Page:Archaeological Journal, Volume 9.djvu/426

332 ox THE AECHITECTUEE OF Ecclesiologist, ^ylletller the centre-piece had ever been filled with tracery at all. The Society then called in Mr. Harrison as architect, who, when in Oxford, had been one of its most active members ; he at once discovered fragments showing that the circle had contained tracery, and indeed enough to ascertain its general character, and some even of its actual lines. But a fresh difficulty was presented by the extreme liberality of Mr. Harrison, who, while wilhng to give the work all the benefit of his skill, positively refused to act in any but a gratuitous capacity. As the Society could not possibly accept of his services on those terms, this most important portion of the restoration was finally placed in the hands of Mr. Butterfield. The desion which was the result of his investigations, was not quite identical with Mr. Harrison's, though both preserved the same appropriate character of great width and boldness in the piercings. In one respect Mr. Butterfield's completion of the window appears to me open to very great doubt and criticism ; he has made the circle not complete, but flowing into the lines of the arch. I do not remember that the remaining fragments gave any grounds for supposing that so unusual and unpleasing an arrangement, one in this window peculiarly inappropriate, formed part of the original design. I strongl}^ opposed this freak — for it is nothing more — at the time ; but I believe I may truly say that it is the only part of our restoration hable to any serious objection. While these negotiations were pending, the restoration of a smaller portion was actually efiected. This was the Jesse window, which was a mere case of repair, involving no original work. Indeed two places where the design was irrecoverably lost, and no more could be done than guess at the subjects, have been left in their mutilated state. These appear to have represented the Blessed Virgin and the Crucifixion ; but as there was some difficulty in obtaining an appropriate design, they have, I beheve, without any formal intention, been left in their former state to this day. Perhaps it may be thought that, as their destruction was clearly the result of a formal purpose, and not of mere decay or negligence, it forms a portion of the history of the fabric, and, as such, ought not to be repaired. The east window was commenced about May 1846, the stone and timber work was completed by June, 1847, and