SAX
405
SAX
. the twelfth century, introduced into an older build-
There is no room for any question as tosequence. The only possibility is, that they
that{ P* ece °f architectural history can be more certainthey „ these arches are more recent than the wall in whichhav« Fe inserted, and the window whose mutilation theych ron ® au sed. “
,_ - „ ._
Nl. Norman arches, cut through an early Norman
3| I<1 n , • Scott, however, thinks that the ‘ northern piersWill,' r<i les were probably erected about the year 1100.’: i |: Jv e ® Ve '7 deference to so eminent an authority, I shouldCer tairq e< ^ ti lem rather later, as the bases of the respondshuttj n(y ^ Seer n to me too advanced for that date. But evenNorman work later in the century, we still have: the earlier work is not at all like early Norman,
. an at all. There is this, a priori objection to its'i^te^ti lr ‘ Ce 1066; while against its being of Anglo-Saxon
t * lere is
'Cft* .- ,---„---
8 tr 0 1 Wou ^ prove nothing against documentary evidence- 1n ce arc '‘itectural presumption, still, without such evi-
%
or
'W^ent Presumption, we should be shy of supposing suchv 'llag e ^constructions of such magnitude in an obscure"'e h aVe | ch, as would be involved in the supposition thatMac® lere two pure Norman dates ; for though I shouldPtfe e ar ches later than Mr. Scott does, they are certainlyr 6 l>av° rman ’ an( * not transitional, the case is briefly this :
Ur| mistakeable Norman work ; we have also some-
i,,n Se > a t once earlier in date and different in character.•Hip
1 , < i’ ence seems unavoidable.
, °bsr
ti,
§ a Served above, that the questions of Saxon date°” style are quite distinct. The real question is,j. 1 °tal gj . le English , before the Conquest, possessed a na-, Uf ia 8 ® distinct from Norman, in the same sense as otherI 6s nQt «om anesque are distinct from it. In this sense, itMt a f t P r( !re a building to be Norman, to show that it wasS« 6 ’ or to be Saxon , that it was built beforea 4y I, . Confessor. Certainly Harold himself not impro-“ s cu re 1 *■ in the Norman style before that period ; and, inj Ver e .? a ces, one cannot doubt but that Saxon churches\1 '“any 1 * 01 ’ some time after. Even St. Alban ’s abbey is^ pl ea es P ects distinctly Saxon in character; and I amh , to find these facts taken up under this aspect in
,^'ch r — _
k .. et l u 'red rebuilding (soon after the Conquest) must
newly published ‘Introduction to Gothic Archi-ve there says, that ‘ the ordinary parish churches
I, b eetl H re(
,^'lt left to the Saxons themselves, and were probablye “ts ag ® s ame manner as before, with such slight improve-le y miedit have, learned in the Norman works.’ He
g0 ; iIle y might have learned in the Norman works.’ Hea |; r '0(;— t j® °n to mention—I presume from historical evi-of ep th e o ^ axon churches of Lincoln as having been builtj^bieiy j ori( l u est, by the English inhabitants, dispossessedi a '§tUs We ! lin S* * n the upper city by William and Bishopy 4 dist;,’ * act could be more acceptable to the believersdj Saxon style, if the Englishmen of Lincoln con-
0y etl when the Norman cathedral was rising imme-ti*a% aa er t ^ e * r heads—to build in a manner, not differing«,Jy di„ f - ru< * er work from more finished, but havin'ti.. Ulct characters of its own
in a manner,
ig essen-
tli t ” '“ llul ' a cters or its own: the inference is irre-m j, ll 1 * 8 was but the continuation of a distinct style,H ‘ to 08e larger edifices, that have been almost wholly• '“dis ' V ° U ^ probably present distinctive features stilljP“t a ble. The mere chronological proof of any6 half ti a ‘ n S being older than the Conquest, would nevertS8 nts <s Sanie va lue as such a testimony as this, whichV^Sorfigt;,, . Xon an d Norman architecture co-existing inYq as w e “juxtaposition. The fact is, however, only the
\\ ll - n
5 L
occurring, to a greater or les3 extent, at
every change of style. At all such transitional periods, wefind not only every intermediate style, but the simultaneoususe of the two styles, each in a state of tolerable purity.And the circumstances which attended the change fromSaxon to Norman architecture, would naturally tend to makethis phenomenon more conspicuous than in subsequent tran-sitions. This change was no native development; it wasthe innovation not only of foreigners, but of conquerors andoppressors ; and, whilst national honour might require, thecircumstances of the time would compel, the rude and obscurestructures which still continued to be raised by Englishmen,to adhere in all respects to the native precedents of bettertimes. Wealth, art, ecclesiastical influence, and munificence,were all enlisted on the side of their tyrants.”
The tower of Earls-Barton church in Northamptonshire ,as well as that of Barton-upon-Humber in Lincolnshire, bearmarks of great antiquity, and are ascribed by Mr. Britton tothe Anglo-Saxons . Both are evidently much older than thechurch to which they belong, which are good specimens ofthe Norman style. Nothing, Mr. Britton observes, can befound more resembling the towers now under notice, than thearchitectural drawings in certain manuscripts of acknow-ledged Saxon origin. In the British Museum , and in theGregorian Gospels preserved in the library of SalisburyCathedral, are drawings by Anglo-Saxon scribes, in whichthe triangular arch and columns, resembling balusters withtwo or three bands, are represented, and seem to be rudedelineations of architectural members, very similar to thosein the towers of the two Bartons and Barneck, in Northamp-tonshire , in which they are employed.
In some churches where work—supposed to be Saxon —exists, are to be seen Saxon and Latin dedicatory inscriptions,in which the founders, and others connected with the church,are alluded to, and by this means we are enabled to formsome certain judgment as to their date.
“In the church of Kirkdale, in Rydale, in the NorthRiding of Yorkshire, over the south door, is a curious inscrip-tion in Saxon characters, of which a plate is given in the fifthvolume of ‘ Archasologia.’ The inscription is accompanied byan ancient dial, and is placed over a doorway with a plainsemicircular arch. It is engraved on one entire freestone, 7feet 5 inches long, and 1 foot 10 inches high, and is in perfectpreservation, except a small part in the centre, where theinscription is disfigured, but not obliterated, by the weather.This seems in some measure to be owing to its being defendedby the porch, which entirely covers it, except by two angles,and consequently must have been of later erection ; whichis further improved by its having been formerly plasteredover with lime, or some other cement, as appears by theremains of it in the interstices of the letters, and in thevacancy where the hand of the dial has been broken off.The inscription may be read thus : Orm. Gamal. Suna.Bolite. Sanctus. Gregorius. Minster. Thonne, Hit. Wes. *1.To. Brocan. And. To. Falan. Chehitle. And. Man. Newan.From. Grunde. Christe. And. Sanctus. Gregorius. In. Ead-ward. Dagum. Cng. In. Tosti. Dagum. Earl. ‘ Orm, Gamal’sson bought St. Gregory’s church; then it was all fallen down,and gone to ruin. Chehitle and others renewed it from theground to Christ and St. Gregory, in Eadward ’s days, theking, and in Tosti’s days, the Earl;” and under the dial. And.Hawarth Me. Wroht. And. Brand- Prs. ‘and Hawarth memade and Brand the priest.’
“ Tosti, who was fourth son of Godwin, earl of Kent, andbrother to king Harold, was made earl of Northumberland,by Edward the Confessor , in 1056, on the death of earlSeward. Tiiis earl was driven from his earldom for hisoppression, and was killed at Stamford bridge, near York, in