PREFACE. ix

“ Simplicity was doubtless the object Mr. Rick-man bad in view in bis division of English Archi­ tecture into four Styles only. This is a recom-mendation, however, which can hardly be said tohold good at the present day: it behoves us toconsider well, perhaps more especially at the pre-sent moment, whether Mr. Rickman’s system fulfilsall the conditions essential to one calculated forpopular and universal use ; and whether we shouldtherefore seek to confirm and to perpetuate it, orwhether the time has not arrived for the adoptionof a more detailed and accurate division of thelong and noble series of buildings -which containthe History of our National Architecture from theHeptarchy to the Reformation.” *

No one can enter into an inquiry of this kindwithout eventually coming to the conclusion thatthere are two large classes of Buildings containingdistinctive marks of peculiarity of character, whichfind no place in Mr. Rickman’s system, hut whichnevertheless, from the number and importance oftheir examples, are preeminently entitled to sepa-rate classification. These two classes are those towhich the buildings enumerated at pp. 20, and27, 28, respectively belong, and -which cannot,without circumlocution, be described in any of theterms prescribed by Mr. Rickman.

As regards the earlier of these two classes, the

* The preceding paragraphs, distinguished by inverted commas,formed part of the introduction to a Paper “ On the Geometrical Periodof English Church Architecture,” read by the Author at the LincolnMeeting of the Archaeological Institute in July 1848.

b