« הקודםהמשך »
These are the deliberate opinions of archæologists and architects who have given very diligent study to the question of dates in this building. Think what presumption it would be for a stranger to come here, and, after a comparatively cursory view of the subject, to pronounce on the conclusions above recited. That is not what was undertaken on this occasion. But Mr. Freeman advises comparison of one building with another, and many examples might have been brought forward in this respect; but it happens that some details of the Priory church of Tutbury, in Staffordshire, are at hand, and are here produced. This church was begun, as Sir Oswald Mosley relates, in 1080, and the founder, Henry de Ferrers, was interred in it before 1090; the charter states that the foundation was amongst other good intentions) “for the soul of King William and Queen Matilda.” It will be seen that this church is not unlike, in its general expression, the Abbey church now under discussion, and that its details favour an earlier character than Waltham Holy Cross. Then, the Norman part of Rochester Cathedral is fresh in the memory of those present, and, above all, the early part of St. Alban's Cathedral is well within our recollection. It is hardly within the scope of this paper to criticise the reasons for the conclusions others have come to as to these dates ; but it may well be asked that the effect on the minds of those who hold to the Saxon theory, by reason of the belief that Harold built a church here, should be borne in mind, and also that Mr. Freeman himself emphatically says that the example is unique. But for this historic statement, would Mr. Reeve consider the minute deviations in detail which he tries to establish between the west and east portions be to his mind enough to account for a Saxon date? What, in my humble view, is significant, is the fact that not a single work of Saxon design or workmanship is present, except possibly in the lower part of the eastern face of the south transept west wall, and the external rubble facings in the south aisle. But, on the other hand, the design, the workmanship and the ornamentation are all Norman, and in all probability Norman oversight controlled the work.
OBJECTS OF INTEREST IN WALTHAM
BY REV. J. H. STAMP, CURATE.
Read September 26th, 1896. MUST first say how glad I am, in the absence of the Vicar, to have the privilege of welcoming the members of the Association ; and to avail myself of this opportunity of expressing my gratitude to the Society for the valuable
assistance given to me, in the records of past transactions, in the arduous work of compiling a complete history of this famous Abbey church.
I proceed now to give a brief account of the modern history of the church, with a reference to various objects of interest.
The ancient choir, two short transepts, and the central tower, were destroyed after the dissolution of the monastery in 1540. The only remains of this magnificent work is the grand Norman arch at the present east end. The rough way in which this arch was filled in is shown by an engraving suspended on the south wall of the modern vestry. The remainder of the east end is the work of the late W. Burges, Esq., who was responsible for the restoration of the building in 1859-60, when the upper part was completed, but the reredos was not inserted until 1876. The cartoons for the windows were designed by Sir Edward Burne-Jones, and the glass is the work of Messrs. Powell, of Whitefriars. The ceiling, similar in treatment to that of Peterborough Cathedral, was painted during the restoration by E. J. Poynter, Esq., son of Ambrose Poynter, Esq., the architect who
I Now President of the Royal Academy.