DOI Page / Citation link:
https://doi.org/10.11588/diglit.6914#0131
stone churches of the anglo-saxons. 99
may he a n , •
he infers r division of it, consisting of one arch with its recess."57 Hence
<< | rS' ^at tne Saxon churches consisted of a nave and side-ailes ; and adds,
°f ston a °.^UrC^ °^ *^at f°rm could have been supported without pillars and arches
imply t" 1S easy to conceive; the very terms indeed seem necessarily to
ti0n I ' Bentham's opinion has been opposed by Mr. Wilkins, in a " Descrip-
it the ^ r^ °f Melbourne, in Derbyshire, with an attempt to explain from
real situation of the Porticus in the ancient Churches."58 This gentleman
anci' ^ evi(^ent Mr. Bentham misconceives the situation of the porticus in these
errone* Chur°hes ; and wit!l Mr- Collier, in his ' Church History,' he is equally
not °US m ^S 'nferences, who has mistaken the porticus for the porch. It does
church^6ar e*tner °^ them were aware that ^e porches, to our present
<v°rkma ' °^ modern adoption ; indeed they are not to be found but of Gothic
a°d tl U^ ^6 never tne P°rches of the Saxon or of the Norman style,
and th ^ ^enera'1y> though not always, placed against the sides of the north
Part of ^j°Ut^ a'sles, whereas the porticoes of these more ancient churches are a
of t}jjs Pr'ncipal building, divided from the nave by arches, as in the instance
evident f ^ a* Melbourne, where a continuity of roof covers the whole. It is
P°i'ch 0ttl ^e quotations from Bede, &c. that the porticus does not mean the
fhey c']e lna"eed any part of the side-isles, as Mr. Bentham has conceived; and
P0rtion6ar^ evmce that the porticos, though not large, were not an inconsiderable
COnsulted ^ kUl'°^n& 5 and if the plan of the porticus of Melbourne Church be
ently • ' ^ere can be no difficulty in determining that Bede's account is suffici-
direct te ' eXP^anatorv' and perfectly consistent, although ' he says nothing in
w*th \]r t»S eitUer °f pillars or arches ;59 and we ought not therefore to conclude
tl0n °f h' 6n ' that Bede, in this instance, is, at all, sparing in his descrip-
if tne S c^Urches, which probably had neither pillars nor side-isles. And
Melbour^^ °^ *'ie cnurches, he describes, were divided off, like this at
manner ^ ^e Por^clls> it is a^so probable they were subdivided, in like
fevourit lnt° Sma^er portions, and each portion or portico was dedicated to a
cWch 6 Saint' aS Were tllose of St" Andrew> at Rochester, &c."—" In the
Bentlla^ ^ ^ede ar>d other ancient writers have described, as quoted by Mr.
' no mention is made of either pillars, arches, or side-ailes ; we therefore
•ustorv of Pi "
59 " History 0f p „ P' 53 " Archffiologia," vol. xiii. p. 290, 308.
0 Ely," p. 20 ; and Archaeologia," vol. xiii. p. 298.
o 2
may he a n , •
he infers r division of it, consisting of one arch with its recess."57 Hence
<< | rS' ^at tne Saxon churches consisted of a nave and side-ailes ; and adds,
°f ston a °.^UrC^ °^ *^at f°rm could have been supported without pillars and arches
imply t" 1S easy to conceive; the very terms indeed seem necessarily to
ti0n I ' Bentham's opinion has been opposed by Mr. Wilkins, in a " Descrip-
it the ^ r^ °f Melbourne, in Derbyshire, with an attempt to explain from
real situation of the Porticus in the ancient Churches."58 This gentleman
anci' ^ evi(^ent Mr. Bentham misconceives the situation of the porticus in these
errone* Chur°hes ; and wit!l Mr- Collier, in his ' Church History,' he is equally
not °US m ^S 'nferences, who has mistaken the porticus for the porch. It does
church^6ar e*tner °^ them were aware that ^e porches, to our present
<v°rkma ' °^ modern adoption ; indeed they are not to be found but of Gothic
a°d tl U^ ^6 never tne P°rches of the Saxon or of the Norman style,
and th ^ ^enera'1y> though not always, placed against the sides of the north
Part of ^j°Ut^ a'sles, whereas the porticoes of these more ancient churches are a
of t}jjs Pr'ncipal building, divided from the nave by arches, as in the instance
evident f ^ a* Melbourne, where a continuity of roof covers the whole. It is
P°i'ch 0ttl ^e quotations from Bede, &c. that the porticus does not mean the
fhey c']e lna"eed any part of the side-isles, as Mr. Bentham has conceived; and
P0rtion6ar^ evmce that the porticos, though not large, were not an inconsiderable
COnsulted ^ kUl'°^n& 5 and if the plan of the porticus of Melbourne Church be
ently • ' ^ere can be no difficulty in determining that Bede's account is suffici-
direct te ' eXP^anatorv' and perfectly consistent, although ' he says nothing in
w*th \]r t»S eitUer °f pillars or arches ;59 and we ought not therefore to conclude
tl0n °f h' 6n ' that Bede, in this instance, is, at all, sparing in his descrip-
if tne S c^Urches, which probably had neither pillars nor side-isles. And
Melbour^^ °^ *'ie cnurches, he describes, were divided off, like this at
manner ^ ^e Por^clls> it is a^so probable they were subdivided, in like
fevourit lnt° Sma^er portions, and each portion or portico was dedicated to a
cWch 6 Saint' aS Were tllose of St" Andrew> at Rochester, &c."—" In the
Bentlla^ ^ ^ede ar>d other ancient writers have described, as quoted by Mr.
' no mention is made of either pillars, arches, or side-ailes ; we therefore
•ustorv of Pi "
59 " History 0f p „ P' 53 " Archffiologia," vol. xiii. p. 290, 308.
0 Ely," p. 20 ; and Archaeologia," vol. xiii. p. 298.
o 2