2 PAPERBS, ETC. 
country. I should also say, that from want of a good 
library, I have not been able to verify some of my quota- 
tions ; but they are taken from good authority, and are, I 
believe, correct. 
The antiquaries of the last century, as well as those 
of the early part of the present, appear to have had but 
very vague ideas upon the subject of architecture. Even 
the learned Milner, whose fondness for Gothic buildings 
sometimes exposed him to the ridicule of the virtuosi of 
his day, who could see no beauty in anything which 
was not classical, considered every building in which the 
arches were not pointed, as Saxon; and though well 
aware that Walklyn built the transepts of Winchester 
Cathedral very shortly after the Conquest, was so little 
acquainted with the masonry of that time, as to sup- 
pose that he was also the builder of the tower of that 
cathedral, and speaks of them all, together with St. Cross 
—built by Henry de Blois, in the reign of Stephen—as 
Saxon edifices. Indeed, so little was the distinetion of 
styles understood, that the celebrated Thomas Wharton, in 
his description of Winchester, confidently pronounces the 
work of Bishop Godfrey de Lucy, on the east side of the 
choir, to be prior to the date of Walklyn’s work, though 
it is a very pure and beautiful, though early, specimen of 
the style in use in the thirteenth century, to which the 
well-known Rickman has given the name of early English ; 
and I believe the vergers still show the erypts as Saxon 
work, in spite of the rather contradictory fact, satisfactorily 
proved by documentary evidence by Professor Willis, that 
the Norman Cathedral built by Walklyn did not occupy 
the same site as that on which the original edifice stood. 
When, however, the study of our ancient buildings be- 
came more popular, and was carried on in a spirit of closer 
