The general form of Saxon churches seems to have been that of a simple oblong or parallelogram, as we learn from Bede and other writers ; some, however, were crueilbrm in plan, as that of St. Nary at I lexham, erected by St. Wilfrid, and which is described by Richard, prior of the same place, as being furnished with a "tower of a round form, from which] four porticos or aisles proceeded." The church at Ramsay in I Inntingdonshire, erected A. D. 909, was also of this form. This church also is said to have had two towers, one at the west end, and another in the centre of the transept, supported by four arches. \Volstan informs us that the old church at Winchester had a tower at the west end, but the new one at the east end of the church. Representations of buildings of this kind in some of the old Saxon illuminated books, tend to confirm this testimony. Dr. Al liner observes that " The use of small bells (noiw) in this country, if we may credit William of Malmsbury, may be traced as high as the fifth century. And it is clear from Bede, that even those of the larger kind (campana), such as sounded in the air, and called a numerous congregation to divine service, were employed in England as early as the year 680, being that in which the abbot I lilda died." Towers were also useful for other purposes, such as strongholds or places of refuge, to which the people might resort in cases of sudden to which they were especially liable from the Danes; also as beacons for travellers during the night, for we learn from woktan that the new tower at Winchester consisted of five stories, in each of which were four windows looking towards the cardinal points, which were illuminated every night. Such lights were most useful in those days, when the roads were few and bail, and the forests thick and numerous.
The few buildings which now remain, that eau by written documents be proved to be of an age prior to the Conquest, have caused many \•iters to assert, that there is at present scarcely a. true specimen of Anglo-Saxon architecture extant. This opinion has been very prevalent of late years; but we are strongly inclined to believe, that many more examples remain than is generally admitted. The causes by which the great scarcity of examples is accounted for by such writers, are principally- these :—the necessary antiquity.of the buildings; the furor of the middle-age architects for rebuilding churches in the latest styles ; and the ravages of the Danes. Now we know from written testimony, as above shown, that a large number of churches were erected by the Saxons, and many of these built of stone in a durable man ner. Will, therefore, the above causes be deemed sufficient to account for their total demolition? We think not. In the first place, then, as regards their antiquity, it may at the first blush appear unreasonable to expect to find many churches standing, after a lapse of twelve centuries; nor is it quite fair to cite such examples as those of Egypt, Greece, or Babylon, to refute this statement; for we arc well aware, that they were constructed with much greater skill and strength than the Saxon churches. But there is no occasion
to refer to such examples ; we all admit that specimens of Norman architecture arc still to be found without much diffi culty, and in tolerable abundance; does it not, however, appear somewhat extraordinary, that we should have no lack of examples of structures built immediately after the Con quest, and vet scarcely any of the period just preceding that event ; surely, it is not natural that the differences of num bers should be so very great ; certainly, the difference of age will not account for it. This difficulty, which nullifies the first cause assigned for time paucity of examples, will equally affect the second. The third is somewhat more plausible, yet at the same time we cannot think that it accounts for such an extraordinary difference of numbers between Saxon and Norman remains as the advocates of this opinion would have us to believe ; if so, the ravages of the Danes must have been of a more formidable description than we think history warrants us in believing.
But there arc some positive reasons, which would lead us to conclude that a greater number of Saxon remains are now in existence, than is generally supposed. For instance, there are some churches in which Norman work is inserted into structures of a decidedly earlier, nay, much earlier date, which must in consequence belong to the period before the Conquest. The fact of work being anterior to the Conquest, is not, we are well aware, sufficient to prove it purely Saxon, for it is generally allowed as probable, that the Norman style was partially introduced into England before the invasion by William. In many of these instances, however, the older work is of a totally different character to the Norman, of a much more rude and barbarous description, and bears undoubted evidence of being of a date considerably antecedent to the .Norman addition. In some cases, such remains are found in churches which are principally Norman, and this affords further proof of its antiquity ; for it is reasonable to suppose, that a church partly re-edified in the Norman era must have been at that time a very old one.
An instance of the kind we allude to has recently come to light at lver, Bucks, where it was discovered during restora tion, that the north wall of the nave, which was apparently Norman, was in reality of earlier date, containing under the plaster the jambs of a. door and window, as well as a string course, both in the north and south walls, of an undoubtedly earlier epoch ; a matter which was still further confirmed by the discovery of Roman bricks in the quoins of the east end of the nave walls, thus proving that the shell of the building was of greater antiquity than its general appear ance denoted.