Page:Archaeological Journal, Volume 3.djvu/413

Rh ing them, hence they are more pretty than valuable, but this remark applies to a part only.

The very material question, "What constitutes a distinct style of architecture," does not appear to have been much considered either by Mr. Bloxam or by Mr. Paley. A little reflection would shew that it must have certain characteristic features not possessed by any other style, and by which it may be distinguished. Apply this obvious test to Mr. Rickman's styles. The Early English style is distinguished by its characteristic mouldings, and by the general use of lancet-shaped windows. The latter feature is the popular one, but not to be depended on by itself; the mouldings however are invariable, and a never-failing test by which it may be distinguished from any other style in this country, and from the corresponding styles of other countries, the Early French, Early German, or Early Flemish: each country has its own distinct style, of which the mouldings are the only sure test. The Decorated English style is distinguished also by its characteristic mouldings, and by the geometrical or flowing form of the tracery of the windows. The second feature is again the popular one, but not alone to be relied upon, but the two together form the test. The same remarks apply more particularly to the Perpendicular style, and although in this style the vertical lines of tracery are more to be depended on, they are not by themselves the test. Let any of the proposed new styles be tried by similar tests, and no accurate detinition of them can be given. Mr. Bloxam's Anglo-Saxon style has no really characteristic features; every one of those which are popularly so considered may be found in later work also. It is probable that some of the buildings of this class do belong to the Saxon period, but they have not sufficient distinct character to form a separate style. The "Semi-Norman style" is open to the same objection: the buildings of this class are very numerous, and it may be a convenient division as a period of transition, but it has no peculiar features of its own; these buildings belong partly to one style and partly to another, intermixed in every possible variety of form and feature. The "Debased style" is open to the same objections; the buildings of the seventeenth century are often debased enough, but all the characteristics of a separate style are wanting. The proposed new styles of the Ecclesiologist and Mr. Paley are open to the same objections, they are equally incapable of any exact definition. If Mr. Rickman's definitions are to be applied to the First Pointed, Middle Pointed, and Third Pointed, the mere change of name has been already objected to. Mr. Paley's twelve styles are still more objectionable, from the endless confusion the use of them must cause. 1. 2. The Saxon period is too obscure for us to be able to define any stvle, still less to divide it into two. 4. The period of transition is not a style. C. "Late or Florid First Pointed, 1240 to 1270." This wants the clear lines of definition; the pure Early English style continued throughout this period, without any marked difference in the mouldings, and although