AN Teal Q:U TD) PDE S. 
entitled to animadversion, let us en- 
deavour to ascertain, with seme ap- 
pearance of consistency and ration- 
ality, the origin, styles of architec- 
ture, and characteristics of 
English Round Churches. 
These certainly constitute a sin- 
gularand rare class of ancient cdi- 
fices, and are eminently interesting 
to the architectural antiquary. The 
three examples here brought forward 
will perhaps stagger the faith, or 
remove the doubts, of those writers 
who contend that the pointed arch, 
when once adopted, completely su- 
perseded the semicircular. Such 
antiquaries should recollect that new 
fashions, with every other species of 
novelty, are not instantaneously and 
universally embraced ; but that they 
become prevalent according to their 
utility, and in proportion to the in- 
fluence of the inventor. Every new 
fashion has also to contend with the 
prejudices of man, and with his es- 
tablished customs. ‘The revolutions 
_ of architecture are not exempt from 
these obstacles ; and we should not, 
therefore, be surprised in beholding 
two styles of arches, &c. employed 
in the same building.* (In the cir- 
cular parts of the churches at Nor- 
thampton and at the Temple, this 
variety of style is decidedly mani- 
fest. Here the pointed arch is dis- 
played, from its first formation, (the 
intersection of the semicircular 
-archesin the Temple church) through 
the’gradation of the plain, simple, 
almost straight-lined triangle, in the 
church at Northampton, to that of 
the Temple, where the same shaped 
987 
arch is adorned with mouldings, and 
where it springs from the capitals of 
clustered columns. 
The origin of round churches, in 
England, has been generally attri- 
buted to the Jews. This opinion 
was very prevalent in Cambridge, 
till Mr. Essex corrected it by his 
historical observations, which were 
published in the sixth volume of the 
Archeologia. ‘‘ Their temple at 
Jerusalem,” he observes, ‘* was not 
of the circular form, neither was 
the tabernacle of Moses ; nor do we 
find the modern Jews affect that 
figure in building their synagogues. 
It has, however, been generally sup- 
posed, that the round church at 
Cambridge, that at Northampton, 
aad some others, were built for sy- 
nagogues, by the Jews, while they 
were permitted to dwell in those 
places ; but as no probable reason 
can be assigned for this supposition, 
and I thinkit very certain that the 
Jews, who were settled in Cam- 
bridge, had their synagogue, and 
probably dwelled together, in a part 
of the town now called the Jewry, 
so we may reasonably conclude, the 
round churches we find in other 
parts of this kingdom were not built 
by the Jews, for synagogues, what- 
ever the places may be calledin which 
they stand.’+ As these churches 
are evidently not of Roman archi- 
tecture, and as they were not erec- 
ted by the Jews, we are naturally 
curious to ascertain when, and by 
whom, they were built. There ap- 
pears to be four perfect examples 
of these buildings in England: St. ' 
Sepulchre’s church at Cambridge, 
St. Sepulchre’s church at Northamp- 
ton, 
* Thumbly offer this, merely as a hint, or a remark en passant, at present: in 
another place I hope to develope and elucidate the subject. 
+ Archzxologia, vol. VE. p. 166. 
