Produced by Jonathan Ingram, Victoria Woosley and the Online
Distributed Proofreading Team.





[Illustration: CHICHESTER CATHEDRAL FROM THE SOUTH.]




           THE CATHEDRAL CHURCH OF CHICHESTER


A SHORT HISTORY & DESCRIPTION OF ITS FABRIC WITH AN ACCOUNT OF THE
                     DIOCESE AND SEE


                   HUBERT C. CORLETTE

                       A.R.I.B.A.


                WITH XLV ILLUSTRATIONS



            LONDON GEORGE BELL & SONS 1901




PREFACE.

All the facts of the following history were supplied to me by many
authorities. To a number of these, references are given in the text.
But I wish to acknowledge how much I owe to the very careful and
original research provided by Professor Willis, in his "Architectural
History of the Cathedral"; by Precentor Walcott, in his "Early
Statutes" of Chichester; and Dean Stephen, in his "Diocesan History."
The footnotes, which refer to the latter work, indicate the pages in
the smaller edition. But the volume could never have been completed
without the great help given to me on many occassions by Prebendary
Bennett. His deep and intimate knowledge of the cathedral structure
and its history was always at my disposal. It is to him, as well as to
Dr. Codrington and Mr. Gordon P.G. Hills, I am still further indebted
for much help in correcting the proofs and for many valuable
suggestions.

H.C.C.

C O N T E N T S.


CHAP. PAGE

  I. HISTORY OF THE CATHEDRAL............... 3

 II. THE EXTERIOR.......................... 51

III. THE INTERIOR.......................... 81

 IV. THE DIOCESE AND SEE: OTHER BUILDINGS IN THE CITY ... 101


LIST OF ILLUSTRATIONS.

Chichester Cathedral from the South.... _Frontispiece_
Arms of the See........................ _Title_
Longitudinal Section, about 1815........................ 2
Chichester Cathedral from the East...................... 3
The West Front, about 1836.............................. 7
View through the South Triforium of the Nave............ 9
The Clerestory Passage, Nave, South Side............... 11
Historical Section from Willis......................... 13
The Clerestory, North Side of Nave..................... 14
Pier-Capitals in the Retro-Choir....................... 16
Transverse Sections from Willis........................ 18
The Cathedral from the South-East, about 1836.......... 25
The South Transept, about 1836......................... 27
The Bell Tower as seen from West Street................ 31
Decoration formerly on the Choir Vault................. 33
Chichester Cathedral, about 1650....................... 39
The Nave, about 1836................................... 44
The Retro-Choir and Reredos, about 1836................ 45
The Cathedral from the South-West...................... 50
The North-East Angle of the South-West Tower........... 52
Wall Arcade in the West Porch.......................... 54
The South Doorway...................................... 60
The Cloister from the South-East....................... 61
The East walk of the Cloister.......................... 63
The Choir and Central Tower from the South-East........ 67
Windows of the Lady-Chapel, South Side................. 70
The Cathedral from the North-East...................... 74
The Detached Bell-Tower................................ 77
The Nave, looking West................................. 80
The Nave, looking East................................. 82
The South Aisle, from the Nave......................... 84
The Sacristy........................................... 87
The Altar and Reredos.................................. 89
The Triforium in the Choir............................. 91
Decoration on the Vault of the Lady-Chapel............. 92
The Presbytery, or Retro-Choir, looking North-East..... 93
The Lady-Chapel........................................ 95
The North Choir-Aisle.................................. 97
The Library............................................ 98
The Town Cross......................................... 100
Sculptured Panels in the South Choir-Aisle............. 105
Tomb Assigned to Bishop Richard of Wych................ 113
S. Clement's Chapel, and Tomb of Bishop Durnford....... 121
Painted Decoration formerly on the Choir Vault......... 125
PLAN of the Cathedral......................... _At End_



[Illustration: LONGITUDINAL SECTION ABOUT 1815, SHOWING THE ARUNDEL
SCREEN AND THE POSITION OF THE REREDOS. From Dallaway's "West Sussex."
(Scale 75 feet to 1 in.)]

[Illustration: CHICHESTER CATHEDRAL FROM THE EAST. _Photochrome Co.,
Ltd., Photo.]




CHICHESTER CATHEDRAL.




CHAPTER I.

THE HISTORY OF THE CATHEDRAL.


Any attempt to write the history of a cathedral requires that the
subject shall be approached with two leading ideas in view. One of
these has reference to the history of a Church; the other to the story
of a building. The two aspects are clearly to be distinguished, but
their mutual relation may be better appreciated when we realise how
intimately they are bound together.

Ecclesiastical history, or "ecclesiology," and architectural history,
or "archaeology," do not exist apart; for the needs of Christian
liturgy indicated what arrangement was required in those buildings
that were peculiarly dedicated to the use of the Church; hence we
have, in the mere building itself, to consider the condition of
ecclesiastical and architectural growth displayed by its character
during each stage of its development, and this development, this
character, is to be discovered as well in the plan and structure of
the fabric, with its decorative details, as in the record that
documents and traditions have preserved. But we need to remember that
one see, one building, represents a link in one long continuing chain,
and in doing this we naturally look back as well as forward to observe
the relation of either to the past and to the present. Such an
attitude as this requires that we refer to that period when the
subject of this chapter was not yet part of the native soil of Sussex,
and in doing this we find that so early as the eighth century the town
of Chichester was even then a known centre of civil, though apparently
not ecclesiastical, activity; for it is not until about the middle of
the tenth century that some uncertain documentary evidence refers to
"Bishop Brethelm and the brethren dwelling at Chichester." [1] It may
be that Brethelm was a bishop in, though not of, Chichester, who dwelt
and worked among the south Saxons living in and about the city, for
the history of the diocese and see will show that probably there was
no episcopate established under that name until a little more than one
hundred years later.

  [1] Walcott, "Early Statutes," p. 12.

Ceadwalla's foundation of the see at Selsea dated from about the end
of the seventh century; but we know nothing about any cathedral church
at that place during the following three hundred and fifty years. If,
however, there was a bishop in charge of the missionary priests,
deacons, and laymen who lived there together, there must necessarily
have been a "cathedra" in the church they used.

When Stigand came from Selsea to establish his see in Chichester he
found the city already furnished with a minster dedicated to S. Peter.
He had effected this transfer because the Council of London had
decided in 1075 that all the then village sees should be removed to
towns; and as there is no evidence of any attempt to provide a new
cathedral until about the year 1088, the existing minster must have
been appropriated for the see. It has been supposed that Stigand may
have devised some scheme for building a new church, and even that he
saw it carried out so far as to provide the foundations on which to
execute this idea. But there appears to be no authority which warrants
the assumption that he did even so much as this, for history says
nothing about such an early beginning of the new operations, tradition
asserts no more, and speculation suggests probabilities merely. We are
obliged, therefore, to be satisfied with the fact that the work begun
about 1088 was consecrated by Bishop Ralph de Luffa, in 1108, and it
is possible even now to see the stone which commemorates that ceremony
embedded in the walling of the present church. Unfortunately no more
than about six years had passed since this, the first, dedication,
when a fire occurred which burnt part of the fabric. Ralph was still
living, and began at once to repair the damage that had been done; and
the king (Henry I.) gave him much help by encouraging his endeavour.
What, then, had been accomplished during the twenty years between 1088
and 1108?

In 1075 Stigand transferred the see. About thirteen years later the
new cathedral building appears to have been begun under Ralph, and in
another twenty years so much had been finished as would allow him to
see it dedicated. It is probable that before this ceremony was
performed a considerable portion of the eastern section of the work
was finished; for in accordance with a general custom with the
mediæval church builders, this part would have been that first begun.
But how much of it was ready for use? The sanctuary and presbytery, or
choir, with its necessary structural appendages, no doubt first
appeared. It may be that no more than this was ready when the
dedication took place. But it is not possible to say with any
authority what actually was finished. Nevertheless, the character of
the building itself explains the course in which the structure was
developed. After the first fire, in 1114, the work steadily continued,
and it is possible that before that mishap occurred, certain other
parts had been begun, if not finished. The remains of the original
nave still present distinct evidence to show that it was, with the
aisles, built in two sections; and these, although they appear at
first to be alike, prove upon closer examination that the four bays
towards the west are of a later date than those other four eastward.
Now it is not essential that we should know exactly how much of the
building was finished by a certain year, or what stage towards
completion had been reached at any particular time; it is sufficient
at present that we should be able to indicate the general trend of the
operations,--and this would suggest the conclusion that, having
prepared so much as was necessary about the chancel, the builders went
on busily, after the dedication, to deal with the transept and the
nave. Then followed those four early bays of the nave which are
nearest to the east.

It is quite safe to assume upon various grounds that the work had been
carried on successfully up to this stage early in the twelfth century;
but neither the documentary evidence available, nor the condition of
the fabric, enables us to venture more than this surmise concerning
its condition at that time.

Between 1114 and the time of the second and serious fire in 1187, the
remainder of the whole scheme planned a hundred years before was
apparently finished.

The first fire had excited some public interest in the great
enterprise at Chichester, and from this an impetus was derived which
helped towards its execution, after the small damage caused by the
fire had been quickly repaired, for by about the year 1150 the four
western bays of the nave, with its aisles, must have been complete. It
should be understood that the fire in 1114 did not lead to any change
in the character of the church such as was occasioned by that other
fire which shall be considered presently; but the work had quietly
continued, so that the aisles of the nave were vaulted by about
1170-1180, the lady-chapel was completed, and in 1184 all was ready
for the second ceremony of consecration which then took place. It has
been assumed that this act implies that the whole of the original
scheme had been executed. Nevertheless, it must be acknowledged that
again there are but few authentic records to show in what manner the
work had been carried on, nor are there many indications of the way in
which the necessary materials and money were provided to help it
forward. But it is interesting to notice that in 1147 William, Earl of
Arundel, gave to the see that quarter of the city in which stood the
palace of the bishops, the residences of the canons, and the cathedral
church. This grant of land confirmed the see in its possession of all
that part of the city now within the bounds of the close.

[Illustration: THE WEST FRONT, ABOUT 1836.  _from Winkles's Cathedrals_.]

What, then, was the plan of that church which was designed to suit
the requirements set down by Bishop Ralph Luffa? The ground-plan at
the end of the volume shows the building as it now remains, after many
alterations have been made in the original scheme; but the arrangement
is still, in its main features, much the same as was at first devised.
The usual plan was adopted, and this was the provision of a nave and
chancel having a transept between them so as to make the form of a
cross. The nave had aisles along its whole length. These were extended
on both sides eastward of the transept, and continued as an ambulatory
round a semicircular apse. The transept also had a small apsidal
chapel on the east side of both its north and south arms. At the point
of intersection between the transept and the nave the supports of the
central tower rose. Between this and the west end there were eight
arches in each of the arcades opening north and south from the nave
into the aisles. Beyond the crossing towards the east there were three
similar arches in the arcades which connected the apse with the large
piers of the central tower. These three bays, together with the apse,
enclosed the chancel; and this comprised the sanctuary, which was that
part within the apse itself, and also the presbytery, or choir of the
priests, which occupied the remaining space between the apse and the
arch into the transept beneath the tower. At a later date the
accommodation of the choir was increased by making it occupy part of
the space farther to the west. Possibly it projected into the nave. At
the west end of each of the aisles of the nave a tower was placed, and
between these two towers was the chief public entrance to the church.
From the subsequent history of the structure it would appear that the
two western towers had been built up and finished, so far, at least,
as was necessary to allow of the completion of the nave with its
aisles and roofs. The same may be concluded of the central tower.

This latter probably rose only just above the ridge of the roofs. To
carry it up so far would have been dictated to the builders by
structural reasons; for such a height would be required to help the
stability of the piers and arches below, since they had to resist a
variety of opposed thrusts. But even this tower, low as it no doubt
was, like others of the same date, did not survive the dedication more
than about twenty-six years. The whole building was covered with a
high-pitched wooden roof over the nave, transept, and chancel; and
beneath the outer roof there was a flat inner ceiling of wood formed
between the tie beams, similar to those now to be seen at Peterborough
and S. Albans. The north and south aisles of the nave were protected
by roofs which sloped up from their eaves against the wall that rose
above the nave arcades. Internally the ceiling to these was a simple
groined vault supported by transverse arches.

Immediately above the vault of the aisles was the gallery of the
triforium. This was lighted throughout by small external round-headed
windows, some of which may still be seen embedded in the walls. The
aisles and ambulatory of the chancel were treated by the same methods.
In the triforium gallery, above the transverse arches of the aisles,
were other semicircular arches. These served a double purpose: they
acted as supports to the timber framework of the aisle roofs, and also
as a means of buttressing the upper part of the nave walling in which
the clerestory windows were placed. Such other buttresses as there had
been were broad and flat, with but little projection from the surface
of the wall. The windows throughout the building up to about the end
of the twelfth century were small in comparison with some of those
which were inserted at various times afterwards.

[Illustration: VIEW THROUGH THE SOUTH TRIFORIUM OF THE NAVE FROM THE
SOUTH-WEST TOWER. _From a photograph by Mr. F. Bund_.]

It has been remarked that the termination of the early chancel towards
the east was an apse, and that round this was carried the north and
south choir aisles in the form of a continuous ambulatory. From this
enclosing aisle--a semi-circle itself in form--three chapels were
projected, each with a semicircular apsidal termination. The central
one of the three was the lady-chapel. This consisted then of the three
western bays only of the present chapel. The lady-chapel was added
about eighty years after the early part of the nave had been built,
and has since been much altered.

The presence of this grouping of features is indicative of that
influence which Continental architecture had exercised upon English
art, and now that Norman government had been established that
influence became more directly French. But though so strongly affected
by this means, Anglo-Saxon character was always evident in work which
was a native expression of the thought and personality of those by
whom it was executed.

Thus we see that the plan which Ralph approved for the new church that
was to be built for him at Chichester was devised according to
accepted traditional arrangement. He adopted no new idea when he
decided what general form the cathedral should follow. The disposition
of the several parts differed in no wise from that which had been
followed during centuries before. The requirements of ritual had
decided long since what were those essential features of planning to
be insisted upon, for the pattern in germ was shown in the arrangement
of the Mosaic Tabernacle. In the earliest plans the same distribution
of parts was observed, though at a later date the transept was
introduced--an idea which no doubt had its origin in some practical
necessity, and was afterwards retained as being representative of an
ecclesiastical symbol.

Of the practical and artistic character of the architectural details
we shall see more in examining the exterior and the interior of the
church. These will lead us, of necessity, to deal more with
archaeology in its relation to the history of architecture rather than
of this particular church as a building used for ecclesiastical
purposes.

After the ceremony of 1184 building operations were continued, but the
records available do not tell about anything of much interest for the
next two or three years. Then in 1186-1187 a catastrophe occurred--the
cathedral was again burnt. But this time the effects of the fire were
much more disastrous than had been the case in 1114. So extensive was
the destruction that the entire roofing, as well as the internal flat
ceiling, was gone; and though we can glean no certain knowledge from
documentary evidence, it appears probable that the eastern section of
the building suffered more than any other, for whatever other causes
may have aided in the wreck of this part--a weakness in the masonry,
an insufficiency in the supports or abutments--the fall of such heavy
timbers as those which must have formed the outer roof and inner
ceiling of the chancel would in itself be sufficient to wreck the
remainder.

Whether the change in plan that now followed was really necessary
because of the damage that had been done, or whether the fire provided
a welcome opportunity by which new features might be introduced, we
are not able to discover. It is sufficient that the chance was not
lost, for in the eastern ambulatory of the cathedral church at
Chichester is to be seen, as a result, one of the most truly beautiful
examples of mediæval design that English architecture now possesses.

[Illustration: THE CLERESTORY PASSAGE, NAVE, SOUTH SIDE. _From a
photograph by Mr. F. Bond_.]

In the nave some parts of the old limestone walls had been injured by
the fall of the roofs; they were also seriously damaged by the beams
that had been laid upon them, for these, after their fall, would
continue to burn as they rested against those portions of walling
which remained standing. It was no doubt by some such cause as this
that the early clerestory was disfigured and partly destroyed. In
either case, the old clerestory arcade of the twelfth century no
longer remained as it was before; and though there were already stone
vaults to the aisles of the nave before the fire occurred, yet they
also disappeared and made way for newer ones. The outer roof over the
triforium evidently shared the fate of the other coverings; and the
arched abutment in the triforium, which acted as a support to this
roof and the walling below the clerestory, now disappeared. It may be
that this arching was not completely destroyed by the fire alone; no
doubt some that remained was intentionally removed to prepare the way
for the new work.

The same bishop who had witnessed the completion of the earlier
operations began with much enterprise to see about the reconstruction,
but not the restoration, of what had been destroyed. Some portions
were repaired, others rebuilt; but the greater part of the work now
undertaken involved an entire change in the character of some of the
principal features of the earlier scheme. In fact, this incident in
the history of our subject gave "occasion to one of the most curious
and interesting examples of the methods employed by the mediæval
architects in the repairs of their buildings." [2]

  [2] Willis, "Chichester Cathedral," p. 6.

Having decided that they would, if possible, avoid all future risk of
a similar catastrophe, a system of vaulting was adopted as the best
solution of the problem,--this involved necessarily a remodelling of
the interior; and so, neglecting the Isle of Wight limestone and the
Sussex sandstone, which at first had been the material used for the
walling, the masons were directed to use stone of finer texture and
smaller grain. It has been thought by some that this material was
brought from Caen in Normandy. The same stone was used to re-face
parts of the nave piers. And in addition Purbeck marble was selected
instead of that which was to be found in Sussex.

It is interesting to remember that the new choir of Canterbury had
only been finished about three years before the fire occurred at
Chichester. This work had been begun by William of Sens and finished
by William the Englishman; and though it was so large an undertaking,
it appears to have been commenced and completed between the years 1174
and 1184. This would very naturally exert some influence upon the
building projects of a neighbouring see. Whether any of the actual
craftsmen from Canterbury worked again at Chichester or not we cannot
tell, but it is evident that the Kentish experience was of great help
to Sussex in the new venture. When it had been decided how they should
operate, it was natural that the covering of the building must be the
first provision. This involved the repair of the shattered clerestory,
and then they were free to proceed in other directions. Further than
this we have no means of learning what method was followed in carrying
on the new work; but it continued, so that in about twelve years the
building was dedicated again.

There is nothing now to indicate that the provision of a vault had
been intended by the original builders of these walls. This deficiency
was met by the insertion of vaulting shafts and the addition of
external buttressing; for as the pressure of the flat wooden roof was
exerted for the most part vertically upon its supports, that of the
vault would be a strong lateral thrust as well as vertical pressure,
and these were to be provided for. We shall see presently that all the
real beauties of this most interesting work were the outcome both of
the needs of practical structure and the requirements of ritual and a
ceremonial expression of the liturgy.

[Illustration: HISTORICAL SECTION FROM WILLIS'S ARCHITECTURAL HISTORY.
Original Elevation. Present Elevation. Two Bays of Retro-choir. (Scale
29'2 feet to 1 in.)]

[Illustration: THE CLERESTORY, NORTH SIDE OF NAVE. _From a photograph
by Mr. Francis Bond_. ]

It is not possible for us to discover exactly when the several parts
of the work undertaken after the fire of 1186-1187 were begun, nor
when they were finished. Of dates we have little knowledge, except
that of the dedication in 1199, the fall of two towers in 1210, and
the various indications of architectural activity at certain periods
given by the several dates mentioned in connection with donations,
bequests, and royal sanctions in the episcopal statutes and other
documents. These nearly all show that the time of greatest activity
was after 1186 and before 1250. If such a feat as has been mentioned
was performed at Canterbury between 1174 and 1184, was it not possible
also at Chichester? Then it becomes necessary to assume that the
structural alterations were continuing during the whole of the period
suggested; and this was so. Enough work had been done by 1199 to allow
of another dedication of the building. Seffrid II. had been bishop
from 1180-1204, and the register of Bishop William Rede, written one
hundred and sixty years later, explicitly states that Seffrid
"re-edified the Church of Chichester." This is a comprehensive
statement, but it might easily include at least the greater part of
the vaulting with some form of external roof. Such a change as this
involved the alteration of the nave and aisle piers, so that the
slight vaulting shafts of finer stone might be inserted in the older
masonry. The lower part of each of the piers of the nave arcade on the
side towards the centre of the church was re-faced with the same
material, and smaller shafts of Purbeck marble were introduced upon
the piers, replacing probably the heavy ones of an earlier date. These
shafts formed the support to a more delicate moulded member, which was
now substituted for the original and very simple outer order of the
original arch. A string-course of Purbeck marble was inserted as a
line of separation between the nave arcade and the triforium, and also
between the triforium and clerestory. The triforium itself remained as
it had been before 1186; but the clerestory was dressed again, so that
it obtained quite a new character. It was re-faced with the
fine-grained stone, and the slight shafts which supported the
clerestory arcades were provided with Purbeck capitals and bases. This
arcading itself was also changed from its earlier type. The central
arch was still made round in form, but those on either side of it were
each pointed, and all were more finely moulded than before. Above this
point rises the new stone vault, which is carried upon a framework of
strong transverse and diagonal ribs. Between these the shell, or
filling, which formed the surface of the vault, is of chalk, roughly
cut and irregularly laid; above this was placed a thick coat of
concrete.

Some flying-buttresses were built now in order to meet the thrust
exerted by the new arched vault of the nave. These were constructed in
two series, one being concealed under the sloping roof over the
triforium and acting in place of the earlier round-arched abutment.
Its supports were provided at the points where the transverse and
diagonal arches of the nave vault began to spring away from the
vertical plane of the walls. The other series was the immediate
counter-poise to any direct thrust exerted by the arching of the vault
against the upper section of the same walls. There was, in fact, a
large buttress added to support these nave walls at that point from
which each set of vault-carrying ribs began to rise. This buttress,
though apparently sub-divided, was one thing, but of composite
structure. It was pierced first by the aisle, next by the triforium,
and then again above the roof of the triforium. It will be seen that
most of these alterations were the direct result of the introduction
of a stone vault. But the almost entire renewal of the eastern part
of the cathedral was made possible by the destruction and total
removal of the apsidal terminations of the earlier work. It has been
suggested that the fire may have so badly damaged this portion as to
allow no alternative but rebuilding. What may have been the actual
cause of its removal it is impossible for us now to know; but the
substitute is quite a perfect piece of work of its kind. This
ambulatory, or presbytery, as it is commonly misnamed, was nearly all
newly built from the foundations during the first half of the
thirteenth century. The continuation of the arcade, the triforium, the
clerestory, and the vault, the vaulting of the aisles and the chapels
forming their terminations eastwards,--all this, with the new arch at
the entrance to the earlier lady-chapel, was work of the same date.

[Illustration: PIER-CAPITALS IN THE RETRO-CHOIR. _From a photograph by
S.B. Bolas & Co_.]

Some new buttressing had been added to the south-west tower when the
upper part of the tower itself was rebuilt; but the larger works were
the addition of a vaulted sacristy in the corner between the west side
of the south end of the transept and the nave. On the opposite side of
the same part of the transept a square-ended chapel with a vestry
attached was added in place of the original shallow apsidal chapel.
The original chapel on the east side of the north end of the transept
was also removed to make way for another and much larger one. This is
now used as the cathedral library.

The scheme planned after the second fire having been completed by
about the middle of the thirteenth century, little further work was
undertaken in comparison with that then finished; but before 1250 the
wall of the south aisle of the nave was pierced in four bays, and two
more chapels were added. Then, on the north of the nave, the outer
wall of the aisle was cut through in the second bay, going west from
the transept, and a small chapel was built. The other chapels west of
this one were added during the latter half of the century. In each
case the deeply projecting buttresses which had been introduced
against the earlier walls after the second fire were used, where they
were available, to form parts of the masonry of these new chapels, and
were therefore not disturbed unnecessarily. The old walls having been
altered, and the earlier buttresses being changed in their nature, it
became necessary to carry the original thrust from the nave still
farther out from its source in order to find for it some satisfactory
abutment, and in doing this there was that new force, introduced by
the vaulting of these added chapels, to be reckoned with in addition.
Consequently, to the earlier buttressing more was added. The exact
nature and the approximate date of this work are shown by Professor
Willis in the sections and plan given in his monograph on the
cathedral. The addition to each buttress amounted to an elongation of
it as a pierced wing wall which provided lateral support. Upon the end
of it a greater mass of masonry was introduced to serve as a weight
for steadying the structural device; and this necessary structural
idea was the means of introducing another architectural feature--the
pinnacle. Between the pinnacles of these buttresses rose the gabled
ends of each of the chapels. Professor Willis suggests that a great
part of the work done after the fire of 1186-1187 was completed by the
time of the dedication ceremony in 1199, and he is no doubt a safe
authority to follow. But the nature of many architectural features
tends very strongly to confirm the idea that much of the work in the
ambulatory eastward of the sanctuary had been delayed. It may have
been that the activity which prevailed during the early half of the
thirteenth century was caused by the desire to see this portion of the
church completed; and the energy with which the plea for new interest
and further funds was urged at this time would no doubt be indicative
of a supervening lethargy following on the great effort necessary for
the completion of so much in these few years. But it should be
remembered that these great works of mediæval art were none of them
built in a day; they represented the accumulation of even centuries of
developing thought and continually improving skill. Therefore must we
realise that after this fire had occurred in 1186-1187 not more than
eleven or twelve years elapsed before the building was again in use
after the consecration in 1199.

_Note_.--For remarks on Chichester Cathedral, see _Archaeologia_,
xvii., pp. 22-28: "Observations on the Origin of Gothic Architecture."
By G. Saunders, 1814.

[Illustration: TRANSVERSE SECTIONS FROM WILLIS'S ARCHITECTURAL
HISTORY. North Aisle, original. (Scale 27 ½ feet to 1 in.) South
Aisle, as now existing.]

This process of reconstruction shows that the mediæval builders did
not restore in duplication of what had been lost. Where their work was
destroyed they built anew and improved upon what had gone.

We need not suppose that this repair, renewal, and addition had all
been completed when in 1199 Bishop Seffrid II. and six other bishops
again consecrated the church. Doubtless only so much had been done as
was necessary to enable the priests to officiate at an altar provided
for the purpose and the congregation to assemble within the walls; for
the work of building continued with a somewhat persistent
manifestation of energy throughout the whole of the thirteenth
century. Of this activity and enterprise there are many evidences in
proof, both documentary and structural. The documentary evidence
indicating the activity which prevailed after this date is sufficient
to show at least that much was being done; but it does not often
indicate in precise terms what is that particular portion of the
building to which it primarily refers. Early in the thirteenth
century (1207) the king gave Bishop Simon de Welles (1204-1207) his
written permission to bring marble from Purbeck for the repair of his
church at Chichester. He attached to this act of favour certain
conditions which were to prevent any disposal of the material for
other purposes.

John had also two years before given Bakechild Church to the
"newly-dedicated" cathedral. Then Bishop Neville, or Ralph II.
(1224-1244), at his death in 1244, "Dedit cxxx. marcas ad fabricam
Ecclesiae et capellam suam integram cum multis ornamentis." Walcott
adds that "his executors, besides releasing a debt of £60 due to him
and spent on the bell tower, gave £140 to the fabric of the Church,
receiving some benefit in return." This cannot be interpreted as
referring to the isolated tower standing apart to the north of the
west front; for, as we shall see, this was not erected until at least
one hundred and fifty years later. In 1232 "the dean and chapter gave
of their substance. During five years they devoted to the glory and
beauty of the House of the Lord a twentieth part of the income of
every dignity and prebend"; [3] and then, again, ten years after the
period covered by this act of the chapter the bishops of some other
sees granted indulgences on behalf of the fabric of the church at
Chichester. Bishop Richard of Wych (1245-1253) "Dedit ad opus
Ecclesiae Circestrensis ecclesias de Stoghton et Alceston, et jus
patronatûs ecclesiae de Mundlesham, et pensionem xl. s. in eadem." [4]
To this he added a bequest of £40. He had revived in 1249 a statute of
his predecessor, Simon de Welles, and extended "the capitular
contribution to half the revenues of every prebend, whilst one moiety
of a prebend vacant by death went to the fabric and the rest to the
use of the canons." Other means were used to provide funds to continue
the work.

  [3] Walcott, "Early Statutes," p. 15.
  [4] Walcott, p. 15.

But apart from these many indications of activity, the fabric as it
stands to-day speaks very clearly of the amount of building that went
on between 1200 and 1300. But it was not till 1288-1305 that Bishop
Gilbert de S. Leophardo had added the two new bays of the lady-chapel
eastward.

The fire was the direct cause of most of the work that was done. There
was another, however; for eleven years after the re-dedication, two
of the towers fell. It has been supposed by some that these must have
been the early towers of the west front, both of which still preserve
indications of having been begun during the twelfth century as part of
the original building scheme. It is probable, for reasons that will
appear later, that the two towers of the west front did not collapse
at the time of the second fire, although it would seem from the
Chronicle of Dunstable that their stability may have been impaired in
some measure, since the sole cause for this fall of towers is given in
the words "impetu venti ceciderunt duae turres Cicestriae." [5] But if
these towers had been affected, what of the original central tower?
Its risk of receiving serious damage would be far greater. That no
more than the upper story of one of these can have fallen is evident
from the fact that the south-western tower presents for examination to
this day its original base, and the nature of the upper part of this
same tower shows that it was rebuilt anew daring the first half of the
thirteenth century. It was necessary that the two towers at the west
as well as the central tower should be finished up to a certain level,
for, placed as they were upon the plan, they became essential parts of
the structure, whose absence would diminish the strength of the whole;
hence any desire to maintain the fabric satisfactorily would require
that those of them which fell should receive the immediate attention
of the builders. In the case of the south-west tower we have already
seen what was done, and obviously it was one of the two towers that
had fallen. But what of the other of these? What suggestions remain to
show which it was? It is well known that a central tower had been
erected as part of the original plan, and also that a new upper part
was being added to this same tower about the middle of the thirteenth
century. This new portion eventually rose above the roofs to the level
of the top of the square parapet, about the base of the octagonal
spire, the spire being a still later addition. Now the heightening of
this tower--perhaps with already the idea of a future spire in
view--would raise many questions. Experience would already have taught
the builders that the early central towers of many other churches were
incapable of carrying their own weight. This being so, much less
would it do to suppose that it could bear the addition of new weight
upon the old piers; for though to all appearance sound, the cores were
of rough rubble work, not solidly bedded and not properly bonded with
the ashlar casing. So the question arises, did they remove the whole
or part of the old central tower and piers, or were they saved this
trouble by the structure having shared the fate of many others like
itself, which fell, and so made way for new work? Another tower had
fallen besides the one to which attention has already been drawn; and
as there appears to be nothing to show that this other was the
north-west tower, we must see what evidence there is concerning the
central tower. That it was added to we already know. But documentary
as well as structural evidence comes to our aid. The first is supplied
by the records of Bishop Neville's episcopate; the next by the
researches of modern archaeology. Professor Willis has shown in his
remarks upon the structure of the piers at the time of the collapse of
the mediæval tower and spire in 1861, that these had not been rebuilt
at a date later than the twelfth century. But Mr. Sharpe [6], writing
to Professor Willis seven years before the occurrence, indicates his
discovery--from a close examination of the structure then
existing--that before the upper part of the central tower was rebuilt
in the thirteenth century the earlier arches at the crossing which
were to support it had been taken down, and probably a large part of
the piers carrying them. And that, though the twelfth-century
voussoirs were re-used others of a fine grained stone were inserted
among them to strengthen the arches, or as a substitute for some of
the rougher sandstones that could not be used again. By this means,
then, the original form and detail of the twelfth-century arches was
preserved, so that the drawings representing the measured studies of
the building, which were Sir Gilbert Scott's principal authority upon
which to base his restoration of this portion of the tower, were made
from work which had already been once rebuilt. But why was this part
of the church rebuilt, and by whom? Two alternative suggestions for
the reason have been offered.

  [5] Walcott, p. 15.
  [6] Author of "Architectural Parallels."

Evidently, if the upper part of the tower did not fall, it is
apparently certain that it was reconstructed, in order to carry the
additional weight of the larger tower. But in examining the
documentary evidence offered us, we find some further help. The
teaching of archaeology shows that the portion of this tower above the
main supporting arches and up to the bottom of the parapet was
executed between 1225 and 1325--that is, it was finished not very long
after the new part of the south-west tower was completed.

The cathedral statutes show that between the years 1244-1247 Bishop
Ralph Neville was much concerned about a "stone tower" which he wished
to see completed. They tell us, too, that the same bishop had himself
expended one hundred and thirty marks upon the fabric, [7] and that his
executors, besides releasing a debt of £60 due to him and spent on the
bell-tower, gave £140 to the fabric of the church. Ralph died in 1244,
so it is concluded that the work in which he was so interested was
none other than the central or bell-tower of the cathedral, and that
the earlier tower, with its supporting arches, must have fallen, else
it is not likely that the work would have been rebuilt from below the
spring of these arches before the new superstructure could be added;
for we are obliged to take the customs of mediæval builders into
consideration in any attempt to sift the evidence concerning their
work--and they were before all things practical. The claims of
structure, the motives of common-sense, rather than abstract and
aesthetic ideals of beauty, were the prime causes at work in the
evolution of their great art. Here they found themselves faced by a
practical need--the rebuilding of a fallen tower. Its reconstruction
was necessary to the completeness and stability of the building; so
they put it up, applying new and increasing knowledge and skill in the
execution of the work. They did their best, and the result was
something not only strong and structural, but beautiful. But, as time
has shown, it would have been better had they been less respectful of
the valueless legacy bequeathed to them in the piers, though in
defence of their sagacity it must be admitted that what they deemed
sufficient for the purpose then in view was able to carry their own
tower for five hundred years in safety, and not only this, but, in
addition, a spire, the erection of which they may not have thought of
when the restoration was begun.

  [7] Walcott, p. 15.

There is another interesting fact which may be mentioned before
quitting this part of our inquiry. Professor Willis found that there
still existed in 1861 one of the old wooden trusses of the roof over
the west bay of the chancel. It was a specimen of mediæval carpentry
six hundred and fifty years old, and it had not, as he showed, been
unframed since the fire of 1186-1187. The timbers composing it had
been slightly charred by the flames, and some of the lead which
covered the burning roof had run in its melted condition into the
mortices of the framing. [8]

  [8] See Willis, p. x.: Introduction.

In the admirable plan and sections which Professor Willis prepared to
illustrate his work upon the history of the fabric it is possible to
see at once what work had been done during the different stages of
development. The work finished by the end of the thirteenth century
changed the earlier church of the eleventh and twelfth centuries in
its essential arrangements into the church we see to-day.

We have now briefly to review the changes produced in the plan of the
cathedral. There were those effected as an immediate consequence of
the fire, and others which were more the result of the continued
energy of the thirteenth-century builders. The most remarkable one was
that which converted the French chevet, or group of apses, into the
more familiar square, and characteristically English, eastern
termination. The apsidal chapels on the east side of each arm of the
transept had disappeared to make room for others of a different shape
and size. The other chapels at the east remained the same in number;
but towards the close of the thirteenth century the lady-chapel had
been lengthened, and the aisles of the choir, being continued
eastward, ended in small chapels to the north and south of the central
one. The other changes were those caused by the addition of chapels
off the south and north aisles of the nave. The addition of the south
and north porches, and the sacristy next to the south arm of the
transept, were the only other alterations, if we except the addition
of buttresses, which had been made in the original arrangement up to
the beginning of the fourteenth century.

[Illustration: THE CATHEDRAL FROM THE SOUTH-EAST, ABOUT 1836. _From
Winkles's Cathedral Churches_.]

Though the quest may not be followed here, it would be interesting to
try and trace the cause of this desire to add chapels to mediæval
buildings. It had during the thirteenth century already become a clear
indication of that gradual movement affecting the arrangement of
churches which originated in the introduction of new doctrinal ideas.
The particular set of ideas which caused such additions as these had
now become a part of the common property of popular thought,
imagination, and reverent superstition. The earlier designers and
builders had not been taught to consider these features essential to
the complete equipment of a church planned in accordance with
primitive usages; they were a simple example of the influence which
doctrine exercised upon the history of art and the scope of
archaeological inquiry.

The course of history that has been followed has led us through the
maze of some events which served to produce the cathedral that stands
among us now. The later centuries will not require as much attention,
since they afford but little material, comparatively, with which we
need delay; for the industry expended upon the fabric since this time
has produced little change in the general appearance of the building.
With the approach of the fourteenth century we meet a period when the
peculiarities of the work of the thirteenth century had become merged
in transitional forms, and from this application of ever-developing
ideas to accepted working principles came the well-known character
which English architecture displayed during that time. It was native
by parentage and birth; it represented the life which prevailed in the
ideas which were then the common currency. By it the ideals of thought
and imagination were expressed, until, later, they were represented in
other forms of art. At Chichester an early indication of the changed
treatment of older methods that was being developed experimentally is
shown by the portion which was added to the lady-chapel during the
episcopate of Gilbert de Sancto Leophardo. The architects and
master-builders devised for him the two new eastern bays complete,
together with the larger windows that were inserted in the walls of
that part of the chapel already built. Here again, as in the work set
in motion by his successor, the designers and builders made no attempt
to add these new portions in imitation of earlier ones. Then it was
Bishop Langton who, between 1305 and 1337, spent £340 "on a certain
wall and windows on the south side, which he constructed from the
ground upwards." [9] This work is principally to be seen in the great
south window of the transept, under which he provided for himself a
"founder's" tomb. In the gable above a rose window was inserted,
following the example of that earlier one in the east end of the
presbytery. The chapter-house above the treasury, or sacristy, was
also added when the new windows were inserted in the lower walls.
About the same time the doorway to the nave within the western porch
was constructed.

  [9] Bishop Reade's Register.

[Illustration: THE SOUTH TRANSEPT, ABOUT 1836. _From Winkle's Cathedral
Churches_.]

Walcott shows by his study of the early statutes of the cathedral that
"in 1359 the first fruits of the prebendal stalls were granted to the
fabric; and in 1391, one-twentieth of all their rents was allotted by
the dean and chapter to the works, which embraced works round the high
altar, for, in 1402, materials 'ad opus summi altaris,' were stored in
S. Faith's Chapel. A 'novum opus,' a term applied to some special
building, was also in progress." [10] These remarks are of interest,
since about the end of the fourteenth century a beautiful wooden
reredos was built across the east end of the sanctuary. It was placed
just west of the feretory of S. Richard. In many old prints its
character is represented, and Dallaway gives some dimensions of it in
the long section he shows of the church as it was before the reredos
was removed (see page 2). The feretory no doubt had a reredos at this
point, but what the type of this earlier arrangement may have been it
is impossible exactly to tell. But the work which took its place was
evidently beautiful, as the many remains still in existence prove to
those who may examine them. Walcott [11] gives some interesting details
concerning this work. From the representations, descriptions, and
remains of it, it may be gathered that the whole was much carved,
niched, and canopied, and decorated in colour; and there is a note
extant showing that Lambert Bernardi in the sixteenth century repaired
"the painted cloth of the crucifix over the high altar." [12] This
reredos had a gallery across the top of it, from which the candles on
a beam over the altar could be lighted and a watch kept over the
precious jewels in S. Richard's shrine. The whole screen was made of
oak, and those old sketches and drawings, or prints, of it still
preserved, help dimly to show what had been its character. An old
letter in the British Museum refers to it as having the finest "glory"
above the high altar "we have ever seen." But this so-called "glory"
was an eighteenth-century production. Much of the reredos is still
hidden away unused in the chamber over the present library of the
church, and since its first removal it has travelled as far as London
in search of a friendly purchaser. In the chapter on Chichester in
Winkles's "Cathedrals" a view in the "presbytery," dated 1836, [13]
shows the reredos still in its place where it remained till after the
fall of the spire. There are in existence two drawings of considerable
interest. [14] One of these shows the east end and the other the west
end of the choir as it was about the beginning of the last century (c.
1818); the other indicates what were the changes made after 1829, when
the altar was set back six feet farther eastward. The latter was taken
from a water-colour drawing supposed to have been made by Carter, an
architect of Winchester.

  [10] Walcott, p. 16.
  [11] "Early Statutes."
  [12] Walcott, p. 23, note _a_.
  [13] See page 45.
  [14] See drawings in vestry of cathedral.

Other minor works were added during the fourteenth century, but to few
of these can any exact dates be assigned. The parapets to the north
and south wall of the nave, the choir, and lady-chapel, and the
painted oak choir-stalls were some of those additions.

In the fourteenth century we meet many changes in the treatment of the
windows. They became larger; they were themselves very treasuries of
design, and this not only for the stonework of their tracery, but also
for the very beautiful glass with which they had been filled. Their
outer arches are more varied in shape, more rich in moulded detail,
and the entire character of the curves of the moulded forms had been
developed and made more delicate than the stronger and deeper-cut
types from which they were derived. Two causes had apparently urged
the builders to exert their capacities and apply their increasing
technical skill to compass the aims proposed to them.

The small windows, the use of which had so long prevailed, did not
admit sufficient light. In the more southern countries there was not
the same reason for the change; but where light was less strong, less
clear, less penetrating, it might not be spared. So though with their
glass they were beautiful in themselves, many of these windows gave
place to larger ones. But if the admission of more light was one
reason for the change, there was another powerful inducement offered
by the larger field that might be provided for the use of decorative
colour, and they accepted the opportunity with alacrity--not as a mere
chance for display only, but because, rather, they would be enabled to
teach by the use of it.

But what was that _novum opus_, that special building that was
already in progress in 1402? What was the reason for granting in 1359
the first-fruits of the prebendal stalls to the fabric? And in 1391
why did the dean and chapter give one-twentieth of all their rents to
the works? And these works were not alone about the high altar, for
the new work proceeding in 1402 had no doubt some relation to that
which was in progress in 1391, and it can have been no mere small
undertaking. Can these words be applied to the central tower and the
spire that rose above it, or to the detached bell-tower of Ventnor
stone northward of the church? It seems they must refer to the former,
for to no other work can they be applied, since the angle turrets to
the transept, the parapet of the central tower, and the windows
inserted during the fifteenth century were not in existence at either
of these times. And, further, the action taken in 1359 in order to
provide funds for work that was proceeding could have no reference to
the detached bell-tower, for its character shows that it was certainly
not even begun before quite the end of the fourteenth century,
probably not before some time during the first quarter of the
fifteenth. So, since there was nothing else proceeding about the
structure that could claim such sacrifice, the suggestion occurs that
the spire was already in course of construction not long after the
middle of the fourteenth century. The late Gordon M. Hills, Esq., in
reporting to the chapter in 1892 his opinion concerning the condition
of the fabric, said that, "Under Bishop William Rede (1369-1385) was
begun a series of works: the completion of the central spire, the
conversion of the north end of the north transept into a perpendicular
work, the construction of a new library, the construction of the
present cloisters, and finally the erection of the great detached
belfry, called 'Raymond's, or Redemond's, or Riman's Tower,' was in
progress in 1411, 1428, and 1436. All this work was carried on partly
by the influence at Chichester of churchmen of the school of William
of Wykeham, whose followers were strong at Chichester at this
era." [15]

  [15] See the Wykeham motto on the lady-chapel vault decoration, page
92.

[Illustration: THE BELL TOWER AND SPIRE AS SEEN FROM WEST STREET.
_Photochrom Co., Ltd., photo._ ]

He also said "that the spire itself was commenced before the death of
Bishop Neville. The moulding in the angles cannot, I think, have
originated later"; and "that the early work extended to about forty
feet above the tower; all the pinnacles and canopies at the base of
the spire and the upper part of the spire, were insertions and
rebuilding of one hundred years later. At the base the work of the
earlier period had had its face cut away to bond in the later work,
and the masonry of the two periods did not agree in coursing."

The mere fact that the detached tower was built suggests many
questions which are not easily solved. Why was it at all necessary?
Perhaps the cathedral bells hung in the south-west tower, and those of
the sub-deanery church in the other, or _vice-versa._ At all events,
we know that in the fifteenth century the sub-deanery church was
removed from the nave to the north arm of the transept. The great
window of the north end of the transept is also early fifteenth
century in date, and the detached tower likewise. Angle turrets were
placed upon the four angles of the transept during the same century;
and if Daniel King's drawing of 1656 is any guide, the tops of the
central and western towers had battlemented parapets added during the
same period. In any case, it appears that it took much longer to
complete the repair of the central tower than that at the south-west.
In fact, it is doubtful whether the former was finished until about
the end of the thirteenth or the beginning of the fourteenth century,
for its fall apparently wrecked much of the vaulting of the transept;
and this, from the character of its moulded and carved vaulting ribs
in the south arm of the transept, is of the same date as the rose
window in the east gable of the presbytery, the rose windows in the
east gables of the lady-chapel and the chapels at the east end of the
north and south aisles of the choir. This argues that at the end of
the thirteenth or the beginning of the fourteenth century, during
Bishop Leophardo's episcopate, these works were completed.

About the middle of the fifteenth century a stone rood screen was
built up between the western piers of the central tower. It thus
separated the choir under the crossing from the nave; but through the
middle of this screen there was an open archway with iron gates. On
either side, as parts of the screen, to the north and south was a
chapel, each with its altar. This new work had been known as the
Arundel screen, and its erection is often attributed to the bishop of
that name, and at the altar in the south side of it Bishop Arundel
founded a chantry for himself. Except that the cloister was added
and some details of the building altered during the fifteenth century,
no other architectural work of any size appears to have been done for
many years.

[Illustration: DECORATION FORMERLY ON THE CHOIR VAULT. _From an
engraving by T. King_, 1814, _lent by the Rev. Prebendary Bennett_.
(Scale 7 feet 10-½ in. to 1 in.) (See pp. 42-3.)]

The next work of importance was begun by Sherburne. He invited Lambert
Bernardi and his sons to decorate the whole of the vaulting of the
cathedral. This they did by covering it with beautifully painted
designs. But unfortunately, excepting the small remnant now on the
vault in the lady-chapel (see page 92), their work was entirely
destroyed early in the nineteenth century. Some idea of its original
beauty may be formed by an examination of similar work by other hands
that may yet be seen in S. Anastasia at Verona, in two churches at
Liege, and at S. Albans Abbey. An engraving by T. King, of about 1814,
shows some details of the design that was painted on the vault of the
choir in the bay next but one to the central tower. The cathedral was
at this time an open book, with its walls covered with painted
stories. The reredos, the stalls of the canons, as well as the walls,
were rich with colour. Now all has gone except a meagre, faded scrap
under the arch from the present library into the transept, and one or
two other slight remnants. Sherburne also had some large pictures
painted by the Bernardis. They represented the kings of England and
the bishops of Chichester, and used to hang upon the west and east
walls of the south transept.

From Sherburne's death until the seventeenth century little but a tale
of destruction is to be recorded; for this period witnessed the
dissolution of the monasteries, the beginning of a wholesale system of
spoliation urged by self-interest and hypocrisy, and the establishment
of "Reformation" methods of procedure in Church and State. By each of
these both the fabric and the diocese suffered, even though by some
they gained. But especially did vandalism help to destroy,
unnecessarily, many things which, legitimately used, might still have
been allowed to remain as evidences of the artistic influence of the
Church in England. For though some of them were dedicated to uses
which the reformation necessarily condemned the wholesale destruction
of much beautiful workmanship must be regretted by any who are
interested in such treasures. In 1538 it was ordered that all shrines
should be abolished. This seriously affected Chichester, as the fate
of the feretory of S. Richard was involved by the mandate. Two
commissioners were named, whose duty was to see that his shrine was
removed. The instructions issued served a double purpose, since in
this case, as in others, "reformation" helped to satisfy the claims of
avarice. Henry told the commissioners that

     "We, wylyng such superstitious abuses and idolatries to be
     taken away, command you with all convenient diligence to
     repayre unto the said cathedral church of Chichester and
     there to take down that shrine and bones of that bishop
     called S. Richard within the same, with all the sylver,
     gold, juells, and ornamentes aforesaid, to be safely and
     surely conveighed and brought unto our Tower of London,
     there to be bestowed as we shall further determine at your
     arrival. And also that ye shall see bothe the place where
     the same shryne standyth to be raysed and defaced even to
     the very ground, and all such other images of the church as
     any notable superstition hath been used to be taken and
     conveyed away." [16]

  [16] Walcott, p. 34.

Then in 1550

     "there were letters sent to every bishop to pluck down the
     altars, in lieu of them to set up a table in some convenient
     place of the chancel within every church or chapel to serve
     for the ministration of the Blessed Communion."

Bishop Daye replied that

     "he could not conform his conscience to do what he was by
     the said letter commanded."

In explanation of his attitude towards this order he wrote that

     "he stycked not att the form, situation, or matter [_as
     stone or wood_] whereof the altar was made, but I then toke,
     as I now take, those things to be indifferent.... But the
     commandment which was given to me to take downe all altars
     within my diocese, and in lieu of them 'to sett up a table'
     implying in itselffe [_as I take it_] a playne abolyshment
     of the altare [_both the name and the things_] from the use
     and ministration of the Holy Communion, I could not with my
     conscience then execute."

The churches were so ransacked and destroyed in this way that Bishop
Harsnett [17] said he found the cathedral and the buildings about the
close had been criminally neglected for years, so that they were in a
decayed and almost ruinous condition. Such was the deliberate opinion
which he expressed early in the seventeenth century.

  [17] "Records."

During the first half of the sixteenth century a stone parapet, or
screen wall (taken away in 1829), was built up in front of the
triforium arcade. It rose to a height of about four feet six inches,
and was continued throughout the whole length of the church. It has
been supposed that it was intended to render this gallery available as
a place from which some of the congregation might observe the great
ceremonials. So we see that after the close of the fifteenth century
little but decline is to be recorded. Since Sherburne's day no care
had been taken of the fabric; and except that an organ was introduced
above the Arundel screen, no new schemes were devised, no new building
done. It should be remembered, however, that the Reformation did not
at once destroy all the beauties of mediæval art that the cathedral
contained. Certain things, such as shrines, altars, chantries, and
chapels, were removed, dismantled, or totally wrecked. It was with the
coming of the Parliamentary army to the city that wholesale pillage
and destruction began.

The removal of the altar and other derangements of the building had
been effected during the preceding century; but now the vestments,
plate, and ornaments were stolen. The decorative and other paintings
on the walls, and all parts that could easily be reached, were
scratched, scraped, and hacked about until they were mere wretched,
disfiguring excrescences; and in this mutilated condition they waited
for the whitewash that came later, to cover up these vulgar excesses
with a cheap but clean decency. Such criminal procedure culminated in
the wilful wreckage of all the beautiful glass. The store of three
centuries of labour and consummate skill was destroyed till it lay all
strewn in broken fragments, mere rubbish, about the floors. But the
decorations on the vaults were saved, because they could not be
reached without expensive scaffolding. They were thus preserved to be
dealt with by the wisdom and taste of a later century.

Let me quote the remarks of one who lived when these things were done.
He says they

     "plundered the Cathedral, seized upon the vestments and
     ornaments of the Church, together with the consecrated plate
     serving for the altar; they left not so much as a cushion
     for the pulpit, nor a chalice for the Blessed Sacraments;
     the common soldiers brake down the organs, and dashing the
     pipes with their pole-axes, scoffingly said, 'hark how the
     organs go!' They brake the rail, which was done with that
     fury that the Table itself escaped not their madness. They
     forced open all the locks, whether of doors or desks,
     wherein the singing men laid up their common prayer books,
     their singing books, their gowns and surplices; they rent
     the books in pieces, and scattered the torn leaves all over
     the church even to the covering of the pavement, the gowns
     and surplices they reserved to secular uses. In the south
     cross ile the history of the church's foundation, the
     picture of the Kings of England, and the picture of the
     bishops of Selsey and Chichester, begun by Robert Sherborn
     the 37th Bishop of that see, they defaced and mangled with
     their hands and swords as high as they could reach. On the
     Tuesday following, after the sermon, possessed and
     transported by a bacchanalian fury, they ran up and down the
     church with their swords drawn, defacing the monuments of
     the dead, hacking and hewing the seats and stalls, and
     scraping the painted walls. Sir William Waller and the rest
     of the commanders standby as spectators and approvers of
     these barbarous impieties." [18]

  [18] "Mercurius Rusticus" (1642). Quoted by Walcott.

This is a history in little of what took place in nearly every
cathedral and other church in the kingdom, and this after the
Reformation and its best work had been a fact for a century.

The most important disaster to the fabric during the seventeenth
century was that which so seriously affected the structure at the west
end. It is difficult to decide exactly when and how north-west tower
fell or was removed. Professor Willis [19] is content to say:

     "Mr. Butler informs me that there is evidence to show that
     the north tower was taken down by the advice of Sir
     Christopher Wren, on account of its ruinous condition."

  [19] "Archaeological History," Chichester, p. 6, note _c_.

But Præcentor Ede, in a paper written about 1684 A.D. and quoted by
Præcentor Walcott, [20] gives

     "an account of Dr. Christopher Wren's opinion concerning the
     rebuilding of one of the great towers at the west end of the
     Cathedral Church of Chichester, one third part of which,
     from top to bottom, fell down above fifty years since, which
     he gave after he had for about two hours viewed it both
     without and within, and above and below, and had also
     observed the great want of repairs, especially in the inside
     of the other great west tower, and having well surveyed the
     whole of the west end of the said Church, which was in
     substance as followeth; that there could be no secure
     building to the remaining part of the tower now standing;
     that, if there could and it were so built, there would be
     little uniformity between that and the other, they never
     having been alike nor were they both built together or with
     the Church, and when they were standing the west end could
     never look very handsome. And therefore considering the vast
     charge of rebuilding the fallen tower and repairing the
     other, he thought the best way was to pull down both
     together, with the west arch of the nave of the church
     between them; and to lengthen the two northern isles to
     answer exactly to the two southern; and then to close all
     with a well designed and fair built west end and porch;
     which would make the west end of the church look much
     handsome than ever it did, and would be done with half the
     charge." [21]


  [20] "Early Statutes," p. 21.
  [21] Walcott, "Early Statutes" p. 21

Such was Dr. Wren's opinion of the west front. It is fortunate that
his advice was not followed, for have we not the same west front still
in existence? However, Wren spoke of "the remaining part of the tower
now standing," and King's print, publishing 1656, shows the portion to
which he referred. Fuller [22] remarked in 1662 that the church "now is
torn, having lately a great part thereof fallen to the ground." He no
doubt refers to the same ruin, for it is not to be conjectured that
any other part fell then.

  [22] "Worthies," II, 385

Sir Christopher Wren says the towers never were alike in design, nor
were they "both built together."

The edition of Dugdale's "Monasticon," published in 1673, gives a view
of the north façade of the church. Ede, writing in 1684, said that
"above fifty years" before one-third part of the north-west tower had
fallen from top to bottom; yet this illustration shows that same tower
complete. This affords an opportunity of comparing portions of the two
towers. The upper part of each is shown to finish on top with a
battlement parapet. It is evidence in itself that during the fifteenth
century certain alterations had been effected in them both at this
part. But this print must have been made from an original which had
been executed quite twenty years earlier--for King's drawing, issued
in 1656, shows the north-west tower already partly destroyed; so it is
necessary to conclude that the drawing for the "Monasticon" was done
before 1656, but after 1610, when Speed's map, or bird's-eye view, of
the city was brought out.

Præcentor Walcott has supposed that the two towers in Chichester
referred to in the "Annals of Dunstable" as having fallen during the
year 1210 were the two at the west end.

[Illustration: CHICHESTER CATHEDRAL, ABOUT 1650.]

But taking Sir Christopher Wren's report with the discovery made by
Mr. Sharpe in 1853, quoted by Professor Willis, it would seem rather
that those two towers were the original central tower and that at the
south-west angle of the west front.

Wren in writing of the tower at the north-west, which had fallen about
1630-1640, said that it had not been built at the same date nor in the
same manner as the other then remaining to the south of the same
front. The upper part of the central tower itself had been built
perhaps during the second quarter of the fourteenth century or even
earlier. Consequently it seems probable that the two towers which fell
in 1210 were the original twelfth-century central tower and that of
the same date to the south of the west front. In Speed's map of 1610
both the western towers are represented as having small spires.

Hollar's print in the "Monasticon" shows what appear to be some
fifteenth-century buttresses to the north-west tower; but in
excavating for the foundations of the new north-west tower, now
completed, no traces of any projecting buttresses were discovered, so
it may be that it was the original twelfth-century tower which fell
about 1630, and the peculiar character of its masonry suggested the
remark to Wren when he said it so distinctly differed from its
companion.

Towards the close of the seventeenth century the central spire was in
an unstable condition, and Elmes, in his "Life," says of Wren that he

    "took down and rebuilt the upper part of the spire of the
    cathedral, and fixed therein a pendulum stage to counteract
    the effects of the south and the south-westerly gales of
    wind, which act with some considerable power against it, and
    had forced it from its perpendicularity."

It is interesting to have this record, for the spire during the
following century was still a cause of trouble.

Spershott's memoirs show that about 1725

     "a new chamber organ was added to the choir of the
     cathedral, the tubes of which were at first bright like
     silver, but are now like old tarnished brass."

Whether this organ contained any parts of that which was destroyed in
the previous century is not known; but many old prints and drawings
show that the case of the one that was now built on the top of the
Arundel screen was quite as beautifully designed as the one in Exeter
Cathedral, or King's College Chapel at Cambridge.

About 1749 the Duke of Richmond's vault was "diged and made" [23] in the
lady-chapel, and ten years later "the kings and bishops in the
cathedral" were "new painted." The floor of the lady-chapel was raised
to give height to the vault beneath, and a fireplace and chimney built
up in front of the east window. Portions of the other windows were
plastered up, and so left only partly filled with glass. These served
to provide light in what was now to be the library, since, apparently,
the originally well-lighted library, above the chamber now used for
the purpose, had lost its proper roof and been otherwise made useless.

  [23] Spershott.

There is little else to be said concerning the history of the building
during eighteenth century; but it is stated by a careful observer, [24]
writing in 1803, that "in the interior of this cathedral few
innovations have been effected." He says that the east window of the
lady-chapel is plastered up, and that

     "we find that the great window in the west front of the
     cathedral has a short time back had its mullions and other
     works knocked out, and your common masoned 'muntings'
     (mullions) and transoms stuck up in their room, without any
     tracery sweeps or turns, of the second and third degrees;
     which work may before long be construed by some shallow
     dabblers in architectural matters into the classical and
     chaste productions of our old workmen. On the north and
     south sides of the church are buttresses, with rare and
     uncommon octangular-columned terminations; but they have
     likewise, to save a trifling expense in reparation, been
     deprived of their principal embellishments, and are now
     capped with vulgar house-coping....

     "It may be well to speak of the west porch as an excellent
     performance; and the statue over the double entrance is
     remarkably so."

  [24] _Gentleman's Magazine_, Part I., 1803, pp. 22-25.

Proceeding, the same writer relates that:

     "Against the east and west walls of the said transept are
     affixed historic paintings; those on the west side (the
     figures as large as life) relate to the founding of the
     church and its re-edification in Henry viii.'s time. Among
     the various portraits is that of Henry viii. himself. Here
     are also in separate circular compartments, the quarter
     portraits of our kings, from William the Conqueror to Hen.
     viii. (and since his day, in continuation to George i.) On
     the east side is the entire collection of the ancient
     bishops of the see (quarter lengths, and in circular
     compartments). A short time back the faces of the several
     portraits were touched upon by some unskilful hand; however
     we have before us most curious specimens of the costume of
     Henry's day, when the whole of these paintings were done
     (excepting those of subsequent dates), in dresses, warlike
     habiliments, buildings, etc....

     "Looking towards the north, on the outside of the choir, is
     the monumental chapel and tomb of St. Richard. The groins
     above are embellished with paintings of foliage, arms, etc.,
     conveying the eye over the choir; thence into the north
     transept, intercepted in the way by the galleries over the
     side-aisles, when the general combination of objects is
     terminated by the north transept window, which, though
     inferior to the southern window, still has its own peculiar
     attractions."

At the time these words were written the north porch was in a wrecked
condition. Both gables of the transept were in ruins, and the
high-pitched roofs of the old library, the lady-chapel, and the south
arm of the transept were absent altogether.

But soon the authorities began to take some interest in the condition
of the building. James Elmes had been called in to deal with the spire
in 1813-1814, and under his direction the "useful piece of machinery"
which had been put there by Wren was "taken down and reinstated." In
his "Life of Wren" an illustration is given of the device, which he
had carefully examined and measured. He describes it thus:

     "To the finial is fastened a strong metal ring, and to that
     is suspended a large piece of yellow fir-timber eighty feet
     long and thirteen inches square; the masonry at the apex of
     the spire, being from nine to six inches thick, diminishing
     as it rises. The pendulum is loaded with iron, adding all
     its weight to the finial, and has two stout solid oak
     floors, the lower one smaller by about three, and the upper
     one by about two and a quarter inches, than the octagonal
     masonry which surrounds it. The effect in a storm is
     surprising and satisfactory. While the wind blows high
     against the vane and spire, the pendulum floor touches on
     the lee side, and its aperture is double on the windward: at
     the cessation, it oscillates slightly, and terminates in a
     perpendicular. The rest of the spire is quite clear of
     scaffolding. This contrivance is doubtless one of the most
     ingenious and appropriate of its great inventor's
     applications."

About 1814 T. King made a plan of the whole building and several
drawings of the church as it then appeared. One of these [25] shows
some carefully copied specimens of the decorations on the vaults. The
engraving was published in 1831, and on it is the statement, "Painted
1520. Erased 1817." Another drawing showed the interior of the choir
looking west. In this was represented in careful detail the design of
the eastern elevation of the organ-case and the "return" stalls
against the Arundel screen. It also shows the original iron gates in
the archway, which pierced the screen in the centre below the organ,
and formed the entrance to the choir. These gates were evidently
copied in design from the thirteenth-century iron screen that
protected the sanctuary, part of which is now in the Victoria and
Albert Museum. In the distance the decoration on the nave vaulting is
lightly indicated. There is also an original drawing by T. King in the
possession of the Chapter, which gives a view looking eastwards.
Another drawing [26] which was made some time after 1829 shows the
choir looking east towards the reredos. It is a careful study, and is
of peculiar interest, since it is a record of many features now
entirely removed. The early reredos appears still in its place, but
the upper portion of it is gone. This was a gallery which was
accessible from either triforium, across which boys early in the
century used to run races by starting up the staircase in one aisle
and down that in the other. The absence of the gallery in the drawing
shows that it was made after 1829, the year in which the gallery was
removed. The "glory" which was added to the reredos during the
eighteenth century appears just above the altar. On the south side of
the choir are some spectators in the gallery above the stalls. There
were also at this time other galleries on the north and south of the
sanctuary, and above the arch on the east side of the north arm of the
transept was a gallery too. To this last there was access from the
staircase that led to the chamber above the east chapel of the
transept close by. These drawings show what the interior of the church
was like up to the time when that extraordinary revival of activity in
matters ecclesiastical began in the nineteenth century.

  [25] See illustrations, pp. 33 and 125.
  [26] Supposed to be by Carter, an architect of Winchester.

Like other churches, that at Chichester felt the sting of controversy
in unnecessary vandalism. But it may be admitted that destruction,
like a storm, carried at least some virtue in its clouds. In
attempting to sweep away the accumulated refuse heaped within the
building, some precious things fell before the broom of zealous
furnishers, and were lost for ever in the dust raised by this new
cleansing dream.

[Illustration: THE NAVE, ABOUT 1836. _From Winkles's Cathedral
Churches_.]

The removal of the gallery above the old fifteenth-century reredos in
1829 was the beginning of a serious attempt to repair, restore, and
reanimate the fabric. This revival of faith began to try to do good
works--but not always with discretion, not always with knowledge,
wisdom, and taste. Here was rash ardour, often without the hesitation
of true reverence.

[Illustration: THE RETRO-CHOIR AND REREDOS, ABOUT 1836. _From
Winkles's Cathedral Churches_.]

It is certain the building was not all it should have been when these
works were begun; it is not what it might have been had some of them
been deferred. Consequently any illustrations which show its condition
before the middle of the nineteenth century are of interest and value
to those who would know what changes have been made.

In Winkles's essay on Chichester, in his "Cathedrals of England,"
published between 1830 and 1840, are many beautiful drawings of the
fabric. There is one which shows the Arundel screen still in its
original position with the organ above it; and in another the complete
design of the back of the reredos appears. These careful studies of
the building, which were made before it became so changed by the
removal of its best remaining treasures, help to convey some idea of
what the place was before it was so radically "restored."

None of the drawings, however, show any of the beautiful decorations
of the vaults, for all this had been smeared over with a dirty yellow
wash about 1815, which earned for the church the name of "the leather
breeches cathedral." And when, later, the plaster on the stone-filling
between the ribs was removed, the paintings were utterly obliterated
for ever, excepting only the small portion remaining in the
lady-chapel bearing the Wykeham motto upon a scroll. But this recital
is but a prelude to the changes that were to follow. The energy of
revival found expression in many ways, and English architecture
suffered sorely at the hands of ardent ignorance. But the very desire
to deal well with the fabrics of our churches that were to be repaired
taught men to study closely the facts of archaeology. The studies had
a practical end, and at Chichester they found their opportunity in the
cathedral.

But first a new church of S. Peter was built in West Street in 1853,
so that the north arm of the transept should no longer be used as it
had been for about four hundred years. Then not long afterwards Dean
Chandler, at his death, left a large sum to be used for the purpose of
decorating the cathedral. To this sum other funds were added. The need
that more space should be provided for the congregation arose, and to
satisfy this it was decided that the choir should be opened out to the
nave. Consequently, in 1859 the work of decoration was begun by the
removal of the Arundel screen with the eighteenth-century organ above
it--one of the most beautiful remnants of the art of earlier days that
remained in the cathedral. The object of this act was most admirable,
but it involved in addition the destruction of the fourteenth-century
"return" stalls which were on the eastern face of the doomed screen.
In taking down the screen, or shrine, all the stones composing it had
been carefully numbered, with the intention that it should be rebuilt
in a new position. But although these materials are still wantonly
distributed about the cathedral and precincts, no attempt has been
made to use them again, either as a screen or as an evidence to show
by contrast that the result has justified the change. Its removal was
the beginning of a series of alterations, both by accident and design.
The old reredos, that quiet and beautiful witness of things so sacred
and some so profane, was torn away. The whole of the choir was to be
rearranged. But when the piers of the central tower were exposed by
the removal of the screen, it was discovered that they were in a
precariously rotten condition at the core. Other indications of
weakness, which had been overlooked before, were now observed. Large
and deep cracks and various earlier signs of apprehended weakness both
in arches and piers were remarked. That the work now begun had given
impetus to the fall has been denied on excellent authority, and to
discuss such a question at this time is useless. The serious trouble
now was that the whole tower with the spire was rapidly settling on
its base. Every method that could be used was tried in order to save
the piers. They were propped up with shores, and the arches held up
with centres, while new masonry was bonded into the older work. But
the labour availed nothing, for towards the end of the year 1860
matters had developed seriously.

     "Old fissures extended themselves into the fresh masonry,
     and new ones made their appearance.... But in the next
     place, the walling began to bulge towards the end of January
     1861, first in the north-west pier, and afterwards in the
     south. Cracks and fissures, some opening and others closing,
     and the gradual deformation of the arches in the transept
     walls and elsewhere, indicated that fearful movements were
     taking place throughout the parts of the wall connected with
     the western piers."

On Sunday, February 17th,

    "the afternoon service was performed in the nave of the
    cathedral, as usual, but ... was interrupted by the urgent
    necessity for shoring up a part of the facing of the
    south-west pier.... On Wednesday, crushed mortar began to
    pour from the old fissures, flakes of the facing stone fell,
    and the braces began to bend. Yet the workmen continued to
    add shoring until three hours and a half past midnight."

Next day the effort was resumed before daybreak; but by noon

     "the continual failing of the shores showed, too plainly,
     that the fall was inevitable."

Just before half-past one

     "the spire was seen to incline slightly to the south-west,
     and then to descend perpendicularly into the church, as one
     telescope tube slides into another, the mass of the tower
     crumbling beneath it. The fall was an affair of a few
     seconds, and was complete at half-past one."

Such, briefly, is the record of the fall, which so admirably has been
related by Professor Willis, from whose work these extracts have been
taken.

Sir Gilbert Scott, [27] after the central tower had collapsed, was
consulted concerning its reconstruction. He examined the remains; and
by the great care his son Gilbert exercised in labelling and
registering all the moulded and carved stone that was discovered in
the debris, the new tower and spire was designed upon the pattern of
the old one. Old prints and photographs were used to help in this work
of building a copy of what had been lost. But this task could not have
been done had it not been that Mr. Joseph Butler, a former resident
architect and Surveyor to the Chapter, had made measured drawings of
the whole, which supplied actual dimensions that otherwise could not
have been recovered. These drawings had come into the possession of
Mr. Slater, the architect associated with Sir. G. Scott in the
rebuilding of the tower, and they enabled him

     "to put together upon paper all the fragments with certainty
     of correctness: so one thing with another, the whole design
     was absolutely and indisputably recovered. The only
     deviation from the design of the old steeple was this. The
     four arms of the cross had been (probably in the fourteenth
     century) raised some five or six feet in height, and thus
     had buried a part of what had originally been the clear
     height of the tower, and with it an ornamental arcading
     running round it. I lifted out the tower from this
     encroachment by adding five or six feet to its height; so
     that it now rises above the surrounding roofs as much as it
     originally did. I also omitted the partial walling up of the
     belfry windows, which may be seen in old views." [28]

  [27] See "Recollections," p. 309. Edited by his son, 1861.
  [28] _Ibid._, p. 310.

These statements have been taken from Sir Gilbert Scott's own account
of the work. He further assures us that many portions of the original
moulded and carved work were re-fixed in the new tower. As we have now
in existence so careful an imitation of the former tower, all praise
is due to Sir Gilbert Scott, Mr. George Gilbert Scott, and Mr. Slater,
for the admirable way in which they co-operated, so that their care
has given to posterity this admirable instance in which a lost
specimen of architectural art has been reproduced by successful
copying. But the satisfactory nature of the work is chiefly due to the
preservation of those careful studies of the original which were made
by Mr. Joseph Butler.

In 1867 the wall enclosing the library in the lady-chapel was removed,
and three years later, with the consent of the Duke of Richmond, the
floor was lowered to its original level and the chapel restored in
memory of Bishop Gilbert. Soon afterwards the windows were provided
with new stained glass.

During the last half of the nineteenth century several small portions
of the building were repaired, restored, or rebuilt. The cloister was
carefully restored by the late Mr. Gordon M. Hills. More recently the
roof of the lady-chapel, the two eastern pinnacles of the choir as
well as those two lower ones to the chapels of S.M. Magdalen, and S.
Catherine, have been restored by his son Mr. Gordon P.G. Hills,
A.R.I.B.A., with much care and consideration for the fabric of which
he is the surveyor. The latest act affecting the history of the
building has been the addition of a new north-western tower to take
the place of the unsightly rents and wreckage that have disfigured and
helped to destroy the structure at that part during the last two
hundred years. It was designed by the late Mr. J.L. Pearson, R.A.

[Illustration: SOUTH WEST VIEW OF THE CATHEDRAL FROM THE GARDEN OF
THE BISHOP'S PALACE. _Photochrom Co., Ltd., Photo_. ]




CHAPTER II.

THE EXTERIOR.


As a design, the west front offers four important parts for
observation; these are the two towers, the west wall of the nave
proper, with the gable and the windows which compose it, and then the
porch.

The #Towers# are now similar. The upper stage of that on the north
is an imitation, as far as possible, of the same section of the other
tower which was built in the thirteenth century. In its third stage
some differences are introduced. The masonry of the new work is
executed so as to carry on the courses of the old stonework that
attach it to the rest of the front. The new work has followed the
custom of the older and better traditions of the stonemasons, in that
it has been left strictly as it was finished by the tool upon the
"banker." The natural and simple texture imparted by the action of
chiselling leaves a character upon the stonework similar to that of
the earlier work.

The upper portion of the new north-west tower [29] being copied from
that part of the old one to the south, it will be enough to describe
the original. But first it is necessary to notice the lower stage of
the southern tower. The buttressing on the south angle is of a later
date than the rest of this section of the tower. It has a low
weathered base. The central part of it has its projection at the base
reduced when it reaches its summit by means of three steep sloping
weatherings. There are also openings in the buttress for the staircase
windows. The two lower windows of the west front in this tower are not
placed in the same vertical line. This peculiarity has been followed
in the new tower. The upper of these two windows is pointed, and has
no label-mould. But the angle shafts that carry the arch have carved
capitals and square-moulded abaci. Above the head of the pointed
window the tower changes in character. The buttresses run up to the
top as broad, flat surfaces, except that the northern one is slightly
weathered twice. The coupled windows are more deeply recessed, having
three orders of moulded arch-stones instead of the two, as in the
lower window of a similar date; and the arch is carried by three
shafts attached as parts of the jamb-stones. The windows have
label-moulds over them, and the abaci of the capitals are carried
across the buttresses on either side as a string-course. By this means
the lines of the composition are continued horizontally,
notwithstanding the interruption by the openings in the walling. These
are now glazed as windows; but they were originally open, as some
bells once hung in the tower at this level.

  [29] By the late J.L. Pearson, R.A., and completed by his son.

[Illustration: THE NORTH-EAST ANGLE OF THE SOUTH-WEST TOWER. _S.B.
Bolas & Co., photo_.]

The west end of the nave has six windows grouped in it above the
porch. The two upper ones are small and close up under the gable
coping. This latter is simply chamfered and capped with a modern
cross. The windows are arched in two orders. The inner order has a
plain, straight chamfered moulding; and the outer, a hollow chamfered
one. The label-mould and the capitals of the attached shafts in the
jambs are a little later in design than the windows themselves. A
moulded string-course separates the point of the large west window
from those above it; and from the level of this string-course up to
the coping of the gable the whole surface of the wall is covered with
a diagonal pattern of incised diapers.

The West Window is entirely modern, but copied from fourteenth-century
examples with some success. It has five divisions between the jambs
and mullions. The central one is larger than those on either side. The
upper part is filled with geometrical tracery.

Below the west window are three other windows grouped together. They
are at the triforium level, where they were probably inserted before
the middle of the thirteenth century; but they have been restored at
various times since then.

The #West Porch# is a comparatively simple structure. It rises from
the ground with a deep weathered base. At the top of the walls is a
plain weathered coping, which overhangs about one inch. The simple,
but extremely well designed, buttresses at the north and south angles
add much interest to it as a composition artistically and as a study
in structure. The small, straight buttresses on the west are only
weathered once, and this at the top; but those on the north and south
sides are different. There is a broad central buttress weathered twice
from the base to its top, and in the angle on either side of it are
what appear to be two lower, smaller buttresses, with one weathering
slope. The probability is that there was only a small buttress here at
first, and that the larger one on either side was added by being
built over the shallower, broader, and shorter one.

[Illustration: WALL-ARCADE IN THE WEST PORCH. _S.B. Bolas & Co.,
photo_.]

These buttresses have been placed here in order to counteract the
thrust of the large, deeply-set covering arch over the entrance to the
porch. This arch is of interest, as it has but a slight label; and
then the outside angle of the soffit only is moulded, the rest being
recessed both at the jambs and in the arch for about two feet, with no
mouldings at all. Then comes a delicately moulded arch in two orders,
immediately beneath which are the coupled arches which give entrance
to the interior, vaulted apartment. These two arches, the central and
side shafts on which they rest, as well as the tympanum between them,
are restorations.

The vault over the interior of the porch is carried on moulded
diagonal ribs. On the north, south, and west are wall ribs as well, to
carry the chalk filling between them. The insertion of two later
monuments, now much dilapidated, involved the destruction of much of
the beautiful wall arcades. These were of three complete divisions on
each wall, and have cusped heads. The upper part, below the finishing
horizontal string-course, is composed of two full and two half
quatrefoils. The work in each arcade is recessed quite seven inches
from the face of the general walling above; and the multiplied detail
in the mouldings is finely studied. Opposite the entrance is the west
doorway into the nave. The deep arch over this is seriously cracked in
several places, though it has already been much restored. It has an
outer label, which indicates that when it was built in there was then
no porch to protect it. The three orders, or main groups, of mouldings
do not run down on to the capitals, but finish by dying on to a plain
piece of stonework of circular form set immediately upon the capitals.
The Purbeck marble capitals themselves are rather large and heavily
moulded, and the shafts under them are sandstone restorations of
recent date. The west door and the woodwork about it is a poor
specimen of modern ingenuity.

The #South Side# of the church introduces many interesting
varieties of work. These may well be followed in the course of this
description from the west to the east end.

The lowest part of the south-west tower presents a treatment different
from that on the west side. There is here a doorway, and an
additional window. Both are round-arched. The doorway is one of the
most notable pieces of beautiful design on all the exterior of the
building. It is treated solely with variations of the well-known
chevron ornament. The cut work upon it is in no case at all deep, but
the total effect is truly delightful. There is none of the dead,
formal regularity invariable in modern attempts to imitate this type
of work. The voussoirs of the arch are not all of equal size in each
order, and on one member the chevrons are reversed on opposite sides
of the centre stone except for one accidental intermission. The
abacus, nearly six inches deep, has a flat upper part on which a
continuous diaper of Greek crosses has been cut. The lower part is a
plain, hollowed chamfer moulding. Though the small columns in the
jambs are new, and also parts of the inner reveal of the jamb, yet the
old carved capitals are still in position and also the bases. These
capitals bear distinct traces of Byzantine feeling in the design of
them. Above the doorway is a billet-moulded string-course, which stops
against the circular shafts by the buttresses, and forms the sill of
the window. The design of this opening is like that of the one over it
in the next stage, which is similar to that in the same position on
the west face of the tower. But the abaci of its capitals run from the
jambs across to the buttresses, as is the case with those of the
doorway. The billet-moulded sill evidently passed round the tower
completely, before the addition of the angle buttresses, since it
appears again on the north buttress of the west front of the same
tower; and the obvious inference is that there was once a window also
on the west in this same stage at the same level. The window
immediately below the upper division of the tower is of the same date
and character exactly as the one on the west in the like place; and it
should be noticed that the sills of the upper windows run on as
string-courses, which are continued round the circular angle-shafts of
the buttresses.

Passing eastward from the tower, the external #Roof# of the nave
becomes visible. The irregularly waved line of the ridge where the
lead rolls meet, as it were, against the sky, is a pretty indication
of the presence of the aged timbers underneath that support it above
the walls.

The oldest part of the building to be seen from this point is the
strip of walling at the clerestory level. The twelfth-century
round-arched windows are there almost complete. In detail they are
like those of the tower. Two of them, those in the fourth and fifth
bays from the tower, have had later work inserted in the same
openings.

The crest of the wall between the west and the central tower was
renewed in the fourteenth century. It consists of a parapet with a
weathered coping for the top course of stonework, so that the water
might not rest upon it and percolate through the walls. Three courses
below this is a simply moulded string-course, and immediately beneath
is the cusped arcade supported on the course of detached moulded and
shaped corbels. For five feet below the bottom of the corbels the
newer part of the wall is continued. It will be interesting later to
notice the way in which the parapet on the north side of the nave has
been dealt with. The reason for the presence of so much new walling at
this level is no doubt to be found in the fact that the roof timbers
at the time of the second fire were carried down over the walls.

The water from the gutter behind the parapet is carried out on to the
backs of the flying-buttresses by means of holes cut through the
stonework. Into these pipes are passed which convey the water through
to the open gutter channels of the buttresses. The backs of the raking
buttresses, though they are sharply weathered to throw the water from
them quickly, are also covered with lead as a further protection.
These buttresses have carried the thrust of the vaults down-wards with
safety for about six hundred years. But the presence of two distinct
arches under each of them indicates that they have been altered a
little since first they were put up. This was done when it became
necessary to carry their thrust farther out because of the new chapels
that were added long after the vaults were built over the nave. At the
foot of each raking slope is a horizontal piece which runs out until
it comes in contact with the octagon pinnacles of the vertical
exterior buttresses. It should be noted that where the
flying-buttresses meet the vertical wall of the clerestory there is in
some cases a portion of the flat buttressing of the twelfth century
visible.

Between the buttresses of the chapels are four two-light windows, The
outer arch of each of these windows is a beautiful example of late
thirteenth-century moulded detail. The main line of the arch curve is
excellent, and the whole opening between the head, jambs, and sill is
beautifully proportioned. Some fifteenth century tracery remained in
these windows until it was replaced by the present modern work. The
outer arch is in two orders, which are carried by slight attached
shafts, some of which are renewals. The capitals to these are carved,
and have square abaci, rounded at the angle, as they pass over the
capitals. These abaci, which are finely moulded, are not more than
about two and a half inches in depth. The bases of the jamb-shafts are
characteristic of the period during which this work was done. There
are two small rounded mouldings, and one larger one. These rest on the
square, lower part, of the base. Immediately below the sill is a
string-course; and this, as well as the projecting base to the whole
wall, is continued from the side of the tower buttress eastward. Each
is returned round the four buttresses till it stops against the outer
wall of the south walk of the cloisters. The vertical buttresses here
were originally completed with a weathering at a point about half-way
up their present height; and upon this old weathering the upper and
later part of the buttress has been added. This was probably done
during the fourteenth century, about the time that the adjoining
parapet of the aisles, the parapet of the nave, and the re-working of
the upper part of the flying-buttresses was undertaken. This change in
the design involved the removal of the range of pointed gables, by
which the roof over each bay of the aisle was completed southward.
Traces of the earlier gable copings are still bedded in their original
places in the walling. Upon three of these buttresses are remains of
the old gargoyles by which the water from the roofs was carried off.
The use of these is now superseded by the cheap and mean-looking
rain-water heads and pipes.

Close by the parapet of the aisle the square angles of each buttress
are cut off so as to form a base for the octagonal pinnacle above.
These, when in their complete state, were undoubtedly very beautiful;
for besides what can be now seen, it is known that they were once
completed each with a spirelet. Now they have the substitutes
suggested by parsimony to cover their incompleteness. As they are, in
their ruined condition, it may be seen that they were not all finished
in identically the same way. The three sides on the north of the
octagon of each one are left plain and flat. The other five sides are
treated as narrow, recessed panels, formed by the six groups of small
shafts at either angle. Every group has its capital and moulded base.
The capitals in some cases are carved, in others moulded only. Above
each capital is a small carved boss. This, doubtless, was the stop to
some member on the angles of the spirelets. Springing from the
capitals are moulded and cusped arches, which form on either side the
heads of the panelled divisions. The horizontal part of the weathering
of the flying-buttresses is stopped behind the octagons of the
pinnacles.

The parapet has a plain weathered coping, close under which is a
string-course which helps to throw the water clear from the top of the
wall; and two coupes below this one is another moulded string. Each is
about six inches in depth. If is not possible to state more concerning
these parts in detail, since they have been much repaired at various
times.

The stove-pipes which run up the north and south sides of the nave as
smoke-flues for the heating-apparatus do not add to the beauty of the
exterior.

In the fifth bay, eastward from the south-west tower, is the #South
Porch#, which opens directly into the west walk of the cloister.
Early in the nineteenth century it was in a ruinous condition; but
restoration has again given it stability, if not all its old beauty.
The idea of the design, as it is seen from the cloister, is identical
with that of the exterior of the west porch. But in the detail of its
mouldings and other features it is different entirely. The restored
abaci of the capitals, like the originals, are some of them square,
others irregular octagons. The interior is vaulted, and has diagonal
and wall ribs. On the west and east sides are stone benches. But the
west side has in addition a small arcade of four arches forming
recessed sedilia. The mouldings to the arches of this small arcade are
of about the same date as those in the two outer orders of the
enclosing arch on the south front of this porch. The two smaller
arches under it appear to be later work, if we judge from their
present character. But the arch-mould of the #Doorway# within the
porch is work of approximately the same date as the outer moulded
member of the enclosing arch on the west front of the west porch. The
enclosing arch of the south porch is later work than these. But the
two inner moulded orders of the enclosing arch of the west porch are
even later still in character.

[Illustration: THE SOUTH DOORWAY IN THE WEST WALK OF THE CLOISTER.
_S.B. Bolas & Co., photo_.]

The east side of this south porch forms the west wall of the present
choir singing school--the old sacristy. But this room projects farther
southward than the porch. The limit of its projection is indicated by
a portion of a buttress in the cloister. Between this buttress and the
porch are two small windows--one of them is now blocked up. The upper
one is the same in design as those others on the south side of the
same apartment. These we shall consider presently. Above the central
pier at the entrance to this porch is a miserable figure in stone,
intended to represent a saint.

[Illustration: THE WEST WALK OF THE CLOISTER FROM THE SOUTH-EAST.
_S.B. Bolas & Co., photo_.]

The #Cloister#, which was added in the fifteenth century, is of a
peculiarly irregular shape, and encloses the south transept within the
paradise. It has been much restored at different times. The present
roof is of tiles, and is carried on common rafters. Each has a
cross-tie, and the struts are shaped so as to give a pointed, arched
form to each one. The old fifteenth-century wooden cornice still
remains in some sections. The walling was once all plastered. The
tracery is divided into four compartments by mullions, and each head
is filled with cusped work.

Round the cloister are placed the old houses of the Treasurer, the
Royal Chaplains, and Wiccamical Prebendaries. Above the door leading
to the house of the Royal Chaplains is an interesting monument of the
Tudor period. It is a panel divided into two compartments by a moulded
stone framework.

Leading out of the south walk is a doorway, through which the deanery
may be seen beyond the end of a long walled passage known as S.
Richard's Walk. Looking back northwards, there is a fine view of the
spire and transept from the end of this walk.

The chamber over the present singing school between the south arm of
the transept and the west walk of the cloister shows the effect
produced by some changes made during the fifteenth century. The
masonry was more carefully finished than that of the adjoining
transept--a specimen of twelfth-century work. The joints in the later
work are thinner, and the average size of the stones is in this case
smaller.

On the south side of the wall of this chamber are two buttresses.
Close under the shallow moulded coping at the top of the wall are two
fifteenth-century windows. They are not placed centrally over the
others below. In design they are each divided into three lights by
mullions. On the east side of the middle buttress is an old rain-water
head of (eighteenth-century?) leadwork. Part of the lead piping still
remains, having the old ears to fasten it to the walls. The west side
of this chamber has one buttress on the south angle and a window in
the centre of the wall. Above it is the low slope of a gable. The
window is similar to those on the south side, but the head is a
pointed and four-centred arch. The mullions have been restored. Below
the part just described is the earlier work of the thirteenth
century. It rises as far up as to the string-course formed by the
continuation of the abaci of the capitals in the two small
single-light windows. These narrow and sharp-pointed windows are
peculiar. The arch-moulds are different from the other work of the
same date in the church. There is no sign of tracery in their design,
and the jambs have a simple attached shaft in the outer reveal. The
bases to these shafts are earlier than those of the shafts to the
south aisle chapel windows, and the edge of the inner member of the
window arch is merely cut off with a straight chamber. There is one
window, the same as these, hidden in the west walk of the cloister.
Beneath the windows just described there are two small single-light
openings in each portion of walling on either side of the central
buttress. These six windows serve to light the vaulted (sacristy)
choir school within.

[Illustration: THE EAST WALK OF THE CLOISTER. _S.B. Bolas & Co.,
photo_.]

It has been supposed by some that a chapter-house once existed within
the paradise close by the west angle of the transept. The south end of
the transept rises on the north side of the cloister garth. At the
south-west angle a great part of the twelfth-century masonry in the
broad flat buttresses remains. The south-east angle and buttresses are
quite different. They are perhaps part of the work done during the
thirteenth century, though it is possible that they were introduced
when Langton inserted the large south window of the transept. This
window has been very much restored since the seventeenth century, when
it was almost knocked in pieces. Wooden props served instead of
mullions for many years to hold up the tracery above. The repair that
has been effected retains the old design. Above each angle of the
transept is a turret, octagonal in form. Neither of them is complete.
They were only required in the fifteenth century as a means of access
to the roofs at the parapet level from the staircases in the angle
buttresses. The gable of the transept rises above the parapet just
described, but it is not in the same vertical plane as the face of the
wall below. The top of this gable was for many years in a very wrecked
condition. The design of the tracery in the rose window is in two
orders, based upon equilateral triangles filled in with cusps.

Close to the ground on the south-west corner buttress are two
string-courses. The lower of these is a billet-moulded course cut,
like those to be seen on the south-west tower. Its presence here, and
at this level, shows that this was the original level of the sills of
all the old Norman windows on the outside walls until about the close
of the twelfth century.

On the east side of this part of the transept, at the clerestory
level, are two round-headed windows. Both originally were all of
twelfth-century workmanship. But now the southern one has abaci,
capitals, angle-shafts, and base, which are thirteenth-century work,
and the early label-mould has been changed. The other window shows
partly what was once probably the character of both of them. But the
greater part of this window was restored when the central tower and
spire were rebuilt after 1861. Between the windows is a buttress that
was introduced when the vault was added. The south-east angle on this
side retains part of the twelfth-century flat buttressing. There are
on this wall and the turret different types of masonry, which
represent five distinct periods of building, from the twelfth to the
nineteenth century. But the junction between the work of two of these
periods, being a weak part, shows by the crack down the wall from the
parapet that some movement has taken place here.

Projecting eastwards from the transept is the square chapel (now a
vestry), which took the place of the early apsidal one. Neither of its
three windows has any tracery. The window on the south side is
pointed. The arch-mould is the same as that to the round-headed window
on the east; but there is a label-mould over this south one and not on
the other. The abaci are new, and the angle-shafts and bases as well,
but the capitals are old, though decayed. The parapet on the south is
of the same character and date as that over the wall of the choir, but
earlier than that above the south window of the transept, which is of
the same date as that on the south wall of the nave.

The roof of this chapel appears, from the raking channel on the
transept wall, to have once been higher, with a sharper pitch. The
finish to the present gable point has disappeared. On the east wall
and on the south-west buttress of the transept there are two
interesting old lead rain-water heads. The east wall of the chapel
runs on northwards till it becomes a part of the buttress of the
choir. The wall between the north buttress of the chapel and the
buttress of the choir aisle close by is pierced with two small cusped
windows of fifteenth-century date. Below these is a larger and sharply
pointed arched head. It has no mouldings. But the square-headed small
light under it has splayed jambs. This opening was probably once a
round-headed twelfth-century window, as the old abacus is still in
position.

The #South Side of the Choir# is externally divided into five bays.
There are five flying-buttresses to carry down the vault thrusts, with
a pinnacle above the buttress at the south-east angle. The first,
second, and third bays from the east side of the transept have still
the round-arched windows of the twelfth century set in the walling of
the same date. But it should be noted that part of the window in the
first bay was rebuilt after 1861. The fourth and fifth bays have
pointed windows, carved capitals, and angle-shafts. These, though now
entirely renewed, were built when the whole of this part of the choir
was added. Part of the walling for a few feet below the parapet was
renewed at the same time. The flying-buttresses are thirteenth-century
additions of the same date as the vaults within; and those three
nearest the transept abut on parts of the twelfth-century flat
buttresses. The flat projection was continued up to the parapet at a
later date, probably when the parapet itself was built on. But the
fourth buttress also abuts upon a slightly projecting flat strip of
buttressing. In this case, however, but not in the others, the flat
strip and the flying-buttress are of the same width and built as one
piece of structure. The third and fourth flying-buttresses have a
secondary, and apparently later, arch of fine grained white stone
beneath their larger arches.

The copings on the backs of these buttresses are not weathered like
those of the nave, and, except the one next the transept, each is
covered with lead. There are no pinnacles to them above the aisle
wall. The fourteenth-century builders had not touched them, as they
did those south of the nave. There are, too, no gutters along their
backs. It is curious that this method of carrying the water away from
the upper roofs over the lower ones should not have been adopted when
the parapets were put up.

[Illustration: THE CHOIR AND CENTRAL TOWER FROM THE SOUTH-EAST. _S.B.
Bolas & Co., photo_.]

The outer wall of the choir aisle is one of the most interesting
portions of the building, from an archaeological as well as an
architectural standpoint. It shows three of the arched heads of small
twelfth-century windows that used to light the earlier triforium
gallery. One of these has now a fifteenth-century insertion beneath
it. This is in the second bay from the transept. It is a small window
with a cusped head and a square label-mould above it. In the same area
of walling there are shown the levels of the cut string-course that
ran along under the sills of the twelfth-century aisle windows. It is
the same string and at the same level as it appears upon the
south-west angle of the transept and the south-west tower of the west
front. It shows, too, in the second bay, the level of the old abaci
which ran across from each capital in the window jambs and stopped
against the sides of the buttresses. There is also the continuous
chamfer course that ran along the walls above the heads of these aisle
windows. In proof of these things there is even now one of these same
old windows in almost its original state within the little chamber
known as the priest-vicars' vestry. This window is in the bay of aisle
walling immediately against the transept wall. The string-courses of
the old windows were continued round the later buttresses. In the
fourth bay, above the point of the window arch, the curve of the
original apse of the ambulatory is just traceable; but beyond this
point eastwards the twelfth-century walling has disappeared until we
meet it again in the lady-chapel. There is a small buttress in the
fourth bay marking the junction between the two periods of masonry. In
the second and third bays part of the twelfth-century top to the aisle
walls remains. The roof may have had eaves originally, but now there
is a parapet of about the same date as the present buttresses; and the
projection of this parapet is carried upon the corbels that were
carved and built in before the second fire occurred. The space between
each corbel is bridged over by small single stones cut out to the
shape of a semicircular arch.

The windows in the second, third, and fourth bays differ in size and
shape from each other; that in the second bay has a pointed arch and
no tracery, square abaci and the remains of carved capitals. The angle
shafts and bases are gone. They were all inserted at about the same
time; but that in the third bay has had some poor modern tracery
without cusps added to it, and that in the fourth bay is a more
recent, insertion than the one next to it. In the third and fourth
bays just above the low chamfered base of the wall are three
semicircular markings cut on the wall, but there is nothing to explain
their existence. In the fourth bay close beneath the sill of the
window is a stone built into the wall, upon which a dedication cross
is cut. At the fifth bay the east walk of the cloisters joins the wall
of the aisle; its roof partly hides a window, above which is a square
panel of the fifteenth century. This panel indicates the position of a
window, for the jambs and mullions of its tracery may be seen within
the church. They are rebated for shutters, the old hooks for which
also remain. The south-east angle turret of the presbytery has lately
been rebuilt; so also has that on the north-east angle. They are each
of them octagonal in form, but differ in detail, in imitation of those
they replace.

The large rose window in the gable of the #East End# is of about
the same date as the vaulting over the south transept, since they
possess kindred details. In design it is a simple circle, with seven
others within it of equal diameter. Portions of the coping of an
earlier and lower pointed gable are bedded in the wall. Under the
string beneath the rose window are three windows grouped as a triplet,
with no label moulding. The centre light is higher than the others.
Though each has been much repaired, the early thirteenth-century
detail has been retained. The abaci of the capitals are square. The
windows have no tracery, and are probably quite fifty years earlier in
date than the large rose above them.

The exterior of the small chapel to the south has a square weathered
angle buttress. On its south side is a window of the same date as the
rest of the chapel, and like the triplet in the gable of the
presbytery in character and date. Its east end has been altered since
the chapel was finished. First a small rose window, recently renewed,
of the same date and type as that in the presbytery gable, was
inserted under the earlier narrow window close to the gable point;
then the original east window was removed, and a larger one was put
in, having three lights and a traceried head with cusped work of late
fourteenth-or early fifteenth-century work. The sill of the old window
was lowered to give more length. Most of the window now to be seen is
the result of recent restoration. Parts of the old string-courses
remain in the walling.

The south side of the #Lady-Chapel# beyond the chapel just
described has four bays. In each of these is a large three-light
window. The western and smallest one was probably first inserted. Then
the two eastern ones were put in when the two east bays were added to
the older lady-chapel. The other window appears the latest of the
four; or else may it not be that before deciding to lengthen the
lady-chapel, the builders first began only with the idea of inserting
some new windows in the older walls? But before this scheme had been
executed they concluded that they would add bodily to the chapel; and
in order to allow the chapel to continue in use while this was being
done, they built the extension first outside, then built up the
connection with the original walls, and inserted their latest window.
Two of the buttresses on this wall are flat. In this they are like
those of the twelfth century; but their upper parts were rebuilt when
the parapet was made. The others are later, and have more projection.
On the north and south of the lady-chapel the wall is finished by a
parapet. It is the same in detail and design as that on the south wall
of the presbytery. So it is probable that Bishop Gilbert de S.
Leophardo, when he lengthened the lady-chapel, caused other work to be
done at the same time.

[Illustration: WINDOWS OF THE LADY-CHAPEL, SOUTH SIDE. _S.B. Bolas &
Co., photo_.]

The lady-chapel has been much restored in many ways, but the old
parapet remains in part on the north side. The tracery of the windows
is interesting, as it shows early examples of cusped forms. The east
end of the lady-chapel has a five-light window, which has been much
repaired. It has been in a measure imitated from the others in the
chapel.

The description of the south side of the chapel applies generally to
the north side. But the windows in two cases have been much more
restored. The chapel north of the lady-chapel has an angle turret like
that on the south. Its east and north windows are fifteenth-century
insertions. And it has a little rose window in the gable not yet
restored, though soon, by decay, it will have disappeared. The smaller
window above it is blocked up. On its north side there is neither a
gutter nor a parapet; but perhaps this is better than the foolish
cornice, with rosettes in it, which has been placed on the wall of the
south chapel to carry a gutter.

The details of the north wall of the presbytery are similar to those
described on the south. But there are no sub-arches to any of the
flying buttresses, and the slopes of each are protected by lead
coverings. And in the exterior of the north aisle the same elements of
structure and design may be discovered, even to the presence of
twelfth-century remains, the curve of the old encircling apse, and the
position of the first sills, abaci, and string-courses. But it should
be noticed that in the eastern bay of this aisle externally, where on
the south there is a fifteenth-century solid square panel, on the
north there is a small round-headed window. But this little window is
of no earlier date than the walls in which it is set. The second and
third windows from the east buttress of the presbytery aisle are
insertions of fifteenth-century type; but they have been so much
renewed and restored that only in the third one does there appear to
be any portion of the original tracery remaining. On the north side of
the choir and presbytery are four very fine old lead rain-water heads
and square lead pipes.

The east end of the present #Library# has in it five windows. Two
of the upper ones are built up, the central and higher one only being
glazed. In detail they are all of the same date as the walls they are
in. None has any tracery, and by this they show that this piece of
work was done at the same time as the chapel--now a vestry--on the
east side of the south end of the transept. The gable is a low slope
like the present roof, but the slope of the old gable and roof may be
seen upon the east wall of the transept. There is one buttress only on
the east side of the library. The north side is divided into two parts
in its length by a buttress. The parapet has a corbel course similar
to that on the two eastern bays of the presbytery aisle. The two small
pointed windows below it are built up, as now the apartment they once
lighted is a lumber-room, where the remnants of the old reredos are
stored. The larger windows below are of the same date, nearly, as
those two fifteenth-century ones in the north wall of the presbytery
aisle. The east one has three and the west four lights, with cusped
tracery in the heads.

The east wall of the north arm of the #Transept# has a buttress, as
is the case with the south arm. But early thirteenth-century pointed
windows take the place of the round-headed ones. There are, however,
three string-courses on this wall of the north arm which do not appear
on the south. One is the old twelfth-century string which evidently
once ran along above the old round-headed windows. The next is a
continuation of the abaci of the capitals. The other passes under the
sills of the windows. A comparison of this wall with that
corresponding to it in the south of the transept shows that for some
reason the windows here were totally changed and the others only
partially. This may suggest that at the time of the fire this part was
more damaged than the other. The parapet on this wall is unlike that
at the top of the presbytery and choir walls. It has no corbelling and
no arched and cusped work; it is merely a plain piece of walling,
slightly overhung with a weathered coping at the top and a moulded
string beneath.

The general features in the design of the north end of this transept
are similar to those of the south. The gable sets back from the face
of the lower wall as before, and in it is a rose window, also based on
the hexagon principle in design. It is later in character than either
of the other large rose windows in the south of the transept and the
east of the presbytery. Like the others, it has been much repaired.
The two irregular octagon turrets on each angle are of the same date
as those on the south, and, like them, have weathered and battlemented
parapets to the top of their side walls. The parapet of the north wall
between them is of the same design, detail, and date as that on the
north and south walls of the clerestory to the nave.

On the north-east angle are two buttresses; and on the north-west
angle there is a group of buttresses of a later type. On the west
there remains the old twelfth-century flat buttress, like those on the
south-west angle of the transept. Westward of this, and standing clear
of the wall, is a fine fourteenth-century flying-buttress. Projecting
northwards, but attached to the north-west angle, is a vertical
buttress of the same date as the flying one close to it.

On the west side, this part of the transept almost repeats what is to
be observed on the east; but the parapet here is the same as that on
the north end, and near the ground is one of the twelfth-century
windows. The arch-mould of its rounded head is the same in detail as
those in the priest-vicars' vestry and in the chamber above the
present library. It seems to be an example of that later work of the
twelfth century of which other specimens no doubt remained in the
walls of the lady-chapel before Bishop Gilbert transformed it into its
present state. Close to this window, and rising up just above the sill
of the clerestory windows, is a narrow, flat buttress, which is
probably of the same date as the window. Its upper half has an
attached shaft on each angle, with moulded bases and carved capitals
of the same period; but the weathering on its top appears to have been
changed in the thirteenth century.

Close by is the only part now remaining of the twelfth-century outer
wall of the nave aisle. The original corbel course of the parapet
remains, but not the upper part of the parapet. And it may be seen
here that the small windows that lighted the triforium gallery had
round arched heads in two orders, with a string-course at their sill.
Below this string is a thirteenth-century pointed window, with a
billet-moulded label cut in a twelfth-century manner of design.

[Illustration: THE CATHEDRAL FROM THE NORTH-EAST. _Photochrom Co.,
Ltd., photo_.]

The north side of the nave retains the seven twelfth-century
clerestory windows, the one next to the transept having been rebuilt
after the fall of the central tower and spire in 1861. There are no
remains of later insertions, as on the south side. The parapet is
later in design than those to the choir and lady-chapel; but it is of
the same date as that on the south wall of the nave. In the five
eastern bays it is of two tiers. The upper projects beyond the lower,
and so widens the span between the north and south clerestory walls.
It has been suggested that this was done in order to straighten the
north wall, which in the twelfth century had been built so that it
bent inwards towards the south.

The weathered and channelled backs of five of the buttresses are the
same date as those south of the nave; but the easternmost one has a
flat raking back like those to the north and south of the choir and
presbytery. The four western buttresses had pinnacles with
spirelets--now destroyed. The western one was square, the other three
octagonal. All these are earlier in date than the fifth one from the
west, this last one being probably the same in date, as it is in
detail, as those on the south side. The sixth one finishes plainly
with a square top. It may once have had a pinnacle, but none now
remains.

The parapet to the aisle chapels in the four western bays is plain,
with a weathered coping and string-course in which is some carved work
of late fourteenth-century date. The gables between the buttresses are
gone, as is the case on the south side; but traces of their old
copings remain. The four large three-light windows are the same in
design and detail, and were no doubt executed when the chapels
themselves were built. They have traceried heads with early types of
cusping of about the same date as, or a little later than, the rose
window in the east gable; but they are certainly thirty or forty years
earlier than those of the lady-chapel. The north window of the chapel
in the fifth bay is a modern insertion of the same character as in the
south aisle chapels of the nave. It probably, like them, contained a
fifteenth-century window, which was removed to satisfy the taste which
thought the present substitute the better thing. The detail of the two
orders of its outer arch is earlier than that of the windows west of
it. Above the point of this window is a small circular one, with a
cusped treatment of perhaps the same date as the ones in the east end
of the chapels at the end of the aisles of the presbytery.

The #North Porch# has a pointed outer arch in two orders. The
abaci to the capitals are square; but now there are no shafts or bases
in the jambs. The sub-arches appear to be about the same date as the
transept vaulting, as they have the dogtooth ornament in their
mouldings. On the west face of the buttress, close by, is a double
niche in very bad repair; but as a specimen of work it is well worth
studying. The parvise chamber above this porch is not lighted except
by the small cuttings in the form of a cross which pierce the wall.

The new north-west tower, or its north front, has imitations of
twelfth-century work throughout, except in the case of the coupled
openings in the top stage, which are like the thirteenth-century work
at the same level in the south-west tower. The lower part of the
north-east buttress incorporates the remains of the original
twelfth-century flat buttressing.

The #Central Tower# and #Spire#, although they were rebuilt
again after the disaster in 1861, are as nearly as possible an exact
reproduction of the originals.

The tower rises out of the substructure where the roofs of the nave
and transept intersect. It is not square in plan, but has an axis from
east to west, longer than that from north to south. Below the
string-course, under the weathered sills of the arcaded openings in
the belfry stage, are, on the north, south, and west, small wall
arcades. At each angle there is a turret. Three of these are
octagonal, but that at the south-west is circular till it reaches the
string course below the parapet; and excepting those on the north-west
and south-west they are used as staircases. Each of the four sides is
pierced by two groups of coupled openings under superior arches, the
several moulded members of which rise in four receding orders from the
square abaci of the capitals of the angle shafts. The space between
the pointed heads of the sub-arches on the east and west faces is
pierced by quatrefoils; those on the west are different in design from
those on the east.

The parapet of the tower has features in its design which indicate
that the original one W been added to the earlier tower during the
fifteenth century. The octagonal terminations to the four turrets were
of the same character and date as the parapet.

[Illustration: _Photochrom Co., Ltd., photo._ THE DETACHED
BELL-TOWER.]

The spire rises out of the supporting walls of the tower within the
parapet. It is a regular octagon in shape. Four octagonal pinnacles
are placed at its base next to each of the turrets of the tower; and
between these, on the other four faces of the spire, are tall stone
dormers, with carved crockets and finials on the copings of the
high-pitched gables. Above this group the spire is divided into three
sections by two bands of diaper-work cut out of the stone surfaces as
cusped quatrefoils; and from the base of the spire to its capstone
there is a projecting rib on each angle between the several faces of
the octagon.

The #Bell Tower#, which stands alone to the north of the cathedral,
is now the only one of its kind in England; and it is curious that in
two cases where these towers were found, as at Salisbury and at
Norwich, spires had been added to the central towers. The cathedral
bells have been hung in this tower since the fifteenth century. The
structure itself, with its massive walls, is square in plan at the
base, but at the top story it becomes an octagon, and the buttresses
on each angle terminate as pinnacles between the angles of the square
and four sides of the octagon.

[Illustration: THE NAVE, LOOKING WEST. _Photochrom Co., Ltd., photo.]




CHAPTER III.

THE INTERIOR.


The #Nave# of Chichester, compared with that of other cathedrals,
possesses several peculiar characteristics. It has a beauty apart from
others in the quiet simplicity with which it has been designed. There
is an evident restraint, almost severity, to be felt in studying the
exquisite proportions of its parts. It does not exhibit the massive
force and strength of Durham; but the rigid power in the square piers
of the arcades is stern compared with the more subtle variations of
light and shade produced by the curved surfaces of the circular piers
either at Ely or Peterborough.

During the Reformation period the divisions between the several
chapels to the north and south of the nave were removed; and so since
that date Chichester has been the only cathedral in England which has
what may be called five aisles, and it is wider than any other,
excepting York, being ninety-one feet across.

The central space, or nave proper, is divided into eight bays
throughout its length. The vertical lines which mark these divisions
are the triple attached vaulting shafts. They support the transverse
ribs of the stone vault; and from their carved Purbeck marble capitals
spring also the wall and diagonal ribs. A Purbeck string-course in
each case separates the triforium gallery from the arcade below and
from the clerestory above.

[Illustration: THE NAVE, LOOKING EAST. _Photochrom Co., Ltd., photo_.]

The nave arcades have round arches. The fine stone facing of the piers
toward the nave, the small columns in the jambs, the vaulting shafts,
and the moulded outer member of the arches are all additions to the
twelfth-century structure. In the triforium, the round arch again
occurs with two smaller sub-arches of similar shape. In the nave these
were not altered after the second fire; but the clerestory above was
much changed in character. The central arch of the three remained
semicircular, but the side ones became pointed in place of the early
round arches. The detached columns, the jamb shafts, and the moulding
of the arches were all altered in detail; and the stone used was of
finer texture, like that with which the piers of the arcade below were
faced.

In the #South Aisle# there is a good view, which extends beyond the
transept into the small chapel of S. Mary Magdalen at the east end, in
which is the only really fine stained-glass window in the church. The
chapel aisle to the south of this, again, is interesting, in that it
still retains some signs of what purposes it served in former days.
The two western bays were originally the #chapel of S. George#.
Those to the east were dedicated as the #chapel of S. Clement#. In
each of these the old piscina and aumbry remain near where the altar
had been placed. The latter chapel has now been restored in memory of
Bishop Durnford (see page 121). Mr. G.F. Bodley, A.R.A., and Mr. T.
Garner were the architects who designed the new work. The old wall
arcade is now again used as part of the reredos. The figures under the
arches are--in the centre S. Clement, on the south S. Anselm, and on
the north S. Alphege. In the quatrefoils above are figures of two
angels bearing in their hands shields, on which are represented the
symbols of the Passion. Behind the altar, which is of oak, is a white
marble re-table. The deeply moulded arch which separates the two
vaulted bays of each of these chapels is carried by some very
beautiful carved capitals. Above them may be seen the square abaci
which are so much used in all the later work in the cathedral. They
are peculiarly a French characteristic, and serve to indicate the
relationship there was between the English and Continental schools of
mediæval architecture.

Beyond this chapel is the doorway from the south porch, which gives
access to the west walk of the cloister.

The doorway on the right in the south aisle next to the entrance to
the south arm of the transept leads to the #Bishop's Consistory
Court# (or Langton's Chapter House), which is now a muniment-room.

The small chamber above the south porch is supposed to have been a
secret #Treasury#. It is approached through the muniment-room, and
has been popularly known as the "Lollard's Prison."

[Illustration: THE SOUTH AISLE FROM THE NAVE. _S.B. Bolas & Co.
photo_.]

The #North Aisle# is similar to that on the south side. Towards its
western end is the entrance door from the north porch.

The north chapel aisle was originally used as three separate chapels
until the divisions between them were removed. The two bays at the
west were the #chapel of S. Anne#; the two next east of this formed
the chapel of the Four Virgins, and the last bay was the small chapel
of SS. Thomas and Edmund. In the first named of these there may still
be seen, in the jambs, the capitals, and the arch-moulds of the
north-western window, some of the colour decoration of which so much
remained until the nineteenth century. The space in the north wall
shows where the aumbry used to be. The small remnants of the division
wall at the east are some slight indication of what the design of the
arcading on this wall was before it was destroyed. In the next chapel,
that of the #Four Virgins#, there is nothing to show where the
aumbry or the piscina was. But on the north 'the position of the
arcading on the east dividing wall remains. The #chapel of SS. Thomas
and Edmund# has an arcade on the east wall similar to that in the
chapel of S. Clement. The aumbry is on the north and the piscina on
the south side of the position which the altar used to occupy.

The #Rood-Screen# at the entrance to the choir from the nave was
erected in 1889, and is a memorial of Archdeacon Walker. It was
designed by Mr. T. Garner. At the point where the arms of the cross
meet is a figure representing the "Agnus Dei," and at the extremities
of the cross are carvings of the four-winged figures of the cherubim.

The #Pulpit# was designed by Sir Gilbert Scott, and is a memorial
of Dean Hook. It is very elaborately carved, and is made of Caen stone
and Purbeck marble. The four figures are intended to represent
Matthew, Mark, Luke, and John.

The #Lectern# of brass was presented to the church as a memorial of
Richard Owen, of Chichester, by his daughter.

The #Font# under the south-western tower is a copy of an old one in
the church at Shoreham. It was the gift of Bishop Durnford, as a
memorial of his wife.

The #Monuments in the Nave# have in many cases suffered from bad
usage, and in most instances they do not now occupy their original
places in the building.

The canopied memorial to Bishop Durnford (1), [30] under which is a
recumbent effigy, forms part of the screen between S. Clement's
chapel and the south aisle of the nave. It was designed by Mr. Garner.
There are several tablets in the nave and aisles by Flaxman. The best
are those to the memory of Captain Cromwell's wife and daughter (2),
in S. Clement's chapel, and one on the north side of the nave, in the
chapel of the Four Virgins, as a memorial of Collins (3), the poet,
who was a native of Chichester. The two recumbent figures under the
arch leading into this same chapel are said to be those of Richard
Fitz-Alan, Earl of Arundel, and his wife (4). It was restored by
Richardson. Fitz-Alan was beheaded in 1397. Some say that these two
figures were removed from the chapel of the monastery of the Grey
Friars at the time of the Reformation, and were placed in their
present position in 1843, having been found embedded in the stonework
of the chapel wall close by. The base upon which the figures rest is
modern. The earl is represented in full armour. At his feet is a lion,
and at his head, under the helmet, is a coronet and a lion's head. At
the countess's feet is a dog, and her head rests upon two pillows.

  [30] The figures in parenthesis refer to the numbers on the plan at
the end.

The most beautiful monument now remaining in the church is that which
is said to represent Maud, Countess of Arundel (1270) (5). The
modelling of the whole figure and the long flowing lines of her robes
are worthy of careful study. The whole pose and the disposition of the
two angels at the head arranging the pillows, with the two dogs upon
which her feet rest, have been finely conceived and well executed. The
hands are clasped over the breast, with the forearms bent upwards
slightly towards the face. On each of the long sides of the base
supporting the figure are six elongated quatrefoil panels, containing
in all six female figures and six shields. Between the quatrefoils are
winged heads of ten angelic figures. The blazoning of the shields is
entirely gone, and the brilliant colouring that once covered the
entire monument is only to be traced in a few places. The outer robe
still shows some signs of the rich blue with which it used to be
covered. The face of the figure appears to be badly mutilated, but the
damage to the features has been done principally by an endeavour to
preserve them. A thick coat of plaster had been placed over the face
to protect it from injury, perhaps in the seventeenth century or
earlier, and this was never completely removed. It had become
gradually polished like the material of the figure itself, and so it
remains, with a cut across it to represent a mouth. The remains of the
real face are still hidden beneath.

[Illustration: THE SACRISTY (SEE P. 90). _S.B. Bolas & Co. photo_.]

Close to this effigy, but in the aisle farther to the east, and on the
north wall, are two admirable memorial tablets which were designed in
the eighteenth century. One is in memory of Dean Hayley and his wife
(6), and the other in memory of Henry Baker and his wife and their
only child (7), who, by comparison with the other tablet, appears to
have been a second wife of the same Thomas Hayley.

Close to the porch in the south aisle is the only complete old brass
in the building (8). It is dated 1592, and records the fact that "Mr.
William Bradbridge" was "thrice Maior of this Cittie," and "had vi
sonnes & viii daughters." The other monuments in the nave are those of
Matthew Quantock, Dean Cloos, Bishop Arundel, and William Huskisson,
sometime member of Parliament for Chichester. One on the south side of
the west porch is Bishop Stephen de Berghstead's, and the other
opposite on the north is a work of the fifteenth century.

The #Choir and Sanctuary#--These are very different in appearance now
from what they were, as will be seen by reference to the chapter on
the history of the fabric.

The #Reredos# was designed by Messrs. Slater & Carpenter, and has
never been completed. It is generally considered that it is not at all
in keeping with the character of the building, and there is some hope
that it may be one day removed. The subject of the figure-work in the
panel is "The Ascension."

The #Altar# was presented by the late Mr. J.F. France, and is made
of oak. Some of the frontals are very elaborate examples of modern
embroidery.

The #Pavements# are composed of many specimens of various coloured
marbles.

The #Stalls# are those which have been in use since the fourteenth
century. All the furniture of the choir had been removed for safety
before the fall of the tower and spire: but the bishop's throne (9)
and the stalls for the dean and precentor have been added since that
time.

The #Candelabrum# which hangs from the vault was presented by Lady
Featherstonhaugh and two other ladies, in the eighteenth century.

The #Iron Grilles# which screen the eastern part of the choir from
the aisles are good examples of simple modern ironwork copied from old
examples; they were made in Chichester by Halsted & Sons.

[Illustration: THE MODERN ALTAR AND REREDOS.]

The #Organ# was placed on the north side of the choir after it
had been removed from its earlier position on the Arundel screen; and
in 1888, when it was largely remodelled, a new oak case was designed
for it. It was made originally by Harris in 1678, and had then only
one manual and no pedals; but between this date and the last
alteration, it had already been enlarged no less than at six different
times.

As the choir stalls are immediately under the crossing, above which
rises the new central tower and spire, they are a convenient place
from which to examine the work of restoration. The new work represents
as nearly as possible all that was there before the collapse of the
old piers and arches.

In the #South Transept# the most important feature is the
beautifully designed stonework of the tracery in the south window; but
this may be seen better from the cloisters, as the crude vulgarity of
the bad painted glass makes it difficult to examine it from within the
building.

The #Sacristy# (10), now used as a choir school and vestry, is a
large vaulted chamber, lighted on the south side by six small windows
(see page 87).

The #Chapel of S. Pantaleon# (11), on the east side of the
transept, still retains the old piscina in the south wall; but it is
used now as the vestry for the dean and canons.

The vaulting ribs in the part of the transept between this chapel and
the sacristy are carved like those in the last bay of the presbytery
next to the lady-chapel, and are of the same date. They appear to be
part of the work done during Bishop Gilbert Leophardo's episcopate.

The #Pictures# by Bernardi on the back of the choir stalls (see
illustration, p. 113) represent Ceadwalla and Henry VIII. granting and
confirming privileges to the bishops of their day. The portraits of
the bishops of the see from Wilfrid to Sherborne are in the north
transept.

The #South Aisle of the Choir# is entered from the south transept
under a deeply moulded arch. On the south is the priest-vicars' vestry
(12), and at the east end the #chapel of S. Mary Magdalen#. This
chapel was restored by Messrs. G.F. Bodley, A.R.A., and T. Garner,
architects, in memory of the Rev. T.F. Crosse, who was precentor and
canon of the cathedral. The aumbry in the north wall was the
receptacle in which S. Richard's head was preserved in a case of
silver. This is mentioned in William de Tenne's will. On the other
side is the old piscina. The paintings in the panels by Miss Lowndes
represent, on the north side (i) S. Richard celebrating the Eucharist
in S. Edmund's Chapel, (ii) the same bishop preaching, and (iii) his
death; on the south, (i) Mary anoints our Lord's Feet, (ii) The
Crucifixion, (iii) After the Resurrection. The carved and painted
reredos is of stone. Close to this chapel is the doorway into the
church from the east walk of the cloisters; in the spandrels of the
arches, both inside and outside, are the arms of William of Wykeham.
Above it is a window, the glass in which was given by Cardinal Manning
(when Archdeacon of Chichester) in memory of his wife.

[Illustration: THE TRIFORIUM IN THE CHOIR. _S.B. Bolas & Co., photo_.]

[Illustration. DECORATION ON THE VAULT OF THE LADY-CHAPEL, BY TH.
BERNARDI, 1519 (SEE P. 34). (Scale about 4 feet 10 ins. to 1 in).
_H.C. Corletle, delin_.]

The #Presbytery#, Ambulatory, or retro-choir, is the space between
the back of the reredos and the entrance to the lady-chapel. The
design in detail of these two bays is very different in character from
the three in the choir, which are like those in the nave. The two
piers of Purbeck marble are circular, and about them are grouped four
detached shafts of the same material. They are united only at the base
and by the abacus above the capitals, which are beautifully carved
(see page 16). The main arches in the two bays are not pointed, but
round, like those in the nave and choir; but, unlike the latter, they
have deeply cut mouldings in three orders. The triforium arcade above,
on the north and south sides, has moulded and carved details of a
similar character. Some of the beautifully carved figure-work still
remains in the spandrels between the subsidiary pointed arches. But
the most beautiful piece of design in all this work is in the arches
of the triforium passage across the east wall, above the entrance to
the lady-chapel.

[Illustration: THE PRESBYTERY OR RETRO-CHOIR, LOOKING NORTH-EAST.]

It should be noticed that the sub-arches in the triforium here are
pointed, not round, as in the case of those in the same position
westward of this portion. And the support to these arches in the
centre, is a group of shafts instead of only one column. The
clerestory, however, offers a greater contrast to the earlier work in
that the central arch, as well as the side ones, is lifted up much
higher, the detached columns being lengthened to obtain the
alteration. Each arch also, at this level, is now pointed.

S. Richard's shrine occupied the bay in the presbytery immediately
behind the High Altar. It stood upon a platform which was approached
on its eastern side by steps, and was enclosed by iron grilles. The
platform was removed at the time of the general restoration in
1861-1867, and upon it used to stand also the tombs of Bishop Day and
Bishop Christopherson or Curteys.

The #Lady-Chapel#, as its walls and vaulting clearly show, was once
completely decorated with designs in colour. The windows now are the
only parts that indicate an attempt to renew this portion of its
earlier condition. The new reredos is of alabaster, and was designed
by Messrs Carpenter & Ingelow.

The #North Choir Aisle# contains some monuments which are referred
to separately. The now unused chapel at its eastern end was dedicated
to S. Catharine.

The #Library# is approached through a doorway in this aisle. There
is a chamber above in which was the library of pre-Reformation days.
The present library formed the chapel of S. John the Baptist and S.
Edmund the King (13) until it became the chancel of the parish church
of S. Peter the Great, the north transept being used as its nave. Part
of the vaulting in it is unlike any other in the building, having the
chevron or zigzag ornament cut on the side of the mouldings of the
ribs (see page 98).

[Illustration: THE LADY-CHAPEL.]

The library collection contains many relics of various kinds: among
them are Oslac's grant of land to the church at Selsea, A.D. 780; a
manuscript of the twelfth century; Cranmer's copy of the "Consultatio"
of Herman of Cologne; an old Sarum missal; the sealed book of Charles
II.; fragments of ecclesiastical vessels; and a leaden "Absolution" of
Bishop Godfrey dating from the eleventh century.

The #North Transept# has on its west side two of the old
twelfth-century round-arched windows, and opposite are the two large
round-arched openings into the library and the chamber above it. The
vaulting of this transept is not the same in detail as that to the
south of the choir, and is rather earlier in the type of its
mouldings. Close by the south springing of the arch leading to the
library is one of the few pieces of figure-carving in the church. It
is a head full of vigour and character.

The #Monuments in the Transepts and Choir# have been injured and
restored or removed at various times. The large one (14) under the
south window is Langton's tomb and effigy (d. 1336). The new one
nearest to the singing school is a memorial and effigy of Mr. John
Abel Smith, of Dale Park, who represented Chichester in the House of
Commons. On the east wall is another tomb of Tudor date (15), with
niches for sculpture. The tomb next to the back of the choir-stalls
(16) is that of Bishop Richard de la Wych. The two panels in relief
(17), in the south aisle of the choir are works of about the twelfth
century (see page 105). It is supposed that originally they were
brought to Chichester from Selsea. They were discovered in 1829 hidden
in the wall behind the woodwork of the stalls in the choir, and were
subsequently placed in their present position. The subject of the one
nearest to the transept is the "Raising of Lazarus," and of the other,
"Our Lord with Mary and Martha at Bethany." These are two of the most
interesting relics of earlier days that remain in the cathedral.
Historically and artistically, they are of much value, but at present
no more than has been stated is known about them. Bishop Sherborne's
monument (18) was built during his lifetime, and at his death he
provided for its care by New College, of which he had been a fellow.
It is still well cared for; but with its original decorations it must
have been a very beautiful object.

[Illustration: THE NORTH CHOIR AISLE, LOOKING WEST. _S.B. Bolas & Co.,
photo_.]

Dean Hook, who died in 1875, is commemorated by a monument (19)
opposite Sherborne's. It was designed by Sir Gilbert Scott, and, like
the pavements of the choir, it has in its composition many specimens
of coloured marbles. Much of the detail is executed in mosaic. Under
the arch of the presbytery arcade nearest to the reredos, on the south
side, is Bishop Day's tomb (20). On the south side of the
lady-chapel, close to the entrance, are the memorial slabs of two
early bishops, perhaps Hilary and John de Greneford, beneath the arch
where Bishop Gilbert's effigy was placed. On the opposite side is a
space under an arch in which may be traced the lines of some
decoration which once ornamented some memorial. Upon the floor below
is the memorial of Bishop Ralph (21), the builder of the first
portions of the cathedral. Close by is a large wall tablet in memory
of Bishop Thomas Bickley. It is a design of the seventeenth-century
period, and is interesting of its kind. Under the arch on the north
side of the presbytery, opposite Day's tomb, is that of Bishop
Christopherson or Curteys (22), and against the wall of the aisle near
the chapel of S. Catharine is a curious marble slab with some carving
upon it. It represents two hands, with parts of the arms, supporting a
heart, and the full inscription, now almost gone, was "ICY GIST LE
COEUR DE MAUDDE" ("Here lies the heart of Maud"). It is evidently work
of an early date, but nothing is accurately known of its history,
though it has been assumed that it was made in the twelfth or
thirteenth century (23). To the west of this is a bust of Bishop Otter
(24). In an arched recess in the wall nearer to the library is the
tomb and effigy of Bishop Storey (25). Close to this are two memorials
of the sixteenth century. On the west side of the north transept are
the monuments of Bishops Henry King, Carleton, and Grove.

[Illustration: THE LIBRARY. _S.B. Bolas & Co., photo_.]

The #Stained Glass# in the cathedral is all modern, and most of it
is of the worst possible kind. It is bad in design and crude in
colour, and much of it is not really stained glass at all, but a
painted substitute. The only really good window in the building is
that at the east end of the south choir aisle in S. Mary Magdalen's
chapel. It was designed by Mr. C.E. Kempe. The glass in the
lady-chapel windows is better than most of the rest, and it is
admitted that the worst glass that was ever placed in any cathedral
church by a generous munificence is that which is now in the large
window of the south transept.

[Illustration: THE TOWN CROSS. Built by Bishop Storey, _c_. 1500.
_Photochrom Co., Ltd., photo_.]




CHAPTER IV.

THE DIOCESE AND SEE.


To trace the history of the establishment of the city of Chichester we
need go back to the time when the Romans had occupied the same site
under the ancient name of Regnum. They had fortified themselves in
this position, and evidence of their occupation is to be found to-day
in the subdivision of the city into four parts by those streets which
meet at the Market Cross. But as the centre of the Imperial fabric
became weaker the dependencies were abandoned, and the Roman legions
recalled early in the fifth century. So when in 477 A.D. "came Aelle
to Britain, and his three sons, Cymen, Wlencing, and Cissa, with three
ships," and landed at "the place which is named Cymenesora, and there
slew many Welsh, and drove some into the forest which is named
Andredslea," there were no Roman soldiers to oppose them.

In this brief sentence, quoted from the Anglo-Saxon chronicle, there
is a reference to several interesting matters which concern the later
history of the South Saxons, their acceptance of Christianity, and the
foundation of that Church--first at Selsea, then at Chichester--which
was to be the future local centre to support and foster the faith they
for so long rejected. The Jute leaders, Hengest and Horsa, had
established themselves on British soil in 449 A.D. This was
twenty-eight years before Aelle arrived, and with his followers "slew
many Welsh"; that is, the British natives, the Wealas, or strangers,
whom he found in possession of the land. The place "named Cymenesora,"
at which Aelle had landed, was close to Wittering, at the mouth of
Chichester harbour. And the chronicle, relating what had occurred
thirteen years later, records how "in this year (490-1) Aelle and
Cissa besieged Andredes ceaster, and slew all that dwelt therein, so
that not even one Briton was left." This fortress of Anderida, which
had been a Roman _castrum_, occupied the spot now called Pevensey, the
landing-place of a later conqueror, the Norman William, in 1066. It
guarded on the east the strip of land between the South Downs and the
sea; and when it fell before them, the Saxons became masters of the
region to the north known then as Andredeslea, or Andredeswold, the
forest or weald of Anderida. To the west was Regnum, Cissa's Ceaster,
or Chichester, another of those fortresses which the provident and
energetic Romans had established along the South Coast.

One of Aelle's followers, named Boso, or Bosa, settled at the head of
a branch of Chichester harbour, and, as in the case of his superior,
Cymen, the place was named after him, as Bosenham, or Bosham. This was
in the fifth century. Augustine began his work in Kent late in the
sixth century, and Birinus, who was sent independently direct from
Rome, had undertaken the conversion of the West Saxons fifteen years
before the middle of the succeeding century. But neither by these
missionaries nor their brethren was the territory of the South Saxons
affected.

The West Saxons, by conquest, extended their rule westward and
northward, and missionary enterprise followed the course of military
success and subsequent civil protection. The original British
occupiers of the land withdrew to Wales, or else became subject to the
conquerors. Similar had been the course of events which followed the
taking of Kent by the Jutes. So when Augustine arrived he was welcomed
by Aethelberht, whose wife Bertha, a Frankish princess, was already a
Christian.

Augustine having founded the see of Canterbury, was soon enabled, by
the help of political and social influence, to effect the
establishment of other sees. Rochester, London, and York were soon
centres of activity; but these neighbour principalities had not,
ecclesiastically, affected the territories that were close to their
respective domains; for the kingdom of the South Saxons remained,
nearly two centuries after Aelle's conquest, in the same heathen
condition as prevailed in his day.

Bede relates that at Bosham, Dicul had founded a monastery where,
"surrounded by woods and water, lived five or six brethren, serving
the Lord in humility and poverty." But "no one cared to emulate their
life, or listen to their teaching." Dicul came from Ireland, and it is
supposed that he had been educated in the monastic centre of
missionary life which in the sixth century had been founded there. It
is not, however, known how these few men found their way to the South
Saxon shores, and their presence there had no influence upon the minds
of those invaders who had possessed themselves of the adjacent lands.
A quarrel in the Northumbrian kingdom was the cause which sent a
missionary to Sussex in 680 A.D.

Ecgfrith and his witan had banished #Wilfrith#, Archbishop of York,
from his see. The unfortunate exile wandered some time in search of
welcome. Eventually he found his way to Sussex, where Aethelwealh and
his Christian wife offered him a new field for his energies. Twenty
years earlier he had been in the same kingdom. On that occasion,
having been consecrated by the Bishop of Paris, he was returning from
Gaul when the vessel in which he travelled was driven upon the coast
and stranded. While in this helpless condition they were discovered
and attacked by the South Saxons, who were three times beaten off, but
whilst they were continuing their preparations for another assault,
the vessel rose with the tide and escaped. Under other circumstances
he was now among these people again. The famine which prevailed at the
time of his arrival gave him the necessary opportunity to gain their
affections by first satisfying their material needs. He showed the
starving folk how to catch fish with nets which he and his companions
had made, and then was able to teach them other things. He preached
with success for some time, and baptized many who heard him. Bede has
left a record characteristic of his day, in which he relates that
immediately they had accepted the faith which he taught, "the rain, so
long withheld, revisited the thirsty land."

Aethelwealh, grateful for Wilfrith's aid, granted him lands at Selsea.
The bishop at once gave freedom to those families and their slaves who
occupied the district, and baptized them, giving them release, as Bede
has told, from spiritual and temporal bond's at the same time. Selsea
thus became another see from which Christian principle and practice
might be taught in the midst of the surrounding tribes. In this spot,
near the residence of the king, a church was built, in which the
bishop's cathedra was placed. The structure was dedicated to S. Peter,
and was the first cathedral church in Sussex. It is not now known what
the architectural character of this building was. Perhaps there was
some attempt in its design to take advantage of such suggestions as
the Romans left behind them at Regnum, for we find in early instances
of English architecture that such examples had exercised some
influence upon the elementary efforts of those days. But it is more
likely that his first church was nothing but a small and simple barn,
for men were not then burdened with the idea that a cathedral must be
a big church, provided it served as a centre from which the bishop
could use his pastoral responsibility. During Wilfrith's stay at
Selsea many changes took place.

Then Ceadwalla, who had defeated Aedilwalch, or Aethelwealh, confirmed
the grants to the Church made by his predecessor, in return for the
kindness he had received from Wilfrith some time before.

Under their new head the missionaries at Selsea undertook, with the
king's sanction, to convert those who inhabited the neighbouring
island of Wight and also parts of the mainland which now were subject
to the new ruler. But after five years in the south Wilfrith returned
to his old diocese of York. Sussex, to a large extent, had accepted
the faith he endeavoured to teach, and many churches were established
and organised before his departure.

[Illustrations: OUR LORD WITH MARTHA AND MARY. THE RAISING OF LAZARUS.
SCULPTURED PANELS IN THE SOUTH CHOIR AISLE, SUPPOSED TO HAVE BEEN
BROUGHT FROM THE CATHEDRAL AT SELSEA (SEE P. 96).]

For some years after Wilfrith had returned to York there was no bishop
in charge of the newly founded diocese in Sussex. The community of
workers he had brought together at Selsea still continued to exist;
but Sussex in ecclesiastical affairs was subject to Winchester during
this interval. Ceadwalla, when Kentwine, King of Wessex, died in 685,
had begun "to strive for the kingdom," so the chronicle has recorded,
and having established himself upon the throne, he succeeded also in
conquering the ruler of Sussex, and so brought both kingdoms under his
sway. Wilfrith had converted him to the Christian faith; but when this
prelate was recalled to his former diocese, no one had been appointed
to carry on the work he had begun. For twenty years this vacancy
continued. Then, after the death of Ceadwalla, Ine, his successor,
divided the large diocese, which was subject to the Bishop of
Winchester, by making, with the consent of his witan, a new see at
Sherburne and reviving that of Selsea. Of this latter, #Eadberht#
was appointed the first bishop in the year 709. The community in
Selsea over which Eadberht had presided before his consecration was a
secular foundation. Whatever was the principle upon which it had been
founded, there seems no doubt that during the interim which elapsed
before a bishop was placed in charge some elementary form of
government was carried on by a succession of elected presidents. This
body was either composed of secular clergy, who were distributed
throughout the diocese, living as priests in charge of parishes _in
sæculo_, or it was a foundation supported by those who lived according
to a _regula_. The regulars were those who lived together, having
vowed obedience to some particular form of rule. These were unmarried
men, who used one building, property, refectory, and dormitory of the
institution in common. Not all of these were ordained, as there were
among them lay brothers as well as those who were priests. But the
seculars--those in the world--were not subject to rules and conditions
such as these. Many, as priests living in their parishes, were married
men.

After the consecration of Eadberht and his installation as Bishop of
Selsea, the cathedra, or episcopal chair, was occupied successively by
twenty prelates. The period during which these held office, including
the few intervals when for a time the see remained vacant, extended
over about three hundred and seventy years. Little is known of these
bishops further than that their signatures are to be found attached to
various charters. These were all called Bishops of the South Saxons.

#Aethelgar# was Bishop of Selsea in 980. He had been a member of
the monastic colony at Glastonbury, near Wells. After occupying the
see for about eight years, he succeeded Dunstan as Archbishop of
Canterbury.

Bishops #Ordberht# and #Aelmer# were bishops after Aethelgar;
and then the next prelate of importance was #Aethelric#, who was a
Benedictine of Christ Church, Canterbury. He was learned in the
ancient laws and customs of his country, and when a very old man acted
as one of the arbitrators appointed to settle the differences which
had arisen between Lanfranc and Odo, Earl of Kent. Aethelric had been
consecrated by Stigand, Archbishop of Canterbury, who was removed from
the Primacy by William the Conqueror to make room for Lanfranc, his
own nominee.

The see of Selsea was governed by three other bishops till William
appointed one of his chaplains to the office. This was #Stigand#
(1070-1087), but not that Stigand (the Primate) who at the same royal
bidding had to make room for Lanfranc. It was while he was still an
occupant of the see that the transfer to Chichester was effected. He
earned the displeasure of the king by refusing to consecrate Gausbert
to the Abbey of Battle unless the monk would come to Chichester for
the ceremony. He had some trouble, too, with his metropolitan,
Lanfranc, on account of a dispute concerning the limits of his
jurisdiction. Certain parishes within the territory of his diocese
were claimed as subject to the more eastern see. The Primate
established his right to these "peculiars," and the right obtained
until the last century, when all such holdings were abolished by law.

#Godfrey# (1087-1088) evidently incurred the displeasure of his
papal superior, as the only known record of his very brief episcopate
is represented by a discovery which was made in 1830 when an
absolution from the Pope, inscribed upon a leaden cross, was dug up in
the paradise close to the south choir aisle.

It was not till three years had elapsed since Godfrey's death that
#Ralph de Luffa# (1091-1123) was consecrated to the vacancy by
Thomas, Archbishop of York. Meanwhile the king enjoyed the
temporalities of the see. In his person we meet a figure of much
importance to the history of the fabric and see, for to his energy and
initiative we owe the greater part of the cathedral building that
remains to-day.

Ralph's activity was not wholly absorbed by his interest in the
architectural idea which he hoped to realise. He spent much time and
care attending to the needs of the churches of which he was the
overseer. He visited them regularly three times in the year for the
purpose of effecting reforms when they were necessary, for teaching,
and for developing the organisation of the diocese as it was affected
by the condition of each parochial unit. Thus by his office and
oversight he was endeavouring to maintain the necessary relations
between the particular churches and their cathedral centre. In defence
of these same members of the local and general ecclesiastical body he
was obliged to resent the attempted interference of two kings of the
realm. Henry I. wished to fill his pockets by imposing fines upon the
clergy. To oppose this the bishop closed all the churches in the
diocese and blocked up the entrances with thorns; and so, except in
the monasteries, the offering of public worship ceased. The
restriction was in time removed, and the king acknowledged the
bishop's plea that he should endeavour to replenish the coffers of his
poor see, so that the injured cathedral might be repaired, rather than
reduce it to poverty by extortion.

Ralph is credited with having established the office of "dean" [31] at
Chichester--the first of the four cathedral dignitaries, of which the
others are the præcentor, the chancellor, and the treasurer.

  [31] Stephens, p. 49.

#Seffrid Pelochin#, or #d'Escures# (1125-1147), ceded to the
king's aggression the rights and privileges Ralph had gained. He was
obliged to vacate the see in 1145, [an]d returned to Glastonbury,
where he had been abbot before he was made bishop. His name figures in
the list which Roger of Hoveden gives in his chronicle, as one among
the bishops who were at the Council of London in 1129.

#Hilary# (1147-1169) was a bishop who was before all things an
ecclesiastic. To Ralph Luffa's foundation of the dean's office he
added those of the chancellor and treasurer, if not also, as is
supposed, that of the præcentor. With Hilary began the traditional
post of confessor to the queen of the realm. Stephen had given him
this office, and at the same time added to the privilege a perpetual
chaplaincy in connection with the castle at Pevensey.

The letters from Popes Eugenius and Alexander III., which confirmed
the possessions held by the see and guaranteed a papal protection of
the church in Chichester, are among the collection in the cathedral
library. The properties these deeds acknowledge include that portion
of the city--one fourth--in which the close was situated; and within
this area were comprised the church itself, the episcopal palace, and
the residences of the canons. The original grant of this land was
made by William, Earl of Arundel, in 1147, who bestowed it among other
things as compensation "for the damages which I once did to the same
church." Hilary was Bishop of Chichester during that historic period
when Becket opposed Henry II. He attempted, like the rest of the
bishops, to heal the breach; and Tennyson, in "Becket," adopting a
phrase he used, makes him say to his Primate, "Hath not thine ambition
set the Church this day between the hammer and the anvil ... fealty to
the King, obedience to thyself?" He went to Sens, to plead as an
advocate on the king's behalf before Pope Alexander III. and the
French king. The result of this meeting was that England was placed
under the ban of excommunication. But Henry replied by declaring that
the property of all who acted upon it should be confiscated and
themselves banished. The bishop was involved also in a local contest
with the Abbot of Battle, who refused to consider himself subject to
his episcopal jurisdiction.

After Hilary's death in 1169 the revenues of the see were for four
years appropriated to his own uses by the king, who late in the year
1173 appointed #John Greenford# (1174-1180), who was Dean of
Chichester, to the vacancy. The bishop-elect was not consecrated
until, in 1174, he, with three more nominated about the same time, had
done penance before Becket's tomb at Canterbury. Little is known of
him except that he attended some ecclesiastical councils.

The episcopate of #Seffrid II.# (1180-1204) introduces an important
period of activity, during which great alterations were made in the
fabric of the cathedral.

#Simon Fitz Robert#, or #Simon of Wells# (1204-1207), was a
bishop whose favour with the king (John) enabled him to do much for
the see. He had held a post in the Royal Exchequer, and had been
guardian of the Fleet Prison as well as Provost of Beverley and
Archdeacon of Wells. The benefactions he obtained were various. A
charter was granted by which the see should hold its property free
from impost, under the protection of the king. The bishop, with his
dean and chapter, were practically exempted from the jurisdiction of
the local civil courts and from the payment of customs and tolls
within the same sphere. Within the bounds of the property owned by
the see they were to rule without restraint, and in the presence of a
royal official "the view of Frank Pledge was to be held in the
bishop's court." In the patent rolls of King John there are two
entries, dated 1205 A.D. and 1206 A.D., by which the bishop was
granted permission to take Purbeck marble for the repair of his church
without hindrance, from the coast of Dorset to Chichester. [32] But
precautions were taken to prevent any of the material thus obtained
from being used elsewhere. A further grant, the evidence of which is
now removed, allowed the chapter to build premises beyond the
precincts northward, which encroached twelve feet into the roadway now
known as West Street. A row of lime-trees now stands where these
houses remained till the middle of the last century. For six years
after Simon's death John kept the see vacant, and during the interim
enjoyed the temporalities.

  [32] See Walcott, p. 15, note _c_, May 24th, 1207.

#Richard Poore# was then consecrated bishop in 1215. He had been
Dean of Old Sarum. But after occupying the see for no more than two
years, he was translated to Salisbury.

#Ranulf of Warham# (1217-1224) bequeathed some property to the
see [33]; but otherwise he did little, except as a fortunate collector
of cattle, for the support of which his successor provided pasturage.

  [33] Stephens, p. 57.

#Ralph Neville# (1224-1244) was a bishop of more than local
celebrity. Like Langton, the archbishop, he withstood the demands
which the papacy and Henry III. made in their endeavours to impoverish
the Church in England. For this opposition the king removed him
temporarily from the post of Chancellor of the Realm, a position he
held from 1226 to 1240. His "fame rests more upon his repute as a
statesman faithful in many perils, and a singular pillar of truth in
the affairs of the kingdom." [34] He succeeded in procuring the payment
to the Church of tithe from some royal properties which had been
withheld, and left provision for the supply of twelve quarters of
wheat annually to the poor in Chichester. Some, notes preserved in the
cathedral records lead to the supposition that the portion of the old
central tower above the roof and up to the parapet at the foot of the
spire was built, or at least begun, during Ralph's tenure of the see.
One of these memoranda shows that he released from twenty days'
penance those who should visit the cathedral and contribute to the
maintenance of the fabric. The others state that he expended one
hundred and thirty marks upon repairs, and his executors paid over one
hundred and forty marks to the dean and chapter for the purpose of
finishing a stone tower which it had been found necessary to
repair. [35] Three years after his death it was nearly completed.
Bishop Neville died at his house by Chancellor's Lane, now Chancery
Lane. His property later passed into the hands of the Earl of Lincoln,
and was known then as the inn, or hospital, of Lincoln. The estate is
now covered by the buildings of Lincoln's Inn, [36] and that portion
which is still the property of the see is known as "The Chichester
Rents."

  [34] Matt. Paris.
  [35] See Walcott, p. 15, note _c_.
  [36] See Stephens, p. 61, cf. Murray's "Chichester."

Ralph's successor was Richard of Wych (1245-1253), generally called
St. Richard. He had studied under Edmund and Grosseteste at Oxford,
and also in Paris and Bologna. Returning from Europe, he became
Chancellor of the University of Oxford, then of the diocese of
Canterbury. Having withdrawn again to France, he was ordained priest
at Orleans, and then worked as vicar at Deal, from which post he was
called upon to occupy again his earlier office at Canterbury. Then
came his appointment to Chichester. The canons had elected Robert
Passelew, but the archbishop objected. Henry III., having supported
the first nominee, disputed Richard's election. Meanwhile the king
appropriated the temporalities for two years. Richard appealed to
Innocent IV., who confirmed the appointment and consecrated Richard at
Lyons in 1245. This did not end the difference, for on the new
bishop's return he was obliged to accept the hospitality of his
clergy, the king being still hostile. But he did not allow these
difficulties to interfere with his attention to episcopal duty, for he
walked throughout the diocese, organising and teaching as he went. In
his leisure he followed the pursuits of his youth, and spent his spare
time in farming and gardening. He was an excellent man, whose peculiar
sanctity rests largely upon his having succeeded in doing the duties
some of his predecessors had disregarded, and for a generosity which
outran his income. Accepting that law which the papacy had added to
those of Christianity, he treated the married clergy with the severity
his sense of duty and obedience urged, for he deprived them of their
benefices, and their wives were denied the offices of the Church both
before and after death. Any bequests to them by their husbands, he
declared, should be confiscated, and the funds derived by this means
devoted to the needs of the cathedral building Rather inconsistently
he taught the beneficed clergy that they should use hospitality and
charity; but like another Malachi, he reminded men that to withhold
the tithe of their increase from the Church made them robbers not of
the clergy, but of their Creator. He instituted the fund afterwards
known as "S. Richard's Pence." It was a system by which regular
offerings should be made for the completion and maintenance of the
cathedral fabric. And, characteristically, he obtained the support of
the archbishop and seven other prelates in their approval of his wish
that they should "recommend visits and offerings to Chichester, for
the repair and completion of the cathedral." This is another evidence
of the great extent of those building operations that were in progress
throughout the thirteenth century. Just before his death he began to
preach a crusade, but died at Dover. In his will he still remembered
the cathedral by leaving a legacy of forty pounds for the needs of the
fabric.

#John of Clymping# (1253-1262) succeeded Richard. His episcopate
appears chiefly remarkable for the growth of stories about the
miraculous powers and saintly life of his predecessor.

#Stephen of Berghsted# (1262-1288) now occupied the see. During his
episcopate Richard was canonised, a deputation, sent at great cost to
Rome, having succeeded in persuading Urban IV. that his merits and
fame deserved an honour which should bring wealth and celebrity to the
see in whose cathedral his body was laid; so in 1276 the remains of
his body were removed from their tomb and placed at the back of the
high altar in a shrine, or feretory, dedicated to him.

[Illustration: TOMB ASSIGNED TO BISHOP RICHARD OF WYCH, AND PICTURES
ORIGINALLY BY BERNARDI. _Photochrom Co. Ltd., photo_.]

#Gilbert de Sancto Leophardo# (1288-1305) was a bishop who, like S.
Richard, devoted himself to his diocesan duties with a singleminded
purpose which was not a common virtue with all mediæval prelates. He
endeavoured to regulate the habits of those clergy who accepted their
privileges but were inclined to neglect the duties and
responsibilities these involved. His interest in the fabric of the
cathedral was expressed principally by the additions that were made to
the lady-chapel during his episcopate.

#John Langton# (1305-1337) took a conspicuous part in the
suppression of the knights templars during the reign of Edward II. in
obedience to the papal order regarding them. He was Chancellor of the
Realm before his elevation to the episcopate, and showed his energy as
a statesman locally by commanding the restoration of rights to some
vicars of the cathedral who had been suspended in accordance with the
provisions of certain statutes which the dean and chapter made without
his consent. Like Bishop Gilbert, he was an instrument by whose
sanction more changes were made in the building.

#Robert of Stratford# (1337-1362), another statesman bishop,
succeeded Langton. He had also been chancellor, and asserted his
episcopal authority as sternly as his predecessor.

Of #William of Lynn# (1362-1368) and his episcopacy little record
remains; but

#William Rede# (1369-1385) earned some repute as a scholar, and was
the founder of Merton College Library in Oxford, and it is to him that
the diocese is indebted for the preservation of the early records
relating to the see. Nothing of importance is known of the next three
bishops:

#Thomas Rushoke# (1385-1389).

#Richard Metford# (1389-1395).

#Robert Waldby# (1395-1396).

#Robert Rede# (1397-1415), whose register is the earliest among
those that remain, occupied the see during the reign of Henry IV. This
record contains many interesting details concerning the part its
compiler took in the endeavour to suppress the doctrines of Wycliffe
and the Lollards; and it also shows that much disorder prevailed among
the canons and vicars of the cathedral. One of the canons, besides
stealing money from the treasury, appropriated for his private use
some materials which had been intended for the repair of the church.
Rectors of parishes allowed their cures to fall into a state of
destitution, and left them to the care of poorly paid vicars while
they themselves resided elsewhere. The see was not filled for two
years after the death of Rede. Then followed in succession:

#Stephen Patryngton# (1417).

#Henry Ware# (1418).

#John Kemp# (1421).

#Thomas Poldon# (1421).

#John Rickingale# (1426).

#Simon Sydenham# (1429).

No registers remain relating to the affairs of the episcopate during
the twenty years covered by their occupation of the see.

In the register left by #Richard Praty# (1438-1446) there is
evidence that many of the negligences censured by Bishop Rede were
still without correction. The discipline of the monastic houses in
Sussex is represented as having become very lax.

#Adam Moleyns#, or #Molyneux# (1446-1450), was instrumental in
arranging the marriage of Henry VI. with Margaret of Anjou. Many
concessions were granted to him by the king for the benefit of himself
and the diocese, but having become unpopular he was murdered by some
sailors in Portsmouth early in 1450 when on his way to France.

#Reginald Pecock# (1450-1459), "being convicted of heresy, he
resigned his bishopric," so say the records of the cathedral.

#John Arundel# (1459-1478). The record of his episcopal
administration has been lost; but it is known that he built the screen
named after him. He appears, however, to have been much less restless
than his predecessor.

#Edward Storey# (1478-1503) has left in his register full accounts
of his deeds and the condition of the diocese. It shows the latter had
again become very disordered. Both the regular and secular bodies are
charged with abusing the trust committed to them. Bishop Storey tried
to correct this state of things. He proved his usefulness, otherwise,
by the foundation of the Prebendal, or Free Grammar-School, in
Chichester, and also by giving the Market Cross to the city for the
benefit of the poor.

Of #Richard Fitz-James# (1503-1508) and his administration there
is but little information.

With #Robert Sherburne# (1508-1536) we come to the close of a long
period of ecclesiastical history--one during which the distinctly
Christian, as opposed to the pagan, principles and forms of art had
been developed. As bishop at Chichester he represented the Church and
those principles which then in the west were taught in her name.
Accordingly he protested against "the King's most dreadful commandment
concerning (with other things) the uniting of the Supreme head of the
Church of [? in] England with the Imperial Crown of this realm; and
also the abolishing and secluding out of this realm the enormities and
abuses of the Bishop of Rome's authority, usurped within the same." He
wrote thus in 1534 to Cromwell. And obeying this command from the
civil authority, he caused these orders to be published throughout the
diocese. As a subject he obeyed his king; but, being honest, he could
not as a bishop and a man disregard his principles when he found such
obedience involved their denial. Consequently he resigned the see in
1536.

#Richard Sampson# (1536-1543) took part in the Reformation
movement. Although he had defended the principle that the king was to
be considered "high governor under God, and Supreme head of the Church
of England," his principles appear to have been easily affected by the
political weather that prevailed. His attitude in favour of every
principle involved in the acceptance of the papacy appears in the
support he gave to doctrines which had been rejected by the party of
reform. He no doubt feared the results that might follow upon another
attempt to adapt the Church's constitution to changed conditions.

In the time of #George Daye# (1543-1552) the pendulum moved again
across the face of the political and ecclesiastical clock. He was a
man whose convictions led him to support those same six articles which
had been upheld by Bishop Sampson; and he attempted to prevent the
introduction of the first prayer-book of Edward VI. in 1549, as well
as the destruction of the earlier service-books in the following year.
He was a man to be respected, for in the face of general opposition he
proved that his convictions on important affairs were not ready to
change at the sudden bidding of a new authority which he was unable to
recognise. As he was not to be persuaded that his position was wrong,
he was removed from the see towards the end of the year 1551. But we
meet him again presently, for Bishop #John Scory# (1552-1554), who
took his place, retired soon after Mary's accession. Bishop Daye came
back to favour, preached at the coronation, reoccupied the see, and
was now "a mighty busy man." [37] He caused some recent orders to be
reversed by reviving the use of the earlier forms of liturgy,
restoring the older ceremonial, and again setting up those altars in
the churches which should never have been broken down. In his own
words Daye "styeked" not at things trivial; but he would not assent to
the abolition of essentials, however much they had been misused or
become offensive in the eyes of untutored civil dignitaries and their
party followers. Daye on his restoration had attempted to remove
reformers and their opinions from the diocese by the aid of faggots
and flames. But #John Christopherson# (1557-1559) was more
energetic in upholding his authority and ideas by this same means; for
Mary, though she would revive the papal supremacy, yet retained in her
own hands the ecclesiastical position which the Throne in England had
already assumed.

  [37] Strype, quoted by Dean Stephens, p. 190.

At the close of Mary's reign Bishop Christopherson died, and in his
place Elizabeth put #William Barlow# (1559-1568), who had been
removed from the see of Bath and Wells by her predecessor. He made
some attempt to remove a variety of irregularities which had been
introduced since the death of Sherburne, for the services of the
Church had become much disordered in consequence of the many changes
of attitude which had been favoured by the rulers, both civil and
ecclesiastical, during nearly thirty years. Barlow's endeavour to
bring this chaos to a new order was in accord with the methods of
those who sought reform. He tried to carry out the injunction of
Parker, the Primate, whose aim was to "reduce all to a Godly
uniformitie." But any desire for unity in diversity was not likely to
be satisfied unless it was sought for with at least some unanimity of
hope and aim. After his death the see remained vacant for two years.

#Richard Curteys# (1570-1583) found the revenues of his see so
reduced that he was unable properly to fulfil the ordinary obligations
of his position. He did not spare himself in his endeavour to do the
duties he had undertaken. With the assistance of others he
methodically instructed the diocese under his charge, an well was
this done that a contemporary said "the people with ardent zeale,
wonderful rejoicinge, and in great number, take farre and long
journeys to be partakers of his good and godly lessons." [38]This
excellent man, however, owing to the political spoliation of the
church, died impoverished in 1583.

  [38] Kennett's Notes: see Stephens' "Diocesan History of Chichester,"
p. 197.

From 1583 till 1585 no bishop was appointed, but in the latter year
#Thomas Bickley# (1585-1596) was selected.

#Antony Watson# (1596-1605) was Bishop of Chichester when James
became king. He was occupied much in furthering Whitgift's endeavour
to improve the condition of the Church in England by urging conformity
to the newly ordered methods of ecclesiastical government and
procedure.

#Launcelot Andrews# (1605-1609) then ruled the diocese until he was
transferred to Ely.

He was followed by #Samuel Harsnett# (1609-1619), who was an
opponent of the Calvinistic attitude of thought. The records of his
visitations ask some pertinent questions, which show how the Cathedral
Church itself was being served. He inquires, "Have not many of the
vicars and lay vicars been absent for months together? Is the choir
sufficiently furnished, and are the boys properly instructed? What has
become of the copes and vestments? Who is responsible for the custody
of them and of the books? Are there not ale-houses in the close? Why
are all these things not amended since the last visitation?" This was
the state of affairs in the cathedral church of the diocese at the
beginning of the seventeenth century; and during the two hundred years
that followed there is but little improvement to remark. Certainly in
#George Carleton#'s (1619-1628) and in #Richard Montagu#'s day
(1628-1638) there was not much change, for the latter asks in every
parish "whether communicants 'meekly kneel,' or whether they stand or
sit at the time of reception: Whether the Holy Table is profaned at
any time by persons sitting upon it, casting hats or cloaks upon it,
writing or casting up accounts or any other indecent usuage." [39] And
in consequence the archbishop desired to restore some sense of order
and decency to the minds of both the clergy and laity by replacing the
altars in their proper positions again. He asks, therefore, Bishop
#Brian Duppa# (1638-1641), in the questions put during the first
visitation of parish churches, "Is your communion-table, or altar,
strong, fair and decent? Is it set according to the practice of the
ancient Church,--upon an ascent at the east end of the chancel, with
the ends of it north and south? Is it compassed in with a handsome
rail to keep it from profanation according to an order made in the
metropolical visitation?" [40]

  [39] Stephens' "Diocesan History," p. 216.
  [40] Quoted by Stephens, "Diocesan History," p. 216.

During the episcopate of #Henry King# (1642-1670) the diocese was a
theatre of rebellion and civil war. Chichester was taken on December
29th, 1642, by Waller and the Parliamentary soldiers after a siege of
eight days. Bishop King repaired, after the Restoration, the wrecked
cathedral and the episcopal palace, but this appears to be all that is
known of him.

#Peter Gunning# (1670-1675) was the first Bishop of Chichester
appointed after the Restoration. He had suffered for the tenacity with
which he clung to his principles during the period of the Rebellion.
Having been ejected from a fellowship at Cambridge, he came to London,
and there, with no little audacity, he ministered and taught as a
loyalist and Churchman.

But #Ralph Brideoake# (1675-1678) watched the political and
ecclesiastical weathercocks, and feathered his nest. He had been
"Chaplain to Speaker Lenthall, who gave him the rich living of Witney,
near Oxford, where we are told he 'preached twice every Lord's Day,
and in the evening catechised the youth in his own house; outvying in
labour and vigilancy any of the godly brethren in those parts.' In
1659 he was made one of the 'triers,' yet immediately after the
Restoration he was rapidly promoted to a canonry at Windsor, to the
Deanery of Salisbury, and finally to the Bishopric of Chichester."[41]
Though Bishop Henry King had endeavoured to restore the cathedral
and the buildings of the precincts, these still were in a state of
extreme dilapidation, for Bishop Brideoake's record of his visitation
shows that the towers, windows, and cloisters had not yet been
repaired.

  [41] Stephens' "Diocesan History," p. 233.

#Guy Carleton# (1678-1685) was a Royalist bishop of a most
consistent type. On two occasions he had been turned out of a cure by
the Parliamentary "triers" for his opinions; but in his eighty-second
year he came from the see of Bristol to Chichester.

Another Royalist, who as a soldier had supported the cause of Charles
I., occupied the see after Carleton. This was #John Lake#
(1685-1689). He was one of those seven bishops who protested against
James's Declaration of Indulgence.

#Simon Patrick# (1689), #Robert Grove# (1691), #John
Williams# (1696), #Thomas Manningham# (1709), #Thomas Bowers#
(1722), and #Edward Waddington# (1724) served in the episcopate
successively.

#Francis Hare# (1731-1740) then filled the vacancy. He wasted some
of his time in useless controversy, and, as the Duke of Marlborough's
chaplain, made his office cheap, though perhaps popular, by
occasionally dilating in his sermons upon the genius and military
skill of his patron. He was a man of some capacity, who advised
conformity to the meagre and starved ideals of the then accepted
orthodoxy. Apparently he deemed this course a safe one, where there
could, it appears, be little other guidance for those who still had
any faith, except in the conventionalities of what had become
ecclesiastical custom. He saw that the interpretation which individual
opinion in its practical rejection of Christian ordinances would read
into faith was likely to be no more than a new expression of early and
mediæval heresies.

#Mathias Mawson# (1740-1754) was bishop after Hare; and then Sir
#William Ashburnham# (1754-1799) came to the diocese and occupied
the see for forty-five years, "the longest episcopate since the
foundation of the see." [42]

  [42] Stephens, p, 245.

Before the close of the eighteenth century #John Buckner#
(1799-1824) succeeded Ashburnham.

In 1824 #Robert James Carr#, and in 1831 #Edward Maltby#, were
appointed to the see.

[Illustration: S. CLEMENT'S CHAPEL, AND TOMB OF BISHOP DURNFORD (SEE
p. 83). _S.B. Bolas & Co., photo_.]

#William Otter# succeeded (1836-1840). During his episcopate the
Diocesan Association was founded in 1838 to help the clergy and laity
of the diocese to provide themselves with better schools, to increase
the means of instruction and ministration, to restore or enlarge
their churches and schools, and to provide new ones when they had the
opportunity afforded by sufficient means. Bishop Otter and Dean
Chandler succeeded in establishing a theological college in the city.

#Philip N. Shuttleworth# (1840-1842), #Ashurst Turner Gilbert#
(1842-1870), and #Richard Durnford# (1870-1895) were succeeded by
#Ernest Roland Wilberforce#, the present bishop, who was translated
to the see from Newcastle in 1895.

DEANS or CHICHESTER.

Odo, 1115.
Richard, 1115.
Matthew, 1125.
Richard, 1144.
John de Greneford, 1150.
Jordan de Meleburn, 1176.
Seffride, 1178.
Matthew de Chichester, 1180.
Nicholas de Aquila, 1190.
Seffride, 1197.
Simon de Perigord, 1220.
Walter, 1230.
Thomas de Lichfield, 1232.
Geoffrey, 1250.
Walter de Glocestrin, 1256.
William de Brakelsham, 1276.
Thomas de Berghstede, 1296.
William de Grenefeld, 1302.
John de St. Leophardo, 1307.
Henry de Garland, 1332.
Walter de Segrave, 1342.
William de Lenne, 1356.
Roger de Freton, 1369.
Richard le Scrope, 1383.
William de Lullyngton, 1389-1390.
John de Maydenhith, 1400.
John Haselee, 1407.
Henry Lovel, 1410.
Richard Talbot, 1415.
William Milton, 1420.
John Patten, or Waynflete, 1425.
John Crutchere, 1429.
John Waynfleet, 1478.
John Gloos, 1481.
John Prychard, 1501.
Geoffrey Symson, 1504.
John Young (Bishop), S.T.P. 1508.
William Fleshmonger, 1526.
Richard Camden, 1541.
Giles Eyre, S.T.D, 1549.
Bartholomew Traheron, S.T.P., 1551-1552.
Thomas Sampson, S.T.P., 1552-1553.
William Pye, 1553.
Hugh Turnbull, 1558.
Richard Curteis, 1566.
Anthony Rushe, 1570.
Martin Culpepper, M.D, 1577.
William Thome, 1601.
Francis Dee, 1630.
Richard Steward, 1634-1635.
Bruno Ryves, 1646.
Joseph Henshaw, 1660.
Joseph Gulston, S.T.P., 1663.
Nathaniel, Lord Crew, LL.D., 1669.
Thomas Lambrook, 1671.
George Stradling, S.T.P., 1672.
Francis Hawkins, S.T.P.,1688.
William Hayley, S.T.P., 1699.
Thomas Sherlock, 1715.
John Newey, 1727.
Thomas Hayley, D.D., 1735-1736.
James Hargraves, D.D., 1739.
William Ashburnham, Bart., 1741.
Thomas Ball, A.M., 1754.
Charles Harward, 1770.
Combe Miller, 1790.
Christopher Bethell, 1814.
Samuel Slade, 1824.
George Chandler, D.C.L., 1830.
Walter Farquhar Hook, D.D., 1859.
John William Burgon, D.D., 1875.
Francis Pigou, D.D., 1887.
Richard William Randall, D.D., 1892.

BISHOPS OF SELSEA AFTER EADBERT.

Eolla, 714.
Sigga, or Sigfrid, 733.
Aluberht, 739.
Osa, or Bosa, 765-770.
Gislehere, 780.
Totta, 785.
Wiohtun, or Peletun, 789-805.
Aethelwulf, 811-816.
Cenred, 824-838.
Gutheard, 860-862.
Bernege, or Beornegus, 909-922.
Aelfred, 931-940.
Aethelgar, 944-953.
Ordbright, 963-979.
Ealmar, 944-953.
Aethelric I., 1032-1038.
Hecca, 1047-1057.
Aethelric II, 1058-1070.
Stigand, 1070.

ANCIENT BUILDINGS IN THE CITY.


Amongst other interesting architectural monuments, closely connected
with the cathedral or the bishops, the following may be particularly
noticed:

The #Bishop's Palace# has an interesting chapel, in which a small
fresco of the "Virgin and Child" of an early date is still preserved.
The dining-room has a panelled wooden ceiling. The painting on it was
originally executed in Sherborne's day, but it has suffered by decay
and attempts at restoration since the sixteenth century.

The #Vicars' Hall# is to the south-east of the cathedral.

The #Canon Gate# is the archway in South Street, which leads to the
palace, the deanery, and other buildings connected with the cathedral.

The #Market Cross# was built by Bishop Storey about the year 1500
(see illustration, p. 100).

#S. Mary's Hospital# was founded about the middle of the twelfth
century; but the existing building dates from the end of the
thirteenth century. It maintains five aged women by a weekly allowance
to each, with fuel and medical attendance free.

[Illustration: PAINTED DECORATION FORMERLY ON THE CHOIR VAULT, FROM
AN ENGRAVING BY T. KING 1814 (SEE PAGES 42-43). _(Lent by the Reverend
Prebendary Bennett.) (Scale about 7 feet 10½ inches to 1 inch.)]

INDEX.

Aethelgar, Bishop, 106
Aethelric, Bishop, 106
Apsidal termination, 8, 9, 17, 24
Arundel, Bishop, 32
---- Earl of, William, 6;
  Countess of, 86
---- monuments, 86
---- screen, 32, 46

Barlow, Bishop, 117
Bell tower, 30
Bernardi, paintings by, 34
Brideoake, Bishop, 120
Buttresses, nave, 58

CHAPELS added to nave, 24
Chapel of S. Catharine, 94
---- of S. Clement, 86
---- of Four Virgins, 85
---- of S. Mary Magdalen, 90, 98
---- of S. Pantaleon, 90
---- of SS. Thomas and Edmund, 85
Chapter House, 27
Choir (exterior), 65-71;
  interior, 88
Cloister, 62
Consecration, 6, 19
Consistory Court, 83
Curteys, Bishop, 118

Daye, Bishop, 35, 116
Durnford, Bishop, 85

Fire of 1114, 5;
  of 1187, 6, 10
Flying buttresses, 15, 57, 66
Font, 85

Gunning, Bishop, 119

Hare, Bishop, 120
Harsnett, Bishop, 35, 118
Hilary, Bishop, 108
Hook, Dean, his monument, 97

Lady-chapel, 9, 26; exterior, 69;
  interior, 94
Langton, Bishop, 26, 114
Leophardo (Gilbert de S.), Bishop, 20, 26, 70, 112
Library, exterior, 71;
  interior, 94
Luffa (Ralph de), Bishop, 5, 8, 107

Manning, Cardinal, 92
"Maudde," inscribed monument to, 98
Moleyns, Bishop, 115
Monuments in nave, 85;
  in transepts and choir, 96

Nave, exterior, 53, 73;
  interior, 81
Neville, Bishop, 20, 23, 110

Organ, 40, 88
Otter, Bishop, 121

Paintings on the walls, 41;
  on the vaults, 46;
  Bernardi's, 34, 90;
  Miss Lowndes', 91
Porch, west, 53;
  south, 59;
  north, 76
Presbytery constructed, 17
---- interior, 92
Pulpit, 85

Rede (William), Bishop, 30, 114;
  Robert, 114
Reformation, 34, 36
Reredos, ancient, 28, 43, 47;
  modern, 88
Rood-screen, 85
Roof, 56

Sacristy, 61, 90
Sampson, Bishop, 116
Sculptures, romanesque, 96
See, transfer of, 4, 5, 8;
  foundation of, 101
Seffrid d'Escures, Bishop, 108
---- II., Bishop, 19
Selsea, carved panels from, 96;
  church at, 103;
  bishops of, 123
Sherburne, Bishop, 34, 116
Spire, 30, 40, 42, 76;
  fall of, 48
Stigand, Bishop, 4, 107
Storey, Bishop, 115

Tower, central, 32, 47, 76
Towers, fall of, 14, 21, 37-40
---- western, 51, 55
Transept, south, 64, 90;
  north, 92, 96
Treasury, 83
Triforium, 36, 94

Vault constructed, 12

Watson, Bishop, 118
Welles (Simon de), Bishop, 20, 109
Wilfrith, Archbishop, 103
Window, west, 53;
  east, 69
Windows, nave, 57, 73, 75;
  transept, 90;
  stained glass in, 98
Wren, Sir C., 37, 42
Wych (S. Richard of), Bishop, 20;
  shrine of, 28, 35, 94, 111-112;
  tomb, 96

       *       *       *       *       *

CHISWICK PRESS: PRINTED BY CHARLES WHITTTNGHAM AND CO.
TOOKS COURT, CHANCERY LANE, LONDON.

       *       *       *       *       *

DIMENSIONS.

Length (extreme).   .    _internal_  . 393 feet.
  "     of nave.    .        "       . 155 feet.
Width of nave (extreme) .    "       .  90 feet.
Length of choir.    .        "       . 115 feet.
   "   " transept   .        "       . 131 feet.
Width of transept   .        "       .  33 feet.
Height of vault.    .        "       .  61 feet.
  "     " spire.    .        "       . 277 feet.
Area      .    .    .    .     .   28,000 sq. feet.


[Illustration: THE CATHEDRAL CHURCH OF THE HOLY TRINITY CHICHESTER:
1901: FROM A PLAN MADE BY THE LATE JOSEPH BUTLER ARCHITECT TO THE
CATHEDRAL]