJ.UUX
fffl
Drawn "by E Mackenzie.
Scale, of' I
Jì ritta nie Sistar y icc, of 3W: Cathaltul-
H M (DATMKEmAIt, ^Be1|,
SECTION & EXJSVATIOTT OT THE MT» rj EKTER GANDY , ESQ? ARCHITECTf as a te stimony of Frien&sMp ,
Tlds Plate is inscrib e(1 ,by j i^^TTON"
BBHEBEBBBE	^ EBMBEBHH
,*> Engraved bv Turrell.
zzd j&|
t
i
!
IJiSlATHEimATL. AJKTTfcTUITIK S ••	PJL.. XXVii.
Drawn "by E.Biore.	/&r Jirittonï ÏÏÀtùny lu..of York Cathedral.	Engra-vecL by H. Le Xeux.
TOÌM CC ATTI BI IS ID BLftJL* CCMIUÄH»
ARCHBISHOP BOWETTS MONUMENT.
/ ' ’ i'OlM.hl SMIKKE ESQf ARCHI 1'EC T , I\ S.Ai&x. "Who lis evinced mnek knowledge of antient Architecture in Ms profefsional works.
™ 3	inscribed by I BMTT £ ^ _
2jondo7x,Hxblzs?iô<l	I,l8l8,by Jjongrruin ic C/Vaterno ster Jlovy.>
t%

t
4
«

1
/CATHEBIRAX, afcttTTO "PITIES
PL
ENTRANCE BOOIhWAY TO THE CHAPTER HOUSE«
7.cn7on,Publiskod Jujiei.ifijg ,by Lcncmcui Sc C? Paternoster How.!

/
èCA'IL'M	AN TIL(Q)ID 1TIK S.
Drawn by A.Pugin.
drittens History hc.cr 7c rk Cathedral,
CSKlSi TL71	1
ÏÏT
■I 9
Engraved by__Gladwrr
■ENID) OIF rOÂF:TEL -TmAIT^EPTo
TC H.E.tœndall,ESQ?-ARCHITECT—This Plateis inscribed"bv
%U
Xondevi, .Published Mdreh i, i5io Vu Roiìiinhin y Cc.Täterfioster Row.
J/RKLTTöN.
>
f:
♦
-"'s
ICATHÏÏ H HAIL .AIT TI
/T-* TT •( it i r TT^a
F IL .,10:iXo
Engraved "by J. Le Keux.
JirtUonJ Burtory &c. of York Cut/iedrul
f^Yiîôjt^3 £\	ïr^Toi a T?
k w/ =L_k\>r j	<- H .j üa cLUy RgjlPlMj U
Drawn by E ?■ Bione.
^Ss TTTT Tf^ Tel
Qj, IU; i^\L/ÆL 9
r<? THE REV? ROBERT MARK H AM, M. A « A R CH DEA COK OF YORK, bzc
This Plate is inscribed,by the I
J AUTHOR.
I cnJx'n, Published July 11 did, by Lonyman &■ Cf Tatfrno^ter Row.iatATHEBRAX. AKlfsj PITIE S\
>CATMJßBRA'L AN TIlg V J! T t ES.
PIL.XXXII.
t>. / • weä, iy J.'LeKeu. - from a. Drawing by ÉMeuker for BrittorCs If ' <ry ice., f York CachtdraL.
SrtlU 01 I
zo
_J feet.
w&m-iK o:	(SmtdorccmI
wra:n. .wfe'c.MT chapi^D blottse,*? m vi^TïBtriÆ. .
L	' 1,13LI y kev	fc C: Paterno stir Bt>w.
Printed, by Hayward..ICATlljpWRAX, ANTIQVITIE (3.
PÄIXIIll
Choir
■ 1 !	A		;	■	11	ii i	■			r ^			
■ 1	■ ^ ;			<		1 V				V		■	
4 il		■		m	1 !L	MA	.1		—	\V-		.y	
	|j ■ I !	1	1	1 il !	1
		.1 . 1	Jj		■	ü. 1_1l \	—,—1 --
N. Transept

Nave
Organ Screen
à In. «
Organ Screen
Nave
feet.
Dtrvoi Try E 31or e.
.Britten’s JListcry ice.cfYcrk Cathedral.
Yf©mïK W ATTIÏIIS	Y§IWi|^ISIs
ATRCK ITECTlTftAh EETAIlt^G.
Engraved."by H.Le Kem.
Lenden-, I'idlL/u’d Aprii 2. iSiS.ly Lene man ic C° Taternester Ren.\:p::.,.:xsx'
^ * -1ij* iMM^' MJ.	.	^■S^Lved bv K. Hoffe.
f©œ mthBsirail ■kuthusibi,
PARTS <OT ALTAR sdf|®EH9 STALLS fee ■LOJtdoiz. TublLs7ieJ Ds^Tl, l8l3. bu Lctwman k Of Eitermster Rûw.
CAT III E!D>11A il J AMT IQ 8?lT0fi §
r.i.'tìti- 'P.-/Ì./’-V../'-./ M<uvi: / /?/A, hr l.on,yin/i/i /Y /\irfrnt'st<'r Arr/.y
V


/
\APPENDIX
OF DOCUMENTS RELATING TO THE ERECTION OF YORK CATHEDRAL, FROM
THE CHAPTER ARCHIVES.
I.
In the Register of Archbishop Walter Grey, called Rotulus Major, is an imperfect instrument, dated at “ Sireburn, V. Kal. Augusti Anno XI.” (1227) by which the Archbishop requires the clergy of the diocess to contribute towards the expenses of building the church, and exhorts the laity to assist in the same contribution. Adam, a priest, is mentioned as the Archbishop’s proctor on this occasion, who was to give all explanations requisite on the subject of a relaxation, or indulgence of XL. days, but which is obscurely alluded to in the document.
II.
An Act of the Chapter, dated February 13,1361, recites the imposition of a tax of the twentieth part of all ecclesiastical revenues, &c. for the necessary reparation and restoration of “ immense defects” in the choir,
III.
A Record in Registrum Admissionum, &c. “ ab anno 1352, ad annum 1426,” recites the indulgences granted by Innocent VI.1 and a further.relaxation granted by Urban V. of one year to all true penitents who assisted in building the Choir.
IV.
Ry an Indenture, dated July 20,1361, Archbishop John Thoresby, and the Dean ind Chapter, agree to demolish the remains of the archiépiscopal mansion at Shireburn, and to use the stone in the erection of the Choir.
V.
AGREEMENT WITH A PLUMBER.
Hec Indentura testatur, quod Johannes Plomer de Blaykestret operabitur in opere Plumbarii, propriis suis manibus & non per substitam personam, in coopertura Ecclesie beati Petri Ebor. Campanilis Berefridi, Chori, Capituli & Pinniculorum sive Turrium ejusdem ecclesie, quocies-cumque quecumque de cetero necesse fuerit aut defectus apparuerit in eisdem, aqt aliqua parte ipsarum, & per Magistrum Fabrice ejusdem ecclesie aut alium ex parte sua fuerit requisitus ; capiendo ebdomada qualibet qua in opere predicto laboraverit a dicto Magistro operis, duos solidos sex denarios argenti pro stipendio, et pro labore suo, sine aliquo alio amplius exigendo,
1 These indulgences were for two years, and two terms of forty days each (duas quadragenas).. The latter are erroneously mentioned in Drake’s Eboracum, as two quarters qf a year ; and the mistake has been inadvertently followed in p. 31 of this work.80
APPENDIX.
nisi forsan Domini de Capitulo predicto considerata operis sui quantitate, uberiorem remunera-cionem sibi de gracia facere voluerint, et si dictus Johannes per diettas vel vices in opere predicto laboraverit, recipiet pro dieta secundum ratam sive porcionem summe predicte taliter limitate nec amplius, idem Johannes quocumque anni tempore poterit vendicare sic tamen aliquo tempore anni intermedio fabrica predicta ejus labore vel emendacione non indigeat, petita prius licentia a Capitulo sive Magistro operis & obtenta, licite poterit alibi operari & commodum suum facere prout sibi videbitur expedire. Ita tamen quod ad reparacionem & emendacionem dicte fabrice statim & sine difficultate redeat qu.. .cumque opus eo fuerit et per Magistrum operis sicut premitti-tur fuerit requisitus. Supradictum eciam opus quociescumque necesse fuerit bene et fideliter et absque omni dolo et fraude faciet diligenter et expediet ac Plumbum et Stannum ecclesie & quicquid ad opus predictum pertinuerit, confirmabit & non alibi quam in ipso opere vel idem illud aliquo tempore distribuet . . . nec expendet. Dated 1367.
VI.
ANOTHER AGREEMENT WITH A PLUMBER.
Hec Indenterà facta inter venerabilem Capitulum Ebor. [Decno ejusdem in remotis agente, ex una parte], & Johannem filium Ade le Plummer de Bevertaco ex altera parte, testatur : quod idem Capitulum retinuerint dictum Johannem ad serviendum ecclesie Ebor. in officio plumbarii ad terminum vite sue, in forma que sequitur. Primo quod idem Johannes teneatur ad cooperiendum Ecclesiam predictam, ac Berefridum & Domum Capitularem ejusdem, in coopertura plumbi ; ac defectus ibidem contingentes congrue emendare, quociescumque opus fuerit. Et habebit dictus Johannes pro quolibet folher plumbi, continente centum & quater viginti petras de novo fundendum ; et in coopertura dicte Ecclesie, seu Berefridi, & Domus Capitularis, debite apponendam, septem solidos sex denarios, per manus Magistri fabrice, qui pro tempore fuerit. Item habebit pro qualibet roda cooperienda supra dictis Ecclesia, Berefrida, et Domo Capitulari, continente viginti pedes mensurandas per ulnam usualem in longitudine & latitudine amovenda & de novo supra eandem Ecclesiam sive Berefridum & Domum Capitularem septem solidos sex denarios. Et cum contingit quod plumbum de novo operatus fuerit ad cooperiendum campanile dicte ecclesie vel illam partem Berefridi vocatam Broche, tunc percipiet pro singulis fotlier & rodis secundum formam predictam operandis, tresdecim solidos & quatuor denarios.—Dated at York, 1370.
VII.
ORDERS FOR THE REGULATION OF THE MASON’S WORK, &C.
Itte es ordayned by ye Chapitre of ye Kirk of Saint Petyr of York y at all ye Masonnes yl «all1 wyrke till* ye werke of ye same Kyrk of Saynte Petyr, sail fra Miglielmesse-day untili ye firste sonday of lentyn he ilk a day atte morne atte yaire werk in ye loge yat es ordayned to ye masonnes at wyrke inwith3 ye close bysyde ye forsayde Kyrk als4 arly als yai may see skilfully by day lyghte for till wyrke. and yai sali stande yar trewly wyrkande atte yaire werke all ye day aftyr als lang als yai may se skilfully for till5 wyrke yf yt be aile werkday outher elles till itte be hegh none smytyn by ye clocke. When halyday falles atte none sauf yl inwith yl forsayde tyme bytwyn Mighelmes & Lentyn, and in all other tyme of ye yer yai may dyne before none yf yai wille, and alswa ette atte none Whar yame likes swa y* yai sail noghte dwell6 fra yair werk in ye forsayde loge na tyme of ye yer in dyner tyme, bote swa schort tyme yat na skilful-
1 Shall. 2 At. 3 Within. 4 As. 5 To. Till is yet used in this sense in the North. 6 Absent themselves.APPENDIX.
81
man sali fynde defaute in yaire dwellyng, and in tyme of mete atte none yai sali na tyme of ye y er dwell fra ye loges ne fra yaire Werke forsayde ovyr ye space of ye tyme of an houre. And aftyr None yai may drynk in yeloge, ande for yaire drynkyng tyme bytwyn Mighelmes& JLentyn yai sali noghte cese no lefe yaire werk passand ye tyme of half a Mileway7. Ande fra ye firste Sonday of Lentyn untili Mighelmesse yai sali be in ye forsayde loge atté yaire werke atte ye son risyng, ande stande yare trewly ande bysily wyrkande upon ye forsayde werke of ye Kyrk all ye day untili itte be namare space yan tyme of a mileway before ye sone sette yf itte be werkday, é outher elles untili tyme of none, als itte es sayde by fore ; saf y yai sail by twix ye firste sonday of Lentyne ande Mighelmes, dyne and ette als es byfore sayde, ande siepe ande drynke aftyr none in ye forsayde loge, ande yai sali nogbte cese no lefe yair werke in slepyng tyme passande ye tyme of a mile way, no in drynkyng tyme aftyr none passande ye tyme of a mileway. Ande yai sali nogbte siepe aftyrenone na tyme botte bytwene saynte Elennes and Lammes, And yf any mane dwell fra ye loge and fraye werk forsayde outher make defaute any tyme of ye yer agayne yis forsayde ordinance, he sail be ehastyde8 with abatyng of his payment atte ye lokyng ande devys of y e Maistyr Masonn. And all yer ty mes ande houres sail by reweled9 bi a bell ordayned yarefore. Ande alswa it es ordayned y4 na masonn sali be receavyde atte wyrke to ye werk of ye forsayde kyrke bot he be first provede a weke or mare opon his wele wyrkyng, and aftyr y4 he es foundyn souffissant of his werke be receavyde of ye comune assente of ye Mayster & ye kepers of ye werk, ande of ye maystyr masònn, & swere apon ye boke y4 he sali trewly ande bysyli at his power for, oute any maner gylyry10 fayntys1' outher desayte, hald and kepe haly all ye poyntes of yis forsayde ordinance in all thynges y4 hym touches or may touches, fra tymey4 he be receavyde till12 ye forsayde werke als lang als he sail dwell masonn hyryd atte wyrk, till13 y4 forsayde werke of ye kyrk of saint Petyr, And noght ga away fra y4 forsayde werke bote14 ye maystyrs gyf hym lefe, atte parte fra y4 forsayde werk [botte ye maystyrs gyf hym lefe atte parte fra y4 same werk15,] And wba sum evyr cum agayne16 yis ordinance ande brek itte agayn16 ye will o ye forsayde Chapitre have he goddes malyson17 and saynt Petyrs. [A0 Dni, 1371.]
VIII.
By an Indenture, dated A. D. 1338, Robert, a glazier contracted with Thomas Boneston, Custos of the fabric of the church, to glaze and paint the great western window ; the glazier to find the glass, and to be paid at the rate of sixpence per foot, for plain, and twelvepence for coloured glass. These particulars are given in Torre’s MSS.; but the original document, although referred to, cannot now be found.
IX.
By an Indenture, dated the 10th day of August, 1405, the substance of which is preserved in Torre’s MSS. John Thornton, of Coventry, glazier, contracted with the Dean and Chapter for glazing and painting the great eastern window; the painting to be executed with his own hands; and the work to be finished in three years ; for which he was to receive four shillings per week, and one hundred shillings at the end of each of the three years : and if he performed the work to the satisfaction of his employers, he was to receive the further sum of ten pounds, in silver.
7 The time supposed to be necessary to walk a mile in, perhaps twenty minutes. 8 Chastised. ? Ruled.
10 Guile ; this old word is still familiar in many parts of the country.	11 Feints.	12 Deceit.
13 To, as above. 14 Unless. 15 Repeated by mistake of the copyist. 16 Against; the old word is yet used.
17 Malediction.A
TABLE OF FOUNDERS AND BENEFACTORS.
DRAWN UP
BY THE REV. T. GALE, S. T. P. DEAN OF YORK,
AND AFFIXED AT HIS EXPENSE IN THE NORTH AILE OF THE CHOIR.
ANNO DOM. MDCXCIX. ECCLESIÆ EBORACENS1S GRATITÜDO.
FUNDATORES.
Anno Dom.
DCXXVII.........Edwynus, Northumbrorum rex, primus fundator.
DCXXXII.........Oswaldus, Northumbrorum rex, secundus fundator.
DCLXVI..........Wilfridus, Ebor. Archiep. tertius fundator.
DCCLXII.........Albertus, Ebor. Archiep. quartus fundator, primus bibliothecam condidit.
MLXVIII.........Thomas, Ebor. Archiep. quintus fundator.
REPARATORES.
MCLXXI..........Rogerus, Ebor. Archiep. chorum novum aedificavit.
MCCXXVII........Walterus Gray, Ebor. Archiep. multùm promovit fabricam.
MCCL............Johannes Romanus, partem chori borealem et campanile in medio aedificavit.
MCCXCI. ........Johan. Romanus Ebor. Archiep» navem ecclesiae inchoavit.
MCCCXXX ..*....Will. de Melton, Ebor. Archiep. navem ecclesiae consummavit.
MCCCLXII.........Johan. Thursby, inchoavit novum opus chori.
MCCCLXX.........Walterus Skirlaw, Præbendarius de Fenton in hac ecclesia, postea episcopus
Dunelm. campanile aedificavit.
BENEFACTORES.
Y Decanus et capitulum, variis temporibus.
\Robertus Vavasor, miles.
T I	y Will, de Perci, miles.
Incertis temporibus..^ wm de AguU’loll
# Will. Fitz-Alice.
-	Richardus de Dalton.
MDCXXIX........Francisca Matthews, uxor T. Matthews Archiep. Ebor.
MDCXXXIII.......Carolus I. rex Angliæ.
MDCXXXVIII... Arthurus Ingram, baronettus.
MDCLXXIII.......Maria, Domina Beaumont.
MDCLXXXIII...Ricardus Sterne, Archiep. Ebor.
MDCLXXXVI ...Thomas Cracroft, S. T. P.
MDCLXXXVL...Johannes Dolben, Archiep. Ebor.
MDCXCI...........Thomas Lamplugh, Archiep. Ebor.
MDCXCV..........Thomas, Comes Fauconberg.
MDCXCV..........Williel. Comes Strafford, mille libras legavit.a ©ïjronoloQtcal %i$t of m &rcpt$ï)0JPS of Igork,
WITH
CONTEMPORARY KINGS OF ENGLAND, AND POPES.
No.
11
12
13
14
15
16
IT
18
19
20
21
22
23
24
ARCHBISHOPS.
Consecrated or Enthroned.
Died or Translated
Buried at
Paulinas.................
[See vacant 34 years.] Ceadda...................
Wilfrid Bosa ...
Wilfrid restored
Bosa restored ...
John (St. John of Beverley)
Wilfrid II.
Egbert
Ccena, Albert, or Adelbert
Eanbald....«............
Eanbald II..... ...I....
Wulsius...........
Winiund..............
Wilfere....I........
Ethelbald...........
Redward, or Lodeward
Wulstan.............
From
^ngïo^cixon Bpastg.
... To...............
July 21, 625
665
669
678
686
691
705
........ 718
........ 731
April 24, 767
......... 780
. Nov. 19, 797
Oscytell...
Athelwald
Oswald ...
Aldulfe ...
Wulstan II.
Alfric Puttoc
Kinsius Aldred .
832
854
895
921
941
................... 955
................... 971
{ Worcester, )
) in commendam ) ”*
Ditto.............. 993
Ditto .............1003
5 Rochester......' 631 )
I Died...Oct. 10, 644)
5 Lichfield..... 669 )
2Died....March2, 672)
Retired......... 678
Retired.........'685
Expelled........698)
Died............ 709)
Died............. 705
Retired......... 718)
Died.,...May 7, 721)
............... 731
....... Nov. 19, 766
mÊÊÊBÊL........	781
................ 796
832
854
892
.1023
...........1050
.Worcester, 1061
.........Dec. 26, 955
................. 971
Resigned......... 971
.......Feb. 27, 992-3
.........May 6, 1002
May 28, 1023
1050
..Dec. 22, 1060 , Sept. 11, 1069
L
Rochester
Lichfield,
Ripon....
York.....
Beverley
York ... Chester York ...
Oundle
Worcester
Worcester
Ely..........
Peterborough
Peterborough, York........
Kings.
OF NORTHUMBRIA. Edwin.........
Oswyn.
Alcfrid. Egfrid .
Alcfrid, Osred .
Osric II....
Cœlwulph
Ethelwuld
EdeJLrid Aired......
OF ENGLAND.
Egbert................
Egbert, Ethelwulph ..... { Ethelbald, EthelbertY
(Ethelred, Alfred....j
Alfred................
Edward the Elder......
) Athelstan........)
} Edmund I. Edred. )
Edwy, Edgar ..........
Edgar...............
Edw. Mart. Ethelred II.
Ethelred II............
C Ethelred II. Sweyn, Y Edmund Ironside .. >
(_ Canute............3
Ç Canute, Harold I. Y < Hardicanute......... V
L Edward Confessor j
•Edward Confessor....
) Edward Confessor,
I Harold II. Wm.I.
Popes.
Boniface V.
Vitalian.
Adeodatus. John V. Sergius I. John VI.
Gregory II. Gregory III Paul I. Adrian.
Leo III.
Paschal I. Gregory IV.
Leo IV.
Formosus.
John X.
Stephen IX.
Agapetus II. j John XIII.
John XIII.
John XV.
Silvester II.
Benedict VIII.
Leo IX. Alexander II..84
CHRONOLOGICAL LIST OF ARCHBISHOPS, ETC
No. I
ARCHBISHOPS.
Consecrated or Enthroned.
25	Thomas ...
26	Gerard .....
27	.Thomas II.
28	Thurstan......
29	William.......
30	Henry Murdac (William, St. ...
31
82
33
34
35
36
37
38
39
40
41
42
Roger................
[Vacant 10 years.] Geoffry Plantagenet....
[Vacant 4 years.]
Walter Gray .........
Sewal de Bovil.......
Godfrey de Kinton....
Walter Giffard.......
William Wickwane ....
John le Romayne......
Henry de Newarke.....
Thomas de Corbrigge .. William de Grenefeld., William de Melton....
43	William de la Zouch ....
44	JohnThoresby, orThuresby
Alexander Neville ....
Thomas Arundell.......
Robert Waldby,.......
Richard Scrope ......
49	i Henry Bowett ......
50	John Kemp............
45
46 4f 48
51	(William Boothe....;.....
52	George Neville.........
531 Laurence Booth..........
54 i Thomas Scot de Rotheram.
56	Christopher Baynbrigge....
57	Thomas Wolsey 58;Edward Lee ....
From................ To
Died or Translated
Buried at
....................1070
......... Hereford, 1100
London, elected June, 1109
.....I.....Oct. 19, 1119
...................1144
.................. 1148
Restored.........  1153
...........Nov.	18,	1100
............May	21,	1108
........Feb. 19, 1114-5
S Resigned, Jan.21,1139 )
( Died, Feb. 5, 1139-40 £
Deprived.......... 1147
...........Oct.	14,	1153
...........June 4, 1154
gbaxon Hme lUstorelr.
Oct.
10,1154 Lincoln..Aug. 18, 1191
Worcester, Nov.
........ July
...........Sept.
Bath &WTells,Oct
...........Sept.
...........Feb.
............June
............Feb.
........... Jan.
...........Sept,
11, 1215 23,1256 23,1258 .15,1265 19, 1279 10, 1286
24,	1298 28, 1299 30, 1305
25,	1317
....Nov. 22, 1181
...Dec. 18, 1212
....May 1, 1255
...May 10, 1258
...Jan. 12, 1264
... April 25, 1279 .....Aug. 26, 1285 March 11, 1295-6
...Aug. 15, 1299
... Sept. 22, 1303
...Dec. 16, 1315
....April 5, 1340
Lancastrian Ltne.
............July 6, 1342
Worcester,..Sept. 8, 1354
...........Dec. 18,1374
Ely.......March 25, 1389
j Chichester, JJanl;M397
(temp, rest
Lichfield....July 6, 1398
Bath & Wells, Dec. 9,1408 London.........April, 1426
............July	19, 1352
.............Nov.	6, 1373
(St. Andrews...... 1388 )
( Died......May, 1392 5
Canterbury..........1396
.............May	29, 1398
.............June	8, 1405
...........Oct. 20, 1423
Canterbury......... 1451
Cotise of g^orfc.
&nglo=jSorman dynasty.
York.....
York.....
York.....
Pontefract
York.....
York.....
York....
York....
York....
York....
York....
Pontiniac
York....
York....
Southwell York M.. York....
York......
York ......
Lovaine....
Westminster
York.......
York M.....
Canterbury..
Lichfield......Sept. 4,1453 Exeter	1465			Sept. 20,1464 	I	.Tune 8, 1476	Southwell, York 	
Durham	Sept. 8, 1476 Lincoln	Sept. 3,1480		May 19, 1480	Southwell York	
of 'SdltfOL
55 i Thomas Savage........ London....April 12,1501
Durham...Sept. 12, 1508
Lincoln....Aug. 5, 1514
..........Dec. 10, 1531
59 ; Robert Holgate
Llandaff... Jan. 16. 1544-5
...........Sept. 2, 1507
............July	14,	1514
...........Nov,	29,	1530
..........Sept.	13,	1544
Deprived...........1553
York .... Rome ... Leicester York ....
Kings.
William I. and II.
Henry I.........
Henry I.........
Henry I. Stephen
Stephen........
Stephen .......
Henry II............
Henry II. Rich. I. John
John, Henry III. ....
Henry III...........
Henry III.......... ....
Henry III. Edward I....
Edward I............
Edward I............
Edward I............
Edward I..........!..!
Edward I. and II. ../.... Edward II. and III..
Edward III. .. ..........
Edward III...........
Edward III. Richard II
Richard II...........,
Richard II...........
Richard II.. Hen. IV...
Henry IV. and V......
Henry V. and VI......
Henry VI. Edward IV.
Edward IV..........
Edward IV..........
f Edward IV. and V.
I
[Rich. III. Hen. VII
Henry VII........
Henry VII. and VIII
Henry VIII.......
Henry VIII.......
5 Henry VIII....
^Edward VI. Mary
Popes.
Alexander II. Paschal II. Paschal II.
Calixtus II.
Lucius II. Eugenius III. Anastasius IV.
Adrian IV.
Clement III.
Innocent III. Alexander IV. Alexander IV. Clement IV. Nicholas III. Honorius IV. Boniface VIII, Boniface VIII, Clement V. John XXII.,
Benedict XII.. Innocent VI.
Gregory XI.
Boniface IX.
Boniface IX.
Boniface IX. Gregory XII. Martin V.
Nicholas V. Paul II. Sixtus IV.
Sixtus IV.
Alexander VI. JuKus II.
Leo X. Clement VII.
Paul III.No.
60
61
62
63
64
65
66
67
68
69
70
71
72
73
74
75
76
77
78
79
80
81
82
83
CHRONOLOGICAL LIST OF ARCHBISHOPS, ETC
Consecrated or Enthroned.
From .ii*................
Worcester, Feb. 19,1555-6
St. David’s, Feb.25,1560-1
London.....June 9, 1570
London ....Jan. 25, 1576-7 Salisbury, Feb. 27, 1558-9 Durham, March 24, 1594-5
Died or Translated	Buried at
To 			Cobham 	 York	
( Deprived	1558 ? ( Died	1579$	
5 Cantb. Feb. 24,1575-6? ( Died	July 6,1583 $ 	Aug. 8, 1588	Croydon 		 Southwell	
	Sept? 28^ 1594	York 	
	York 	
î^ouse of Stuart.
Durham.....Sept.	11,	1606
Durham......Oct.	24,	1628
Norwich.... April	23,	1629
Winchester, April 16,1632 Lincoln.....June	27,	1642
Lichfield...Oct.	11,	1660
Carlisle....June	10,	1664
Rochester...Aug. 23, 1683
Exeter......Dec.	19,	1688
...........I July 16, 1691
March 29, 1628 ... Nov. 6, 1628 .. May 18, 1631 .. Oct. 31, 1640 March 25, 1650
March 28, 1664 .. June 18, 1683 . April 11, 1686 .1.. May 5, 1691 .Feb. 2, 1713-4
of 23nmsfotcfc.
Chester, March 24, 1713-4 Exeter......Dec. 10, 1724
Bangor.....April 28, 1743
Bangor......Dec. 29, 1747
Salisbury .... May 28,1757 Salisbury.... Nov. 11,1761
Chester.....Jan. 28, 1777
Carlisle....Jan. 21, 1808
........ April 30, 1724
................. 1743
Canterbury.....1747 ?
Died, March 13, 1757$
Canterbury..... 1757?
Died, March 19, 1758$
................. 1761
.........Dec. 10, 1770
..........Nov. 3, 1807
York ......
Cawood ... Chigwell..
York.....
Llandegay
York.....
York.....
York.....
York.....
York.....
Cambridge .......
5 St. Margaret’s, ? ( Westminster $
Croydon
Bishopsthorpe
Westminster..üîfjronologtcal Hiöt of Urans of $otü.
This Catalogue, which differs in several particulars from those printed by Le Neve and Willis, has been taken from Torre’s list, which is copied by Drake, as being the most authentic.—Many of the Deans were men of rank in their respective times, and from the York Deanry were advanced to some of the first places in church and state.
No.	DEANS.	Appointed.
1	Hugh ...	Temp. W. II...
2	William de St. Barbara....	Temp. K. Step.1
3	Robert de Gant			 1144
4		
5	Hubert Walter			 1186
6	Henry Marshall		
7	Simon de Apulia					 1191
8	Hamo 				 1214
9	Roger de Insula			 12—1
10	Geoffry de Norwych		
11	Folk Bassett			 1 240
12	William 			!		 1244
13	Walter de Kyrkham			 124-
14	Sewal de Bovil			'		 125-
11	{ Godfrey de Ludham (or >	1956
	( Keynton)	 5’	
16	Roger de Holdernes			
17	William de Langueton 2		 126
18	Robert de Scardeburgh.....		 1279
19	Henry rip Newark				 1290
20	William de Hamelton3 ...j			 1298
21	Reginald de Gote Cardinalis		 1309
22	William de Pykering ........			 1310
23	Robt. de PykeringSjP.C.L.	13JB
24	William de Colby				 1332
25	William de la Zoueh		,	 1333
26	Philip de Weston.						 1347
27	Tailerand, Bp. of Albanen.		 135-
28	John Anglicus, Cardinalis.		 1366
29	Adam Easton, Cardinalis ..		 13ÌI
30	Edmd. de Strafford, L.L.D.		 1385
31	Roger Walilen			 139
32	Richard Clifford, Bac. Leg.		 1398
33Thomas Langley4				 1401
34'John Prnnhete 1				 1407
35	jThomas Polton			 1416
36	j William Grey, L. L. D			 1421
Died, or removed.
Bishop of Durham
............ Died
Bishop of Salisbury Bishop of Exeter... Bishop of Exeter...
Bishop of London..
Archbishop of York i Archbishop of York
........... Died
....Died
Archbishop......
............ Died
............Died
Wfc......... Died
Archbishop
... Died
Deprived
Deprived
Archb. of Canterb. Bp. of Worcester.. Bishop of Durham ■...........Died
Bishop of London .
No.
1142
1186
1189
1191
1214
1244
1256
1258
1279
1290
1296
1314
1310
1312
1340
1398
1401
1406
1426
37
38
39
40
42 143
44
45
46
47
48
49
50	j
51
52
53
54
K
56
57
58
59
60
n
62
G3
DEANS.
Robert Gilbert, S.T. P. ..
Wm. Felter, Dec. Dr.....
Richard Andrews5, L.L.D
Robert Bothe, L. L. D...
5 Christopher Urswyk, ')
( Dec. Dr.............$
Wm. Sheffield6, Dec. Dr. Geffrey Blythe, S. T. B...
Christ. Bay nbr igge, L. L. D
James Harrington.........
Thomas Wolsey...........
John Young 7............
Brian Higden8, L. L. D... Richard Layton, L. L. D... Nicholas Wotton9, L. D...
Matthew Hutton, S. T. B.
John Thornburgh, S. T. P.
George Meriton *-°, S.T.P. John Scott1?, S.T.P. Richard Marsh..............
William Sancroft...........
Robert Hitch^T. P. Tobias Wickham13, S.T.P. Thomas Galel3, S. T. P....
Henry Finch, A. M.....
Rich. Osbaldeston, S. T. P.
John Fountayne.........
George Markham.........
Appointed.
1426
1437
1454
1477
1488
1494
1496
1508
1507
1512
1514
1516
1539
1544
1567
1589
1617
1624
1660
16gg
1664
1676
1697
1702
1728
1747
1802
Died, or removed.
Bishop of London . 1437
............  Died
......... Resigned	1477
............. Died
........... Resigned 1494
............. Died
Bishop of Lichfield 1503 5 Bp of Durham... 1507 ( Archbp. of York. 1508
II..........•' Died 1512
$ Bishop of Lincoln 1513 £ Archbp. of York 1514
............. Died	1516
............. Died	1539
..... Died 1544
. .......... Died	1567
$ Bishop of Durham 1589 ( Archbp. of York 1594, Held the Bishop-ricks of Limerick and Bristol in commendarli, removed toWor-cester in ........ 1617
............. Died	1624
............  Died	1644
..............Died	1663
$ Dean of St.Paul’s,
ç London...,..... 1664
............. Died	1676
............. Died	1697
C«!'»........ Died	1702
............. Died	1728
Carlisle.......... 1747
............. Died	1802
1 Or as John, Prior of Hagustald says 1144-
* His tomb inlaid with brass and gilt was destroyed in the Rebellion.
3	Jan. 16,1305,32d Edw. I. this William dë Hamelton had the great seal delivered to him as Lord Chancellor of England—Torre, p. 555.
4	In the year 1405 he was constituted Lord High
Chancellor of England—Drake, p. 564.
6	Buried in the south transept of the cathedral. e Buried near the former Dean.
7	Buried in the Rolls Chapel, London.
8	Buried in the south transept of the cathedral.
9	See a particular account of him in Drake’s Eboracum, B. ii. Ch. iii. p. 565.
v 10 Buried in the south aile of the choir of the cathedral.
11	Hacket, in his “ Life of Archbishop Williams,” says, that be died in thé Fleet Prison.
12	Buried near the altar in the cathedral.
13	Buried in the choir of the cathfedral.A
lLi$t of leoofes, 3£$&&pß> anìr prints,
THAT HAVE BEEN PUBLISHED RELATING TO
YORK CATHEDRAL;
ALSO A LIST OF
ENGRAVED PORTRAITS OF ITS ARCHBISHOPS.
THIS LIST IS SUBJOINED TO GRATIFY THE BIBLIOGRAPHER, THE CRITICAL ANTIQUARY, AND THE ILLUSTRATOR ; AS WELL AS TO SHOW, AT ONE VIEW, THE SOURCES WHENCE THE CONTENTS OF THE PRECEDING PAGES HAVE BEEN DERIVED, AND THE FULL TITLES OF THE WORKS REFERRED TO IN THE NOTES.
SEE AND CHURCH.
The early history of the original fabric of York Cathedral, has not been preserved among the known records of the see. It is therefore to be sought for in the writings of those old chroniclers who have recorded and perpetuated the annals of Christianity in the northern parts of Britain. The first of these is “ the Ecclesiastical History” by Bede, who has left an account of the introduction of Christianity into the kingdoms of Northumbria, the foundation by king Edwyn of the original sacred edifice on the site of which the Cathedral of York now stands, and its completion by Oswald. From “ the Life of St. Wilfrid” by Eddius Stephanus, who wrote early in the eighth century, we learn ^the particulars of some extensive repairs done by that prelate. This work is published in voi. i. of “ Historice Britannica!, Saxonicœ, et Anglo-JDanicæ, Scriptores XV. ex vetustis codd. 3ISS. editi; opera Thomæ Gale, Th. Pr. Oxonice, 1691/' In the same publication is the poem of Flaccus Alcwinus, “ De Pontificibus et Sanctis Ecclesiæ Eboracensis," which has been adopted in the preceding pages as the highest authority for the events in which his contemporaries, the Archbishops Egbert, Albert, and Eanbald, were concerned. The history of this church from the time of Albert to that of Walter Grey, is only to be collected from brief and general notices in the chronicles of those times. The principal authorities are William of Malmesbury, “ De gestis Pontificum Anglorum,” “ Rogeri de Hoveden Annalium, pars prior et posterior” both in “ Rerum Anglicarum Scriptores post Bedam Precipui, ex vetustissimis codicibus manuscriptis nunc primum in lucem editi ,” Francofurti, m.dci. The chronicle of Simon Dunelmensis, and " Chronica Pontificum Ecclesia! Eboraci, auctore Thomâ Stubbs, Dominicàno,” which last named authors are in “ Historice Anglicance Scriptores Decem!'
The laborious manuscript collections of Mr. Torre, in the cathedral library, furnish many particulars relating to the erection of the existing structure, by Archbishop Grey and his successors, compiled from original documents and records preserved in the various registers of the archbishops, and dean and chapter, and other archives of the see. The manuscript contains 1860 pages of foolscap paper closely written. The author died in July, 1699, leaving, besides indexes, several valuable manuscripts on antiquities and genealogy. See an account of Mr. Torre and his MSS. in Drake's Preface.
Such are the authorities from which, with the collections by Rymer and Dugdale, the present work, so far as relates to the early history of the see and the cathedral, has been carefully compiled; the modern writers on the subject having only been consulted as guides to the most authentic sources of information.
“ The Antiquities of York City, Sfc. by James Torre, Gent, and since continued to the year 1719—with an Appendix of the Dimensions of York Minster, &c. &c." York, 1719, 8vo. This work was never intended for publication by Mr. Torre, being a mere copy of Christopher Hild-yard’s book, which is itself little more than a catalogue of the mayors and sheriffs, from 1273 to 1664.
“ The Antient and Modern History of the famous City of York : and in a particular manner of its magnificent Cathedral called York Minster, &c. &c. The whole diligently collected by T. G. (Gent.)" York, 1730, small 8vo.
“ Eboracum; or, the History and Antiquities of the City of York, from its Original to the
M88
YORK CATHEDRAL:—LIST OF BOOKS, ESSAYS, ETC.
present Times: together with a History of the Cathedral Church, and the Lives of the Archbishops of the See, &c. &c. Collected from authentic Manuscripts, public Records, ancient Chronicles, and modern Historians ; illustrated with Copper-plates. , In two Books, by Francis Drake, of the City of York, Gent. F. It. S. and Member of the Society of Antiquaries in London. London, 1736," folio.
History of the City of York, Book I. History of the Church of York, Book II. The plates relating to the cathedral are—Plan, with the old Pavements.—Interior View of the Chapter-house.— View of the Choir End.—Interior of the Cathedral.—West End.—South Front.—North-east View with the Chapter-house.
Monuments—Of Henry Swinburne, 1612:—of Archbishop Sandes, 1588:—of Archbishop Hutton, 1605. p. 458:—of Archbishop Matthews, 1628:—Archbishop Frewen, 1664:—Archbishop Sterne, 1683:—Archbishop Dolben, 1686 :—Archbishop Lamplugh, 1691:—Archbishop Sharp, 1713. Tombs—Of Archbishop Roger, 1181 :—Archbishop Grey, 1255 :—Archbishop Sewall, 1258:—of Archbishop Scrope, 1405:—Archbishop Bowet, 1423:—Archbishop Rotheram, 1500 : —Archbishop Savage, 1507 :—Archbishop Piers, 1594:—Archbishop Monteign, 1628.—Devices, Family Arms, Mural and Table Monuments, Monumental Effigies, Windows, Arches, &c. &c.
This volume was originally announced to be published at two guineas, and to consist of one hundred and twenty-five sheets, but was extended to two hundred sheets, and offered at the price of two guineas and a half, small paper, and five guineas, large paper. In the preface the author says he hoped to “ revive the memory of a decayed city, at present the second in Britain, but of old the first, and in antiquity the glory of the whole island." He then gives an account of, and comments on, preceding topographers of York. These are Camden—Sir Thomas Widdrington, who was the first that undertook to write the history of the city in a particular way.—This history was never published, but a copy is among Mr. Gough's topographical collections in the Bodleian Library.—Mr. Dodsworth, “ that indefatigable collector, whose voluminous tracts on ecclesiastical and monastical antiquities enrich the Bodleian Library at Oxford." —Christopher Hildyard, Esq, w'ho published a catalogue of the mayors and sheriffs, with some trifling historical remarks; his preface contained more of the antiquities of York than his whole book.—Mr. James Torre, to whose laborious performances in manuscript our author acknowledges the highest obligation.—Sir Wm. Dugdalef from whose papers some matters relating to the church of York were published at the end of his History of St. Paul’s; but our author agrees with Bishop Nicolson, “ that there is no such appearance of records as the reader may expect." —Mr. Samuel Gale, by whose collections the ecclesiastical part of this work has been greatly enriched.—Mr. Henry Keept who collected materials for a history of this church and city; but, falling to decay, his history was never finished. The author concludes with a short account of the work; acknowledging its defects, particularly in the church history; laments the little encouragement he had received from the clergy ; and especially remarks that the then archbishop refused to accept of the dedication, or even to subscribe to the work ! !
“ An accurate Description and History of the Metropolitan and Cathedral Churches of Canterbury and York, from their first Foundation to the present Year. Illustrated with one hundred and seventeen Copper-plates, consisting of different Views, Plans, Monuments, Antiquities, Arms," &c. folio, London, 1756. The account of York is wholly copied from Drake’s “ Eboracum," and the prints (with three or four trifling exceptions) are impressions from the plates engraved for the same work.
“ Monasticon Eboracense : and the Ecclesiastical History of Yorkshire. By John Burton, M. D. F. S.A. The first volume," folio, York, 1758.
It is to be regretted that this useful work did not meet with sufficient encouragement to induce the writer to publish the second volume ; for which he collected ample materials, now deposited in the library at Burton-Constable, in Holderness.
“ The most delectable, scriptural, and pious History of the famous and magnificent Great Eastern Window (according to beautiful portraitures) in St. Peter's Cathedral,, York. Previous thereto is a remarkable account how the ancient churches wrere differently erected by two famous kings ; the present built by five excellent archbishops, one extraordinary bishop, with others; the names of sepulchral personages, and important affairs worthy remembrance. A book which might be styled the History of Histories, succinctly treated of : in three parts." By Thomas Gent, Printer; ætat. 70. A. C. 1762, 8vo.YORK CATHEDRAL:—LIST OF BOOKS, ESSAYS, ETC.
89
“ An accurate Description and History of the Cathedral and Metropolitan Church of St. Peter, York, from its first foundation to the present year. Illustrated with Copper-plates, consisting of different Views, Plans, &c.; and Translations of all the Latin Epitaphs; to which are added Catalogues of the Archbishops, Deans, Sub deans, Chancellors, Treasurers, Præcentors, and Succentors.” 2 vols. I2mo. York, 1768 ; fourteen prints.
“ Eboracum ; or, the History and Antiquities of the City of York, from its origin to this time, &c. together with a History of the Cathedral Church, from its first foundation to the present year. Illustrated with seventeen copper-plates.” 2 vols, 8vo. York, 1788.
“ Gothic Ornaments in the Cathedral Church of York, consisting of Capitals, Bosses, Pinnacles, Brackets, Sculpture, &c. &c. and four Views, drawn and etched by Joseph Halfpenny;” York, 1795, (1800) one hundred and five plates, with descriptions of each plate. Imperial 4to. £6. 6s.
“ Twelve Perspective Views of the Exterior and Interior parts of the Metropolitan Church of York: accompanied by two Ichnographic Plates, and an Historical Account.” By Charles Wild. Imperial 4to. London, 1809. Plate 1. Ground Plan:—2. Capitals in the Crypt:—3. Northwest View:—4. West Front:—5. The Nave:—6. South Wing of the Transept:—7. Part of the South Front:—8. The Transept from the South-west Angle:—9. Interior of the Chapter-house: —16. Exterior of the Chapter-house:—11. Choir:—12. North Aile of the Choir:—13. Chapel of the Virgin Mary:—14. The East Front.
“ A Guide to the Cathedral Church of St. Peter"s, York, commonly called York Minster/* fourth edit. York, 1815,12mo. This work contains a concise history of the fabric; and a general description of its principal parts. It is written in an easy, flowing style, and is w orthy the pen of a learned and judicious minister of York, to whom it is ascribed.
In the “ History and Antiquities of the Cathedral Churches of Great Britain,” illustrated, with engravings by Janies Storer, is a concise account of this cathedral, with eight plates and a plan.
Willis’s “ Survey of Cathedrals ,” voi. i. 4to. contains plates of the “ Ichnography,” and South View of the Cathedral; with an account of the province and diocess, building of the church, its ancient monuments and inscriptions, notices of the archbishops, down to Sir William Dawes ; lists of the deans, precentors, chancellors, treasurers, sub-deans, archdeacons, and prebendaries ; and an account of all the churches and chapels, with their patrons and appropriations.
In Willis’s “ History of the Mitred Parliamentary Abbies and Conventual Cathedral Churches,” voi. ii. p. 377, is given the dimensions of the cathedral, with the names of the archbishops buried there; and a short account of the tombs, chiefly from Leland’s Itinerary.
“ Eeland’s Collectanea,” (voi. i. p. 25,45), contains de combustione et re-edificatione ecclesiæ— de edificatione ecclesiæ, p. 121 ; a list of the early bishops “ ex libro incerti autoris,” p. 336, &c.
Of the numerous documents relating to the see of York, preserved in Rymer’s “ Prederà,” the following are the most important—vol. ii. p. 1040.tstVo1. iii. p. 493, 494.—voi. iv. p. 95, 310, 391, 530, and 531. Several letters and writs of King Ed. I. and his successor, addressed to the Archbishops of Canterbury and York on the subject of their disputes about bearing their crosses in each others provinces, and the tumults which frequently arose from these dissensions.—voi. iv. p. 199. Letters of King Edward II. to the pope, on the archbishop’s application for a new pall in lieu of one sacrilegiously stolen from the cathedral.—p. 458, 459, 460. The king’s letters to the pope and his legate on the usurpations of the Court of Rome, with regard to the appointment of treasurer of the church, 4 Ed. III. p. 541. The king’s letters to the pope praying him to release the Church of York from interdict, 7. Ed. III.—vol. v. p 755, and voi. vii. p. 178. Warrants for delivering dies for the use of the archbishop’s mint, 27 Edwr. III. and 1 Richard II. —voi. vii. p. 125. The appointment of the archbishop and his commissaries as visitors of the college called Queen Hall, Oxford, 50 Edw. III.—voi. xiii. p. 451, &c. The several bulls for the advancement of Cardinal Wolsey to the see of York, A. D. 1514.—voi. xiv. p. 544. Confirmation of the liberties of the archbishop, 26 Hen. VIII. per inspect, cartæ Edw. IV.
Wilkins’s “ Concilia” contains the epistle of Gregory the Great to Augustine on the constitution of the churches of London and York, vol. i. p. 45.—and various documents relating to the controversies between the sees of York and Canterbury;—also the authority of the see of York over the Scottish clergy, p. 369, 391, 3i)6, 407, 409, 480, 481, 482. The writ convoking the clergy to the parliament at York, ex. rot. Walliæ, 11 Edw. I. m. 4. Dorso.—Vol. ü. p. 92. Letters, mandates, &c. on the dissensions with Canterbury, p. 43, 277, 128, 255.—Man-90
YORK CATHEDRAL:—LIST OF BOOKS, ESSAYS, ETC.
dates of Wm. De Grenefeld prohibiting the adoration of an image of the Virgin then lately placed in the church of Foston, until the merits of the case could be ascertained, p. 423.—Voi. iii. p. 226. A letter of the chapter of York to the clergy of the archdeaconry of Richmond, about publishing indulgences for obtaining contributions to the building of York Cathedral, dated 17th Feb. 1396.—Constitutions of the province of York, promulgated by Wolsey about the year 1518, voi. iii. p. 662.—The oath of Robert Holgate, archbishop, at his consecration, 36 Hen. VIII. 1544, renouncing the authority of the Roman see, &c. iii. 870.
These volumes also contain the provincial councils and synods of York, from 1195 to 1679. —and many constitutions and orders of the archbishops, chiefly relating to ecclesiastical matters.
The third volume of Dugdale’s “ Monasticon” contains the following documents, among others, relating to this see. The grant by William Rufus of the abbey of St. Germain, of Seleby, and the church of St. Oswald, Gloucester, as a compensation for the jurisdiction claimed by the see of York over the churches of Lincoln and Lindsey, p. 131.—Bull of Pope Honorius, exempting the church of York from subjection to the see of Canterbury, p. 132.—The bull of Pope Alexander, granting the pall to the Archbishop of York, p. 133.—Two charters of Hen. I. on the appointment of Archbishop Thomas to the see, and granting several privileges to the church, p. 135.—The bulls of Popes Innocent, Honorius, Paschal, and Calixtus, on the privileges and primacy of the abbey of York, p. 143.—The epistle of Pope Alexander to the archbishop and chapter, on the subjection of the Scottish bishops to the see of York, p. 144. —The epistle of Pope Honorius on the restoration of the bishopric of the Orkneys, showing the jurisdiction of the see of York, ib.—Several papal mandates, commanding the Scottish bishops to profess obedience to the See of York, p. 145, 146, 147.—The professions of obedience of the Bishops of Durham, Carlisle, and Whithern, p. 148.—Robert le Vavasor’s grant of a w ay through his freehold called Thevedale, for facilitating the building of the church. This is called in the title “ de lapidicinâ apud Tadcaster but does not relate to that quarry, p. 162.—Robert de Percy’s grant of a way, &c. through his land, for the carriage of stone from Tadcaster, p. 163. —Account of the customs anciently observed in the church of York on various ecclesiastical occasions, p. 164.—New statutes made for the government of that church, 33 Hen. VIII. p. 166. —An inventory of all the jewels, vessels of gold and silver, and other ornamenls, vestments, and books belonging to the cathedral church of York, in the custody of the sub-treasurer ; together with the money in the chest of St. Peter, made about the year 1520.—and many grants of lands, and appropriations of churches.
ACCOUNTS OF ARCHBISHOPS.
The dignity and power of the Archiépiscopal See of York have always been so considerable, that the history of its prelates is much intermixed with the national annals. It will therefore be impracticable to notice here every publication in which anecdotes of the Archbishops are ta be found ; we can only advert to such works as profess to be memoirs of their lives.
Eddius, Alcuin, Malmesbury, and Stubbs, the biographers and historians of the earlier prelates, have been already noticed.
The next in point of antiquity is Giraldus Cambrensis, who wrote the life of Archbishop Geoffrey, which with Clement Maydestone’s “ Historia de Martyrio Ricardi Scrope, Archiepiscopi Ebor.” and “ Ricordi Scrope, Archiepiscopi Ebor, Articuli adversus Henricum IV, Anglico Regem” are preserved in Warton’s “ Anglia Sacra.”
The last edition of the celebrated work of Bishop Godwin, “ De Prœsulibus Anglico? contains accounts of the archbishops from Paulinus to Blaçkburne. This work first appeared in English in 1601, and was afterwards re-written, in Latin, in 1616. It was again published in 1743, with additions and corrections by Wm. Richardson, Canon of the Church of Lincoln.
“ The Lives and Characters, Deaths, Burials, and Epitaphs, Works of Piety, Charity, and other munificent Benefactions, of all the Protestant Bishops of the Church of England, since the Reformation, as settled by Queen Elizabeth, A. D. 1559 ; collected from their several registers, wills in the prerogative offices, authentic records, and other valuable MSS. collections; and compared with the best accounts hitherto published of this kind.” By John Le Neve, gent, voi. i. 8vo. London, 1720, pp. 288. This volume, (the only one ever published), contains the lives of the Protestant Archbishops of Canterbury and York.YORK CATHEDRAL:—LIST OF PRINTS, ETC.
91
The life of Archbishop Grindall was published by Strype, in 1710, who in his “ Annals of the Reformation,” and “ Ecclesiastical Memorials,” has noticed other archbishops of this province.
i( Vicaria Leodiensis ; or, the History of the Church of Leeds, in Yorkshire. By Ralph Thoresby, of Leeds, F. R. S. 1724, contains accounts of Hutton, Sandys, Mathews, and Thoreshy.
Bishop Nicolson's “ Epistolary Correspondence,” voi. i. p. 47, (published by Mr. Nichols in 1809), contains a short memoir of Archbishop Sharp.
“ Scrinia Reserata : a Memorial offered to the great Deservings of John Williams, D.D. who sometimes held the Places of Lord Keeper of the Great Seal of England, Lord Bishop of Lincoln, and Lord Archbishop of York; containing a Series of the most remarkable Occurrences and Transactions of his Life, in Relation both to Church and State/' Written by John Hacket, late Lord Bishop of Lichfield and Coventry. 4to. pp. 458, London, 1693. The author was chaplain to Archbishop Williams.
ENGRAVED VIEWS OF THE CHURCH AND OF ITS MONUMENTS.
In addition to the prints in the works already mentioned the following have been published :
Crypt to the Cathedral, in Halfpenny's “ Fragmenta Vetusta," pi. 20.
In Gough's “ Sepulchral Monuments” are the following:—View of Archbishop Bowet’s splendid Tomb; drawn and etched by J. Halfpenny, voi. ii. part ii. p. 75.—Inscription formerly on Archbishop Bowet’s Tomb, but really belonging to Dean Langton, 1378; and brought from the Nave of York Minster, ib.
In Carter's “ Specimens of Ancient Sculpture and Painting’' are the following :—Representation of an Oak Chest in the Treasury of York Cathedral, voi. ii. p. 38.—Five Plates containing fourteen Statues, with the Heads, &c. at large; and a Dissertation on them by John Milner, F. A. S. at pages 50, 54, 60, 63, 67, voi. ii.
In Carter's “ Ancient Architecture" are the following Views, &c.—View of a Laver in the Sacristy, pi. lx. desc. p. 45.—Elevation exterior and interior of one Compartment of the Nave* pi. XV. voi. ii. desc. p. 8.—Plan and Details of the South Side of the Nave, interior, voi. ii. pi. xvi. desc. p. 9.—A Door-way in the North Aile of the Nave, voi. ii. pi. xxi. desc. p. 11.—Grand double Dçor-way entering into the Chapter-house, ib.—Altar in Our Lady’s Chapel, voi. ii. pi. xxiv. desc. p. 13.—Plan and Elevation of one of the Niches in the Chapter-house, voi. ii. pi. xxv. desc. p. 13.—Upper Part of Buttress of Chapter-house, voi. ii. pi. xxvi. desc. p. 14.—Edward III. in a painted Window, voi. ii. pi. xxvi. desc. p. 14.
In Hargrove’s recent “ History and Description of the ancient City of York,” &c. 3 vols, is a South-west View of the Cathedral, engraved by H, Ee Keux, from a drawing by Cave.	.
In the third volume of Dugdale's Monasticon are two Views of the Cathedral, engraved by Hollar', one is a view of the whole length of the Church from the South; the other, of the West End, showing in perspective the great Tower, South Transept, and Chapter-house. These prints are extremely incorrect.
A large print of the “ IVest Elevation of York Minster, measured and accurately delineated by James Malton, Oct. and Nov. 1792; engraved by J. Landseer, and J. Roffe1796.
A large print of the “ South Prospect of the Cathedral Church of St. Peter, in York; engraved by Jo. Kip, and dedicated to Archbishop Sharp/'
A large print of The North east Prospect of the Cathedral of St. Peter, York, with a View of the Chapter-house, &c. engraved by J. Nutting, from a drawing by W. Tesserman : dedicated to Archbishop Markham.
A View of the Shrine of Archbishop Bowet ; engraved by W. Fowler, from a drawing by his son, Joseph Fowler : published 1813,.
ENGRAVED PORTRAITS OF THE ARCHBISHOPS OF YORK.
1. Thomas Scot de Rotheram: “Founder of Lincoln Coll. Oxford," large 4to. mez. Faber, sc. Granger and Bromley.
% Thomas Wolsey: Holstein, p. Faber, sc. one of the founders, 4to. mez.—A label from his mouth inscribed, “ Ego meus et rex,” 4to.—Two, and without arms, prefixed to his life,92
YORK CATHEDRAL:—LIST OF PORTRAITS.
by Cavendish, Elstracke, sc. 4to.—Head by Loggan—in Burnet’s “ History of the Reformation”—in “ Holland’s Heroologia,” 8vo.—W. M. (Marshall) sc. small, in Fuller’s “ Holy State.”—P. Four dr ini er, sc. h. len. h. sh. in his “ Life,” by Fiddes, fol. 1724,— Houbraken, sc.—Desrochers, sc. 4to.—inscribed C. W.—Vertue, sc. a small oval.—One by Parker. Granger and Bromley.
3.	Edmund Grindall, æt. 61, prefixed to his “ Life,” by Strype, 1710. fol. M. V. Gucht, sc. h. sh.—fol. Vertue, sc.—in “ Heroologia,” 8vo.—in Fuller’s “ Abel redivivus.” Granger and Bromley.
4.	Edwin Sandys: in “ Heroologia,” 8vo.—“Continuation of Boissard,” 4to.—“ Freherus”— with Cicely Wilford, his second wife—“ Clarke’s Lives,” small 4to. Granger and Bromley.
5.	Matthew Hutton : a 4to. print, F. Perry, sc. Granger and Bromley.
6.	Tobias Mathew: 4to. R. E. (Renold Elstracke) sc.—another in “Boissard,” 4to. a copy. Granger and Bromley.
7.	George Mountaigne: arare print, G. Y. sc. Granger and Bromley.
8.	John Williams : fol. F. Belar am, sc.—Ornaments h. sh. scarce—in Birch’s “Lives,”»/. Houbraken, sc.—A copy, in 8vo. V. Gucht, sc.—prefixed to his life, 1693 ; R. White, sc.— in his episcopal habit, but with a helmet, musket, &c. R. S. exc. Amstelodami; extremely rare.—Two, in a cap and in a hat; probably altered.—Johannes Williams, Episc. Line, sold by Jenner, the original of Boissard’s copy, 4to.—“Johannes Gulielmus,” &c. in Boissard, small 4to. Granger and Bromley.
9.	Richard Sterne: la. mez. engraved by F. Place; whose works are scarce. Granger and Bromley.
10.	John Dolben: (sitting between John Fell, Bishop of Oxford, and Dr. Richard Allestre)la. mez. D. Loggan, exc. from a picture by Sir P. Lely.—A mezzotinto, R. Thompson, exc. from a picture by J. Haymans. Granger and Bromley.
11.	Thomas Lamplugh: æt. 74, la. fol. painted by Kneller; engraved by P. Vandrebanc. The face of this print was altered to that of Archbishop Tennison. Granger and Bromley. ,
12.	John Sharp: mez. E. Cooper, 1691.—Inez. F. Kyle, la. fol. ad vivum, R. White, 1691.— prefixed to his “ Sermons,” 1709, 8vo. ft. White, sc. Bromley.
13.	Sir William Dawes, Bart.: 8vo. prefixed to his “ Sermons,” from a picture by J. Clostef-man, S. Gribelin.—another, large fol. Vr. Gucht.—mez W. Sherwin.—large fol. G. Vertue. 8vo. Murray, p. Vertue, sc.—A portrait, engraved by Gribelin, after W. Sonmans, generally inscribed Sir W. Dawes, is that of John Hudson, Principal of St. Mary’s, Oxon. Bromley.
14.	Launcelot Blackburne, mez. T. Taylor, sc. large fol. J. Zeeman, Vertue, sc. 1727» Bromley.
15. Thomas Herring: mez. S. Webster, p. M. Ardell, sc.—la. fol. W. Hogarth, p. B. Baron, sc.—mez. Hudson, p. Faber, sc. with his speech, 1745, Hogarth, p. C. Mosely, sc. Bromley.
16.	Matthew Hutton : mez. T. Hudson, p. 1754. J. Faber, sc. Bromley.
17.	Robert Hay Drummond: Half length, sitting, with the purse of Chancellor, mez. Sir J. Reynolds, p. J. Watson, sc. Bromley.
18.	W. Markham: Three-quarters length, standing, holding a square cap, sh. mez. Sir J. Reynolds, p. J. R. Smith, sc. 1778.—another in a canonical habit, anonymous. Bromley.
19.	Edward Venables Vernon : Half length, sitting ;—also as Bishop of Carlisle, Hoppner, R. A. p. C. Turner, sc.
PORTRAITS OF DEANS OF YORK.
1.	Thomas Gale, D.D. Dean of York: holding a paper; in Pepy’s collection. Bromley.
2. 'William Sancroft, (as Archbishop of Canterbury): 8vo. Elder, sc.—Another 8vo. V. Gucht, sc.—large fol. “ ad vivum.” Loggan, sc. 1679.—Another, engraved by Sturt, prefixed to the “ Convocation Book,” 1690, 4to. ft. White, sc.—in the prints of the Seven Bishops.
3.	Henry Finch : the engraving by M. V. Gucht, prefixed to the sermons of Dean Finch, and inscribed with his name, is a portrait of Benjamin Calamy, D. D. Bromley.% ©tironoïoQîcal Œabïe
OF THE
AGES AND STYLES OF DIFFERENT PARTS OF THE CHURGHf etc.
(See also Dean Gale’s Table, p. 32.)
Archbishops.	Kings.	Temp.	Parts of the Edifice.	Described.	Plates.
Roger.. ..........	Henry II		1171	Crypt under the Choir				55	II. III.
	Henry III		1227	S. Transept, part of it anterior to Grey 			43,46	VII. Vili. IX. XI. XIII. XIV. XV. XVII.
Sewal							
	Henry III		1250 to 1260	N. Transept built chiefly by John Le Romayne...	44, 47	IV. XIII. XIV. XXVIII. XXXIII.
Kimeton	)					
	Henry III.......	Died 1255	Archbishop Grey’s Monument				59	XVII.
	Privvflrri T		1291 to 1330	rhantpr.Hnnsp and Vpstihiile		56,57 '	IV. V. VI. XXXI. XXXII.
Le Romayne....	Edward I					. CIV. Vili. X. XI. XII. XVI. XVIII.
De Melton		\ Edward III., j	1291 to 1330	The Nave and Ailes completed in about 40 years.	42, 48	1 XIX. XX. XXI. XXXIII,
Thoresby.. .....	Fdward III., ^				Ç V. VI. VII. XII. XXIII. XXIV. XXV.
	\	1361 to 1405	The Choir		44, 51	y
Bowet		Henry IV. ... j				\ XXXIV.
					CIV. V. VI. VII. vili. X. XII. XIV.
Thoresby		Edward IIr.r..	1370	The Central Tower finished by Walter Skirlaw...	42	£ XXXIII.
Scrope....		Henry IV.		1402	Western Towers built by John De Birmyngham .	39,48	VII. X, XII.
	Henry VI			Archbishop Bowet’s Monument (died 1423)		60	XXVI.
	Henry VI			Orcran Scrppn				50	XIV. XVI. XXII.
	J Henry VIL..,..		Archbishop Savage’s Monument		60	XXIX.Plates.
si.
sii.
v^II.
\4v.
sV-
^VI.
-'VII.
-vili.
,/IX.
^x.
./XI.
^XII.
/XIII.
P-Xiv.
XV. ^ XVI. ^XVII. —XVIII. ^ XIX. u- XX. «^XXI. t- XXII. -XXIII. /XXIV. ÆV. -XXVI. /XXVII. -XXVIII. - XXIX. ^ XXXI.
/ XXXII.
^ XXXIII. V. XXXIV. / XXXVI.
fitst of prints
ILLUSTRATIVE OF YORK CATHEDRAL.
Subjects.
Ground Plan............................
Plan and Capitals of Crypt.............
Crypt, View of.........................
N. Transept, Chapter House, &c.........
Chapter House from N. E., Tower, &c.....
East end...............................
S. E. View of the whole Church.........
S. Transept, looking E.................
Circular Window of ditto............
West Front.............................
Door-way to ditto......................
Distant View of the Church and City....
View from N. to S. Transept............
Elevation of N. and Section of S. Transept
S. Transept, Compartment, interior and ext.
Nave, View of, from W..................
Grey’s Monument, &c....................
Nave, one Compartment, exterior and int.
W. Front, Elevation and Section........
Ditto, Details, interior...............
North Aile of Nave, W. end.............
Organ Screen, central door-way ........
Choir, View of, looking E..............
Ditto, Compartment, interior and exterior ;
E. end, Elevation and Section of interior.
Bowet’s Tomb, part of Screen, &c.......
Door-way to Chapter-House..............
End of N. Transept.....................
Savage’s Tomb..........................
Capitals, &c. in Chapter-House.........
Windows, &c. in Chapter-House and } Vestibule...........................$
Details, Capitals, Arms, Busts, &c.....
Altar Screen, Stall, &c., parts of.....
Three Effigies............
Drawn by	Engraved by	Inscribed to
C.P.&J.B.	Gladwin...	
	"Ransnn	
iUAvlVVlJciiil/ Mackenzie	J. Scott		Dr. Drake.......	
Blore .......	Askey 		Rev. C. Wellbeloved..
Rlnrp 		Blore			T. L. Parker. Eso
Mackenzie	J. Le Keux	JL • AJt A Ul AVI I AJOU • M • 1 John Crosse, Esq	
Mackenzie	Sands		Sir J.E. Swinburne,Bt.
Mackenzie	J. Le Keux	Dean of York	
Mackenzie	J. Le Keux	Walter R.Fawkes,Esq.
Blore		J. Le Keux	Archbishop Vernon. ^
Blore		J. Le Keux	J. Broadley, Esq	
Mackenzie	Rawle		H. Broadley, Esq	
Mackenzie	H. Le Keux	Rev. F. Wrangham....
Blore 		J. Le Keux	Peter Atkinson, Esq.
Mackenzie	J. Le Keux	
Mackenzie	Rawle		Dean nf "Ripnn	
Blore 		H. Le Keux	Archdeacon Eyre	
Rlnrp	,	H. Le Keux	
Blore 		H. Le Keux	John Shaw, Esq	^
Rlnrp 		Ranson		(
Mackenzie	H. Le Keux	J Richard Drake, Esq. .
Blore .......	H. Le Keux	John Sanders Fsn v
Mackenzie	Turrell		W V*1** UUliUVlOt JLiOU I 1 Rev. Dr. Clarke .... 5
Marlcpnyip	Pii»»in . ...	l
lU CIvIVvIIaIC Mackenzie	A u5,u •••«••• Turrell		Peter Gandy, Esq.* ..
Blore 		H. Le Keux	R. Smirke, Esq	
Pnoin		R. Roffe....	
M. UglU ••••*’		
Pugin		Gladwin...,	H. E. Kendall, Esq....
Blore		J. Le Keux	Archdeacon Markham
Mackenzie	J. Le Keux	Rev. J. J. Conybeare .
Mackenzie	J. Le Keux	
Blore 		H. Le Keux	
	T?nfFp	
OIUIC ••••••• Blore 		J. Le Keux	
Described
74
>55,56,
Vs
43.75
75
44.45.75 75
43, 76
43, 76 39,40,
41.42.76
40.76
37.76
47.76
44.76
43.47.77
42.48.77
59.77
42,48,7 7
C39, 40, <41,42, (.77
48.49.78
50.51,
52.78
51.52,
53.78
44.78
50.54.78
60.78
57.78
47.58.79
60.79
56.79
57.58.79 79
50.51.79 59,60,
61.79
By a mistake of the Engraver this name is written Grandy instead of Gandy.INDEX.
A.
Agricola, wall of, 10.
Albert, abp. 28, 33.
Alcuin, account of, 28 ; extracts from his poem, 29, 33, 34.
Altar-screen, part of, PI. XXXVL described, 51.
Antoninus, wall of, 10.
Archbishops, chronological listof, 83 to 85 ; biographical anecdotes of, 67 ; list of books relating to, 90 ; engraved portraits of, 91.
Arles, council of, 11.
B.
Birmingham, John de, 32.
Books relating to York cathedral, list of, 87 ; engraved views, &c.„of, 91.
Bosa, bp. 18.
Bovil, abp. his tomb, 61.
Bowet, abp. 32 ; his tomb, PI. XXVI. described, 60.
C.
Ceadda, bp. 16.
Choir, 30, 31 ; interior view of, looking east, PI. XXIII :—compartment, interior and exterior, PI. XXIV :—east end elevation and section, PI. XXV ; exterior described, 44; 45, 46 ; interior described, 51 to 54.
Chapter-house, 32 ; views of exterior, PI. IV. V ; door-way to, PI. XXVII ; capitals, &c. in, PI. XXXI; windows in, PI. XXXII; described, 56, 57, 58.
Circular window of south transept, PI. IX ; described, 43.
Constantine saluted emperor, 11.
Contantius died at York, 11.
Crypt, 30, plan and capitals, PI. II ; view of, PI. Ill ; described, 55, 56.
Deans, list of, 86 ; engraved portraits of, 92 ; table of, 82.
Dolben, abp. monument, 62.
E.
Eanbald, abp. 28.
Eanfrid, king, his apostacy, 15; slain 25.
East end of cathedral, PI. VI. described, 44. East window, PI. XXV. described, 53, 54. Eboracum, antient name of York, 9.
Eborius, bp. 11.
Edwin, king of Northumbria, account of, 11 ; his conversion, 12; founds the church of York; 12, 25 ; slain, 15.
Egbert, abp. 19, 28, 33.
Ethelburga, queen, 10, 12, 15.
F.
Founders and benefactors, list of, 82i Frewen, abp. 24; monument, 62.
G.
Gerard, abp. 2L
Glazing, 33 ; Appendix Vili. IX.
Grenefeld, abp. his monument, 61.
Grey, Walter de, abp. 32; his monument, PU XVII. described, 59; his effigy, PU XXXVI. A. 59.
Ground plan, PI. I. described, 46.
H.
Hadrian, wall of, 10.
Hatfield, Prince Wm. de, statue of, PI. XXXIV. described, 62.
Haxby, John, monument of, 63.
Heath, abp. 23.
Holgate, abp. 22.
Hornby, Mr. Sheriff, 65.
Hutton, abp. monument, 62.
Indulgences, 29, 30, 31 ; Appendix, No. I. III. John of Beverly, bp. 19.
Itinerary of Antoninus, &c. 9.
K.
Kimeton, see Ludham.
Kings, statues of, PI. XXII. described, 50, 51.
L.
Lamplugh, abp. monument, 62.
Langueton, dean, 61.
Lee, abp. 22.
Lestingham, church of, 16.
I N96
INDEX.
Library, 33, 34.
Ludham, or Kimeton, Godfrey de, abp. his tomb, PI. XVII. described, 59.
M.
Mason’s work, antient orders for the regulation of, Appendix, No. VII.
Matthew, abp. monument, 62.
Matthews, Mrs. a benefactor to the library, 34.
Mauley, effigy of, PI. XXXVI. c. described, 61.
Monuments, 59 to 64.
N.
Nave, 30 ; compartment, PI. XVIII. described, 42; interior, PI. XVI. described, 42, 48; north aile of, PI. XXI. described,,78.
O.
Organ-screen, central door-way, PI. XXII. described, 50, 51, 78.
Osric, king, his apostacy, 15, 25.
Oswald, king, defeats the Britons, 15 ; completes the church of York, 26; slain, 26.
P.
Pall, described, 13.
Paulinus, abp. converts the Northumbrians, 12 ; retires to Rochester, 15.
Pavement of church, 33.
Penda, king of Mercia, 14, 26.
Percy, Robert de, 30.
Piers, abp. monument, 62.
Plumbers, agreements with, Appendix, Nos. V.
: VI.
R.
Ripon church, 27.
Roger, abp. 30 ; tomb of, Pi. XXI. described, 49, 61.
Roman coffins, 60, 66.
Romayne, John le, abp. 30.
Romayne, John le, treasurer, 30.
Rotheram, abp. his tomb, 61 ; wooden head found in it, 64.
S.
Sampson, or Sanxo, bp. 14.
Savage, abp. his tomb, PI. XXIX. described, 00 ; his effigy, PI. XXXVI. described, 60.
Scrope, abp. his monument, 61 ; cup. 65.
Severus, wall of, 10; buried at York, 10; statue ascribed to, 61.
Sharpe, abp. monument, 62.
Skidby, 22.
Skirlaw, Walter, 31, 32.
Smith, Catholic bishop, 64.
Southwell, 22, 24.
Stalls, part of, PI. XXXIV. described, 51.
Sterne, abp. monument, 62.
T.
Thomas, abp. 19, 29, 34.
Thomas II. abp. 21.
Thoresby, abp. 31 ; Appendix, IV.
Thurstan, abp. 29.
Tower, central, 31, 32 ; PI. IV. V. VI. VII. Vili. X. XII. XIV. described, 42, 49.
Towers, western, 32; view of, PI. X. elevation and section, PI. XIX. described, 3Ö.
Transept. See York Cathedral.
U.
Ulphus, horn of, 65.
V.
Vavasour, 30*
Vestry, 32; described, 64 ; antiquities in, described, 64, 65, 66.
W.
West front, view of, PI. X. described, 39, 40,
.	41; door-way to, PI. XI. 40; elevation and
section, PI. XIX.; details, PI. XX.
Wilfrid I. bp. 16,17,18, 26, 27.
Wilfrid II. bp. 19.
Williams, abp. 24.
Wolsey, cardinal and abp. 22.
Y.
York, city of, early history, 7, 8, 9.
-----Cathedral, south east view of, PI. VII.
described, 75; distant view, PI. XII. described, 37 ; founded, 12, 25 ; completed, 26; restored, 27; burnt, 28; rebuilt, 29; again burnt, rebuilt, again consumed, ib. ; choir, 30, 31 ; exterior described, 44, 45,46; interior, 51, 52, 53, 54 : south transept, 30, 43, 47; north transept, 30, 44, 47; nave, 30, 42, 48 ; central tower, 31, 32, 42, 49 ; books and prints relating to, 87.
York, see of, history, 1 ; disputes with Canterbury, 19 to 24.
York, walls of, neglected, 37.
Young, abp. 24.
FINIS.DO NOT REMOVE THIS SLIP
Otitral Library*—Loan Department UNIVERSITY OP CALIFORNIA Berkeley
8m—11,*72 (Q6682s4)—N-78
\

n$M»
W^JOTfl.
yPMES
IpwSt
1KH
f*lgjl
psM
bbe§b
sjssIlMI
n^W$
(filW
Hi
»1i
I	LIBRARY USE
fe RETURN TO DESK FROM WHICH BORROWED
£ LOAN DEPT.
fV THIS BOOK IS DUE BEFORE CLOSING TIME Hj	ON LAST DATE STAMPED BELOW

«IF®
SSBS3®
Msg
AÜ6 3O Ü

pbteiM
STACK;
WTW

i»
RECTI AH/C SEM. NO/ 2675
■HtiraP
RECO AH/C SEM. JAN
General Library University of California Berkeley
eSSéfc
LD62A—30m-2,’71 (P2003sl0)9412A—A-32
BfÊBppf^


m
U.C. BERKELEY LIBRARIES

TwfTt
Wâ‘'M,
C02Ma024bb
WfflUmjTL
Trvmifmi
mmmffî%Éââ

mm
Wm^wÊ^
mtamm
Saffi
fôaSVk
W^ÈÈ
eMpi
feaBreHaSsS*
Wmm
Wm^Ê
"ii n Ww ÄAm'i
mm
mÈÊÈi.
j&Æk
WÂvF*
wCfàfo.
»«i!ii
rnmÊm
wm: :
1	il *Nß
M®
iMWSiôB
âroi®h-
WvlfisfeisS A-2ap
WtóÉI
fcwÂBSâi
W-M&Èltfëiir
MÔSÎw
WiMw
«|§§l
ISIIm
P?®
ASfiëæ
HSS
HHHfl ■ I (
£aHg&gm
i|Â

SpS |Sfâ
WfrtwMém
IWjt t*! ÂWfckW-iÇ.
âTOë
liï'',iIM
18851

■ nâkfckf
I«»«
»«-
WWmm
■;
pwapspsKp
WÉ»
C024802466

Jwyip<j^iy-vyi r mm ^>i

îïKVsft1
18
P .*Kf*.tî
Ä-ÄJ«

■yjsttfe
1K
‘sfâwte^'«
mm.
gip»
■rca-Cf■• ti«»\ i,‘ *
W*«
mmm
?a»swS«
Äm
•^3


mm
mmjm
|M


>sa^eHsw^