1st. The direct but rude imitations of Roman work, of which Brixworth is
an instance.
2nd. The developed Saxon manner, with its high towers, its pilastered
strips, and suggestion of imitated timber-work, as at Earls Barton, etc.
3rd. That in which Norman features are introduced or anticipated.
I may mention, however, that we have proofs, as at Deerhurst, which is
said to have been rebuilt in 1056, and elsewhere, that the style
remained with little modification to the last.
I shall show you in my next lecture (in which I propose to treat of the
earlier Norman buildings, erected by those who actually came over in the
days of the Conqueror or of his companions) that the two styles
overlapped; that there were pre-conquestal Norman and post-conquestal
Saxon buildings. I will, however, at present detain you no longer; and
if I have trespassed upon the rules of the Academy by giving a lecture
more on _archæology_ than on _art_, I must apologise on the ground that
I have treated of our own early efforts in architecture; of buildings
whose bold and archaic rudeness was so strangely accompanied by
exquisite skill in other arts,--as in illumination, in embroidery, in
jewellery; and the contemplation of which, to use the eloquent words of
Mr. Freeman, “Should raise a thrill of patriotism in the heart of every
genuine Englishman,” ... “whose barbaric grandeur breathes in its
fulness the spirit of England’s ancient days of freedom and isolation,”
and reminds us “of the long roll of our native saints and heroes; of
holy bishops and no less holy princes; of Ina, and Alfred, and
Athelstan; of Bede ... and the martyred Alphege; of Harold and Gurth,
and Leofwine; of St. Wolstan and Abbot Frederick; of the battle-axe of
Hereward and the martyr-block of Waltheof; and all the glorious train of
the ‘England of saints’ ere yet she bowed beneath the yoke of a foreign
lord.”