Page:Cassell's Illustrated History of England vol 1.djvu/84

70 have disposed of the abbeys, the monks have made interest with the courtiers, which sometimes cost them very dear." The historian himself loudly complains of this abuse, though he was installed in the abbey of Croyland by the same method—that is, by the sole will and pleasure of William the Conqueror.

There were but two removals of bishops' sees within the period now treated of. The see of Kirton, in Wessex, was removed to Exeter, and the see of Lindisfarn, in Northumberland, to Durham. Aldhun, Bishop of Lindisfarn, being disturbed in that small island by the incursions of the Danes, removed to Durham, carrying with him the relics of St. Cuthbert, where he built a cathedral, and fixed his see, which remains there to this day.

In 981, the archiepiscopal see of Canterbury acquired a new jurisdiction in Wales. Gucan, a Welsh priest, being chosen Bishop of Llandaff, and consecrated by Archbishop Dunstan, this precedent was followed by his successors, who, like him, owned the Archbishop of Canterbury for their metropolitan: and some writers have inferred from hence, that all the British bishops at the same time owned the superiority of the Church of Rome; but this cannot be admitted. It is certain the Bishops of St. David's exercised the archiepiscopal functions in Wales, till the time of Henry I., and that without the ornament of the pall, the mark of submission to the Pope.

Edmund, Bishop of Durham, was remarkable for the manner of his election. The chapter of Durham having met to elect a bishop, and not being able to agree in their choice, Edmund, a priest of that church, said jestingly that, since they were at a loss whom to choose, they might as good select him and make him a bishop. As miracles were then much in vogue, the chapter looked upon this as a Divine inspiration, and elected him. He afterwards proved worthy of the office to which he had been chosen in so singular a fashion: reprimanding vice even in the highest, and doing anything in his power for the encouragement of learning and virtue.

Of the division of the kingdom into parishes, we find that Augustin, the first Saxon bishop, received from the King of Kent certain lands for the maintenance of himself and the monks who accompanied him.

On receiving this gift, he consulted Pope Gregory I. as to how it ought to be disposed of. The reply was, that the Church of Rome was accustomed to divide the revenues and offerings of the Church into four portions, and devote one of them to the support of the inferior clergy; but as Augustin and his companions were monks, he recommended them to live together in community.

At first, there was but one such church; but as the number of converts increased, others were built, and the districts surrounding each gradually divided into parishes—slowly at first, the people not approving that the priests who officiated in them should have no share in the offerings and oblations which were reserved for the bishops.

This circumstance induced the prelates at last to abandon their claim to them to the hard-working or inferior clergy; upon which the churches increased rapidly in England; the divisions of them, as they appear in the Doomsday-book, in the majority of instances, being the same as at the present day.





subjects in mediæval art have led to so much controversy as that of Saxon architecture; one party of writers claiming for it a place as a distinct and separate style, and another totally denying its very existence.

It was usual for writers on architecture before Rickman's time to denominate all buildings in which the semicircular arch or the zigzag moulding prevailed as "Saxon," no matter how highly finished or how richly carved they might be; and, consequently, all our fine Norman churches are in their works described as Saxon.

When this designation was proved to be incorrect, a reaction took place, and some of our writers went so far as to deny the existence of any building of a date anterior to the Conquest. It was argued by these writers that the Saxons built with wood only, and that, consequently, all their erections had long since perished. But though it is true there is evidence to show that the usual material for building was wood, and that it was sometimes overlaid with lead and other metals, yet we find, on the other hand, in the works of early writers, indubitable proofs to show that stone was also used, particularly in rebuilding the churches and monasteries which had been destroyed by the Danes. Alfred set aside a sixth part of his income for this purpose, and we are told by Asser that "he built the houses majestic and good, beyond all the precedents of his ancestors, by his new mechanical contrivances."

It was first pointed out by Rickman, in his valuable work, that there were a number of churches in different parts of the kingdom which could be proved to be of very early date, and which did not agree in character either with the Roman remains or with the earliest of the Norman churches; and that, in some instances, early Norman work had been built upon portions of these early buildings, thus affording conclusive evidence that these buildings must be of a prior date to that of the earliest Norman buildings.

Strong confirmatory evidence is also offered when we find it stated, in a contemporary manuscript, that a church was built on a certain spot by some well-known ecclesiastic at a stated time, and still find standing on this spot a building, or portions of a building, of a style which cannot be referred to that of any subsequent period. We are justified in considering this the building so mentioned; and when we find all these buildings agreeing in certain general features, we are also justified in considering these as constituting the style of the period.

Of this documentary evidence the following are examples. The venerable Bede, who was born and resided at Jarrow, in Durham, and who died A.D. 735, mentions the building of a monastery at that place by Benedict Biscopus, A.D. 687, and we now find standing on the spot a church, of which the chancel is of the rudest construction, and evidently of earlier date than the tower, which, from its style, cannot be much subsequent to the Conquest, and in which portions of the earlier building are built into the walls. The east window is of later date, but the side windows of the church (now blocked up) are of the rudest possible construction—round-headed, with the heads formed of a single stone. These are undoubtedly the work of Benedict.

The church of Monk's Wearmouth is also mentioned by Bede as having been built by the same Benedict, A.D. 676. 