brought back to its original design, of which there were definite traces. The closed screens of stone which surround the choirs of Rochester and of Canterbury are peculiar to these Cathedrals; and their use rendered unnecessary the lofty canopies which usually overshadow the oaken choir-stalls. The upper part of the Canterbury screen is pierced by window-like, traceried openings of great beauty. At Rochester the screen is solid, and the ancient mural decoration— golden lions in red quatrefoils, and fleurs de lys- has been restored. The whole of the work at Rochester was superintended for Sir Gilbert Scott by Mr. Irvine, whose great knowledge of minute detail enabled him to profit by the unusual opportunities offered by underpinning and laying bare of walls and arches; and the history and changes of Gundulf's cathedral have been made clear to us in a very remarkable manner.

The name of Dean Hook is associated with the restoration of Chichester, much as that of Dean Peacock is with Ely, or that of Dean Merewether with Hereford. The Cathedral, although not one of the first order, is of high interest as well for the curious adaptation of what remained after the fire of 1187, of the original Norman church, to the new and elaborate work of Bishop Seffrid II. (1180-1204), as for the later decorations, the 'trimming and best lace,' as old Fuller calls them, of Bishop Sherborne in the reign of Henry VII. The opening and restoration of the Lady Chapel, undertaken in 1872, as a memorial of Bishop Gilbert, was a great work, and has been well carried out. The same may be said of the refitting of the choir, with the exception of some new wood-work and of the modern reredos, which is not Sir Gilbert Scott's, and is singularly obtrusive. Of course the great restoration of Chichester has been that of the spire; the fall of which, in the storm of Thursday, February 21, 1861, marks an epoch in the history of the building. It is satisfactory to be assured, first, that no human power could have arrested the fall,' and next, that in the judgment of those who are daily observers, the new tower and spire reproduce the old so completely, that nothing of the former grace and beauty has been lost. Dean Hook, who did not witness the fall-for he could not bear to look on it--but who was present in the Deanery, saw the new work brought to a happy conclusion in 1867. This was, of course, a rebuilding rather than a restoration. It is interesting to compare the description of

1 This is the judgment of the late Professor Willis, than whom no one in England was more competent to pronounce a decided opinion on the matter. See his Architectural History of Chichester Cathedral, 1861. VOL. VI.-NO. XII.

N N

the catastrophe and its results with the Ely historian's account of the fall of the central tower there, and of the condition of the church afterwards. The spire of Chichester '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 attended by much less noise than might have been expected. As at Ely, a thick dust settled at once on every part of the church.

According to the popular saying, 'the master mason built Salisbury spire, and his man Chichester spire.' In mere height there can be no comparison between them. The spire of Salisbury is 404 feet from the ground, that of Chichester is 277. It has been questioned, however, whether the Chichester spire is not 'better proportioned to the church it crowns, and of a more pleasing outline' than the more lofty one at Salisbury. The angle at the summit of Chichester is about thirteen degrees. At Salisbury it is only ten degrees, which many architectural critics hold to be too slender. This, however, is questionable; and no one who has seen the spire of Salisbury under favourable conditions-rising into the calm of moonlight, or projected against the clear blue of a spring morning-will find himself disposed to carp at its proportions. The extensive restorations at Salisbury have been, for the most part, like those at Durham, a replacing of much that Wyatt had destroyed. We have quarrelled with some portion of the new colouring; but it is impossible to deny that the effect of the church is wonderfully improved by the enclosures-choir screen, reredos, side screens-which now separate and distinguish its several parts, without too much isolating them. All this was the work of Sir Gilbert Scott. The spire, which had long been unsafe, has been supported and strengthened, and an extensive system of iron ties has been inserted in the lantern story of the tower. The west front-unreal as it is, since it does not form the natural ending of nave and aisles, but is built up against them—was designed, like that of Wells, which has the same fault, for the display of statuary. The old figures had for the most part disappeared from its niches, and those which now fill them are designed by Redfern, and, in their general grouping, illustrate the great Ambrosian hymn, Te Deum laudamus. This is the subject (exclusive of the compositions representing the Resurrection) set forth on the more famous west front of Wells, which has also undergone restoration, but in a different fashion. The ancient sculptures at Wells have not

been touched.1 The slender Purbeck shafts supporting the canopies under which the figures are placed were in bad condition and have been renewed throughout. We take it for granted that such a renewal was absolutely called for. At present the effect of the new work is hardly pleasing. The tone of colour is too uniform, and the contrast between the worn figures and sculptures and the smooth grey Purbeck is too sharply pronounced. But this is a defect which time will soften.

We have already said something of Exeter, and have little space in which to dwell on one of the latest, and, as we must think, one of the best, of these great restorations. Of course, there are those who tell us that the Cathedral has been made to renew its youth far too completely, and that it has lost the venerable rust which carried us back to the days of Quivil and of Stapledon. But, in truth, the 'ærugo' was of no such high antiquity. It is the whitewash and the cobwebs of Georgian times which have been removed; and we can now recognise, far more distinctly than before was possible, the grace and beauty of the original work. As in other cases, the history of the fabric, and of the architectural changes it has undergone, have been brought out with great clearness; and we owe to the late Archdeacon Freeman,2 not only the attribution of the several divisions of the church to their true periods, and their real constructors, but also the discovery that much of the beautiful Decorated work contains within it a core of Warelwast's Norman walls. This sort of adaptation so frequently occurs, that we are not surprised to find it at Exeter; but although the evidence is clear, the fact had not been pointed out. The thicker wall of the western half of the choir indicates the point at which the straight walls of the Norman choir ended. The apse which bent round from them was removed altogether by Bishop Marshall.

Among the works which we have placed at the head of this article is the very fine folio in which Mr. James Neale, a young and promising architect, has illustrated what, happily, has at last become the Cathedral of S. Alban's. The book, printed for subscribers, is, we believe, not published, although copies may as yet be obtained from the author. There are excellent general views, elevations, and sections; and the details of every part of the building are given from draw

1 Advantage has been taken of the scaffolding, which was necessarily erected, to photograph the entire series of sculptures. These photographs are of very great interest.

2 Architectural History of Exeter Cathedral. 1873.

ings worked to a scale on the spot; every moulding has been taken the real size; and all marks of restoration are clearly indicated. The plates are reproduced from the drawings by photo-lithography, so that an exact facsimile is obtained, line for line. To the architectural student, and indeed to all who desire thoroughly to understand the manner in which that vast church- the church of an abbey whose history is part of the history of this country-has gradually been developed, Mr. Neale's book is invaluable. We purposely use the word 'developed ;' for while the great mass of Abbot Paul's Norman Church remains, the wonderfully rich eastern portion, with its shrine spaces and its chapels, seems like a natural outgrowth of the later centuries-the unfolding of the perfect flower. S. Alban's is included in the new edition of Murray's Southern Cathedrals, and the architectural history of the building is there carefully given, but of course without the wealth of illustration which we find in Mr. Neale's folio. There is not a page in this beautiful book which does not induce one to linger over it. The whole has been a long labour of love, bringing, we are sure, its own reward; for no one can have made himself absolute master of all the various intricate details of such a church, ranging from Early Norman to Perpendicular, without having entered completely into the spirit of the changes brought about in the long range of centuries.

We do not believe that the restoration of S. Alban's, extensive as it is, has been carried at all beyond what was absolutely needed. Without it the church must have speedily become a ruin; and indeed we can only wonder that it has remained so long standing, and has been found capable of preservation at all. There is still much to be done. Let us

hope that the successor of Sir Gilbert Scott, whoever he may be, will exercise equal judgment, and display an equal spirit of retention-wherever retention of the old work is at all possible.

ALTERATION OF A LINE IN THE CHRISTIAN YEAR.

WE have been requested by Dr. Pusey and Dr. Liddon to publish the subjoined letter on the alteration of a line in the Christian Year, which has again been made the subject of controversy in the columns of The Times. To this request we accede the more readily because we think it will be universally felt to be very desirable that a statement of the real facts of the case should be put on record in a manner less fugitive and more readily accessible than is afforded by the columns of a newspaper.

No English Churchman, no one who cherishes the memory of Mr. Keble, can read without the deepest interest the straightforward and authentic narrative contained in the letter of his revered friend, Dr. Pusey. On the wisdom of making such an alteration at all opinions may reasonably differ; but no one, after reading Dr. Pusey's statement, can entertain any doubt as to the mind of the author of the Christian Year, who was, in fact, the first who suggested the emendation received:

661

'MY DEAREST LIDDON,-I see that Dean Burgon insists that it was you, not Mr. Keble who wrote the line in the Christian Year which has reasonably created so much offence." I have both publicly, and privately to Dean Burgon, explained what occurred. But as he has forgotten this, I wish to set down with more exactness the real facts of the case which our joint memories attest.

'The facts were these: Our dear friend was distressed by the use which people made of the line, "Present in the heart, not in the hands," for very many years. It is not improbable that an appeal of H. Froude in 1835, first occasioned him to think of the use which might be made of it. H. Froude said in a letter to J. K. "2 How can we possibly know that it is true to say, 'not in the hands?' In 1855, in a conversation with you, J. K. talked over different ways in which the words might be prevented from being quoted as contradicting the truth which he held. He finally thought it enough to illustrate his meaning by the Scriptural expression, "I will have mercy and not sacrifice." Since we have our Lord's authority that these words do not reject sacrifice altogether, but only as a substitute for mercy, he thought that his own words "in the heart, not in the hands" might be understood as disclaiming such thought of His 2 Remains, vol. i. p. 403.

1 The Times, May 14, 1878.