bells, commonly called "Arundell ryng," as well as a thousand marks to the fabric of the navem

A.D. 1390

1411. 66

Of Prior Chillenden", the same document states that he, by the help and assistance of the Rev. Father Thomas Arundell, did entirely rebuild the nave of the church, together with the chapel of the Blessed Virgin Mary, therein situated, and handsomely constructed." Also the cloister, chapter-house, and other buildings enumerated.

The epitaph of this prior, preserved by Somner, confirms this statement, by saying, "Here lieth Thomas Chyllindenne, formerly Prior of this Church . . . who reconstructed the nave of the Church and divers other buildings . . . and who, after holding the priorate twenty years, twenty-five weeks, and five days, completed his last day on the assumption of the Blessed Virgin, (Aug. 25) A.D. 1411°.”

The history of the nave resembles that of the choir of Ernulf, in this respect, that the archbishops assisted the work with funds and influence, but that it was really carried on by the convent under the immediate direction of the prior. It is not even certain that the prior was the actual architect in either of these instances; for in those times, as in our own, men in high official situations were to be found, who took the greatest pleasure in promoting the erection of buildings, and assisted in the carrying on of the works in various ways, by advising, criticising, furnishing funds, and cheering on the proceedings by continual countenance and sanction. And to

66

Qui ope

et

m Leland says "King Henry the 4th and he (namely Arundel) helpid to build up a good part of the Body of the Chirch." Itin., vol. vi. fol. 3. n T. Chillenden, Prior. auxilio Revi. Patri T. Arundell navem istius Ecclesiæ cum Capellâ B. Mariæ Virginis in eâdem sitâ opereque decenti fabricatâ totaliter renovavit. Ĉlaustrum quoque,Domum Capitularem, magnum Dormitorium cum novâ viâ versus Ecclesiam, et subtus domum rasturæ, de novo fieri fecit. . . .

Various other works and buildings are also enumerated. Obit. Ang. Sac., p.

143.

• The entire epitaph is as follows:

"Hic jacet Dominus Thomas Chyllindenne quondam Prior hujus Ecclesiæ, Decretorum Doctor egregius, qui navem istius Ecclesiæ cæteraque diversa ædificia, quamplurima quoque opera laudabilia de novo fieri fecit. Pretiosa insuper

ecclesiastica, multaque privilegia insignia huic Ecclesie acquisivit, qui postquam Prioratum hujus Ecclesiæ annis viginti. 25. septimanis, et quinque diebus nobiliter rexisset, tandem in die assumptionis beatæ Mariæ Virginis diem suum clausit extremum. Anno Domini 1411. Cujus animæ propitietur Deus. Amen," Somner, App. p. 62.

such men, the credit of the enterprize may very justly be attributed, but not the credit of the design artistically speaking. This was often due to some obscure monk, or workman, whose name has been lost. For example, Matthew Paris records that a new roof was formed of oak for the aisles of the church of St. Alban's, as well as for the tower, and substantially covered with lead, all which was done at the instigation, and by the labour of, Michael of Thydenhanger, monk and camerarius. Nevertheless, he adds: these works must be ascribed to the abbot, out of respect to his office, for he who sanctions the performance of a thing by his authority, is really the person who does the thing". This doctrine, however true it may be in the sense in which the author intends it to be taken, is fatal to the history of art; for it has been largely acted upon by the monkish chroniclers, who attribute architectural works, without reserve, to the bishop or prior whose biography they are writing, when in reality these labours were carried on by the monks, and directed by artists whose names, with few exceptions, are lost.

The nave, transepts, and pillars of the central tower of Canterbury, all evidently belong to the same period, and constitute one work, for they are all in the same style and of the same design (except of course the buttressing arches and additions to the tower piers, of which more below). The work of the nave, therefore, above mentioned, must be held to include these transepts. The documents just quoted, which in fact contain all that is known upon the subject, have told us that Archbishop Sudbury pulled down the nave about 1378 on account of its ruinous condition, intending to rebuild it, but was prevented by his death in 13819, and that the

P M. Paris, Vit. S. Alb. Abb. p. 1054. a In the life of Simon Sudbury, which Wharton has extracted from the Speculum Parvulorum, and which he tells us is the work of William Chartham, a monk of Canterbury in 1448, (Ang. Sac., tom. i. pp. xx. and 49,) it is related that Sudbury built "two aisles in the posterior" (i.e. western) "part of the church," "duas alas enim in parte

posteriori ejusdem Ecclesiæ necnon Portam Occidentalem Civitatis à fundamentis et muros ejusdem tunc quasi præcipites erexit, et fieri fecit sumptibus propriis et expensis." These must be the aisles of the nave which were probably begun before the death of Sudbury, and perhaps carried on afterwards from his funds. However the Obituary, which minutely records the works of

succeeding archbishops, Courtney and Arundell, contributed largely to the funds. Prior Chillenden, who held that office from 1390 to 1411, seems to have been the most active person in conducting these and other buildings, and is thus alluded to in the Arundell grant.

This grant is dated in the second year of Arundell's archbishopric, and the seventh of Chillenden's priorate, and the works seem then to have been in a great state of forwardness, but our information fails to give us the real architect, or the exact year at which they were commenced, and from which the design must be dated. Nine years intervened between the death of Sudbury and the beginning of Chillenden's priorate; but he may have conducted the works in the meantime in some other monastic office.

When the rebuilding of the nave and transepts was undertaken, the portion they were designed to replace was the original nave and transepts of Lanfranc; this was considerably lower than the eastern church. In the section fig. 6. BC is the level of Lanfranc's ceiling, and the dotted semicircle D shews the position of his tower-arch. Now in the nave, the whole of Lanfranc's piers, and all that rested on them, appear to have been utterly demolished, nothing remaining but the plinth of the side aisle walls. In the transepts more parts of the Norman wall were allowed to remain, especially on the eastern side, and at the angles; and of the tower piers the western are probably mere casings of the original, and the eastern certainly appendages to the original as already shewn at F, fig. 13. p. 67. But of course it must be understood that I have no evidence to shew how much of Lanfranc's pier was allowed to remain in the heart of the work. The interior faces of the tower walls appear to have been brought forward by a lining so as to increase their thickness and the strength of the piers, with a view to the erection of a lofty tower, which however was not carried above the roof until another century had nearly elapsed. One compartment of the nave is shewn in fig. 50. Fig. 51. is

other archbishops, is silent with re- take these aisles to be the transepts. spect to Sudbury's. Battely and others

R