f
St. Taurin at Evreux, of Fecamp, of Cerisy, and in several other ancient
religious buildings in Normandy. Nor is England altogether without
specimens of the same kind: a similar chapel, now in a ruinous state,
and called by Blomefield, "the sexterie or ancient vestry," is joined to
the north transept of Norwich cathedral; and near the eastern extremity
of the same church, are four others. But the principal characteristic of
those at St. Nicholas', is the extremely high pitch of the stone roof, a
peculiarity equally observable in the roof of the choir; and hence the
following remarks on the part of Mr. Turner[113]:--"Here we have the
exact counterpart of the Irish stone-roofed chapels, the most celebrated
of which, that of Cormac in Cashel cathedral, appears, from all the
drawings and descriptions I have seen of it, to be altogether a Norman
building. Ledwich asserts that 'this chapel is truly Saxon, and was
erected prior to the introduction of the Norman and Gothic styles.'[114]
If we agree with him, we only obtain a proof, that there is no essential
difference between Norman and Saxon architecture; and this proposition I
believe, will soon be universally admitted. We now know what is really
Norman; and a little attention to the buildings in the north of Germany,
may terminate the long-debated questions relative to Saxon architecture,
and the stone-roofed chapels in the sister isle."

[Illustration: Plate 56. CHURCH OF ST. NICHOLAS, AT CAEN.
_East end._]

In the east end of the church of St. Nicholas, (see _plate fifty-six_,)
may be remarked a sensible approximation in point of style, to the same
part in the church of the Trinity. The circular apsis is divided into
compartments by slender cylindrical pillars; and each intercolumniation
is filled by a couple of windows of comparatively large size, placed one
above the other, while a row of narrow blank arches occupies the lower
part. The head of each of these smaller arches is hewn out of a single
stone. The height of the roof, in this part of the church, is so much
greater than in the choir, as almost to justify the suspicion that it
was no part of the original plan, but was an addition of a subsequent,
though certainly not of a remote, aera. Were the line of it continued to
the central tower, it would wholly block up and conceal the windows
there. The discrepancy observable in the style of its architecture, may
also possibly be regarded as enforcing the same opi