DOI Page / Citation link:
https://doi.org/10.11588/diglit.47334#0125
810XL OllUkcHLS Ok' 1'UL ^XOI.O-8^X0^8.
99
ma^ 1)6 a particular division of it, consisting of one are!) witb it8 recess."^ Hence
Ire infers, tlrat tire 8axon cburebes consisted of a nave and 8ide-aile8 ; and add8,
" bow a clrnrclr of tlrat form could lrave lreen supported witbout pillars and arelre8
of 8tone, it i8 not eas^ to conceive; tire ver^ terms indeed seem necessarily to
impl^ it." Dentbam's opinion lras been opposed b^ Nr. Nelkins, in a " Descrip-
tion of tire Oburcb of Melbourne, in Derb^sbire, witb an attempt to explain from
it tbe real situation of tbe Dortieus in tlre ancient Oburebes."^ "pbis gentleman
sa^s, "it is evident Nr. Dentbam misconceives tbe situation of tbe/x^i/c^ in tbese
ancient clrurebes; and witb Nr. Oollier, in bis Oburcb Nistor^,' be is equally
erroneous in bis inferences, wbo lias mistaken tbe for tbe poreb. It does
not appear tbat eitber of tbem were aware tlrat tbe porebes, to our present
cburebes, are of modern adoption; indeed tbe^ are not to be found but of
workmansbip. Ne never 6nd tbe porebes of tlre or of tbe st^le,
and tbe^ are generally, tbougb not always, placed against tbe sides of tbe nortb
and tbe soutb aisles, wbereas tbe porticoes of tbese more ancient cburebes are a
part of tbe principal building, divided from tbe nave b^ arebes, as in tbe instance
of tbis cbureb at Melbourne, wbere a continuity of roof covers tbe wbole. It is
evident from tbe quotations from Dede, Ac. tbat tbe does not mean tbe
poreb, nor indeed an^ part of tbe as Nr. Dentbam bas conceived; and
tbe^ clearly evince tbat tbe porticos, tbougb not large, were not an inconsiderable
portion of tbe building ; and if tbe plan of tbe of Melbourne Obureb be
consulted, tbere can be no diibeult^ in determining tbat Dede's account is suikei-
entl^ ^ust, explanatory, and perfectly consistent, altbougb be sa^s notbing in
direct terms eitber of pillars or arebes ; and we ougbt not tberefore to conclude
witb Nr. Dentbam, tbat Dede, in tbis instance, r'§, «//, i-r
wbicb probably bad neitber nini,^.N8 nor sivL-isnLS. ^.nd
if tbe west end of tbe cburebes, be describes, were divided oif, like tbis at
Melbourne, for tbe it is also probable tbe)? were subdivided, in like
manner, into smaller portions, and eaeb portion or portico was dedicated to a
favourite saint, as were tbose of 8t. Andrew, at Doebester, Ac."—" In tbe
cburebes wbicb Dede and otber ancient writers bave described, as quoted b^ Nr.
Dentbam, no mention is made of eitber pillars, arebes, or side-ailes; we tberefore
" History of LI^," p- 19. 5S ^reliseoloAia," vol. xiii. p. 290, 308.
5s "History of x. 20; and ^.rekseolo§is," vol. xiii. p. 298.
o 2
99
ma^ 1)6 a particular division of it, consisting of one are!) witb it8 recess."^ Hence
Ire infers, tlrat tire 8axon cburebes consisted of a nave and 8ide-aile8 ; and add8,
" bow a clrnrclr of tlrat form could lrave lreen supported witbout pillars and arelre8
of 8tone, it i8 not eas^ to conceive; tire ver^ terms indeed seem necessarily to
impl^ it." Dentbam's opinion lras been opposed b^ Nr. Nelkins, in a " Descrip-
tion of tire Oburcb of Melbourne, in Derb^sbire, witb an attempt to explain from
it tbe real situation of tbe Dortieus in tlre ancient Oburebes."^ "pbis gentleman
sa^s, "it is evident Nr. Dentbam misconceives tbe situation of tbe/x^i/c^ in tbese
ancient clrurebes; and witb Nr. Oollier, in bis Oburcb Nistor^,' be is equally
erroneous in bis inferences, wbo lias mistaken tbe for tbe poreb. It does
not appear tbat eitber of tbem were aware tlrat tbe porebes, to our present
cburebes, are of modern adoption; indeed tbe^ are not to be found but of
workmansbip. Ne never 6nd tbe porebes of tlre or of tbe st^le,
and tbe^ are generally, tbougb not always, placed against tbe sides of tbe nortb
and tbe soutb aisles, wbereas tbe porticoes of tbese more ancient cburebes are a
part of tbe principal building, divided from tbe nave b^ arebes, as in tbe instance
of tbis cbureb at Melbourne, wbere a continuity of roof covers tbe wbole. It is
evident from tbe quotations from Dede, Ac. tbat tbe does not mean tbe
poreb, nor indeed an^ part of tbe as Nr. Dentbam bas conceived; and
tbe^ clearly evince tbat tbe porticos, tbougb not large, were not an inconsiderable
portion of tbe building ; and if tbe plan of tbe of Melbourne Obureb be
consulted, tbere can be no diibeult^ in determining tbat Dede's account is suikei-
entl^ ^ust, explanatory, and perfectly consistent, altbougb be sa^s notbing in
direct terms eitber of pillars or arebes ; and we ougbt not tberefore to conclude
witb Nr. Dentbam, tbat Dede, in tbis instance, r'§, «//, i-r
wbicb probably bad neitber nini,^.N8 nor sivL-isnLS. ^.nd
if tbe west end of tbe cburebes, be describes, were divided oif, like tbis at
Melbourne, for tbe it is also probable tbe)? were subdivided, in like
manner, into smaller portions, and eaeb portion or portico was dedicated to a
favourite saint, as were tbose of 8t. Andrew, at Doebester, Ac."—" In tbe
cburebes wbicb Dede and otber ancient writers bave described, as quoted b^ Nr.
Dentbam, no mention is made of eitber pillars, arebes, or side-ailes; we tberefore
" History of LI^," p- 19. 5S ^reliseoloAia," vol. xiii. p. 290, 308.
5s "History of x. 20; and ^.rekseolo§is," vol. xiii. p. 298.
o 2