« PreviousContinue »
tions were built up again. I am now inclined to accept this theory, on account of the thorough rebuilding which my former view obliges us to suppose within a century after the original addition. The whole work, even in the porch, is, with these exceptions, Decorated from the ground, and not merely, as usual, rebuilt from the window sill; while the Early English architects of this very addition retained so much of the original Norman south aisle as suited their purpose. It will be remembered that the evidence of the centre arcade, which would have decided the question, is lost, owing to the fire of 1699.
Domestic Architecture In South Wales.
Most readers of the Archceologia Cambrensis ought by this time to be acquainted with the two beautiful volumes on Domestic Architecture which have been recently issued by Mr. Parker of Oxford; to the latter indeed that gentleman stands in the relation of author as well as of publisher, having continued the work commenced by the late Mr. Hudson Turner, to whom the antiquarian world was indebted for the first volume. As I am not writing a formal review, I will as far as the general subject is concerned, only bear my testimony to the general excellence of the work, which has filled up a desideratum long observed in archaeological literature, and which ought to be in the hands of every person interested in such pursuits. I wish at present rather to call attention to the remarks it contains on the domestic architecture of the Principality, a subject on which I have myself had occasion to touch in more than one paper in this Journal. I have both to modify some statements of my own, and to contest some of Mr. Parker's.
It was a remarkable fact, commented upon at the time in an English weekly paper,1 that the first volume, which contained a list of all the known English examples of domestic architecture during the period to which it referred, namely up to the end of the thirteenth century, not a single Welsh building was referred to. Yet I need not say that nobler examples of the domestic architecture of that age can hardly be found than in the halls of Chepstow, Pembroke and Lamphey, and in the domestic portions of Tintern Abbey. In the second volume this deficiency has been remedied, even, to a certain extent, at the sacrifice of chronological accuracy, as several buildings are introduced, which would more properly have figured in the first volume. Of Chepstow Castle a minute account is given, but of Tintern no notice is taken at all. His account of the Pembrokeshire buildings Mr. Parker has done us the honour to derive chiefly from my own contributions to this Journal, with the exception of the description of St. David's, taken mainly from another work, perhaps not altogether unknown to its readers. I need hardly say that the author had my fullest and freest permission to make any use he pleased of anything which I had written on the subject; and I feel sure that every member of the Association will join me in satisfaction that its labours should have in any way contributed to the fuller perfection of so admirable a work. But it unfortunately happens that Mr. Parker, as I believe, has never visited any of the localities personally, and my remarks, which were rather comments on the buildings addressed to those who had seen them, than formal descriptions for the benefit of those who had not, were not always calculated to supply the deficiency. I will now proceed to examine the cases severally, which call for any remark.
Pembroke Castle, which deserved a fuller and more technical description than I am at all qualified to give it, is chiefly treated of from my account. I greatly fear that it will convey no very definite idea to those who have
1 The Guardian, August 27,1851.
not seen it, but it may perhaps have the effect of exciting some more competent observer to do it greater justice. I may however remark that the extract is rather confused by an allusion to the chapel being retained, while the description of the chapel (or rather the question as to its position) is omitted.
A good account, evidently supplied by some accurate observer, follows, of the house near Monkton Priory, which excited some attention at the Tenby meeting.2
Carew Castle is described from my notes; so is Lamphey Palace, but Mr. Parker adds to the unqualified statement that it was "built by Bishop Gower," the following note, "Mr. Freeman considers it as of earlier date, but the weight of authority seems to be against him." Mr. Parker appears to have misunderstood the bearing of a sort of " triangular duel," which took place on this subject at Tenby3 between Mr. Babington and myself on one side, Mr. Basil Jones on another, Mr. Moggridge on a third. But that controversy related entirely to the authorship of the arched parapet which occurs in some parts of the Palace; Mr. Jones followed the tradition so far as to believe that Gower added the parapet to a pre-existent building, but considered it as an early work of his, on which he afterwards improved at Swansea and St. David's; Mr. Moggridge regarded it as a rude work of some earlier artist, from which Gower took hints; Mr. Babington and myself set it down as a mere bungling imitation of his work from a later hand. But none of us imagined that Gower had any hand in any part but the parapet, nor would Mr. Parker, could he see the building. Nowhere else is there anything savouring of his peculiar style or of the Decorated age in general. The hall especially, where the parapet does not occur, he could never have touched. It is unmistakeably an Early English building, with Perpendicular alterations.
2 See Archaeologia Cambrensis, 1851, p. 322,1852, p. 191.
An account follows of the "Palace" at Brecon; a building with which I am at present unacquainted, but of which I hope to know more next September. Then comes St. David's, from our work.
Turning back, we find several other buildings treated of briefly; Llawhaden and Upton from my cursory remarks, the others from other sources. Many of these I have not seen or have merely passed by; but I am rather astonished at the remark that St. Donat's "belongs chiefly to the twelfth century." That castle affords a most striking contrast between excellent work of the thirteenth and of the sixteenth century, but I do not remember any Norman portion at all.
"The ruins of Caermarthen and Kidwelly are chiefly Norman." One is amazed at this notice of the very gem of thirteenth century castellated architecture, and still more so at the fact that, though there is a general view of Caerphilly Castle, as restored from Mr. Clark's survey, there is not one word of that glorious hall, one of the noblest triumphs of the domestic architecture of the century under special consideration. This is the more strange, as Mr. Clark's monographs have described all the details of both these castles.
Chepstow and Caldicot are described at length. In the former case, as I have revisited the castle with Mr. Parker's volume in my hand, I can bear witness to the general accuracy of most part of the description. Mr. Parker calls the building which I had suggested as an oratory, "the lord's oratory;" and finds the principal chapel elsewhere. But it is not an accurate statement to say that the former "is built in the angle formed by one of the round towers of the entrance gate-house and the wall of the castle." It is attached to what is called "Marten's Tower" which stands at a considerable distance from the gate-house. It seems also an unnecessary confusion of nomenclature to speak of a "fine range of Early Decorated windows in the great hall," and of "a very rich screen of Early English work," when the two are palpably contemporary.
But the suggestion that the bay at the end of the hall partitioned off by this screen was the great chapel, is worthy of every attention. I do not however implicitly accept it; because, if so, the altar must have been at the west end—for we can hardly fancy it to have been placed against the screen connecting it with the hall—nor could I discern any piscina. There are several difficulties as to the arrangement of this hall which this account fails to explain, such as the purpose of the upper range of windows and the character of the roof. The screen could hardly have gone across with a single arch, and yet it is hard to understand how it could have been double, for what could there be for the central pier to rest on?
I cannot allude again to Chepstow, however cursorily, without calling attention to the remarkable similarity between its noblest portion and that of Pembroke. The general external appearance of the two halls, and the way in which the masonry grows out of the rock is strikingly analogous in the two. Both have also a chamber opening above the water; but at Pembroke we find the natural vault of the Wogan, while at Chepstow its place is supplied by a fine specimen of artificial groining. If Pembroke lacks the rich scenery which surrounds Chepstow, Chepstow, in its turn, has nothing to set against the round tower at Pembroke.
In conclusion, I must not omit again to add that the defects which I have thought myself called upon to point out in this portion of Mr. Parker's book are mere dust in the balance, and do not affect the sterling value of one of the most important of recent additions to antiquarian literature. They might be very easily corrected in an appendix to the third volume, which I trust will not very long delay its appearance.
Edward A. Freeman.
Oaklands, Dursley, May 11, 1853.