But though in origin Winchester, Ely, and St. Alban’s hail from Caen, they all far surpass their model in vastness of scale. Winchester and Ely even committed the magnificent extravagance of having a western as well as an eastern aisle to the transepts; and though St. Alban’s, like Canterbury, had an aisleless transept, yet it surpassed them all in the stupendous length of its nave. Still more does it surpass the Caen church and Lanfranc’s Canterbury. Caen and Canterbury had nine bays in the nave, two in the choir, and two in each transept; St. Alban’s had thirteen in the nave, five in the choir, and three in each transept. Caen and Canterbury had naves 193 feet long, transepts 145 feet long, and a total length of 290 feet; St. Alban’s a nave 292 feet long (as long as the whole churches at Caen and Canterbury), transepts 177 feet long, and a total length of about 430 feet. In the fourteenth century, owing to the eastward extensions, St. Alban’s became longer still—520 feet inside, 550 feet outside. Winchester is even longer still: 2 yards longer than St. Alban’s; 3 yards longer than Ely; 4 yards longer than Canterbury.
WEST FRONT.
I. Early Norman.—Of the work of Paul of Caen (1077-1093), we have the central tower and transept practically complete, and large portions of the nave and sanctuary. The design is strictly conditioned by the material, Roman brick; in consequence of the employment of which the architect was driven to rely for his effects, not on ornament or detail, but on what is nobler far, vastness of scale. It is worth while to compare the brick transept of St. Alban’s with the contemporary transept of Winchester, where the design is conditioned by the use of stone.
II. Late Norman.—A fine arcade and doorway have been removed from the slype to the south wall of the south transept by Lord Grimthorpe. He is good enough to tell us that the new work which he has interpolated is so artful that no archæologist in future shall be able to ascertain which portions are old and which are new.
III. Lancet.—The vast and imposing church completed in the twelfth century found little favour in Gothic eyes. It was apparently regarded not only as ugly, but as incapable of being improved into something better. The only thing was to pull it down. In the end the monks did pull down and rebuild a large part of it, occupying at least a hundred years in the work. Fortunately for us, they wearied of their self-imposed task.
They began at the west end of the nave, so as not to interfere with the monastic services. First, John de Celia (1195-1214) proceeded to rebuild the west front on a lovely design, and with a wealth of costly marble and carving. Of this work there remain portions in the north-west and central porches of the façade.
His successor, William de Trumpington, was more economical, and produced more work. He completed the porches, and built in the western end of the nave four bays on the north and five bays on the south side. It can still be seen how he economised, not only on John de Celia’s design, in the arch that was to have led into a south-western tower, but on the design of his own bases, piers and vaulting-shafts; he even renounced the idea of vaulting his work at all—a very ungothic procedure.
IV. Geometrical.—His successors went further still; they abandoned all hope of rebuilding the rest of the nave, and turned their attention to the eastern limb. Retaining their stalls, as at present, in the crossing and the three western bays of the nave, they were able to go on with works to the east without any interruption to the services. The works dragged on very slowly. For some reason or other this wealthy abbey—with estates in almost every county of England—never had money to spend on its church.
