use of technical language in a popular work. This was perhaps more sensible than the general abuse of Rickman's technical terms with which every one has been wearied of late. But this judicious avoiding of technical language is widely different from the plan proposed by the Ecclesiologist in 1846, of adopting "First, Middle, and Third Pointed," as a new technical language, and doing away with the name of "Gothic" altogether as inappropriate, overlooking the fact that this name is applied, in the same manner as we apply it, in every language in Europe.
It is easy to shew that the objections to this proposed new nomenclature are at least as great as any that apply to Rickman's terms. In the first place the transition from Norman, or what Mr. Bloxam calls the "Semi-Norman Style,"' is unquestionably the "First Pointed Style." It is not a Gothic style, but it is Pointed. Secondly, to describe a church as having "First Pointed round-headed doorways," and " Middle Pointed square-headed windows," is more absurd than anything in Rickman. Yet such examples do occur, and that not by ones or twos, but by tens and hundreds. In some districts almost every church will be found with either Early English round-headed doorways, and sometimes pier-arches also, or with Decorated square-headed windows. In other words, it was a very common practice in the thirteenth century to use round arches with all the details of pure Gothic work, and in the fourteenth century it was still more common to use square-headed windows, often with very beautiful mouldings and details, and tracery.
Thirdly, It would be very possible to build a thoroughly good Gothic church taken entirely from fine ancient examples without a single pointed arch throughout. This is fatal to the scheme; it proves that the pointed arch is not an essential feature but an accident of that style, which by the common consent of all Europe is called Gothic, and whatever the origin of the name may have been, any attempt to change it is now too late. Another serious objection to the proposed "new nomenclature" is its vagueness and want of precision, no one can say where the first style begins or ends. Mr. Paley's Manual was expected to supply this deficiency, but it is very far from doing so. The impression which his book leaves is favourable to the writer; it is written in a good spirit, a pleasing style, and a gentlemanly tone, and contains a good deal of original observation which shews that the subject is not new to the author, though here and there he falls into the usual errors of inexperienced writers on this subject. But no one can help seeing that his own good sense and sound judgment would have led him to continue the use of the established nomenclature which every body understands, and which continually creeps in as it were unawares, and in spite of his wish to please his injudicious friends by adopting their crotchet. The natural consequence of this is that his hook is very confused and more calculated to puzzle than to assist a beginner, and that the author is not able to do justice to himself and his own knowledge. He
