fore cited on a different occasion, are the 
following observations,’ which are ex- 
tracted to the amount of two pages and 
an half, and are accompanied by three 
notes; the first an ironical observation 
on the antiquity of free-masonry; the se- 
cond on the distinction between Gothic 
and Saracenic architecture, marked by 
pinnacles in the former, and cupolas in 
the latter; and the last objects to the 
term “ undulating, zig zag,” used by Mr. 
Walpole. “I shall hereafter have occa- 
sion to observe, that ail undulations, or 
ornaments, partaking of the sections of 
globes, cones, and cylinders, are of Saxon 
extraction, but that angular ones are to 
be attributed to some other people; they 
were certainly introduced into this king- 
by Norman architects.” 
e cannot avoid observing, on this 
rt of the subject, that almost all our 
antiquaries prefer..a circuitous way -of 
obtaining information. Some travel 
through England, others through books; 
the buildings, in one instance, and prints 
‘in the other, exhibit a variety of or- 
naments ; they cogitate on them, and 
orm conjectures, without possessing one 
fact to direct their bewildered fancies. 
However, they must say something. Ac- 
cordingly one is Saxon, another Norman, 
_-&c. &e. because Mr, chooses to 
‘think so, If the research is worth pur- 
suing, why do not the Society of Anti- 
-quaries send experienced artists into Sax- 
ony, Normandy, Denmark, and Arabia, 
or; in short, into every country whose 
*buildings could elucidate the subject, in 
order to make drawings of structures 
‘and. ornaments? which, compared with 
ours, would decide the source of each 
style at once, and fix the dispute for 
ever. 
_ Toproceed in illustration of our charge, 
three pages.are extracted froma work pub- 
lished twenty years past, describing the 
cathedral cf Burgos ; a page and an half 
from Bentham’s History of Ely Cathe- 
_dral; two pages. from Grose ; six and an 
vhalf tvom Murphy's Description of the 
~ Batalha ; tao and one-third from Wiikins’s 
Essay on the Venta Icenorum of the Ro- 
Mans in the Archzologia; and lastly, 
three from Warburton ; so that of an in- 
troduction, containing forty-two pages, 
‘twenty-four are quotations. 
_ Mr. Dickinson then proceeds with 
combating the term Barbarians, . afix- 
»ed to. the Goths by the vanquished Ro- 
Mans; and with a continuation of, the 
“conjectures commenced by preceding 
DICKINSON’S ANTIQUITIES IN NOTTINGHAMSHIRE, &e. 
375 
writers, which we think might be solved 
in the way above suggested. 
He concludes with an odd method of 
appropriating styles in building, by com- 
paring them with the constitutional ha- 
bits of the nation who erects them, than 
which nothing can be more palpably ab- 
surd. 
The oldest part of Southwell church 
is of Saxon architecture, erected, accord- 
ing to the tradition of the place, in the 
reign of Harold, to which Mr. Dickin- 
son seems inclined to subscribe; but as 
there is not a recoyd remaining of the 
foundation, tradition and conjecture must 
be the base of all his theories; they fol- 
low, therefore, as a matter of course. 
—The side aisles, he conceives to be 
“ pure Norman; and, I should guess, 
about the time of William Rufus, or 
perhaps somewhat later. This opinion 
is founded on the essential differences to 
be observed between the style of the 
nave, and that of these aisles. The for- 
mer has a timber roof, as has before been 
mentioned ; and arches, of a species of 
workmanship, strongly indicative of ig- 
noranttimes,and of the rudest notions of 
architecture. The latter have vaulted 
roofs, and those not of the earliest intro- 
duction, but supported by ribs, which 
form angular compartments at their mu- 
tual intersections in the centre.” 
That the church of Southwell was ina 
flourishing state, A. D. 1023, Mr. Dickin- 
son proves from William of Malmsbury, 
and other writers, who assert, that Alfric, 
archbishop of York, gave it two bells; 
for the reception of those, he supposes, 
the tower (we suppose the center one) to 
have been built. Several pages of inge- 
nious reasoning are appropriated to the 
establishment of his conjectures, that this 
church arose in Harold’s time. They 
are supported by comparisons with other 
buildings, whose periods of erection are 
wellknown. The author then proceeds: 
«© To the Norman order of architecture 
(which, it seems, did not difler materially, at 
first, from the Saxon, in any of its most es- , 
sential characteristic features, but was equally 
distinguished by cireular arches, and massive 
pillars, with perhaps some little addition of 
sculpture, and, in sowe instances, vaulted 
roofs) succeeded what is generally under- 
stood, though some think ismproperly, by the 
denomination of Gothic; because, as Wren 
writes, * the Goths were rather the destroyers 
than inventors of arts.’ This style ofbuilding 
seems to have been introduced before the 
reign of King John, and to have prevailed 
very generally in that of Menry LL. It con- 
