1 The Post Modernist emphasis on ‘pluralism’ (see for example, Jencks, C., The Language of Post-Modern Architecure (London, 1991, 6th edition), especially pp. 10–15 Google Scholar), provides timely encouragement to those interested in reaching a more detached assessment of Gothic architecture as it developed outside France. English Gothic has traditionally been assessed in the light of the supposed Orthodoxy’ of French Gothic design.

2 The best description of the Lincoln nave still appears to be that published by Nicholas Pevsner in the first edition of his Lincolnshire volume, Pevsner, N. and J. Harris, , The Buildings of England, Lincolnshire (Harmondsworth, 1964), pp. 98–100 Google Scholar, reprinted in Pevsner, N. and Metcalf, P., The Cathedrals of England (Harmondsworth, 1985), pp. 211-13Google Scholar.

3 Eco, U., Art and Beauty in the Middle Ages (London and New Haven, 1986), p. 48 Google Scholar. The most recent study of Grosseteste, by R. W. Southern, , Robert Grosseteste: The Growth of an English Mind in Medieval Europe (Oxford, 1992, 2nd edition)Google Scholar, contains an important reappraisal of the bishop’s career. The most interesting contemporary comments on the design of Lincoln relate to St Hugh’s choir. They include brief references in the Metrical Life of St Hugh, for which see Harvey, J., The Medieval Architect (London, 1972), pp. 236-39Google Scholar, and some observations by Cambrensis, Giraldus, Lehman-Brockhaus, O., Lateinische Schrifiquellen zur Kunst in England, Wales und Schottland vom Jahre 901 bis zum Jahre 1307 (Munich, 1956), 11, 3267 Google Scholar.

4 Cited by Eco, Art and Beauty, p. 48.

5 My conclusions are based on a review of the documents published by Lehman-Brockhaus, Lateinische Schrifiquellen. ‘ Varietas’ was a particularly popular source of praise, though more frequently applied in the context of colour or precious gems than in an architectural context. This is not the place to consider the full connotations of the two words ‘varietas’ and ‘sumptuosus’, but it is clear the latter conveyed the notion of something that not only was expensive but looked it as well.

6 For a recent view on Henry Ill’s patronage at Westminster see Wilson, C. et al., Westminster Abbey (New Bell’s Cathedral Guides, London, 1986), pp. 22–31 Google Scholar.

7 Lehman-Brockhaus, , Lateinische Schrifiquellen, 11, 2407–2410 Google Scholar: According to Matthew Paris, while one of the canons was denouncing the bishop’s oppression, he asserted ‘If we should hold our peace the very stones would cry out on our behalf, whereupon a substantial part of the church crashed to the ground, Paris, Matthew, Chronica Majora (ed. Luard, H. R., Rolls series, London, 1876), III, p. 529 Google Scholar. The Annals of Peterborough state that the tower fell on account of the ‘insolence’ of the builders, Lehman-Brockaus, 11, 2407. The rather frosty relationship that existed between Grosseteste and Henry III may not have encouraged the king to look to Lincoln for advice.

8 In this context, Peter Kidson’s observations about the design of Salisbury Cathedral and the debt it may have owed to Old Sarum are instructive, Cocke, T. and Kidson, P., Salisbury Cathedral, Perspectives on its Architectural History (London, HMSO, 1993), pp. 90–91 Google Scholar.

9 The nave is not discussed by G.Webb, , Architecture in Britain, The Middle Ages (Pelican History of Art, Harmondsworth, 1956/65)Google Scholar. In terms of status as measured by income, Selby fell into the middle rank of English Benedictine houses. Its revenues in 1535 amounted to £606, compared with £2102 for Glastonbury, £643 for Pershore, £803 for Malmesbury and £437 for Whitby; figures from Knowles, D. and Hadcock, R. N., Medieval Religious Houses, Englandand Wales (London, 1971), pp. 50–58 Google Scholar. The most detailed account of the architecture of the abbey church is provided by Hodges, C. C., ‘The Architectural History of Selby Abbey’ in The Coucher Book of Selby, ed., Fowler, J. T., 11, The Yorkshire Archaeological and Topographical Association, Record Series, XIII (1893), i–lvii Google Scholar; See also N. Pevsner, , Yorkshire, The West Riding (Buildings of England series, Harmondsworth, 1967), 439-41Google Scholar. The architecture is also touched on by Morrell, W. Wilberforce, The History and Antiquities of Selby (London, 1867)Google Scholar, C. H. Moody, , Selby Abbey, A Resumé, AD 1069-1908 (London, 1908)Google Scholar, and Dobson, R. B., Selby Abbey and Town (revised ed., Selby, 1993)Google Scholar.

10 Yorkshire, West Riding, p. 439.

11 Pevsner, N., The Englishness of English Art (Harmondsworth, 1956), p. 122 Google Scholar.

12 Historia Selebiensis Monasterii, in The Coucher Book of Selby, ed., Fowler, J. T., 1, The Yorkshire Archaeological and Topographical Association, Record Series 10 (1890), pp. 6–17 Google Scholar. The English translations are from Wilberforce Morrell.

13 P. J. Geary, , Furta Sacra, Thefis of Relics in the Central Middle Ages (Princeton, revised ed., 1990)Google Scholar.

14 Historia, pp. 18-19; Dugdale, W., Monasticon Anglicanum, 1, p. 371 Google Scholar.

15 Rufus, William subsequently transferred patronage of the abbey to the Archbishop of York, Coucher Book of Selby, 1, viii-ix, p. 151 Google Scholar; Victoria County History (Yorkshire), 111, ed., Page, W. (London, 1913), p. 96 Google Scholar.

16 Historia, pp. 19-21.

17 Historia, p. 22.

18 Historia, p. 23.

19 Similar words are employed by the author of the Metrical Life to describe St Hugh of Lincoln’s involvement in the construction of his cathedral, Harvey, Medieval Architect, p. 236.

20 Hodges, Architectural History, VI-IX. The relationship was examined recently by E. Férnie in a paper presented to the annual conference of the British Archaeological Association, held at York in 1988.

21 It has been suggested that the medieval builders did not intend to construct towers at the west end, Hearn, M. F., (quoting local sources) Ripon Minster. The beginnings of the Gothic Style in Northern England, (Transactions of the American Philosophical Society, 73, parto, Philadelphia, 1983), p. 51 Google Scholar. This view is contradicted by the scale of the final piers of the nave, which are otherwise unnecessarily massive.

22 Cobb, G., English Cathedrals, The Forgotton Centuries (London, 1980), p. 64 Google Scholar. The west gable and nave roof were rebuilt by George Gilbert Scott in 1873; The upper storey of the central tower was removed in 1902, and the whole tower subsequently reconstructed by Oldrid Scott after the fire of 1906.

23 Wilberforce Morrell, p. 204.

24 The Historia, p. 22, indicates that the domestic buildings of the monks were laid out in a regular fashion under Abbot Hugh, i.e. before 1122/3. If work on the nave came to a halt because the claustral buildings were under construction, the break must have occurred between 1110 and 1120.

25 The base mouldings of the first four piers of the nave (on both sides) vary quite considerably, indicating that they were not laid out together. The evidence contradicts the opinion of Fowler, J. T., Coucher Book of Selby, 1, xi Google Scholar, who states that ‘there can be little doubt that the work was stopped suddenly on the death of Abbot Hugh, as there was no preparation made for a pause’. Construction in the abbey was still going on in the 1150s, when a monk was in charge of building operations, Historia, p. 34.

26 According to the Historia, p. 13, a crossing tower existed by 1174, before the western part of the nave was undertaken. A view of the abbey by Daniel King dating from 1655 is reproduced in Cobb, English Cathedrals, p. 70. This shows three storeys above the apex of the adjoining roofs, the lower two of which appear to have arcades which could be Romanesque. Hodges, Architectural History, x-xi, discusses the remains of the lower stages below the apex of the roofs, providing evidence for two superimposed wall passages.

27 The tower eventually collapsed on 30 March 1690, Wilberforce Morrell, p. 204.

28 This occurred under abbot Herbert c. 1122-25, Historia, p. 26.

29 Abbot Durand c. 1125–1134/5, Historia, 28. For further details see Knowles, D. and Brooke, C. N. L., The Heads of Religious Houses, England and Wales 940-1216 (Cambridge, 1972), p. 72 Google Scholar. The abbot was forced to resign by Archbishop Thurstan. His time in office coincided with the exodus from York to Fountains and it is not impossible that Durand’s removal was in some way related to the disruptions of those years.

30 Inspired by the discipline of the Cistercians, a sizable proportion of the community at York left the Benedictine house, a move which eventually led to the establishment of Fountains abbey, Knowles, D., The Monastic Order in Britain (Cambridge, 1963, 2nd ed.), pp. 213-19CrossRefGoogle Scholar. Monks from Whitby were included among those who joined the reformers.

31 He may well have opposed the election of the archbishop, as Wilberforce Morrell suggests, pp. 61-62.

32 Knowles, Monastic Order in Britain, pp. 67-79.

33 For example, Moody, Selby Abbey, p. 36, and Hodges, Architectural History, XIV. One obvious Cistercian detail is the semi-circular lump found at the base of the arches in the wall arcades of the north porch, a feature that can be traced to the chapter house and cloister of Fontenay. The clustered pier with keeled shafts might also appear to have a Cistercian background, but such a view is oversimplified. The pier is not in fact a regular octofoil, since one of the keeled shafts is replaced by a group of three colonettes. Moreover, the keeled shafts are all the same size, a most unusual feature. The eight-shafted piers with which it has been compared (Roche nave, Newminster transepts, Jedburgh nave, Hexham choir, Arbroath nave and York Minster [fragments reproduced by Browne]) all have alternating large and small shafts. Another variant which appears to be unique to Selby is the introduction of blobs or balls on the upper surfaces of the chalice capitals. I have not yet managed to trace any parallel for this.

34 The chief workshops were those at the Minster (Roger of Pont l’Eveque’s choir), St Mary’s Abbey and Holy Trinity. Christopher Wilson also noted the links between Selby and the chapter house of St Mary’s, Wilson, C., ‘The Cistercians as ‘missionaries’of Gothic in Northern England’ in Norton, C. and Park, D., ed., Cistercian Art and Architecture in the British Isles (Cambridge, 1986), p. 103 Google Scholar. The crucial evidence relating to the choir of the Mirister has not yet been published in a satisfactory way. For the design see Browne, J., The History of the Metropolitan Church of St Peter, York (London, 1847)Google Scholar, Eric Gee’s comments in A History of York Minster, ed., Aylmer, G. and Cant, R. (Oxford, 1977), pp. 121-25Google Scholar, and Wilson, ‘The Cistercians as ‘missionaries’ of Gothic’, pp. 94-98.

35 See in particular Garton, T., ‘The Transitional Sculpture of Jedburgh Abbey’, in Romanesque and Gothic, Essays for George Zarnecki (Woodbridge, 1987), pp. 69–81 Google Scholar. A particular type of foliage capital, with a ‘shovel’ like leaf, which occurs on the west responds at Selby, can be paralleled in the nave of Jedburgh, Garton, p. 79 and pls. 41-42 It appears to be derived from a type used by the Cistercians in the parlour at Fountains ( Fergusson, P., Architecture of Solitude (Princeton, 1984), pl. 37 Google Scholar) and in the Fontenay cloister. The range of chevron used at Jedburgh also echoes that at Selby; so too does the the presence of three parallel keeled mouldings, used on the soffits of the main arcade at Jedburgh and in the north gallery at Selby. The cloister at Newminster has similar mouldings. Eric Cambridge has argued that St Andrews was an important influence at Jedburgh, though the comparisons he makes do not appear to invalidate the connection with York, Cambridge, E., ‘The Early Building History of St Andrews Cathedral’, Antiquaries Journal, 57 (1977), pp. 283-84CrossRefGoogle Scholar.

36 This pier form was later reproduced at St Mary’s York during the late-thirteenth-century reconstruction: see for example the base in the nave, south arcade, pier 1. At Selby there appears to have been some difficulty in acquiring shafts of adequate length, for the rings holding the shafts in place are not set midway in the pier. A short additional piece of shafting was inserted near the top to make up the full height.

37 The Selby waterleaf capitals are distinguished by the presence of paired drill holes, the closest parallels for which are found at Byland (though the designs are not identical): illustrated in Fergusson, P., ‘The South Elevation of Byland Abbey’, Journal of the British Archaeological Association, XXXVIII (1975), pl. XIV Google Scholar (4). The drill holes may have a Cistercian origin, for something similar can be seen on the capitals of the chapter house at Fontenay, illustrated by Fergusson, ‘Byland Abbey’, pl. XIII (1) and in Fergusson, Architecture of Solitude, pl. 28.

Circular abaci were introduced at Byland in the nave (the seven western bays), for which there are variant dates. Fergusson believes that the abbey church was erected between 1160 and 1190 and that much of the building was complete by 1177 when the monks moved from Stocking, Fergusson, Architecture of Solitude, pp. 69–83; Stuart Harrison has argued for a later chronology, though agreeing that the nave was finished by 1195, S. Harrison, , Byland Abbey (English Heritage, London, 1990), p. 27 Google Scholar. The argument has a long history, summarised in a footnote by Fergusson, Architecture of Solitude, p. 73, fn 17. The issue is crucial for Selby, which has many stylistic connections with the nave of Byland.

The distribution of large circular abaci is concentrated in churches in Yorkshire and Durham (Hartlepool, Scarborough) and south Lincolnshire and north Norfolk (Deeping St James, Weston, West Walton, Stamford, Whaplode, Moulton), a distribution that suggest that the Cistercians had much to do with the popularity of the form. Circular abaci are occasionally found outside this area, as at Hexham (choir clerestory) and Winchester castle hall.

38 Fergusson, P. relates the waterleaf capitals at Roche to those at Selby, ‘Roche Abbey: The Source and Date of the Eastern Remains’, Journal of the British Archaeological Association, XXXIV (1971), pp. 35, 37, 40Google Scholar.

39 St Albans is admittedly an unusual case, since the reconstruction began at the west end and the intention was no doubt to demolish all the Romanesque nave. The west end of the nave was presumably the most recent part of the Romanesque building and the reasons for starting the reconstruction in this area are far from clear. Was the Romanesque facade completed?

40 Fergusson, Architecture of Solitude, pp. 133-34.

41 The Historical Works of Gervase of Canterbury (ed. Stubbs, W., Rolls Series, London, 1879-80), 1, p. 6 Google Scholar.

42 Historia, p. 23. There are a number of parallel cases in which early Gothic builders strove to continue the main elements of an earlier design, most notably the nave of Romsey Abbey.

43 Klukas, A., Altaria Superiora, The Function and Significance of the Tribune-Chapel in Anglo-Norman Romanesque (Pittsburgh, 1978)Google Scholar, passim.

44 The list includes Whitby, Hexham, Lanercost, Arbroath, York St Mary’s, Bridlington, Paisley and Dunkeld. It is likely that the gallery at St Andrews took a similar form. Eric Cambridge has argued that St Andrews was a crucial influence in the North and thatjedburgh and Hexham were derived from it, Cambridge, ‘History of St Andrews’, pp. 284-85. I believe that the choir of York Minster, which almost certainly had round-arched galleries (to judge from their use in the thirteenth-century transepts) is likely to have been the greater influence.

45 Hodges, Architectural History, XIX, likewise stressed that the presence of a gallery was regarded as an essential ingredient of a first-class church. Peter Kidson has pointed out that the awkward containing arch used in the gallery at Salisbury may be a deliberate reference to Old Sarum, Salisbury Cathedral, pp. 90-91.

46 A.W.Clapham, , English Romanesque Architecture after the Conquest (Oxford, 1934), p. 54–55 Google Scholar.

47 At Southwell an intention to subdivide the gallery was never carried out.

48 The case for galleries in Roger of Pont l’Eveque’s new choir at York has been convincingly argued by Wilson, ‘Cistercians as missionaries of Gothic’, pp. 94-98.

49 Metrical life of St Hugh, Harvey, Medieval Architect, p. 237.

50 Altogether sixteen detached shafts were used in the pier at St Mary’s, twelve grouped around the core and four set further out, marking the cardinal points. The chapter house and the vestibule are usually dated to c. 1180-85, English Romanesque Art 1066-1200, ed., Zarnecki, G. et al., (London, 1984), p. 204–06Google Scholar. Wilson also accepts this date in ‘The original setting of the apostle and prophet figures from St Mary’s Abbey, York’, Studies in Medieval Sculpture, ed., Thompson, F. H. (London, 1983), pp. 65–78 Google Scholar.

51 Wilberforce Morrell, p. 64.

52 Ibid., p. 70.

53 The use of concave fluted shafts, prominent at Selby, was abandoned at Lincoln while the nave was under construction (they are found in the north aisle only), a point which helps to confirm a 1220s date for the final work at Selby. The south gallery in the abbey makes use of a roll with very deep fillets set at an angle, a type which has parallels in the main arcades at Lincoln.

54 Bony, J., The English Decorated Style (Oxford, 1979), pp. 19–20 Google Scholar. Bony associates the shafts with heraldic displays of the time.

55 For Holyrood, see Wilson, C. in Giffard, J., McWilliam, C., and Walker, D., The Buildings of Scotland: Edinburgh (Harmondsworth, 1984), pp. 133-35Google Scholar. Sexpartite vaults over single bays have been described as compressed sexpartite vaults by Bony, , who discusses them in ‘The Resistance to Chartres in Early Thirteenth-Century Architecture’, Journal of the British Archaeological Association, XXXXI (1957-58), p. 45 Google Scholar and fn 3; also Bony, J., ‘Origines des piles gothiques anglaises à futs en délit’, Cedenkschrifi Ernst Gall, ed., Kuhn, M. and Grodecki, L. (Berlin and Munich, 1965), pp. 69–86 Google Scholar.

56 It also occurs in the wall arcading associated with St Hugh’s choir. The triforium of Beverley, derived from Lincoln, provides a further example.

57 There are a number of other cases where detached shafts were apparently intended but never inserted, as for example at Jedburgh (nave clerestory ) and Dundrennan (north transept).

58 There are a number of further parallels with St Albans: a tiny moulded corbel, found in the arcade spandrels, recalls those at the base of the hanging shafts at Selby (a similar feature is found in the east end of Beverley); the piers of the triforium also combine detached shafts and dog-tooth ornament in a manner reminiscent of Selby; admittedly this was not uncommon at the time and further examples include Tynemouth (presbytery clerestory), Southwell (choir clerestory) and many doorways, such as that at Grey Abbey (Down). Nevertheless the connexions with St Albans, where the nave extension was completed under Abbot William after 1224, help to confirm the date suggested here for Selby, Salzman, Building in England, pp. 376, 378.

59 Noting a sudden change in the cloister design at Roche, G. Coppack remarked that ‘neither monks nor the masons were seemingly concerned’, Coppack, G., Abbeys and Priories (English Heritage, London, 1990), p. 70 Google Scholar.

60 There are of course some striking examples in France: the nave of St Pierre at Chartres, for example, where the two elevations differ, or Auxerre cathedral, where there is an unusual variation of pier forms in the choir (though one of these is a later replacement).

61 Hoey, L., ‘Pier Alternation in Early English Gothic Architecture’, Journal of the British Archaeological Association, CXXXIX (1986), pp. 45–67 CrossRefGoogle Scholar. For a recent discussion of the issue of deliberate variation see Thurlby, M. and Kusaba, Y., ‘The nave of Saint Andrew at Steyning: A Study of variety in design in Twelfth-Century Architecture in Britain’, Gesta XXX/2 (1991), pp. 163-75CrossRefGoogle Scholar. At Steyning the variations concern ornamental rather than architectural forms.

62 ‘Reverend Sir, — As it is my hope to undertake a thorough restoration of the parish church of this place during the course of the following summer, I take the liberty of requesting your opinion as to the principle on which restoration should be conducted. The church consists of a chancel, nave , two aisles, western tower, and south porch. The chancel is good First Pointed, with an eastern triplet, and three side lancets. The piers on the north side of the nave Romanesque: the north aisle tolerable Third-Pointed. The chancel arch is also Third-Pointed; the southern aisle, piers and all, Middle-Pointed, with one or two inserted Tudor windows; the tower and spire transitions to Middle-Pointed; the porch early Third-Pointed. A clerestory, of the same date, has been added to the nave’, Ecclesiologist, LIX (May 1847), p. 161, where the letter is cited by E. A. Freeman in an article on restoration (I am grateful to Edward McParland, who brought this reference to my attention). Fortunately the church at Bredwardine was not completely rebuilt, Pevsner, N., Herefordshire (Buildings of England, Harmondsworth, 1963), p. 83 Google Scholar. Among the countless examples of irregular medieval churches ‘straightened out’ by nineteenth-century restorers is Christ Church Cathedral Dublin, where George Edmund Street removed many of the irregularities in the thirteenth-century nave arcade, Butler, W., The Cathedral Church of Holy Trinity Dublin (London, 1901), p. 8 Google Scholar, 10.

63 Pevsner, Englishness of English Art, pp. 101-02.

64 For a recent discussion of New Shoreham, see Woodcock, S., ‘The Building History of St Mary de Haura, New Shoreham’, Journal of the British Archaeological Association, CXLV (1992), pp. 89–103 CrossRefGoogle Scholar.

65 Woodcock has argued that the wall arcades at New Shoreham were reused from an earlier project (St Mary de Haura, p. 99), but the round arches fit too neatly into the space available for this to be credible. Although they might seem primitive in style in the context of New Shoreham, the design is not out of step with features found in other English buildings of the period.

66 R. A. Stalley, , The Cistercian Monasteries of Ireland (London and New Haven, 1987), pp. 87–92 Google Scholar.

67 Wilberforce Morrell, p. 198, and Hodges, Architectural History, iv, were in error in thinking that the nave was intended to be covered by a stone vault.

68 Willis, R., Architectural History of Some English Cathedrals (Chicheley, 1972), 1, pp. 33 Google Scholar, 60.

69 Salzman, L., Building in England Down to 1140 (Oxford, 1967), p. 379 Google Scholar.

70 Moody, Selby Abbey, pp. 79-91.

71 Works of Gervase, 1, pp. 6, 20-21.

72 Salzman, Building in England, pp. 376-77.

73 The alterations are particularly obvious in the responds at the west end of the nave.

74 Bence-Jones, M., Burke’s Guide to Country Houses, I, Ireland (London, 1978), p. 78 Google Scholar. Something similar happened at Hately (Leitrim) c. 1830, Ibid., p. 149.