406
SAX
1066. The inscription must therefore be dated betweenthose years. From Doomsday book it appears that Orm wasthe owner of Kirkdale and the districts adjacent, in Edwardthe Confessor ’s time; and from Simeon of Durham we learn,that a certain thane in Yorkshire , by name Orm, the sonof Gamal, married Ethelrith, one of the five daughters ofAldred, earl of Northumberland, ” &c.
“ On one of the walls of the church of Aldborough inYorkshire, is the following Saxon inscription :— ‘ Ulf hitaraeran cyrice for Hanum and for Gunthard saula i. e.,‘Ulfcommanded this church to be erected for the souls ofHanum and Gunthard.’ From many circumstances, thischurch is evidently the original Anglo-Saxon structure, witha few modern additions, as pointed windows, &c. The wallsin general are made of round pebble-stones, supposed to havebeen gathered from the sea-shore in the neighbourhood,which kind of stones, by a strong cement, made very dur-able buildings ; but the lower part, of the south wall of thechancel is built with hewn stone, such as was generallyused in our most ancient cathedral churches, upon whichthere are some grotesque figures ; and in the nortli wall isa narrow window, about 5 feet high ; the chancel dooralso, which is a south entrance, is low and narrow, and hasover it an elliptic arch, ornamented with zig-zag work. Ulf,who is mentioned in the inscription as its founder, was lordof the whole of this part of the Saxon province of Deira,or the country bounded by the Humber and the Tees, aboutthe time of Canute .”
Another inscription-stone was dug up at Deerliurst, andis now amongst the Arundelian marbles at Oxford : it com-memorates the construction of a church there by earl Odda,who died a.d. 1056. The most ancient inscription, however,is probably that at Jarrow, which is apparently of the samedate as the erection of the church, a.d. 684.
Our object in bringing these examples forward, is not somuch to prove each example of Saxon origin, but ratherto establish the date of a particular class of work; for if inone or two cases this be indubitably proved to be Saxon, wehave every right to conclude that the same kind of work isof the same origin wherever it may be found. It somewhatcorroborates our position, that many churches in which suchwork has been discovered have been alluded to by the Saxon historians. Thus a probable inference may be deduced fromthe ancient chronicles of the monastery of Dover, that theold church near the castle was founded by Eadbald, king ofKent. The churches of Jarrow and Monk-Wearmouth, inwhich supposed Saxon work exists, are both mentioned ashaving been founded by Benedict Biscopius, a.d. 681 : soalso of the churches of Ripon and Hexham .
That the church at Brixworth, in Northamptonshire —which is one of the most perfect specimens of this kind ofbuilding—is of an age anterior to the Conquest, we havemany proofs. Mr. Britton judges it to be a building ofthe time when the Romans were in possession of the island,after the Britons were converted. It is evident, from Dooms-day book, that it was in existence at that time; and inLeland’s Collectanea we may trace it to the time of Cuthbald,the second abbot of Medeshamsted, afterwards called Peter-borough, who was contemporary with Wulphere, king ofMercia , who died in 670. The building is almost entirelyformed of Roman bricks ; it has, at its western end, inaddition to the square tower, a round one, containing anewell staircase. In its original form, it appears to haveconsisted of a spacious nave and narrow aisles, a large chancel,and a western tower, with a clerestory to the nave, and thechancel divided from it by a large arch. The constructionof this church is particularly curious, the walls being mostly
uch laTg
built with rough red-stone rag, in pieces not c
than common bricks ; and all the arches turned, ® n hethem covered with courses of bricks, or tiles, as tn ^ you 11 ®called. The original doors and windows have J . eC efl t
arches
ages.
but many additions have been made m
more
tli®
• ct tO
Further proof in favour of such w r ork bel 011 ^!®^ e jist sSaxon age, is to be observed in the similarity w 1 , j n tb®between the details of such buildings and those *° u t j on s 0illuminated Saxon manuscripts, where repress * n,n' a '
iara'
be
*1
, . where rep* the pi
buildings are introduced. In the illuminations , t0phrase of Casdmon, of which the date is sl, PP 0 '’, •jgeturabout a.d. 1000, are various representations of ‘ lTC (i:l( l sh° Tdetails ; and amongst these are specimens ofwork, semicircular and triangular arches, gradua j^no' vor capitals, low pyramidal roofs to towers, and the
thil Vin e wl‘ icl1
little doubt but that the particular st ' jj e g, h a>ef our p.xisfincr chnrclips. nr nnrtionS of cllUf
C» n
baluster-shafts.
Putting all this evidence together, weremain
many of our existing churches, or portionsbeen erected, is nothing else than decided Saxoin ^ fl ycinIt is now time that we give some description ution w' 11 !.tectural peculiarities of this style ; such desci p ^ co mp arnecessarily short and imperfect, on account o re gpe<d in ptive paucity of the remains, and the uncertain } o p co"them. The general character is extreme rure ^ w° rstruction, and almost total absence of ornanieri ,manship, at the same time, being rough and un , B jy puThe masonry consists of rubble or rag-sto ne >.^ c oat> j.together, and often rendered on the exterioi w u0 insof plaster. The angles are bonded together ^ ter medashlar-work, arranged in a peculiar manner, a g of , tand short work. They are composed ot s an0 therdifferent lengths, placed alternately one above * w°^ ea short one, then a long one, and so on ; 01 > ^ edg e [’ j 0
of stones laid alternately flat and upright 011 u prir ‘ vflat ones exceeding in horizontal dimensions, ^ eatur di 01vertical ; the latter, however, are usually ° w idtl). of
sions in the height than the former m aene rtd f® j e dquently find, also, projecting a little from^t 10 as i,i a r, c ^ t jng
■ c0 ns' -
and
alter"®
tel/ -
cb»'
manner of a string-course, especially int° v ’ to ries • 7 #tare employed to divide the height into dinere ^ a j nS t bo ealso serve for the upright strips to termina i-esen’ ^ [ )t ;
top and bottom. The vertical strips bear 80 j 3 gam ft,
this arrangen»8 n ‘ iir P*
to pilasters. By some persons
strif
i f for our *
•construction j n tr
we think it bears a much closer likeness to ^ 0 p (lie ^
work so common in the Lombardic struc u , j nn ce, t"‘ t ),at
nent. So remarkable, indeed, is this r p 8e \f to l ,lOt " c0 i)ti'
consider it almost sufficient evidence p 8 ’ 0 f th e
such buildings have been erected in im> rVR s. b e
nental ones. See LombakdiC AbCHITE . v 0 rk flS in
cases, the walls are so covered with this s g ome ti 0 l’ui>g ed
divided by them into a number of panel • t j ie in ‘ ..i.-cl® 8 ’- ■ • — imve se 0 ,cu d .
up e vm^callv’fi nari i )VV 8< 3 uare ' e dged strips
generally of W ami top of the waIIs ’
Not unfreoiiemf 8 10r£ P'eces of stone places -
racter were caJ- of stone of a P recI ' sei X sirn l.* r theearned horizontally along the walls, £ j, e y• " -- timers, w» er t(jg y
work
of tb' 3 ,on t |10
the tower of Earls-Barton church, we Y" mon ds.after a kind of ornamental design, in dm f&c. Occasionally, in all probability:hidden from view by the rendering ot . UJ , .
Roman bricks are frequently found woi^^ wi [l p , v |u® 1Saxon masonry, but, as we have saidregularity or arrangement. Herring- ojconsists of stones or bricks laid at opp
g of plaster ot, .. waffs.
- ■ rked up in walls 0
aid before, without any
bone masonry,
■--UautitfflS 11