صور الصفحة
PDF
النشر الإلكتروني

Lanfranc then directed that "the bodies of his predecessors (Archbishops of Canterbury), which had rested undisturbed in their coffins from the time of the fire, should be raised and placed in safety until the church which he had begun should be completed, wherein they might be decently deposited, and it was so done."

In those days it was considered a work of exemplary piety to erect altars, and to provide sepulchral monuments around them for the reception of the venerated remains of departed saints and prelates. To this feeling must be ascribed the enlarged and magnificent plan upon which Lanfranc rebuilt his cathedral church. We accordingly find that the number of altars in the new Norman church was prodigiously increased, and the bodies of the Saxon Archbishops were deposited around them. "But," says the Professor," the Saxon Archbishops are buried in Ernulf's part of the church." This we have declared to be altogether visionary, fanciful, and unfounded. To those who are acquainted with the ecclesiastical history and customs of those remote ages, it is unnecessary to remark, that when altars were erected, officiating priests or monks were at the same time appointed to minister at those altars. If, therefore, those altars had been erected in "Ernulf's part of the church," (that is, by Anselm and his Priors,) then it is incumbent on the Professor to show that those officiating monks and priests were also appointed by Anselm. But if, on the other hand, those altars were erected by Lanfranc, and therefore part of his original plan, it will devolve upon us to confirm that fact, by showing that those officiating priests and monks were also appointed by him; and we fearlessly put the question upon that issue.

[ocr errors]

We find that "the houses necessary for the accommodation of the monks, and which they had used for many years, were now found much too small for the increased numbers of the convent. Having, therefore, destroyed those, he [Lanfranc] erected others which greatly excelled them in beauty and magnitude.' Here then, we learn, that Lanfranc not only increased the numbers of the convent, but, as a necessary provision for that increase, that he provided additional accommodation for their reception. We further learn the actual amount of the increase. Gervase (Act. Pont. p. 1654,) says, "He added one hundred monks, and ordained that the total

number should always be from 140 to 150." Hence we may infer that the established number of monks in the Saxon period did not exceed forty or fifty; which would appear to be an ample provision for the due ministration at the few altars in the recently destroyed Romano-British cathedral, and for the due superintendence and management of their lands, possessions, and endowments. But Lanfranc added one hundred to this number. This increase must have been made for the service of the numerous altars which he had erected, and not for the better superintendence and management of their property; for it is a remarkable circumstance, (although wholly unnoticed by the learned Professor,) that Lanfranc made a division of the possessions of the monks, appropriating certain of their manors to the maintenance and support of themselves and their church, and the remainder to himself and his successors in the metropolitical see, for whom also he erected a suitable palace contiguous to the cathedral church.

We fear the reader may be wearied by any further discussion of this question; but we cannot refrain from drawing his attention to a remarkable fact, which appears to us conclusive against the Professor's "conjectural eastern termination of Lanfranc's church," and that is, that Lanfranc himself was buried in the Trinity Chapel. That chapel, therefore, must have been standing at the time of his death, it must have been erected by himself, and must have formed the eastern termination of his cathedral. The language of the historian seems too clear to admit of doubt. "Archbishop Lanfranc" (says Gervase) "was discovered in a very ponderous leaden coffin, in which, from the day of his first burial, he had lain undisturbed mitred and sandaled, to that very day, that is to say, for sixty-nine years and some months." (Ante p. 52.) Lanfranc died A.D. 1089, and was buried in the Trinity Chapel. This we consider satisfactory evidence that Anselm (who did not succeed to the see till A.D. 1093,) was not the founder of that chapel.

Domesday Book (which was compiled during the lifetime of Lanfranc, and completed A.D. 1086) affords also pretty conclusive evidence that the Trinity Chapel was erected by Lanfranc; for we find that the cathedral church, which up to that period had been called Christ Church, (see the charter of

Edward the Confessor, ante p. 11), had then been dedicated to the Holy Trinity, and is so described in that most authentic record; having been unquestionably so dedicated from the altar in that chapel, which was the place of Lanfranc's first burial.

[ocr errors]

We have, however, further proof that the Professor's diminutive choir cannot have been the eastern termination of Lanfranc's church; for Gervase, describing the great tower, says: "The tower raised upon great pillars is placed in the midst of the church, like a centre in the middle of a circle;' and again, "that it was placed in the midst of the whole church." If, therefore, the learned Professor's diminutive choir had been the eastern termination of Lanfranc's church, the great tower, so far from being placed in the midst of the whole church, would have stood almost at its very eastern extremity. But if we conclude, agreeably to all history and the universal consent of all ages, that the Trinity Chapel was the eastern extremity of Lanfranc's church, then the great tower is most accurately described as standing in the midst of the whole church.

[ocr errors]

It will be observed that, in the first seven years of his primacy (A.D. 1070.... 1077), Lanfranc had almost completed his works. He, however, survived till A.D. 1089, and the Obituary says that "he founded and completed the church from its very foundations. Can we suppose, after such direct testimony to the contrary, that for twelve years [1077 to 1089] the energetic Lanfranc stood with folded arms, neglected to carry out and complete his original plan, leaving to his successors to erect those altars (for whose service he had himself provided a numerous body of priests), and the important and splendid portions of the church in which they were placed?

We have only further to notice the chronological error in Gervase's account of Lanfranc's burial. That prelate died A.D. 1089, was buried in the Trinity Chapel, and on the rebuilding of that chapel, A.D. 1180, he was then discovered in his ponderous leaden coffin, having lain there undisturbed from the day of his first burial. The interval therefore between those periods was about ninety years, and not "sixtynine years and some months," as in the present copies. It seems to us that Gervase wrote "LXXXIX years and some

months." The earliest MS. of Gervase's history which we have met with is that of the Brit. Mus. Vespas. B. xix, in which it is somewhat remarkable that, contrary to the usual mode of that day, the time is written in words at full length, thus "annis sexaginta novem c aliquot msibz." If Gervase (as may be presumed) employed the usual ciphers, the error may well be attributed to the well-known carelessness of the transcribers and copyists of those days. Those who are accustomed to the general inaccuracy of our ancient chroniclers in matters of chronology, unhesitatingly reject a date when it is irreconcilable with a well authenticated fact. The learned Professor has prudently avoided the point; but we think it a matter of some difficulty to reconcile the present reading sixty-nine years and some months," with any known historical event, for if we refer back from A.D. 1180 to A.D. 1110, (a period of seventy years,) we find that the see of Canterbury was then vacant, Anselm having died A.D. 1109, and his successor Archbishop Rodulph not elected till A.D. 1114.

[ocr errors]

We now take our leave of the venerable Lanfranc, merely repeating that the present existing Norman remains in the cathedral are the works of that eminent man, and consist of

The Norman crypt, chapels of St. Andrew and St. Anselm, portions of the external walls of the eastern transept and of the choir-aisles, and the Norman arcade, forming a belt of decoration external and internal on those walls, with some few patches of masonry in the nave and western transept."

On the works of Anselm and his Priors we have only to remark that, "the glorious choir of Conrad" having perished in the conflagration A.D. 1174, no traces remain beyond a few patches of masonry in the choir, and, probably, the massive piers (in Lanfranc's Norman crypt) which support the superincumbent weight of the columns in the choir above..

We next come to the works of William of Sens and William the Englishman, of which we have already presented a summary. (p. 18.) After a lapse of nearly seven centuries, they still remain to gratify the taste and excite the admiration of the beholder. They consist of the present choir, the present Trinity Chapel and its crypt, the corona (Becket's crown) and its crypt, together with portions of the great eastern transept,

and of the choir-aisles, and that portion of the internal arcades which is decorated with pointed or lancet-headed arches.

When we reflect that the pillars of the present choir are longer by twelve feet than those of its predecessor, that instead of the massive semicircular Norman arch, the pierarches are of the more lofty pointed early English style, we may readily conceive that in comparison with the present elegant and lofty choir, that of Conrad (designated "the Glorious") must have been low, massive, dark, and heavy. Gervase has well explained the differences between the two works (p. 20), to which we refer the reader.

The Trinity Chapel and the corona, with the crypts beneath, are entirely the work of William the Englishman, and afford an interesting example of (as it has been variously called) the transition-Norman, semi-Norman, or early English style.

It should, however, be remarked, that the great and lofty vault, supported by the four principal pillars in the choir, (though part of the design of William of Sens) was executed by William the Englishman. Gervase tells us that whilst William of Sens was in the act of preparing with machines for the turning of the great vault, the beams broke beneath him, and he was precipitated to the ground from the height of fifty feet. (p. 18.)

The curious inquirer will also be pleased with the ingenious contrivance of William of Sens to strengthen the plinths, which support the pillars of his choir. His new pillars were (as already mentioned) longer by twelve feet than those of Conrad's choir, and had a far heavier weight to sustain. Being therefore apprehensive that the plinths might swerve or split, he encircled the entire plinths with a strong square band of iron, some remains of which are still visible. He also further supported the plinths by introducing a bench of masonry between the pillars.

In the decorated style we find the beautiful stone inclosure of the choir, with its rich and delicate tracery, and embattled crest. On the north side is a beautiful doorway in the same style. These are the works of Henry de Estria. He also erected the western screen (or organ-loft) in which was the western door of the choir; but this portion of his work, together with the south doorway of the choir, have been replaced by works in a later style.

« السابقةمتابعة »