.....__,........,._..,r,;,_., \ // //%////‘J////,¢;,/;/fiz-5%///,4 / , H —.-.-_ .._-. \\\ \ I I n 1 I I: I ® \\\V No!/man Aisle «.5 IOI13 5675 Scale of‘ Feel” 7\’[—ocl<-:t’n: __._.—.._ .*.O\'o'o V; .~3¢‘3‘3'3°:<., ....-n. 9 ‘.’« 9‘9,‘ 0: “ - - 9- - ba..¢,g‘ I 7-'1. ' 9. I 7" land I JP I '6\ I D‘ /, St. l"lC\I/>/75 Ct1et\’c;l'\, PATR|XBOURNEe. (305) ARCHITECTURAL NOTES ON PA’l‘RIX- BOURNE CHURCH. BY THE REV. G. M. LIVETT, F.S.A. THE story of the church of Our Lady at “ Patricksbourne,” its vicars, registers and briefs, was told by Canon Scott Robertson in Vol. XIV. of Arch. 0am‘. The following Paper deals only with architectural matters. There was a church at Bourne at the time of the Domes- day Survey. Parts of the existing building are clothed with ivy, but as far as one can see there are no remains of masonry of so early a date as the eleventh century, and all the evidence points to tl1e erection of a completely new church towards the end of the twelfth century, so that it is probable that the earlier building was of wood. The accompanying plan shews that the church now comprises a chancel, measuring (in round numbers) 23 ft. by 13 ft.; a nave, 4-9:} by 14, with a north aisle of the same length as the nave and 8 ft. wide ; a tower at the middle of the south side of the nave, its two northern piers standing across the line of the south wall and projecting in a singular manner into the body of the nave; a narrow aisle, 7% ft. wide, to the west of the tower, its west wall 1'a11gin;__;- with the west wall of the nave; and to the east of the tower a chapel, the Bifrons chapel, 10 ft. wide, and having its east wall in line with the east gable of the nave. The southern piers of the tower (strengthened by ugly battering brick buttresses) project themselves three feet beyond the wall of the aisle to the west, and between them is an uncommonly beautiful Norman doorway which forms the main entrance to the church through the tower. Apart from this fine entrance and the unusual position of the tower in which it is placed, the chief interest of this church, from an architectural point of view, lies in an attempt to recover its original plan and design. Its post- Norman parts must be eliniiliated, and the destroyed N orinun VOL. xxvln. K C N0|41l..D00 r’ I I z???’ ;;x' ' **- ' r I . _ ////// //4?=9=?Wfl ///fl%mmW / %/ / — _ I . éég “I°d<1Vn Azsle aha /824 / * ;f:fi:f“{3-541?? 22:22: 13:32: ::;~w~~ 4 --- -- —--—‘-. .‘.::‘.:...".:. @ 7::..‘:_‘.:.: @ :_~:_-_- @ ~ -— ‘§’;".'. — omb I I I’, II‘).-ox I TJ<)r?yza n TY a u'€ a,.d 5 S (jh G n C e’ I I I I. »* '"‘”"” - I V $edile ' .. .P r /% - —:—:—T :L:-:_ “ “- .0: I om ed 1* c, gsgtzgfzgg @ .:.:‘:.::: E I -- -~‘;>_d;. ’9J'_6; 'Pr{(—:5I’$Doo/ Q | Q I: N0‘/ma“ /‘H316 Iago‘ I TOWQK .';,\3T-I.Des!T/o)/ed N./Male I I. ‘ / .,j.,oV;. : g , ::g, Bnfrons Chap. '. . I 3- I ' l.L................................. / * . - - -— ,.’.—‘.’.'.€.‘T‘..‘7I.?fi5i.77.‘T.’.‘...... Scale of‘ Feet‘ A - :g‘_D‘o;/‘ yr; / // //I I Hc\fCI'1eCI gt/oLIAncI~{3Iqn N A 7 'HL(s’F|/c\Tn'n’ fhe. /‘Wow?/1 Ar.M / Cf / ‘ 5 5 3 O ys Iuxch, Chm}/Ch. PATRIXBOURNE. of The €;.f*‘I‘«\T j ;'~°; D? . C 3 U’ 4* 4' 4- '0‘ -6 > :3 C 03 9 F?’ F’ X 4% .,L K § ‘ <3 i 306 ARCHITECTURAL NOTES ON parts must be restored in iinzigiiiatitin. It must then be deterniined Vvliotliei‘ the Noriiiiiii plan thus 1'ev021led is that of the 01‘igi1ia1 stone buildi1ig_gj, 01‘ wliotlior it is the result of late-Normziii zidditiioiis to am (‘:l1‘li()1‘—N()1'1n:111 orig'iii;il. The task is not ii difiicult 0110. in tho tii'st phicn it is clean‘ tlizit the iioi-tli fLiSl€‘ is ii 1n0(l(‘1‘]1 2l(lf].liil(ill. The 21i1‘C“il(l(* which sep:L1‘:itr\s it {'i'mii the iizivo is iimdoi-ii, ziiid the side- wall, 1 ft. 7 iii. t.l.iicl<, is iiiucli ilIll1]l(‘1‘ than old \’:lllS \V(‘l‘(‘ usuzilly nizido. Thiit wall coiitziiiis zi, Nm-iii-;iii dririr ':I_V wliicli was iiizide for :1. tiliinl{m' wall: it. has lw-ii 1'(‘HH)V0]‘(‘S(‘11ii lmsitiioii, :1i]l(l tho stoiios li:1.\'e lweii lll‘lS1)l£1C(‘4,l iii tlw ]\l'()(‘(‘i\S : the little ('1'()SS(‘S and so '5liJ[(‘llllIf_:{'S low dowii U]! tlw \\'v.i' ]HiSliii(i1l in tho St.i'u(:tx11'u. Tho \Vzlll also (‘()11iHil1S ii, i\\'()—lij_{'llt \\'iii(lm\', {ipp:i1‘(\iitlyof l)CCO1‘1li(‘(l d1li(‘,i0 illl‘ iwsf oi’ the» 1', (,‘/iiiimi Sttutti .l.ii(,)l>Ul'iS(i1) li:i.< 1)1‘\‘,.'\‘('1'V(‘(l iliv tiwlitiiiii t.li£i.t this aisle was (‘,]'(‘(3t-Cd iii tli<- lll(‘ll]lll)I"H(“y (if l[iif_»;li<~.< Ilizillctti, <'ii'(:i',i«?~i' 1824. So we 1ll11J\‘i' s\\'<~¢~]> iiiuiy this iiortli aisle, mid iiiiiiggiiio tlie ()1‘i_f_;‘ill:ll !1()1'ill wall of tlw 11:1\'(‘ sl«.iiid— iiig; on the ll|ll‘S (if the :li.\‘ll‘-2H‘C:1tlU :1|l(l <=(,>iil;iiiiiii;_: tilw N()1'1Ilil,]] Ll()()1‘ mid T.)0C(i1':1iwl 'i\‘iiidn\\'. In the iiuxt. 1)l:lL'.(‘, wn liziiw to (lo-Lil with tho l3ifi'mis (*li:ip0‘i, (‘1‘OCiC(l in tho li'l’tv0iitli (:(iiili11'y, zis ]ii'm'«~i1iidv1".< tuiiili iii the smitli wall]. A Stud_y iii’ tlw plziii lt‘:l\‘l'S lliil1‘(l()l1l\i iii ilH‘1llll1(l tlizittliis is an (‘lll:l1'g'\"lIH‘1)i of ii 1l:ll‘1‘1)\\’ :ll.i‘i'(isp(iii]'(‘, t,li<- twu iii'rli(-;~; .~'<‘p;iii':iliiij_;* ii. ti-mii tho 11{\V(‘. iii:iiiil’<-.11-l‘ill\'Si1ll02li.t)1'(‘S:llll aisle froiii. the ]l:l.\'(‘. .lii tho wzill ill(‘l'l‘ lilllsi liziw l)(‘(‘l1 :11] :ii‘(:li of Cf>1l11ll11lIi(’i1ivl011 with the 1l:L\’(‘: pi'iil,i;ilily «me lilco tlw phiiii riiuiid Ni'i‘v.<1m1ii'liii}_;' \\':1.ll i]ll1l)(‘- diately west 01' the towoiu This ci>iij"‘.*.‘P!:|’Fl1"1'4z\,-‘. .,v~: -2-4-,-ea‘-,,,,»‘».(,.'.-...,..,.,...,,,,.,,.,,‘,.( PATRIXBOURNE CHURCH. 307 covered main entrance 011 the south side. It is a plan which could hardl_y have been evolved before the hitter part of the twelfth ce11tu1‘_y. The reatsons for 1'eg:Lrding it as a creation of that period and not as the result of additions n1a,(le to an ezirlier building‘ z1,1*e seveml and cmicltisive. It is inipossible to reduce it, by the suht11'21(:-tion of the tower and its fla11l{i11;: aisles, to :1 simple early ‘form. of kiiown type; in itself it supplies :1 pe1'fectl_y szitisfzlctory tllough 1111c0111m0n f(11*111 for :L date when <:l1u1'cl1-:1,1't:l1iteats were lnaking all kinds of experiinents in pl-.1.11ning; it explains cert;1i11 .m:11‘l-lig°l1t \\'i111lo\\'. The mill here is tl1icl;ht of the nislt-—\v;Lll. We 11111st, tlierefel-e, 1‘e11m\'e the p1'e.~:ent 1'i1l5_;'e-1‘(10t' at the aisle: we must .i111:1;;i11e :11 si11;_§le. .~'l<>p1'11f_>; 1'1'mt' GOV(!1’l1I§_;‘ both the 11:1.\'e met its aisle, :111t' tl1t't<1\\'1*l'11111>'t :1l,~:e he 1'e1n1>\'e1'l. The t1>\\'eJ' will then :1ppe:11' 1'isi11§_~' <-11t ml" this g;-1'ez11tv .\'lopi11;_;' 1‘u(1f,it«.\‘ t':11<:e (<:<>11t1:11i11i11;_>; the 1n;1i11 (‘lltl‘illlt'(‘) p1'1>jecti11;;' 1111tw:11‘1ls l)("‘)'t)l](l the line of the l11\\':1l.lll(l be most pi0t111'e;~:q11e. That this design was r>1'igi11al,:111orting the east gable of the naive, and the wall separatin;,r the aisle west of the tower from the nave, and probably the correspondiilg wall east. of the tovver, were all 2 ft. i11 thickness. These facts point to the inclusion of the tower and south aisles in the original plan. l.\loreover, it is reinarka.ble that the inner face of the walls which sepa- rate those aisles from the nave lines with that of the south wall of the chancel. N ow, if the original nave had possessed no south aisle (or aisles and tower), not only would the nave have been abnormally long‘ for its breadtli, but also those separating walls, being‘ in such case reniains of the outside Wall of the nave, would be as thick as the other external side—walls (namely, 2 ft. 4 in. instead of only 2 ft.), and, moreover, they would not ra11ge as they now do in a con- tinuous line with the chancel—w-all, but would stand some inches further to the south, leaving an external qnoin (like that on the north side) at the junction with the west end of the chancel-wall. We are now in a position to understand the peculiarities of the three arches which support the tower inside the building. The eastern and northern arches, looking from the tower into the Bifrons chapel and the 11ave respectively, are tall and acutely—pointed, while that lookingg; into the aisle running west of the tower is a low half-arch. The reason for the form of this ha.lf—arch is evident when it is remembered that the original covering of the aisle was a sloping roof running low down to a level only two feet above the sill of the late two-light aisleswindow. It has l’Im/0, 1 PATRIXBOURNE CHURCH: SOUTH DOORWAY. [ Fixk-.7|Inom’. ...-\..-,ww~»_;..-.»g..;,.,,;,,,w,,.,§,,=... jv"**"*'~"' PATRIXBOURNE CHURCH. 309 undergone some repairs, but many of its voussoirs shew the characteristic facing of Norman masonry. This is absent from the pointed arches, which are plastered all over. It is clear that, when the original aisle to the east of the tower remained with its sloping roof, the pointed arch could not have existed : it must have replaced a half-arch, similar to the one just described, when tl1e Bifrons chapel was built on the site of the aisle. A glance at the plan shews that the pointed arch is somewhat thinner than the original half-arch must have been. No doubt the pointed arch looking from tower to nave was inserted at the same time, replacing a plain round arch of Norman date. It only remains to examine the details of the Norman Work, and to realize that they may all belorig to one and the same date. I agree absolutely with the date to which Scott Robertson assigned the great south doorway, with its delicately carved capitals and tyn1pa1m1n,an(l its tall pointed canopy containing a niche carved with the A;/mcs Dci: “ this design cannot well be of a date earlier than 1170; and it may be ten years later.” I venture to (lisugme with the same aut-liority when he says that “ the clrancel arcli, which is of simple and massive design . . . ., is probably of earlier date . . . . The priest’s door, south of the chancel, may also be of like earlier date.” Any slight difference that may be seen iii the character of the work is accounted for by the fact that the pl-ainer work was done by the l')anlru:j4Iv\rf‘j*\¥R?s‘L<'€‘d:"@|:(V:‘f;v"*.:g{é,-flizg: 5. V _ (311) run V_ICARS, MAS'l‘J+JRS on r iovostrs, AND rnm2n'1‘UAL CURATES or run CHURCH or ss. GREGORY AND MARTIN, wrn. C()MPlLIe_\;,to vwl’1,4.>i1l VVillia.ni the (Joiiqueror gave the “ Royall; l\:lanor mt W1 as an endowment soon a'l'ter his deeisivev1ctoi'_y over llarohl M §1,{;m.ti”:_,,.S_ T}lC1'(} can be very. little doubt tlmt the 1)1'L,-selit ehurcli occupies the site oi the one nientioned in Domesday Book, A.l). 1086- VICARS. \VH.i.1AM, mentioned before the _)"<‘ai‘ ll7'£’».g'~ l.ittl«i~'ti.~'» , . . V ,,.‘..r .‘ K‘ x ,jn'i : ‘l‘ known of 11115 vicar beyoiul the {act that in lfiilt) Lil H % ‘ . V ' .- . .v r . ; -, w nose ms p;lt,1-011, Wzilter do Lou, ()1 L110), Abbot o )1 a 4 V ee'Lse took place 21 June 1171. He was eo|ileH1l’“““3' with Archbishop 'l‘lion1-as {L Becket. Brit. M119», Cott. MS. Dom. A. l1<, ll: 1031; 1'~’i“~ 1-.c,re-.-use»-«m:.s~«.4.~.'«r;ug-«,«;a»,«-n‘.~