“The early Irish churches are of two very simple types, being either
oblong (Fig. 198), with a door at the west, and a window at the east
end,--a mere development, with upright walls, of the oratories just
described,--or a double oblong, forming a nave and chancel, and united
by a chancel arch.... The one doorway is always west, and one of the
windows to the east, though side windows are also introduced, all
apparently without glass; the doorway usually square-headed, the windows
round-arched, or triangular-headed.” “In all cases the sides of doorways
and windows incline, like the doorways in the oldest remains of
Cyclopean buildings, to which they bear a singularly striking
resemblance.” “In the smaller churches the roofs were frequently formed
of stone, but in the larger ones were always of wood.”
[Illustration: Fig. 198.--Teampull Caeunanach, Ireland.]
The doorways are, however, sometimes arched. The apsidal termination is,
I believe, wholly unknown in these churches; and it would appear from
this fact that the square end of the majority of English chancels is a
tradition from the ancient British churches: the apse, which so
frequently made its appearance and was again so frequently removed,
being a foreign importation, against which the national feeling
rebelled, as if opposed to local tradition. Of a piece with this feeling
was the indignant protest of a Scotchman against the intention of one
St. Malachy to erect a church in an unaccustomed style. “Good man, what
has induced you to introduce this novelty into these regions? we are
Scots, not Gauls; why this levity? Was ever work so superfluous, so
proud!” This feeling, rather than the poverty of the country, may have
occasioned the rigid severity of these early churches in Ireland, the
largest of which rarely exceeded 60 feet in length,--the very length
prescribed by St. Patrick for one of his churches, and which Mr. Petrie
thinks was his usual dimension for churches of the largest class. This
was also the length of the original church at Glastonbury, probably the
first erected in Great Britain, while it differs but slightly from that
of the naves of Brixworth Church, Worth Church, and that on the
Castlehill at Dover, three of our oldest remaining pre-Norman English
churches.
The difficulty naturally arising from the limited size of the churches
and the unlimited numbers of the monks, appears to have been met by
multiplying the number of the former. Thus we find several--up to
seven--churches continually forming a single group. Just as at
Glastonbury, there were at one time three in immediate proximity, though
subsequently united into one.
Besides the more or less numerous cells which surrounded the churches,
or groups of churches, there were usually houses for the abbots, hardly
less ascetic in their construction than the cells of the monks; halls
for strangers, refectories, and kitchens. Of the abbots’ houses we have
several remaining, especially those of St. Columba at Kells, and of St.
Kelvin at Glendalough. These were single rooms, about 18 feet to 25 feet
long, by 15 or 16 feet wide, vaulted and covered by a stone roof, with a
window and a door of very small size, all perfectly plain, but
skilfully constructed.
All such groups of buildings were surrounded by a high and thick wall of
defence, with strong gateways, and somewhere at hand was often erected a
round tower, at once the bell-tower of the monastery and the place of
refuge in case of attack.
We know nothing of the internal arrangement of the churches, excepting
that in some cases there is a stone bench across the east end, the altar
standing a little in advance; a square version of the Basilican
arrangement; for, be it remembered, the apse possibly only came into use
when secular Basilicæ were converted into churches, while those under
consideration were probably founded upon the traditions of churches
which existed in Britain before the time of Constantine, so that our
English square east-end may after all be the more primitive type, and if
such were the case, it would appear that the seats of the clergy were at
first along the eastern wall and behind the altar, as in the apsidal
churches. To these views, however, I will not pledge myself, as we do
not know how soon apses came into use.
This system, too, of erecting monasteries, not with general dormitories,
but with numerous private cells, seems to have been founded on the early
Eastern form, of which so many existed in the deserts of the Thebaid,
and of which many ancient notices exist. The most perfect remaining
specimen of this kind of monastery in Ireland is one on a most minute
scale founded by St. Fechin, in the seventh century, in the almost
inaccessible island of Ardoilen, off the coast of Connemara, which,
excepting only that all its buildings are vaulted, agrees almost
precisely with Bede’s description of that founded about the same time in
the island of Farne, on the Northumbrian coast, by St. Cuthbert, himself
a Scot or perhaps an Irishman. Those in the north of Ireland and in
Scotland seem to have been usually of timber, “_more Scotorum_,” as Bede
says, and have consequently perished; but in the south and west of
Ireland they were of stone, and remain, in many instances, in a more or
less complete state to our own day.
Some, however, in Scotland, were of stone, like those of Ireland.
[Illustration: Fig. 199.--Leather Book-case.]
It was in these establishments,--so severely simple in their
architecture,--that the lamp of piety and learning was preserved during
the darkest period of our history; sending forth its light not only
among the British islands but to Continental Europe; and here were
followed up even the decorative arts,--as illumination, embroidery, and
jewellery. Such, no doubt, was the famous monastery of Iona, which, as
an able historian says, “soon became, morally and religiously, a
spectacle as glorious as any that Christendom could afford.... The
school, of whatever knowledge, sacred or profane, was then within the
reach of the northern people,--the nursery of many arts, the centre of a
Christian colony, and the mother of priests and missionaries.”
It was on landing here that Dr. Johnson exclaimed:--“We are now treading
that illustrious island which was once the luminary of the Caledonian
regions, whence savage clans and roving barbarians derived the benefits
of knowledge and the blessings of religion.... That man is little to be
envied whose patriotism would not gain force upon the plain of Marathon,
or whose piety would not grow warmer among the ruins of Iona.”
[Illustration: Fig. 200.--Window, Timahoe.]
At somewhat later periods the severity of the Irish architecture became
gradually relaxed, while its leading types remained unaltered. As the
dates of the more decorative buildings are unsettled, I will not enter
upon the discussion how far their ornamentation was indigenous, and how
far derived from other countries. Towards the Norman period, we find
features agreeing with the details of that style united with Irish forms
and mixed with ornamental details,--such as those which decorate the
well-known Irish crosses, and are common on the monumental slabs in the
monastic cemeteries. We also find the jambs of doorways, windows (Fig.
200), and chancel arches, losing the square form extending through the
thickness of the walls, which characterises the earlier examples (like
those of our own Anglo-Saxon buildings), and becoming divided into
separate orders, with decorative mouldings, and shafts with caps and
bases, and thus exhibiting the most important elements of the advanced
Romanesque and “Gothic” styles. These features increase in distinctness
till we reach examples known to be contemporary with our own Norman
works, and culminate in the charming Chapel of St. Cormac at Cashel,
which, though in outline evincing an adherence to Irish tradition, is in
all its details distinctly Norman, and is known to have been erected in
the twelfth century. Mr. Petrie thinks that these decorative features
are in many instances of very early date. I cannot quite agree with him
where Norman details appear; for, though a system of ornamentation may
appear early in a particular country, it is impossible that it should
anticipate the precise forms elaborated much later by a regular course
of progression elsewhere.
[Illustration: Fig. 201.--Chapel of St. Cormac at Cashel. Exterior.]
[Illustration: Fig. 202.--Chapel of St. Cormac at Cashel. Interior.]
There is in Scotland at least one specimen of parallel character to
these later of the old Irish churches. I allude to the church of St.
Regulus, which stands side-by-side with the cathedral at St. Andrews;
just as that of St. Cormac does with the cathedral at Cashel.
[Illustration: Fig. 203.--North and East Elevations, Church of St.
Regulus, St. Andrews.]
[Illustration: Fig. 204.--Plan, Church of St. Regulus, St. Andrews.]
Mr. Billings has given a good view of this interesting, and, I may say,
beautiful, remain; and I am enabled, by the kindness of a friend (Mr. R.
Anderson, of Edinburgh), to show you detailed drawings of it. It
consists either of a nave (with chancel arch) and a western tower, or of
a chancel with apse arch and a _central_ tower, in which latter case it
would be parallel to the remains of Jarrow Church. In the other case, it
may have had a lofty western porch, as had those of Wearmouth and
Barton-upon-Humber. The large western arch in the tower must have opened
into either a nave or a porch; and, as this is actually larger than the
chancel arch, and the mark of the roof of equal height, it certainly
suggests a nave. Its workmanship is of a very superior character: and
its details, though plain and archaic, are very good. The tower is of
great height, evidently, like many other early towers in Scotland,
founded on the idea of the early campaniles of Italy. The capitals of
shafts closely resemble those of St. Pantaleon at Cologne,[3] which are
of the tenth century. I find it difficult to conjecture the age of this
church; but, I imagine it to be anterior in its date to the introduction
of Norman architecture into England. It is said that when the
surrounding ground was excavated the foundations of an apse were found.
[Illustration: Fig. 205.--Details, Church of St. Regulus, St. Andrews.]
I will not dwell on the Irish crosses, and the round towers,--time not
permitting,--though both are among the most remarkable features of early
Irish art. The towers agree precisely in their architectural details
with the churches, and never appear but in connection with them. They
are known in the Irish language by a name signifying a belfry, and were
no doubt the campaniles of the monasteries, their unique type showing
the originality of invention of these early architects. Their doors were
placed at a considerable height for the sake of security; they were
divided into several stories, each with a single window except the upper
one, which had four or more,--all pointing out their double object of
bell towers and places of defence. Two similar towers remain in
Scotland.
The Irish and Iona crosses are works of extreme beauty, and of very
decorative detail. I shall have to allude to their anti-types in England
when speaking of Anglo-Saxon architecture, to the consideration of which
I will now proceed.
The subject of the architecture of pre-Norman England,--that is to say,
of England (exclusive of Wales and the counties occupied by the
Britons), between the arrival of Augustine in 596, and that of William
of Normandy in 1066,--a period exceeding by ten years the interval
between the reigns of Edward III. and Queen Victoria,--has been held by
some to be involved in such utter obscurity as to leave it uncertain
whether any such architecture existed, or, at least, whether we have any
means of ascertaining what it was; and yet no period of history is,
perhaps, more replete with accounts of the foundation of cathedrals,
monasteries, and churches. The cause of this is clear. The churches of
this period were, no doubt, frequently of timber; but, of whatever
material, were subjected,--first to the destructive effects of the
repeated devastations of the Danes, and subsequently to the greater
architectural ambition of the Normans which led to a perfect mania for
reconstruction. The consequence is, that we have no cathedral or great
abbey or church remaining of this period, and have to content ourselves
with such evidences of their style as may be gleaned from among ordinary
parish churches for the most part in rural districts, and consequently
of the humbler class.
The historical notices of the erection of churches during the
Anglo-Saxon period are more frequent than descriptive.
On the arrival of Augustine, he found the Church of St. Martin,
Canterbury, already used by the Christian Queen Bertha. This was, no
doubt, a Romano-British structure. He found also a second, but in ruins;
and this he made the nucleus of his metropolitan cathedral. He
constructed also a third, afterwards called by his own name. We know,
too, that in his day were also founded the cathedrals of Rochester and
London; and there is no reason to doubt that all of these were of stone.
I am not aware that we hear anything more, in Anglo-Saxon days, of St.
Martin’s, or that we have any description of St. Augustine’s, but we
have a strong light thrown on the subsequent history of the cathedral up
to the Norman Conquest in the writings of one Eadmer, a singer at the
cathedral, who wrote early in the twelfth century.
Recapitulating the account of its having been erected by St. Augustine
on the site of a Roman church, he proceeds to say that in the days of
Archbishop Odo, in the tenth century, the roof had become so decayed as
to require renewal; that Odo took the opportunity of increasing the
height of the walls, and that the work occupied three years. He also
tells us that a church dedicated to St. John the Baptist had been added
by Archbishop Cuthbert in the eighth century near the east end of the
Church, for baptisms, etc. He says that the church escaped the
destruction threatened by the army of King Sweyn in 1011; but was
subsequently burnt down by accident, and remained in ruins until rebuilt
by Lanfranc.
He further gives a very clear description of the church, from which it
appears that it was built in some degree on the model of the Basilica of
St. Peter at Rome. He minutely describes the eastern altar space as
greatly raised above the general level of the church, and having beneath
it a crypt or confessionary, made in the likeness of that of St. Peter’s
at Rome. He further describes an oratory and altar to St. Mary at the
western end raised on steps, behind which was the pontifical throne.
Also two towers, the one on the north and the other on the south side of
the nave, projecting beyond the aisles, and containing chapels.
Professor Willis, in his admirable history of the cathedral, gives an
able dissertation on its plan at this period, showing how precisely the
description of the eastern arrangements agree with those of the Basilica
of St. Peter, but that the Chapel of the Virgin at the west end must
have been a western apse, like those so common in Germany, and of which
we have an earlier instance in the ancient design for the arrangements
of the monastery of St. Gall, supposed to be of the eighth century.
Eadmer confirms his account by saying that he can answer for its
correctness, for he saw the ruins himself when a boy at school.
From the above description we learn, first, that a Roman model was
taken; secondly, that the church was of stone or brick; thirdly, that it
had aisles; fourthly, that it had both an eastern and western apse;
beneath the former of which was an extensive crypt, called a
confessionary, as containing the tombs of confessors.
The additional church of St. John was clearly a baptistery; and
Professor Willis thinks that Archbishop Odo’s addition to the height of
the walls was a clerestory.
I am not aware that we have any information as to the cathedrals built
by the companions of Augustine (Mellitus and Justus) at London and
Rochester; but it is unlikely that they would be otherwise than of
cognate plan and materials; while, curiously enough, there continues to
this day at Rochester, and continued to the seventeenth century in our
own St. Paul’s, equally as at Canterbury, a crypt beneath the elevated
sanctuary, no doubt the lineal successor and representative of those
erected by these missionary bishops, in imitation of the great basilica
at Rome, whence they had been sent to evangelise this distant region.
A few years later Paulinus, another Roman missionary, succeeded, under
circumstances very similar, in converting to Christianity Edwin, king of
Northumbria, who, while receiving instructions preparatory to his
baptism, built a temporary church of timber at York; but subsequently
erected, around the same, and under the instructions of Paulinus, a
larger and nobler church of stone, which was completed by Oswald, his
successor. Here, again, we have still remaining the choir-crypt,--the
probable successor of that of the original church, and as some say,
containing a relic of its actual structure. Thus, we have the two
metropolitan cathedrals distinctly recorded as erected of stone by their
first bishops.
Bede also relates that Paulinus built a stone church, of beautiful
workmanship, at Lincoln, the walls of which remained at the time he
wrote, though, by some mischance, it had lost its roof. It is clear,
however, that some of Paulinus’s churches were of timber, and, later on,
we find St. Aidan and St. Finan,--missionaries from Iona,--erecting a
cathedral of that material in the Island of Lindisfarne “_more
Scotorum_.”
Shortly afterwards, however, a church was built, after the monastic rule
of Lindisfarne, but of stone, at Lastingham, in Yorkshire; where, again,
we find the choir-crypt,--the successor of the original one,--remaining
to this day. Still, in the seventh century, we have a more minute
account given us by Bede of the works of Benedict Biscop, in the
erection of the monastic church of Monk Wearmouth. This church he built
of stone, “according to the manner of the Romans, which he had always
loved.” He built, also, the church at Jarrow of the same material, and
the existing remains of both I shall have presently to describe. So much
did he consider himself a follower of the Roman manner, that he went,
over and over again, to Rome, to procure ornaments wherewith to decorate
his two churches. This was about 670 and 680.
The successor of Benedict Biscop is said to have sent architects to
Naitan, king of the Picts, to make him a church of stone after the
manner of the Romans.
About the same time we find St. Wilfrid thoroughly repairing, glazing,
and “washing whiter than snow,” Paulinus’s Church, at York, and building
two of great splendour (according to the ideas of the times), at Hexham
and Ripon.
The former is described by a contemporary writer in ecstatic language,
as “supported by various pillars and porticoes, adorned with a
marvellous length and height of walls, and with passages of various
turnings; nor was it ever,” he adds, “heard that such another church was
erected on this side the Alps. He tells us also, of its ornaments of
gold and silver and precious stones,” and of its altar, clothed with
purple and silk hangings. This church remained, though in a damaged
state, till the twelfth century, when the Norman prior describes it in
very similar words to those used by the old Saxon historian. He speaks
of the crypts and subterranean oratories, the walls of great height,
“divided into three distinct stories supported by polished columns, some
square, and others of various forms,” of the “capitals of the columns”
... and “the arch of sanctuary,” as “decorated with histories and images
and different figures carved in relief in stone and painted, displaying
a pleasing variety and wonderful beauty.” The body of the church was
“surrounded by aisles and porticoes, which with wonderful art were
divided above and below by walls and winding stairs.” Above he describes
“galleries of stone,” by which “a vast multitude of persons might be
there and pass round the church without being visible to any one in the
nave below.”
Of the church at Ripon, the contemporary historian says that “he [St.
Wilfrid] erected and finished at Ripon a basilica of polished stone from
its foundations in the earth to the top, supported on high by various
columns and porticoes.”
This church, founded by Odo, archbishop of Canterbury, was in the tenth
century “reduced by wars and hostile incursions to a deserted and ruined
solitude.”
All the buildings of the erection of which I have briefly enumerated the
records, were founded within a century of the arrival of St. Augustine.
Within the same century (about 680) we have reason to believe was
erected the church at Brixworth, in Northamptonshire, which still
remains in a fragmentary state, but, as I shall presently show, with
sufficient proofs of its having been founded on the plan of a Roman
basilica, with an aisled nave and an unaisled choir, an apsidal and
aisled sanctuary raised high on a vaulted crypt. This church was but a
humble dependency of the great monastery of Peterborough.
I would not have fatigued you with these documentary accounts, had I not
felt it desirable to prove the importance of these earliest temples of
our English Church. Cathedrals, churches, and monasteries were, in fact,
built throughout the length and breadth of now Christianised England.
The more important buildings were all, no doubt, of stone; many of the
humbler ones of timber.
But times of trouble were at hand: “there is a time to break down” as
well as “a time to build up;” and what the Christian English had built,
the Pagan Northmen too often overthrew. Thus, in Alfred’s time (though
in the reign of his predecessor), we find Croyland, Peterborough, Ely,
and other monasteries ruthlessly destroyed, and in some cases they lay
desolate for very long periods of time, though in others they were
speedily restored.
At a later period, a new impulse was given to building by the
introduction of the Benedictine order, and we find monasteries either
founded or reformed on this rule throughout the kingdom.
Two descriptions of such Benedictine churches I will quote, the first
being from the history of Ramsey Abbey, in the time of Dunstan.
The architect’s name is, for a wonder, mentioned in this case: it was
Ædnoth, and he came, as it would seem, from Worcester. The church is
said to have had “two towers rising above its roof. The smaller of these
towards the west, in front of the Basilica, presented a fine spectacle
from a distance to those entering the island. The larger one was in the
centre of the square, standing upon four columns connected by arches
stretching from aisle to aisle.” This laconic description seems to
indicate a church with aisles, transepts, central tower, and a western
tower. It may be, however, that the word “_ala_” signifies not an aisle,
but merely a transept.
The other church I will refer to under this head is the Cathedral of
Winchester, as rebuilt in the reign of Edgar. It had been founded in the
days of St. Birinus, the first missionary to the West Saxons, about 635.
Athelwold, made Bishop of Winchester in 963, was a great restorer of
churches which had been devastated by the Danes. Among those restored by
him may be especially named those of Ely and Peterborough. He renovated
and partly rebuilt his own cathedral at Winchester, which was
rededicated in 980. It is described by Wolstan, in a poem addressed to
the succeeding Bishop, St. Elphege. He speaks of the “lofty walls and
solid aisles, and various arches; the many chapels which so distract the
attention, that a stranger is at a loss which way to turn, seeing doors
open to him on all sides.” He mentions also the “fine roofs of intricate
structure, and the brilliant variety of the fabric.” St. Elphege seems
to have added a new apse, with “secret crypts, where secret recesses lay
on every side, the structure of which supported the holy altar, and the
venerable relics of the saints.” “A sparkling tower,” also, “that
reflects from heaven the first rays of the sun.” “It has five
compartments pierced by open windows, and on all four sides as many ways
are open. The lofty peaks of the tower are capped with pointed roofs,
and are adorned with various and sinuous vaults, curved with
well-skilled contrivance. Above these stands a rod with golden balls,
and at the top a mighty golden cock, which boldly turns its face to
every wind that blows.”
Again, however, came the ruthless Northman, and destroyed church after
church throughout the entire course of his desolating march.
No former incursion probably had been so fatal to architecture as that
of Sweyn. Its very success, however, brought its own cure; for his son
Canute, being allowed to succeed to the English throne, not only became
Christian, but devoted himself with exemplary piety to repairing the
devastations which the sacrilege of his father and himself had
perpetrated. He not only repented, but brought forth fruits meet for
repentance; so that the last half-century of the history of the
pre-Norman England, is replete with accounts of the restoration and
building of churches.
The foregoing notices are sufficient to show that throughout the
continuance of the pre-Norman English Church buildings were constantly
being erected of considerable dimensions and sometimes of great
intricacy, and even of some degree of splendour of design; and that the
more important of these were uniformly of stone, though the humbler ones
were often of timber. It further shows that the architectural style of
these buildings, as well as the internal arrangement of the churches,
was intended to be an imitation of the Roman buildings of the same
period.
We will now proceed to inquire into the existence and character of any
remains of buildings of this period.
Of the important structures, I may say at once that nothing remains; the
ambitious character of the Norman builders having led them to
reconstruct on a larger scale all the cathedrals and great monastic
churches, excepting, indeed, that _one_ which they found in course of
re-erection at Westminster, and which was designed in their own style.
There exist, however, throughout the length and breadth of the land,
remnants, and, in a few instances, large portions, of buildings of a
wholly exceptional character; not assignable to the Norman or any other
of the well-known styles which have prevailed in England; but evidently
of earlier date. They are clearly not early Norman; for, with the single
exception of the round arch, they have nothing in common with the
specimens of that style erected in the reign of the Conqueror, but are
clearly of a style quite distinct from them. In one instance, we have a
tower known to have been erected in the days of the Conqueror, in
juxtaposition with the remains of a church in this more ancient style;
and in many other instances we have Norman features in connection with
these mysterious remains, and to every eye asserting the entire
diversity of their art. In some instances, again, as at Monk Wearmouth,
Jarrow, Brixworth, and Deerhurst, the remains of this style are on the
sites where churches are recorded to have been built in Anglo-Saxon
days. These remains correspond in character with buildings represented
in Saxon illuminated books. They evince in many instances evidence of
having been built in rude imitation of the Roman works of those periods,
though in some instances they seem also to suggest the imitation of
timber construction.
The most obvious rules of induction, then, point to the conclusion that
these are the remains of buildings of Anglo-Saxon date.[4]
The leading characteristics of these remains (though not all of them to
be found in every instance, and probably varying with the date) are as
follows:--The frequent decoration of the external walls with pilaster
strips, as is so common in early Italian churches, and afterwards in
Germany; the bonding of these by alternate vertical and horizontal
stones; the imitation of this mode of bonding in quoins where no such
strips are used, and in the jambs of doorways and other openings,
excepting where Roman brick is of frequent occurrence; the jambs of
doorways running _square through_ the thickness of the wall, without
recessed orders, and the door itself hung against the inner face of the
wall; the frequent use of a kind of pilaster on either side both of
doorways and archways, the impost moulding sometimes breaking round, and
sometimes stopping against them, and a continuation of the pilaster
going round the arch;[5] the occasional use of triangular heads to doors
and windows; the use of what are called baluster columns, or short
pillars, turned in a lathe, not unlike Elizabethan balusters, bulging in
the middle and ornamented with a number of mouldings of trifling relief,
such as turners of all ages delight in (these are used for the division
of windows, and other purposes); the windows which are usually set high
in the wall, are often equally splayed within and without, and the
arches sometimes more splayed than the jambs, and slanting upwards like
an old-fashioned bonnet; a very abnormal kind of mouldings, unlike those
of any other style, and generally a very strange archaic look in the
whole of the work, which makes one conscious of being in the presence of
the works of men in a very pristine state of civilisation, the style
having little or no relationship to those Mediæval buildings with which
we are familiar.
I ought, also, to mention the frequent use of tall, narrow towers,
unbroken, or nearly so, in their vertical outline, either simply quoined
with the long and short work already mentioned, or with their surfaces
diversified by pilaster strips and string-courses, the intervening
surfaces being usually built of rubble and plastered. The belfry-windows
are often of two lights, separated by a baluster or other form of pillar
set in the middle of the wall, and bearing a transverse bracket of
stone, to enable it to support the whole thickness of the wall. Such
towers are clearly imitations of the Italian campanile, though in a rude
form. They occasionally have oblique strips as well as the vertical
pillars and horizontal strings, which suggest the idea of an imitation
of timber-work; at other times the pilasters are united by arches.
It is not easy to describe the general plans of churches, as the remains
we possess are too scanty to be generalised upon. Some had aisles, some
transepts without aisles, many had neither. One, at least, has a central
tower without transepts; and at least one a central tower with
transepts. Some had apsidal chancels, and some had the square end. The
towers, in a great majority of instances, are at the west end. The walls
are in some cases by no means low, and the naves occasionally of greater
width than is usual in village churches of later periods.
What forms are made use of for pillars we are but imperfectly aware. One
of the notices I have quoted speaks of their being square and of other
forms. The few which remain _in situ_ are of the former kind, mere
fragments of wall: but at Worth Church there are, in the jambs of the
chancel arch, half pillars, 2½ ft. in diameter, with very perfect
capitals; and certainly an entire pillar of this form must have
suggested the demi-column. At Canterbury there are two round columns
brought from Reculver, which are probably of Anglo-Saxon date. Their
capitals are of the most remarkable form.
I will make special mention of a few pre-Norman churches and fragments
of churches as specimens; but to do more in a lecture such as this would
be both tedious and unprofitable; for, however interesting the study of
the primæval architecture of our race, it must be confessed that, while
in general plan these churches are the progenitors of those we think
worthy of imitation, we cannot venture to say so much of their details.
[Illustration: Fig. 206.--Plan and General View of Brixworth Church,
Northamptonshire.]
I exhibit a plan and a general view of Brixworth Church, enlarged from
drawings kindly lent me by Mr. Roberts, who has given the church the
most careful study. We have documentary evidence of the erection of the
church by the abbots of Peterborough, about 680. Being near the ruins of
a Roman station, it contains much Roman brick.
The chancel, or rather the sanctuary, was apsidal, with a surrounding
aisle, and raised high on a crypt of corresponding plan. This sanctuary
and aisle open by three arches into a choir of 30 ft. square, and this,
I think, by a single arch, into a nave about 30 ft. by 60 ft.
This nave had arcades opening into either aisles, or, as Mr. Roberts
thinks, into cubicula or oratories, the foundation of which he has
found. The arches are turned in Roman bricks, very strangely used; a
steep skewback being formed for their springings to reduce the angle of
convergence, and so moderate the thickness of the mortar-joint, which,
in arches of such a depth, would have been inconvenient. The nave and
choir have had a clerestory, the windows of which have arches of Roman
bricks. This is thought by some to be a later addition, from the reduced
thickness of the walls; but of this I feel far from certain. Mr. Roberts
suggests it as possible that the wide nave was again subdivided by
arcades; but I confess I much doubt this.
To this original church a western tower was subsequently added, in which
the Roman brick does not take so prominent a place; and later still,
though still in Anglo-Saxon days, a very large round stair-turret was
added, west of the tower.
The alterations introduced when the tower was added are clearly visible,
especially the introduction of a triple window with baluster pillars,
looking from the second storey of the tower into the church.
[Illustration: Fig. 207.--Brixworth Church, Northamptonshire.