Planning
A master mason would have had a good idea of the kind of
building needed having worked on other sites, especially if on a cathedral in
France. He would have gained experience and known what was innovative. He would
then have to obtain agreement with the bishop. However, much of the design
formed as the work progressed. An upper room in York Minster has plaster on the
floor with drawings of bits of the cathedral stonework and it is thought this
was how the setting out was done. There would have been many wooden templates
made to give consistency of shape.
Geometry
Master masons would know much about geometry and ratios that
give a pleasing appearance. He would know about unit lengths including the
perch or rod length. The second cathedral had dimensions based on a perch
length of 15 feet; see the post, ‘It is short perch; historians please note.’
The current cathedral east end has some suggestion with a long perch of 18 feet
and the west end nave has a medium perch length of 16.5 feet. Most dimensions
followed a formula, though this changed with architectural styles. For example.
the three levels in the nave, ground floor arches, triforium and clerestory, have
a harmonious ratio of close to 2:1:1, which is also seen at Westminster Abbey
and Beverley Minster. That meant the ground storey occupied one-half of the
total height.[1]
It was said to show a ‘smooth fluidity of upward movement.’
 |
Nave wall showing general ratio of elements. The original lengths were likely to be a rod or perch, but that is difficult to prove with changes to the floor level and roof.
Another ratio was the width of
the nave and aisles (21 m or 68 feet) which is close to half of its length (43
m or 140 feet) and all but the western columns are 16.5 feet (one modern perch)
wide from centre to centre. The width between the columns right through to the
high altar is 30 feet (two short perches).
 |
| Arches drawn with two intersecting arcs. Different widths of arch arose from changing the point of centre. |
Usually, a trench was dug out of
the bedrock and filled with burnt limestone and sand mortar between rubble
stone. When aboveground the foundation was shuttered between wooden panels
which left a mark on the side of the mortar. The third cathedral was built
around the outside of the second cathedral and probably the only shuttering
needed was on the outside. Much of the rubble must have come from the upper
walls of the second cathedral. Decorative stone has been found in the north
nave wall foundation, second bay, which must have been recycled.
 |
| Plan of the cathedral showing there was much building with the second cathedral to give support and building material for the foundation of the third cathedral. |
Building the walls
Much stone was pre-shaped at the
quarry. The quality of the stone was selected by the master mason. Much stone
came from the quarry at Hopwas and was probably carried by a cart drawn by oxen
or horses. Stones were laid with a thin layer of mortar (burnt limestone and
sand). Lime mortar takes a long time in years to set and this allows the wall
to settle; it is unlike modern mortar which acts like a glue.
Columns were extra-large in girth, indeed were over-engineered
with up to 100 tonnes weight on a square metre of foundation. The weight of the
roof was around 3% of this total weight of wall and columns, which indicates a
wide margin of thrust.
Ropes and pulleys were used to raise up small fashioned
stone. Sometimes a winch was used which was a lifting device consisting of a rope or chain winding round
a horizontal rotating drum. For very large stone a windlass was used which
consisted of a large wheel or drum turned by several labourers. The windlass
could lift stone ten times more in weight than the men turning the wheel.
Wild Mare tread-wheel used to build a tall spire at St James Church in Louth, Lincolnshire, in 1515. The men were paid 3d per day for its use.
It is thought as many as 200 labourers would be working on the site. At Westminster Abbey in 1253 between 3 and 400 workers were involved. Including those fashioning the stone at the quarries and transporting it possibly needed 6 to 800 men.[2] Some labourers would be allowed to climb ladders and work off the timber scaffold. Woodworkers would be in number. Blacksmiths were needed to make tools and the ironwork sometimes used to strap the stonework. There would be masons shaping the stone away from the site and labourers taking the stone at the quarry. All needed to be housed and fed. Labourers would have probably conversed in Old English, the masons in French and the priests in Latin. This diversity suggests there was a community entirely devoted to building cathedrals. Much knowledge passed down through families.
 |
| King Dagobert visiting the construction site of Saint-Denis "Les Grandes Chroniques de France". 15th century, Bibliothèque nationale de France. Wikimedia, Public Domain. |
A wooden frame was made to a size that would support an
arch. Shaped stone or voussoirs in blocks were placed over the frame until the
top, middle keystone was inserted. The frame was then removed. The shape caused
the thrust of each stone to be inwards and this held it together. There was no
need for a buttress on the outside since the downward pressure was inwards. ‘Y’
shaped grooves in the hidden side of the voussoirs were made to hold molten
lead and this was a way to set rigid the arch.
Centring frame to build an arch
Building a vault
A diagonal wooden frame was used. The rib voussoirs were
placed on the frame and the keystone added to lock it in place. Once the ribs were
completed a new frame was constructed for placing thin, shaped stone in the
spaces (severies or panels) between the ribs. Large bosses were sculpted for
the centre key stone and they masked any deviation from the diagonal. The
thrust of the ribs was downwards onto piers and not on the wall.
Centring frame for a vault
Building a roof
A tall timber scaffold was constructed from the floor to the
roof and a platform of wood placed across the top. On this was built the wooden
frames for the vaulting ribs and then the severies. Removing the frame would be
by have a block of wood at the base which had a hollowed base. By sawing down
at the three lines, the block dropped a small amount. This would allow the
frames on the platform to be removed. The whole scaffold was then moved to the
next bay and a new vault constructed.
Support
scaffold for adding a roof
Master Masons
Master masons were the esteemed developers of cathedrals and were highly paid and well looked after. They had to be able to manage a large team of workers and coordinate the delivery of materials and supplies. Some master masons working on the cathedral have been named. Work on the south transept, c. 1220, was under Thomas the Elder. He also supervised the building of the chapterhouse, 1240s. There are various master masons with this name and especially an esteemed mason working on Westminster Abbey in the 14th-century. The nave was presumably directed by Thomas Waleys (Wallace) master of the fabric in 1268, who had succeeded William Fitzthomas by this date. It is possible Bishop Langton employed Henry Ellerton, master of the king's works, as his master mason to build a castellated boundary wall, 15 m high, with battlements around the Close. It had two fortified gates, four large towers and a moat and ditch. William Franceys has been suggested as the master-mason employed by Langton for the Lady Chapel and he might possibly have been a Frenchman.[2] For Langton’s palace it was recorded Master Walter was the carpenter and Master Hugh de la Dale the mason.
Supposed
face of Walter de Ramessey, a master mason engaged in 1337 to join the
extension of the choir with the old choir so that the continuation was masked.
Walter was a ‘King’s Mason’ and this face Is on the east side of the capital of
the pillar by the north gate of the choir.[3]
.
[1] P. Brieger, The Oxford History of English Art (1216–1307), (Oxford: 1957), 185.
[3] Is
Franceys a corruption of France? J. Harvey, English Medieval Architects. (Stroud:
1984) 105 conjectured if the master builder was William of Eyton instead.
[4] H. E. Savage, The fourteenth century
builders, Unpub. article in Cathedral Library, (1916), 22.