is apse, with the two lesser ones at the ends of
the choir aisles, must have presented an appearance of much grandeur.

The Abbot who began the church did not live to see much progress made,
as he died in 1125. He is said to have worked hard at it, but how much
was finished we do not know. The next Abbot, after an interval of two
years, was Henry of Anjou, a kinsman of King Henry I. He appears to have
been a scandalous pluralist, restless and greedy, continually seeking
and obtaining additional preferment, and as often being forced to
resign. He was not the man to prosecute such a work as was to be done at
Burgh; "he lived even as a drone in a hive; as the drone eateth and
draggeth forward to himself all that is brought near, even so did
he."[8] It is likely that for eight years after the death of John de
Sais nothing was done to advance the building. But the Prior of S.
Neots, Martin de Bee, who was appointed to succeed Henry, was
continually employed in building about the monastery; and in particular
he completed the presbytery of the church, and brought back the sacred
relics, and the monks, on Saint Peter's day into the new church, with
great joy. Alexander, Bishop of Lincoln, was present; but there was no
service of consecration. According to the Saxon Chronicle this took
place in 1140; Abbot John says in 1143.

Before proceeding further with the architectural history of the
cathedral (as distinguished from the description of it, which will be
given in due course), it may be well to say a few words upon the
principles which have guided the writer in his treatment of the subject.
These cannot be better expressed than in a very pithy sentence uttered
by Professor Willis at the meeting of the Archaeological Institute at
this very place in 1861. "In all investigations of this nature, I am of
opinion that it is requisite to ascertain first whether there exist any
contemporary documents which may throw light upon the history of the
fabric, and then to let the stones tell their own tale." Now there is an
abundance of documentary evidence for our purpose; but recent criticism
has shewn that not all is to be relied upon as authentic. And the Latin
expressions for different portions of the building can, in many
instances, not be interpreted with certainty; while the absence of all
reference to some works of importance (the West Front, for example), is
very mysterious. Most of these documents had been studied in manuscript
b