Imágenes de páginas
PDF
EPUB

building is very substantial, and if I remember rightly, the top of the walls of the nave are seven feet thick, but as it is nearly twenty years since I superintended the restoration of the abbey and the repairs of the roof-beams which were decayed at the bearings, I cannot be certain. Now, is there any other building in England, thoroughly authenticated to have been begun in the Norman period, in which the same mode of construction can be found? I think not the style too is Roman, and in accordance with other Roman works found. Supposing I am right in my conjecture that this large building, with its tower, triforium, and clerestory, existed, at all events, before the Conquest, there will be no difficulty in believing that many other pre-Norman buildings have existed, and that they may still remain.

Perhaps Rochester castle may be taken as a striking case in point. It is distinctly recorded by a Norman chronicler that bishop Gundulph rebuilt the castle from the foundations; but the context of the same record is of itself almost sufficient to contradict this assertion, for the context says that there was a long dispute between the king (William Rufus) and Gundulph the bishop (assisted by the archbishop of Canterbury) about repairing the castle, dilapidated by the siege of Rufus himself, who, after six weeks fighting, drove out Odo the rebel bishop, who held the castle against him. It is not very surprising that, as a churchman and a bishop of the see, with whom Gundulph had probably a sympathy, had caused the mischief, the king should call upon the see to make the damage good, especially as the bishop was keeper of the castle; and, after much wrangling, it appears the bishop consented to spend £60 upon it. Now, would this £60 rebuild the castle "from the foundations"? was there any occasion for it? was the castle ever razed to the ground? was it ever burnt? Certainly not: the king would not

1 It may, as an extreme conjecture, be suggested that the Normans used the tiles from the ruins of ancient Verulam; and so might the Romans. The original city was sacked by Boadicea, in the reign of Galba, about A.D. 70. But I think it very unlikely in either case. The tiles would not pay for pulling down and cleaning (supposing enough sound ones could be found after at least seven hundred years of ruin, they being in courses merely, about four feet apart, in stone walls). The practice, if it ever existed, was not continued here; and the Normans do not appear to have adopted it anywhere else.

be so absurd as wantonly to destroy his own property; he would do no more than necessary to take the place; but, without going into the question whether £60 would rebuild a castle spread over four acres of ground within the walls, would it build the keep alone which now stands? This building contains upwards of 500,000 cubic feet, and it may be asserted with confidence, that no builder of the present day would erect such a building for less than nine or ten thousand pounds, and all the difference in the value. of money at that time and this would never bring this sum down to £60 or even £600. The extreme probability is, that the main building was untouched, and that Gundulph spent the money in repairing the outer walls or inferior offices. I think the above are legitimate deductions from the written record. Now what say the massive walls themselves,-which have towered into the sky for so many centuries; which existed before the record, and still stand the best witnesses we have,-almost untouched by time and the elements, for they have not suffered from decay, but from comparatively recent greed of paltry gain? Why, the walls say this at all events, viz., that the keep as it stands was not originally built as it now is. There are unmistakeable evidences that the entrance to the building was originally on the north side of the north-west turret, with probably the steps extending northward; the finished soffit of the doorway is still to be seen at the same level as the present doorway in the entrance tower; the aperture is built up; the small office in this north-west turret was, without doubt, the porch into which this built-up archway opened; the present entrance tower is therefore proved by this fact to be of later date than the main body of the building, into which the old entrance went direct. Again, an attentive examination of the walls internally of the two lower stories would lead to the inference that they are of earlier date than the rest of the work; there is a marked difference in the colour and style of the work: the upper walls in some places set back, and the vertical lines do not all correspond; and it is a noticeable fact, that all the arches are quite plain, except the entrance door from the (I think above proved) new entrance tower, which has a moulded and enriched archivolt, with columns at the jambs, exactly corres

ponding to the work above. Further, the south-east turret (without a staircase) is circular on plan without freestone dressings, the remaining three being square with freestone dressings; but the top of this turret is finished square like the rest, corresponding with them in the colour of the stone and mode of construction, which the circular part below does not. I therefore infer that the circular turret is older than the others; and, in confirmation of the fact of a difference, at least, in the date of the work in this part of the building, there are the built up remains of an arch, of considerably larger span than any other in the building, in the top story of the east wall near this turret ; the gap between the arch and turret having been built up, and a window opening, corresponding with the window openings of the northern chamber, having been inserted. The large arch may have been the east window of a chapel, the more recent chapel having been, as I conjecture (see Journal, vol. ix, p. 343), in the entrance tower. Other portions of the building have been altered, but I have said enough to show that this keep itself bears evidence it was not built at one time from one design. There are probably at least three dates of work, but what are the dates? This I cannot tell; but inasmuch as there is no record of any thing but repairs of outer walls, etc., having been done after Gundulph's time, and as I have, I think, conclusively shown that Gundulph's £60 did not build it, that in fact neither Gundulph nor any one person built it, the conclusion seems almost as inevitable that it was built before Gundulph's time, as it is that the remaining angle of a triangle must be 90° when the other two are each 45°.

I will not detail the long list of churches, monasteries, and other works recorded to have been erected by the Saxons; one thousand seven hundred churches alone are recorded in Domesday Book as being then in existence; neither shall I enter into the controversy between King, Stukeley, Carter, Garbett, and others, who maintained the Saxon, or pre-Norman cause, against their opponents; I will merely state, that there were many buildings in England at the time of Gregory the Great and St. Augustine adapted for Christian worship, since Gregory directed the Christian clergy not to destroy Pagan temples (probably

originally Christian churches), but only the idols in them, and then to purify such of them as were well built with holy water, and place altars and relics therein. And I will further quote one or two descriptions of Saxon churches of the seventh century. Wilfrid, archbishop of York, from 669 to 678, executed, amongst other works, churches at Ripon and Hexham. Heddius says: "In Ripon Wilfrid erected a church of hewn stone, supported with various columns and porticoes, and completed it from the foundation to the utmost height." And Richard, who was prior of Hexham towards the close of the twelfth century, thus describes the church of St. Andrew at Hexham : "St. Wilfrid laid the foundations of this church deep in the earth, with great care, forming crypts and subterraneous oratories, and winding passages. The walls, extending to a great length, and raised to a great height, were divided into three distinct stories, supported by polished columns, some square and others of various forms. The walls and also the capitals of the columns by which they were supported, and the arch of the sanctuary, were decorated with histories and images, and different figures carved in relief, on stone, and painted with colours, displaying a pleasing variety and wonderful beauty. The body of the church was likewise surrounded on all sides by pentices and porticos, which, with the most wonderful artifice, were divided above and below by walls and winding stairs. Within these winding passages, and over them, were stairs and galleries of stone, and various ways for ascending and descending, so ingeniously contrived, that a vast multitude of persons might be there, and pass round the church without being visible to any one in the nave below. Many oratories, also most retired and beautiful, were with the utmost care and diligence erected in the porticoes, both above and below; and in them were placed altars in honour of the Blessed Mother of God the Virgin Mary, St. Michael the Archangel, St. John the Baptist, and the holy apostles, martyrs, confessors, and virgins, with all becoming and proper furniture belonging to them. Some parts of this building, even to this day, remain standing like turrets and fortified places." This account of the church at Hexham agrees with that given by Heddius, who was contemporary with Bede, and who states that no such edifice was known on this side the Alps.

« AnteriorContinuar »