"a small thing," especially as compared with the enlarged dimensions of the other parts of the church. The "chancel of the Holy Cross," which received a new roof in 1389, may probably have been one of the transepts, or it may, with other chapels which are mentioned, have been among the additions in other parts. The Norman church certainly had transepts and lantern arches, and therefore probably a central tower, however low. The Norman nave is perfect, and is a noble specimen of the simple majesty which that style can assume even in its most unadorned form. The architecture is remarkably plain, but in these grand fabrics ornament can be, and often is, entirely dispensed with, and is certainly never missed. Even the west front, which is the most elaborate portion, and where we do find some enriched strings and capitals, is by no means conspicuous for ornament. Within, the capitals of the west doorway and a few simple ornaments on the imposts of two or three of the piers, form the whole amount of enrichment throughout the building. Indeed for the most part the style is exhibited in its very severest form, with plain square-edged orders, without mouldings or nook-shafts. In this respect it affords a remarkable contrast to its neighbour, the cathedral of Hereford, where the Romanesque style is for the most part exhibited in so very elaborate form. Yet there is a small portion of that fabric, the chapel east of the south transept, which presents the very fac-simile of Leominster in its entirely unadorned character. It would be interesting, could we ascertain whether, in any of its peculiarities of style or arrangement, Leominster at all resembled that great abbey of which it was a dependency. But the destruction which has fallen upon the vast minster of Reading has been so nearly total that hardly any evidence can be extracted from it; while singularly enough the portions— the chapels east of the transepts-of which Reading retains most vestiges, are just those which at Leominster have entirely vanished. In one important point mother and daughter were at complete variance; at Reading the conventual buildings were on the south side of the church, at Leominster on the north. WEST TOWER.-The nave consists of seven bays, but of these the western one is now occupied by the tower; there seems indeed good reason to believe that a western tower, if not erected, at least formed part of the original design, so that this may be added to the list I have elsewhere drawn ups of churches which have formerly exhibited the now rare outline of Wimborne and Purton. But we may still further remark that, in having this second tower designed from the very first, Leominster differed from Hereford, Shrewsbury, and Malmsbury, in all of which cases it was a Perpendicular addition, and agreed with no English example that I know of, except the prince of all, the stately cathedral of Ely. Though the existing tower is a Perpendicular addition, yet the evidence in favour of a Norman one having been at least designed appears perfectly conclusive. The western bay is something quite distinct from all the rest, within and without. The present Perpendicular belfry arch in no sort disturbs the arrangements of the arcade, as it doubtless would, had it been a mere unexpected intruder; a mass of masonry is ready to receive its respond; the arrangements in all the three stages of the elevations are quite distinct on the two sides of the belfry arch; and the distinction is further marked by an arch being thrown across the aisle. Externally on the north side this bay is marked by a broader and taller pilaster in the clerestory, ready, as it were, to run up the tower, and by a corbel table which does not exist in the other bays. And, what amounts to proof positive, there are what I conceive to be the remains of the responds of a plain square-edged Norman arch across the nave, just where the present narrower Perpendicular arch is inserted. No part however of the tower, if it was completed, 5 Ecclesiologist, vol. xiii. p. 163. 6 Furness Abbey, I find, is another example of the same class; here the tower was added beyond the nave, as at Wimborne, not within it, as at Shrewsbury. remains above the height of the clerestory walls. But, as later architects have had the grace to spare the west window and doorway, we can make out pretty nearly the original west front. In some respects it suggests the recollection of that of Chepstow, especially in the retention of the Norman west window through so many changes, but there is no special resemblance in detail. The tower or gable rose between two steep lean-tos, of which the northern one still exists and retains its old pitch, as appears by the chevron under the roof-line. The west window is an unusually large single round-headed one, with large shafts inside and out. The west door is very curious; the massive shafts have a singular air, but it is still more remarkable as being externally obtusely pointed. The pointed arch, as we know, was only just struggling into occasional use in England at this time; but its presence in a doorway is a still greater singularity, that being the very feature in which the round arch was so commonly retained for full a century longer. Within, the round arch is still employed; here, instead of the ordinary rear-arch, we have a receding series, on the same principle, though less extensive, as that without. This is a great advantage, as making the west doorway an ornamental feature within as well as without, whereas in not a few fine churches it remains internally a mere unsightly eyesore. The capitals of this doorway, both within and without, should be attentively examined by the student of Romanesque detail, as they exhibit an interesting series of grotesque figures and patterns of fretwork. 8 Pilaster buttresses divide the west end from the termination of the nave aisles; smaller ones occupy the corners of the latter. The extent of the south aisle may be recognized in a break in the masonry under the present great west window. The main window of the north aisle no longer remains, a plain Early English triplet 7 Archæologia Cambrensis, vol. ii. New Series, p. 6. ARCH. CAMB., NEW SERIES, VOL. 1V. D having supplanted it, but a small circular one still exists above the vaulting. ARCADES OF THE NAVE.-The nave arcades are a grand specimen of plain Norman work; the threefold division is well preserved, except that perhaps an unnecessary breach of unity is to be found in the fact that the bays of the triforium do not tally with those of the arcade below and the clerestory above. The arcades themselves are somewhat irregular. Of the seven bays, one, as we have said, is within the tower; here the responds are of two orders, perfectly plain and square-edged, as at Chepstow and St. Alban's. I should like some one who is a better mathematician than myself to decide whether the arch on the south side is really obtusely pointed, or whether it has merely given way in the crown. Its ambiguous form reminded me slightly of some of my old friends in Gower and Pembrokeshire. The arches east of the tower may be described as a series of plain round arches of two orders, rising from huge cylindrical piers with round imposts and cushion work to the quasi-capitals. But this series is not uninterrupted. In the second bay from the tower on each side there is a singular anomaly. Here there is a flat projection, such as doorways of this date are often set in, and in this a very tall and narrow round-headed arch is inserted. Of this singularity I can offer no explanation, and shall be much obliged by information from any quarter. In the eastern bay again, the series terminates, and we find quite low arches on each side, like mere doorways; in the northern one an Early English doorway has been inserted. These also are set in projections similar to the others. This circumstance I explain by considering that here would be the site of the rood-loft-the choir, as usual in Norman minsters, being under the central tower -the steps to the screen, and the altar or altars which doubtless stood to the west of it, still remain. Now the arcades are so low, that, had there been a regular arch in this bay, the loft would have entirely blocked it up, so it appears to me that the designers judged wisely in stopping the regular arcade at the sixth bay, and making mere doorways from the east bay of the aisles into the space under the loft. The result of these interruptions is that there are actually only two real piers on each side. But these are noble specimens of the genuine English form, the vast cylindrical mass, which I now believe to be an heritage handed down from ante-Norman times.9 Their use here is however remarkable, as, from the general tendency of the architecture, one would have rather expected to find the plain rectangular pier of several orders. TRIFORIUM AND CLERESTORY.-The triforium, as I have said, does not agree with the arcade, there being here nine bays east of the tower. Each bay consists of an arch containing two smaller arches, all perfectly plain and square-edged. It would seem however that they can never have been really open as a passage, as the arches do not go through the wall, which does not appear to have been altered, the pilaster of the supposed tower being distinctly visible in the same masonry. But the bay in the tower is quite different; the arch is much larger, it has not, and cannot have had, any smaller arches comprized in it, and it goes through the wall, being still open on the north side. In the clerestory the number of windows returns to that of the pier arches. The windows are perfectly plain, splayed, but without any passage. Between each window are two blank arches, quite plain and square-edged. Small pilasters divide the bays externally. Within, this portion has been much disfigured by many of the arches being decapitated by the miserable wooden roof which forms a most unworthy covering to this stately nave. AISLES.-The south aisle, as we have seen, no longer exists in its original form, and the northern one has been subjected to much patching and mutilation, which it may be more convenient to allude to here than in strict chronological order. I mentioned that the western bay was originally separated by an arch from the rest of the aisle; 9 History of Architecture, p. 240. Archæological Journal, vii. p. 155. |