DOI Page / Citation link:
https://doi.org/10.11588/diglit.6912#0044
WALTHAM ABBEY CHURCH.
31
play the fallibility of human judgment, and the propensity of mankind to indulge in
theory. Dr. Stukeley, in Archaeologia, vol. I. p. 44, says, " Waltham Abbey is
indubitably older than the Conquest." Mr. King is also of the same opinion ; and
thus pronounces his sentiments with as much confidence and decision, as if sup-
ported by unquestionable evidence. " Waltham Abbey, we arc assured, was built
by Earl Harold, before his assuming the crown, and some considerable time before
the Norman Conquest. And the style of architecture of his age, which may very
well be deemed a continuation of that which prevailed in the time of the first King
Harold, appears completely in this structure."* In a subsequent page this author
speaks in still more positive and peremptory terms, by declaring that the nave of
Waltham Abbey Church is " a decided and unquestionable specimen of Harold's
architecture ; or rather of that of Edward the Confessor." f
Another writer, with rather confused ideas of ancient architecture, states : " In
1242," (Henry III.) "the conventual church at Waltham, a Benedictine abbey,
founded by Harold in 1060, having been now rebuilt, was dedicated. This church
is a very fine model of Saxon architecture; simple, grand, and uniform, with semi-
circular arches; and, indeed, it is so excellent a pattern of the original Saxon,
before it received its variations, and additions, and ornaments, which came into
general use in this reign, that it might well be thought much older, did not this
passage in Matt. Paris set us right in the date of its construction."^
A writer in the Gentleman's Magazine, (Vol. LXXVII. p. 929,) who generally
designates his essays by the signature of " an Architect," and whose numerous
delineations of ancient buildings are well-known to, and esteemed by, the architec-
tural antiquary, also calls Waltham Church " a Saxon pile, erected by Harold in
1062."—Grose doubtfully expresses himself that there is no " positive circumstances
determine whether it was built by Harold at the first foundation, or by Henry II.
at the time of his re-founding the Abbey."
Thus it appears that some of our best informed antiquaries are disposed to at-
tribute the design and erection of the nave of the original, or chief part of the
present, church, to the Anglo-Saxon era ; to a period anterior to the introduction
of Norman art and Norman customs. By doing which they identify and display
what they declare to be a specimen of genuine Anglo-Saxon architecture. Were
this fully and satjsfactorily proved? i should feel much pleasure, because my mind
• Munimenta Antiqua, Vol. IV. p. 212. t lb- 225.
t Newcome's History of the Abbey of St. Albans, 4to. p. 144.
31
play the fallibility of human judgment, and the propensity of mankind to indulge in
theory. Dr. Stukeley, in Archaeologia, vol. I. p. 44, says, " Waltham Abbey is
indubitably older than the Conquest." Mr. King is also of the same opinion ; and
thus pronounces his sentiments with as much confidence and decision, as if sup-
ported by unquestionable evidence. " Waltham Abbey, we arc assured, was built
by Earl Harold, before his assuming the crown, and some considerable time before
the Norman Conquest. And the style of architecture of his age, which may very
well be deemed a continuation of that which prevailed in the time of the first King
Harold, appears completely in this structure."* In a subsequent page this author
speaks in still more positive and peremptory terms, by declaring that the nave of
Waltham Abbey Church is " a decided and unquestionable specimen of Harold's
architecture ; or rather of that of Edward the Confessor." f
Another writer, with rather confused ideas of ancient architecture, states : " In
1242," (Henry III.) "the conventual church at Waltham, a Benedictine abbey,
founded by Harold in 1060, having been now rebuilt, was dedicated. This church
is a very fine model of Saxon architecture; simple, grand, and uniform, with semi-
circular arches; and, indeed, it is so excellent a pattern of the original Saxon,
before it received its variations, and additions, and ornaments, which came into
general use in this reign, that it might well be thought much older, did not this
passage in Matt. Paris set us right in the date of its construction."^
A writer in the Gentleman's Magazine, (Vol. LXXVII. p. 929,) who generally
designates his essays by the signature of " an Architect," and whose numerous
delineations of ancient buildings are well-known to, and esteemed by, the architec-
tural antiquary, also calls Waltham Church " a Saxon pile, erected by Harold in
1062."—Grose doubtfully expresses himself that there is no " positive circumstances
determine whether it was built by Harold at the first foundation, or by Henry II.
at the time of his re-founding the Abbey."
Thus it appears that some of our best informed antiquaries are disposed to at-
tribute the design and erection of the nave of the original, or chief part of the
present, church, to the Anglo-Saxon era ; to a period anterior to the introduction
of Norman art and Norman customs. By doing which they identify and display
what they declare to be a specimen of genuine Anglo-Saxon architecture. Were
this fully and satjsfactorily proved? i should feel much pleasure, because my mind
• Munimenta Antiqua, Vol. IV. p. 212. t lb- 225.
t Newcome's History of the Abbey of St. Albans, 4to. p. 144.