4. The 'Cathedral' rood-screen

Now we come to the crux of the matter. The picture above is of St Alban's Abbey, and it shows the front of the nave and the screen (don't be confused by the collegiate-style choir stalls in the foreground; they are modern). As I said before, no wooden 'cathedral' rood screens survive to my knowledge. That at St Albans is of stone, which is why it has survived. However it isn't a 'proper' rood screen, in that it is very solid (no openings to see beyond it), it is as thick as a pulpitum and its two doors on the west side give way to a single door on the east, again like a pulpitum. But it's the only medieval 'rood screen' still in use in a cathedral to my knowledge

Note the two doors flanking a space for a substantial Nave altar, suitable for use at public masses.

3. The pulpitum

The pulpitum is a very particular type of screen. Its name derives of course from the same root as 'pulpit', and as this suggests, the pulpitum is primarily a platform. It was from the pulpitum in major churches and cathedrals that Epistles and Gospels were sung during solemn masses, where sermons were preached, the blessed sacrament exposed, pontifical blessings administered and acts of chapter announced. Nowadays most pulpitums are used to carry pipe organs, and the best view in the building is habitually reserved to the organist.

In form, then, because of its requirement for a substantial loft, the pulpitum is far heavier and more solid than other wooden screens. It is sometimes as much as a whole bay in thickness and has stairs running up inside it to the loft above. Typically there are no windows through a pulpitum; the only opening is a vaulted passageway through the middle, through which the clergy processed as they began each of the many offices and services. The pulpitum marks the western boundary of the quire stalls, and is either located under the eastern arch of the central tower (as at York pictured above), or the western arch of the central tower (as at Chichester or Gloucester)), or even further west still into the (architectural) nave (as at Norwich or Westminster Abbey).

Sometimes, an altar was placed either side of the doorway on the west side of the pulpitum, as at Glasgow:

These altars were probably used for private masses. The pulpita at Exeter, Southwell and elsewhere have intimate spaces under the pulpitum either side of the doorway for these altars; I wouldn't necessarily count them as 'Nave Altars'.

2. The presbytery screen

The only references to presbytery screens that I can find are in Rakowski. He says that in some places a screen was set up between the quire stalls and the high altar. This screen was like an open rood screen with a central gateway and tracery, but without the rood itself. Rakowsky mentions them because he thinks that they are the nearest western equivalent to the eastern ikonostasis. His idea is that the medieval quire is most like the byzantine nave, whereas the nave is most like a greatly enlarged byzantine narthex (?), so the presbytery screen is that which separates the high altar from his newly-defined 'nave'.

Hmm. The only example Rakowsky gives is that of St David's Cathedral in Wales (pictured above); I'm not at all sure that the 'presbytery screen' here wasn't more to do with the presence of the shrine of St David, just in front of the screen. It would have been useful for keeping the press of pilgrims out of the quire stall area.

1. The high altar screen

These screens, where built, were typically toward the east end of the building, separating the high altar from a Saint's shrine beyond. They were usually only provided in major church buidlings. They are of interest here because they typically have the same double doors either side of the altar which Rakowsky suggests would have been provided for the wooden rood screens. Their purpose was to allow the clergy to pass all around the altar while censing it during the mass.

Before the evidence, some disambiguation

Screens were everywhere in medieval churches, especially the larger ones.

One of the problems on the NLM thread is that we were constantly trying to be clear what type of screen we were talking about. I'm therefore going to give you a list of my understanding of all the screens that one finds in medieval churches. What's really frustrating is that in many places most of these terms are used interchangeably with each other and with terms like 'quire screen' and 'organ screen'. I'm tempted to refer to screens by these numbers in future to avoid explaining myself a hundred times!

Why? Why rood screens?

Simply, I suspect that the loss of Medieval church interiors could possibly be the greatest spiritual and cultural damage that Europe has suffered over the centuries.

I want to test that opinion. I want to get closer to a clear picture of the Medieval architects' vision. I want to clear away polemical clutter (Victorian, Puritan, Romantic, Anglo-catholic, Sarumite, Proto-orthodox, Anthropologist, Positivist, Nostalgist, Sentimentalist ...) from our modern view of the Medieval liturgical environment. I feel that if we let these creations speak for themselves we might learn something about our own faith.

Rood screens are tantalising in that, even though they must have utterly dominated every medieval nave large and small, it seems no specimens from major churches or cathedrals seem to have survived. Why are the all gone? They must have had something unique to say in defense of medieval spirituality! The only rood screens apparently to have survived are those in rural parish churches. Granted that many places considered rural now may have been quite metropolitan in the Medieval period (Northleach? Newark? Cromer? Boston? Rievaulx?), but the towering depiction of the crucifixion, the ornamental rood-screen-as-reredos, the rood-altar, the quasi-ikonostasis of saints and angelic portrayals - these must have been present in all our Cathedrals once, but no more.

Rood-screens are Britain's intriguing ecclesiastical ghost-story. I want to know more.

Where did this start?

Here on The New Liturgical Movement

I'm posting under my real name, Al. I've posted a link to the Rakowsky article and I'm using it as a basis for answering Patrick's question about the link between reredoses and ikonostases. In doing so I posit the 'Rood-altar' theory.

I have a frighteningly knowledgeable Jesuit, (?)Fr Anthony Symondson, challenging my rood assumptions.

He wants to know:

"What evidence do you have for suggesting that nave altars stood in front of rood screens in the Middle Ages?"

The more I think about it, the more I'm puzzled by the lack of direct evidence. Where did Rakowski get his information from?

In response, I spend approximately eight hundred words not-quite-answering his question. Now I'm finishing the job.

The Rakowski article

This is the one that set me thinking in the first place.

The Rakowski article

It's an article that I read years ago, containing a lot of the ideas that led me to think about rood screens yesterday. Trying to make sense of this blog without reading it (and understanding / caring about its contents) is undoubtedly futile.

I was interested to find this republica-web-ification of the same article, with an additional introductory paragraph or three:

"The Holy Orthodox Catholic and Apostolic Church of America has blessed the historic Orthodox Western Rites for use as well as the traditional Eastern Liturgies.

"Prior to the Patriarchate of Rome breaking away from The Orthodox Church, the Western Rites were a part of the Undivided Great Church. Indeed, even after the year 1054 some Western Communities continued in union with Holy Orthodoxy. There was a Western Rite Monastery on Mt Athos up to the year 1283. Recent scholarship has shown that a form of the Western Roman Liturgy, though Byzantinized, was used in Turkey up to 1963. This is called the Liturgy of St Peter.

"For the last hundred years there has been a steady stream of Western Christians coming into Holy Orthodoxy and using the Restored Western Rites. Today one finds The Orthodox Church of France using the Gallican Rite, The Milan Synod using the Sarum Rite, The Antiochian Archdiocese using the Liturgy of St Gregory and the Liturgy of St Tihkon, The Russian Orthodox Church Outside of Russia using the Dom Augustine Liturgy which is based on the old Orthodox Roman Liturgy, and The Holy Orthodox Catholic and Apostolic Church of America which has blessed the old Orthodox Roman Rite, though, for pastoral reasons the other Orthodox Western Rites may be used."

In other words, the whole article was polemic (which was probably what made it interesting in the first place). The intent was to demonstrate to isolated Western Orthodox faithful that they were in fact in a prime position culturally and ecclesiologically; perfectly placed to appreciate the spiritual jewels of both east and west!

Even so, I still think there's some truth in the rest of the article. The 'money' quote, the bit that is pertinent to this discussion is as follows:

"In the Middle Ages the pulpitum would have been supplemented by another screen -the rood screen- one bay further to the west. This had a dual purpose. It supported the Rood (the large crucifix, with accompanying images of the Virgin and St John, which dominated the nave) and it also formed a reredos to the Nave Altar. It would have been equipped with two doors, one on either side of the Nave Altar, which in the Sarum rite, were used by the Deacon to pass around the Altar while censing it."

OK.

This is a holding post for my squirrelling away into obscure matters

... In this case, rood screens. I've started this because I don't want to lose all the juicy links I've been garnering, but until now I've been e-mailing myself with snippets of stuff, which is plainly ridiculous.

Blogging the snippets may just save me from having to write them all up properly!

More later.