rked that the nave of York, examined bay by bay,
is logical and satisfactory enough. It is only when it is regarded as a
whole, and judged as an avenue of stone, that its faults are evident.

But the choir is not to be judged as an avenue of stone at all.

It is cut in half by the altar. Its lower storey is concealed by the
stalls, and its continuity broken by the eastern transepts.

In the nave, the lowest storey is the weakest. The thin pillars and the
broad arches make too little division between the nave and the aisle.
The whole is seen at a glance, and there is little of the mystery and
shadow generally to be found in a large Gothic interior. Also the actual
design of the pillars is poor. They do not fit well on to the arches
above them. They seem almost insecure.

If these faults exist in the choir, they are concealed by the stalls,
and east of the altar by the change in proportions. The choir itself is
like an enormous college chapel. The aisles exist, but play no part in
the design, which still culminates in the splendid blaze of glass from
the eastern transepts and the great east window, and once culminated on
the still more splendid blaze of the altar.

[Illustration: The Choir, looking West.]

The retro-choir, far too short and wide to be judged as an avenue of
stone, is still more dependent for its effect on its glass. As most of
that glass luckily remains, it is a miracle of airy splendour; one may
see from it what were the objects, and how great the success of the
much-maligned Perpendicular architects at their best.

It is still the custom to regard Perpendicular architects as altogether
inferior to their predecessors; an opinion partly arising, no doubt,
from Mr Ruskin's eloquent exposition of the principle that beauty of
detail is the most vital and important part of architecture; and partly
from the general idea that older work is always better than later. But
Perpendicular artists were not altogether retrogressive. In some
respects they adapted their design more completely to their material
than the older men. Their woodwork, for instance, completely shook off
the forms of stone. Their glass, in spite of all that has been said, is
better decoration of a given space than the patterns of the Decorated
period. This is particularly evident in the nave and choir of the
minster, for the original glass remains on many of the windows
practically undisturbed. The earlier glass is more delicate, and purer