Page:Archaeological Journal, Volume 29.djvu/208

Ill THE CHURCH OF ST. MART, GUILDFORD. woi-k can be seen. There is also an early example of a .f/uint or hagioscope from the south transept chapel to the hJLrh altar. I am aware that many ^ell-informed persons con- sider the tower as of the time of King Alfred, and this involves the whole question, whether the English people were in the habit of building in stone before the eleventh century. I have long since come to the conclusion that they were not, and I see no reason to change my opinion. The Anglo-!Saxon word for to build is iyviberen, which implies that they were accustomed to build in wood only. I have never been able to find any remains that I could fairly place earlier than the first half of the eleventh centur}' (with a very few exceptions, and excepting the remains of Koman work). Bcda's account of the building of lienedict Biscop, at Yarrow, and Monk's Weai-mouth, in Northumberland, show that they were quite exceptional buildings in the Roman manner. The small remains that we have of them are just enough to .show that the existing buildings are not of that period, but have been rebuilt in the time of William Rufus, as recorded in the " Durham Chronicle," published by the JSurtees Society, and edited by the late Mr. llaine. The con- struction of the present buildings agrees with that period, and there are some small portions of the earlier building used as old materials and built in. In the long interval between the 3'ears 500 and lOOO* (in round numbcr.s) it appears to ' The following paflsage from Rai^l 111 phuH gentM-ation from that time, as proof that Olalx.T, a conUiiiiporary writiT, hhowH in tho tenth Cfntury. tho art of btiililing <l<arly that a great change took place in Htoni.- had ahiiost die.l out, and all the immedLatc-ly after the year lOO", and otlu'r- arts were at the lowest i)oH.sil(le eltlt. fr' •III that i><;ri<Hl the revival of building Jniniediat«'ly aftei the year KHIU tiio great l>«'gan, csaeh nation coniin-'ling with revival began. The bad conKtrnction, tho (itherx. Vaci ha<l Motno Roman build- very wide joint of tho inoMonry, and tho ing to uervo an a ty|>c, and M. do rude a]i]>earanre of tin" bnildingH of tho Caninont H.ih hIiowh that the provinrial lirHt half of tho eleventli century, make charai.'ter of the (liflerentprovinceHof (iaul them appear niueh older than they really in the eli'venth and twelfth eenturieH, are. .Many of the buildingrt alH.iajipear to aroM! from copying the partieuiar Koman have been Imilt by earpentvrH rather tlian buihling, that Herv«!<l ejich ax an ex by maitonH, eHpwially tiio towerH on tho ample. My friend Mr. Freeman, wIioho lank of tlio Iluinber. Sir Charh-H An- Wfiiidcrf 111 learning and great ability make ilenMUi jioinUtd out long Hinee that tho hiM opiniotiM very imporUiHt, putn thJH toorH willed Anglo Saxon, are far rnoro great change lialf a century tiU-r in hin nnnuTonH in the I)aneH' eoniitry in tho very valualile llixtory of the Ni.rman ("on immI nf luiKlaiid (luui in any ntJH'r pait. ipieht. .My •.■x|M-rience and long obHerva- N e do not find them in Kenmark nor in lion have led me t<) adifTerent concluMioii. d'ermany nt all earlier than in Kngland. I consider the very rude buildingH of the Neither ilo we find any Norman keep in fifMt half of tho eleventh century, and the Normandy earlier than that ..f (>nndul|ih rapid developjiient of oach micceeding in I'liigland. I believe (Ji.ndulj'h to have