give some idea of the beauty which belongs to it, in spite of a narrowness out of all proportion to its width of bay, and of the too "liny" character of its mouldings. The photographic process blocks which profess to show it (on pages 259 and 260) are the worst in the book, and

one of them shows signs of being worked upon, a most hopeless thing to attempt in dealing with architectural detail. One of the most perfect parts of the Cathedral, the eastern aisle of the choir, is also altogether without adequate illustration. It is a common error to compare this simple ambulatory aisle and chapels, roofed at the level of the side aisles of the choir, with the glorious chapel of the nine altars at Durham or the corresponding aisle at Fountains Abbey; for, as Mr. Honeyman points out, it presents a closer analogy to the Anglo-Norman or Continental half-round ambulatory behind the high altar with its radiating chapels. It is an interesting example of a square cheret, if the contradiction in terms be permitted. Like the solid rood-screen of a later date, it is a mark of the partial reversion to Celtic principles of church planning, and both doubtless point to a measure of Celtic influence surviving in ritual. The rood-screen, which appears in fig. 4, and which Mr. McGregor Chalmers has shown to be of Archbishop Blacader's time (circa 1495), is a remarkably refined work, and we do not feel that Mr. Herbert Railton's sketch is in the least degree worthy of it. A word of praise should, however, be bestowed on the excellent measured work of Mr. G. S. Hill, consisting of a plan of the crypt and details of its south porch, the design of which (fig. 2) bears a close resemblance to that of the side doors in the west front of Lincoln Cathedral. The other geometric drawings embrace a plan of the church and details of an internal bay of the choir; but the inclusion of elevations of the whole Cathedral and sections to a good scale would have added considerably to the value of the book in the eyes of an architect, and need not have detracted from such popular interest as belongs to it.

Mr. Honeyman, in his opening remarks, says further that he will confine attention. "almost exclusively to matters of fact. . . . avoiding as far as possible doubtful disputations and immaterial speculations." But none the less he takes a clear side in a controversy which has puzzled and divided the architects in Glasgow who care for these things. He goes so far as to say that "there can be no doubt that the whole vaulting of the lower church formed part of the architect's original designs, but whether actually executed before or after the completion of the choir it is impossible now to determine." As both sides in the controversy believe it is possible to determine the point, Mr. Honeyman is alone in this view of the case; while the matter on which he has no doubt is just the crux of the question. Differing from Mr. Honeyman, the present writer inclines to believe in the reasonableness of the theory of Mr. T. L. Watson as now stated, and does not think that the causes for the speedy roofing of the crypt suggested by Mr. Honeyman on page 251 are sufficient to justify the view that the central aisle was vaulted over and used while the rest of the church was in progress; in the face of the facts that this middle compartment illustrates the progress of Early English vault construction, that it employs ribs of more advanced section than those in the aisles of crypt or choir, and that the springers towards the central aisle have been altered. A theory, too, which fits in with an excellent constructional reason- an open wellhole for raising material is to be preferred to one which would subject the vault itself and "the services of the church" to a measure of hazard. Might not the side-aisles, first the lower, then the upper, have been used for these daily services without necessitating the vaulting of the central space until the church was covered in? It is not quite correct, by the way, to say that "the plan is perfectly symmetrical"; the alternately large and small pillars of the aisle render irregular the vaulting squares adjoining, whether of one or three bays each. One feels that in a work of this importance, it might have been worth while to expound this exciting and engrossing question of the vaulting at greater length.

Like other recent writers on the subject, Mr. Honeyman contends that the crypt should be known as the "lower church," and this title is used throughout the book; but a good deal can be said for the more popular term. A crypt of about 1130 existed previously, and the lower

building of Jocelin continued to serve the purpose of the crypt-"the confessio," the sepulture of the saint (fig. 6). Although the subsequent lengthening of the church on a sloping site makes

it lose one attribute of a crypt, it retains the others. If the mid compartment was designed by its architect as a church, it must be one of the most ill adapted in the world—" a very

singular place of worship," as Sir Walter Scott has it. Whatever name it may bear in ancient documents, we ought to decline to give up "the finest crypt in Europe" for an illogical and wellnigh impossible church.

Although most of them have been printed before in the Transactions of certain societies, the contributions of Archbishop Eyre must not be altogether overlooked. They are among the more valuable papers, continuing, as they do, the archæological and architectural part of the work; and they treat of the Western Towers (Fig. 1), now unhappily removed, the “Hall of the Vicars-Choral," and the Ancient Altars. The Archbishop also contributes an account of "The Episcopal Seals," which is well illustrated. The Rev. J. S. Gordon writes on "The Prebends and Prebendal Manses," Mr. A. H. Millar on the long-vanished "Bishop's Castle," and the present minister, the Rev. Dr. Pearson McAdam Muir, on the "Monuments and Inscriptions." There is, besides, an article by Mr. Stephen Adam on "The Stained Glass Windows," in which the author evinces much catholicity of taste and temperance of criticism. Among what has been condemned root and branch by less practical or competent judges he directs attention to much that is good and worthy of study. At the same time he is ready to admit that the presence of the deeply-coloured stained glass windows in the crypt is "a serious mistake, from every point of view," and thus adds another voice to those which have clamoured for their removal.

The Book of Glasgow Cathedral, while it may not in every respect fulfil an architect's ideal, deserves the attention of students of architecture, as well as those interested in local history. As far as this building is concerned, nothing better has yet been done, nor perhaps need be. Its one defect is that it has attempted at one and the same time to be a popular book and an archæologic repository. It is safe to say that no book of the Cathedral will ever be a popular one, unless it should condescend to take the form of a guide for visitors. There may yet be room for a book of this kind, written by a genuine student of the building, likely to be more honoured—at least, in the reading of it-than the massive quarto before us. And, on the other hand, there is the possibility of a more adequately illustrated record of the edifice, after the fashion of such a work as Mr. C. C. Hodges' Hexham Abbey. Not that there is any crying necessity for it, as in the case of buildings rapidly falling into decay. Careful surveys, photographic and geometric, of Melrose and Elgin would serve a more useful purpose. The Cathedral itself, while it remains intact, is, after all, its best record, its best history. That it may be read in its full historic significance rests with the preparedness of the mind that approaches it, rather than with any help it may get from "a description ready to hand. It demands the study of buildings related in time and purpose, of the development of the craft and tradition of medieval architecture, of the structural processes, the ecclesiastic objects of a bygone generation. So prepared, one does not seek to reproduce, to reoccupy, correctly and literally, recognising that the life that moulded it, the life that made use of it, is for ever departed, and has abandoned the shell to us. We have already made, and may yet make, too much of this empty husk. The civilisation which shaped this mass-house and reliquary shrine is far removed from ours, and the sooner that Scottish Ecclesiological and Church Societies realise this, the better for our church architecture in particular and for our modern architecture generally. There is no sign of " archaicism," of looking backward, about Glasgow Cathedral itself; there was nothing reactionary about the view of its promoters. This seems the first lesson of Glasgow and the other churches of the middle world; for living architecture "serves the present age" and reaches after the unattainable. Glasgow Cathedral is now "a national monument," but it is, in a sense more broad and deep, one of the many monuments of thirteenth-century European civilisation which shame the incompleteness of modern culture, not yet able to surpass it on the plane of beautiful building suited to present purposes. WILLIAM J. ANDERSON.

Glasgow.