SAX
404
SAX
rant of Roman building, although practically,in all probability,not very expert in it, so that they would be ready to adoptsome more easy method of construction, such as that affordedthem by the Scots.
"When at a later period the Anglo - Saxon Christians made a journey to Rome to visit the tombs of the Apostles ,where churches were erected over them, and had seen thosebuildings, they blushed at the inferiority of their own low,dark, and gloomy fanes, and henceforth resolved to imitatewhat they had learnt to admire. Walls of wrought-stone,-therefore, succeeded the rough material. After this we findthat architects and work-people were frequently procuredfrom abroad, to plan and raise ecclesiastical structures. TheAnglo-Saxon churches, nevertheless, were of comparativelyrude construction, until the time of Alfred the Great , whenmany, according to Asser , were rebuilt with stone, and, asfar as can be ascertained, up to this time they were, with somefew exceptions, of no great magnitude or dimensions, andalmost entirely devoid of ornamental mouldings, though, insome instances, decorative sculpture and mouldings are to bemet with. This improved method might be more properlytermed the Roman manner, as being imported from Rome , andcarried into execution by Roman and French workmen.
The general form of Saxon churches seems to have beenthat of a simple oblong or parallelogram, as we learn fromBede and other writers; some, however, were cruciform inplan, as that of St. Mary at Hexham, erected by St. Wilfrid and which is described by Richard, prior of the same place,as being furnished with a “ tower of a round form, fromwhich four porticos or aisles proceeded.” The church atRamsey in Huntingdonshire , erected a.d. 969, was also ofthis form. This church also is said to have had two towers,one at the west end, and another in the centre of the transept,supported by four arches. Wolstan informs us, that the oldchurch at Winchester had a tower at the west end, but thenew one at the east end of the church. Representations ofbuildings of this kind in some of the old Saxon illuminatedbooks, tend to confirm this testimony. Dr. Milner observes,that “ The use of small bells ( nolce ) in this country, if wemay credit William of Malmsbury, may be traced as high asthe fifth century. And it is clear from Bede , that even thoseof the larger kind (campana), such as sounded in the air, andcalled a numerous congregation to divine service, wereemployed in England as early as the year 680, being thatin which the abbot Hilda died.” Towers were also usefulfor other purposes, such as«strongholds or places of refuge, towhich the people might resort in cases of sudden incursion,to which they were especially liable from the Danes ; alsoas beacons for travellers during the night, for we learn fromWolstan that the new tower at Winchester consisted of fivestories, in each of which were four windows looking towardsthe cardinal points, which were illuminated every night.Such lights were most useful in those days, when the roadswere few and bad, and the forests thick and numerous.
The few buildings which now remain, that can by writtendocuments be proved to be of an age prior to the Conquest,have caused many writers to assert, that there is at presentscarcely a true specimen of Anglo-Saxon architecture extant.This opinion has been very prevalent of late years; but weare strongly inclined to believe, that many more examplesremain than is generally admitted. The causes by whichthe great scarcity of examples is accounted for by suchwriters, are principally these :—the necessary antiquity ofthe buildings ; the furor of the middle-age architects forrebuilding churches in the latest styles ; and the ravages ofthe Danes. How we know from written testimony, as aboveshown, that a large number of churches were erected by the
Saxons , and many of these built of stone in a uu j" gU flici elner. Will, therefore, the above causes be deeme j n th®to account for their total demolition ? We think n ° t ’ t ],e h 1 ' 3first place, then, as regards their antiquity, it way c j, u rcb e9blush appear unreasonable to expect to find mi * n | 9 jt <l ultestanding, after a lapse of twelve centuries ; nor £ ree ce, ° ffair to cite such examples as those of Egypb ^ a W are ’Babylon, to refute this statement; for we are vV ^;]1 ai>that they were constructed with much greater ocC asi°°,strength than the Saxon churches. But there is n eC jnien 9 ®to refer to such examples ; we all admit that s P nuC j 1 dia 1 'Norman architecture are still to be found without j i()VV evehculty, and in tolerable abundance; does it ’ ye n° .appear somewhat extraordinary, that we should C 0 ®,
of examples of structures built immediately a te e( jing tba _quest, and yet scarcely any of the period just p r 0 f nut 0event ; surely, it is not natural that the diffenw 0 ^^ fl f ag e
“Vvlll j OlUclJ) It IS IlOt licit Uldi llicit UiC u ' pflC®
bers should be so very great; certainly, the dine ^
" v ‘“ ^ » “‘“““p —- . -i. n ullifi e9 1]tf
will not account for it. This difficulty, whic jj e qu9*v
first cause assigned for the paucity of examples* plausi'” 6 ’affect the second. The third is somewhat ®° r aCC oUi> t3 0yet at the same time we cannot think that tvve ensuch an extraordinary difference of numbers be n wo uand Norman remains as the advocates of this op ngg qi u ^have us to believe; if so, the ravages of * b ? an w® td 111have been of a more formidable description ^
history warrants us in believing. . , w0 uld l ea ‘ ^
But there are some positive reasons, whic . ng a re °°to conclude that a greater number of Saxon ie ^ in staD el iin existence, than is generally supposed. j g jnse rthere are some churches in which Norman vvo^ ear lierinto structures of a decidedly earlier, nay, mUC . ^ bef° re 3 twhich must in consequence belong to the P e . g 0onfi ue a |Conquest. The fact of work being anterior to e jyis not, we are well aware, sufficient to prove 1 t^ orrn an 8 X «for it is generally allowed as probable, that t ie j nva sioO fwas partially introduced into England before , the oWilliam. In many of these instances, how j- or0) aUi 0 gwork is of a totally different character to . riM - oni and
the
•• tion, an<1
much more rude and barbarous descup ’ an tece'undoubted evidence of being of a date consi e re ni 3 ' nS . j g
are principally ^ rea s'' nabfor it-vr
asona u
era
found in churches which , _ _
affords further proof of its antiquity ; X thetforwa 0suppose, that a church partly re-edified j 0
must have been at that time a very old ° n 9 ’ ec ently c ° or a-An instance of the kind we allude to ha ^j-jng re flight at Iver, Bucks, where it was discover apP"** th®
tion, that the north wall of the nave, w _ I _ ta j n j n g un
a s ,diy
ilUIUUUl, VYO.3 III IGUUljT UI C<*.*.~* - ■ wen ““
plaster the jambs of a door and window, ^ a0 u nd<> u “j by
nnitrjn in tlio nnr tV» nnrl SOUtll walls, "‘-onfiJJV
course, both in the north and south - - j^j.earlier epoch ; a matter which was still u 0 t tiw
the discovery of Roman bricks in the q shed ea r'end of the nave-walls, thus proving t 13 ^ „ e nerid a ”building was of greater antiquity than iance denoted. . -educed s ° ,j 0 g-
On this subject, Mr. Freeman has in 0 f ' Dse tr0 iig eSreasonable remarks, which we take the J 0 f the 8 ^ g 0 \ie r“ T c.Rrtninlv think this.” SUVS he, ^ bui^'^isti 0 ®
cases in favour of the existence, not
te nce
of 3
than the Norman conquest , but of the e oU ght B . e v e ^ ee °'Anglo-Saxon style—two questions w 0 ften 1 r c» s ®’
confused together in the way that t iey tld® fe is nTo this subject I shall presently r ® c . U ’ 0 hfer.we have Norman work, and somet un ^, e d fafflid*possibility of mistake ; we have the ® a
to
be