and (3[a FRANCIS BOND BOBER SCREENS AND GALLERIES IN ENGLISH CHURCHES Holbeton Frontispiece Screens and Galleries In English Churches BY FRANCIS BOND M.A., LINCOLN COLLEGE, OXFORD; FELLOW OF THE GEOLOGICAL SOCIETY, LONDON HONORARY ASSOCIATE OF THE ROYAL INSTITUTE OF BRITISH ARCHITECTS AUTHOR OF “GOTHIC ARCHITECTURE IN ENGLAND” ILLUSTRATED BY 152 PHOTOGRAPHS AND MEASURED DRAWLNGS HENRY FROWDE OXFORD UNIVERSITY PRESS LONDON, NEW YORK, AND TORONTO Digitized by the Internet Archive in 2016 https://archive.org/details/screensgalleriesOObond PREFACE In the last years before the Dissolution, when the English churches had become all glorious within, what first arrested and what detained the attention above all the rest was the soaring Rood and Rood screen, silhouetted against the splendid glass of the great east window of the chancel. No church was so humble but had its Rood and Rood screen. These form the subject of the present volume. As in his larger work on the Gothic Architecture of England , it has been the aim of the writer to present the subject from an evolutionary point of view. The story, therefore, commences with the Rood and Rood beam of the early Christian churches ; it follows their gradual development on the one hand into the chancel screen of the parochial and collegiate churches, on the other hand into the quire screen and rood screen of the churches of the monks and the regular canons. Finally it traces to the trans- position of the rood lofts the galleried churches of the seventeenth and eighteenth centuries. It is a story of growth and development condi- tioned by doctrinal and ritualistic changes spread over sixteen centuries. In the preparation of this volume, in addition to valuable assist- ance from many friends, and from the literature generally which has accumulated on the subject, the writer is under special obligations to the various papers by Mr F. Bligh Bond, which form, indeed, the locus classicus on the subject of screens, and the contents of which will be embodied shortly in a larger work. Mr W. David- son also has generously permitted the use of his unpublished notes and drawings of the screens of Norfolk. For the revision of the proofs, grateful acknowledgments are due to Mr Aymer Vallance, Rev. G. W. Saunders, and Mr W. Davidson. Most of the screens have been visited, and several have been photographed by the writer ; but the wealth of illustration here presented could never have been brought together but for the willing and generous co-operation of very many photographers and ecclesiologists, among whom special mention must be made of the members of the Architectural Detail Postal Club ; in all cases specific acknowledgment is made in the Index Locorum , page 183. The present volume will be followed shortly by one on “Fonts and Font Covers.” Descriptions and photographs of important and interest- ing examples will be welcome ; they should be addressed to Francis Bond, Stafford House, Duppas Road, Croydon. TABLE OF CONTENTS CHAPTER I Origin of Screens ------- i CHAPTER II Chancel Screens and Galleries in Parish Churches — Plan of Screens - - - - - - 13 Presbytery Screens - - - - - 17 Parclose Screens - - - - - - - 21 Stone Screens ------- 24 Oak v. Stone Screens ----- 36 Construction of Oak Screens ----- 38 Cost of Screens ------- 40 Inscriptions on Screens - - - - - - 42 Design in the Screens of East Anglia and the West of England 48 Paintings on Screens ------ 70 Welsh Screens ------- 77 Foreign Influence ------- 86 Chronology of Screens ------ 87 The Rood -------- 101 The Rood Beam ------- 103 The Rood Loft and its Uses ----- 107 Tympanic Screens - - - - - 125 The Commandments - - - - - - 131 Royal Arms - - - - - - 135 Tower Screens - ----- 136 Destruction of Screens - - - - 1 37 Galleries - - - - - - - 141 Dorset Music ------- 143 CHAPTER III Quire Screens in Cathedrals and Collegiate Churches - 151 CHAPTER IV Quire Screens and Rood Screens in Churches of Monks and Regular Canons - - - - - 157 The Quire Screen or Pulpitum - - - - 1 59 The Rood Screen - - - - - - - 161 Fence Screens ------- 165 Measured Drawings ----- 166-181 Index Locorum ------- 183 Index Rerum ------- 191 b BIBLIOGRAPHY Barton Turf, Norfolk. “ Illustrations of the Screen.” Rev. John Gunn. Norwich, 1869. Bloxam, M. H. “Gothic Architecture,” ii., iii. Assoc. Societies Reports, xii. 176. Bond, F. Bligh. “Screens and Screenwork in the English Church.” Journal of R.I.B.A., Part I. in 3, xi. 537 ; Part II. in 3, xi. 637. “ Devonshire Screens and Rood Lofts.” Proceedings of Devon- shire Association, xxxiv. 531. “Screens near Minehead, Somerset.” Somerset Arch. Soc., Iii. 55. “ Screenwork in the Churches of North-East Somerset.” Somerset Arch. Soc., liii. 82. “Mediaeval Screens and Rood Lofts.” St Paul’s Eccles. Soc., v> I97> “Winsham, The Tympanum as Surviving in.” Somerset Arch. Soc., xlix. 56. “English Church Screens and Rood Lofts —their Origin and Development ; with a full descriptive list of West Country Screen- work,” and “ a Special Study of the Figure Panels,” by Dom Bede Camm. To appear shortly. Camm, Dom Bede. “ Devonshire Screens.” 1905. Cox, Dr J. C., and Harvey, A. “English Church Furniture.” 1907. Davidson, W. (Owen Jones Student, R.I.B.A.). Unpublished notes and coloured drawings of Norfolk screens. Duncan, Leland E. “Parish Churches of West Kent, their Dedica- tions, Images, and Lights.” St Pauls Eccles. Soc., iii. 241. Enlart, Camille. “ Manuel d’Archeologie frangaise,” i. Paris, 1902. Ferry, B. “Rood Screen of Christchurch, Hants.” Arch. Jour nal, v. 144. Fleury, Rohault de. “La Messe,” iii. 105-133, and Plates 239-246. Fox, F. F. “ Roods and Rood Lofts.” Bristol and Gloucester Arch. Soc., xxiii. 79. Fox, G. E. “Notes on Painted Screens and Roofs in Norfolk.” Arch. Journal, xlvii. 65. — “Victoria History of Norfolk,” ii. 547. Xll BIBLIOGRAPHY Fritton, Suffolk. “Illustrations of the Screen. Rev. Richard Hart. Norwich, 1872. Galpin, F. W. “ Old Church Bands and Village Choirs.” Dorset Field Club , xxvi. 172. Hems, Harry. Lecture to Society of Architects on “ Rood Screens.” & c. 2 1st April 1896. Henfrey, H. W., and Watney, H. “East Anglian Rood Screens.” British Arch. Assoc., 37, 135. “ Hierurgia Anglicana.” New edition. 2 vols. London, 1902. Keyser, C. E. “ List of Mural and Painted Decorations.” Third edition. 1883. “ On the Panel Paintings of Saints on the Devonshire Screens.” Archceologia , lvi. 183. “On the Wenhaston Doom.” Archceologia , liv. 119. “ Montgomery Screens and Rood Lofts.” Archdeacon Thomas. Archceologia Cambrensis , 6, iii. 96. Pugin, A. VV. “ Chancel Screens and Rood Lofts.” 1851. Ranworth. “ Illustrations of the Screen.” C. J. W. Winter. Norwich, 1867. Scharff, G. “ Doom Picture in Gloucester Cathedral.” Proceedings of Society of A ntiquaries, iii . 215. Scott-Robertson, Canon W. A. “On Kentish Rood Screens.” Arch. Cantiana , xiv. 370. Scott, Sir Gilbert. “The Choir Screen in Canterbury Cathedral.” Arch. Journal, xxxii. 86. On the remains of Prior Eastry’s work in 1305 on its eastern side. Sirr, H. “The Stallwork, Canopies, and Rood Screens of the Fifteenth Century.” Art Journal, 1883 and 1885. Somers, Clarke. “Sandridge Church.” Arch. Journal, xlii. 247. Strange, E. F. “Painted Rood Screens of East Anglia.” Architects ’ Maga 7 A 7 ie, 1906, 105. Sympson, E. Mansel. “ Lincolnshire Rood Screens and Rood Lofts.” Assoc. Societies ' 1 Reports, xx. 185. Tarver, E. J. “Screens.” St Paul's Eccles. Soc., iii. 16. Thiers. “.Trait-6 des Jubes.” Tuckett, F. F. “Notes on French Jubes.” Bristol and Gloucester Arch. Soc., xxv. T34. Vallance, Aymer. “ Mediaeval Rood Lofts and Screens in Kent.” Memorials of Old Kent, 1907. “ Roods, Screens, and Lofts in Derbyshire Churches,” in Me- morials of Old Derbyshire, 1908. Walker, D. “ Rood Screens and Timber Work of Powys Land.” Pouys Land Club , iii. 211, iv. 181, vii. 61. Warren, R. H. “The Choir Screen in Bristol Cathedral.” Bristol and Gloucester Arch. Soc., xxvii. 127. “ Yorkshire, Chancel Screens of.” By Rev. C. B. Norcliffe. Giving particulars of the destruction of Yorkshire screens under the direction of the Dean of Ripon in 1720. Assoc. Societies’ Reports. vi. 177. p* SCREENS AND GALLERIES IN ENGLISH CHURCHES CHAPTER I ORIGIN OF SCREENS From the earliest times, as soon as ever a Christian church was built, the apse or sacrarium, in which in primitive days was the only altar which the church possessed, was protected by some kind of fence. Of these enclosures of the altar the first that we hear of are railings of wood or bronze. The Church of the Apostles, erected by Constantine at Constantinople in the fourth century, had its sanctuary divided off by a “ reticulated screen of gilded bronze.” The sanctuary of the Church of Tyre, built by Bishop Paulinus, was surrounded “ cancellis ex ligno fabri- catis,” i.e., “by wooden railings.” St Germ anus, Patriarch of Constantinople, speaks of the Holy of Holies as being accessible to priests only, and being fenced off by bronze rail- ings. Of such railings, however, no examples survive. In such examples as survive, the altar rails take quite another A SCREENS AND GALLERIES 2 Rome, St Clement’s Rome, St Maria in Cosmedin ORIGIN OF SCREENS 3 form, viz., that of a colonnade. Immediately in front of the altar is an open colonnade of slender marble columns carrying an entablature, eg., at Old St Peter’s, Rome (i).* How ancient these colonnades may be it is not possible to say ; they may possibly go back at least to the sixth century. The lofty colonnade doubtless had some points of superiority over the earlier rail-fence, otherwise it would not have been adopted. What these points of superiority were, however, can only be stated conjecturally. One probably was that lamps could be suspended from it, and also curtains or veils to shroud the altar from view at penitential seasons ; another, that on the beam or entablature could be placed basins or candlesticks containing lights ; also reliquaries ; and, above all, a cross, or later a crucifix, flanked by images of the Blessed Virgin and St John Evangelist. These were important practical advantages. Of them we shall probably be right in regarding the support of the cross or the rood as the primary and most important. This is borne out by the fact that a rood beam is known to have been in existence in Old St Peter’s, Rome, in early days ; it was of silver, and was presented by Pope Leo III. (795-816). We may fairly con- jecture that, being of or plated with silver, there existed earlier still plain rood beams of wood. Now, the greater churches of the early Christians were all unvaulted, and the nave, and consequently the chancel arch or Arch of Triumph, was ex- ceedingly broad. A rood beam of wide span, unsupported, would certainly have sagged at the centre. To prevent this, supports would be added, and these supports would naturally take the form of columns, as at Old St Peter’s. This was to convert the rood beam into a rood screen. Such an erection was at once altar railing and rood screen. Then came a change in church planning. In the earliest churches the apse was attached directly to the nave, and formed a sanctuary, containing the high altar. A quire was also needed, and for the purpose of a quire the western bays of the nave were appropriated. Just as the altar had been fenced off by railings or by a colonnade, so the quire needed to be enclosed and secured from intrusion. This was effected by erecting round it a wall or parapet, which was kept quite low, so as not to block the view of the altar. These quire enclosures usually consisted of thin marble slabs, about 4 feet high. The slabs were sometimes solid, but covered with carved work, especially with interlacings, eg., at St Clement’s, Rome (2), frequently they were pierced, as at Torcello. Of these marble enclosures * See plan in Gothic Architecture in England , 147. 4 SCREENS AND GALLERIES of the quire many still survive, some going back to the sixth century, viz., those of St Clement* and St Maria in Cosmedin, Rome (2), and that of St Jean, Monza.* Other well-known examples, many of them of rare beauty, may be seen in Torcello and Ancona Cathedrals, the Museum at Brescia, St Mark’s, Venice,-)- and elsewhere. Even so late as the fire of 1 174, a low wall, a lineal descendant of the low early Christian parapets, survived in Canterbury Cathedral, on either side of the quire. For Gervase, the monk, says that “at the base of the pillars was a wall of marble slabs , which, surrounding Ernulph’s quire and presbytery (built 1096-1 1 1 5), divided the church from its sides, which are called aloeL j In St Maria in Cosmedin (2) both arrangements are seen, a colonnade in front of the altar and a low parapet enclosure round the choir. The next step is to consolidate both these, and to make the combined colonnade and western parapet occupy the position of the western parapet. This is well seen at Torcello in the Venetian lagune (5), where the cathedral was rebuilt in 1008, with fittings of earlier date brought from the mainland. Here the colonnade is not in front of the sanctuary, but three bays west of the sanctuary arch or Arch of Triumph ; and its bottom part consists of a low parapet. But, not later than the ninth century, in many churches a great change- of plan had come in. This was to elongate the apse westward for two bays or more ; in other words, to arrange that the eastern limb of the church should henceforth include space not merely for the apse, but for the quire as well ; and the quire, instead of occupying the western bays of the nave, was now placed in the western bays of the eastern limb.§ This * Illustrated in Cattaneo’s Architecture in Italy, Figs. 8 and 11. t Cattaneo gives a seventh-century example from St Mark’s, Venice ; eighth-century examples from Athens Cathedral, Cividale, Albenga, Modena Cathedral, &c. ; several examples of the ninth century from basilicas in Rome ; and numerous examples of the eleventh century. Illustrations are given in La Messe of the screens of St John the Evangelist, Ravenna, fifth century; St Sophia, Constantinople, sixth century; St Nicholas, Myra, sixth century; St Nicodemus, Athens ; Torcello Cathedral; Sion, ninth century ; Mount Kasbek, Caucasus ; Jouarre, France, ninth century ; see Plates 240-245. I What is seen now at Canterbury is the parclose screen put up by Prior Eastry, c. 1305 ; the base of it, however, is that of a parclose screen of masonry which, from its mouldings, must have been put up c. 1175, i.e., by William of Sens, which again superseded that of Priors Ernulph and Conrad described by Gervase. § There were, of course, “ survivals ” of the older arrangement ; no great church in England put the stalls into the eastern limb, till that of Canterbury was rebuilt c. 1200; and in some cases the stalls remain to this day in the eastern bays of the nave, e.g., at St Albans and Westminster. ORIGIN OF SCREENS 5 change is seen quite clearly in the plan drawn out in the ninth century for the Benedictine Church of St Gall.* In such a church the stalls could be placed in the eastern limb, and the colonnade parapet could be placed at the entrance to the eastern limb, effectually guarding quire and altar at once. Quire screens of this colonnade type persisted here and there abroad till the Torcello Cathedral eleventh century and later at Torcello, St Mark’s, Venice, and elsewhere. But, it may be urged, quire screens in England were never of the classical type of columns and entablature, at any rate not till the English Renaissance gave us such examples as the * Illustrated in Gothic Architecture in England , 194. 6 SCREENS AND GALLERIES Melton Constable Reculver ORIGIN OF SCREENS 7 screens at Washfield and Stonegrave. But this is not so. We really had once screens of the colonnade type ; and what is very important, they occurred in the earliest English churches of which we have any remains. For the triple chancel arches of the earliest Anglo-Saxon churches are nothing but a deliberate attempt to reproduce, more or less faithfully as material served, such colonnade screens as that of Old St Peter’s, Rome. These triple chancel arches occur very frequently in the very earliest churches that we possess, viz., the small group that were built in the seventh century. Remains of one have been found at Brix worth, Northants ; sketches of a triple chancel arch at Reculver, Kent, before the church was pulled down in the nineteenth century, are extant ; there are the remains of another at St Pancras, Canterbury ; and evidence that triple chancel arches existed at St Peter - on - the -Wall, Brad well, Essex, Rochester, and Lyminge ; in fact the presence of a triple chancel arch in an Anglo-Saxon church at once raises a strong pre- sumption of seventh-century date. Now the arches at Reculver (6) rested on columns ; and these columns, though the arches have been destroyed by a vandal vicar, still exist ; for they were transferred to Canterbury, where they have been re-erected north of the north transept of the cathedral.* In the ruined Church of St Pancras, behind the Canterbury Hospital, there is evidence of the existence of a colonnade of four Roman shafts reused ; the base and the lower portion of the southernmost of these are still in situ. Not every Anglo-Saxon church, however, in the seventh century would be able to borrow for re-erection ancient Roman shafts and columns ; it is not surprising, therefore, that in the remaining examples the triple chancel arch rests, not on columns, but on piers. But whether the supports be piers or columns, the triple chancel arch may, with much probability, be regarded as a lineal successor in design to such a colonnaded screen as that of Old St Peter’s. After the seventh century it is replaced in Anglo-Saxon work by a single chancel arch. After this it is not known with certainty to appear till the thirteenth century.f But in the end it was superseded by * Whether these columns are Anglo-Saxon imitations of Roman work, as is the opinion of Mr G. E. Fox, or Roman work reused, as Professor Baldwin Brown inclines to believe, is “ nihil ad rem ” : in any case they are columns. t There are, indeed, semicircular triple chancel arches, eg., at Ovingdean and Pyecombe, Sussex, and at Credenhill, Herefordshire, of Norman character ; but in the first two instances at any rate the lateral arches are known to have been cut in recent times. In other instances the lateral arches may be but lateral altar recesses, such as those at Eartham, Sussex (27), cut down to the ground in recent times. Triple chancel arches 8 SCREENS AND GALLERIES the single chancel arch combined with a screen, loft, and rood — a combination difficult to obtain with the obstructive central piers or columns of a triple chancel arch. How early screens within a single chancel arch appeared in England it is impossible to say. Canterbury Cathedral possessed one at any rate not later than the early years of the twelfth century. Earlier still, in the previous century, we have evidence at Bury St Edmunds of a rood ; and if a rood, a rood beam also. It was given by Archbishop Stigand.* It is true that this rood was placed over the high altar and not beneath the chancel arch ; but we may be sure that if roods and rood beams existed over high altars, they existed also in the more normal position at the entrance to the quire. Not much later we hear of a rood “ apud Winchelcumbam.” William of Malmesbury, lib. iv. 323, says that a flash of lightning “ trabem maximam perculit, ut fragmina in tota spargerentur ecclesia ; quin et crucifixi caput cum dextera tibia et imaginem sanctae Marise dejecit”; i.e., it broke up the rood beam, splintered the image of our Lord, and hurled down that of the Blessed Virgin; this was on 15th October 1091. Here then also there were both rood and rood beam ; and the latter doubtless would in time, if it had not them from the first, receive supports, and be converted from a rood beam into a rood screen. Summing up, we conclude that the origin of the mediaeval quire screen is twofold. Partly it is to be found in altar fences, whether railings or colonnades, partly in low parapets forming quire enclosures ; both parapet and colonnade being ultimately combined in one, and placed at the entry to the chancel ; of such an arrangement the triple chancel arch of the seventh-century Anglo-Saxon churches may be regarded as a survival. Partly it is to be found in the necessity of providing supports for a rood beam, which should carry a cross or crucifix, lamps, reliquaries, curtains, &c. The rood beam with its supports developed in Italy into a colonnade ; in England into the quire screen of oak or masonry. are not definitely known to recur till the thirteenth century ; and we can hardly regard the occurrence of these triple arches, after a disuse extending through six centuries, as a survival of the seventh-century Anglo-Saxon use. Thirteenth-century examples occur at Wool, Dorset, and Westwell, Kent. Fourteenth -century examples at Capel-le- Feme, Kent; Bottisham, Cambridge ; Great Bardfield and Stebbing, Essex ; Bramford, Suffolk ; other late examples occur at Baginton, Warwick, and Compton Bassett, Wilts. * “Crux erat super magnum altare, et Mariola et Johannes, quas imagines Stigandus archiepiscopus magno pondere auri et argenti ornaverat, et sancto Aedmundo dederat ” ( Cronica Joceliniy 4). ORIGIN OF SCREENS 9 Other accounts, however, of the origin of the mediaeval quire screen have found favour. It is pointed out that throughout the Greek and the Latin churches, it was of primitive usage to draw veils round the altar so as to hide from the people the act of consecration — a usage, which in the Greek church has crystallised in the Iconostasis, a lofty screen of solid stone behind which consecration always take place. It is noteworthy that in Italy this usage always remained in vogue ; a ciborium or baldachino being erected over and around the altar, between whose pillars were rods on which curtains could be drawn.* There is definite evidence as to the use of veils in our own Pre-Conquest churches. Bloxam quotes words from an ancient Anglo-Saxon pontifical, “ ext enso veto inter eos et populum” ; i.e ., a “ veil was stretched between priests and people” ; which implies that if veils were not stretched round the altar, they were placed across the chancel arch, which in the early Anglo-Saxon churches was usually quite narrow. Even in the thirteenth century the tradition of the demarcation by veil was not extinct, for Durandus, writing on Symbolism, mentions it as an alternative to demarcation by a screen of masonry : “ interponatur velum aut murus inter clerum et populum.” There are, however, serious objections to regarding the quire screen as a substitute, either for the veils of a baldachino, or for the Lenten veil. As for the first, the quire screen does not occupy the position of the altar veil. As for the Lenten veil, it is true that in a parish church it covered the western side of the quire screen. But in the greater churches it did not ; eg., the position of the winch still remaining shows that at Salisbury it occupied a position intermediate between the quire screen and the high altar. What is more important — it never did, as a matter of fact, become a substitute for the Lenten veil — every church possessed a quire screen and a Lenten veil as well. Such a hypothesis as to the origin of the quire screen may safely be set aside. Another origin has been suggested. In the early Christian basilicas there was on either side of the arch of the sanctuary an ambo or pulpit. Many of these survive. From these ambos were read the epistle and gospel. They may still be seen used for that purpose in Italy, eg., in Milan Cathedral, and in nearly every cathedral of Spain. f On the strength of this usage it has * This led to a remarkable divergence between Italian and Transmontane ritual. In Italy, the altar being already screened by the veils of the baldachino, there was no need to put up a quire screen ; the absence of quire screens therefore bringing about a vast difference in the appearance of the interiors of the churches of Italy and those across the Alps. t In Spain they are sometimes of metal, eg., in Toledo Cathedral. B o SCREENS AND GALLERIES been thought that the mediaeval quire screen is but a pair of early Christian ambos connected by a platform. But in England, at any rate, there is no evidence for the use at any time of ambos. Moreover, abroad, when ambos were employed, the reader turned to the west; in England, when the gospel or epistle was read from the loft of a quire screen, the reader turned to the east. Finally, there is no satisfactory evidence that there was a loft in any of our churches, at any rate in the parish churches, before the fourteenth century ; and in any case, the explanation is applicable only to the loft, and not to the screen. Whatever its origin, the screen was of great practical use. One reason for its continuance and popularity is worth setting forth somewhat at length. From the earliest times the English parish church seems to have possessed at least three altars. Now it was a custom in England to make the chancel, even in the humblest parish churches, narrower than the nave. Why ? It involved a good deal of extra trouble with quoins, and some extra expense. The reason probably was that it was desired to place two of the three altars, one on each side of the chancel arch. The altars did not need to be of great length ; square altars were quite common. The more the chancel arch was narrowed, the more room there was for these side altars. This may be the reason why the tradition of a small doorway-like chancel arch, such as that of the Anglo-Saxon church at Bradford, Wiltshire, continued here and there through the Norman period on into the thirteenth century. But an arch so narrow was an obstruction to the view of the third altar, the High Altar. The remedy was to widen the chancel arch, but to put an open-work screen in front of it. This allowed at once a fair view of the high altar, while it also provided a backing or reredos for the two side altars. That such side altars did exist is no mere conjecture ; some may still be seen in situ. At Peterchurch, Hereford, cn the borders of Radnor, there is still an altar slab on each side of the apse. The little church of Patricio, Brecknock (78), far up in the Black Mountains, retains two altars in front of the screen, one on either side of the central door of the choir screen ; two more remain at Urishay. Two side altars are recorded to have stood in Llangwm Church, Monmouth. At Hauxton, Cambridge, is a narrow chancel arch, flanked by recesses, in which there were side altars, c. 1229. At Tattershall, Lincolnshire, in a screen presented in 1528, are two side recesses ; each side recess has on the south side a piscina, so that there can be no doubt that each recess contained an altar. On the painted panels of the screen at Strumpshaw, Norfolk, are marks showing where side altars stood. The famous ORIGIN OF SCREENS 1 1 screen at Ranworth, Norfolk, has wings designed as reredoses to side altars. There are, moreover many examples of chancel arches with a recess in the wall on either side ; e.g., at South Shoebury, Essex, Melton Constable (6), and Castle Rising, Norfolk ; in this last, a Norman church, the northern recess is semicircular, the southern one has been pointed in Gothic days.* Later on, usually not till the thirteenth or fourteenth century, aisles were added to most churches, and the side altars would then usually be transferred to the eastern bays of the aisles, screened off for that purpose, in which there would be room for a full- sized altar slab. But quire screens did not for that reason cease to be put up ; they had by now been found far too useful in other ways ; moreover, it was no doubt already in contemplation to provide lofts, and screens were wanted to support them. The screen, therefore, was still retained ; nor were the side altars always dislodged from their ancient position on either side of the screen door. The late Gothic reredos behind the pulpit of Chipping Norton f plainly proves that in this church, at any rate, the northern side altar of the screen was never removed. * Illustrated in Gothic Architecture in England , , 162. t Illustrated in Gothic Architecture in England , 548. SCREENS AND GALLERIES 12 Harberton 13 CHAPTER II CHANCEL SCREENS OF PARISH CHURCHES Of the artistic value of screens, even though they be, as in a little church at Haverfordwest, a rude framework of common deal, there can be no question. Nothing adds so much to that most potent of all effects in church architecture, “ mystery,” as a screen, with its vistas half hidden, half revealed, of beautiful and holy things beyond. “ Keep,” Wordsworth says — “ Keep the charm of not too much ; Part seen, imagined part? Nor does anything add so much to the apparent length of a church as to break it up with a screen ; contrariwise, nothing diminishes the apparent length of a church so much as the removal of the chancel screen, as may be seen in many a church now too short and broad in proportion, eg., Louth,* Lincoln- shire, or North Walsham ; or with a screen too thin and flimsy, eg., Tewkesbury and Durham.-|* Of this Pugin had no doubt, nor did he hesitate to express himself clearly on the subject. The man, he says, who professes to love Gothic architecture, and does not like screens, is a liar. The parochial chancel screen takes three forms. In small churches it extends merely across the east wall of the nave ; but in aisled churches it is often prolonged north and south across the aisles as well, if they terminate more to the east than does the chancel arch, eg., at Harberton, Devon (12). In late days sometimes, especially in East Anglia, the aisles are carried on for the whole length of the quire or of the presbytery eastwards. In such a church it is absolutely necessary to carry the screen across nave and aisles, in order to separate aisled quire from * Illustrated in Gothic Architecture in England , 213. t Moreover, without a screen and loft the glare of the huge east window, so characteristic of English church design, is simply intolerable. It was only when lofts and screens came into general use that it became possible to add such great increase of dimensions to the east windows of chancels. 14 SCREENS AND GALLERIES Dennington, S.E. Chapel of Nave Dennmgton, N.E. Chapel of Nave FORMS OF SCREENS 15 aisled nave. In Cornwall and Devon, indeed, the normal type of late Gothic church is one in which the aisles extend along the whole length of the church. Sometimes they are lofty and broad ; sometimes, instead of nave and lofty aisles, there are two or three parallel naves ; or, as they are called in the inden- ture for making a rood loft at Stratton, “ three churches .” In these counties, therefore, and in the neighbouring county of Somerset and in East Anglia, chancel screens being so often a necessity received greater development than anywhere else in England. One leading reason for this was the change in the planning of parish churches (the only important change since the twelfth century) which came in first perhaps at North Walsham, Norfolk, when that great church was rebuilt after the damage done by the Peasant Revolt of 1381. This change was to omit the chancel arch, i.e ., to make nave and chancel consist simply of one great unbroken hall.* In such a church, of course, a chancel screen was indispensable ; without it, it would have been impossible to tell where the nave ended and the chancel began. The screens of nave and aisles did not, however, always form one straight line as at Harberton. Sometimes a different arrange- ment had to be adopted. Very often there were no chancel aisles ; the nave aisles terminated in a line with the chancel arch. In such a case the chancel screen could not be continued to the aisle walls. But it was customary to use the end bays of the nave aisles as altared chapels. When these, then, were screened off to the west and at the sides, the screens assumed quite a new plan ; instead of being in a straight line, they ran, if one started from the south, to the north, east, north, west, north. This arrangement, except for the loss of the central screen and its loft, is perfectly preserved at Dennington, Suffolk ( t 4) ; where, supposing that one ascended the loft by the staircase in the south aisle, one would first proceed round the south aisle chapel, then by the chancel screen across the chancel arch, and then round the north aisle chapel, descending by the staircase in its wall. In churches where the rood staircases are thus placed, i.e ., one bay west of the chancel arch, the above explains their arrangement. In the West of England the screens were on a very large scale. The screens of Staverton (108) and Cullompton are con- tinued across the aisles ; the latter is 54 feet long, and retains all three doors ; the former contains seventeen bays, and is 50 feet long and 1 5 feet high. One must see such Devon churches * Noble examples of this treatment are to be seen at St Nicholas, Lynn ; Gresford, Denbigh ; many churches in Cornwall and Devon, and the modern church of St Agatha, Sparsholt, Birmingham. SCREENS AND GALLERIES Dunster PRESBYTERY SCREENS 17 as Staverton, where not only the three screens are in situ , but the parapetted loft has been replaced ; then restore in imagina- tion, higher still, the great Crucifix with its guardians, and one may realise something of the ancient magnificence of the approach to the holy places of these village churches of England. An exceptional arrangement occurs at Dunster, Somerset (16). The screen is a chancel screen running right across nave and aisles ; but instead of being at the east end of the nave it is two bays to the west. The explanation is to be found in the fact that formerly the church was a monastic one, that of a cell* attached to the Benedictine Abbey of Bath. Over the nave the parishioners had certain ill-defined rights, which as usual led to quarrelling. In 1499 the matter was referred to the arbitration of the Abbot of Glastonbury, who apportioned the crossing and the quire to the monks, and the nave to the parish. To get a chancel, therefore, the parish erected a screen two bays west of the central tower ; these two bays then formed the parochial chancel, and the parochial altar stood beneath the western arch of the crossing. f Presbytery Screens Screens were also employed in other positions than at the entrance to the chancel. Sometimes, though rarely, a presbytery screen is interposed between the sacrarium or presbytery and the quire. There is a light presbytery screen of open woodwork at St David’s Cathedral (18). The presbytery screen of Brecon Priory is only known from an illustration. A few examples survive in parish churches, for instance at Michael- church and Brilley, Hereford. A presbytery screen at St Martin’s, Colchester, consisting of a wooden arch carrying a cornice, is illustrated in Buckler’s Essex Churches. In Postling Church, Kent, there are evidences of a narrow loft having run across the sanctuary, supported by two beams, but without a screen below ; while the rood beam traversed the church at some distance to the westward.^ * Its dove-cote and the prior’s lodgings still survive in the neighbouring farm. t Recently it has been removed to the eastern arch. I Home Counties Magazine, July 1903. C i8 SCREENS AND GALLERIES St David’s PARCLOSE SCREENS Lavenham Astbury 20 SCREENS AND GALLERIES Wolborough 21 Parclose Screens Where there was an aisled quire, screens were necessary to shelter the clergy or monks during the long offices from the draughts in the unheated churches ; as also to prevent the distraction which the movements of worshippers in the aisles and Stamford St John ambulatory chapels might cause to those in the quire. These must have been provided in quite early days. The monk Gervase describes low walls as fencing in Canterbury quire in the twelfth century. In the greater churches these parclose screens were usually of stone ; Prior Eastry’s screen at Canterbury is an example, as also Bishop Fox’s screens at Winchester. Examples of side screens in oak are shown at Astbury, Cheshire (19), and Lavenham, Suffolk (19). In France the parclose SCREENS AND GALLERIES 22 screens have survived far more often than the western quire screen. Albi quire is enveloped all round by a magnificent screen of open work ; solid screens, with niches on the outside crowded with statuary, survive at Amiens, Chartres, Toledo, and Burgos. Very numerous parclose screens remain also round or in East Harling front of chapels ; eg., the screens in front of the Lady Chapels of Ottery St Mary (37), and East Harling, Norfolk (22), and of the Chapel of St Mary Magdalen in Exeter Cathedral (35), and the oak screens round the chantry chapel of Wensley, York- shire. At Lavenham, Suffolk, two sets of late screens have been taken down and put together round family pews. At Wolborough, Devon (20), also, parclose screens are shown STONE SCREENS 23 West-well from East Capel-le-Ferne from West 24 SCREENS AND GALLERIES fencing a family pew. Screened chapels were most common, probably almost universal, at the east end of aisles ; eg., at Dennington, Suffolk (14); Stamford St John (21); Brigstock, Northants ; Walsoken, Norfolk (38); as may be seen by the very frequent presence of a piscina, proof of the existence of a former neighbouring altar. Sometimes the western as well as the eastern bays of the nave were screened off as chapels, as they are to this day at Addlethorpe, Lincolnshire (180).* Stone Screens Stone screens are comparatively rare in parish churches. In the first examples there is a triple chancel arch, eg., at Wool, Dorset, and Westwell, Kent (thirteenth century), (23), and Capel- le-Ferne, Kent (fourteenth century), (23), the three arches being equal in height, and pointed. Above them, resting on them, is solid wall carried all the way up to the gable. In a variant of this, all this solid wall is omitted, except so much as occupies the spandrels of the three tall arches ; prac- tically it is reduced to a cornice, and the whole of the chancel arch is open from its springing to its apex. The screen consists of three arches with a horizontal finish. The fourteenth-century screen of Bramford, Suffolk (25), is an example ; in this the spandrels of the arches are pierced with modern quatrefoils. Similar is the screen at Welsh Newton, Herefordshire (130). The screen at Bottisham, Cambridge (25), is a century later. In another variant of this, the characteristic is, that instead of the three arches of Bramford, more are employed. Practically it consists of a cornice supported by more than three arches. The arches, being more numerous, are therefore narrower, and the effect resembles that of such an open oak screen as that of Lavenham or Southwold, except that in the oak screen the lower panels are solid. To this type belongs the beautiful screen at Bradford Abbas, Dorset (26), which, with the whole church seems to have been built in the latter years of the fourteenth century. In the second type a different departure is taken. In many churches of all periods there are two openings, or “ squints,” one on each side of the chancel arch, eg, Eartham, Sussex (2 7). These were usually small ; but sometimes they were large, and * Measured drawing of the parclose screen at Luton in Architectural Association Sketch Book, v. pp. 56, 57 ; of those at Dennington in Building News, May 18, 1888 ; of the Ottery screen in Exeter Diocesan Society's Journal, i. p. 1. STONE SCREENS 25 D Bramford Bottisham 26 SCREENS AND GALLERIES were treated as unglazed windows, and were furnished with stone mullions and tracery. Such a design occurs at Baulking, Berks, Stockton, Wilts (27), and elsewhere. In such a case the screen consists simply of wall extending up to the gable, and pierced with a doorway and a couple of squints. A charming Bradford Abbas development of this type occurs at Brimpton, Somerset, where there is a stone screen with central door and low walls on either side. Each wall carries a low arcade of four open lancet arches. On the doorway and the light lancet arches is a cornice, the lower part which is of stone, the upper of wood. On the western STONE SCREENS 27 Eartham Stockton 28 SCREENS AND GALLERIES sides of each low wall is a stone bench.* It is curious that these side squints sometimes occur on either flank of an oak screen, eg., at Patricio (78) and Swymbridge (61). They have been regarded as openings for reading desks, but such can hardly have been their purpose in a Pre-Reformation church. It has been suggested also that in front of each was fixed a movable retable or “ table,” but at Patricio the openings are not central to the back of the side altars, and for a retable it would be more Sandridge convenient to have a solid panel rather than an aperture. Some- times a further step is taken ; an unglazed window is inserted above the doorway ; such is the design of Sandridge, Herts (28).f A variant is one in which there is only doorway, squints, and cornice, the wall being carried but little higher than the door- way, e.g., Highway, Wilts. * Illustrated in Spring Gardens Sketch Book , viii. 28. t Illustrated paper in Arch. Journal, xlii. 248. STONE SCREENS 29 Great Bardfield 30 SCREENS AND GALLERIES Trondhjem STONE SCREENS Stebbing 32 SCREENS AND GALLERIES In the third class the precedent of certain windows common at the end of the thirteenth and the beginning of the fourteenth century is followed ; eg ., those of the clerestory of St Alban’s, begun c. 1257, and the magnificent ranges of triplets in the aisles and clerestory of the quire of Milton Abbas, Dorset, rebuilt after the fire of 1309.* * * § In this class the whole chancel arch is regarded as a single unglazed window. It is divided from the pavement to its apex into three lancet lights, of which the central one, the highest and broadest, runs up to the apex of the chancel arch, and has a lower and narrower lancet arch on either side. Sometimes another early fourteenth-century window is adopted as a pattern, eg . , that so common in Ottery St Mary’s (begun in 1337), in which the mullions of the tall central lancet are carried straight up to the chancel arch, so that the central lancet is straight-sided.f Of the Milton Abbas design Stebbing, Essex (31), is a derivative; of the Ottery type, Great Bard- field, Essex J (29). In both the rood, with its attendant figures, is combined with the “ window screen ” in most charming fashion. A very extraordinary fact is the close resemblance of the great stone screen west of the Lady Chapel of Trondhjem Cathedral to that of Stebbing, Essex. The whole design from top to bottom would be perfectly at home in Ely, c. 1325. If such designs as those of Stebbing and Capel-le-Ferne be studied together, the conclusion is inevitable that the Trondhjem design is of English genesis. “That Trondhjem Cathedral was con- structed by English architects, or at any rate by architects taught by Englishmen, is evident as well from the general design as from the details. This is true, not only of the older part of the church, from the time of Archbishop Augustine (1161-1188), where the Anglo-Norman character of the work is so striking, but also as regards the later parts. Augustine maintained the closest connection with England, whither he repaired when compelled to fly from Norway ; it was therefore to be expected both that he himself should send to that country for architects, and that his successors should follow his example.”§ Probably the work is subsequent to the great fire of 1328 and * See illustrations in Gothic Architecture in England, 478. t This is seen also in the Ledbury window illustrated in Gothic Archi- tecture in England , 474. I At Great Bardfield the only modern part is the three statuettes, added about ten years ago. Stebbing screen is fourteenth-century work ; an illustration of it before restoration appears in Buckler’s Essex Churches , and in Spring Gardens Sketch Book , viii. 28. § Munch’s Trondhjem' s Domkirke, Christiania, 1859. STONE SCREENS 33 E Totnes 34 SCREENS AND GALLERIES previous to the advent of the Black Death, the ravages of which were very great in Norway in 1350. The fourth type is that of by far the largest number of parochial stone screens. It consists simply of reproductions of the design of wooden screens. A very beautiful example is that at Totnes, Devon (33), erected by the Corporation in 1459.* This screen was ordered to be made like that of the Lady Chapel at Exeter, but far exceeds it in beauty and elaborate detail. It is 60 feet long, and full of light tracery, rich with niches and tabernacle work. It is vaulted, like Tilbrook (in), on the Colyton west side only. All the tracery in the fan vaulting is pierced through.*)* Paignton, Devon, also has the remains of a very handsome stone screen. A pretty example is illustrated from Colyton, Devon (34). Wherever there is a gabled wall at the east end of the nave, whether above a single or triple chancel arch, the broad expanse of plain masonry may be pierced by one or two apertures; by one, at Capel-le- Feme (23), by two at Melton Constable, * The Totnes screen is illustrated in the article <£ Screen” in the Archi- tectural Publication Society s Dictionary . t Mr Harry Hems in Rood and Other Screens , 11. STONE SCREENS 35 Exeter Cathedral Compton Bassett 36 SCREENS AND GALLERIES Norfolk (7), West well (23), and Sandridge (28). What is the use of the hole or holes so high up? It is suggested that a tall ladder was set up in the chancel, and through the hole access was obtained to a rood loft. But why make two holes for that purpose? Besides, the apertures at Melton Constable are of Norman date, when no lofts as yet are known to have existed in parish churches.. It might be that the rood was actually placed within the aperture, as nowadays it is at Capel-le-Ferne ; unfortunately, where there are two holes, the explanation fails to hold water. Perhaps the object was that behind the rood there should not be whitewashed or frescoed wall, but the rood should be silhouetted against the darkness of the chancel.* A very considerable number of chancel and parclose screens of stone are still to be found in our parish churches. They deserve, but have not yet received, a separate monograph.*)* Oak v. Stone Screens Some of the oak screens seem to have had for their prede- cessors screens of stone. In some cases there is a documentary evidence to that effect. At Tintinhull, Somerset, the church- wardens’ accounts for 1451 describe the building of an oak rood loft, in which the lower part of an earlier stone screen was retained as foundation. In some districts, eg,, Devon, and much of Somerset and Wales generally, there was plenty of stone, but for the most part it was hard and intractable ; while in East Anglia every scrap of freestone for windows, doorways, quoins, &c., had to be imported from quarries at far away Barnack or elsewhere. It is just in these districts (1) Devon and Somerset, (2) Norfolk and Suffolk, (3) the Welsh border, that by far the noblest wooden screens * In Gothic days it was very common in the West of England, especially in Herefordshire, to insert a small window or a pair of small windows over the chancel arch. Later, a very big window occurs, e.g ., in Cirencester nave ; illustrated in Gothic Architecture in E?igland , 544. But these have nothing to do with lofts. t In addition to those given above the following stone screens deserve mention: — Awliscombe and Poltimoie, Devon; Bickenhill, Warwick; Brympton, Somerset ; Broughton, Oxon. ; Cerne Abbas, Dorset ; Chelmor- ton and Ilkeston, Derbyshire; Croyland, Tattershali, and West Deeping, Lincolnshire; Darlington, Durham ; Eastwell, Leicester; Charlton, Compton Bassett, Great Chalfield, Heytesbury, Highway, Hilmarton, Yatton Keynell, Wiltshire; Methley, Yorkshire ; Nantwich, Cheshire. I Edited by Bishop Hobhouse for the Somerset Record Society, 1890. OAK V. STONE SCREENS 37 were erected, and the greatest number still remain. One cause of the unpopularity of the stone screen was that it did not develop in the right direction. In a parochial screen it was essential that it should be so open that the view of the high Ottery St Mary altar should be as little obstructed as possible. This was admir- ably secured in such triple window screens as those of Stebbing and Great Bardfield (29). But in these delightful compositions there was a fatal defect ; they were not designed for a loft.* * Till its restoration, the stone screen at Stebbing showed marks of having been cut for support to a wooden loft. 38 SCREENS AND GALLERIES This type of screen being abandoned, the best course would have been to reproduce the Norfolk type of oak screen. Instead of that, it was the Devon type which usually was copied. In this type, each bay contains an unglazed window, crowded with mullions and tracery ; but these, when executed in wood, could be cut into such slender and delicate form that the screen still remained comparatively open. Such delicate and fragile forms were difficult to copy in stone ; if the stone mullions and tracery were made substantial, the screen work was so massive as to impede the view, e.g, at Colyton (34) ; if they were made delicate, the cost and fragility of the work were much increased. In the former, the East Anglian type, mullions and tracery are omitted, at any rate in the lower part of the open- ing. Such a type was well suited for reproduction in stone ; but examples are scarce ; they occur at Comp- ton Bassett (35), and Paign- ton, Devon. There were indeed screens to which no such objection could be taken, e.g., those at Bram- ford (24), and Bradford Abbas (26), which, while open below, provided sup- ports for a loft and rood, but they were too few in number to influence the general run of design. Construction of Oak Screens As far as is known, every wooden screen in the country, but one, is of oak. The one exception is at Rodmers- ham, Kent, where the screen has been pronounced by Mr Harry Hems to be of Spanish chestnut. Oak screens were of two parts ; the upper part was constructed of open panels or of traceried panels, so that the high altar might be in view ; the lower part was sometimes left more or less open, as at Walsoken, Norfolk (38) ; much more frequently CONSTRUCTION OF OAK SCREENS 39 it was of solid panels, either carved, or, in rich parishes, painted with figures of the saints and doctors of the Church. Occasionally, eg., at Bridford (138), tiny statuettes of saints are found in the lower panels. The sills upon which the rood screens stood were nearly always massive, and often very effectively moulded. As a rule, these sills run right through from end to end, under doors and under panelling alike ; they must have been constant stumbling-blocks to successive generations when entering or leaving the chancel. Mr G. E. Street thus describes the general construction of screens : * . “ The lower panels of early screens were usual \y filled in with feather-edged, grooved and tongued boards. The ‘ monials, ’ or ‘mullions,’ were delicate columns ; the tracery was very simple, and cut out of long pieces of board, from 2 \ to 4 inches thick. The capitals were pinned to the tracery with vertical oak pins, as at St John’s, Winchester. In the later screens the lower part of the screen was panelled, the monials were moulded, and the whole work was much more complete.” A similar account is given by Mr Harry Sirr.f “ The usual framework of the screens,” he says, “ is quite simple. The principal uprights or ‘muntins’ are let into a stout oak sill upon the floor, from which they are carried to a strong upper beam some 15 feet above. On either side of this upper beam, somewhat higher up, another beam is let into the wall, or corbelled from it, forming the support for the loft ; the intermediate space between each of these and the lower beam being filled in with bracketing for the support of the cornice, coving, or vaulting. Also, at some 4 feet from the floor, a cross rail is inserted, the space below, which is divided up by lesser muntins, constituting the framework for the lower panelling. This construction is increased or varied in the more elaborate examples. As regards the workmanship, the structural portion or framework is usually morticed and tenoned together, and pinned with oak pins. The finer and more delicate carved work, as also the tracery in the canopies of stalls, when joined, is jointed with a dowel, or occasionally a secret tenon here and there is left on the solid. Wherever the work admitted it, however, it was all got out of the solid ; the tracery of the head of an entire compartment of a screen, for instance, being generally in one piece. At Yately, Hants, two traceried heads of the quire screen, each measuring 13 inches in depth, and 6 feet in length, are each out of one solid piece.” * Street’s Woodwork, R. I. B. A. Journal, February 1865. t Art Journal , 1883, p. 329. 4o SCREENS AND GALLERIES Cost of Screens Numerous entries are found in churchwardens’ accounts as to payments for screens. The screen and loft at St Margaret’s, Westminster, cost ,£38 besides ,£10 for rood and statues ; total, ^"48 ; say .£500 in our money. The screen at Ashburton, Devon, erected in 1525, cost £20. is. 6\ d. ; say ,£200 in our money. At Crowcombe, Taunton, there was paid in the year 1729-30 to Mr Thomas Parker for making the screens, flooring, and wainscotting the altar, &c., ^73. 10s. At Yatton, Somerset, the churchwardens’ accounts for 1454 give the whole cost of the rood loft. The old loft cost 24d. to take down. The new work was done by J. Crosse, the village carpenter, who received £18. 13s., and again £3. 6s. 5d. ; also 3d. for ale in setting up of the post of the rood loft; also us. 4d. for labour in the loft; also 2d. for ale given to Crosse at certain times in his work “to make him well-willed” ; also £3. 10s. 7d. for images for the rood lofts. Also J. Smith was paid 23d. for charcoal used in iron work, and 13s. 4d. for the chandelier in the rood loft. Not including other items, such as glue, paint, gilding, &c., this rood loft cost over £27, or in our money ,£405.* The indenture for the making of the rood loft at Old St Mary’s, Cambridge, j* remains. It was to extend across nave and aisles. “All the niches, crestings, groinings supporting the loft, panelling, flying buttresses, canopies, pinnacles, doors, gables, &c., to be of good substantial wainscot ; the breast or western side of the loft to be copied from that in Tripplow Church, the eastern side from that in Gasseley Church. On the eastern side there was to be an eastern projection (‘ poulpete ’ or ‘ pulpit ’) into the midst of the choir. The loft to be 8 feet broad with such yomags (‘ images ’) as shall be advised and appointed by the parishioners, and all the yomags shall be of good pictures, forms, and vicenamyes (‘physiognomies’) without rifts, cracks, or other deformities. The uprights or standards to be of full seasoned oak.” This work seems to have been finished in 1523, for in that year there was paid “ viij \d. for holowyng of ye Ymagesse of Mari and Jhon.” Mr R. W. Goulding J has printed a very voluminous contract for making a rood loft, parclose screens, &c., at Stratton, Cornwall, in 1531, with John Dawe, of the parish of Lawhitton in Cornwall, and John Pares, of the parish of North Lew in Devon. There was to be a rood loft * Hobh ouse’s Churchwardens ’ Accounts of Yatton , &yc. t Publications of the Cambridge Antiquarian Society , 1869, p. 64. J Records of BlanchminstePs Charity , Louth, 1898, p. 91. COST OF SCREENS 41 right across the three “ churches ” (“ naves ”) to be made after the pattern, form, and fashion as the rood loft of St Kew. Also a crucifix with a Mary and John after pattern, fashion, and workmanship as that in Liskeard Church. Also two altars of timber, of St Armell and the Visitation of our Blessed Lady, with tabernacles for the same at both ends of the said rood loft, one by the south wall, the other by the north wall of the church, wrought after the pattern and workmanship of St Kew. Also parclose screens on either side of the chancel, between the chancel and the chancel aisles. Also five seats or pews in the chancel aisles, three in the south aisle, and two in the north aisle. Also the old stalls were to be replaced. Also a loft was to be built above the north parclose screen to hold organs Also two dormer windows to be inserted in the nave roof above the crucifix like those at St Mary Weyke. Also the north aisle wall was to be made as lofty as that of the nave. Also a way to be made for the loft by or under the arches of the pier arcade. John Dawe and John Pares were to pay for the timber and its carriage, but not for the ironwork and masonry, and to keep everything in repair for four years after the completion of the work. They were allowed seven years for the work. The mode of payment was very curious. They were to be paid only for the rood loft across the church, and for that at the rate of 46s. 8d. per lineal foot, “for every foot of the breadth of the said Church of Stratton to be measured upon the ground along by the said rood loft.” All the other work, the parcloses, seats, &c., to be thrown in. Up to the year 1539 payments had been made to the extent of ;£io8, say ,£1,080 in our money. The indenture is interesting in many ways. The work was to be largely a copy of that in three other parish churches ; similarly at Great St Mary, Cambridge, the screen in front was to be a copy of that at Tripplow, and at the back a copy of that at Gasseley ; and the stone screen at Totnes was to be a copy of that of the Lady Chapel in Exeter Cathedral. Such copyism accounts at once for the great family resemblance of the screens in each district, eg., on the Welsh border, Devon, and East Anglia. A single man introduces a good design ; it is copied in various directions ; copies are made of copies; so grows up a distinct local school. In architecture also the same borrowing took place in the parish churches ; and so the Somerset towers, the Kentish towers, the Sussex towers, the East Anglian towers, the Pembrokeshire towers, gradually developed into distinct schools. So it was with the wooden spires of South-eastern England, and the broach spires of Northamptonshire. So it was with the font, the porch, and every other member and accessory of the church. So, above F 42 SCREENS AND GALLERIES all, it was with the plan ; nothing can well be more like one another than the generality of plans in the churches of Corn- wall, or more unlike those of the rest of England ; the plan of Stratton is typical ; the church consisting simply of three parallel naves, each with its own span roof. The whole country, owing to this system of borrowing, ultimately divided itself into well-defined architectural provinces. Inscriptions Here and there inscriptions are found. At Northenden, Cheshire, there is the inscription : “ Have mercy on me, O Lord, according to Thy loving kindness ; according unto the multitude of Thy tender mercies blot out my transgressions. Create in me a clean heart, O God, and renew a right spirit within me.” A screen of 1691 at Probus, Cornwall, has the inscription : “Jesus, hear us, Thy people, and send 11s grace and good for ever.” At Elworthv, Somerset, the screen has the inscription : “ O Lord, prepare our arts to praye. Anno Domi, 1632.” The following quatrain from Guilden Morden, Cambridge, is unexceptionable in piety, if not in prosody : — “Ad mortem duram Jhesu de me cape curam ; Vitam venturam post mortem redde securam ; Fac me confessum rogo Te Deus ante secessum, Et post decessum coelo michi dirige gressum.”* Atherington screen is pious and loyal in plain English : “ God bless our church and Queen Elizabeth, and give us peace and truth in Christ. Amen.” The Post-Restoration inscriptions breathe the soundest Toryism. At Milborne. Dorset, the inscrip- tion from Ecclesiastes runs : “ Where the word of a king is, there is power, and none may say, What doest thou ? ” Soundly royalist also is the inscription on one side of the screen (1624) at Low Ham, Somerset : “ My son, fear thou the Lord and the king, and meddle not with them that are given to change.” On the other side is the inscription : “ Christ is the end of the law for righteousness to every one that believeth.” Beneath the Doom at Wenhaston (124) is a text which, from the lettering, appears to be of the time of Queen Elizabeth, and was probably added when the tympanum was whitewashed over. It runs as follows : “ Let every soule Submyt him selfe unto the authorytye * “ In death’s hard hour, Jesu, have care of me, and bring me safely to eternal life. Grant me to make confession ere I die, and when I die, direct my steps to heaven.” SCREEN DESIGN 43 Atherington of the hygher powers for there is no power but of god The / Powers that be arc ordeyne d of god but they that resest or are againste the ordinaunce of god shall receyve to them selves utter / damnacion For rulers are not fearefull to them that do good but to them that do evyll for he is the mynister of god.” The text is taken from the Epistle of St Paul to the Romans xiii. 1-4. 44 SCREENS AND GALLERIES Mobberley SCREEN DESIGN 45 Mobberley 4 6 SCREENS AND GALLERIES Southwold SCREEN DESIGN 47 South wold Southwold 48 SCREENS AND GALLERIES Screens of Norfolk and Suffolk, Devon and Somerset Both in Norfolk and Suffolk, and in the south-west of England and Wales, the normal design of the great Gothic screens is in the main lithic. Take the range of clerestory windows and one-half of the kerne vault of Norwich quire, or the clerestory windows and half the fan vault of Sherborne, and you have the western or eastern side of such coved or vaulted screens as those of Mobberley, Cheshire (44), or High Ham, Somerset (65). The difference is that the screen is executed in wood, and that the windows are unglazed. On the whole, the western screens are much less lithic in design than those of East Anglia. In the latter the design is in the main architectural ; there is often a profuse employment of tiny buttresses, pinnacles, string courses and hood-molds, and the battlement sometimes appears rather than open cresting. There is a distinctly different feeling in an eastern and a western cornice ; the mouldings of the former are reminiscent of those of stone work ; whereas a western cornice in its broad convex surfaces, separated by simple beads and little undercut, is reminiscent of the logs of which it is composed. It is, as it were, built up of logs piled horizontally one on the top of the other, prevented from slipping by the insertion of slender poles (“beads”) between each pair of logs, eg., at Kenton (106), and Congres- bury (64). So it is with the uprights or standards ; even in rich examples they frankly acknowledge themselves to be but posts, eg ., at Swymbridge (61) and Minehead (69). In the East Anglian screen, on the other hand, the cornice of the screen is more of a reproduction of the cornice of stone which crests the walls out of doors, forming the foundation of parapet or battlement. In the screen of Devon the feeling that it is a solid log construction is preserved throughout; it is solid, massive, and heavy, whereas an East Anglian screen is largely constructed in open work, and is light and airy ; and, indeed, when looked at from a distance, the chancel screen, eg., at South- wold (46), Cawston (174), Worstead (50), is sometimes painfully thin, meagre, and wiry. The emphasis of massiveness and solidity comes out most forcibly in the cornice. In the western design the vast, heavy, black frowning cornice is the leading note ; the windowed tracery down below is overshadowed into insignificance, however beautiful it may be, eg ., at Bovey Tracey (6 2). And when the cornice is reinforced by a parapetted loft, the tracery of the openings does not even play a secondary part in the SCREEN DESIGN 49 composition; eg., Staverton (108). But, in an East Anglian screen, the arch or the tracery plays the leading part ; the cornice is comparatively insignificant, eg., the parclose screens of Southwold (47). It follows also that since the western cornice has the greater projection, below it there is a greater breadth of coving and vaulting, and there being larger scope for it, this is developed and enriched to a very great extent, eg., at Kenton and High Ham (65), as is well seen also in the fine screen of Astbury chancel,* Cheshire. Both in Devon and East Anglia very few screens have retained the parapets of their loft ; in the former, however, a very large number of screens have retained the loft floor and the coving or vaulting beneath it. In East Anglia the destruction, as a rule, has been more sweeping ; vaulting and coving and loft floor have perished together ; the cornice has lost its pro- jection altogether, and is flat with the tracery down below, eg., at Southwold (46), Lavenham (51), Hadleigh (52). A cornice without projection is a poor thing indeed, and the frequent survival of the loft floor with its supports in Devon and its rarity in East Anglia, f give one perhaps an unduly unfavourable impression of the design of the latter. In estimating the value of East Anglian screen design, an important factor to be borne in mind is the position of the screen. The primary function of all screens is to serve as a barrier. But if it be a chancel screen, it ought to be a barrier of open character, so as to obstruct as little as possible the view by the congregation of the celebrant at the Mass. To this object no concession was made in Devon design. In East Anglia, however, a sharp distinction is often made between a screen in front of the high altar, and screens in any other position. The latter being mainly barriers, it is undesirable to have too much open work. Nowhere is this better seen than at Southwold, where the main screen (46) is of the lightest possible character, whereas the parclose screens are largely occupied by elaborate tracery. So also at East Harling (22), the screen, being that of the Lady Chapel, is constructed in the most massive fashion, and the mullions of the tracery are carried down to the middle rail, as if it were a screen of Devon. As regards the main screen across a chancel arch in Norfolk and Suffolk, the desire for openness was so strong that tracery was largely or wholly * Measured drawing in Architectural Association Sketch Book , 3rd series, vol. 5. t Loft floors, however, are shown at Southwold (47), Bennington (14), East Harling (22), in parclose screens ; and at Worstead (50) and Bram- field (76), in quire screens. G 50 SCREENS AND GALLERIES Worstead from East SCREEN DESIGN 51 Lavenham 52 SCREENS AND GALLERIES Hadleigh 54 SCREENS AND GALLERIES sacrificed to secure it. Sometimes, as at Worstead (50), each arched panel has in its head a crocketed decorative arch ; at Southwold (46) even this is omitted. In this, the most char- acteristic design of East Anglian chancel screen, the result is nowadays unsatisfactory, even at Worstead (1512), which is a favourable specimen, since it retains both its rood floor and groining,* and the subsidiary arches below. But before condemn- Blundeston Thud ton ing it, we must in imagination replace the parapets of the loft. Then it is quite conceivable that a design concentrating itself on the loft and the great Rood, Mary and John above the loft, might be entirely adequate and satisfactory; perhaps even more than a western design, such as that of Staverton (108), in which, to some extent, the interest is dissipated by the calls made on the eye by the mullioned and traceried openings below. As things stand, it is perhaps not so much in the chancel screens of Norfolk * The vaulting remains on the eastern side only. SCREEN DESIGN 55 Seaming 56 SCREENS AND GALLERIES and Suffolk as in the minor screens* that the most exquisite and consummate design is found. For decorative purposes the great favourite was a somewhat acutely pointed ogee arch, heavily crocheted, cusped, and finialled, of which good examples are seen at Blundeston (54), Worstead (50), Thurlton (54), Cawston (174), Acle (176), Barningham (53), Bramfield (76), Dennington (14). Sometimes the lower curve of the ogee emerges fully, as at East Harling (22) ; much more frequently, it is nearly or quite invisible. Above this ogee arch, and below the horizontal line of the cornice is a considerable space, which at Barning- ham and Dennington is charmingly filled with rectilinear tracery ; less successfully at Blundeston and Thurlton, Suffolk.-|- But in the best designs a second arch is introduced close to the cornice; a pointed arch at East Harling, a stilted semicircular arch at Bramfield, a four-centred arch at Lavenham (19), de- lightful variety being obtained by the play of contrast in the arch below and the arch above. Or, as at Hadleigh (52), three tiers of pointed are contrasted with one tier of segmental arches ; while in the Southwold parclose screen (47), segmental, semi- circular, and ogee arches are played off one against another with delightful cleverness. Add to this the elaboration of the cusping ; double and sometimes triple cusping occurs, eg., at Blundeston (54), and in the wonderful screen-doorways of the neighbouring churches of Eye and Yaxley (53), and one has architectural design of the very first order. J In execution also the eastern screens bear off the bell, as well as in versatility and ingenuity of design. It is true that in Devon there are a few screens, eg. 3 Holbeton (frontispiece), of marked individuality, and that a few others, owing to foreign influence, have still greater distinction, eg., Colebrook (84), but on the whole, there is great similarity, almost monotony, of design as compared with the work of East Anglia. In Devon, even in the best work, there is much less of * Among minor screens we may include, for convenience, the chancel screens of such small churches as Barningham, Bramfield, Thurlton, and Blundeston. t By exception the spandrels are left open in the chancel screen of Lavenham (51), a not wholly successful design. 4 “ On Ranworth screen and the pulpit of Burlingham are cast-lead orna- ments gilded. At Ranworth each is at about 4-inch centres on the canopy ribs and round the main ornaments below the canopy and on the cornice of the posts at the projecting wings of the screen. The pattern of the orna- ment is a close imitation of a star-fish. At Worstead in the spandrels of the arches of the lower panels of the screen is a sort of lily ornament in cast lead. The lead ornaments at Ranworth and Burlingham are undoubtedly original, those at Worstead not so certainly so.” — W. D. SCREEN DESIGN 5 7 II Walpole St Peter 53 SCREENS AND GALLERIES Hitchin, South Chapel SCREEN DESIGN 59 architectural design proper ; the screens are magnificent, but they make their impression mainly by vastness of dimen- sion, solidity, play of light and shade, and inconceivable richness of vegetative carving. Not that architectural design is absent. The tracery is very often indeed of the most exquisite beauty ; it would be very difficult to produce any Stoke-in-Teignhead in England, either in wood or stone, to surpass or even to equal that of Kenton, with its pretty contrast of pointed and ogee arches (106), or Holbeton, where an even higher level is reached by the superposition on stilted pointed arches of inter- secting ogees (frontispiece). Very satisfactory, too, is the play of segmental and ogee arches against intersecting four-centred arches at Stoke-in-Teignhead (59) ; it might be in Norfolk, not 6o SCREENS AND GALLERIES in Devon.* In Somerset and Dorset, there is on the whole a fall- ing off in tracery design ; nothing can indeed be more perfectly delightful than the tracery at Minehead (69) ; but the poetry of Minehead becomes very plain prose at Milborne Port (1 13), Somerset. In Devon the screens were full of design, crowded and exuberant with design from top to bottom. Below was panelling with paintings of saints, as at Kenton (106), and Staver- ton (io8);f or, more rarely, with little figures in wood, as at Bridford (138). The standards were themselves often covered with delicate carving, as at Holbeton (frontispiece), and Bridford; the mullions sometimes were channelled or clustered ; they had pretty moulded bases and capitals, and sometimes as at Hol- beton, the capitals were reduplicated. No pains, no time, no cost was too excessive to be spent on the screen. The cornices of the western screens are often truly magnifi- cent. “ At Congresbury, Somerset (64), the principal hollow of the cornice contains a wonderfully carved trailing vine, separated by headings from a smaller enrichment above and below. The flowing or wavy branch of the vine is skilfully arranged to give as much strength as possible to the enrichment; and it is so well managed, that from below one is unable to perceive that the wood is not actually pierced everywhere. The outline of each leaf is well emphasised by the piercings round it ; and within the piercings the entangled tendrils and the stem to the leaf are the only pieces of solid left, telling with matchless effect, holding the work well together, and connecting it throughout its entire length. Bunches of grapes above and below the leaves accommodate themselves to the horizontal enclosing line, and help to form a general plane to the convex section of the enrichment ; and together with the stem of the vine give thick- ness and solidity. The upper enrichment, of delicate workman- ship, consists of a series of five-lobed flowers placed upright and reversed alternately. The lower enrichment consists of a small flower with a leaf on either side, is executed with sharp chisel- ling, and is rather bolder.”]; In the cornice design the great joy was undulation of curve. The leaves themselves, e.g., the great leaves at Bovey Tracey (63), are bulbous in the centre to pro- duce alternation of ogee curve ; leaf flows on to leaf over tendrils, themselves undulating, as at High Ham (65) and Bovey Tracey; or intertwined into tangles like “ traveller’s joy,” as at Congres- * This screen differs much from the normal screen of Devon, perhaps because of its early date, if it is correct, as stated, that it is of the time of Richard 1 1 . + Both are “ restorations.” | Art Journal , 1885, 148. SCREEN DESIGN Swymbridge 62 SCREENS AND GALLERIES Bovey Tracey SCREEN DESIGN 63 Bovey Tracey 64 SCREENS AND GALLERIES Congresbury SCREEN DESIGN 65 High Ham I 66 SCREENS AND GALLERIES bury and Bovey Tracey; at High Ham (65) they even curl round a twisted rope. The species of leaves employed are some- what limited, and the leafage is duly conventionalised. Living observation and realistic reproduction of plant life and plant movement is confined to the tendrils ; one must really be a botanist to realise the exact truth of the rendering of the various methods by which the creepers and climbers of the hedge-row secure and maintain their grip. In the rendering of detail the cornice work presents much similarity ; it is not so with the composition as a whole. Quite a simple cornice is illustrated from Stoke-in-Teignhead (59). At Bovey Tracey (63), Bridford (138), and Holbeton (89), there are two principal members of about equal value ; at Harberton (12) one member is large, the other small. At Kenton (106) there are three members, of which the central is small; at Dunchideock (1 18) the three members are of about equal importance ; at Congresbury (64) the three are unequal in value. Even more elaborate cornices are found. We may fairly assume that the screen at High Ham, Somer- set, represents the high-water mark of the art of the day ; for it was erected in 1476 at the cost of Abbot Selwood of Glastonbury, aided by Lord Poulett and the rector of the church, John Dyer. With such resources, elaboration of design was to be expected, and the cornice (65) contains no less than five bands of carved ornament, separated by single, double, or triple beads. Yet further to add to the beauty of the cornice, and somewhat to lighten its massive solidity, it was given a cresting of open work, sometimes at the top only, as at High Ham (65), but often, reversed, at the bottom also, as at Kenton (106), Dunchideock (1 18), and Swymbridge (61). What exquisite design informed these crestings, a glance will show at High Ham, Holbeton (89), and Atherington (67). Very frequently the cresting has been broken, as at Low Ham, perhaps when the loft and organs were removed ; and was then often removed altogether. Above the cornice again came a magnificent parapet, with its own cornice and cresting, e.g., at Atherington, where some of it remains in situ. How magnificent was the general effect of a screen with rood loft complete is well seen at Kenton (106), Lew Trenchard, Staverton (108), and elsewhere, where the lofts have recently been replaced. The eastern front of the loft was divided into a series of narrow panels, each containing the painting of a saint, sheltered by the most exquisite open work tabernacles imagin- able.* Such are these wonderful memorials of the mediaeval * In the Atherington example the paintings of the frieze have been defaced, and a bar on the left cut away to make room for a later shield (43). SCREEN DESIGN 6 ; Marwood 68 SCREENS AND GALLERIES art of England, which to the ignorance and indifference of the twentieth-century Englishman are as though they had never been. And who did this western work ? It is often assumed that, even if foreigners had not to be called in to do our woodwork, at any rate the best of it was executed at important centres such as London and Exeter ; or, in default of that, that it was executed by gangs of peripatetic craftsmen. The simple truth, says Bishop Hobhouse, seems to be that in Devon and Somerset most of the work was done by the villagers themselves. Knowing the achievements of the British workman nowadays, it certainly seems inconceivable that the once grand chancel screen at Yatton, Somerset, for which, c. 1454, the carpenter’s account alone amounted to £27, say ^405 of our money, was executed on the spot by J. Crosse, who lived at Cleeve, within the parish ; the oak being bought by the churchwardens in standing trees, which they selected, felled, and seasoned.* But in those days the craftsman was an artist, the artist a craftsman. Even now Devon is crowded with good things. No less than one hundred and fifty screens still remain in Devon, more or less perfect. Great numbers, however, have been destroyed. Mr F. Bligh Bondj- gives a list of seventy-two screens which are known to have been destroyed in the nineteenth century by the clergy, their guardians. Mr Harry Hems gives many sad details, j So very numerous and fine are the screens in Norfolk and Suffolk, that it is hardly possible to draw up a list of pre-eminent examples, especially as the best design is often found in minor screens. In Norfolk — Edingthorpe, the Burlinghams, Trunch ; St John Timberhill, Norwich ; Sheringham, among very many others, are interesting ; for painted panels the best perhaps are Ranworth, Barton Turf, Cawston, Marsham, Ludham, North Walsham, Aylsham, Strumpshaw. Ranworth is placed first both by Mr G. E. Fox and by Mr W. Davidson. “ The infinite variety of ornament at Ranworth,” says the latter, “ the har- monious spacing, the clever invention, are unsurpassed. It is true that here and there the craftsmen have got a little bit out of scale with the section of a moulding or an ornament ; but, taking architectural and decorative art combined, it is unquestionably the finest screen in East Anglia. Marsham has finer and more * Hobhouse’s Somerset Records , 4, xx. The fine bench ends also at Tintinhull in the same county were made in the parish, “ 33s. 3d. being paid in 15 1 1 to the carpenter for sawing of timber for seats for the church, and for cutting and framing part of the same”; in the following year, 41s. id. were spent on seats. t Devonshire Screens , 549, 550. j On Rood and other Screens , pp. 2-1 1. SCREEN DESIGN 69 Minehead 70 SCREENS AND GALLERIES delicately painted floral ornament ; Cawston has a finer sense of proportion in the section of the mouldings, and more character — almost too much character — in some of the heads of the saints, eg., St Philip and St Matthias (74). Barton Turf has more spirituality of feeling in the figures, and is probably finer in the technique of its painting ; but the uniqueness of the Ranworth design, with its parcloses and double-vaulted canopy, amply compensates for these deficiencies.”* In Suffolk also there is a great wealth of fine screens, eg., Southwold, Lavenham, Sudbury, Parham, Bramfield, Eye, Barningham, Dennington. In Devon, among the very numerous fine examples may be mentioned the stone screens of Totnes, Paignton, Ottery St Mary, Colyton ; and the oak screens of Abbot’s Kerswell, Alphington, Ashton, Atherington, Aveton, Berry Pomeroy, Bovey Tracey, Bradninch, Bridford, Broadhempstone, Broadwoodwidger, Brushford, Bur- rington, Chawleigh, Chumleigh, Clyst St Lawrence, Colebrook, Coleridge, Cruvvys Morchard, Cullompton, Combe Martin, Dart- mouth, Dunchideock, Feniton, Harberton, Hartland, Holbeton, Holne, Honiton, Ilsington, Ipplepen, Kentisbere, Kenton, Lapford, Lew Trenchard, Littleham, near Bideford (copied from Patricio), Manaton, Marwood, Monkleigh, North Molton, Ottery St Mary, Peyhembury, Pilton, Plymstock, Plymtree St John, Rattery, Staverton, Stoke-in-Teignhead, Stokenham, Swymbridge, Tawstock, Tor Brian, Uffculme, Washfield (1624), Willand, Wolborough. In Somerset also good screenwork is very abundant, eg., Brimpton (stone), Banwell, Bicknoller, Brushford, Queen Camel, Carhampton, Congresbury, Cros- combe, Crowcombe, Dunster, Fitzhead, High Ham, Low Ham, Milborne Port, Minehead, Norton Fitzwarren, Pilton, Raddington, Timberscombe, Trent, Trull, Withy combe.f Painted Screens In painted screens, Norfolk and Suffolk have an unquestion- able superiority, for, whereas their paintings are refined works of * “There are references to various Norfolk screens in the Proceedings of the Norfolk and Norwich Arch. Soc. as follows i. 324; ii. 280; iii. 18, 19, 69; iv. 298, 301, 345; vi. 306; vii. 182, 211 ; viii. 35, 337; ix. 369. In the Eastern Counties Collectanea, 1872-3, particulars respecting screens are to be found on pp. 61, 81, 95, 96, 97, 125, 126, 133, 143, 151, 154, 185, and 226.”— W. T. B. + Extended lists of screens, arranged by counties, are given in E?iglish Church Furniture, 102- 143. For illustrations of the screens at Cullompton and Littleham, South Devon, see Exeter Diocesan Society’s fournal, i. 3, v. 9 ; for that of Long Aston, Somerset, see Bowman, Gothic A 7 'chitecture , viii. PAINTED SCREENS Ranworth — St George 72 SCREENS AND GALLERIES Ranworth — St Michael PAINTED SCREENS 73 art,* those of Devon and Somerset are mostly “ of rude and conventional design and coarse in execution, though they are picturesque in their ugliness, and very valuable archseologically, and for their symbolism.” “ Nothing can exceed the richness of detail in the painted ornamentation of the eastern screens. The delicate flower and spray work which fills every hollow of the mouldings and is powdered over the backgrounds of the figures, the wonderful elaboration of the patterns of the dresses, the delicately applied gilding, all combine to make up a whole of the greatest beauty. And to enhance the effect on some of the larger and later screens the backgrounds of the pictures are worked in gesso in the most delicate relief and richly gilt. Even the broad flat fillets of the mullions are covered with gesso, stamped in intricate patterns of tracery, and having at intervals diminutive niches with tiny figures painted in them, which are protected by morsels of glass set in the pattern as in a frame. For splendour of effect and for multiplicity of forms in the gesso work, certainly none can surpass that at Southwold, Suffolk.”-)- Of Italian influence in the painting of the Norfolk screens there is but little evidence. A more likely source would be the Nether- lands, but in the fourteenth, fifteenth, and sixteenth century not a single Flemish name occurs. “ On the other hand many of the names are distinctly English, being those of villages in Norfolk and Suffolk, eg ., Frenze, Bradwell, Castleacre, Ocle or Acle, Hickling.” Moreover, municipal and other registers record the names of quite a large number of painters who were permanent residents in Norwich between 1373 and 15794 It is pointed out, however, by Mr E. F. Strange that on the Ranworth screen is a panel picture of the Temptation of St Anthony by Rufus van Dycken, who was in Antwerp in 1 509 when he published this engraving ; the furniture depicted in the room is Flemish, and the treatment is in every way the same. The use of gesso was very common, eg at Aylsham, Bur- * They should be compared with the masterly painted panel in Norwich Cathedral described by Mr W. H. St John Hope in Norfolk Arch. Soc. Journal , xiii. 293. t Mr G. E. Fox in Arch. Journal , xlvii. 66, and in Victoria History of Norfolk , ii. 547. For the processes employed in the painting and gesso work of the Norfolk screens see page 549. As the Southwold screens do not fit their position, Mr Davidson is of opinion that they were brought from some other church or churches. Many churches in the neighbourhood have perished, e.g. , several in the once great port of Dunwich ; of Walberswick only the tower and an aisle remain. The vast church of Covehithe is roof- less, and inside its great nave a little thatched chapel amply suffices for the remaining parishioners. All the above churches doubtless had formerly magnificent screens. X For list see Viet. Hist, of Norfolk, ii. 552. K 74 SCREENS AND GALLERIES Cawston — St Philip St Matthias PAINTED SCREENS 75 lingham, St Andrew, and Worstead ; the substance is always gilded over when applied to screen work and panel paintings. Figures painted on vellum or on paper and glued over older work are found on the panels of some Norfolk screens of the sixteenth century, eg., at Cawston and Gateley. The lower panels of the East Anglian screens are invariably solid and generally are painted. When so decorated each pair of panels was red or green, or each panel alternately. Our ancestors were remarkably fond of green ; Mr Andre only noticed one- exception, Gillingham, where blue and red are the colours employed. To this day the districts where the finest painted screens are found — Ranworth, Barton Turf, Ludham, Marsham — where the soil is dry, are incarnadine with poppies; where it is marshy, with lush green grass. The colour system of the screens is just that of Poppyland and Marshland blended.* * * § On these red or green grounds were either angels, saints, and prophets, or simply floral patterns or powderings.j- Occasionally the crowned initial of a saint formed the pattern, as at Salhouse, where the mitred N stands for the patron saint of the church, St Nicholas. J At Bramfield, Suffolk (76), the panels of the groining are painted blue and studded with gold. The ribs are white with margins of red, and green and purple flowers with gold blossoms are painted on the white. All the most prominent moldings of the traceried heads are gilt, while the undercut hollows are coloured red. The blue used is intensely deep ; the red very rich, slightly approaching chocolate ; and the green is dark, of a slightly brownish or red hue. There is a great variety in the painted ornamental forms, which on the fillets of the uprights take the shape of flowers with elegantly curved stems ; on the ogee mold- ings broad pieces of flowers in green and brown alternately, with gilt centres, cover up portions of the white ground, and give a wavy look. On the blue moldings white fleurs-de-lis are painted. A description can but give a faint idea of the splendour and rich- ness of the work, the effect of which is much enhanced by the elaborate stampings in mastic, covered with gilding, on the face of the main fillets.§ * “ The red of the poppy, the gold of the corn, the yellow, blue, and green of the flowers on the screens, and in many cases the designs of the diapers, are taken from local plants, insects, and natural objects, conventionalised however to qualify them for their decorative position.” — W. D. t “In many cases where blue has been used it has faded, leaving the plain oak. The painters no doubt discovered this and used it sparingly.” — W. D. I A beautiful series of devices from the Norfolk and Suffolk screens will be found in Pugin’s work on Floral Ornament. § Art Journal , 1885, 148. ;6 SCREENS AND GALLERIES B ram field WELSH SCREENS 77 Everywhere in these Norfolk screens is seen the individual touch of the craftsman. There is nothing of uniformity, and consequently nothing of monotony. “ At Ranworth,” says Mr Davidson, “ the apparent reckless spacing of the diapers and rosettes is most astonishing. Nearly everything seems to have been spaced by the eye ; if a stencil was used, the patterns must afterwards have been touched up by hand. Mouldings, which if run by a machine would have been uniform, are in some cases double the size. ... So also at Cawston no two of the diapers of the background are alike. The ornament varies so much that it is certain that most of the spacing and dividing must have been done by unaided hand and eye ; the wave-pattern varies as much as from i \ to 3J inch centres.” Welsh Screens In Wales screens are found chiefly on or near the Welsh border, viz., in Denbigh, Montgomery, Radnor, and Brecon ; they are also common in the adjoining portions of Shropshire, Hereford, and Monmouth. These little out-of-the-way churches,* such as Peterchurch and Patricio, have retained much of their mediaeval equipment and well repay the visit of the ecclesiologist. It may be that in some the Welsh-speaking parishioners did not understand, perhaps did not try to understand, the stream of royal proclamations which rained down on the parishes of Eng- land and Wales in the first half-century after the Reformation. Nor, perhaps, would the Commissioners be very anxious to visit in person these inaccessible mountain hamlets to see that royal injunctions had been carried out. These Welsh screens are of very considerable interest, partly because, occurring in such out- of-the-way little churches, they must be village work ; partly because they have preserved so many lofts and tympana. Artistically, they are connected, as was to be expected, not with distant East Anglia, but with Devon and Somerset. As in that architectural province, the lofts are very broad, and have black- shadowed cornices of great projection, as at Llanrwst (83) ; and, where the parish could afford it, they have elaborate coving or * Fine screens remain at Llanrwst and Derwen, Denbigh ; Montgomery and Llanwnog, Montgomery ; Llananno, Radnor ; . Llangwm, Monmouth ; Llanegryn, Merioneth ; Patricio, Brecknock. For the screens at Newport, Llanwnog, and Llananno see illustrated articles in the Montgomery Collec- tions, vols. iii., iv., and vii. There are measured drawings of Llanegryn in the Architectural Association Sketch Book , 2, viii. 19 ; of Derwen in the Spring Gardens Sketch Book , ii. 50 ; of Patricio in ditto ; of Llanrwst in the Architectural Association Sketch Book , 1, xi. 1. 78 SCREENS AND GALLERIES Patricio WELSH SCREENS 79 Patricio 8o SCREENS AND GALLERIES Llananno WELSH SCREENS 8 I Llananno 82 SCREENS AND GALLERIES Llanrvvst WELSH SCREENS 83 Llanrwst 8 4 SCREENS AND GALLERIES Colebrook FOREIGN SCREENS 85 St Fiacre-le-Faouet 86 SCREENS AND GALLERIES groining, as again at Llanrwst ; at Llananno (81) this is reduced to decorative panelling ; at Patricio (78) and St Margaret’s, Here- fordshire (1 12), the loft supports are still simpler in character. The undulatory tendril work of the cornices of Llananno, Llanrwst, Patricio, Bettws Newydd (179), and Llanegryn (178) would find themselves at home anywhere in Devon. Equally akin to the eastern parapets of Atherington (43), Kenton (106), Staverton (108), are those of Llanrwst and Llananno, with their wealth of tabernacled canopies, small and great.* But there are Welsh peculiarities as well. One is the decoration with filigree work of the western parapets of the lofts of Patricio (79), Llanegryn (178), and Bettws Newydd (179), and of the eastern parapet of Llanrwst (83).^ Another is the acceptance of non- lithic design. Llanrwst, indeed, has window openings in the screen, but the others illustrated have simply post and lintel con- struction ; it is true that the window openings in these latter have tracery, nevertheless the openings themselves are square- headed. Nothing can be more frankly post and lintel construction than the screens of Bettws, Llanegryn, and Patricio. Add to this the fondness for arches straight-sided or nearly so — again, and very properly, a non-lithic design — in doorways, eg., at Llananno (81) , and beneath the cornice of the screen, eg., at Llanrwst (82) , and the small filigree character of the tracery every- where, and it will be seen that the Welsh screens have quite a physiognomy of their own. These then are the three main architectural provinces of screen design : that of Norfolk and Suffolk, that of Devon and Somerset, and that of the Welsh Border. But interesting examples of screen work occur all over the country, whose genealogical connection is still to determine. J Foreign Screens Our screen design in general, especially that of late screens with rectilinear tracery, is so thoroughly English that in * The two minor canopies shown at Llanrwst (82) originally extended right across the eastern front of the loft. t These perforated panels appear in the loft parapet of the far away church of Hubberholme, Yorkshire. | Mr Aymer Vallance has characterised the screens of Kent and Derby- shire in Memorials of Old Kent and Memorials of Old Derbyshire. Dr E. Mansel Sympson has described the Lincolnshire screens in the Associated Societies Reports , xx. 185. Those of Montgomery are described by Arch- deacon Thomas in Archceologia Cambrensis , 6, iii. 96 ; those of Devon and Somerset by Mr F. Bligh Bond. CHRONOLOGY OF SCREENS 8 ; the vast bulk of it no suspicion of foreign influence can be admitted. There are, however, some few screens which are decidedly of foreign and not of English design. The screenwork at Colebrook* * * § (84), Coleridge, and Brushford, Devon, is almost a facsimile of the peculiar Flamboyant of Brittany, e.g.> St Fiacre- le-Faouet (85). For this work Breton workmen must have been brought over to Devon. The screenwork in Carlisle Cathedral attributed to Prior Gondibour (1484-1 5 07)f is of PTench Flam- boyant character. That of Prior Salkeld (1 542-1 547), and that at Cartmel (90), are plainly the work of hands trained in the work of the early French Renaissance. The screenwork at Kenton, Devon (106), has been, rather unnecessarily, supposed to show Flemish influence. The design of the screen at Holbeton, Devon (89), has been attributed to Spanish influence ; but it is a long cry from Spain to Devon, and of all the folk in England those of Devon hated Spaniards most. Moreover, the design of the tracery consists of intersecting four-centred arches, a thoroughly English motif, j Chronology of Screens Of parochial screenwork none is earlier than the thirteenth century. The nearest approach to Norman screenwork in a parish church is to be seen at Compton, Surrey. This is a tripartite church, with unvaulted nave and quire, and a low vaulted sanctuary. Above the vault of the latter is a chapel, which is protected to the west by a wooden balustrade of late Norman design. But this is not a screen ; it is put there simply to prevent people in the chapel from falling over on to the pavement of the quire. In the thirteenth century also examples are rare. All that can be enumerated are one at Kirkstead, Fincolnshire ; another now at the west end of Thurcaston Church, Feicester ; some fragments at Benniworth, Fincolnshire ; the screen at Stanton Harcourt, Oxon.§ (168), which retains its original hinges, lock, and bolt ; and perhaps screens at Llandinabo and Pixley, Here- ford. In France there are no screens of any sort earlier than the thirteenth century. * Illustrated in Spring Gardens Sketch Book , viii. 34. For Coleridge see Exeter Diocesan Society , 1, i. 5. + Illustrated in Billings’ Carlisle Cathedral. 1 “ Lullington, Kent, is absolutely Flemish.” — A. V. § Measured drawings of Kirkstead in Spring Ga?'dens Sketch Book , viii. 8, and of Stanton Harcourt in Spring Gardens Sketch Book , ii. 2. ,