« НазадПродовжити »
church at Ely, CAMBRIDGESHIRE. Warwick church, near Car. lisle, in COMBERLAND. Melbourne church, DERBYSHIRE. Studland church, DorseTSHIRE. Church of Waltham Abbey, Essex. Greensted church, Essex. Church at Tewkesbury, GLOUCESTERSHIRE. Church of Bishop's Cleeve, Gloucestershire. Parts of Rumsey church, HAMPSHIRE. Part of St. Alban's abbey church, HERTFORDSHIRE. Church of St. Michael, at the same place. Barfreston church, Kent. The Undercroft of Canterbury Cathedral. Remains of the west front of the abbey church of St. Augustine's monastery, Canterbury. The church of Crowle, LINCOLNSHIRE. Church of Southwell, NOTTINGHAMSHIRE. Part of the cathedral, OXFORD. Part of St. Peter's in the East, Oxford. Iffley church, Oxfordshire. Tickencote church, RUTLANDSHIRE. Part of the church of Hales-Owen, SHROPSHIRE; and $t. Kenelm's chapel there. Tutbury church ; STAFFORDSHIRE. Chapel at Orford, in SUFFOLK. Church of New Shoreham, Sussex. Parts of the monastery at Pershore, WORCESTERSHIRE. The undercroft of Worcester Cathedral. The chapel of St. Mary in Criptis, in YORK Cathedral. Adel church near Leeds, Yorkshire. The crypt of Lestingeham church, Yorkshire.
ON The Modes OF SEPULTURE PRACTISED BY THE AN. GLO-SAXONs.-- That the Saxons, in common with other northern nations, at one period burnt their dead, is unquestionable; and that it was also their custom occasionally to erect barrows, or tumuli, over the ashes, or the body, of the deceased, is equally certain. Many barrows still remain in Lower Saxony, to attest the truth of this latter assertion.*
It would, however, appear to be likely that the Saxons, in their rude state, paid little attention to dignity of sepulture, except on particular occasions. Tacitus, speaking of the Ger. mans (and thence, relatively, of the Saxons) describes them as despising what they dcemed the fruitless ambition of inagnificent
* Munimenia Antiqua, Vol. I. p. 287, after Brown's travels through Germany, P. 146, 4to.
funerals, except as to instances of extraordinary public regret. In such distinguished acts of sepulture, the warrior's horse, and probably his arms, together with funeral urns, were deposited in the vicinage of his remains.
From these remarks it would seem to be probable that barrows constructed by the Saxons, in their rude state, and during the first ages of their settlement in this island, should still be found, although not of frequent occurrence.
But it is certain that no large barrow has been proved, on investigation, to contain indicia of Saxon interment. It is ob. served by Mr. King, that, with the exception of the tumulus in Yorkshire, ascribed to Hengist, there is not one instance, as far as his knowledge reached, of even a satisfactory traditionary record concerning an existing barrow raised to the memory of an Anglo-Saxon King. * We may, perhaps, believe that the AngloSaxons wanted security and leisure for the construction of such immense barrows as have been attributed to them by some writers, whilst they were engaged in the wars which continually prevailed previous to their conversion and the consolidation of their petty states. It must, at any rate, he received as indubitable, that the result of actual research, in every division of the island, tends towards proving that all the larger barrows, (commemorative of individual, or family, sepulture) and the generality of every other class, now remaining in England, are of ancient British formation.t .
Mr. Douglas, in his elaborate and ingenious work, intituled Nenia Britannica, supposes that, in many instances, small barrows placed in clusters must be ascribed to the Anglo-Saxons. The researches of Mr. Douglas are principally confined to Kent.
• Monimenta Antiqua, p. 269. The tumulas aycribed to Hengist is noticed in the Beauties for Yorkshire, p. 873.
+ It has been observed, in a previous page, that Battle harrous, or those raised over heaps of the slain on fields of battle, have been used in all ages. Such barrows are not invariable appendages to fields of ancient military action, but they are sometimes found near spots wlicre battles between the axons and Danes are historically, or traditionally, said to have taken place,
At Sibertswold, Barham-downs, Chartham, Chathain, Ash, and other parts of that county, he prosecuted laborious investigations. The most curious of his discoveries are detailed in his work, and are illustrated by prints. In the barrows which he examined he often found the human skeleton, accompanied by arms appearing to be Saxon; as the shield, small and orbicular, with a boss in the centre, like that of the Saxon foot soldier, as represented in illuminated manuscripts ; spear-heads, swords, and axes, equally corresponding with weapons described in Anglo-Saxon drawings. In the same cists were also discovered urns, and various earthen vessels. Articles of female ornament were found in other bar. rows.
In the course of bis investigations, Mr. Douglas believes that he has discovered relics of the Saxon custom of burning the body, as well as instances of entire interment. And it is probable that both modes might be practised by the Saxons in Britain. l'or the ultimate result of his diffuse opinions, the reader, desirous of pursuing an entangled subject through the readiest channel, is referred to those parts of the Nenia Britannica which the author terms Observations ; Argument ; Historic Relation; and General conclusion.
The researches of the modern historian of the Anglo-Saxons afford us the following particulars of information : “The custom of interring the body had become established at the æra when their history began to be recorded by their Christian clergy, and was never discontinued.
“ Their common coffins were wood; the more costly were stone. Thus, a nun who had been buried in a wooden coffin was afterwards placed in one of stone.* Their kings were interred in stone coffins;t they were buried in linen; and the clergy in their vestments."
Bede, I. iv. c. 19. + Ibid. c. iv. ' Ibid. c. 19. $ Ibid. p. 261.--As quoted in Turner's Hist. of the Anglo-Saxons, Pol. II. p. 154.
Cuthbert, Archbishop of Canterbury, obtained permission, about the year 750, for cemeteries to be made within cities; and, from this circumstance, it has been frequently supposed that places of burial, since terined church yards, were then first formed around places of worship. But the propriety of such an opinion is ques. tioned by Mr. Whitaker; and his reasons for a contrary belief are stated below.*
It became, at an early period, the custom of the English to bary within churches. This practice was soon carried to so undesirable an extent, that it was first restricted to those whose lives were known to have been acceptable to God; and afterwards to ecclesiastics, or laymen deserving of such a distinction by actions emineutly righteous. It will scarcely be doubted but that, in appreciating the merit of the deceased laity, any benefactions to the church were deemed acts of especial righteousness. All former tombs in churches were now directed to be made level with the pavement; and, if the tombs were so numer
• « The custom of placing coemeteries around our churches, in England, is asserted by all our antiquaries to have been originally introduced by Cuthbert, Archbishop of Canterbury, about the year 750. But they are as much mistaken in this, as I have already shewn them to be in many other particulars. And the churchyard was every where laid out, at the time when the parish church was erected, among the kingdoms of the Heptarchy. The churches in France had coeweteries about them, as early as 595. And those in England had them equally, as early as the period of their own construction. The very first that was built by the Saxons in the kingdom, that of St. Peter and St. Paul, without the city ot Canterbury, had an inclosure for sepulture about it; and the very first apostle of the Saxons, the pious and worthy Augustin, was actually buried within it. In sixteen years only after the conversion of the Northumbrians, the church of Lindisfarne appears encircled with its coemetery; and the head of Oswald, the slain monarch of the kingdom, and the body of Aidan, the bishop of the diocess, were equally interred there. And even the country church of St. Michael, distant about a mile and a balf from Hexham, had a coemetery around it as early as 685.” Hist. of Manchester, Vol. II. p. 411, 4to, edit.
ous or important as to render such a measure difficult of execution, the altar was removed to a spot less incumbered.* .
It would appear to be probable that the Anglo-Saxons, although possessed of sufficient sculptural art, were not accustomed, in general usage, to place figures imitative of the human form, even on the tornbs of the most distinguished deceased;t and it is cer. tain that no well authenticated monumental effigies, of Saxon construction, is now remaining. On this subject may be cited the following remarks of Mr. Lethieullier: “During the time of our Saxon ancestors I am apt to think few or no monuments of this sort were erected; at least, being usually placed in the churches belonging to the greater abbeys, they felt the stroke of the general dissolution; and scarce any have fallen within my observation, or are, I believe, extant. Those we meet with for the kings of that race, such as Ina at Wells, Osric at Gloucester, Sebba and Ethelbert, which were in St. Paul's, or wherever else they occur, are undoubtedly cenotaphs, erected in later ages by the several abbeys and convents of which they were founders, in gratitude to benefactors so generous.” I
Mr. Gough eularges on the above opinion, and presents many observations ou the palpable want of antiquity in several monuments scattered throughout different parts of England, which are, by local guides and heedless examiners, attributed to an AngloSason era. We may, indeed, readily believe that the piety or policy of monks in later ages, induced the erection of monuments, with fanciful representations of their founders, or benefactors. The most judicious writers agree with Mr. Gongh in considering all sepulchral monuments, supposed to commemorate persons who flourished before the conquest, to be at least of dubious authority.
• Sce Wilk. Leg. Anglo-Sax. p. 179. p. 84 ; and Turner's Anglo-Saxon History, Vol. II. p. 154—155. + Munimenta Antiqua, Vol. IV. p. 192.
ArchäolVol. II. p. 293.