Chapter 9

FOOTNOTES:[1]A volume of excellent plans and sketches, illustrative of Gloucester Cathedral, has been published by Mr. F. S. Waller, Architect to the Dean and Chapter, (London, 1856). To it we are indebted for the plan of the cathedral contained in this volume.[2]Froucester’s Chronicle.[3]Fergusson.[4]The transepts of Oxford (102 ft.) and Rochester (122 ft.) are shorter: but neither of these cathedrals at all approaches the general dimensions of Gloucester or Worcester. The tower of Malvern Priory Church much resembles that of Gloucester, and was perhaps an imitation of it. “In dignity the central tower of Gloucester is perhaps surpassed by that of Canterbury, and in expression by that of Lincoln.”—G. A. P.[5]Comparing the relative proportions of Gloucester and Norwich, the difference will be found greater than could be conceived compatible with the same style. They are—Norwich.Gloucester.Height of piers15feet.30feet.Diameter of piers7”6“Height to base of triforium25”40“Height of triforium24”10“Height of clerestory25”24“Thus at Norwich the three great divisions are nearly of equal height; at Gloucester the lower portion is more than equal to the other two. At Norwich the piers are about two diameters, at Gloucester nearly five in height.[6]“The painting may be thus generally described. The hollow of the abacus of the capitals red, the lower member of the same, green; the whole of the bell red, the leaves alternately green and yellow, with the stalks running down of the same colour into the red bell of the capital; the vertical mouldings between the marble shafts red and blue alternately; the lower shafts green or blue, with red in the hollows: the foliage on these also is green and yellow. Some of the horizontal mouldings are partly coloured also. The bosses in the groining are yellow and red, as in the capitals. All the colouring, which was very rich, was effected with water-colours; in one instance only has any gold been discerned, and that upon one of the bosses in the roof.”—F. S. Waller.[7]The Norman towers or turrets had, however, been rebuilt in the Early English period. “From an account of an accident which occurred between 1163 and 1179, we know that the west front was flanked by two towers; for while Roger, Bp. of Worcester, was celebrating mass before the high altar, the north-west tower, owing to a defect in its foundation, fell. It may be a question, however, whether these towers were not rather turrets, like those at Tewkesbury. The very fact that at Tewkesbury we have turrets rather than towers, is sufficient to make the suggestion very probable, for there is a great resemblance between the two churches. Moreover, if Abbot Morwent found a design with towers, properly so called, he substituted for it one provokingly inferior. This is hardly likely.”—(G. A. P.) The rebuilding of the north-west tower was commenced in 1222, and its companion was also rebuilt between the years 1228-1243. These were the towers or turrets destroyed by Abbot Morwent.[8]“In the interior this wall falls outwards eleven inches in its full height; and on the exterior the more recent work inclines not more than four inches; from which it is evident that the Norman wall must have been out of perpendicular seven inches, prior to the erection of Abbot Thokey’s work.”—F. S. Waller.[9]“The south aisle has this great advantage, which other altered buildings do not possess;—in other buildings the proportions very often constrain the designs in the new work, and give it a mixed character, spoiling both,—giving, for example, heaviness to the Norman, and flimsiness to the Decorated. But this is not the case at Gloucester.”—Willis.[10]The attention of the public was first called to this fact in a paper read before the meeting of the Archæological Institute at Worcester, in the summer of 1862, by the Rev. Samuel Lysons, F.S.A.[11]Froucester’s Chronicle asserts that Abbot Wygemore re-cased the “aisle of St. Andrew,” and Abbot Horton “the aisle of St. Paul.” These aisles are identified with the south and north transepts, by comparing the Chronicle with an account given by one of the monks which Leland has recorded in his Itinerary. See Willis’s notice of the cathedral at the meeting of the Archæological Institute at Gloucester in 1860, Gent. Mag., Sept. 1860.[12]Report of Professor Willis’s lecture at Gloucester, Gent. Mag., Sept. 1860.[13]Willis.[14]It has, however, been suggested that this structure may have been a lavatory, and the work of Elias de Lideford, sacrist during the early part of the thirteenth century, who, it is recorded, (by Froucester,) brought an “aqueduct” into the church. A lavatory in a church is not uncommon.[15]This is the most probable explanation of this lectern. There was perhaps a desk in Canterbury Cathedral, in a similar position, from which the pilgrims were exhorted as they approached Becket’s shrine. At all events, in later times, the desk for the Bible and “Fox’s Martyrs” was erected in that cathedral, at the angle of the stairs ascending to the choir-aisle.[16]Willis.[17]Willis.[18]The restoration of this window is the result of the untiring energy and able administration of the Chapter revenues by the Treasurer, Dr. Jeune, Master of Pembroke College, Oxford, and Canon of Gloucester. A new Chapter school has been built, extensive repairs and restorations made in the cathedral, and the ground round it thrown open, by special funds derived from the same source.[19]C. Winston, Stained Glass of Gloucester, &c., in the Bristol volume of the Archæological Institute. (For some further important remarks on this window, see Note at the end of Part I.)[20]It has been asserted that this Sir John Powell was one of the judges who tried the seven bishops. This is an error. There were three Judge Powells living at the same time; two “Sir Johns,” and one “Sir Thomas.” Sir John who tried the bishops was of Caermarthenshire; the Sir John buried in this cathedral was of a Gloucestershire family. See “Gloucestershire Achievements” by the Rev. S. Lysons, 2nd edit., note, pp. 42, 43.[21]F. S. Waller.[22]Gent. Mag., Sept. 1860.[23]F. S. Waller.[24]Other traditions connect Lucius with Kent, and make Chilham Castle, near Canterbury, his principal stronghold. Besides Gloucester, he is the traditional founder of Canterbury and Winchester Cathedrals, and of many churches. Another legend asserts that he resigned his crown, and after preaching Christianity throughout France and Germany, became Bishop of Coire in the Grisons, where he died, and where his relics are still shewn.[25]Hist. Eccl., lib. i. cap. 4.[26]See the whole discussion in Collier’s Church History, Pt.II.bk. iv.[27]Fuller’s Worthies—Herefordshire.[28]Worthies—Denbighshire.[29]Church Hist., bk. xi.[30]William of Malmesbury. No work of this early period now remains at Aix.[31]Report of a Survey of the Dilapidated Portions of Hereford Cathedral, in the year 1841. By Professor Willis. Hereford, 1842.[32]The Norman triforium, which was a mere wall-arcade without a passage, consisted of two circular arches in each bay, each arch circumscribing two smaller ones. The clerestory had one lofty circular arch in each bay, and had a passage throughout.[33]“The oxe-eye masonry is so termed because the centre of it is pierced by an opening in the form of the ancientvesica piscis, called by workmen an ox-eye.”—Willis.[34]Willis’s Report on Hereford Cathedral, p. 20.[35]This brass is engraved as the frontispiece to Haines’s “Manual of Monumental Brasses.”[36]See Pt. II. for the confirmation of this date.[37]Dean Merewether’s Memorials.[38]A translation of M. D’Avezac’s paper will be found in the Gentleman’s Magazine for May, 1863. The division of France from Flanders, and “an inscription, most significant, placed across the Saone and the Rhone, marking, between Lyons and Vienne, the separation of France from Burgundy,” are the indications on which M. D’Avezac relies for his date.[39]D’Avezac.[40]For a further notice of this map, see Mr. Wright’s paper in the Gloucester volume of the Archæological Association, and that by M. D’Avezac already mentioned. One of the earliest mediæval maps accompanies the text of thePeriegesisof Priscian, an Anglo-Saxon MS. of the end of the tenth century, (Cott. Lib.) “A map of the world, in a MS. of the thirteenth century in the British Museum, contains a curious note, in which the author refers to four maps which were then looked upon in England as being of chief authority. These were, the map of Robert de Melkeleia, that of the Abbey of Waltham, that in the King’s Chamber at Westminster, and that of Matthew Paris.”—Wright.[41]“Mobiliers.”[42]“This may account for the omission of any recorded founder or benefactor in connection with either the work of the north transept or of this tower; for it may be generally observed, with respect to the buildings of the Middle Ages, that, when they were carried on by their monasteries no record is preserved of the work, but only when some considerable portion of it, as a tower, a transept, or the vaulting of an aisle, was undertaken at the expense of an individual.”—Willis’s Report, p. 10.[43]“The English eastern crypts are Canterbury, Winchester, Gloucester, Rochester, Worcester;—all founded before 1085. After this they were discontinued, except as a continuation of former ones, as at Canterbury and Rochester. The Early English crypt of the Lady-chapel at Hereford is an exception.”—Willis,Architectural History of Canterbury Cathedral, p. 71, note.[44]“Portstrictly means an enclosed place for sale or purchase—a market.”—Kemble.[45]Angl.-Sax. Chron., ed. Thorpe, s. ann. 1055. Another version of the Chronicle asserts that the minster was burned, and it is probable that it was greatly ruined. (Seepost, BishopLosing.)[46]Sax. Chron., ad ann. 1056.[47]Milman, Hist. of Latin Christianity, iii. 455.[48]Collier, Eccles. Hist., bk. v. cent. 12.[49]Wilkins, Concil. Mag. Brit. i. p. 76, quoted by Britton.[50]Reg. Orleton—quoted by the Rev. John Webb, in his notes on the Swinfield Roll. It was in the time of Bishop Orleton that the canonization was decreed.[51]Worthies—Herefordshire.[52]Collier, Eccles. Hist., bk. vi. cent. 14.[53]Britton.[54]Worthies—Devonshire. Fuller gives Churchill, in the parish of Bratton, as Stanbery’s birthplace; but the bequest in his will renders it certain that he was born at Stanbery in Morwenstow.[55]Worthies—Gloucestershire.[56]See Procter’s Hist. of the Prayer-book, p. 23, note.[57]Worthies—Northamptonshire.[58]Worthies—Derbyshire.[59]The Chronicle of Florence of Worcester ends with the year 1117, but has been carried on by an unknown Continuator as late as 1295. It has been printed by the English Historical Society. It is not so valuable for the architectural history of Worcester as theAnnales Ecclesiæ Wygorniensis, which will be found in the first volume of Wharton’sAnglia Sacra.Professor Willis’s most valuable and elaborate “Architectural History of Worcester Cathedral” will be found in the twentieth volume of the Journal of the Archæological Institute. In the “Gentleman’s Magazine” for October, 1862, is printed Mr. Bloxam’s paper on the “Sepulchral Remains and Monuments” in the cathedral. Great use has been made of both these papers, and especially of the latter, in preparing the following account. Professor Willis’s dates and conclusions have been adopted throughout. Some very interesting features of the building are pointed out, for the first time, in his “Architectural History.”[60]“Ego Wlstanus ... decrevi synodum congregare in monasterio S. Mariæ, in cryptis, quas ego a fundamentis ædificavi, et per misericordiam Dei postea dedicavi.”—Anglia Sacra, i. p. 542.[61]“Caput, the ‘head’ of the church, was exclusively applied to the altar end thereof.Frons, the ‘front,’ however, can be shewn by many examples to have been employed foreither endof the building.”—Willis’s Architectural History of Canterbury, p. 45, note. There can be no doubt, as Professor Willis himself pointed out at Worcester, that in this instance the east end, or front, is intended.[62]The eastern transept, forming the second transverse limb of the cross, was an addition of the Early English builders. Such a transept, “equal in height to the central alley of the presbytery, is only to be found elsewhere in England in the late Norman of Canterbury (c. 1096), and York (c. 1160); and in the Early English of Lincoln (c. 1186), Salisbury (c. 1220), Beverley, and Rochester. On the Continent the only known examples of this feature are S. Benoit sur Loire (c. 1080), and Cluny (c. 1089), the former of which was doubtless the prototype of the English examples.”—Willis’s Architectural History of Worcester Cathedral.[63]On this subject it may be well to quote the remarks of Professor Willis:—“In criticizing these repairs and restorations, it is necessary to recollect that the crumbling material of the cathedral had decayed to such an extent on the exterior as to destroy the whole of the decorative features; and that, in the interior, settlements of the piers and arches in the Early English work had attained so alarming a magnitude as to threaten the stability of the structure. Attempts had been made to mitigate these settlements by the introduction of walls and arches in 1712; but these, beside disfiguring and obstructing the interior, were themselves giving way, having served rather to change the direction of the settlements than to stop them.“The outside of the cathedral had been also overloaded and disfigured by additional buttresses to prop up its falling walls. Most of these have been removed or repaired, and the walls themselves thoroughly and skilfully restored to soundness by renewing the whole of the exterior ashlar, and pointing the interior, resetting it when required. This process has necessarily destroyed all appearance of antiquity in the exterior of the choir and Lady-chapel; but it must be remembered that all the decorative features of the original had vanished long since, and given place to the mean and uninteresting botchings of the sixteenth and seventeenth centuries; and that we have now a reproduction of its original aspect, as far as that can be determined.”—Archit. Hist. of Worcester Cathedral, p. 123.[64]These relics of the Norman nave have been carefully pointed out by Professor Willis,Arch. Hist. of Worcester Cathedral, p. 93.[65]Willis.[66]See Arch. Hist. of Worcester Cathedral, p. 112.[67]Willis, p. 110.[68]Willis, p. 94.[69]M. H. Bloxam.[70]Willis.[71]Willis, p. 97. The white oolite was obtained from Bredon Hill at Bath; the green stone from Higley on the Severn.[72]That of St. Thomas de Cantilupe at Hereford—translated 1287; and of King Edward II. at Gloucester,circa1330.[73]Willis, p. 100.[74]Willis, p. 102.[75]Id., 103.[76]Willis.[77]“Et his ita gestis, sciscitatus est ab eo Abbas de Croestuna si ipsum mori contingeret, ubi vellet eligere sepulturam. Cui Rex respondens, dixit, Deo et Sancto Wlstano corpus et animam meam commendo. Qui postea in nocte quae diem sancti Lucæ Evangelistæ proxime sequuta est, ex hac vita migravit. Cujus corpus regio schemate ornatum ad Wigorniam delatum est; et in ecclesia Cathedrali ab Episcopo loci honorifice tumulatum.”—Matt. Paris, p. 288.[78]Leland (Itin.) thus notices the tomb:—“In presbyterio, Johannes Rex, cujus sepulchrum Alchirch, sacrista, nuper renovavit.” The time at which Alchirch was sacristan has not been ascertained, but it cannot have been long before Leland’s visit.[79]M. H. Bloxam, “On the Sepulchral Remains and Monuments in Worcester Cathedral,” read before the Archæological Institute at Worcester, in 1862. (Gent. Mag., Oct., 1862.)[80]Bloxam.[81]Id.[82]M. H. Bloxam.[83]Id., Gent. Mag., Oct., 1862.[84]Willis, p. 106.[85]Bloxam.[86]Bloxam.[87]Id.[88]Bloxam.[89]Id.[90]Gent. Mag., Sept. 1862. “It was said to be for the purpose of the monks conferring with each other; but he had seen such openings in places where no such construction could be put upon them.”[91]Willis, p. 90.[92]An account of this synod, drawn up by Wulfstan himself, is printed in theAnglia Sacra. The Dean of Chichester thus translates the commencement:—“I, Wulfstan, by the grace of God Bishop of Worcester, determined to hold a synod in the Minster of St. Mary’s, in the crypt of the church, which I built from the foundations, and by the mercy of God afterwards consecrated. This synod was held in the year of our Lord 1092, the fifteenth indiction. There were assembled all the wisest men invited from the three shires in our diocese, Worcester, Gloucester, and Warwick; because that I, being full of days, sensible of my bodily weakness, and perceiving the end of my life approaching, was desirous of disposing canonically the ecclesiastical affairs committed to our charge, and by their wise concert, of correcting and amending whatever required amendment.”[93]See Mr. Albert Way’s paper on “The Tradition of Flaying Inflicted in Punishment of Sacrilege,” Archæological Journal, vol. v. The Worcester doors are said to have been fixed originally in the west entrance, and to have been removed thence by Bishop Wakefield. The Dean of Chichester (Life of Wulfstan, p. 7,) remarks that the west side of the cathedral, fronting the Severn, was that from which a Danish attack might naturally be expected; and suggests that the doors are as old as the eleventh century, when the citizens of Worcester, like other Englishmen, resisted the imposition of the Danegelt, and killed (May, 1041) Feadu and Thurstan, the huscarls of Hardicanute, who had been sent to Worcester to collect it. Their skins may have been stretched on the church doors. In the following November a Danish army plundered the town and ruined the cathedral, from which the monks had fled. The sight of the skins, it is suggested, may have been the especial cause of this latter act of vengeance.[94]Report of Professor Willis’s Lecture in Gent. Mag., Sept. 1862.[95]J. H. Parker, Gent. Mag., Oct. 1862. Professor Willis considered the hall to be “in so ruinous a state that the expense of restoring it would have been greater than justifiable on such an object (especially as there would have been no use for it when done), and the Dean and Chapter had to keep up and maintain the cathedral in a state worthy of its original purpose.”—Gent. Mag., Sept. 1862.[96]Rev. C. H. Hartshorne.[97]See Kemble, Sax. in England, i. p. 300; and Exeter Cathedral, Pt. II.[98]Bede, Hist. Eccles., 1. iv. c. 23.[99]Archbishop Theodore died in 690. The see of Canterbury remained vacant for two years after his death.[100]Bedeut sup.[101]Raine’s Lives of the Archbishops of York, p. 123.[102]Lingard’s Anglo-Saxon Church, ii. 294, quoted and accepted by Kemble.[103]Lingard, ut sup. On the whole question of the dispute between the secular and regular clergy, see the excellent chapter on “The Clergy and Monks” in Kemble’s “Saxons in England,” vol. ii.[104]Dr. Hook, Life and Times of Wulfstan; Archæological Journal, vol. xx.[105]Raine’s Archbishops of York, p. 150.[106]“Qui non ita hebes in literis ut putabatur, cætera sciebat, præter fabulas poetarum, et tortiles syllogismos dialecticorum, quæ nec nosset, nec nosse dignaretur.”—W. Malmes.,De Gest. Pontif., l. iv.[107]“Nusquam enim in villis suis aulas, nusquam triclinia fecit. Nimirum qui non solum in istis forensibus, sed etiam in Ecclesiis operosâ gravaretur architecturâ. Magis enim deputabat talia humanæ pompæ et jactantiæ quam divinæ voluntati et gratiæ.”—W. Malmes.,Vita S. Wulfstan., l. iii. cap. 10.[108]“Stabat ipse in cæmiterio tacitus, et subinde congemiscens. Scaturibat quippe in animo ejus cogitatio; quæ ingentem imbrem lacrimarum ferens, tandem erupit. ‘Nos, inquit, miseri Sanctorum destruimus opera, pompatice putantes nos facere meliora. Quanto præstantior nobis S. Oswaldus qui hanc fecit Ecclesiam? Quot sancti viri religiosi in eâ Deo servierunt?’ Et licet astantes referrent non debere illum tristari, sed potius lætari, quem Deus ad hanc servâsset gratiam ut sic videret magnificari Ecclesiam, in lacrimarum proposito tenax fuit. Nec desunt qui dicant prædixisse illum Ecclesiæ novæ incendium, quo subsequentibus conflagrata est annis. Sed non placuit pro vero præsumere, quod discrepat. Tunc autem et novam Ecclesiam perfecit; nec facile invenias ornamentum, quod eam non decoraverit. Ita erat in singulis mirabilis, et in omnibus singularis. Quocirca ut magnificentiæ nihil deesset, lxxii. marcas argenti scrinio innexuit; in quo beatissimi Oswaldi prædecessoris sui exuvias, simulque multorum Sanctorum locavit.”—W. Malmes.,Vita S. Wulfstan., l. iii. cap. 10.[109]Sax. Chron., ad ann. 1088.[110]“1201. Miracula de S. Wlstano incæperunt xiv. Kal. Februarii; quæ per totum annum et amplius adeo crebrescebant, ut nunc xv. nunc xvi. uno die curarentur ab omnibus languoribus.”—Annales Eccles. Wigorniensis. Anglia Sac., i. 479.[111]Annales Eccles. Wigorn., ad ann. 1283. “Rex Edwardus subjugata totaliter Wallia, venit Wigorniam gratia visitandi S. Wlstanum, erga quem amorem habuit specialem.”[112]Malmes., De Gest. Pontif., lib. iv.[113]Ibid.[114]Annales Eccles. Wigorn., ad ann. 1198.[115]Id., ad ann. 1199.[116]Milman.[117]Wharton’s note to Annales Eccles. Wigorn., s. a. 1268; Anglia Sacra, i. p. 497:—“Tumulum namque ejus magna cum religione Pontificii die 19 Januarii, quæ S. Wlstano sacra est,hodienumvisitare solent, Wlstani esse perperam credentes.” The Anglia Sacra was published in 1691.[118]Walsingham.[119]Worthies—Gloucestershire.[120]Hallam, Literary History, Pt.IV.chap. ii.

FOOTNOTES:

[1]A volume of excellent plans and sketches, illustrative of Gloucester Cathedral, has been published by Mr. F. S. Waller, Architect to the Dean and Chapter, (London, 1856). To it we are indebted for the plan of the cathedral contained in this volume.

[2]Froucester’s Chronicle.

[3]Fergusson.

[4]The transepts of Oxford (102 ft.) and Rochester (122 ft.) are shorter: but neither of these cathedrals at all approaches the general dimensions of Gloucester or Worcester. The tower of Malvern Priory Church much resembles that of Gloucester, and was perhaps an imitation of it. “In dignity the central tower of Gloucester is perhaps surpassed by that of Canterbury, and in expression by that of Lincoln.”—G. A. P.

[5]Comparing the relative proportions of Gloucester and Norwich, the difference will be found greater than could be conceived compatible with the same style. They are—Norwich.Gloucester.Height of piers15feet.30feet.Diameter of piers7”6“Height to base of triforium25”40“Height of triforium24”10“Height of clerestory25”24“Thus at Norwich the three great divisions are nearly of equal height; at Gloucester the lower portion is more than equal to the other two. At Norwich the piers are about two diameters, at Gloucester nearly five in height.

[5]Comparing the relative proportions of Gloucester and Norwich, the difference will be found greater than could be conceived compatible with the same style. They are—

Thus at Norwich the three great divisions are nearly of equal height; at Gloucester the lower portion is more than equal to the other two. At Norwich the piers are about two diameters, at Gloucester nearly five in height.

[6]“The painting may be thus generally described. The hollow of the abacus of the capitals red, the lower member of the same, green; the whole of the bell red, the leaves alternately green and yellow, with the stalks running down of the same colour into the red bell of the capital; the vertical mouldings between the marble shafts red and blue alternately; the lower shafts green or blue, with red in the hollows: the foliage on these also is green and yellow. Some of the horizontal mouldings are partly coloured also. The bosses in the groining are yellow and red, as in the capitals. All the colouring, which was very rich, was effected with water-colours; in one instance only has any gold been discerned, and that upon one of the bosses in the roof.”—F. S. Waller.

[7]The Norman towers or turrets had, however, been rebuilt in the Early English period. “From an account of an accident which occurred between 1163 and 1179, we know that the west front was flanked by two towers; for while Roger, Bp. of Worcester, was celebrating mass before the high altar, the north-west tower, owing to a defect in its foundation, fell. It may be a question, however, whether these towers were not rather turrets, like those at Tewkesbury. The very fact that at Tewkesbury we have turrets rather than towers, is sufficient to make the suggestion very probable, for there is a great resemblance between the two churches. Moreover, if Abbot Morwent found a design with towers, properly so called, he substituted for it one provokingly inferior. This is hardly likely.”—(G. A. P.) The rebuilding of the north-west tower was commenced in 1222, and its companion was also rebuilt between the years 1228-1243. These were the towers or turrets destroyed by Abbot Morwent.

[8]“In the interior this wall falls outwards eleven inches in its full height; and on the exterior the more recent work inclines not more than four inches; from which it is evident that the Norman wall must have been out of perpendicular seven inches, prior to the erection of Abbot Thokey’s work.”—F. S. Waller.

[9]“The south aisle has this great advantage, which other altered buildings do not possess;—in other buildings the proportions very often constrain the designs in the new work, and give it a mixed character, spoiling both,—giving, for example, heaviness to the Norman, and flimsiness to the Decorated. But this is not the case at Gloucester.”—Willis.

[10]The attention of the public was first called to this fact in a paper read before the meeting of the Archæological Institute at Worcester, in the summer of 1862, by the Rev. Samuel Lysons, F.S.A.

[11]Froucester’s Chronicle asserts that Abbot Wygemore re-cased the “aisle of St. Andrew,” and Abbot Horton “the aisle of St. Paul.” These aisles are identified with the south and north transepts, by comparing the Chronicle with an account given by one of the monks which Leland has recorded in his Itinerary. See Willis’s notice of the cathedral at the meeting of the Archæological Institute at Gloucester in 1860, Gent. Mag., Sept. 1860.

[12]Report of Professor Willis’s lecture at Gloucester, Gent. Mag., Sept. 1860.

[13]Willis.

[14]It has, however, been suggested that this structure may have been a lavatory, and the work of Elias de Lideford, sacrist during the early part of the thirteenth century, who, it is recorded, (by Froucester,) brought an “aqueduct” into the church. A lavatory in a church is not uncommon.

[15]This is the most probable explanation of this lectern. There was perhaps a desk in Canterbury Cathedral, in a similar position, from which the pilgrims were exhorted as they approached Becket’s shrine. At all events, in later times, the desk for the Bible and “Fox’s Martyrs” was erected in that cathedral, at the angle of the stairs ascending to the choir-aisle.

[16]Willis.

[17]Willis.

[18]The restoration of this window is the result of the untiring energy and able administration of the Chapter revenues by the Treasurer, Dr. Jeune, Master of Pembroke College, Oxford, and Canon of Gloucester. A new Chapter school has been built, extensive repairs and restorations made in the cathedral, and the ground round it thrown open, by special funds derived from the same source.

[19]C. Winston, Stained Glass of Gloucester, &c., in the Bristol volume of the Archæological Institute. (For some further important remarks on this window, see Note at the end of Part I.)

[20]It has been asserted that this Sir John Powell was one of the judges who tried the seven bishops. This is an error. There were three Judge Powells living at the same time; two “Sir Johns,” and one “Sir Thomas.” Sir John who tried the bishops was of Caermarthenshire; the Sir John buried in this cathedral was of a Gloucestershire family. See “Gloucestershire Achievements” by the Rev. S. Lysons, 2nd edit., note, pp. 42, 43.

[21]F. S. Waller.

[22]Gent. Mag., Sept. 1860.

[23]F. S. Waller.

[24]Other traditions connect Lucius with Kent, and make Chilham Castle, near Canterbury, his principal stronghold. Besides Gloucester, he is the traditional founder of Canterbury and Winchester Cathedrals, and of many churches. Another legend asserts that he resigned his crown, and after preaching Christianity throughout France and Germany, became Bishop of Coire in the Grisons, where he died, and where his relics are still shewn.

[25]Hist. Eccl., lib. i. cap. 4.

[26]See the whole discussion in Collier’s Church History, Pt.II.bk. iv.

[27]Fuller’s Worthies—Herefordshire.

[28]Worthies—Denbighshire.

[29]Church Hist., bk. xi.

[30]William of Malmesbury. No work of this early period now remains at Aix.

[31]Report of a Survey of the Dilapidated Portions of Hereford Cathedral, in the year 1841. By Professor Willis. Hereford, 1842.

[32]The Norman triforium, which was a mere wall-arcade without a passage, consisted of two circular arches in each bay, each arch circumscribing two smaller ones. The clerestory had one lofty circular arch in each bay, and had a passage throughout.

[33]“The oxe-eye masonry is so termed because the centre of it is pierced by an opening in the form of the ancientvesica piscis, called by workmen an ox-eye.”—Willis.

[34]Willis’s Report on Hereford Cathedral, p. 20.

[35]This brass is engraved as the frontispiece to Haines’s “Manual of Monumental Brasses.”

[36]See Pt. II. for the confirmation of this date.

[37]Dean Merewether’s Memorials.

[38]A translation of M. D’Avezac’s paper will be found in the Gentleman’s Magazine for May, 1863. The division of France from Flanders, and “an inscription, most significant, placed across the Saone and the Rhone, marking, between Lyons and Vienne, the separation of France from Burgundy,” are the indications on which M. D’Avezac relies for his date.

[39]D’Avezac.

[40]For a further notice of this map, see Mr. Wright’s paper in the Gloucester volume of the Archæological Association, and that by M. D’Avezac already mentioned. One of the earliest mediæval maps accompanies the text of thePeriegesisof Priscian, an Anglo-Saxon MS. of the end of the tenth century, (Cott. Lib.) “A map of the world, in a MS. of the thirteenth century in the British Museum, contains a curious note, in which the author refers to four maps which were then looked upon in England as being of chief authority. These were, the map of Robert de Melkeleia, that of the Abbey of Waltham, that in the King’s Chamber at Westminster, and that of Matthew Paris.”—Wright.

[41]“Mobiliers.”

[42]“This may account for the omission of any recorded founder or benefactor in connection with either the work of the north transept or of this tower; for it may be generally observed, with respect to the buildings of the Middle Ages, that, when they were carried on by their monasteries no record is preserved of the work, but only when some considerable portion of it, as a tower, a transept, or the vaulting of an aisle, was undertaken at the expense of an individual.”—Willis’s Report, p. 10.

[43]“The English eastern crypts are Canterbury, Winchester, Gloucester, Rochester, Worcester;—all founded before 1085. After this they were discontinued, except as a continuation of former ones, as at Canterbury and Rochester. The Early English crypt of the Lady-chapel at Hereford is an exception.”—Willis,Architectural History of Canterbury Cathedral, p. 71, note.

[44]“Portstrictly means an enclosed place for sale or purchase—a market.”—Kemble.

[45]Angl.-Sax. Chron., ed. Thorpe, s. ann. 1055. Another version of the Chronicle asserts that the minster was burned, and it is probable that it was greatly ruined. (Seepost, BishopLosing.)

[46]Sax. Chron., ad ann. 1056.

[47]Milman, Hist. of Latin Christianity, iii. 455.

[48]Collier, Eccles. Hist., bk. v. cent. 12.

[49]Wilkins, Concil. Mag. Brit. i. p. 76, quoted by Britton.

[50]Reg. Orleton—quoted by the Rev. John Webb, in his notes on the Swinfield Roll. It was in the time of Bishop Orleton that the canonization was decreed.

[51]Worthies—Herefordshire.

[52]Collier, Eccles. Hist., bk. vi. cent. 14.

[53]Britton.

[54]Worthies—Devonshire. Fuller gives Churchill, in the parish of Bratton, as Stanbery’s birthplace; but the bequest in his will renders it certain that he was born at Stanbery in Morwenstow.

[55]Worthies—Gloucestershire.

[56]See Procter’s Hist. of the Prayer-book, p. 23, note.

[57]Worthies—Northamptonshire.

[58]Worthies—Derbyshire.

[59]The Chronicle of Florence of Worcester ends with the year 1117, but has been carried on by an unknown Continuator as late as 1295. It has been printed by the English Historical Society. It is not so valuable for the architectural history of Worcester as theAnnales Ecclesiæ Wygorniensis, which will be found in the first volume of Wharton’sAnglia Sacra.Professor Willis’s most valuable and elaborate “Architectural History of Worcester Cathedral” will be found in the twentieth volume of the Journal of the Archæological Institute. In the “Gentleman’s Magazine” for October, 1862, is printed Mr. Bloxam’s paper on the “Sepulchral Remains and Monuments” in the cathedral. Great use has been made of both these papers, and especially of the latter, in preparing the following account. Professor Willis’s dates and conclusions have been adopted throughout. Some very interesting features of the building are pointed out, for the first time, in his “Architectural History.”

Professor Willis’s most valuable and elaborate “Architectural History of Worcester Cathedral” will be found in the twentieth volume of the Journal of the Archæological Institute. In the “Gentleman’s Magazine” for October, 1862, is printed Mr. Bloxam’s paper on the “Sepulchral Remains and Monuments” in the cathedral. Great use has been made of both these papers, and especially of the latter, in preparing the following account. Professor Willis’s dates and conclusions have been adopted throughout. Some very interesting features of the building are pointed out, for the first time, in his “Architectural History.”

[60]“Ego Wlstanus ... decrevi synodum congregare in monasterio S. Mariæ, in cryptis, quas ego a fundamentis ædificavi, et per misericordiam Dei postea dedicavi.”—Anglia Sacra, i. p. 542.

[61]“Caput, the ‘head’ of the church, was exclusively applied to the altar end thereof.Frons, the ‘front,’ however, can be shewn by many examples to have been employed foreither endof the building.”—Willis’s Architectural History of Canterbury, p. 45, note. There can be no doubt, as Professor Willis himself pointed out at Worcester, that in this instance the east end, or front, is intended.

[62]The eastern transept, forming the second transverse limb of the cross, was an addition of the Early English builders. Such a transept, “equal in height to the central alley of the presbytery, is only to be found elsewhere in England in the late Norman of Canterbury (c. 1096), and York (c. 1160); and in the Early English of Lincoln (c. 1186), Salisbury (c. 1220), Beverley, and Rochester. On the Continent the only known examples of this feature are S. Benoit sur Loire (c. 1080), and Cluny (c. 1089), the former of which was doubtless the prototype of the English examples.”—Willis’s Architectural History of Worcester Cathedral.

[63]On this subject it may be well to quote the remarks of Professor Willis:—“In criticizing these repairs and restorations, it is necessary to recollect that the crumbling material of the cathedral had decayed to such an extent on the exterior as to destroy the whole of the decorative features; and that, in the interior, settlements of the piers and arches in the Early English work had attained so alarming a magnitude as to threaten the stability of the structure. Attempts had been made to mitigate these settlements by the introduction of walls and arches in 1712; but these, beside disfiguring and obstructing the interior, were themselves giving way, having served rather to change the direction of the settlements than to stop them.“The outside of the cathedral had been also overloaded and disfigured by additional buttresses to prop up its falling walls. Most of these have been removed or repaired, and the walls themselves thoroughly and skilfully restored to soundness by renewing the whole of the exterior ashlar, and pointing the interior, resetting it when required. This process has necessarily destroyed all appearance of antiquity in the exterior of the choir and Lady-chapel; but it must be remembered that all the decorative features of the original had vanished long since, and given place to the mean and uninteresting botchings of the sixteenth and seventeenth centuries; and that we have now a reproduction of its original aspect, as far as that can be determined.”—Archit. Hist. of Worcester Cathedral, p. 123.

[63]On this subject it may be well to quote the remarks of Professor Willis:—

“In criticizing these repairs and restorations, it is necessary to recollect that the crumbling material of the cathedral had decayed to such an extent on the exterior as to destroy the whole of the decorative features; and that, in the interior, settlements of the piers and arches in the Early English work had attained so alarming a magnitude as to threaten the stability of the structure. Attempts had been made to mitigate these settlements by the introduction of walls and arches in 1712; but these, beside disfiguring and obstructing the interior, were themselves giving way, having served rather to change the direction of the settlements than to stop them.

“The outside of the cathedral had been also overloaded and disfigured by additional buttresses to prop up its falling walls. Most of these have been removed or repaired, and the walls themselves thoroughly and skilfully restored to soundness by renewing the whole of the exterior ashlar, and pointing the interior, resetting it when required. This process has necessarily destroyed all appearance of antiquity in the exterior of the choir and Lady-chapel; but it must be remembered that all the decorative features of the original had vanished long since, and given place to the mean and uninteresting botchings of the sixteenth and seventeenth centuries; and that we have now a reproduction of its original aspect, as far as that can be determined.”—Archit. Hist. of Worcester Cathedral, p. 123.

[64]These relics of the Norman nave have been carefully pointed out by Professor Willis,Arch. Hist. of Worcester Cathedral, p. 93.

[65]Willis.

[66]See Arch. Hist. of Worcester Cathedral, p. 112.

[67]Willis, p. 110.

[68]Willis, p. 94.

[69]M. H. Bloxam.

[70]Willis.

[71]Willis, p. 97. The white oolite was obtained from Bredon Hill at Bath; the green stone from Higley on the Severn.

[72]That of St. Thomas de Cantilupe at Hereford—translated 1287; and of King Edward II. at Gloucester,circa1330.

[73]Willis, p. 100.

[74]Willis, p. 102.

[75]Id., 103.

[76]Willis.

[77]“Et his ita gestis, sciscitatus est ab eo Abbas de Croestuna si ipsum mori contingeret, ubi vellet eligere sepulturam. Cui Rex respondens, dixit, Deo et Sancto Wlstano corpus et animam meam commendo. Qui postea in nocte quae diem sancti Lucæ Evangelistæ proxime sequuta est, ex hac vita migravit. Cujus corpus regio schemate ornatum ad Wigorniam delatum est; et in ecclesia Cathedrali ab Episcopo loci honorifice tumulatum.”—Matt. Paris, p. 288.

[78]Leland (Itin.) thus notices the tomb:—“In presbyterio, Johannes Rex, cujus sepulchrum Alchirch, sacrista, nuper renovavit.” The time at which Alchirch was sacristan has not been ascertained, but it cannot have been long before Leland’s visit.

[79]M. H. Bloxam, “On the Sepulchral Remains and Monuments in Worcester Cathedral,” read before the Archæological Institute at Worcester, in 1862. (Gent. Mag., Oct., 1862.)

[80]Bloxam.

[81]Id.

[82]M. H. Bloxam.

[83]Id., Gent. Mag., Oct., 1862.

[84]Willis, p. 106.

[85]Bloxam.

[86]Bloxam.

[87]Id.

[88]Bloxam.

[89]Id.

[90]Gent. Mag., Sept. 1862. “It was said to be for the purpose of the monks conferring with each other; but he had seen such openings in places where no such construction could be put upon them.”

[91]Willis, p. 90.

[92]An account of this synod, drawn up by Wulfstan himself, is printed in theAnglia Sacra. The Dean of Chichester thus translates the commencement:—“I, Wulfstan, by the grace of God Bishop of Worcester, determined to hold a synod in the Minster of St. Mary’s, in the crypt of the church, which I built from the foundations, and by the mercy of God afterwards consecrated. This synod was held in the year of our Lord 1092, the fifteenth indiction. There were assembled all the wisest men invited from the three shires in our diocese, Worcester, Gloucester, and Warwick; because that I, being full of days, sensible of my bodily weakness, and perceiving the end of my life approaching, was desirous of disposing canonically the ecclesiastical affairs committed to our charge, and by their wise concert, of correcting and amending whatever required amendment.”

[93]See Mr. Albert Way’s paper on “The Tradition of Flaying Inflicted in Punishment of Sacrilege,” Archæological Journal, vol. v. The Worcester doors are said to have been fixed originally in the west entrance, and to have been removed thence by Bishop Wakefield. The Dean of Chichester (Life of Wulfstan, p. 7,) remarks that the west side of the cathedral, fronting the Severn, was that from which a Danish attack might naturally be expected; and suggests that the doors are as old as the eleventh century, when the citizens of Worcester, like other Englishmen, resisted the imposition of the Danegelt, and killed (May, 1041) Feadu and Thurstan, the huscarls of Hardicanute, who had been sent to Worcester to collect it. Their skins may have been stretched on the church doors. In the following November a Danish army plundered the town and ruined the cathedral, from which the monks had fled. The sight of the skins, it is suggested, may have been the especial cause of this latter act of vengeance.

[94]Report of Professor Willis’s Lecture in Gent. Mag., Sept. 1862.

[95]J. H. Parker, Gent. Mag., Oct. 1862. Professor Willis considered the hall to be “in so ruinous a state that the expense of restoring it would have been greater than justifiable on such an object (especially as there would have been no use for it when done), and the Dean and Chapter had to keep up and maintain the cathedral in a state worthy of its original purpose.”—Gent. Mag., Sept. 1862.

[96]Rev. C. H. Hartshorne.

[97]See Kemble, Sax. in England, i. p. 300; and Exeter Cathedral, Pt. II.

[98]Bede, Hist. Eccles., 1. iv. c. 23.

[99]Archbishop Theodore died in 690. The see of Canterbury remained vacant for two years after his death.

[100]Bedeut sup.

[101]Raine’s Lives of the Archbishops of York, p. 123.

[102]Lingard’s Anglo-Saxon Church, ii. 294, quoted and accepted by Kemble.

[103]Lingard, ut sup. On the whole question of the dispute between the secular and regular clergy, see the excellent chapter on “The Clergy and Monks” in Kemble’s “Saxons in England,” vol. ii.

[104]Dr. Hook, Life and Times of Wulfstan; Archæological Journal, vol. xx.

[105]Raine’s Archbishops of York, p. 150.

[106]“Qui non ita hebes in literis ut putabatur, cætera sciebat, præter fabulas poetarum, et tortiles syllogismos dialecticorum, quæ nec nosset, nec nosse dignaretur.”—W. Malmes.,De Gest. Pontif., l. iv.

[107]“Nusquam enim in villis suis aulas, nusquam triclinia fecit. Nimirum qui non solum in istis forensibus, sed etiam in Ecclesiis operosâ gravaretur architecturâ. Magis enim deputabat talia humanæ pompæ et jactantiæ quam divinæ voluntati et gratiæ.”—W. Malmes.,Vita S. Wulfstan., l. iii. cap. 10.

[108]“Stabat ipse in cæmiterio tacitus, et subinde congemiscens. Scaturibat quippe in animo ejus cogitatio; quæ ingentem imbrem lacrimarum ferens, tandem erupit. ‘Nos, inquit, miseri Sanctorum destruimus opera, pompatice putantes nos facere meliora. Quanto præstantior nobis S. Oswaldus qui hanc fecit Ecclesiam? Quot sancti viri religiosi in eâ Deo servierunt?’ Et licet astantes referrent non debere illum tristari, sed potius lætari, quem Deus ad hanc servâsset gratiam ut sic videret magnificari Ecclesiam, in lacrimarum proposito tenax fuit. Nec desunt qui dicant prædixisse illum Ecclesiæ novæ incendium, quo subsequentibus conflagrata est annis. Sed non placuit pro vero præsumere, quod discrepat. Tunc autem et novam Ecclesiam perfecit; nec facile invenias ornamentum, quod eam non decoraverit. Ita erat in singulis mirabilis, et in omnibus singularis. Quocirca ut magnificentiæ nihil deesset, lxxii. marcas argenti scrinio innexuit; in quo beatissimi Oswaldi prædecessoris sui exuvias, simulque multorum Sanctorum locavit.”—W. Malmes.,Vita S. Wulfstan., l. iii. cap. 10.

[109]Sax. Chron., ad ann. 1088.

[110]“1201. Miracula de S. Wlstano incæperunt xiv. Kal. Februarii; quæ per totum annum et amplius adeo crebrescebant, ut nunc xv. nunc xvi. uno die curarentur ab omnibus languoribus.”—Annales Eccles. Wigorniensis. Anglia Sac., i. 479.

[111]Annales Eccles. Wigorn., ad ann. 1283. “Rex Edwardus subjugata totaliter Wallia, venit Wigorniam gratia visitandi S. Wlstanum, erga quem amorem habuit specialem.”

[112]Malmes., De Gest. Pontif., lib. iv.

[113]Ibid.

[114]Annales Eccles. Wigorn., ad ann. 1198.

[115]Id., ad ann. 1199.

[116]Milman.

[117]Wharton’s note to Annales Eccles. Wigorn., s. a. 1268; Anglia Sacra, i. p. 497:—“Tumulum namque ejus magna cum religione Pontificii die 19 Januarii, quæ S. Wlstano sacra est,hodienumvisitare solent, Wlstani esse perperam credentes.” The Anglia Sacra was published in 1691.

[118]Walsingham.

[119]Worthies—Gloucestershire.

[120]Hallam, Literary History, Pt.IV.chap. ii.

Back to Index Next