ings; nor has much additional light been thrown on the subject since the researches of Mr. Rickman and Mr. Twopeny, neither of whom considered the anomalies which they were the first to notice as having sufficient character to form a separate Style.
It is true that in some of these buildings the masonry is rude enough, and the construction is more that of carpenters than of masons; and it is probable that these examples are really of the Saxon period; but in other instances, such as Daglingworth, the masonry is better than that of the transepts of Winchester, and quite as good as that of the tower rebuilt after it had fallen "from imperfect construction[1]." The fineness of the joints between the stones in ashlar work is a ready test by which to judge of the quality and probable age of the masonry; and thus tried, many of the supposed Saxon structures must be considered to have been built after 1100, when, as Mr. Bloxam himself shews (p. 101) from William of Malmesbury (lib. v.), fine-jointed masonry was first used in England by Roger bishop of Salisbury.
St. Benet's, Cambridge.
In other instances the rude cubical masses found in the place of capitals to the chancel-arch, which have been assumed as characteristics of this supposed style, have every appearance of being simply the blocks put up by the masons for the purpose of having the capitals carved out of them, but by some accident, or want of funds, left unfinished; for instance, at Wittering the arches between the nave and aisle have regular Norman capitals, any one of which might have been carved out of the rude blocks left at the chancel-arch. And Mr. Bloxam states (p. 113) that it was very customary to carve the capitals after the blocks were fixed in their places, as the crypt at Canterbury clearly proves, for they are there to be found in almost every stage of their progress, and some of the sculpture must have been done long after they were erected. In the later styles he also notices the same thing. "We sometimes meet with square Corbel Blocks, and other work of an intended decorative description, the design for the sculpture of which has never been carried into effect." As at Crick, Northamptonshire. &c. p. 231. We have only to apply this remark to Norman works, and one class of the anomalies supposed to be Saxon disappears. Others, such as the capital or impost of St. Benet's, Cambridge, have much more the appearance of late Norman or transition works, than of the Saxon age.
- ↑ It is worthy of remark that cotemporary writers mention the fall of a great number of towers immediately after they were built in the early Norman period, and as the great superiority of the Norman masonry is acknowledged, the probability is that any buildings which exhibit better masonry, with finer joints than we find in early Norman work, are of later rather than earlier date.
