By the Rev. Geo. S. Tyack, B.A.

Of all the sins of the nineteenth century, the one which most militates against its attainment of excellence in art is its impatience. A work has been no sooner decided on, than there is a clamour for its completion. Our cathedrals were for the most part reared in far other times, and are therefore admirable. Growing with the stately, deliberate increase of the ponderous oak, they speak of days when art was original, sincere, patient, and therefore capable of great deeds; original, not in extravagance or eccentricity, but in the realization of the natural development of style, advancing from grace to grace, from the perfection of solidity to the perfection of adornment, by an unforced growth; sincere, in its confidence of its own capacity for fulfilling its appointed end, in its grasp of the possibilities in its materials, in its choice of the true, rather than the easy, method of working; and patient, finally, in its contentment to do in each age a little solidly and well, [p 47] rather than a great deal indifferently, in its aim at artistic perfection in preference to material completeness. Thus it is that none of our cathedrals are the work of one age, save those of Salisbury and London, and even they have details which they owe to succeeding times.

The above words are not intended to imply that our mediÆval builders made no mistakes. The brief review of some of their work will show us proof to the contrary; but the mistakes were rare exceptions. If, for instance, a captious critic turns to Peterborough, and points us to the defective foundations, which have recently required the rebuilding of the central tower, and the supposed necessity of reconstructing the west front, all that the case will prove is that our great monastic architects’ work was not always absolutely eternal. “So there was jerry-building in those days too!” someone exclaims, with a note of triumph at the dragging down of the great ideals of the past to the level of the paltriness of the present. If such be the case, we reply, there were indeed giants in those days, the very “jerry building” of which rides out the storms of well-nigh seven centuries before revealing any fatal weaknesses.[p 48]
In considering these splendid buildings, of which the present century has happily proved itself no unappreciative heir, it will be of interest to devote a few lines to the means which were employed to raise funds for their construction. Several illustrations of the methods employed in the case of cathedrals and other churches have come down to us. The story of the foundation of the new buildings at Crowland Abbey in 1112, exhibits an outburst of popular enthusiasm which irresistibly recalls the free gifts of the Hebrew people for the building of the first temple. “The prayers having been said and the antiphons sung,” says Peter Blesensis, vice-chancellor under HenryII., “the abbot himself laid the first corner-stone on the east side. After him every man according to his degree laid his stone; some laid money, others writings by which they offered their lands, advowsons of livings, tenths of sheep and other church tithes; certain measures of wheat, a certain number of workmen or masons, etc. On the other side, the common people, as officious with emulation and great devotion, offered, some money, some one day’s work every month till it should be finished, some to build whole pillars, others [p 49] pedestals, and others certain parts of the walls.”

Indulgences, remitting so many days’ penance, were sometimes issued to encourage the gifts of the faithful. Thus in the time of HenryVIII. a church brief was issued soliciting help towards the repair of Kirby Belers Church, in Leicestershire, part of which runs as follows:—“Also certayne patriarkes, prymates, &c., unto the nombre of sixtie-five, everie one of theym syngularly, unto all theym that put their helpyng handes unto the sayd churche, have granted xl dayes of pardon; which nombre extendeth unto vij yeres and cc dayes, totiens quotiens.” Sometimes, by way of penance itself, a fine was imposed, which was devoted to a local building fund. Gilbert, bishop of Chichester, in certain constitutions promulgated in 1289 rules that every priest in the diocese who shall be convicted of certain scandalous sins shall “forfeit forty shillings, to be applied to the structure of Chichester Cathedral.” In modern money this fine would amount to something like £40. Walter, Bishop of Worcester, also ordained in 1240 that beneficed priests who dressed unclerically should be fined to the extent of a tenth of their annual revenue for the benefit of the [p 50] building of his cathedral. A yet earlier order concerning laity as well as clergy was issued by the Witan at Engsham, in Oxfordshire, in the year 1009, which decides that “if any pecuniary compensation shall arise out of a mulct for sins committed against God, this ought to be applied, according to the discretion of the bishop,” to one of several pious purposes, of which two are “the repair of churches, and the purchase of books, bells, and ecclesiastical vestments.”

Another way of raising money was to exact a contribution from church dignitaries, as a kind of “entrance fee,” on their accepting preferment. William Heyworth, bishop of Coventry, (a see now owning Chester as its mother city), decreed in 1428 that “every canon on commencing his first residence should pay a hundred marks towards the structure of the cathedral, the purchase of ornaments,” and other similar expenses.

In 1247, Bishop Ralph Neville, of Chichester, having died indebted to some of the canons of the cathedral, left by will a sufficient sum to discharge his obligations. But these ecclesiastical creditors decided that it should be devoted to “the completion of a certain stone tower, [p 51] which had remained for a long time unfinished.” The same canons bitterly complained because the Pope had ordained that all vacant prebends throughout the country should remain unoccupied for a year, in order that their revenues might be devoted to the erection of the minster at Canterbury; whereas they not unnaturally felt that the needs of their own cathedral had the first claim upon them.

Those churches which contained the shrines of popular saints drew, for the repair or enlargement of the fabric, no small revenue from the offerings of pilgrims. The eastern part of Rochester Cathedral was paid for by the moneys deposited at the tomb of S.William of Perth; and the large sums given by visitors to the shrine of S.Thomas of Canterbury materially assisted in keeping the building in repair.

Unquestionably the sums needed for rearing these massive piles were in most cases given, either in money or in kind, by the faithful; sometimes the princely offerings of a few wealthy men, sometimes the countless small gifts of the multitude, have become transmuted into tapering spire, or ponderous tower, “long-drawn aisle and fretted vault.” The poor, in some instances, [p 52] as we have seen, voluntarily gave their labour; in others the hands of the monks themselves raised and cut the sculptured stones.

In most cases the cathedrals which we now possess are not the first that have occupied their sites. Some humble building, often reared by one of the pioneers of the faith, was in the majority of instances the shrine that first consecrated the spot to the service of God.

It was in 401, during the visit of Germanus and Lupus, bishops of Auxerre and of Troyes, to aid in exterminating the Pelagian heresy, that the earliest shrine of S.Alban, a simple wooden oratory, was erected at Verulam; S.Deiniol built a little stave-kirk, or timber church, at Bangor about 550; and Kentigern, some ten years later, raised the first religious establishment at Llanelwy, or S.Asaph; while where now the ruined Cathedral of Man rears its weather-beaten gables and sightless windows at Peel, tradition says S.Patrick consecrated S.Germain first bishop of the Southern Isles in 447.

Many causes, however, combined to sweep away not only all traces of these earliest churches, but also in many instances more than one more solidly constructed successor. The [p 53] growth of architectural taste and skill made men impatient of the rudeness of their forefathers’ simple fanes; in a surprising number of instances the lightning-flash or the raging fire destroyed the buildings wholly or in part. The cathedrals of the north felt more than once the shock of the Border wars; and civil strife, or religious fanaticism, wrought mischief in many others. Thus it has come to pass that the centuries have seen four cathedrals in succession at Hereford, at Gloucester, and at Bangor; and three at a multitude of places, Canterbury, London, Winchester, Peterborough, Lichfield, Oxford, and half-a-dozen more.

The incursions of the Danes were answerable for the destruction of several of the earlier foundations. Canterbury had a cathedral, the most ancient part of which had been erected, according to tradition, by Lucius, the first Christian King of the Britons, and afterwards restored by S.Augustine. To this, about the year 740, Cuthbert, the archbishop, added a chapel for the interment of the occupants of the see; and Odo, in the tenth century, enlarged and re-roofed it. But in the days of saintly Alphege, in 1005, the Danish invaders fell upon the city, [p 54] making of the church a ruin, and of its bishop a martyr. A similar fate befell the metropolitan church of the north. On the site where Paulinus baptized King Edwin and his two sons into the Christian faith a little wooden oratory was raised, over which ere long Edwin commenced to build a stone church, which S.Oswald, his successor, completed. This, after having been beautified by S.Wilfred, was burnt about 741, but re-built shortly afterwards by Archbishop Egbert. It was this latter building which fell before the Danes.

At Ely the religious house founded by S.Etheldreda, which was the precursor of the modern cathedral, was burnt by the same marauders about 870. Rochester suffered in the same way; and no trace of the church built, so says the Venerable Bede, by King Ethelbert himself now remains. Peterborough has been particularly unfortunate in this respect. The first building here was begun by Peada, King of Mercia, in the seventh century. In the year 870 the Danes, on one of their forays, burnt church and monastery to the ground, and massacred the abbot and all his monks. In 971 King Edgar raised the place once more from its desolation, [p 55] but again it was seriously damaged, though not absolutely destroyed, by the sea-kings shortly before the Norman Conquest. Oxford was partially burnt in 1002 owing to the same people, but in a different way. A number of Danes took refuge in the tower of S.Frideswide to escape the senseless and brutal massacre organised on S.Brice’s day in that year, and the English fired the structure rather than suffer their prey to escape them.

It will be convenient here, although it may take us in some cases away from those primitive foundations which so far we have considered, to glance at the other instances in which war has left its mark upon our cathedrals. Hereford, lying near the Welsh border, felt the storm and stress of warfare in 1056. Originally founded at some unknown date in very early English times, the church at Hereford was rebuilt about 830 by a noble Mercian, named Milfrid, and was repaired, if not actually renewed, by Athelstan the bishop, who came to the see in 1012. Ten years before the Norman Conquest, however, Griffith, prince of Wales, at the head of a combined host of Welsh and Irish, crossed the marches and plundered and burnt the church [p 56] and city. In the reign of Hardicanute (1039–1041) the citizens of Worcester, having risen against the payment of the ship-tax, were severely punished, a military force being sent to occupy their city. So thoroughly did it carry out the work of inflicting discipline on the malcontents, that the church, amongst other buildings, was left in ruins. The original church at Gloucester was built in 681, as part of a conventual establishment; this was destroyed, and, after an interval, rebuilt by Beornulph, King of Mercia, sometime previous to 825. This church was looted by the Danes, but restored by S.Edward the Confessor. In the year after the Conquest, Gloucester was occupied by the Normans, whose entrance was not, however, accepted quite peaceably by the citizens; and in the tumult the Cathedral was seriously injured by the one or the other party. Exeter provides us with another case. Here was a cathedral in early English days, which lasted until the time of Bishop William Warelwast, who began the erection of a new one in 1112. During the stormy reign of Stephen, the city was held for Matilda and had to stand a siege by the King, to the great damage of the still [p 57] unfinished church. To quote one further illustration only: Bangor, whose wooden church was replaced by a stone one somewhere about 1102, suffered grievously in the wars waged between HenryIII. of England, and David, Prince of Wales, an episode in which was the destruction of the Cathedral.

The conquest of England by William, Duke of Normandy, had a vast influence on the ecclesiastical buildings of the country. On the continent art had advanced at a pace unknown in this island, and the plain and massive churches scattered over the land must have seemed very rude structures in the eyes of the prelates who came in the victor’s train. S.Edward the Confessor, with his Norman predilections, had no doubt accustomed his courtiers to some aspects of foreign art, and through his influence the so-called Norman architecture preceded the Normans in the country; but such instances of it as were to be seen must have been few, and probably confined to the southern counties.

Scarcely had the Conqueror’s throne been secured before his countrymen, placed in the abbeys and sees of England, began to rebuild, on [p 58] new and grander plans, the churches under their charge.

Lanfranc, who ascended the throne of S.Augustine in 1070, set himself to the work of rebuilding Canterbury Cathedral, not contenting himself with any enlargement or embellishment of the older fane, but making a clean sweep of that, and beginning from the foundations. S. Anselm, and the prior of the monastery, Ernulph, took up the work and enlarged upon Lanfranc’s design, pulling down and re-building the choir. Early in the next century, namely in 1130, the new Cathedral, completed under the supervision of Conrad, successor to Ernulph, was solemnly dedicated with great pomp in the presence of the Kings of England and of Scotland.

Meanwhile, Thomas of Bayeux, who became Archbishop of York in the same year as that in which Lanfranc obtained his English see, was busy rebuilding his Minster at York. William of Carilef commenced the magnificent pile, forming one of the finest Norman churches in existence, which crowns the Wear at Durham, in 1093; and Ralph Flambard took up the work three years later, completing it in 1128. London [p 61] was deprived of its Cathedral by fire probably about 1088, and the work of restoration was at once undertaken by Maurice, its Norman bishop. In 1079 Bishop Walkelyn began the erection of a cathedral church at Winchester, in the place of the old Saxon building which had first been founded on the conversion of King Cynegils, about 635. In all parts of the land, east and west, north and south, the builders were at work, rearing massive temples to the glory and honour of God. The chink of chisel and the blow of hammer rang everywhere in the ears of the eleventh century in England. Bishop Herbert Losinga laid the first stone of Norwich Cathedral in 1096, at which time Remigius of Fescamp had been some twenty years at work on that of Lincoln, and had passed away, leaving the completion to others. The new Norman Cathedral of Hereford was begun by Robert Losinga, who reigned as bishop from 1079 to 1096. Abbot Simeon began to build the Minster at Ely about 1092; Worcester was commenced by Wulfstan in 1084; five years later the foundation of Gloucester was laid; and in 1091 S.Osmund consecrated the church of S.Nicholas at Newcastle. Other cathedrals which were built, or [p 62] rebuilt, at about the same date include those of Carlisle, S.Albans, Rochester, Chester, Lichfield and Oxford.

Surely never was an age so enthusiastic in building! All these cathedrals, many still remaining largely as their Norman builders left them, most retaining many relics of their work, were commenced within the space of two reigns of by no means great duration, lasting only from 1066 to 1100.

The energy of the time was not, however, exhausted by the fervour of this outburst. The twelfth century took up and vigorously prosecuted the tasks handed on to it by the eleventh.

Among cathedrals which were entirely, or almost entirely, rebuilt during this century we have Chichester, Rochester, Peterborough, Lincoln, Oxford, Bristol, Southwell, S.David’s, Llandaff, and Ripon. In the first of these a great part of the work was done twice over within this period. Ralph de Luffa was bishop of the see when the cathedral was consecrated in 1108; two fires, however, did such serious damage to this building, the first in 1114, and the second in 1186, that it had practically to be re-constructed, and was re-dedicated in the year [p 65] 1199. The Cathedral at Rochester was largely re-built by John of Canterbury between 1125 and 1137, and like Chichester suffered twice during the century from the ravages of fire. Indeed, so frequently do we find mention of conflagrations in the cathedrals in the early mediÆval days, that it is quite obvious that WilliamI. was fully justified in taking such precautions against this enemy as the use of the curfew involved. In more than one instance the cathedral went up in flames as part only of a fire which destroyed a large portion of the town.

The undertaking of new work at Peterborough was the result of a similar cause. In the year 1116 fire destroyed almost the whole church and monastery, but in two years’ time the re-erection had commenced, and was continued throughout the remainder of the century. The choir was ready for the resumption of the Divine offices in 1143, but the builders did not reach the end of their labours until 1237. Re-construction was necessitated at Lincoln by the occurrence of an earthquake in 1185, following once more upon a fire which took place in 1141. The stone vaulting and the western towers were undertaken by Alexander, bishop from 1123 to 1147; and in [p 66] 1192 S.Hugh of Avalon, who held the see from 1186 to 1203, began a thorough re-building of the pile. This work marks an epoch in the progress of architecture in England, as in the choir of S.Hugh we meet with the earliest examples of the use of the lancet form of arch to which we can assign a known date. About the middle of this century a new church, not yet advanced to the dignity of a cathedral, was commenced at Oxford, and by the year 1180 it was sufficiently advanced to allow of the translation of the relics of S.Frideswide to their new shrine. In 1142 was founded the Abbey of Bristol, and its church was consecrated on Easter Day, 1148, although the completion of the buildings occupied the attention of the abbots for many years after. Southwell Minster was also building during the first half of the twelfth century; Peter de Leia, who became Bishop of S.David’s in 1176, commenced the erection of his cathedral four years later, following the example of Arban, who entered upon the neighbouring see of Llandaff in 1107, and reared a mother church for his diocese. Finally, Ripon also saw the masons busily at work almost through the century. First Thurstan, [p 67] Archbishop of York in 1114, began the enlargement of the Abbey Church, and after him Archbishop Roger (1154–1181) entirely rebuilt it.

But the record of the churches re-built during this century by no means exhausts the tale of work performed during that time. At Winchester, for example, in 1107 the central tower fell, necessitating the building of a new one. Lucy, bishop here from 1189 to 1205, erected a new Lady Chapel and made other alterations. At Hereford, too, operations were going forward almost throughout the century, the bishops Reynelm (1107–1115) and Betun (1131–1148) being especially energetic in pressing them on; and the closing years of this period saw the rearing of the eastern transepts. At this time also the beautiful Galilee Chapel was added to Durham Cathedral; Ely was consecrated in 1106, and towards the end of the century received its central tower and other additions; and S.Albans, moreover, had a faÇade built on its western front by John deCella.

The chronicle of the damages by fire during the twelfth century is not complete without mentioning that S.Paul’s, London, which was re-building during a large portion of that time, [p 68] was injured by it in 1136; and the same foe destroyed the roof of Worcester Cathedral in the early days of the century.

The period which our rapid survey has so far covered embraces broadly the eras of the Norman and of the so-called Early English architecture. In the thirteenth century the Decorated Style came into being, and with its rise arose also the desire for greater richness of ornament even in those churches which had already, to all appearances, been completed. On all hands, therefore, in this new century, we find the pulling down of portions of the stern Norman work and the substitution of lighter and more graceful designs.

The great work of the thirteenth century, however, was begun before the birth of the more florid style, and shows little trace of the dawning of its influence. Salisbury Cathedral was begun in 1220, the work commencing, as was usual, at the eastern end and advancing westward. The whole was proceeded with continuously, and since its completion no alteration of any importance has been made in it. Other cathedrals in England exhibit in almost every case a conglomerate of several orders of architecture, blended generally with great skill, but necessarily [p 69] lacking to some extent in unity of design in consequence. In Salisbury we have one complete and splendid example of English architecture of the best period, carried out from beginning to end with unbroken unity of purpose.

Other churches which then were, or were subsequently to become, cathedrals, dating in their present form from the thirteenth century, are those of Lichfield, Wells, Manchester, Bangor, and S.Asaph.

A Norman church had been reared at Lichfield of which very few relics have survived to the present day, a new building having been begun about the year 1200, and the work of construction carried on for the major part of the century, the west front being reached about 1275. Bishop Joceline was the chief founder of the existing Cathedral at Wells, most of the previous work having been taken down in his time, and the new church solemnly dedicated by him in 1239. The Church at Manchester was probably built about 1220, but the present building is of a later date. The Cathedral at S.Asaph suffered from the great mediÆval enemy of such foundations, fire, twice during this period. On the first occasion, in 1247, the [p 70] troops of HenryIII. of England must be held responsible for the destruction wrought; on the second, in 1282, the outbreak was probably accidental. Repairs, if not actual rebuilding, took place in consequence of these injuries towards the end of the century. Bangor Cathedral was probably also rebuilt about 1291.

Fire played its old part throughout the century in providing work for the ecclesiastical masons, in other instances besides that referred to in the Welsh diocese. The choir at Carlisle was rebuilt probably about 1250 and the following years, but had scarcely been fully completed before it fell in a fire which destroyed a large portion of the city. In 1216, S.Nicholas, Newcastle, was almost destroyed by the same fatal agency. Worcester Cathedral was again burnt in 1202, and was rebuilt between then and 1218 sufficiently to be re-dedicated; although the retro-choir, the choir, the Lady Chapel, and some details were added at a later time in the same century.

Imperfections in the work of the preceding age were answerable for a certain amount of loss and consequent re-construction (not seldom actually a gain) in this. At Lincoln, for instance, the [p 71] central tower fell in 1237, and was replaced by the present one, which has been described as one of the finest in Europe. The east end of Ripon had to be rebuilt owing to the structure giving way in 1280; and in consequence again of the fall of the tower, repairs had to be undertaken at S.David’s in 1220.

The popular regard for Hugh, the sainted bishop of Lincoln, led to the building of one of the most beautiful sections of that Minster, namely the Angel-choir, erected as a worthy chapel for the shrine of S.Hugh, between 1255 and 1280. At Hereford, the Lady Chapel was built about the middle of this century; and at Ely, the presbytery and retro-choir at about the same date; at Bristol, the elder Lady Chapel probably a little earlier; at Southwell, the choir between 1230 and 1250; and the choir also at S.Albans, in 1256.

Several of our cathedral towers, moreover, besides that at Lincoln, date from the thirteenth century. York, S.Paul’s, Chichester and Gloucester, all had the towers erected during this period.

Passing on to the fourteenth century, we meet with the same wide-spread activity, but it is [p 72] expended now rather in additions and embellishments to existing buildings than in actual re-constructions. At Ripon, the Cathedral was partially burnt by the Scots in 1319, and later in the century the tower was struck by lightning. At S.Alban’s, part of the nave fell in 1323, as did the tower at Ely in 1322. In each of these cases repairs were of course rendered needful. More important works were the rebuilding of the nave and transepts at Canterbury at the end of the century (1378–1410), the erection of the Zouche Chapel at York about 1350, the addition of both the central and the western towers to Wells, the spires to Peterborough, and the towers also to Hereford.

The fifteenth century is specially marked by the growing popularity of chantries and side chapels. We find them erected at this time at Hereford and elsewhere; but little building on a large scale is done. In several cases the vaulting of the roofs dates from this period, and a good deal of internal carving in wood or stone was also done. Among the latter we may note the high altar screen at S.Alban’s, and the stalls at Carlisle and Ripon. Of the former work, reference may be made to the vaulting [p 73] of part of the choir and transepts at Norwich.

The sixteenth century is not a pleasant one to contemplate in connection with our ancient cathedrals. Ignorance and fanaticism were then beginning to show themselves in their treatment of the miracles of art bequeathed to the ages, and soon became more obvious than culture or reverence. This century saw the nave of Bristol taken down, the spires removed from the towers of Ripon, and other precautions against a threatened collapse; but steps were not taken to repair the losses thus caused. And in view of the nameless horrors perpetrated within the hallowed walls of churches and cathedrals, first by the extreme reformers, and in the next century by the Puritans, in the name of religion, it is only wonderful that so much that is beautiful still survives.

The one constructive work of the seventeenth century was, of course, the building of the Cathedral of London, S.Paul’s, in the place of that “Old S.Paul’s” which perished in the fire of 1666. This building shares with Salisbury the credit of complete unity, but is unique among English Cathedrals in being classical in style. However much more admirable the Gothic style may be admitted to be for [p 74] ecclesiastical purposes, probably all will admit that the grandeur of St. Paul’s grows upon one the more familiar one becomes with it; and certainly no tower, or collection of towers, could possibly dominate a vast city like London in the way that Wren’s splendid dome does.

The eighteenth century witnessed, among other things, the removal of most of the spires which down to that time had crowned the towers of many of the cathedrals. Such was the case with Hereford and Wakefield; the same thing was attempted at Lincoln in 1727, but popular tumult saved the spires; only, however, until 1807, when they were removed.

Of one work of construction the eighteenth century was also guilty; the year 1704 gave birth to that abortion among English cathedrals known as S.Peter’s, Liverpool; with which, for nearly twenty years, the population of one of the wealthiest cities in the empire has been content! Something in the way of restoration was attempted in this century, but it was for the most part done ignorantly, and no small part of the restoration of the nineteenth century has consisted in undoing so far as possible the work of the eighteenth.[p 75]
The present century has seen the commencement, on noble lines, of the Cathedral of Truro; and the beautifying of not a few of our old minsters, which had been stript almost bare by the destroyers of past times. Happily, the guardians of these treasures of art and devotion have for the most part been conscious of the greatness of their trust, and the fabrics have been dealt with reverently and with judgment. Amongst others, Bristol, Chichester, St. Albans, and Peterborough have required more or less extensive measures of re-building.