some few were altered, and converted into dwellings for gentry subservient to the will of the monarch; and others, tenantless and friendless, were left to moulder quietly into dissolution; their materials affording help to the agricultural builder, or to the mender of the roads, as occasion might demand.

In some instances, however, these deserted remains have proved too massive for fortuitous efforts at demolition; or have escaped, through accidental forbearance, arising, perhaps, from a lingering feeling of ancient piety at first, and (although rarely) from antiquarian reverence afterwards. Such fragments unite with the crumbling masses of dismantled castles, in adorning this country, above all others, with ruinous but impressive memorials of the manners of past ages. Pictorial in the irregular beauty of their decay, they at once elevate the imagination and instruct the understanding. Enriched with these half-extinct works of art, the landscape imparts a lesson of pensive morality; and the buildings raised by superstition, teach, in the august spectacle of their progressive dissolution, a sound practical knowledge of the instability of all forms, modes, and institutions, which depend on human art or power.

Parochial churches, free from the dangerous honour of a collegiate endowment, were happily beyond the reach, or beneath the aim, of these reformists; and they present, in some instances, unaltered and uninjured specimens of the Anglo-Norman style; though, in humble and obscure buildings, the date of erection can rarely be ascertained with satisfactory precision.

It has been already stated, on the authority of William of Malmsbury,* (and that of other ancient historians might be cited to the same effect) that the Normans, on gaining possession of the sovereignty of this kingdom, cstentatiously displayed their pious zeal by erecting numerous churches and monasteries, not only in cities and populous towns, but in recluse villages. The same writer adds that the custom of expressing religious fervour

by

Vide ante, p. 268-9,

by founding a church or monastic house, prevailed in so eminent a degree, "that a rich man would have imagined he had lived in vain, if he had not left such an illustrious monument of his piety and munificence.”*

In the pride of their superiority over the Saxons of England, as to magnificent notions, and a more careful cultivation of the arts, (results, probably, of happier political circumstances) the Normans not only enriched this island with numerous structures of a new foundation, but supplanted with fresh edifices many ecclesiastical buildings of their predecessors, which had little need of substitution, as far as regarded intrinsic promise of durability. Influenced by this pride, in conjunction with their ardent zeal of piety, they affixed the marks of their massy vast architecture, to nearly every principal religious foundation throughout the conquered kingdom. "It is observable," says Mr. Bentham," that

all

• The zeal with which the affluent contributed towards the erection of ecelesiastical buildings, and the means used for inciting a spirit of pious emuJation, are curiously detailed in the history of Croyland Abbey, Lincolnshire. From this history it appears that Joffred, Abbot of Croyland, under whose auspices the monastery was rebuilt, in the twelfth century, obtained of the Archbishops of Canterbury and York, remission of a third part of all penances for irregularity of conduct, in favour of those who contributed to that pious undertaking. The most eloquent of his monks were dispatched, to request assistance in foreign countries, as well as in every part of Britain that promised a probability of succour; and large contributions were raised by means of those persuasive emissaries. But the day appointed for the cere mony of laying the first stone, afforded the great harvest of Benefaction. This propitious day was rendered holy in popular esteem, as the festival of the saintly virgins Pepetua and Felicitas. Multitudes of all ranks assembled; for devotion, pageantry, and feasting were blended in the ceremonials. When mass was ended, the abbot laid the first stone at the east end; and a stone towards the building was afterwards deposited by every affluent friend, together with a sum of money; a grant of land, tithes, or church-patronage; or a promise of materials towards the completion of the structure. The abbot then spread his blessing over the heads of the contributors, and invited the whole to a sumptuous repast. It is said that not less than five thousand persons were present at these solemnities.

all our cathedral, and most of the abbey churches, were either wholly rebuilt, or greatly improved, within less than a century after the conquest; and all of them by Normans, introduced into this kingdom; as will evidently appear on examining the history of their several foundations."* Those cathedrals, and other churches, which retain to the present day conspicuous marks of Norman design and execution, will be enumerated in future pages.ne

archi

Although there is no room for doubt as to the mode of Lecture in which the majority of these ecclesiastical buildings. were erected, it has been supposed that there was cause for questioning whether it accorded, even in many important characteristics, with the early manner of the Anglo-Saxons. But it is

weber allowed

• The following note by Mr. Bentham, although not appended, in his work, to the above passage, affords some hints of information which may be useful in the present section of our enquiries: "The Saxon way of building was, as is observed by Sir Christopher Wren, very strong. There were many cathedral and conventual churches of that kind, at the time of the conquest, which might, therefore, probably have continued to this day, had they not been pulled down, or suffered to run to ruin by neglect; one principal cause of which was the removal of the bishops' sees (some of which had been placed in villages, or small towns) to cities and more populous places, by the council of London, A. D. 1078. This occasioned the old Saxon cathedrals in the deserted sees to be neglected, and fall to decay." (History of Ely cathedral, p. 31.)-Independent of the above cause, we may readily admit that the substitution of Norman structures for those erected by the Saxons, did not absolutely imply the unsuitable meanness of such discarded buildings, when we remember that the more extensive and magnificent piles raised by the Normans were subsequently destroyed, or altered, in their turn, to give place to a new mode of architecture. Contributions towards such erections, and an observance of their procedure, assisted in keeping vivid the religious spirit of the laity. New buildings were certainly honourable to all ecclesiastics concerned, and, perhaps, profitable to some. An augmentation of structure was generally attended by an extension of funds, for the support of sacerdotal dignity. It is said that parts of cathedrals, upon the continent, have been designedly left unfinished, with a view of perpetuating a Aveliness of attention to the interests of the church.

allowed that the same method of building was practised in this island, even before the advent of the Normans, it being introduced by King Edward the Confessor, who passed much time in Normandy, and was greatly attached to the manners of that country.

William of Malmsbury, who wrote in the 12th century, and finishes his historical work with the reign of Stephen, describes Edward the Confessor, as having introduced, in the instance of the abbey church of Westminster, "a new style of building ;" and Matthew Paris, who died in the year 1259, repeats this assertion. Both authorities add, that the style then exhibited was adopted by many subsequent builders of churches, and the former mentions it as the manner prevailing in his own time.

This intelligence has caused some perplexity to the investigators of our ancient architecture. From a description of the abbey church of Westminster, as erected in the reign of Edward the Confessor, which is said to be copied from an ancient manuscript, it would appear that the structure possessed no peculiarity of ground-plan or elevation.* Indeed the testimony of such a manuscript is scarcely necessary, since we have abundant instances of the mode of ecclesiastical architecture prevailing in the early part of the 12th century, with which the building in question is expressly said to have assimilated by one of the authorities noticed above.

The ecclesiastical architecture theu in fashion, was of the heavy circular kind, deviating in few particulars from that which we are accustomed to consider as the style that prevailed in this country previous to the reign of Edward the Confessor.

Many intelligent writers concur in an endeavour to account for the ambiguous intimation contained in William of Malmsbury and Matthew Paris, by supposing that the novelty introduced to the church-architecture of this country, by Edward the Confes

sor,

The original Latin, together with a translation, is given in Hawkins's History of the Origin of Gothic Architecture, p. 108-9,

sor, consisted only in an increase of dimensions, and consequent stateliness of character. However insufficient such a method of explanation may be deemed by the rigid enquirer, it is certainly difficult to elicit a solution more satisfactory.

*

It is said by Mr. Hawkins, that “an augmentation of dimensions can, by no mode of reasoning whatever, be termed a new style of architecture, or even a new mode of composition or build-1 ing; and no rational man would ever think of affirming, that the churches of St. Peter, at Rome, and St. Paul, at London, were of different styles, because they were not of the same size.' But some license of phraseology must be allowed to persons, probably intent on a mode of expression complimentary to the existing dynasty. An enlargement of dimensions, and attendant increase of architectural display, in the sacred structures of every populous neighbourhood, were manifest throughout the kingdom, in the time of William of Malmsbury; and the accession of almost universal dignity of proportions, might, perhaps, warrant the term of novelty, even though the ground-plan and the ornamental arrangement retained the same character, or were subject to only few alterations.

Mr. Millers, a pleasing writer on the propitious subject of Ely cathedral, presents the following remarks and objection:-" Enlarged dimension is the only criterion which has been established, between the Saxon and Norman styles. It has been thought too vague, and certainly is so; for it is perceptible only in large edifices, such as cathedral and conventual churches, which have transepts, side aisles, and arches, tier above tier. But there are many parish churches, built in the Norman age, which, from the simplicity of their form, and the smallness of their dimensions, have been taken for Saxon buildings; and which having none of the grander Norman features, it is extremely difficult to discri minate."Such small parochial churches, in recluse situations, act, however, merely as exceptions to a positive rule; and Mr.

History of the Origin of Gothic Architecture, p. 113.

Millers