A R C H I T 
fame rank ir the Anglo-Saxon times. For this we have 
the teflimony of a perfon of undoubted credit, who was 
well acquainted with them both. “ The Anglo-Saxon 
nobles (fays William of Malmfbury) fquandered away their 
ample revenues in low and mean houfes; but the French 
and Norman barons are very different from them, livingat 
lefs expence, but in great and magnificent palaces.” The 
truth is, that the rage of building fortified caftles was no 
lefs violent among the Norman princes, prelates, and ba¬ 
rons, than that of building churches. To this they were 
prompted not only by the cuftom of their native country, 
but alfo by their dangerous fituation in this ifland. Sur¬ 
rounded by multitudes, whom they had depreffed and 
plundered, and by whom they were abhorred, they could 
not think themfelves fa'fe without the protection of deep 
ditches and ftrong walls. The conqueror himfelf was fen- 
fible, that the want of fortified places in England had 
greatly facilitated his conqueft, and might facilitate his ex- 
pullion; and therefore he made all pollible hafte to remedy 
this defect, by building very magnificent and ftrong caftles 
in all the towns within the royal demefnes. “ William 
(fays Matthew Paris) excelled all his predeceffors in build¬ 
ing cattles, and greatly haraffed his fubjects and vaffals* 
with thefe works.” All his earls, barons, and even pre¬ 
lates, imitated his example; and it was the firft care of 
every one who received the grant of an eftate from the 
crown, to build a cattle upon it for his defence and refi- 
dence. The difputes about the fuccetlion in the following 
reigns, kept up this fpirit for building great and ftrong 
cattles. William Rufus was ftill a greater builder than his 
father. “ This William (fays Henry Knyghton) was much 
addicted to building royal catlles and palaces, as the caftles 
of Dover, Norwich, Exeter, &c. the palaces ofWeftmintter, 
and many others, teftify ; nor was there any king of Eng¬ 
land before him that erected fo many and fitch noble edifi¬ 
ces. But this rage for building cattles never prevailed i'o 
much in any period of the Englitli hiftory as in the turbu¬ 
lent reign of king Stephen, from A.D. 1135 to A. D. 1154. 
“ In this reign (as we are told by the author of the Saxon 
Chronicle) every one who was able built a cattle ; fo that 
the poor people were worn out with the toil of thefe build¬ 
ings, and the whole kingdom was covered with cattles.” 
This laft expreffion will hardly appear too ftrong, when 
we are informed, that befides all the caftles before that 
time in England, no fewer than 1115 were raifed from the 
foundation in the thort fpace of nineteen years ! 
The caftles, monafteries, and greater churches, of this 
period, were generally covered with lead, the windows 
glazed; and, when the walls were not of afhlar, they were 
neatly plaftered, and white-wafhed on botlr (ides. The 
doors, floors, and roof, were commonly made of oak planks 
and beams, exactly fmoothed and jointed, and frequently 
carved. It is hardly neceffary to obferve, that the build¬ 
ing of thefe great and magnificent caftles, monafteries, 01- 
churches, mull have been a work of prodigious labour ; 
and that the architects and artificers, by whom that work 
was planned and executed, mutt have attained contidera- 
ble dexterity in the arts. Several of thefe architects have 
defervedly retained a name in hiftory, and are highly ce¬ 
lebrated for their fuperior fkill. William of Sens, archi¬ 
tect to archbiftiop Lanfranc in building his cathedral, is 
laid, by Gervafe of Canterbury, to have been a moft ex- 
quifite artift both in ftone and wood. He made not only a 
model of the whole cathedral, but of every particular piece 
of fculpture and carving, for the direction of the work¬ 
men, and invented many curious machines for loading and 
unloading (hips, and conveying heavy weights by land, 
becaufe all the (tones were brought from Normandy. 
Matthew Paris fpeaks even in a higher (train of Walter of 
Coventry,- who flourifhed towards the end of this period, 
when he fays, that “ fo excellent an architect had never 
yet appeared, and probably never would appear, in the 
world.” This encomium was undoubtedly too high ; but 
it is impoffible to view the remains of fo many magnificent 
fabrics, both facred and civil) that were erected in this 
E C T U R E. 83. 
period, without admiring the genius of the architects by 
whom they were planned, and the dexterity of the work¬ 
men by whom they were executed. 
Although the Roman or Grecian architecture did not 
begin to prevail in England till the time of Inigo Jones, 
yet our communication with the Italians, ansi our imitation 
of their manners, produced home few fpecimens of that 
ftyle much earlier. Perhaps the earlielt was Soinerfet- 
houfe, above-mentioned. The monument of bifhop Gar¬ 
diner, in Winchefter cathedral, made in the reign of Mary, 
about 1355, is decorated with Ionic pillars. But thefe or¬ 
naments were often abfurdly introduced into the old Gothic 
ftyle ; as in the magnificent portico of the fchools at Ox¬ 
ford, ereCIed about the year 1613; where the builder, in 
a Gothic edifice, has affeCtedly di(played his univerfalJ/M/ 
in architecture, by giving 11s all the five orders together. 
However, moft of the great buildings of queen Elizabeth’s 
reign have a ftyle peculiar to themfelves, both in form and 
finifiring ; where, though much of the old Gothic is re¬ 
tained, and great part of the new tafte is adopted, yet nei¬ 
ther predominates; while both, thus diftindly blended, 
compofe a fantaftic fpecies, hardly reducible to any clafs 
or name. One of its charaeteriftics is the affectation of 
large and lofty windows: where, fays Bacon, “ you (hall 
have fonretinres fair houfes fo full of glafs, that one can¬ 
not tell where to come to be out of the fun.” 
From this view of the rife and progrefs of architecture 
in England, it is eafy to perceive, that after the Romans 
had abandoned this country, the Gothic ftyle was intro¬ 
duced here by the Saxons; and that it prevailed, at lead 
in Britain, to the end of the fifteenth century. Of this ar¬ 
chitecture there are two fpecies; the one plain and robuft, 
fomewhat fimilar to the Tufcan ; the other light, airy, and 
ornamental, in fome meafitre refembling the Corinthian or 
Cornpoftte. The firft (eems clearly diftinguilhable by its 
fhort, round, maflive, column; fo thick, venerable, and 
bulky, as to referable the trunk of the moft fturdy oak ; 
whence we may conceive its primary objeCt was ftrength 
and durability ; while, on the other hand, it evinces great 
originality, and (hews it to have been but little advanced 
from its priftine date. Another diftinguifhing feature is 
its femicircular, round, or horfe-ftioe, arch, and'plain thick 
walls, without buttrefi'es ; which ftyle (eems to have pre¬ 
vailed during the whole time of the Saxon government. 
The (econd fpecies is known by its thin or (lender column,, 
or clufter of columns combined in one, refembling a num¬ 
ber of (lender trunks of trees united or tied together ; de¬ 
corated with a pointed arch, a profufion of ornaments, 
buttreffes, and pinnacles. This improved ftyle was intro¬ 
duced under the Norman government, when fcience and 
the arts began to revive. It is however curious to remark 
the contradictory obfervations and arguments of different 
authors, as to the origin of thefe two kinds of building. 
Some abfolutely deny them to be Gothic, becaufe, they 
fay, the Goths never aftlimed any dominion in England. 
Others impute the invention of the firft kind to the Saxons, 
and the fecond to the Saracens or Moors ; while others 
again contend, that the firft kind was a rude and humble- 
imitation of the Roman architecture, and that the latter 
ftyle was brought from Paleftine, and adopted by the Nor¬ 
mans. It neverthelefs appears obvious, that both thefe 
kinds of buildings, from the great affinity of their parts, 
fprung from one and the fame fouree, and originated with 
the Goths ; who having introduced it in its plain and (im- 
p!e Itate, it in time acquired, from the tafte and manners 
of different nations, its light and airy form, receiving its 
finifh, perhaps, from the more ingenious hand of the Nor¬ 
mans. And fince the whole maflive ftile was unqueftion- 
ably the mode univerfally practifed by the Saxons ; and 
the light and airy by the Normans, we may, with great 
propriety, denominate the firjl the Saxon Gothic, and the 
latter the Norman Gothic, Architetture. 
There are, however, many different opinions on this fub- 
ject; -and fome writers who even ftigmatize all the Gothic 
ftruutures as ceftitute of tafte, order, or uniformity ; and 
fo. 
