probably constructed by the Normans, and, in other instances, sustaining incongruous arches of the pointed style; or in the gloomy crypts seen beneath many ancient churches.* Destitute Gervase, 1292, Twisden.) It, likewise, appears that smaller occasional courts were held at the doors of country churches. (Ibid, p. 155. note, and the authority there quoted.)—We are informed by Blomefield's History of Norwich, that it was customary, formerly, for "a couple who were to be married, to be placed at the church door, where the priest used to join their hands, and perform the greatest part of the matrimonial office; it was here that the husband endowed his wife with the portion, or dowry, contracted for; which was, therefore, called dos ad ostium eeclesiæ, or the dowry at the church door." Chaucer describes his " Wife of Bath," as receiving her husbands at "the church dore.”—The preservation of round-headed door-cases, in re-edified buildings, is not peculiar to this country. The author of the Ornaments of churches considered (p. 91. note) observes, "that an old door, with a round arch, and hatched mouldings, is remaining in the cathedral of Liege," although the other parts of that structure are entirely of the pointed order. * Concerning the intended purpose of the crypts remaining beneath many ancient churches, and those which are sometimes found, without any existing superstructure, numerous conjectures have been formed; the majority of which appear to be entitled to little consideration. From the extract of Richard, Prior of Hexham, given in a previous page (p. 258.) it will be seen that the Saxons constructed" chapels, and oratories subterraneous," beneath their principal churches. A learned and ingenious correspondent suggests the probability of many crypts being originally designed for sunctuaries; and presents the following observations. "It appears that crypts were formed much more frequently during the Saxon and Danish dynasties, than after those eras. In subsequent times, the chancel of every church became a sanctuary; and in the reign of Henry the Seventh, even the churchyards protected, for a prescribed term, persons accused of any crime, except treason. &c. and this privilege was not abolished until the reign of James the First. "In the barbarous ages of the Saxons and Danes, persons of consequence, and even some of the nobility, occasionally filed to these sanctuaries; where they were concealed from the rage of the injured family, until their crimes were atoned for. By which means, sanctuaries afforded a considerable reve nue Destitute of positive data, whence to form analogical inferences, the decision of the examiner must, however, be made with great caution; since the utmost result of his judgment can amount only to ingenious conjectural appropriation. In the above outline of opinion, I have been actuated by a persuasion that we have not direct testimony for believing any known remaining building to have been erected in an Anglo-Saxon age. Bolder writers, and perhaps more luminous guides, inculcate different precepts. In the current annals of antiquarianism, numerous fabrics are either wholly, or in part, received, without hesitation, as relics of ages anterior to the conquest. But it would appear, that, when forming such a conclusion in regard to conventual churches, (the only buildings of our Saxon ancestors, concerning which we possess a resemblance of legitimate record) the enquirer is often misled, by a dependance on the date at which the institution was founded.-A modern writer justly observes, that "Charters of foundation are insufficient evidence in such cases; because new endowments were formed, or grafted on former; and later erections were raised on the sites of preceding buildings."* Whilst nue to the clergy. We may readily suppose that no expense would be spared in the architectural decoration of buildings appropriated to so lucrative a use; and, accordingly, they are often found to be enriched with fine groined arches, whilst the supporting pillars are highly ornamented with grotesque devices; particularly in the instance of the crypt beneath St. Peter's church, at Oxford. "That crypts were, in later times, used as cemeteries, is very probable: but that they were not uniformly designed for such a purpose, is evident from a curious small crypt, now beneath a house on the west side of the mar ket-cross, at Clare, in Suffolk; which is, in dimensions of ground plan, 20 feet by 17; with the roof supported by a single pillar, in the centre, similar to a chapter-house. In the instance of this crypt, it would have been impracticable for a grave to have been dug, without danger to the foundation of the pillar; the space being only six feet from the base of the pillar to the foundation of the walls." M.S. communication of Thomas Walford, Esq. F. A. S. • Architectural Antiquities, Vol. III. p. 23. Whilst admitting the propriety of this remark, we enter on the difficulty of distinguishing between architectural works of the Saxons and Normans, in this country; since the buildings often attributed to the dynasty of the former, are found, on careful investigation, to resemble, even in many particulars of minute ornament, existing structures, which may be ascribed, on satisfactory grounds, to succeeding Anglo-Norman ages. The dates at which churches were erected, are sometimes ascertained by inscriptions. Such memorials are not very unusual, in buildings raised after the conquest; but they are truly rare, as regards the Anglo-Saxon ages, except in instances where they have evidently been composed in more recent times. Dr. Pegge, in his Sylloge of Ancient Inscriptions, notices only four; which occur at Jarrow, in the county palatine of Durham ;* Kirkdale, in Yorkshire; Aldbrough, in Holderness; and Postling, in Kent. But these buildings do not present any decided architectural remains, in the style believed to have prevailed at the dates indicated by the inscriptions. In a work like the present, which is not intended to be merely the vehicle of individual opinion, but is designed to convey a brief analysis of what has been adduced on each subject, by antiquarian authors of eminent credit, it is required that some notice should be taken of the criteria usually adopted by such as venture to draw a line between the architectural style under consideration, and that of the Normans, as practised in Britain. With two exceptions (the writings of Mr. Millers and Mr. King) such remarks are of a fugitive, irregular, character, and may be concisely stated. It is generally agreed that the churches of the Anglo-Saxons were inferior in size to those of their successors; and it may, certainly, Mr. Hutchinson (Hist. of Durham, Vol. II.) supposes the inscription at Jarrow, to be really more modern than the time of the Anglo-Saxons. See, also, Beautics for Durham, p. 172. + See this inscription noticed, likewise, Archæol. Vol. V. p. 188. et seq. This inscription has now disappeared. See Beauties for Kent, p. 1124. certainly, be presumed that, if any still remain in those retired situations, where alone they can be supposed to exist, they are of very limited proportions. Dr. Milner asserts that they may, in part, be distinguished by "the coarseness of the work ;"* and we have been told, by Mr. Staveley,+"that the Saxons made their churches generally with descents into them, whereas the Normans, contrarily, made theirs with ascents." But this latter observation is noticed, chiefly that it may be corrected. Dr. Ducarel, writing concerning some of the most ancient churches which he examined, in Normandy, states, "that the entrance into such churches, is always, by a descent of three or four steps;" and that the Normans used the same method in Britain, is evinced by many churches, now ascertained to have been erected under their patronage. Dr. Milner believes that "certain low cones, which frequently cover the towers, and flank the corners of the buildings," are peculiar marks of this style of architecture.§ It would appear that he forms such an opinion, on the occurrence of these conical cappings at the east end of St. Peter's, Oxford. According to Mr. Dallaway, "the principal discrimination between the Saxon and the Norman styles, appears to be, that of much larger dimensions, in every part; plain, but more lofty, vaulting; circular pillars of greater diameter; the round arches, and the capitals, having ornamental carvings much more elaborate and various, adapted to them."|| In the twelfth volume of Archæologia, are some diffuse remarks concerning distinctions between these two styles, from the pen of Mr. Wilkins; and, as what he has written has met with considerable notice, I present the following extract. "The Saxons supported their arches, which separated the aisles, T Arohitecture of the Middle ages, p. 28. + History of Churches, &c. p. 151. Anglo-Norman Antiq. p. 97. Architecture of the Middle ages, p. 28. Observations on English Architecture, p. 19. aisles, by a single column, or rather pier, which was circular, octangular, or hexangular, in the plan; whereas the Norman architects supported theirs, in general, with extremely massive piers, ornamented on their sides and angles with upright small columns; and sometimes they intermixed them with round piers, like the Saxons, as may be seen in Ely, Norwich, Peterborough, and other cathedrals. They differed widely, however, from the Roman proportions; and the Normans increased the difference, as is shewn by the following comparison: The same proportions may be observed in Ely, Peterborough, and other Norman buildings."* Mr. Millers presents the following, among other presumed "Characteristics of the Saxou style."-In regard to form and extent, it may be questioned "whether their churches were ever higher than one tier of arches, and a range of windows above. Richard, Prior of Hexham, speaks of three stories, which implies another tier of arches; but if he is rightly so understood, this seems an exception from a general rule, for the church of Hexham is spoken of by all writers who mention it, as the glory of Archæol. Vol. XII. p. 159. |