DOI Page / Citation link:
https://doi.org/10.11588/diglit.6913#0177
CHURCH OF ST. PETER.
95
a Wood,* while warmly engaged in controversy against the Cambridge impugners
of Oxonian antiquity, is candid enough to confess his own scepticism, with an
honesty and inconsistency equally remarkable. No other document, real or pre-
tended, is preserved, which relates to St. Peter's Church, antecedently to the Con-
quest, when it is mentioned in the Domesday Survey.
The external evidence, therefore, to prove St. Peter's a Saxon structure is weak
in the extreme, and the period of its erection must be inferred solely from the in-
ternal evidence afforded by its architectural style ; but even this will, I fear, throw
but little light on the point in question, since there are so few monuments extant, in
favour of which a clear and unimpeachable title to Saxon antiquity can be established,
that no certain criterion between the Saxon and early Norman styles appears to
have been discovered, although many have been proposed. With regard to the
present edifice, it does not seem to differ from many buildings decidedly Anglo-
Norman in a manner sufficiently marked to warrant the inference, that it may not
have been erected subsequently to the Conquest. Indeed the chancel strongly re-
sembles that of Iffley Church, which is known to have been built by a Bishop of
Lincoln, in the twelfth century.f
Mr. Gostling, in his Walk round Canterbury, has instituted a comparison between
the crypt of this church and the undercroft beneath the cathedral of that city :
assuming the point that the former of these structures is an undoubted specimen of
the genuine Saxon style, he infers from the striking resemblance which they bear to
each other, that the latter must be Saxon also; but his conclusion is entirely over-
thrown X by the minute description of the cathedral, as it existed previously to the
* The singular confession of A a Wood above alluded to, is contained in his History and Antiquities of the
University of Oxford, Vol. i. page 36, English edition; it is as follows, "That he (Alfred) either restored or founded
the schools at Oxford, are not wanting many authors that report it; but they not being antient (I mean before the
Conquest) unless Asser in his Exemplar before mentioned, put me much in doubt whether he did any thing at all
at Oxford towards the advancement of learning. But then again considering with myself that Ingulphus, x\bbot
of Croyland doth say in his History, that he had been educated in Studio Oxoniensi, which was before the Norman
Conquest, makes me believe that the said King did either begin or restore the University, or that it did take its
rise from King Edgar's congregating monks at Oxon. An. 968. Or, which is most likely, from the secular canons of
St. Frideswide's Priory. But however it was (although there be not wanting some that apply King Alfred's repa-
ration of the English school at Rome, to that at Oxford, which hath bred a great deal of confusion) I shall not
contend about it."
t Vide Warton's Specimen of a History of Oxfordshire, p. 4.
+ The Saxon Cathedral at Canterbury had indeed a crypt, but it must have been very small, as it lay entirely
beyond the eastern extremity of the choir, and consequently it is impossible to confound it with the present under-
croft, which extends underneath the whole choir. Eadmer, as if he had foreseen the mistakes into which sub-
95
a Wood,* while warmly engaged in controversy against the Cambridge impugners
of Oxonian antiquity, is candid enough to confess his own scepticism, with an
honesty and inconsistency equally remarkable. No other document, real or pre-
tended, is preserved, which relates to St. Peter's Church, antecedently to the Con-
quest, when it is mentioned in the Domesday Survey.
The external evidence, therefore, to prove St. Peter's a Saxon structure is weak
in the extreme, and the period of its erection must be inferred solely from the in-
ternal evidence afforded by its architectural style ; but even this will, I fear, throw
but little light on the point in question, since there are so few monuments extant, in
favour of which a clear and unimpeachable title to Saxon antiquity can be established,
that no certain criterion between the Saxon and early Norman styles appears to
have been discovered, although many have been proposed. With regard to the
present edifice, it does not seem to differ from many buildings decidedly Anglo-
Norman in a manner sufficiently marked to warrant the inference, that it may not
have been erected subsequently to the Conquest. Indeed the chancel strongly re-
sembles that of Iffley Church, which is known to have been built by a Bishop of
Lincoln, in the twelfth century.f
Mr. Gostling, in his Walk round Canterbury, has instituted a comparison between
the crypt of this church and the undercroft beneath the cathedral of that city :
assuming the point that the former of these structures is an undoubted specimen of
the genuine Saxon style, he infers from the striking resemblance which they bear to
each other, that the latter must be Saxon also; but his conclusion is entirely over-
thrown X by the minute description of the cathedral, as it existed previously to the
* The singular confession of A a Wood above alluded to, is contained in his History and Antiquities of the
University of Oxford, Vol. i. page 36, English edition; it is as follows, "That he (Alfred) either restored or founded
the schools at Oxford, are not wanting many authors that report it; but they not being antient (I mean before the
Conquest) unless Asser in his Exemplar before mentioned, put me much in doubt whether he did any thing at all
at Oxford towards the advancement of learning. But then again considering with myself that Ingulphus, x\bbot
of Croyland doth say in his History, that he had been educated in Studio Oxoniensi, which was before the Norman
Conquest, makes me believe that the said King did either begin or restore the University, or that it did take its
rise from King Edgar's congregating monks at Oxon. An. 968. Or, which is most likely, from the secular canons of
St. Frideswide's Priory. But however it was (although there be not wanting some that apply King Alfred's repa-
ration of the English school at Rome, to that at Oxford, which hath bred a great deal of confusion) I shall not
contend about it."
t Vide Warton's Specimen of a History of Oxfordshire, p. 4.
+ The Saxon Cathedral at Canterbury had indeed a crypt, but it must have been very small, as it lay entirely
beyond the eastern extremity of the choir, and consequently it is impossible to confound it with the present under-
croft, which extends underneath the whole choir. Eadmer, as if he had foreseen the mistakes into which sub-