Page:Archaeologia Volume 13.djvu/362

 Mr. Wilkin's Defcription of " fcription of them; fo that little is to be collected from him of " their manner of building ; he fays nothing in direct terms either " of pillars or arches in any of his churches ; though the word ^-por-ticus, which he frequently ufes, may be faid to imply both; ^ ds it certainly does in fome inftances, if not in all." From thefe paffages of Mr. Bentham's Hiftory it is evident that he mifconceives the fituation of the porticus in thefe ancient churches ; and with Mr. Collier, in his Church Hift. he is equally erroneous in his inferences, who has miftaken the porticus for the porch. It does not appear that either of them were aware that the porches to our prefent churches are of modern adoption ; indeed they are not to be found but of Gothick workmanfhip. We never find the porches of the Saxon or of the Norman ftyle, and they are generally, though not always, placed againft the fides of the north and the fouth aifles, whereas the portico of thefe more ancient churches are a part of. the principal building, divided from the nave by arches, as in the inftance of this church at Melbourne, where a continuity of roof covers the whole. It is evident enough from all the quotations from Bede, the Chron. Saxon, the Monaft. Angl. &c. &c. that the porticus does not mean the porch, nor indeed any part of the SIDE-ISLES, as Mr. Bentham has conceived; and they clearly evince that the porticos, though not large, were not an in- corifiderable portion. of the building ; and if the plan of the porticus of Melbourne church be confulted, there can be no difficulty in determining that Bedes account is fufficiently juft, explanatory, and perfectly coii/iftent, although " he fays nothing in diredt terms " either of pillars or arches m ;" and we ought not therefore to conclude, with Mr. Bentham, that Bede, in this inftance, is, at all, [m] HifUof Ely, p. 1 8. ric fparing