Page:Archaeological Journal, Volume 3.djvu/416

386 influence of his ingenious but fanciful friends. "Much as has been said on the subject of symbolism, and undiscovered laws of Gothic architecture, we are strongly disposed to attribute the almost unattainable perfection of the medieval buildings to the unerring judgment, fine taste, and intuitive feeling of the artists, who built religiously, not coerced by utilitarian employers, and, above all, devoted exclusively to the one style prevalent in their day, without so much as the knowledge of any other, and without any care to imitate their predecessors in anything."

The use of corbel-heads in ascertaining the date of a building by the costume of the head-dress has often been pointed out: the difficulty is in knowing accurately the exact period during which a particular head-dress continued in use. For instance, Mr. Paley says, "It may be useful to observe, that the head-dress of a square form is a certain evidence of the transition, and fixes the date of a building to about the year 1375. The nave and chancel of Ryhall church, Rutland, are of this style, and marked by this peculiar dripstone termination." But unfortunately at p. 297 this head-dress is described, and the date of 1420 assigned to it. And at p. 176 the same square-topped head-dress is engraved, and said to be of the time of Edward the Third, side by side with another female head, having the chin-cloth or wimple, which was worn in the time of Edward the First. This confusion very much destroys the utility of corbel-heads as a guide for beginners in an elementary work which this is evidently intended to be, but for which purpose it is not suited. There is much to please in the book, but it is calculated only for advanced students. The concluding chapter on Monumental Brasses is from the pen of C. R. Manning, Esq., of Benet College, and is a very good concise account of this interesting class of monuments. We cannot take leave of Mr. Paley without thanking him for the pleasure his book has afforded us on the whole, though we have been obliged to differ from him on many points, and regret that its general utility should be so much impeded by attempts at originality without sufficient consideration.

Of Mr. Bloxam's book we have already said that the later editions are greatly improved, and we repeat that it now forms the best manual for archæologists in this interesting branch of study. Our objections to the two new styles which he has introduced are rather of extent than of kind; we think he goes too far, that the differences do not amount to a separate Style, though we do not deny that there are considerable differences between these buildings and the regular Styles.

On the Saxon question we think that neither he nor any of his followers have paid sufficient attention to the masonry and construction of these build-