t- 5644 
this fpecies of archite@ture. And thofe who have incidentally 
made mention of it, have in general dire€ted their enquiries to its 
origin rather than its principles. 
2. The Saxon, Norman and Gothic ftyles of architeQure, though 
nearly related to each other, yet have their peculiar chara€teriftics 
and diftinguifhing features, The Saxon and Norman architecture 
agree in this, that the form of the building is the fame, the 
pillars round, fquare or polygonal, and very ftrong and maflive, 
and the arches and heads of the doors and windows femicircular. 
Mr. Lentham thinks that the criterion of Norman architecture, by 
which it is diftinguifhed from the Saxon, is its fuperior maflivenefs 
and enlarged dimenfions. The Saxon churches, he obferves, were 
often elegant fabrics and well conftruéted, but generally of a 
moderate fize, frequently completed in the fpace of, five or fix 
years, or lefs time. The works of the Normans were large, 
fumptuous and magnificent, of great length and breadth, and 
carried up to a proportionable height, with two and fometimes 
three ranges of pillars, one over another, of different dimenfions, 
conne@ed together by various arches, all femicircular, forming 
thereby a lower and upper portico, and over them a gallery. In 
the centre was a lofty tower, and fometimes one or two added at 
the weft end, as in the venerable cathedral at Hereford, which 
not long fince has funk under the weight of years. But I am 
inclined to think there is a much more ftriking difference between 
thefe two orders: I mean in the pillars. The Saxon columns, 
we know, were round, fquare or polygonal, and very mafflive ; 
but if we look’ into Do&or Ducarel’s Norman antiquities, we 
fhall find the Norman pillars, without exception, to be flender 
and 
