ROU

392

ROU

peculiar form was copied from that building. That the formof the church erected over the Holy Sepulchre hy the empressHelena was of a circular form, there seems to be every rea-son to believe, for we have the evidence of written testimonyas well as the form of the existing building; and although,no doubt, this has been rebuilt and much altered, by additionsand otherwise, since the time of Constantine, still, there issufficient reason to satisfy us that its general form has notbeen departed from. It would seem very natural, too, that theCrusaders , when they returned from the East, and began toerect new churches, should adopt that form which they hadseen employed in the building for the defence of which theyhad undergone such labours ; the novelty of the form, too,would be likely to attract their attention, and lead to theiremulation of it. When, in addition to this, it is consideredthat no less than two out of the four churches are dedicatedunder the name of the Holy Sepulchre , there can be littlequestion as to its origin. Further, a third is named theTemple Church ; and there is evidence that it was conse-crated by Heraclius, bishop of Jerusalem , when he came toEngland to ask subsidies for carrying on the Crusade ; andthere was never any question as to its erection by theKnights Templars , who were especially associated for thedefence of the Holy Sepulchre at Jerusalem .

Two of these round churches—the Temple, London , andSt. Sephulchre’s, Cambridge—have, within these last fewyears, been very creditably restored ; especially the former,on which no expense has been spared to restore it to itspristine splendour ; it is one of the most spirited and liberalrestorations which have been attempted, and reflects greathonour upon those by whom it was carried into effect. Thesecond has been also very well and carefully restored by theCambridge Camden, now the Ecclesiological Society ; but itis to be regretted that the effect of the restoration has beenpartially destroyed by the bigoted introduction of someornamental accessories, which are totally misplaced in such abuilding.

ROUND TOWERS. This term is applied to a particularclass of towers built upon a circular plan, which are foundin considerable numbers in Ireland , and almost exclusively inthat country. They are evidently of great antiquity, andhave long been a subject of antiquarian dispute. Dr. Petriehas, within the last few years, published a very elaboratework upon the subject, upon which he brings to bear veryconsiderable knowledge and a clear judgment. His generaldescription of the towers is as follows:—

They are rotund, cylindrical structures, usually taperingupwards, and varying in height from 50 to perhaps 150 feet;and, in external circumference, at the base, from 40 to 60feet, or somewhat more. They have usually a circular pro-jecting base, consisting of one, two, or three steps or plinths,and are finished at the top with a conical roof of stone, whichfrequently, as there is every reason to believe, terminatedwith a cross formed of a single stone. The wall towards thebase is never less than 3 feet in thickness, but is usuallymore, and occasionally 5 feet, being always in accordancewith the general proportions of the building. In the inte-rior they are divided into stories varying in number from fourto eight, as the height of the tower permitted, and usuallyabout 12 feet in height. These stories are marked either byprojecting belts of stone, set-offs or ledges, or by holes in thewall to receive joists, on which rested the floors, which werealmost always of wood. In the uppermost of these storiesthe wall is perforated by two, four, five, six, or eight aper-tures, but most usually four, which sometimes face the car-dinal points, and sometimes not. The lowest story, or ratherits place, is sometimes composed of solid masonry, and when

”, geco^

not so, it has never any aperture to light it. In ffa y,story, the wall is usually perforated by the entrance-d° an dwhich is generally from 8 to 30 feet from the gr° uD > ^only large enough to admit a single person at a ftar e,intermediate stories are each lighted by a single a P ^ inplaced variously, and usually of very small size, tn° °several instances, that directly over the doorway 13 0 {0 belittle less than that of the doorway, and would app earintended as a second entrance. „ „„nside rabl r

In their masonic construction, they present a con ^ 0 fvariety; but the generality of them are built in thatmasonry called spawled rubble, in which small stone 3 ; ar eby the hammer, in default of suitable stones at ia ^ ’ ver /■• placed in every interstice of the larger stones, so ^ th elittle mortar appears to be intermixed in the bo ^ c j a liy,wall; and thus the outside of spawled masonry, eS P| e nieii'presents an almost uninterrupted surface of stone, 3U PP tb®tary splinters being carefully inserted in the p oinundried wall. .. ^ giicb

His conclusion, with respect to the use to w 1towers were put, and also as to their date and °rig ,n >. j or i-1. That the towers are of Christian and ecclestas^ fifthgin, and were erected at various periods between ^ toand thirteenth centuries. 2. That they were beP' rie9 ’answer, at least, a twofold use, namely, to serve a ^ u ten'and as keeps or places of strength, in which the saC ! te( j ; an®sils, books, relics, and other valuables, were dep° s ^j r(! tir einto which the ecclesiastics, to whom they belong, c ° ^ 'J'ha*for security in cases of sudden predatory attack..^ a 3they were probably also used, when occasion re 'lbeacons and watch-towers. a( 3 v'oca te “'

These conclusions, which have been alreadyseparately, by many distinguished antiquaries, an’ ® jf 0 nt'are Molyneux, Ledwitch, Pinkerton, Sir Waite’’ ^[ )e ’foh°' v ’morenci, Brewer, and Otway, will be proved bying evidences :— er9 are 0

For the first conclusion, namely, that the tow .Christian origin :— j t j, a nC >®®_

1. The towers are never found unconnected > egecclesiastical foundations. 2. Their architecture ^ ° rl

bited no features or peculiarities not equally *° ur neC ted ' vbe gginal churches with which they are locally c 0 * 1 ' ^ eto^ ei °esuch remain. 3. On several of them Chi’ 3 a styl®.^are observable, and others display in the of C> iri Sarchitecture universally acknowledged to b j feat®. gorigin. 4. They possess invariably archite® W ne( j t0not found in any buildings in Ireland , asceof Pagan times. ^ere ' nten .| e s,

For the second conclusion, namely, that they of c gs ’to serve the double purpose of belfries and kee} > *

for the uses already specified :— a ppea r > K ffeai

1. Their architectural construction, as wi pas 3 ®onently favours this conclusion. 2. A V!llie ^ c doc u ° ie | ]eS eextracted from our annals, and other authen ^ j^th 1will prove that they were constantly apph e

als°

purposes.

■ may'

, . _

For the third conclusion, namely, that , , to wer8 gU cbbeen occasionally used as beacons and watc re”^ e ^i,icb1. There are some historical evidences w n<jceSS ity ge0(l san hypothesis extremely probable. 2. 4 ^ such ® e r 3must have existed in early Christian times ^ roU°; a c o°'and watch-towers, and the perfect fitness o or c thto answer such purposes, will stronglyelusion. - t |, e m aS ha'j

These conclusions, or at least such 0 . a iid , 0 ,. a t e< *

the towers to have had a Christian o> c0 ii°served the purpose of a belfry, will be

01®