4 PAPERS, ETC. 
not be out of place to shew that it is at least pro- 
bable that the style was really distinet from any other, 
more particularly as the ridicule which has been heaped 
upon the credulity of antiquaries, has rendered those of 
the present day a very sceptical race—much more so, in- 
deed, than appears to me to be consonant with right 
reason; for it is in vain to search for evidence about 
things which took place nearly a thousand years ago, as 
conclusive as would be required to prove a fact of the 
present time. Now, we know from documentary evidence, 
that Edward the Confessor built at Thorney a church in a 
new style, and that this church was constructed by Nor- 
man architects, and was, no doubt, a Norman church. 
William of Malmsbury, describing the change among the 
celergy under the Normans, says : “ Videas ubique in villis 
ecclesias, in vicis et urbibus monasteria novo edificandi 
genere consurgere.” “ You may see churches and monas- 
teries rising in a new style of architecture” Now, ifthe 
Norman was a new style, the Saxon which preceded must 
have been different ; and Ordericus Vitalis, speaking of the 
state of England in 1070, says : “ Fiebant et reparabantur 
basilice.” “Churches were built and repaired;” and 
certainly it is probable that the churches which were re- 
paired four years after the Conquest, were Saxon buildings. 
If, then, we find in early Norman churches details very 
different from those common in that style, we cannot, I 
think, be fairly accused of unreasonable eredulity if we 
suppose them to be relics of that old style, which was 
different from that introduced by Edward the Confessor 
in his church at Thorney or Westminster ; nor is it really 
a valid objection that some of these peculiarities are 
found in churches, which are known to have been built 
after the Conquest ; for the question is not so much, whe- 
