them had not the time or opportunity to inquire into for themselves. They therefore owed their thanks to Mr. Freeman, though perhaps he ought hardly to speak of him as an amateur, but rather as one who though he devoted himself chiefly to another branch of study, had nevertheless placed before them a vast amount of information on a subject of great interest to them all. And as they were favoured with the presence of another distinguished writer on architecture, who had given them much valuable information on the subject of the early architecture of Germany, before saying anything on Mr. Freeman's paper, he would ask the Master of Trinity to oblige them with some observations upon it.

Dr. WHEWELL, Hon. Member, in answer to an invitation from the Chairman, said he had had his attention drawn to the subject of the formation of the styles of architecture in Europe many years ago, but he had long felt that what was known then was only a very small beginning of what was known now by every person in the room, and therefore it was not for him to attempt to offer any fresh ideas on the subject. He had listened with interest to the remarks in the paper as to the connection of English architecture with Italian. When he first visited Italy he was struck with the character of the Italian steeples and towers noticed this evening. It was a very curious question how far these were connected with our Norman or Saxon architecture, as we then understood it. The notices that had been given of the probable derivation of the English examples from the Italian required a great deal of development, and there was a great deal which was novel to him in the statements made in the paper just read. He could perhaps best make the members understand the point of view in which they regarded the subject, by taking them back to a very ancient mode of denoting it :-What was now called Norman, was called Saxon fifty years ago; and it was only after some years-though the time was nearly forgotten-it was made out by antiquarian research that there was scarcely any building of note which could be proved to be anterior to the Conquest in England, and when this had been established, a few persons acquainted with the subject, such as Mr. Petrie, Mr. Blore, Mr. Rickman, and others, pointed out that there were certain buildings-the church of Earls Barton, and others of that kind-which must be considered, if anything could be so considered, as anterior to the Norman buildings, because they seemed to have peculiarity enough to make a style; and had beyond doubt internal evidences that they were anterior to the buildings of Norman features which accompanied them. They seemed to have peculiarities enough to make a style, but of that there was a doubt. The strange name given to this kind of building, as it might seem to the younger members of the profession-long-and-short masonry-showed how difficult it was to seize the peculiarities which marked the style; but the name "long-and-short” arose from this that in place of having the quoins at the angles of the building, with the projection alternately on the faces;-for instance at the north-east angle alternately on the east face and the north face-these buildings had alternately, down the angle, long stones vertical and short stones horizontal. That was one of the features at Earls Barton and other places. The stone carpentry was, as it had been just called, another peculiarity of these buildings; the mid-wall baluster was another. The question was whether these peculiarities were sufficient to make a style at all. They might entertain some question of that still, as there were not above a dozen of those buildings in England. One question was whether they did make a style; but whether these were derived from Italian buildings must be a doubtful matter. These were questions which had sometimes occupied the minds of amateurs like himself, and even now had hardly been quite solved; and all steps towards the solution of it contributed by persons having an intimate knowledge of foreign styles as well as English, and had studied the history of foreign as well as English architecture, were extremely valuable; and in that light he was sure the paper they had heard this evening must be regarded.

Mr. FERREY, Fellow, asked Mr. Freeman to explain how he applied the term Anglo-Saxon to any buildings erected in England subsequently to the Norman Conquest ?

Mr. FREEMAN answered that, as he had said in his paper, the case was simply the usual one of all Transitions; the later buildings of the old style and the earlier buildings of the new style were contemporary. The event of William's victory did not at once cause a revolution in architecture; some buildings in the new style had been built before 1066, and some buildings in the old style were built after that year. If then those styles were to be called respectively "Anglo-Saxon" and "Norman," it followed that there were some "Norman " buildings earlier than the Conquest, and some "Anglo-Saxon" buildings later. The best illustration of his meaning would be found in the churches at Lincoln, which he had already spoken of. There are in the lower parts of that city certain towers, not quite free, it may be, from an infusion of Norman ideas, but still, on the whole, decidedly "Anglo-Saxon" rather than Norman. Any one would, previous to any historical information about them, set them down as some of the latest examples of "Anglo-Saxon" work, just before that style gave way to Norman. Now he found, on the authority of Mr. Parker—who however used the fact to prove one thing while he used it to prove another-that these towers were actually built after the Conquest. The English, or rather Danish, inhabitants of Lincoln were driven from the upper town, and formed a settlement at the foot of the hill, where they built these churches. Meanwhile the Norman castle and cathedral were rising on the acropolis above their heads. Here was a distinct case of the two styles being used side by side after the Conquest, the English builders continuing to build essentially in the old national way, though perhaps not without some slight influence from the fashionable foreign models. So at St. Alban's, as he had already mentioned, though the church was built by a foreign Abbot, and one who so despised his English predecessors that he turned them out of their graves, yet some distinct features of the earlier style could be seen, owing possibly to the accumulation of materials which Matthew Paris records to have been made by the later native Abbots. Here again is a case of "Anglo-Saxon" work after the Conquest, and doubtless other examples might be found, if we had more exact dates of the building of our smaller churches.

Mr. FERREY mentioned that there was a curious little tower with balluster shafts in the belfry windows still existing at Wickham, near Newbury, which was clearly Romanesque.

Mr. JOHN P. SEDDON, Hon. Secretary, said it was an interesting question whether a style of Romanesque more directly founded upon the decayed classical Roman, had existed throughout Christendom at a considerably earlier date than those locally varied styles usually grouped under the name of Romanesque-such as the Norman, Lombard, German and French varieties. This point might doubtless be successfully investigated, and he hoped it would be so, by antiquaries such as his friend Mr. Freeman. The church at St. Castor at Coblentz, which had been referred to by Mr. Freeman, in itself an early and characteristic example of the more usual German Romanesque, exhibits a considerable portion of a much earlier building incorporated with it. This is evidently a direct but rude imitation of classical Roman work, without the freedom, vigour, and grotesque imagery of later Romanesque. It has pilaster strips as decoration intersected by string courses (not entablatures,) the moldings of details of which are simply debased Roman. The date to which this part of the building is referred is about the seventh century. The western doorway to the nave at the church of St. Woolos, Newport, Monmouthshire, has in each jamb a column evidently Romanesque, but not Norman, and yet not of the balluster description, but with foliaged capitals, molded bases and shafts, with an entasis resembling Roman. These would appear to belong to an earlier style than Norman, but of a superior class to what Anglo-Saxon has usually been considered.

The CHAIRMAN said if it would not be trespassing too much on the kindness of Mr. Freeman, he should like to ask him to give some explanation as to the roofing and plans of the churches he had N N

described, for he held that interesting as their towers were, the system of roofing and the ground plans were of even greater importance in their history. As far as he gathered, and from what he knew of some of these churches, and from what he had heard this evening, he was inclined to think that the commonest type of ground plan in the early Swiss churches was that common plan of a cross church with one of three apses at the east end, and he was naturally curious to know what was the nature of the roofing of some of Mr. Freeman's examples. It was well known to those who had examined the churches in Aquitaine, in Auvergne, in the Pyrenees and throughout a great part of Spain-from Gerona on one side to Santiago on the other-that in all these districts there exist churches executed in the eleventh and twelfth centuries, which are roofed with a barrel vault over the central nave, and with two half barrel vaults over the aisles, whilst the eastern apses have semi-domes. He had no doubt that the earliest of these examples were of the eleventh century, and he was amazed to find the similiarly designed and constructed church of Granson, on the lake of Neufchatel, seriously described by M. Blavignac-himself an architect-as being a building of much earlier date, either of the ninth or tenth century-he forgot which-in which opinion he was followed by Mr. Fergusson in his "History of Architecture." It had always struck him as being an eleventh century church, and what Mr. Freeman had said about it confirmed him in this opinion. Another group of early churches like that of Schaffhausen seemed to have been roofed with wood, with the exception of the eastern apses, which were almost always covered with semi-domes. It was a remarkable feature in these early churches all over Europe, that whatever the roofing may have been, the Italian plan of three parallel aisles, a central lantern over the crossing, and parallel apses at the east end, was carried out so universally that they might take it as one of the great types of the time. Referring to the steeples described by Mr. Freeman, it seemed to him that in the churches of St. Maurice and Sion, the towers in fact belonged to two different styles, although they seem to have struck Mr. Freeman as being identical in style and feeling. [Mr. FREEMAN, Not quite]. That of St. Maurice seemed to him to be distinctly a Romanesque steeple of the previous kind, whilst that of Sion differed altogether from it in design, and following the example of the steeples in Lucca, there was a regular progression of openings in the tower, the lowest stage having one, the second two, the next three, and the fourth four windows. This type of steeple was repeated very far off, and he remembered one in the centre of Spain. The steeple of St. Maurice was very regularly divided into stages separated by corbel-tables, and with flat pilaster buttresses at the angles and in the centre of each side. He should be glad if Mr. Freeman would favour them with a few additional words upon the roofing and plan of these churches, with some explanation of his views as to the occurrence of the square east end. To him it had always seemed that one of Mr. Freeman's examples, the church at Romainmotier, had originally had three eastern apses, and he doubted much whether any example could be adduced for a choir and aisles with three square eastern end walls in this part of Europe. In conclusion, he would remind the meeting that these early churches often contained other features of interest beyond those which had been referred to, and to take one example, he remembered seeing in the old cathedral on Mount Valeria at Sion, a thirteenth century rood screen and loft between the nave and the choir, and a very good Gothic organ and case at the west end of the nave.

Mr. FREEMAN said he did not undertake to give a very minute antiquarian description of all the buildings which he mentioned. Some of them he had only seen in the intervals of other work, and in places where he wished to spend two or three days, he had often been able to stay only as many hours. He did not positively say that the Romainmotier had originally a square end: but the square end is as clearly found in some instances as the apse is in others. The east end of Schaffhausen is square; so are those of the two minsters at Zürich. [The CHAIRMAN believed Schaffhausen had no aisles. Mr. FREEMANNot quite to the east end.] With regard to the roofs, he imagined the Chairman referred to cases

where there was vaulting; timber roofs he must confess were the last things which he ever thought of examining. St. Sulpice had a dome and a semi-dome over the apse. Grandson had a barrel vault, and other instances of that form were common in Aquitaine. Schaffhausen seemed to have had a flat roof like many of our Norman churches. At Romainmotier a later clerestory and vault had been added to the nave. To the central space of the western chapel he could say nothing, because it was cut up by floors. The aisles had a perfectly plain cross vaulting without groins or ribs. With regard to St. Maurice and Sion, it was only the towers which he had been talking about; the rest of the church in both cases was much later. The little chapel on the side of Valeria he thought had no vault. As far as the three great towers were concerned he was inclined to put Schaffhausen as the most distinctive of all, just like one of our Anglo-Saxon towers somewhat improved. At St. Maurice they had an approach to common Romanesque, while at Sion they had something still in advance of that. The three towers were certainly not identical; he looked on St. Maurice and Sion as examples of primitive Romanesque developing into something else, still retaining a good deal of the primitive style, but gradually changing in the later forms. Schaffhausen alone of these large towers showed the primitive type in full perfection. As he had stated in the outset of his paper he had merely put forth some hints for others to work out. He had not visited Switzerland directly for any antiquarian purposes, nor had he commonly directed his course with reference to antiquarian purpose. Romainmotier indeed he had gone to see directly for the sake of its church, but the other places he had visited on other business, and many of the examples which he had spoken of, he had come across almost by accident, and was very thankful so to have found them. His whole object was to throw out a theory, which he left others to accept or reject as further inquiries might lead them to do.

Mr. JOHN W. PAPWORTH, Fellow, said that the judicious manner in which Mr. Freeman had worded his case, must render the meeting indisposed to see any captious feeling in the single remark that he might offer upon the latter portion of the paper just read. It was, simply, that adding the original western towers of Lincoln cathedral, and the steeples at Caen, to the campanili at Ravenna and at Rome, suggested by Mr. Freeman as standards for a comparison, he was not inclined to give an immediate assent to the theory which Mr. Freeman had propounded. Such incredulity may be right or may be wrong, but it was instinctive on the present occasion, and it was always the difficulty attending a meeting of this nature that when Mr. Freeman presented such opinions, bearing the impress of such authority, it was scarcely possible for any person but one who had accompanied him in his journey and in the collection of his observations, as well as in the preparation of his deductions, to improvise a fair criticism, or to offer compliments which would not appear to acknowledge Mr. Freeman's conclusions as inevitable. The meeting clearly felt that its thanks were due to Mr. Freeman for the manner in which he had brought forward the points that he supported, and for the large fund of subject for consideration which he had given. Mr. Papworth wished to express his personal delight at the prefatory remarks in which Mr. Freeman had so well conveyed to young and old the lesson that to study art aright they must do so not only as artists, but as men who see in the works of their predecessors the character of the people of the age. He ventured to throw out for Mr. Freeman's consideration, when sparing further time to the subject, or when re-editing the valuable "History of Architecture," the possibility of the existence of a large quantity of buildings in all parts of Europe, (excepting of course those not christianized till a late period) which might suggest materials for a paper similar in its nature to that just read. Mr. Papworth's view was that in each country, when Roman power succumbed, Roman art left its seeds; and that these seeds, far from at once perishing as is generally assumed, produced plants which ran back, as a floriculturist would say. So that, taking England for example, there should have been left by the Romans a manner of building corresponding in all respects (except under influences of habits and prejudices of the people), with that executed under similar circumstances elsewhere; and

perhaps this got worse by degrees, until the arrival of a new fashion, whether from the north or the east. The old and the new manners might be supposed to suffer of course a greater or less degree of deterioration in their transport. It would be desirable to ascertain the amount of influence on art exercised by artificers from Italy in England, and to compare it with that which must be ascribed to British missionaries while founding their monasteries. It should not be forgotten that as England at a later period accused the court of Edward the Confessor of being Norman, we might expect that his buildings would offer examples of any peculiarities of the artificers employed by the Norman dignitaries; while the patriots (as they would consider themselves,) would continue to build in the manner to which they had been accustomed. In return, the best authorities agree that afterwards English influence in some provinces of France was as evident in building as in war. Because art turned backwards and forwards in this manner over the face of the civilized world, it seemed difficult to permit belief in the idea of a central type, except at the periods of marked revolutions of style. An account of the reasons for these revolutions is one which should be strictly rendered, and which we have still to demand. He had the honour to propose their vote of thanks for the very able paper, which they should be ready to peruse deliberately, and to consider with interest, although deprived of the advantage of referring to the sketches as illustrations, or rather evidence in Mr. Freeman's favour.

Mr. C. F. HAYWARD, Hon. Sec., said, having been much interested in the study of Romanesque Architecture in Germany, he had heard with great pleasure Mr. Freeman's remarks with regard to a district which he (Mr. Hayward) was not so well acquainted with. In one part of the district alluded to, particularly on the Lake of Constance and along the Rhine to Schaffhausen, Mr. Freeman had spoken of churches with the eastern ends built square. This was remarkable, for in making that journey himself, coming from the centre of Germany, the chief instances of Romanesque architecture he had met with, particularly that splendid example, Bamberg Cathedral, had numerous apsidal terminations at both ends, and often at the transepts also. So that at one time he almost thought that these apsides must have been a distinguishing feature of Romanesque architecture, derived directly from the tribunes of the Basilicas of Rome. But when they came to consider other varieties, and trace the style through some of its phases under the terms of Anglo-Saxon, Norman, &c. and considered how the local peculiarities affected its development in different parts of Europe, its importance as a study became apparent, and any contribution to that history ought to be received, as he was sure this paper would be by all, with great satisfaction and delight, illustrated as it was with such a variety of interesting sketches. He only hoped Mr. Freeman would carry out the enquiry further, for it seemed to him to have been greatly neglected, and many a church of plain exterior, with a few round arches to show in its elevations, had been passed over as not worth considering, in Germany and elsewhere, which would have repaid a large amount of research and trouble. In a paper read by himself before the Institute, in the year 1854, discussing the Romanesque style as developed in the churches on the Rhine, and at a little distance from that river, (the period of which he had ventured to term the "Pre-Gothic Age,") he had taken occasion to remark upon that most interesting Abbey Church called Kloster Laach, which, although about eight miles inland from Andernach, was well worth a visit, and if any present were not acquainted with it, he would recommend, when making an excursion in that direction, this and the other noble Romanesque examples of Andernach, Coblentz, Maintz, Worms, &c. &c. to their especial study.

The CHAIRMAN remarked, that as this was the last meeting of the Session, it was probable that many of the members, before they met again, would pay a visit to the Swiss mountains. He hoped they would not, at the same time, neglect to examine the churches which Mr. Freeman had brought under their notice.

The proceedings of the Session then terminated.