178 Bishops of Old Sarum. 
It is just possible that what is really meant is that Roger restored 
the Cathedral built by Osmund after its injury by hghtning, and, 
it may be, enlarged it; for Osmund died no long time after his 
Cathedral was so injured. Nevertiicless I own that, accepting this 
statement as it stands, we seem driven to the conclusion that a second 
Cathedral superseding Osmund’s, on possibly a much larger scale, was 
built by Bishop Roger. There is nothing improbable in this, for the 
Norman prelates built their minsters on a vast scale, far surpassing’ 
what they were used to in their own country. Nor did the Norman 
architects scruple to destroy the English Churches which they found. 
They were too small for the grand conception of the Norman prelates 
and architects; and it is absurd to suppose that buildings of less 
than a century old could have needed rebuilding on the score of 
decay. And so, I repeat, that though nothing more may be meant 
than that he completely repaired the Church so much injured by 
lightning, yet there is nothing in the probabilities of the case to 
hinder us from believing that a second Cathedral, on a grander scale 
than Osmund’s, rose at Old Sarum at the bidding of the great master 
builder of the day.’ 
For indeed Roger was the great architectural genius of the twelfth 
century. In his own person—I am indebted for the substance of 
these remarks to Mr. E. A. Freeman—he brought to perfection that 
later form of Norman architecture, lighter and richer than the 
earlier type, which slowly died out before the introduction of the 
pointed arch and its accompanying details. Malmesbury speaks 
of his edifices as having surpassing beauty, “the courses of stones 
1A passage in the ‘‘ Acts of Stephen” (Bohn’s edition, p. 371), would seem 
to support the view advanced above ; for, after stating that vast quantities of 
treasure left by Bishop Roger in the Church of Sarum fell into the king’s hands 
on his death it says: —‘‘ The king applied part of the money to roofing the Church, 
and part for relieving the wants of the canons; and the lands, and possessions, 
which the bishop had appropriated, he restored to the Churches and ecclesiastical 
uses, and reinstating the two Churches of Malmesbury and Abbotsbury in their 
ancient splendour, caused the abbots of those monasteries to be canonically en- 
throned.” It is right however to state that the anonymous writer of the ‘‘ Acts 
of Stephen” was a partizan of that king; and that Henry of Huntingdon, a 
eontemporary writer, speaks more favourably of Bishop Roger, or at least does 
not quite so indiscriminately condemn him. 
