is the work of Prior Henry de Estria, and desires us to compare it with other works of that Prior in the choir. It is much to be regretted that the Professor should thus venture to draw so largely upon the credulity of his readers, or should trust so much to their ignorance or inattention.

In Battely's Somners Antiq.' p. 116, we find "Henricus de Estria was elected Prior A.D. 1285, sate in that seat of honour seven and forty years, during which time he was a signal benefactor to this church, as appears at large in the Obituary. He died A.D. 1331..... Richard Oxinden was elected Prior A.D. 1331, and died A.D. 1338."

The Prior therefore who erected this "decorated window," was not Henry de Estria, but his successor, Richard Oxinden.

CHAPTER VII (pp. 117-27.) "History of the Nave, Tower, and Western Transepts, from the End of the Twelfth Century."

"The conclusion of Gervase's History leaves the original nave and transepts of Lanfranc untouched, and thus they appear to have remained until the end of the fourteenth century, when they were taken down and replaced as we now see them." (p. 117.)

1. "The Nave."

In December, 1378, Archbishop Sudbury issued a mandate to solicit subscriptions for rebuilding the nave of the church. He was murdered June 15, 1381. The succeeding Archbishops, Courtney and Arundel, contributed largely to the work. Thomas Chillenden was constituted Prior 1391, and died 1411 (Battely's Somn.); having held the priorate twenty years, twenty-five weeks, and five days. By the help and assistance of Archbishop Arundel, he entirely rebuilt the nave of the church, with the chapel of the Blessed Virgin Mary therein situated. He also built the cloisters, chapter-house, great dormitory, and various other buildings. "When the rebuilding of the nave and transepts was undertaken, the portion they were designed to replace was the original nave and transepts of Lanfranc. This was consider

ably lower than the eastern church . .

In the nave the

whole of Lanfranc's piers, and all that rested on them, appear to have been utterly demolished, nothing remaining but the plinth of the side-aisle walls. In the transepts, more parts of the Norman wall were allowed to remain, especially on the eastern side and at the angles; and of the tower piers the western are probably mere casings of the original, and the eastern certainly appendages to the original." (p. 121.)

2. "The Lady Chapel, South-west Tower, and Chapel of St. Michael."

"The Obituary records of Prior Goldston (A.D. 14491468) that he built on the north side of the church, a chapel in honour of the Blessed Virgin Mary, in which he was buried." (p. 123.)

We must not confound this, which is now called the Dean's Chapel, with the chapel of the Blessed Virgin Mary, which was built by Prior Chillenden in the nave, as before stated.

Moreover, he (Goldston) finished with beautiful workmanship the tower or campanile which was on the south part of the nave, from the height of the side aisle of the church upwards." (p. 123.)

"In the south transept the old Chapel of St. Michael has been replaced by one which corresponds . . . with that of Our Lady just described. . . . There is a plain vaulted apartment above this chapel, which is reached by the long staircase, &c." (pp. 124-5.)

3. "The Central Tower or Angel Steeple.”

"In the year 1495, Prior Sellyng was succeeded by a second Thomas Goldston, who, like his namesake, was a great builder. He, by the influence and help of those honorable men, Cardinal John Morton and Prior William Sellyng, erected and magnificently completed that lofty tower, commonly called Angyll Stepyll," in the midst of the church between the choir and the nave He also, with great care and industry, annexed to the columns which support the same tower two arches or vaults of stone-work curiously carved, and four smaller ones to assist in sustaining the said tower." (p. 126.)

CHAPTER VIII (pp. 128-32.) "The Monuments."

"Few cathedrals possess so interesting a series, and as Gervase has so minutely described the burial-places of all the Archbishops up to his period, I shall give a list of the Archbishops showing their known resting-places in the church, and mention the monuments that remain." (p. 128.)

After describing the monuments, for which we must refer to the work (pp. 129-32,) the Professor adds, "The following list will supply dates and other particulars."

"List of the burial-places of the Archbishops of Canterbury, from Cuthbert to Warham, and of some other personages whose shrines or monuments were placed in the cathedral. The names of persons whose monuments are still in existence are printed in italics." (p. 133.)

This list appears to us calculated to mislead the unwary reader. It gives the year of the death of the several Archbishops and their burial-places, but it does not point out, that in the case of the earlier Archbishops, the burial-places so indicated are merely those to which their bodies had been ultimately translated from the places of their original sepulture.

We have therefore ventured to supply the deficiency by giving an enlarged and more correct list in the Appendix.

The learned Professor then adds a very useful plan and section of the cathedral (figs. 5 and 6), " intended to illustrate the changes that have taken place in the building from the period of Gervase to the present time." Valuable and useful as they are for illustrating the Professor's architectural history, yet the reader must be reminded, that they are so framed and arranged as to support the Professor's erroneous hypothesis as to the respective works of Lanfranc and Anselm.

The Professor concludes his Architectural History of Canterbury Cathedral' with "A List of the dated examples of architectural works in Canterbury Cathedral."

This list is also framed to support the Professor's hypothesis. We have therefore in the Appendix given a corrected and enlarged list, and attempted to restore to Lanfranc those portions which the Professor has erroneously appropriated to Anselm and his Priors.

PART THE SECOND.

REMARKS (CRITICAL AND HISTORICAL) UPON THE FOREGOING ARCHITECTURAL HISTORY OF CANTERBURY CATHEDRAL.

SECT. 1.-"11th to 16th Century."

THUS have we attempted to carry the reader through Professor Willis's Architectural History of Canterbury Cathedral,' a work possessing many excellent qualities, accompanied by many glaring defects. Whilst we admit the excellence of the architectural, we are reluctantly compelled to express our strong disapprobation of the historical portions of

the work.

We have seen that the Professor's translation of some important passages of the monkish historians has not been executed with that scrupulous fidelity and attention so essential in a work of this character. We have seen that having erroneously called the Romano-British Church a "Saxon' Cathedral, he has bewildered both himself and the reader, by unnecessarily suggesting a doubt whether that church was in fact a Roman or a Saxon structure. We have seen that upon a fanciful and merely conjectural "termination of Lanfranc's church," he has appropriated to Anselm and his Priors (Ernulf and Conrad) the splendid remains of Lanfranc's Norman Cathedral. We have called attention to frequent instances of a bold assumption of facts unsupported by the slightest authority. In short, we have seen the whole of the historical portion of the work sedulously constructed and arranged to support the fanciful hypothesis, of which the learned Professor appears so deeply enamoured.

We are, however, aware that a work so justly celebrated, and so highly esteemed as that now under our consideration, cannot be answered by mere assertions, however strong; nor will its theories and hypotheses, however fanciful, be abandoned without conclusive proofs of their utter worthlessness.

This task we have undertaken. But as in every proposition the affirmative is to be established, so in the present case the onus probandi lies upon the learned Professor.

We must, therefore, in the first place, consider what evidence he has adduced in its support.

Architectural problems like that under consideration are generally susceptible of an easy solution. They may in general be solved,

1. By the internal evidence afforded by the architectural style of the building itself.

II. By the direct testimony of contemporaneous history.

The first of these modes of solution unfortunately fails us on the present occasion, as all the remains of the Norman cathedral (whether considered as the works of Lanfranc, or as those of his successor Anselm and his Priors) are of one and the same Norman style, character, and school.

Of this fact the learned Professor himself informs us. In his description of the crypt columns (pp. 68, 69 of his work, ante p. 22,) he says, "However, I have not been able to discover any difference in style or workmanship between these shafts and capitals, or their mouldings, and the work of Ernulf above. But as the interval of time between the two works was small, and they are both of the same school, perhaps no great difference was to be expected."

Upon the architectural style of these Norman remains, we have further to remark that it is not improbable that Ernulf was the chief architect under Lanfranc, as well as under his successor Anselm. If that conjecture be well founded, then the whole of the existing remains of the Norman cathedral may have been the work of Ernulf.* We are not indeed told when he first joined Lanfranc, but in Chap. I, art. XXII, we read, "This Ernulf was a Frenchman, and originally a Monk of St. Lucian, in Beauvais. He then becoming dissatisfied with that monastery, joined Lanfranc, whose pupil he had been at Bec, and remained with him as a monk at Canterbury. After the death of Lanfranc he was made Prior." It is not improbable that his eminent skill in architecture may have led to

* Since writing the above, we have ascertained that the conjecture mentioned in the text is well founded, for we find that Ernulf joined Lanfranc at Canterbury, circ. A.D. 1070, and was, therefore, probably the original architect of the entire Norman Cathedral. [See the recently published second volume or "Anglo-Norman Period" of the Biographia Britannica Literaria, p. 79, Voc. Ernulph,' by the profoundly learned and indefatigable antiquary, Thomas Wright, Esq., M.A., Corresponding Member of the Institute of France (Académie des Inscriptions et Belles Lettres), published under the superintendence of the Royal Society of Literature, by Parker, West Strand. 1846.]