Why Was There a Wall Across the Middle of the Church? Two Buildings in One

The screen stood across the church at the point where the nave, which held the congregation, met the chancel, which held the altar and the clergy. It was pierced by a central doorway and by openings through which the altar could be glimpsed, so the division was not total, and it carried a loft above from which readings were given and music was sung. Above that stood a large crucifix flanked by figures, from which the whole structure takes its English name, since rood is an old word for cross. The effect was that the congregation heard the service and saw it only partially, which reflected an understanding of the altar as a space belonging to the clergy.

The surviving examples share recognisable features:

• •Carved timber tracery, frequently elaborate and originally brightly painted
• •Painted panels along the lower section showing saints and apostles
• •A loft above reached by a stair built into the wall, which frequently survives when the screen does not
• •The crucifix and flanking figures, which are almost never original
• •Stone versions in larger churches and cathedrals, called pulpitums
• •Dedicatory inscriptions naming the parishioners who paid for them

The destruction in England was systematic and driven by doctrine and by politics together. Reformers objected to the crucifix and the figures as idolatrous images, and royal injunctions from 1547 onwards ordered their removal, with the timber burned publicly in several places. They also objected to the division itself, since a reformed service was to be heard and understood by everybody, which made a barrier obstructing sight and sound theologically objectionable. Mary's reign restored some, and Elizabeth's settlement ordered the crucifixes removed permanently while allowing the screens themselves to stand, which is why lower portions survive in many churches with the lofts and figures gone. Later restoration in the nineteenth century removed or replaced many more.

England and Wales retain a substantial number despite the destruction, concentrated in areas that were prosperous when the screens were built and poor afterwards, since poverty preserves buildings by preventing rebuilding. Devon and Norfolk hold the largest concentrations, with several hundred surviving in varying condition and a number retaining original painted panels showing rows of saints. Wales retains outstanding examples in remote parishes. Scottish examples were almost entirely destroyed. Lofts survive far less often than screens, since they were specifically targeted, and the stair that led to a vanished loft is frequently the only evidence that one existed. Victorian restorers replaced or removed many of the survivors, which is why documentation from before 1850 matters.

The idea of screening the altar is widespread and the forms differ instructively. Orthodox churches use a solid screen covered in icons, pierced by doors, which conceals the altar far more completely and is theologically central rather than incidental, and it was never removed because the tradition that produced it did not undergo the same rupture. Catholic churches on the continent retained screens in some places and removed them in others, with the reforms of the sixteenth century encouraging visibility of the altar there too. The liturgical reforms of the 1960s moved altars forward and turned priests to face congregations, which removed the last functional argument for any barrier at all.

The screen divided nave from chancel at the point where congregation met altar, carrying a loft for readings and music and a crucifix above it. English examples were attacked from 1547 as idolatrous and as obstructions to a service meant to be heard and understood, with figures and lofts removed and lower panels frequently surviving. Orthodox churches retained a far more complete version because their tradition had no comparable rupture.