tion, connecting arcade and vaulting, not a vestige is left standingonly the western jamb of the south, or gable, window. From the slight difference in level between its spring and that of the remaining two in the west wall, as well as from the distance of its western jamb from the angle, it is clear that the window, which would, of course, be central, was one of four lights, and its design, therefore, in all probability compounded of that of the two western ones, with a sexfoiled, or octofoiled, circle in the head, as in the nearly contemporary chapter-houses of Westminster and Salisbury. Like the rest of the transept, it was undoubtedly the work of the same master mason, or (pace Mr. Prior) architect, as the refectory at Easby, and its loss is the more to be regretted since its treatment would be intermediate between that of the two remaining two-light Eggleston windows, and of the three, and five, light ones at Easby, where, in the one case the central circle was, of necessity, only quatrefoiled, while the two below were cinquefoiled; and in the other, where the circles of the fenestellae were cinquefoiled, the large one in the head was packed with five perfect trefoils, having a pierced central eye between them. The main interest therefore now centres in the remaining western side, the walls of which remain perfect to the top. And here again we are perforce compelled to note the complete change which has overtaken every

1 A mere superficial comparison suffices to suggest what a closer one will show to be the fact, of an identic origin in both cases. The Easby refectory, which must have been one of the finest structures of its class and period anywhere, remains still by far the most imposing feature of the monastic buildings, the church itself included. Structurally, though the two western ones were parted off, it is of eight bays, raised on a groined and vaulted substructure, 118 feet long by 35 broad. The east window, of five lights, which Mr. Prior unaccountably describes as having plate tracery, and what is more, draws as such, is one of the most beautifully designed and original compositions extant. It is admirably shown in the late Mr. E. Sharpe's Decorated Windows, where all its peculiarities of detail, which are many and striking, may be examined. But it is in the six side windows that the points of likeness to those at Eggleston come out most strongly. Like the nave windows there, and for similar reasons, these are all of three lights, and by consequence have more tracery space to fill in than the twolight ones in the Eggleston transept. At

Eggleston, the three-light nave windows, for economy's sake solely, had no actual tracery at all. But the mouldings and general details, as far as possible, will be found to be identical. As in those of the nave and transept at Eggleston, the Easby windows are in three planes, two for the casements, and one for the lights. Like those in the nave of Eggleston, the chamfers of all these windows are hollow, with a narrow fillet on each side, while, like those in the transept, the cuspings are all confined to the soffit; and though the two larger circles, necessitated by the use of three lights, are naturally cinquefoiled like those in the fenestellae of the great east window, the uppermost central one is quatrefoiled, as at Eggleston, where, with two lights, one such small circle only could be introduced. In all alike, however, whether of nave, transept or refectory, we see the same general proportion, effect, and family likeness, especially in the use of the equilateral arch, so strongly accentuated as, considering the proximity and intimate connection of the two houses, to leave no room for doubt as to their common authorship whatever.

feature. Basement, masonry, strings, window-sections, arrangement, and design—all are wholly different. Grouping of separate lights within a common enclosing arch and jambs has given place to the system of filling the whole of the enclosed opening with comparatively slender mullions and tracery. Thus the several parts become not only interdependent, but having those in the head to some extent formed by, and dependent on, the arch itself. Ceasing thenceforth to be structural, the massive divisional columns become simple upright bars, or props, of the unstructural filling in. The difference in section also between the arch and jamb moulds, which characterised the earlier work, here entirely disappears. In the one, the arch is carried on shafts having bands, bases, and capitals; in the other, both arch and jamb moulds are continuous, and the broad and flat chamfers of the previous period have in the casements become replaced by hollow and much narrower ones. For the tracery plane, however, the flat chamfer is still retained, while the cusping, which is of very refined and clear cut character, is, as usual at that time, of the soffit class. Moreover the whole of the eyes, as well as interstitial spaces, being sunk down square, the gradations of light and shade thereby secured bring out all those charming effects of strength and delicacy-or "tenderness and power," as Ruskin has it which so constantly stamp the best work of all sorts everywhere.

Indeed two better proportioned or designed windows of their date and class could not easily be found. But the various points of difference between them and those-equally fine in their way-which remain in the choir will more readily appear by a comparison of their respective elevations than by any verbal description. (See Plates V and VI.) But the interest of the southern limb of the crossing does not centre wholly in these two windows, fine and instructive as they are. A humble and unobtrusive fragment a little northwards of them presents a species of architectural puzzle which has baffled not a few. It consists of the carefully blocked southern half of a sharply pointed arch of two chamfered orders, the corresponding half of which has been destroyed, and the whole opening filled in with ancient masonry. Partly occupying its site, moreover, are seen the sill and three lower jambstones of the south side of the early doorway of the newel stair leading into the tower, and which could only have been inserted after the removal of the northern half arch. At first, and seen from the inside only, the explanation is far from being obvious, the height of the arch being apparently too great for that of an ordinary doorway, while its

position in the west wall precludes all idea of its having pertained to a chapel. An examination of the exterior, however, serves to throw considerable light upon the subject, and clear up a curious bit of architectural history. For we there find indisputable proof of this archway having, in the first instance, opened from the transept into a contemporaneous chamber, the toothings of whose south wall still remain strongly in evidence, as well as the return section of the basement mouldings. How far it extended westwards cannot now be said without digging, though its dimensions in that direction. would not, judging from its breadth, which was only nine feet, have been considerable. As the arch faces the transept, and has the segmental rear arch, usually found in doorways, behind it, to the west, the only practical conclusion seems to be that the chamber to which it gave access was a sacristy. But whatever its use, its duration was of the briefest.

V.

OF THE ENLARGED NAVE.

For, after another short pause, similar to those which elapsed between the partial enlargement of the north transept and rebuilding of the choir, and the entire reconstruction of the south transept, a similar transformation was undertaken in the nave. Till then it had retained, with a single exception, its twelfth century proportions and details intact. The one solitary insertion consisted in the reproduction of one of the western windows of the south transept, to make way for which the two fine long western lancets were all but annihilated, and the new window made as nearly as might be to occupy their place. The time had now come, however, when structural necessity required that its proportions should be made to assimilate with those of the recast or rebuilt choir and transepts, in order to make the four arches of the crossing uniform both in design and span. To this end its south wall was removed, and set forward by exactly six feet. This alteration, however, had been duly provided. for beforehand-from the time, that is, of laying down the foundations of the south transept. For when the south arch of the crossing came to be built, like those north and east of it, not only was the line of the nave extension fixed, but a toothed and stepped buttress with a finished sloping head erected to receive its thrust till such time as the contemplated new nave wall should be erected to adjoin, and be united with it. There it remains still, its outline to some extent obscured by contact, but plain enough to all sufficiently intelligent to read its mute, but striking, story.