f the architect, that their diameter is
fully equal to two-thirds of their height. A double row of pillars and
arches separates the nave into three parts, of unequal width; and
another arch of greater span, though equally plain, divides it from the
chancel. In St. Julien, we observe a most simple exterior, accompanied
by an interior of comparatively an ornamented style: here the case is
exactly the reverse; but in neither instance does there appear any
reason to doubt that the whole of the building is coeval. We shall be
driven, therefore, to admit, that any inferences respecting the aera of
architecture drawn merely from the comparative richness of the style,
must be considered of little weight, and that, even in those days, a
great deal depended upon the fancy of the patron or architect. Of the
real time of the erection of the church at Lery, there is no certain
knowledge. Topographers, however minute in other matters, seem in
general to have considered it beneath their dignity to record the dates
of parish-churches; though, as connected with the history of the arts,
such information is exceedingly valuable. Lauglois, who has given a
figure of the western front of this at Lery, refers it without any
hesitation to the time of the Carlovingian dynasty. But this opinion is
merely grounded on the resemblance of some of its capitals to those of
the pillars in the crypt at St. Denis; the best judges doubt whether
there is a single architectural line in that crypt, which can fairly be
referred to the reign of Charlemagne. Hence such a proof is entitled to
little attention; and On studying the style of the whole, and its
conformity with the more magnificent front of St. Georges de
Bocherville, it would seem most reasonable to regard them both as of
nearly the same aera, the time of the Norman Conquest. We may through
them be enabled to fix the date to a specimen of ancient architecture in
our own country, more splendid than these, the Church of Castle Rising,
whose west front is so much on the same plan, that it can scarcely have
been erected at a very different period.

Pavilly has considerably more to recommend it, as the "magni nominis
umbra" than either of the others; it having been the seat of an abbey
founded about the year 668, and named after Saint Austreberte, who first
presided over it. Here, too, we have the advantage of being able to
ascertain with greater precision the date of the building, which, in the
archives