chief object, therefore, shall be to give a very brief summary of the earlier history of the Minster.

It is not known when the first Christian Church was erected among the temples and altars of Eburacum. Doubtless, there was one there at a very early period, whilst the imperial eagles were still flying over the city. An attempt, indeed, has been made, with more ingenuity than success, to shew that the porch of the church of St. Margaret, in Walmgate, is a fragment of some heathen temple : the propounder of this curious theory has, evidently, been misled by the similarity between the Roman and Norman styles of architecture, as the doorway, to which he alludes, must certainly have been erected more than six centuries after the Romans deserted York.

The annals of the Minster may be said to date from the ing, at the same time, the language in which they are written, and it is to supply these deficiencies that this volume has been published. It contains, also, some documentary evidence which has hitherto been unnoticed. There is, however, in Mr. Browne's work, much novel and interesting information, upon which this volume does not in any way trench. I have derived great assistance from it myself, and any one who is desirous of studying the history of the Minster will find it similarly useful.

Professor Willis has written a most masterly paper on the architectural history of the Cathedral. He has assailed, and, as is generally thought, with complete success, Mr. Browne's theory of dates, which appears to be quite untenable. Professor Willis argues with great acuteness and ingenuity, and his essay must be the foundation for every future history of the Minster.

The work of Messrs. Poole and Hugall is more perhaps in the form of a guide than a regular account of the Minster. They adopt the views of Professor Willis, and present them in a more popular form. The volume is most pleasingly illustrated, and reflects great credit upon the authors and upon Mr. Sunter.

year 627, when Edwin, the Saxon king of Northumbria, was baptized in that city by Paulinus. That ceremony took place in a church of wood, which, at the suggestion of Paulinus, the monarch ordered to be surrounded with a basilica of stone, of a square form. Fifty years, however, had not elapsed, before the new church began to stand in need of repair. It had been constructed, in all probability, in a hasty and imperfect manner, and when Wilfred ascended the chair of Paulinus, in 669, he found the windows unprotected, and the roof unable to keep out the rain. To remedy these defects was his chief endeavour; the windows which had formerly been filled with linen, or boards pierced with holes, he now glazed; he covered the roof with lead, and purified and furnished anew the interior of the church.

In the year 741, according to Roger Hoveden, there was a fire at York, in which a "monasterium was destroyed. Now as the Cathedral was, in old time, frequently called the "monasterium," or minster, I cannot but think that the chronicler intended to refer to that building. He was, probably, a Yorkshireman by birth, and he, therefore, applies to the Cathedral the name which was usually assigned to it. Hoveden is, in general, an accurate historian, and I see no reason, in this instance, to question his authority. Now if this disastrous fire actually occurred, we must expect to find some record of the restoration of the temple which it destroyed. Accordingly, we have a statement made by Alcuin, who was an eyewitness and an aider of the work, that Archbishop Albert, who came to the See in 767, did actually erect a most magnificent basilica.

Professor Willis is of opinion that this basilica is not the Minster, but some other church, either in York or in the diocese. From this opinion, however, I must be permitted to dissent. If the "monasterium" destroyed was actually the Minster, as I believe it to be, it is hardly conceivable that its restoration should be unrecorded, or that the Archbishop should erect a splendid edifice while his Cathedral was in ruins. Again, there is no church beyond the walls of the City of York which can possibly be identified with the basilica described by Alcuin, and within the City itself, which was then small, it is scarcely possible that there should exist at that early period, and at the same time, a Cathedral Church and a gorgeous basilica in which there were no less than thirty altars. But there is a statement on the table of the benefactors to the Minster which goes far to prove that these two buildings were identical; Albert is there placed among the five founders or builders of the Cathedral; would his name stand there if the basilica which he undoubtedly erected were not the Minster, "but some other church, either in York or elsewhere in the diocese ?"

It is my impression, therefore, that Archbishop Albert was actually the builder of that church which was in existence at the Norman Conquest. Of its shape and extent there is nothing now known. Among the fragments of early masonry which have been disclosed in the crypt there are one or two which have, in all probability, belonged to Albert's church, but there is nothing whatever in the fabric of the present Minster to connect it with the Saxon times; except, perhaps, a mutilated image of the Virgin, which is imbedded in the eastern wall of the presbytery.

The Cathedral erected by Albert remained standing for more than two centuries. In the year 1069 it was accidentally destroyed by that scourge of York, a fire, which also consumed the celebrated library. Within twelve months, however, Thomas the Norman became Archbishop, and he, according to Stubbes, rebuilt the church from its foundations. Mr. Poole seems to think that Thomas merely repaired the choir to fit it for the due celebration of divine worship, and that it was not fully restored till Roger came to the see in the middle of the next century. This may, perhaps, have been the case, but if the choir erected by Thomas was only a temporary one, it must still, judging from the remains of it in the crypt, have been of a very substantial character.

Thomas's Church, in all probability, consisted of nave, aisles, and transepts, the aisles and transepts ending, it may be presumed, in apses. There was a central tower of magnificent proportions and, probably, there were two towers at the west end of the Church. There is a sketch of what the Minster is then supposed to have been in the subjoined plan.

No alteration was made in Thomas's Church till the year 1171, when Archbishop Roger began to build a new choir. This is said to have been necessitated by a fire which occurred in 1137, but there are some grave reasons for doubting the fact. It is quite enough to suppose that Roger, a new and active prelate, found the old choir to be inconveniently small, and that on that account he began to reconstruct it. The shape of this choir, which was without an apsidal termination, may be seen in plan No. 2.

The Cathedral was now a complete specimen of the Norman style of architecture. It did not long remain intact. A new style came into vogue with a new century, and it soon made an inroad upon the Minster.

The innovator was that munificent prelate Walter Grey. To him the Church of York was indebted for the south transept with its noble and graceful proportions. This work was probably completed by the year 1240, and its erection was immediately followed by the building of the north transept, which, according to Stubbes, was reared at the sole expense of John Romanus the treasurer of the Minster. That officer is also said to have rebuilt the lantern tower; as, however, there are still traces in it of Norman masonry, it is probable that Romanus merely re-faced it, putting in at the same time new windows to make it harmonize with the recently erected transepts.

The tide of restoration had now begun to flow, and there was no desire to stop it. The noble transepts and the bell tower of John the Roman were a striking contrast to the nave and choir, which were still untouched. plain that they could not remain as they were. determined, therefore, to rebuild the nave.

It was

It was

The credit of

commencing this glorious work is given to another John the Roman, who was Archbishop of York. He was the son of the treasurer who had done so much to renovate the Church, and he inherited the taste and energy of his sire. The first stone of the new nave was laid by the Archbishop in the year 1291.

The erection of a building so vast and so magnificent as the present nave was no ordinary undertaking. The