Transcribed from the 1864 Courant Office edition by David Price, email
ccx074@pglaf.org

                   [Picture: Public domain book cover]





                           ON THE ARCHITECTURAL
                      History of Chester Cathedral.


                            BY THOMAS RICKMAN,

                       WITH AN INTRODUCTORY MEMOIR.

                                * * * * *

                           A PAPER READ BEFORE

          The Architectural, Archæological, and Historic Society
                               of Chester.

                                * * * * *

                                * * * * *

                       BY THE REV. CANON BLOMFIELD.

                                * * * * *

                                * * * * *

                                 CHESTER:
             PRINTED AT THE COURANT OFFICE, NORTHGATE STREET.

                                  1864.

            [Picture: South Aisle of Choir: Chester Cathedral]




ON THE
Architectural History of Chester Cathedral,


                            BY THOMAS RICKMAN,
                                 WITH AN
             INTRODUCTORY MEMOIR BY THE REV. CANON BLOMFIELD.

THE MS. of the following Report by Thomas Rickman, on the Architectural
features of Chester Cathedral, has been for many years in the possession
of a gentleman in Chester, {3a} but has never yet appeared in print.  It
is supposed to have been drawn up at the request of Dean Cholmondeley,
who was one of Rickman’s early patrons, and the date of it may be fixed
at about 1812.  It is therefore probably the earliest specimen of his
style of architectural analysis.  As, at the same time, it affords a
valuable specimen of the accuracy of his observation, and the clearness
of his discriminative judgment, it is thought right to present it to the
public, through the medium of the Chester Architectural and Archæological
Society.

The name of Thomas Rickman is familiar to every student of Gothic
Architecture, as the author of the clearest and most comprehensive text
book on the subject.  He was the first to elucidate the true
characteristics of Gothic Architecture, and reduce them to a simple and
intelligible system.  The nomenclature which is now universally received,
was first brought into use by him.  For though he adopted the title of
“Early English” from Miller, who had suggested it in 1805, {3b} and that
of “Decorated” from Britton, who applied it in his description of
Malmesbury Abbey, in 1807; {3c} yet he was the first person who really
gave substance and meaning to those terms by assigning to each its proper
characteristics.  The term “Perpendicular” he himself invented, as
describing the features of the later style.  Thus, arranging the whole
series of Ecclesiastical buildings in this country under the four
divisions of Norman, Early English, Decorated, and Perpendicular, and
accurately defining the special and distinctive features of each, he
became in fact the founder of the modern science of Gothic Architecture,
the author of the Grammar by which the study of it is still regulated and
pursued.

Rickman therefore deserves a higher place in the temple of Fame than he
appears at present to occupy.  The habit of laborious and patient
investigation, the sound and discriminating judgment, the faculty of nice
and accurate comparison, which enabled him, wholly unaided by the science
or labour of others, to work out for himself that simple yet clear and
comprehensive system, which secured this branch of architectural science
from the ignorance and bad taste of preceding centuries, and established
it on a fixed and certain basis, ought to place him in the foremost rank
of men who have contributed to the advancement of useful knowledge.

As the history of his life and labours is but little known, it may be an
acceptable introduction to the reading of this Report on Chester
Cathedral, if we preface it with a short biographical Memoir.

                                * * * * *

THOMAS RICKMAN was born at Maidenhead on the 8th of June, 1776, and was
the eldest son of Thomas and Sarah Packman, members of the Society of
Friends.  His father’s profession seems to have combined that of grocer,
and chemist, and druggist, in which latter capacity he gave medical
advice to his customers.  Eventually he relinquished all but the medical
department, and practiced as an apothecary, in which profession he wished
to bring up his eldest son.  Circumstances, and his son’s natural
tendencies, determined otherwise.  It appears that even the strict and
unæsthetic notions of his father’s sect could not restrain the
development of the son’s taste for order and beauty of arrangement, which
manifested itself, in the first instance, in a passion for military
display.  As a boy, he was eager to attend every review and parade which
he could possibly reach, and to make himself master of all the details of
military evolutions.  He employed his leisure moments at home in drawing
figures of soldiers, cutting them out of pasteboard, and arranging them
on tables in an upper room which he had appropriated to himself.  He made
several thousands of these pasteboard soldiers, both cavalry and
infantry, and disposed them in order of battle, to illustrate some prints
which he had procured of celebrated battles.  He studied the history of
the modern campaigns, and knew the services of all the officers in the
Army List.  He could tell the details of the uniform of every regiment,
not only of his own country, but of most of the continental nations, and
understood the strength and value of the various instruments of warfare
better than most of those who used them. {5}

It does not appear that this early tendency to military tactics ever led
Rickman to take an active part in them, though it may have served to
unsettle his views for some time with regard to the choice of a
profession.  His father removed to Lewes in Sussex, in 1797, and Thomas
then went to London, first as assistant to Mr. Stringer, a chemist in the
Strand, and afterwards to Mr. Atkinson, an apothecary in Jermyn street.
But disliking the profession, or the town, he removed to Saffron Walden,
and entered into the service of Messrs. Day and Greer, grocers, in that
town.  From thence he again went to London, and prepared himself, by
walking the hospitals, to act as his father’s assistant at Lewes, whither
he went in 1801.  But he was still unsettled, and again repaired to
London in 1803, to enter into partnership with a cornfactor.  While there
he married his cousin, Lucy Rickman.

On the death of Mrs. Rickman, in 1808, he removed to Liverpool, and
entered the office of an insurance broker.  Here it was that his taste
for æsthetic forms and methodical arrangements again overcame his
sectarian prejudices, and directed his attention to the study of
architecture, and especially Church Architecture.  The business of his
office, which commenced at ten and closed at four, gave him much leisure:
this he employed in making excursions on foot into the country round
Liverpool, and examining the details of all the churches which he could
reach.  He would start very early in the morning, and accomplish a good
deal before his office opened; and on Saturday afternoons he would set
off on a longer journey to more distant places, and spend the whole of
Sunday, which had no special claims on his Quaker conscience, in pursuing
his favourite researches.  This course he pursued with untiring industry
for several years, until he had made himself master of all the
characteristics of Church Architecture which could be found in that part
of the kingdom.  He afterwards extended his journies to other counties,
and examined and took notes of the special features of almost all the
churches in the kingdom; making accurate measurements and drawings of all
that he thought worthy of notice.  In this laborious investigation he
spent not only many years, but many thousand pounds; and he thereby
accumulated a vast fund of architectural data, on which he founded the
system of classification of styles which is now universally accepted.

His maiden sister followed him to Liverpool, and opened business as a
confectioner; and those who were conversant with that town some forty
years ago may remember her very odd looking shop front, the design for
which “is said to have been taken by Rickman from the Choragic monument
of Thrasyllus, in Greece.”

While in Liverpool, he married his second wife Christiana Horner, sister
of Thomas Horner, who passed so much of his time on the top of St. Paul’s
Cathedral, painting the Panorama of London, which was exhibited at the
Colosseum in the Regent’s Park.  The first result of Rickman’s
architectural investigation appeared in the shape of an Essay in the
Liverpool “Panorama of Science and Art,” bearing the same title under
which he afterwards published it in an enlarged form, “An attempt to
discriminate the styles of architecture in England.” {6a}  This Essay, on
its first appearance in 1817, attracted general attention and brought its
author under the notice of many influential persons both in Liverpool and
Chester, for whom he furnished designs for monuments and other buildings.
The Church of St. Mary, at Birkenhead, was erected from his designs, and
is one of the earliest efforts of his skill.  The transepts now attached
to this Church formed no part of Rickman’s design, but are the work of a
later architect.

At this time the Parliamentary Grant for the building of new Churches
called forth a host of aspiring Gothic architects; amongst them Thomas
Rickman appeared, and gained the first prize for a design, which was
afterwards executed for St. George’s Church at Birmingham. {6b}  Hitherto
he had not been a _professional_ architect; and having no practical
experience in the constructive department of the art, he was unable to
undertake the exercise of it until he had associated with himself Mr.
Henry Hutchinson, a gentleman who supplied this defect. {7}  He then
entered upon a large field of work, and was the popular Gothic architect
of the day.  Amongst the many Churches which he designed and erected in
different parts of the kingdom may be mentioned Oulton, near Leeds,
Hampton Lacy, in Warwickshire, St. David’s, Glasgow, and St. Jude’s,
Liverpool.  He also erected the Chapel and Asylum for the Blind at
Bristol; and, in 1827, the new building of St. John’s College, Cambridge.
Rose Castle, the palace of the Bishop of Carlisle, was also restored by
him.

In 1830, Mr. Hutchinson died; and four years after, Rickman took into
partnership Mr. R. C. Hussey, a gentleman who is now employing his
talents on the restoration of St. John’s Church, Chester.  In 1835, he
married his third wife, Miss Millar, of Edinburgh, by whom he had a son,
and who survived him.  At this time he had relinquished his connection
with the Quakers, and attached himself to the sect of the Irvingites, to
which he continued to belong until his death, which took place in 1811.

The characteristics of Thomas Rickman’s mind were great intelligence and
quickness of perception; considerable powers of method and arrangement;
and indefatigable industry in investigation.  He was physically strong
and active, and capable of enduring great bodily fatigue.  He cannot
however, be said to have possessed much imagination, or inventive genius.
His work on Architecture is one that displays rather acuteness of
observation, and energy of mind, than power of conception; and the
character of the buildings which he executed indicates the same accuracy
of imitation from authentic examples, and the same want of originality
and fertility of invention.  “But after all abatement is made, it must be
granted that to Rickman, more than to any other man, is due the great
advance which within the last few years has been made in the knowledge
and appreciation of Gothic Architecture in this country.” {8a}



AN ARCHÆOLOGICAL DESCRIPTION OF THE CATHEDRAL CHURCH OF CHESTER,
BY THOMAS RICKMAN. {8b}


The Metropolitan Cathedrals of Canterbury and York, and the Episcopal
edifices of most of the English sees, have not only been described as
beautiful and valuable remains, but many of them have become not
undeservedly celebrated over almost every part of the British Empire.
Amongst these, however, the Cathedral of Chester has not only been almost
entirely overlooked, but, by a late writer in a very popular work,
described as “a heavy, uninteresting pile, not worth examining.”

Having examined it with some attention, and finding therein a more
complete succession of styles than I recollect to have met with in almost
any other building, I wish by a few remarks to excite some attention to
its beauties.  I therefore beg leave to offer a slight sketch of what
appears from its present state to have been the order of its
construction.

From the situation of those remains of the Norman fabric which are still
visible, I have little doubt the present church stands pretty nearly on
the same foundation as the Norman did; for these remains consist of the
_north_ wall of the _Nave_ forming the _south_ wall of the _Cloisters_,
and of the _east_ Wall of the _North Transept_.

From the situation of this latter wall it seems pretty clear that the
Norman Central Tower was of the same size as the present one, and most
likely was not taken down till that was built.  The North Wall of the
Nave contains two doors.  The easternmost one deserves particular
attention, as it is a good specimen of the mouldings and ornaments of the
early Norman.  The arches remaining in the east wall of the North
Transept are evidently those of a Triforium, or gallery over the lower
arches, and it seems probable that a future examination may discover some
part of those lower arches still remaining.

The oldest portion of the building is the west wall of the Cloisters, and
that portion of the north wall which reaches to the door leading to the
Grammar School.  These appear to have been erected in the latter part of
the Norman style, when considerable advances had been made towards the
lighter mouldings of the succeeding styles.

The blank door in the north west corner of the Cloister is singular, from
the sort of ornamental feathering attached to a round arch; but as the
same kind of ornament is used to the openings of the east wall, leading
down to the lately opened lower apartments, it is possible that this
ornament may have been added at a subsequent period to an ancient round
headed door.  These lower apartments above spoken of, the Chapter House,
and a part now used as a Vestry, the door of which goes out of the north
aisle of the Choir, are all of a simple yet beautiful description of the
Early English.

The Chapter House is peculiarly valuable, as it remains in its original
state, and appears never to have been altered.  Its Vestibule is a
composition of singular beauty from the simplicity of its formation, and
is, with the arches in front to the Cloister (now filled with some
wretchedly ill drawn sashes), {9a} of the same style.

The north wall of the Choir (on account of the garden inaccessible on the
exterior side) I have not been able to examine, but from some singular
appearances visible from the City Walls, I have some reason to suppose
that it is nearly of the same date with the Vestry spoken of above, and
that the _present windows_ in the wall were introduced at a subsequent
period.

Next in order of date appear to be some of the walls, buttresses, and
interior arches, and perhaps some part of the Lady Chapel; but they have
been so altered by and intermixed with the reparation of the Chapel in
the Perpendicular style, that it requires close inspection to find them
out.  But so singularly have these reparations been added, that I some
places, a part of the Early English arch, with its peculiar toothed
ornament, is framed into and forms a part of the arches of those
reparations.

Towards the conclusion of the Early English style, the piers, and arches,
and gallery of the Choir {9b} appear to have been erected; and though the
shafts of the piers appear to be nearly similar, there is a curious
difference in the mouldings of the arches on the north and south sides of
the Choir.  At the period when the Early English style had in its parts
advanced to nearly the beauty of the next style, two small arches with
tracery in front, close to the screen to the Lady Chapel, were placed in
the aisle of the Choir.  These are of beautiful workmanship, and nearly
resemble arches in the galleries of Westminster Abbey.

There are also two arches in the south wall of the Choir, flattish, and
of considerably broader dimensions, and having feathering, whose
mouldings are very like those of these two arches.  From this
circumstance I am led to conclude that this wall also, at least as high
as the bottom of the windows, is of the same date,—say perhaps, 1280 to
1300.

From appearances, as they now remain, more particularly as there is no
trace at present of what was the Norman South Transept, I apprehend the
situation of the Church about the year 1300, (Edward I. died 1307) to
have been this:—The Nave, North Transept, and great Tower remaining in
their original state; the walls of the North Aisle of the Choir, and the
whole of the Lady Chapel, together with those of the Choir as high as the
top of the Gallery or Triforium, completed so that service could be
performed in the Lady Chapel, and perhaps, with a temporary roof, in the
Choir itself.

After the Decorated style {10a} was in some considerable degree
established, the building appears to have proceeded, and the walls in the
Choir raised; the Clerestory windows bearing evident marks, amidst the
present barbarous tracery, of their having been originally of the early
Decorated character, and of good execution. {10b}

The upper part of the Eastern Window still retains what seems to be a
portion of its original tracery.  At this time also appears to have been
inserted the _windows_ of the _North_ and _South Aisles_ of the _Choir_;
and here again the work appears to have stood still, for the next
succeeding works are considerably advanced in their execution.

The next alteration we have to notice is a very considerable one and
appears to have commenced in the reign of Edward III, and perhaps about
the middle of it.  It is very extensive, including the whole of the wall
of the East Aisle of the South Transept, with the tracery of its windows,
the whole of the piers of the South Transept, and of the Nave, with the
arches resting on them, except the four great piers of the centre Tower.
The walls, buttresses, and battlements of both Aisles of the South
Transept, and the South Aisle of the Nave, if not completed, were so far
finished, that the succeeding architect appears (from some obscure
remains of pinnacles, &c., still in existence) not to have deviated from
the original design.

At this period a stoppage seems to have taken place, probably during the
reign of Richard II., for all the subsequent work is Perpendicular; {11a}
and the new architect seems to have found the tracery of the windows of
the West Aisle of the South Transept, and the South Aisle of the Nave not
prepared, although the architrave mouldings (which are shafts with
beautiful Decorated capitals) were carried up to the springing of the
arch, and the arch mouldings completed, except the mullion itself, the
courses of which are different from those of the arch mouldings.

It also appears probable that no design had been made for the great South
Window, as the wall was carried up very little above its commencement.

The workmanship of the Decorated architect is peculiarly excellent.  The
tracery of those windows which he completed is uncommonly rich in design,
and delicate in execution, notwithstanding the poor texture of the stone,
which has rendered it impossible to make out the mouldings of some of the
tablets.  Enough remains, in parts a little defended from the weather, to
show the excellence of the exterior workmanship; and the capitals of the
interior piers are of design, which, if they were cleared of their
numerous coats of whitewash, would be equal to many in York Minster.

The succeeding architect appears not only to have carried up to the roof
the walls of the South Transept and the Nave, but to have pulled down a
part, if not all, of the Norman tower.  From the great size of the piers,
however, and other circumstances, I think it probable that he did not
take the piers down to the foundation, but merely to the springing of the
arches, and then, taking away the shafts, cased the old piers with his
new work; and this will account for the Norman remains which are left
standing in the North Transept. {11b}  Another circumstance which leads
me to suppose that the piers were not taken down to the floor is the
continuance of the stone screen, which is evidently of Decorated
workmanship.

And here, perhaps, will be the proper place to mention another and most
beautiful relic of that style.  This is what is known as the Shrine of
St. Werburgh, which,—shorn of its battlements, and having the shafts of
the upper arches taken away,—is become the Throne of the Bishop; and
though sadly disfigured by many coats of paint is worthy of great
attention.  Indeed it is one of the purest and richest small specimens I
know, exclusive of the extensive works already noticed.

This Perpendicular architect raised the _large windows_ of the North and
South Transept, {12} which, though different, are both beautiful of their
kind.  From various small marks of similarity, I am induced to suppose
that at the time those works were carrying on, the present _Cloisters_
were all proceeded with.  The general design of these is good, but the
execution is not quite equal to what appears of the exterior remains of
the Church itself; of the latter, though now divested of battlements and
pinnacles, and the tower so weather worn, that its design is with
difficulty traced, the ornaments of the cornice of the Nave and such of
the mouldings as are yet distinguishable show the work to have been very
well executed.  Of the Cloisters, the whole internal walls, containing
the windows and groinings of the roof, appear to have been executed
within a short time of each other, though perhaps not quite altogether
so.  The small arches on the west side most likely contained the
lavatories of the Monks, and as the exterior wall of the Cloister is on
every side much older than the interior, the different breadths and the
various arches still remaining in that outer wall, together with the
small arches already mentioned, cause a very great and valuable variety
of springings, and modifications of groining, of a much earlier date than
perhaps later Early English.

At some period, perhaps not very late in the reign of Henry VII. an
architect, apparently a different one from those engaged in the other
part of the work, seems to have employed his ingenuity in metamorphosing
the Lady Chapel, with as little new work as possible, from the enriched
Early English to the Perpendicular style of his own times.  With what
judgment he has done this in the interior {13a} requires more attention
to determine, than I have yet had an opportunity of bestowing.

     [Picture: The Cloisters, Chester.  North side—the Lavatory &c.]

Of this part of the Building externally, whether from his enlargement of
the windows, without sufficient strength in the walls to allow it, or
from the weight of its groined roof, or from some other cause, the
windows and arches are failing very fast, and the mullions sadly
distorted.

The next and final augmentation we have to notice appears to have been
begun in the latter part of the reign of Henry VII, though most likely
not finished till after the accession of his successor.  This
augmentation is the West Front, the Consistory Court, and the South
Porch.  It is possible the Perpendicular Architect before spoken of might
lay the foundation, and carry up part of the walls, of this part of the
Building, which is clearly distinguished as an augmentation, by the level
on which it is built.  But the finishing is very different from what
remains visible of his work, which, though rich, is simple; while the
whole of this part has evident marks of that frittered multiplication of
ornament so visible in Henry VII’s Chapel.  Yet though this work,
particularly in the upper part of the Porch, begins to be thus frittered,
there is certainly much beauty in the design, and peculiar delicacy in
the execution.

The West Entrance, the adjoining niche work, the window above, and the
door itself, all deserve minute and attentive examination; for though,
from the nature of the stone, much of the original beauty is gone, there
are yet parts in which the carvings preserve nearly as much sharpness as
when first executed.

With this work the Edifice seems to have been completed, and we will now
endeavour to look at it as it then appeared, at which time I believe the
view of the South side was free, as those disgraceful erections which now
form the narrow passage at the corner of the South Transept were not then
in existence. {13b}  The Building therefore could be viewed in its whole
length, by an observer placed opposite the centre of the South Transept.

At this period I conceive the South View, or, as it may be called, the
Show side of the Cathedral, was perhaps but little inferior in real
beauty to any one in England,—Canterbury, York, and Salisbury excepted.
To prove this, let us examine its parts.  The West End newly finished,
and the Tower, and the other works of his predecessor and the
architecture of the upper part of the Choir, new enough to harmonize
therewith, this front view must have presented a very beautiful
appearance.  Though the battlements are now all gone, enough remains to
lead us to suppose that the whole line was finished with rich pinnacles,
and battlements. {14a}  The buttresses were very fine, and the grouping
of those at the corner of the South Transept peculiarly good.

All the Windows appear to have had fine canopies, and what original
tracery remains is of great beauty of design, and delicacy of execution;
and though now none exists, we may reasonably suppose the Windows filled
with painted glass.  The picture appeared complete; but it was not long
to last, as the funds for its support were soon afterwards absorbed; and
tradition avers that during the Usurpation of Cromwell, it was even
degraded so far as to become a stable!

At the Restoration, it was probably in bad condition.  The exterior of
the Choir appears to have been worse than the rest, for that has been
cased; while from the workmanship of that casing, and the present
mullions of the Windows, I apprehend these reparations were made since
the Restoration.  This casing is the last considerable reparation of the
walls, but as the roofs have been kept in repair, and the present worthy
Dean {14b} is laudably assiduous in giving every reparation the funds of
the building will admit, we may hope that no further dilapidations will
ensue, and perhaps, after a time, that some restoration may take place.
More minute attention than I have hitherto been able to bestow on some
particular parts, may enable me hereafter to make some addition to and
perhaps corrections of the present rapid sketch of this very interesting
Edifice.

I know not how far these observations may coincide with Historical
Records; but it is proper to state that they are made up solely from my
own examination of the present state of the Building.




Footnotes.


{3a}  Mr. Thomas Hodkinson, Architect.

{3b}  In his _Description of the Cathedral Church of Ely_.

{3c}  _Architectural Antiquities_, Vol. I. p. 3.

{5}  In allusion to these military predilections, his professional friend
and associate, Mr. R. C. Hussey, thus writes, “These really remained with
him to the end of his life.  He would always converse readily and with
animation on military subjects; and his wife observed that if he saw a
soldier approaching, he would cross the street in order to get as near to
him as he could.”  An old friend of Rickman’s told me that he once met at
dinner, at Dublin, an officer (I think a major in the army) who said an
extraordinary thing had occurred to him, for he once came across a Quaker
who knew more about his (the major’s) regiment than he did himself.  It
need scarcely be added that the Quaker was no other than Mr. Rickman, our
architect.

{6a}  I may here relate an anecdote of my own personal meeting with
Rickman.  I was once travelling in a stage coach, and had drawn the
conversation gradually into an architectural channel.  One of my
companions, an elderly gentleman in Quaker costume, after some general
remarks, addressed me as follows:—“Young friend, thou seemest to have
some taste for architecture,—where did’st thou pick it up?”  My reply
was, that the little I knew of the subject had been gleaned from the
perusal of Mr. Rickman’s clever work on Gothic Architecture.  “Indeed,
friend,” continued my querist, “is that verily so?  Then, I am Thomas
Rickman.”

{6b}  This Church (writes Mr. Hussey) was erected under the Church
Building Commissioners, very soon after they were appointed; and it was
under their auspices, indeed, that he commenced his Church building.  He
used to say that when he had an interview with these functionaries, he
enquired how large a projection he might give to the Chancel.  The reply
was, that two feet was enough for a Chancel; and two feet is given to it
in this Church.  He is buried in the graveyard of St. George’s Church,
where a monument, erected by subscription, exists to his memory.  At this
time of day masons were so little accustomed to work Gothic windows, that
no one would give an estimate for work of this kind, consequently no
contract for a Gothic Church could be made.  As this would not suit
Rickman or the Church Commissioners, he had a set of patterns made for
cast iron Windows, and these he used for all the windows in St. George’s
Church, except the east window, which is of stone.  St. George’s is in
the Decorated style.

{7}  The architect here named was the father of the Rev. T. N.
Hutchinson, formerly Vice-Principal of the Chester Training College, and
now second Master of King Edward’s School, Birmingham.  The members of
the Chester Archæological Society need not to be reminded how thoroughly
the architectural tastes of the father are inherited by the son.

{8a}  Article on Rickman in Knight’s _Cyclopoædia of Biography_.

{8b}  It will be observed that, in the following paper, Rickman has
distinctly pointed out what he supposes to be the dates of erection of
the several portions of the Cathedral building.  Having no historical
authorities to refer to, he had fixed these entirely from his own notions
of the _probable_ periods, drawn from his examination of the distinctive
characteristics of the several parts.  We have it in our power now to
verify these dates from authentic records, and to show, as we have done
in foot notes, the singular accuracy of Rickman’s judgment in fixing
them.

{9a}  This fault has since Rickman’s time been remedied by the
substitution of two handsome and appropriate windows.

{9b}  The _Presentation Book of the Abbey_ says, “The Choir, Steeple and
Body of the Church were rebuilt about the time of King John, i.e. 1199 to
1216, Hugh Grylle, Abbot.”  The Early English period dates from the
accession of John in 1199, to 1272, in which year Henry III died.  The
work continued languidly through the abbacies of Marmion, Pincebeck,
Frind, and Capenhurst, to Simon de Albo Monasterio, who became Abbot in
1265, died in 1289, and was buried in the Chapter House.  During this
energetic abbacy, says Dr. Ormerod, “the monastery or a considerable
portion thereof was rebuilt.”

{10a}  The Decorated period extended from A.D. 1272 to 1377, or during
the reign of the three Edwards.

{10b}  Simon de Albo Monasterio was Abbot from 1265–1289, while his
important part of the work was in rapid progress.

{11a}  The Perpendicular style ranged from the accession of Richard II.
in 1377, to the death of Henry VIII. in 1546.

{11b}  Simon Ripley, who was Abbot of St. Werburgh’s, 1472 to 1479, is
stated to have rebuilt the _Nave_, _Tower_, and _South Transept_; but in
Webb’s portion of the _Vale Royal_ it is distinctly recorded that, in
1506, in the abbacy of John Birchenshaw “The old steeple of St. Werburgh
was taken down,” while two years afterwards the same record states that
“the foundation and the first stone of the Abbey laid, the Maior being
then present.”  This record has been hitherto connected with the western
tower, but Rickman’s argument seems to be conclusive, unless indeed,
which is quite probable, both were in progress at the same period.

{12}  _Not_ the windows which are to be found there now, which were
erected at the time of the general repair of the fabric, about 1816,
after Rickman’s survey.

{13a}  The Dean and Chapter have for some years past been gradually
restoring this beautiful structure to its original character; and the
Perpendicular work here half-complained of by Rickman has now almost
disappeared.

{13b}  The erections here so deservedly condemned were the remains of an
old cloth hall, originally built for the stranger merchants frequenting
the great annual fairs at Chester.  These buildings occupied great part
of the space now enclosed with railing on the S.W. side of the nave and
St. Oswald’s Church, and were pulled down about 20 years ago.

{14a}  In the print of Chester Cathedral given in Willis’ _Survey of
Cathedrals_, A.D. 1727, the battlements and rich crocketted pinnacles are
shown as existing then.  The South end of the South Transept is also
shewn to have been richly decorated with niches.

{14b}  Probably H. Cholmondeley, who was Dean of Chester, from 1806 to
1815.