The writer informs us that at this time the church at Anderlecht, by
reason of its great age, was almost a ruin; some of the walls had
actually fallen down, and others were in imminent danger of doing so.
The clergy and the people therefore decided with one accord to sell the
rich gifts which for years past pilgrims had been offering at the shrine
of Saint Guy, and with the fund thus realised to build a new and more
spacious church. If, then, the present crypt, which only measures forty
feet by forty-eight, was the outcome of this decision, the former
structure must indeed have been one of exceedingly narrow dimensions.
Although 'the poor man of Anderlecht' had during his lifetime been
regarded as a saint, he was not publicly honoured as such until some
forty years after his demise. About this time (1054) what our author
calls a basilica, no doubt a small mortuary chapel, had been erected
over his grave, and as it adjoined the church it now became necessary to
pull it down in view of the proposed building operations. Hence the
question arose, What should be done with the saint's body? The matter
was referred to the bishop of the diocese, Gerard II. of Cambrai, 'who
had succeeded the Lord Lietbert of blessed memory'--this fixes the date,
Gerard received consecration in 1076--and he ordained that the body
should be disinterred and provisionally laid to rest in the centre of
the church until the new building should be ready for its reception.
The bishop's instructions, our author avers, were duly carried out, and
in the last paragraph of his narrative, he informs us that 'the
elevation of Saint Guy' was made by Bishop Odard on the 24th of July,
1112. It would seem, then, that from the earliest times there have been
two churches at Anderlecht, an upper church and a lower church; that the
former, having fallen into a ruinous state, was pulled down in the year
1076 and rebuilt on a larger scale, and that the new structure was
completed in the summer of 1112, certainly not later than that date.
Further, that the lower church, which no doubt had been more solidly
built than the upper building, seeing that it was intended to support a
superstructure, was still in 1076 in good repair, and that hence it was
left standing.
Public-domain text, read in full here on John Shaqi.
Reviews
Reviews
No reviews yet
Be the first to share your thoughts on this work.
Elsewhere in the archive
Join the Discussion
Join the discussion
Sign in to leave a comment or review.
Sign InorCreate an account