1st. That the church was apsidal.
2d. That the aisles were of two storeys, and each of them vaulted.
3d. That there was a lofty central tower under which the choir sat, and
that this had winding staircases, and was covered with a timber roof and
leaded.
4th. We further learn that the church contained numerous chapels and
altars placed both below and above, and that in the eyes of one who had,
perhaps, lived to see several of the new Norman churches commenced, it
appeared a work of vast size and great multiplicity.
Lastly, we find that it was placed so far to the east of the ancient
church, that not only were the services in that church never
discontinued, but that a portion of the nave of the new church might be
erected. The latter proves, of course, that the entire nave was not
completed by the Confessor himself, as he died within a few days after
the consecration.
A writer of the thirteenth century, in a poetical Life of the Confessor,
thus describes his works at Westminster:--
“Now he laid the foundations of the church with large square blocks of
grey stone; its foundations were deep; the front towards the east he
makes round; the stones are very strong and hard; in the centre rises a
tower, and two at the west front, and fine and large bells he hangs
there. The pillars and entablatures are rich without and within, at the
bases and capitals; the work rises grand and royal; sculptured are the
stones and storied the windows; and when he finished the work, with
lead the church completely he covers. He makes there a cloister, a
chapter-house in front towards the east, vaulted and round, ...
refectory, dormitory, and offices, in due order.”
This description adds to what I have before stated, that there were two
western towers, though these were not really erected till later, but
were, nevertheless, in all probability a part of the first design. It
tells us also of the monastic buildings.
Of the scale of this first Anglo-Norman church we have some indirect
means of judging. In the first place, it is unlikely that a church of
royal foundation, built in juxtaposition with the palace, and intended
as the burial-place of its founder, built also in substitution for a
pilgrimage which he had vowed to make, should be other than of similar
scale to the great churches erected at the time in the country whence he
borrowed his architecture. In confirmation of this we have several
evidences, not necessary here to state, that it differed but little in
scale from the present church; indeed, had it been otherwise, the
succeeding historians would hardly have spoken of it in the terms which
they make use of.
As to its architectural character, we have little to guide us. We have
the extensive substructure of the dormitory and the lower part of the
refectory. From these we find that the offices were of the plainest
variety of Norman; indeed, the pillars of the first-named structure are
of the very extreme of massive simplicity, and the shafts of the
refectory arcading have cushion capitals of the most normal type.
We have recently discovered, beneath the pavement of the altar space,
the bases of two of the great piers of the Sanctuary: from which we find
that they were clustered, not unlike those at St. Stephen’s at Caen. The
bases consist of a double hollow, precisely like one from that church.
The work is by no means so rough as that common in early Norman
buildings; a circumstance which I have noticed in several pre-conquestal
works.
Having noticed this one building in which Norman architecture was used
in England before the Conquest, I will mention one or two instances of
Anglo-Saxon architecture being used subsequently to that event.
I refer especially to two churches (St. Mary’s and St. Peter’s, at
Gowts,) in the lower town of Lincoln. This portion of the city did not
exist till after the Conquest; when, owing to the expulsion of many of
the inhabitants of the old, or upper, city to make way for the Norman
Castle and Cathedral, they were obliged to build below the hill, where
they founded these two churches; building them in their own old English
manner, while the castle and minster were being erected by the Normans
in conformity with their own taste above. There are a number of towers
between Lincoln and the Humber which correspond so closely in style with
these as to lead one to assign to them the same date. Nothing can more
manifestly prove the distinctness of the two styles than that the most
marked church of the period was built by the Norman-loving Anglo-Saxon
king in Norman architecture before the Conquest, and that old-fashioned
English people still built in the Anglo-Saxon manner in the days of the
Norman Conqueror.
It is time now that we should consider what were the distinguishing
characteristics of the Norman style.
According to Mr. Petit and Mr. Fergusson, the Norman is rather an early
stage of Gothic than strictly Romanesque; and, though this may be said
to be rather a question of nomenclature than of distinctive principle, I
am inclined to think there is much real truth in it. I would rather,
however, put it thus: that, among the many branches of the great
Romanesque tree, this was one,--as the Anglo-Saxon was not one,--of
those which contained the intrinsic elements of the future Gothic style.
I gave my reasons, in one of my earlier lectures[18] (while not desiring
a change of nomenclature), for holding the completed round-arch style to
be, in a certain sense, one with the earlier-pointed, and for rather
favouring Mr. Fergusson’s custom of calling them respectively
round-arched and pointed-arched Gothic. It is better, however, in an
historical sketch, to view each phase on its own bearing, and not to
judge of it by anticipation of its subsequent results.
Norman architecture, then, judging of it from its principles, and
throwing aside imperfections resulting from its development occurring in
comparatively rude times, may, in the first place, be said to be an
almost perfect carrying out into a style of art the arcuated system of
construction; using, also, the simplest and most obvious form of arch,
the semicircle. Roman buildings, when divested,--as in the case of
aqueducts,--of Grecian or trabeated accompaniments, displayed often a
perfect system of arched construction; but, in such works, one cannot
say that it had been developed into a style of art.
To effect this, both the arch and its supports and accompaniments must
be moulded into artistic elements; their natural crudenesses softened;
their mere normal character relieved; and each part subjected to a
system of decoration suited to its proper character and conditions. The
parts, too, which have been thus dealt with, must be studied as to their
grouping. They must not be viewed as isolated objects, but as parts of
an architectural work; each contributing to the beauty and consistency
of the whole; and that also, by such combinations as are dictated by the
varied suggestions arising from the purposes and demands of the
buildings of which they form parts.
All this required time; and the length of time was, no doubt, increased
by the rudeness of the ages during which the process had been going on.
Among the earliest approaches to so reasonable a result, the Lombard
style had taken, perhaps, the lead in Western Europe; and, during the
days when the three Othos governed Northern Italy as well as Germany,
the good seed had spread from Lombardy into Germany, and it there grew
into an almost perfect development.
Somewhat similarly, a well-considered development seems to have
originated in Central France, and spread towards the north. Probably
these two varieties may have come in contact, and in some degree
influenced each other; for the early Norman architects, though mainly
developing upon French models, appear to have been acquainted with those
of the Rhine. However this may be, it is certain that they developed
for themselves a variety of Romanesque at once eminently reasonable, and
susceptible of highly artistic treatment and combinations.
The elements of such a style are often not, as taken singly, peculiar to
itself, but may be found in other and in earlier works: it is the
aggregation of many such elements, and their judicious and artistic
utilisation that constitutes the merits of a style.
Among the most important of these may be placed the _sub-ordination_ of
arches, by means of which, instead of going square through the thickness
of a wall, they recede in orders or arched rims, each narrower than that
above it, so as to give the entire arch or section of alternate salient
and receding angles. This is the primary element; and it at once
produces the second,--the breaking of the section of the bearing pier
into a similar form to that of the arch. This, in the Anglo-Saxon style,
was hardly known; while in the Norman it is the key-note.
At St Alban’s, where the unmanagable nature of the material,--the Roman
brick,--rendering finished architecture unattainable, we find these two
principles supplying all architectural requirements, and producing
results certainly rude, but not unpleasing in their effect. This
building is often said to partake of “Saxon” character. I think the very
reverse of this; for the one thing to which it trusts for effect is that
which scarcely exists in Anglo-Saxon buildings, while it is the leading
principle in Norman ones. This error is the natural result of looking to
rudeness of workmanship and homeliness of material, instead of the
principles of design, as the evidences of early style.
The next principle is merely the resultant of those already named. It is
the decoration by mouldings of the salient divisions of the arch and the
substitution of decorative shafts for those of the pier.
These principles do not necessarily accompany one another. An arch-order
may be moulded or otherwise decorated, while the corresponding
pier-order may remain square, the two being parted by an impost; or the
decorations of the arch may, without the intervening impost, be
continued through the pier; or, again, a shaft may be substituted for
the pier-order, while the arch-order remains plain. The above
principles, thus variable in their application, supply the most marked
features in the perfected Romanesque style, nor can any arched
architecture be perfect without them. To illustrate their effects let us
take a doorway of the older English period, and contrast it with a
Norman doorway.
[Illustration: Fig. 232. Saxon Door Jamb.