Изображения страниц
[graphic][subsumed][merged small][merged small]

parish. The church now standing must have been built at that time, for, with the few exceptions I shall notice, and which look like a using-up of old materials, the whole of the church must have been built between 1440 and 1470. I am aware I am again contradicting Blomefield, who says that Sir Thomas de Erpingham built the church; his ground for saying so being that the arms of Erpingham are between each of the clerestory windows on the outside, and on painted glass in those windows, together with the arms of his executors and others of his family and friends he says this, forgetting that Sir Thomas's son, Robert de Erpingham, was a friar of this house. The latter died about 1445, and very probably applied the Erpingham property in aid of the funds for the erection of the church of his convent.


"The clerestory, on which the arms occur so frequently, is late Perpendicular work, and cannot have been built before 1450, if so early; and the brethren may well have commemorated so excellent a

brother in the manner stated. The beautiful south door of St. Andrew's Hall, which is certainly as early as the clerestory, has the arms of John Paston, Esq., who in 1444, when his father died, was 23 years of age, and married Margaret daughter and heir of John de Mauteby, who bore az. a cross or."-(pp. 75, 76.)

"The Cloister was a square of 85 feet, of which three sides only remain-the east, west, and south. The north side has long been levelled with the ground.

"The west part of the south walk is now a back-house and cellar for the workhouse governor; and the east part of it is the pantry and storeroom of the establishment. The view on p. 91 is taken from the west end of this latter room, and I have removed the modern window from the arch on the left to shew the east side of the cloister.

"The west walk of the cloister and cellar of the establishment has had all its interior vaulting destroyed, and now forms the dining-hall of the workhouse." - (pp. 91, 92.)

The most elaborate paper in the volume is that on NORWICH CATHEDRAL PRIORY, but we are sorry to find it, to our minds, the least satisfactory; it is round-about, hesitating, undecided, as if the writer could not quite


make up his own mind, and therefore often leaves his readers in doubt, and bewildered. There is continual reference to the unpublished lecture of Professor Willis, and frequent expression of a difference of opinion with the learned Professor, accompanied by a sort of smothered complaint that the documents placed at his disposal had not been equally laid open to Mr. Harrod. A great deal of this appears to us to be trivial, and of too transitory a character to be worth putting on permanent record; we are too frequently reminded of the writer, and personalities, instead of the history we are looking for. Nor do his opinions appear to us to be always well grounded, nor supported with the same careful sifting of evidence as in the other papers; there seems more of the prejudices arising from long habit and association. We are surprised to see the Chronicle of Ingulphus of Croyland still quoted as an authority by Mr. Harrod and when a wellascertained forgery is thus called in to support an opinion, we are led to doubt the fact which requires such support. Nor does there appear to us any sufficient evidence that there was any church on the site of the present cathedral before the time of Bishop Herbert. Our space will not permit us to enter into the disputed question of the probable site of the Infirmary, and we are inclined to suspect that the Dormitory is wrongly placed on the plan; at least, there does not appear to be room for sixty monks' cells in the place marked for it. On the other hand, the Strangers' Hall, as marked, must have been 150 feet long,-nearly double the length of the dormitory! -and is temptingly convenient for access to the church at all hours, especially for the midnight services,-an arrangement not generally overlooked in choosing the site of the dormitory.

The history of the Erpingham-gate is more satisfactory, and we are indebted to Mr. Harrod for this careful investigation and accurate conclusion:

[merged small][merged small][ocr errors][merged small]

For remarks on the modern painted glass, we must refer to our own pages in the volume for 1853.

The account of the Misereres is very good, and the remarks sensible, only not quite decided enough :

66 Surely the term miserere must be a misnomer, and the explanation as to the old monks a very feeble one. Is it likely that every seat should be constructed thus, because in some convents a few aged monks were permitted the indulgence of a seat? The seats were just the same in the choirs of every parochial and collegiate church."

"The ledge forms a very good rest for the elbows, when kneeling with the face to the inside of the stall in prayer, and may possibly account for the name by which this form of seat is now known."

"The popular notion is, as I before said,

that these stalls and seats are of Bishop Goldwell's time; but, after a careful examination, I cannot agree in that conclusion. The stalls themselves appear to be of earlier date than the canopy-work above them, which may be of the middle of the fifteenth century, and the seats within the stalls are of two periods."

"The dresses and armour in the former pertain to the close of the fourteenth and the commencement of the fifteenth century.

"I fear we must not lay overmuch stress on costume, if it be, as is supposed,

[graphic][merged small]

man and wife, with the arms of Clere and Witchingham (No. 6), are the effigies of Sir William Clere and Dionysia Witchingham, whom he married in 1351, and who were both dead by 1400. They appear higher up, on another seat which I have engraved at p. 285. No. 41, which I have also engraved (p. 282), shews a male and


female,-Sir Robert Wingfield and Margaret his wife, daughter of Sir William Boville, dead by 1380. The armour of this knight, in No. 41, is that of the latter part of the fourteenth century. It is studiedly accurate in all its points: the figures look like portraits. The costume of the knight attacking the dragon (No. 27), is of the same date: the peculiar tight-fitting sleeve, with numberless buttons along the lower part of the arm, seen in male costume in the Lynn brasses of 1349 and 1364, and as late as in that of Lady Felbrigg, 1413,-although at the latter date they had long vanished, or become old-fashioned in male attire, are observable. The costume of the figures in the wrestling piece (No. 18) is clearly fifty years later. So that, with all submission to those who have preceded me in describing them, I think I have clearly proved that these seats are of two periods, -twenty-four of them towards the close of the fourteenth, the rest not later than the middle of the fifteenth, century.

"Another point of much interest is this. Were these carvings, as is alleged, made the vehicle of satire on the ecclesiastics? I have never yet seen one I could fairly say was so intended, and there are certainly none amongst these."-(pp. 278 -283.)

"The last great alteration within the choir in the mediæval period was made early in the sixteenth century, in that portion of it between the tower and the presbytery. The whole of the lower range of arches on each side were changed from Norinan to late Perpendicular. The arch introduced is of the depressed pointed form, and the vaulting covered with florid tracery; instead of the plain shafts of the Norman style between the arches, niches and canopies of elaborate design cover the face of the wall. This screen-work terminates at the level of the triforium floor with an elegant perforated stone parapet." -(p. 284.)

"Here, then, we have a memorial of Sir William Boleyn, of Blickling, who died 1505, and whose monument was in the first arch on the south side; and we may therefore conclude that this screen-work

was erected by the Boleyn family after his death.

"This Perpendicular work terminated eastward at the piers of the presbytery, which includes the five arches of the apse. These arches had originally a stone screen in each, extending to half its height, forming a stone bench in the hollow of each arch, except in the centre one, which had a stone chair, or throne, for the bishop, above the rest, ascended by steps at the back of the altar. The back of this screenwork, next the outer aisle, was ornamented with an arcade of interlaced arches, having a billet-moulding above, except in the central arch, which has only a Norman door or recess opening from the aisle into the wall beneath the throne, as shewn in the view on the opposite page. May not this be an opening to a vault beneath the presbytery,—a confessio, or something of that sort? It is walled up at 2 ft. 10 in. from the shafts of the columns at its entrance, and narrows from 3 ft. 7 in. to 3 ft. 1 in. at the further part, where there is a small square depression of the surface, as if an aperture had been closed up, or a tablet had formerly been inserted there. Although the founder's tomb was in front of the high altar, may not his bones have rested in a vault beneath the altar, of which this arch formed the entrance?

"There is, however, some doubt where the high altar was. For many years after the Reformation, the presbytery was cut off from the choir by a wooden screen, in front of which stood the communion-table, and this has been thought by some to be the site of the high altar. Professor Willis placed the high altar still more west, believing a hagioscope in the arch on the north side to be intended to afford a sight of it from the north aisle.

"I am inclined myself to place it within the presbytery, but a little in advance of the ancient bishop's throne. As the only ground for the contrary opinion stated by Professor Willis, in his lecture, was the existence of the hagioscope, and as the recess in which it is placed has some curious features about it, I would endeavour to assign it to its proper use before going further." (p. 289.)

Our limits do not permit us to enter into this discussion respecting the hagioscope and the place of the Easter sepulchre. But the very curious. and interesting fact that the Norman bishops' throne, or stone seat, still exists on the top of the wall, of which Mr. Harrod gives us this engraving, the original Norman wall enclosing the presbytery in the apse. The throne is placed immediately over this arch of the confessio, or place for the relics. It faces westward, overlooking the high altar, and was no doubt the highest seat, with the other seats for the presbyters arranged in gradations or

[graphic][ocr errors][ocr errors]


« ПредыдущаяПродолжить »