CHAP. III.

ARCHITECTURE OF BRITAIN.

SECT. I.

EARLY HOUSES AND ARCHITECTURE OF THE BRITONS.

379. On the invasion of Britain by Julius Cæsar, in the year 55 B. c., the inhabitants dwelt in houses resembling those of Gaul; and in Kent, and other southern parts of the island, their houses were more substantial and convenient than those in the north. Caves or earth houses seem to have been their original shelter; to which had preceded the wicker enclosure, whose sides were incrusted with clay. These were thatched with straw. The wooden houses of the ancient Gauls and Britons were circular, with high tapering roofs, at whose summit was an aperture for the admission of light and emission of smoke. These, where the edifices were grander than ordinary, were placed upon foundations of stone. There is no instruction to be derived from pursuing this subject further. That the arts at the period in question scarcely existed, is quite certain; and Caractacus may, when carried prisoner to Rome, have well expressed surprise that the Romans, who had such magnificent palaces of their own, should envy the wretched cabins of the Britons.

380. If the Britons were so uninformed in architecture as to be satisfied with such structures for their dwellings as we have named, it will hardly be contended that they were the builders of so stupendous a fabric as Stonehenge. On this subject we have already

stated our opinion in Chap. II. From the distant period at which we believe this and `similar edifices to have been erected up to that of which we are speaking many centuries must have elapsed, during which the mechanical knowledge which was employed in their erection might have been lost, and indeed must have been, from the condition of the inhabitants, of which mention has been made.

381. The Romans, after their invasion of the island, soon formed settlements and planted colonies; and it is not difficult to imagine the change which took place in its architecture. The first Roman colony was at Camalodunum. This, when it was afterwards destroyed by the Britons in the great revolt under Boadicea, appears to have been a large and wellbuilt town, adorned with statues, temples, theatres, and other public edifices. (Tacit. Annal. lib. xiv. c. 32.) In the account given of the prodigies said to have happened at this place, and to have announced its approaching fall, it is mentioned that the statue of Victory fell down without any visible violence; in the hall of public business, the confused murmurs of strangers were perceived, and dismal howlings were heard in the theatre. At Camalodunum the temple of Claudius was large enough to contain the whole garrison, who, after the destruction of the town, took refuge in it; and so strong was it, that they were enabled to hold out therein against the whole British army for a period of two days. London, however, exhibited a more striking example of the rapid progress of Roman architecture in Britain. At the time of the first Roman invasion it was little more than a British town or enclosed forest; and there seems to be ground for supposing that at the time of the second invasion, under Claudius, it was not much improved. But when, about sixteen years afterwards, it came into the possession of the Romans, it became a rich, populous, and beautiful city. Not only did the Romans raise a vast number of solid and magnificent structures for their own accommodation, but they taught the arts to the Britons, and thus civilised them. Agricola, of all the Roman governors, took means for that purpose. That they might become less and less attached to a roaming and unsettled life, and accustomed to a more agreeable mode of living, he took all opportunities of rendering them assistance in erecting houses and temples, and other public buildings. He did all in his power to excite an emulation amongst them; so that at last they were not content without structures for ornament and pleasure, such as baths, porticoes, galleries, banqueting houses, &c. From this time (A. D. 80) up to the middle of the fourth century," says Henry (Hist. of England), " architecture, and all the arts immediately connected with it, greatly flourished in this island; and the same taste for erecting solid, convenient, and beautiful buildings which had long prevailed in Italy, was introduced into Britain. Every Roman colony and free city (of which there was a great number in this country) was a little Rome, encompassed with strong walls, adorned with temples, palaces, courts, halls, basilicæ, baths, markets, aqueducts, and many other fine buildings both for use and ornament country every where abounded with well-built villages, towns, forts, and stations; and the whole was defended by that high and strong wall, with its many towers and castles, which reached from the mouth of the river Tyne on the east to the Solway Firth on the west.

The

This spirit of building, which was introduced and encouraged by the Romans, so much improved the taste and increased the number of the British builders, that in the third century this island was famous for the great number and excellence of its architects and artificers. When the Emperor Constantius, father of Constantine the Great, rebuilt the city of Autun in Gaul, A. D. 296, he was chiefly furnished with workmen from Britain, which (says Eumenius) very much abounded with the best artificers. It was about the end of the third century that in Britain, as well as all the other provinces of the Western empire, architecture began to decline. It may have been that the building of Constantinople drew off the best artists; or that the time left for the peaceful culture of the arts may have been broken in upon by the irruptions of invaders from the north. According to the Venerable Bede (Hist. Eccles., lib. i. c. 12.), the Britons had become so ignorant of the art before the final departure of the Romans that they, from want of masons, repaired the wall between the Forth and Clyde with sods instead of stone. Henry observes, however, on this, that "we cannot lay much stress on this testimony; because it does not refer to the provincial Britons, but to those who lived beyond the Wall of Severus, where the Roman arts never much prevailed; and because the true reason of their repairing that wall with turf, and not with stone, was that it had been originally built in that manner. Besides, we are told by the same writer, in the same place, that the provincial Britons, some time after this, with the assistance of one Roman legion, built a wall of solid stone, 8 ft. thick and 12 ft. high, from sea to sea."

382. The departure of the Romans, and that of the fine arts which they had introduced, were occurrences of almost the same date. We must, however, recollect that architecture was beginning to decline at Rome itself before the departure in question. The inhabitants of the country who remained after the Romans were gone had not the skill nor courage

to defend the works with which the Romans had provided them; and their towns and cities, therefore, were seized by invaders, who plundered and destroyed them, throwing down the noble structures with which the art and industry of the Romans had adorned the country. The vestiges of Roman architecture still remaining in Britain are pretty numerous; but scarcely any of them are of sufficient interest to be considered as studies of Roman architecture. Even in its best days, nobody would study the works of art in the colonies in preference to those in the parent state. We have here (fig. 179.) inserted a representation of a small portion of the Roman wall at Leicester, as an example of the construction. Temples, baths, and villas of the time have, moreover, been brought to light not unfrequently.

Fig. 179.

(7 ft. 6 ins. to Roman Road, and 5 ft. 6 ins. more to bottom of piers.)

383. The arrival of the Saxons in this country, A. D. 449, soon extinguished the very little that remained of the arts in the island. This people were totally ignorant of art; like the other nations of Germany, they had been accustomed to live in wretched hovels formed out of the earth, or built of wood, and covered with reeds, straw, or the branches of trees. It was not, indeed, until 200 years after their arrival that stone was employed by them for their buildings. Their cathedrals were built of timber. The Venerable Bede says there was a time when not a stone church existed in all the land; the custom being to build them of wood. Finan, the second bishop of Lindisfarne, or Holy Island, built a church in that island, A. D. 652, for a cathedral, which yet was not of stone, but of wood, and covered with reeds; and so it continued till Eadbert, the successor of St. Cuthbert, and seventh bishop of Lindisfarne, took away the reeds, and covered it all over, both roof and walls, with sheets of lead. Of similar materials was the original cathedral at York, a church of stone being a very rare production, and usually dignified with some special historical record. Bede, for instance, says of Paulinus, the first bishop of York, that he built a church of stone in the city of Lincoln, whose walls were standing when he wrote, though the roof had fallen down. Scotland, at the beginning of the eighth century, does not seem to have had a single church of stone. Naitan, king of the Picts, in his letter to Ceolfred, abbot of Weremouth, A. D. 710, intreats that some masons may be sent him to build a church of stone in his kingdom, in imitation of the Romans.

384. We here think it necessary to notice that we have thought proper, under this chapter, to preserve the periods, or rather styles of the periods of architecture, according to their ordinary arrangement in English works, namely, the Anglo-Saxon and Norman, in distinct sections. It is a matter of little importance to the reader how he acquires his knowledge, so that his author do not unnecessarily prolong the acquisition of it. Though, therefore, the Anglo-Saxon and Norman architecture are neither of them anything more than Romanesque or Byzantine, to which we have appropriated rather a long section, we have here separated them into two distinct periods.

arts.

385. About the end of the seventh century masonry, as well as some other arts connected with it, was once more restored to England, by the exertions of Wilfred, bishop of York, and afterwards of Hexham, and of Benedict Biscop, the founder of the abbey of Weremouth. The former, who was an indefatigable builder, and one of the most munificent prelates of the seventh century, erected edifices, which were the admiration of the age, at Ripon, York, and Hexham. The cathedral of the latter place obtained great celebrity. Eddius, speaking of it (Vita Wilfridi), says, that Wilfrid "having obtained a plot of ground at the place from Queen Etheldreda, he there founded a very magnificent church, and dedicated it to the blessed apostle St. Andrew. The plan of this holy structure appears to have been inspired by the spirit of God; a genius, therefore, superior to mine is wanting to describe it properly. Large and strong were the subterraneous buildings, and constructed of the finest polished stones. How magnificent is the superstructure, with its lofty roof resting on many pillars, its long and lofty walls, its sublime towers, and winding stairs! To sum all up, there is not on this side of the Alps so great and beautiful a work." Biscop was a zealous cotemporary and companion of Wilfrid, and had also a great love for the He travelled into Italy no less than six times, chiefly for the purpose of collecting books and works of art, and of endeavouring to induce workmen to come over to England. An estate of some extent having been obtained by him from Ecgfrid, king of Northumberland, near the mouth of the river Were, he founded a monastery there in 674. Relative to this monastery of Weremouth, thus writes Bede: -" About a year after laying the foundations, Benedict passed over into France, and there collected a number of masons, whom he brought over with him to build the church of his monastery of stone, after the Roman manner, whereof he was a vast admirer. Such was his love for the apostle Peter, to whom the church was to be dedicated, that he stimulated the workmen so as to have mass celebrated in it but a little more than a year from its foundation. When the work was well advanced, he sent agents into France for the purpose of procuring, if possible, glass manufacturers, who at that time were not to be found in England, and of bringing them over to glaze the windows of his monastery and church. His agents were successful, having induced several artisans to accompany them. These not only executed the work assigned to them by Benedict, but gave instructions to the English in the art of making glass for windows, lamps, and other uses.

386. The Bishop Wilfrid, as we learn from William of Malmesbury, with the assistance of the artificers that had been brought over, effected great reparations in the cathedral at York, which was in a decayed and ruinous state. He restored the roof, and covered it with lead, cleansed and whited the walls, and put glass into the windows; for, before he had introduced the glass makers, the windows of private dwellings as well as churches were filled with linen cloth, or with wooden lattices. It will be observed that the improvements we here mention were introduced by the bishops Wilfrid and Biscop towards the end of the seventh century; but, from our ancient historians, it would appear that, in the eighth and ninth centuries, stone buildings were rarely met with, and, when erected, were objects of great admiration. The historian Henry observes, that "when Alfred, towards the end of the ninth century, formed the design of rebuilding his ruined cities, churches, and monasteries, and of adorning his buildings with more magnificent structures, he was obliged to bring many of his artificers from foreign countries. Of these (as we are told by his friend Asser) he had an almost innumerable multitude, collected from different nations; many of them the most excellent in their several arts. Nor is it the least praise of this illustrious prince, that he was the greatest builder and the best architect of the age in which he flourished." His historian, who was an eyewitness of his works, speaks in the following strain of admiration of the number of his buildings, " What shall I say of the towns and cities which he repaired, and of others which he built from the foundation?" Henry continues," Some of his buildings were also magnificent for that age, and of a new and singular construction; particularly the monastery of Æthelingay. The church, however, was built only of wood; and it seems probable that Alfred's buildings were, in general, more remarkable for their number and utility than for their grandeur; for there is sufficient evidence that, long after his time, almost all the houses in England, and the far greatest part of the monasteries and churches, were very mean buildings, constructed of wood and covered with thatch. Edgar the Peaceable, who flourished after the middle of the tenth century, observed (see William Malms. lib. ii. p. 32.), that, at his accession to the throne, all the monasteries of England were in a ruinous condition, and consisted only

of rotten boards." The taste, however, of the Anglo-Saxons was not indulged in mag. nificent buildings; and the incursions of the Danes, who destroyed wherever they came, together with the unsettled state of the country, may account for their revenues being expended on mean and inconvenient houses.

387. Under the circumstances mentioned, it may be safely inferred that the art was not in a very flourishing state in the other parts of the island. Indeed, the ancient Britons, after retiring to the mountains of Wales, appear to have lost it altogether; and, as the Honourable Daines Barrington (Archeologia) has thought, it is very probable that few, if any, stone buildings existed in Wales previous to the time of Edward I. The chief palace, called the White Palace, of the kings of Wales, was constructed with white wands, whose bark was peeled off, whence its name was derived; and the price or penalty, by the laws of the country, for destroying the king's hall or palace, with its adjacent dormitory, kitchen, chapel, granary, bakehouse, storehouse, stable, and doghouse, was five pounds and eighty pence, equal, in quantity of silver, to sixteen pounds of our money, or 160. The castles appear also to have been built of timber; for the vassals, upon whom fell the labour of building them, were required to bring with them no other tool than an axe.

388. Neither do the arts of building appear to have been better understood in Scotland at the former part of the period whereof we are speaking. The church built at Lindisfarne by its second bishop, Finan, in 652, was of wood, -more Scotorum; and it has already been mentioned that, for the stone church which Naitan, king of the Picts, built in 710, he was under the necessity of procuring his masons from Northumberland. In Scotland, there are still to be seen some stone buildings of very high antiquity, which Dr. Henry seems inclined to attribute to this period; we, however, are inclined to place them in an age far anterior, later (but not much so) than Stonehenge. We have never seen them, and therefore form our opinion from the description given in Gordon's Itinerarium Septentrionale. These buildings are all circular, though of two different kinds, so different from each other that they seem to be the works of different ages and of different nations. The four prin

cipal ones are in a valley, called Glenbeg. Of a different period, too, we consider the circular towers which are found as well in Scotland as in Ireland. It is true that in both countries these are found in the neighbourhood of churches; but that does not the more convince us that they were connected with them.

389. Ducarel, in his Norman Antiquities, enumerates some which belong to the ages anterior to the Norman conquest.

of the churches in England Among them are those of Stukely in Buckinghamshire, Barfreston (fig. 180.) in Kent, and Avington in Berkshire. Other examples may be cited as at Waltham Abbey; the transept arches at Southwell, Nottinghamshire; the nave of the abbey church at St. Alban's, Herts; tower at Clapham, Beds, &c. The Anglo-Saxon æra, though it, perhaps, properly comprised the time between A. D. 600 to A. D. 1066; that is, from the conversion of the Saxons to the Norman conquest, is not known with any thing approaching to certainty, from the reign of Edgar in 980 to the lastnamed event; immediately previous to which Edward the Confessor had, during his lifetime, completed Westminster Abbey in a style then prevalent in Normandy, and with a magnificence far exceeding any other then extant. No less than eighteen of the larger monasteries, all of them Benedictine, had been founded by the Saxon kings in

their successive reigns; and it is evident that the churches attached to them were the most decorated parts, as respected their architecture.

The six principal of these were, St.

Germain's, in Cornwall; Colchester, in Essex; Tewkesbury, in Gloucestershire; St. Frideswide and St. Alban's, already mentioned; and Glastonbury, in Somersetshire. King selects the western portion of Tewkesbury as the grandest in England for effect and extent. The characteristics of Anglo-Saxon Architecture are detailed in the following paragraph.

390. Arches. Always semicircular, often plain; sometimes decorated with a variety of mouldings on the sofite as

The

well as on the face, the former being often entirely occupied by them. They are found double, triple, or quadruple, each springing from two columns, and generally cased with a different moulding, which is frequently double, thus making six or eight concentric circles of them; and as each of them projects beyond that under it, a moulding is placed under them, generally the same as that used upon the face. (See fig. 181.) Columns. Single, cylindrical, hexagonal or octagonal, on square plinths; very few diameters in height. Shafts often ornamented with spiral or fluted carving, with lozenge, herring-bone, zigzag, or hatched work. (Fig. 182.) Capitals.- Indented with fissures of different lengths and forms, and in different directions. divisions thus formed are variously sloped off, or hollowed out towards the top. (See the two examples, fig. 183., from the conventual church at Ely.) Occasionally the capitals have rude imitations of some member of a Grecian order, as in the crypt at Lastringham in Yorkshire, where volutes are used. (Fig. 184.) In their ornaments much variety is displayed, but the opposite ones are mostly alike. Windows. - Semicircular-headed, extremely narrow in proportion to their height, being sometimes not more than six or eight inches wide to a height of more than three feet, and splayed or bevelled off on the inside through the whole thickness of the wall. Walls. Of very great thickness, and Masonry of solid construction. Ceilings and Roofs. In crypts, as at York, Winchester, and a few other

Fig. 182.

ARCH, CONVENTUAL CHURCH, ELY.

without any buttresses externally. -Almost always open timbering.

Fig. 183.

TWO CAPITALS, CONVENTUAL CHURCH, BLY.

Fig. 181. CAPITAL FROM LASTRINGHAM places, vaulting is to be found. Ornaments, except in capitals, in arches and on shafts of columns are very sparingly employed. (See Norman Ornaments also, in the following section on Norinan Architecture, par. 397.) Plans. Rectangular and parallelogrammic; being usually divided into a body and chancel, separated by an ornamented arch. The chancel sometimes of equal, and sometimes of less breadth than