DOI Page / Citation link:
https://doi.org/10.11588/diglit.6914#0141
OPINIONS OF MESSRS. KING AND CARTER. 109
n England ; although there is cause to believe that portions of different religious
c ures still exist, which were originally built in the Saxon era.
Mist we reject, therefore, the hasty conclusions of such sanguine theorists as
^lng and Carter, more attention is admitted to be due to the opinions of those
v°cates for the existence of Saxon church architecture, who, from a practical
^ ^uaintance, or from a more discriminating taste, are better qualified to form a
Ju gnient concerning them. Among these, Mr. Garbett is entitled to particular
lQtice. Having been appointed by the Dean and Chapter of Winchester to super-
mtend the repairs of their Cathedral Church, that gentleman inferred, from his
a^n observations, that it contains portions of Saxon workmanship, of a very early
He even concludes, that the " Crypt, under the part of the church
^. en the high altar and the Virgin Chapel, is a remnant of the work of our
ali US or Roman ancestors, in the early part of the fourth century." He
Conchjdes that the transept contains some portions of the structure raised by
but*6^^0^ °f Wessex, in the seventh century, and also more of that attri-
^ to Bishop Ethelwold, in the tenth century. These conclusions are chiefly
b Tjl ^r°m a comparison of the architecture and workmanship of the tower (built
q lshop Walkelyn, in 1079), with part of the transept, in which, says Mr.
t| ar^ett, " n- jg not difficult to trace distinctly the junction of the Norman with
tj'e ^axon work, not only by the superiority of the masonry, but by the shape of
yet arC^es"" Though the opinion of this scientific architect is plausibly supported,
RudbCannot so easily De maintained, in opposition to the positive statement of
reD 0rne> the historian of Winchester, that Bishop Walkelyn commenced the
udding of the Cathedral from its foundation f and although " it is true, that
sto ^ S°me variati°ns m the masonry, that is, in the joints, and courses of the
^ es m the extreme ends, and the more central parts of the transepts, this might
s^.jj arisen from different workmen, who were employed even at the same time, and
1-ection.':
niore from those who were engaged on the church at different periods of its
4to better" from Mr. Garbett, in the " History and Antiquities of Winchester Cathedral," 1817,
87 " An
Vide " a1"10 ^^XXIX. Walkelinus Episcopus a fundamentis Wintoniensem coepit reeedificare Ecclesiam."
8a m Anglia Sacra," Pars i. p. 294.
istory and Antiquities of Winchester Cathedral," p. 71.
n England ; although there is cause to believe that portions of different religious
c ures still exist, which were originally built in the Saxon era.
Mist we reject, therefore, the hasty conclusions of such sanguine theorists as
^lng and Carter, more attention is admitted to be due to the opinions of those
v°cates for the existence of Saxon church architecture, who, from a practical
^ ^uaintance, or from a more discriminating taste, are better qualified to form a
Ju gnient concerning them. Among these, Mr. Garbett is entitled to particular
lQtice. Having been appointed by the Dean and Chapter of Winchester to super-
mtend the repairs of their Cathedral Church, that gentleman inferred, from his
a^n observations, that it contains portions of Saxon workmanship, of a very early
He even concludes, that the " Crypt, under the part of the church
^. en the high altar and the Virgin Chapel, is a remnant of the work of our
ali US or Roman ancestors, in the early part of the fourth century." He
Conchjdes that the transept contains some portions of the structure raised by
but*6^^0^ °f Wessex, in the seventh century, and also more of that attri-
^ to Bishop Ethelwold, in the tenth century. These conclusions are chiefly
b Tjl ^r°m a comparison of the architecture and workmanship of the tower (built
q lshop Walkelyn, in 1079), with part of the transept, in which, says Mr.
t| ar^ett, " n- jg not difficult to trace distinctly the junction of the Norman with
tj'e ^axon work, not only by the superiority of the masonry, but by the shape of
yet arC^es"" Though the opinion of this scientific architect is plausibly supported,
RudbCannot so easily De maintained, in opposition to the positive statement of
reD 0rne> the historian of Winchester, that Bishop Walkelyn commenced the
udding of the Cathedral from its foundation f and although " it is true, that
sto ^ S°me variati°ns m the masonry, that is, in the joints, and courses of the
^ es m the extreme ends, and the more central parts of the transepts, this might
s^.jj arisen from different workmen, who were employed even at the same time, and
1-ection.':
niore from those who were engaged on the church at different periods of its
4to better" from Mr. Garbett, in the " History and Antiquities of Winchester Cathedral," 1817,
87 " An
Vide " a1"10 ^^XXIX. Walkelinus Episcopus a fundamentis Wintoniensem coepit reeedificare Ecclesiam."
8a m Anglia Sacra," Pars i. p. 294.
istory and Antiquities of Winchester Cathedral," p. 71.