NO!/r‘r| . D00!” ” Mode/n /'\lS|€ C/I//c/824. / / , ’///A V y//// ‘ “"‘ """""‘ “"""‘ "" “ ""‘ ‘ ' ‘ ‘ ‘ “ "11"" K’ x::_.___.___ 1::-—___ :::::: ::::- ::_‘-3:: ‘ \.. ~ _ _. —. —. :. _ @ . - — - . — . . — ..@......_ ..—...—.-..’t:—--- I V. ‘orhb ) § / I M. '3. r101. * + ' | Nor/man Wave and ::Chanc€I * I I + * I I % _ . > 31 |:;;:£;:i:,:o ;;;.'_. :';o;:.;:3:i:§ H H H _ - _ “Y ‘-_ $€d||V€ I g; —2..'o ““ ’°°"=“=d W 62 -4 " | 1- ---"""‘. L ‘Pn’e.sIJ$Door/ N ' 9- , :)>:)dl' A. 5 on/man /5\|sIe' 7: , -\5-I:De3f?Z§ 60‘ lS|€ : G3,? I T0W€/ :34? B{f‘r)‘éns Chap. ,£.‘o,~ | : \ 9‘, V; __ _ _ _ ‘ . Li_nes of 07:3. wall I . :* ‘xx? %i.(\&( » v . 3; I I 0 4 ‘L :5 5 6 7 6 "K I _"_"_"_"_ ‘ ‘ . Z’ , ‘E:,,,/, - ox //I///14 ’ L-m—L—L-J—1—fl — — - ~ - — ,. .. ;~——--— -—“~--*--— I g Scale of Feef f5‘D00t/ L//’ / / /’ ’ . ///I /, //« . ‘ / ’ - Hcxfchecl gt/Ol/InCJ~P’C\n ‘ / ' 1 ' , Sr_[\4Q/ as Chm‘/Ch lHL(81LlC\Tln§) H135:/owfh " Y ‘A of The Chum/ch. G.M.L. Isoa. PATRIXBOURNE. ///////4¢;;¢;w%¢//,/4iéI%E;®7/7/5/mtdtiv///////y7: .lo* I 'rx 1 :1- l Io«'A,5j5(,75Z Scale of‘ Feet »gl'.lVlC\l/>/75 Chen/c;l'\, PATR|XBOURNE9oe. 6 »:-:¢!o:“~: . -.: <._,~ ARCHITECTURAL NOTES ON 1’ATRIX- BOURNE CHURCH. THE story of the church of O11r Lady at “ Patricksbourne,” its vicars, registers and briefs, was told by Canon Scott Robertson in Vol. XIV. of Arch. Cant. The following Paper deals only with arcliitectural matters. There was a church at Bourne at the time of the Do1nes— 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 C a date as the eleventh century, and all the evidence points to the 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 -.1. chancel, measuring (in round numbers) 23 ft. by 13 ft.; a 11-ave, 49% by 14, with a north aisle of the same length as the liave 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 ranging 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 but-to1‘i11g 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 elixninated, and the destroyed Norinan ‘J: A 1{GHI'1‘EC’1‘UJ{AL News UN parts must be restored in i11ra.ginatio11. It must then be de.t.er1nined_ whetlnor the Norlnail plan thus 1'cvealed is that of the o1'i;,vinal stone building, or wliether it is the result of late-Norniau additions to an e21rlier—Nor1na11 original. The tasl: is not a difiicult one. In the t'11'st place it is clear that the north aisle is a niodern. addition. The arcade which :’~:epar-ates it Ltroin the nave is modern, and the side- wall, 1 ft. 7 in. thick, is much. thiimer than old walls were usually made. That wall. contains Norman doorwa_y which was made for a thicker wall: it has been removL—:d from elsewhere and rebuilt i11to its present position, amid the stones have been misplaced in the process : the little crosses and sc1’atcl1i11g's low down 011 the West janib were In-acle when the stones which bear them occupied a higher position in the structure. The wall also contains a two-light window, apparently of Decorated date, to the West of the cloo1'w-.1._y. Moreover, Canon Scott Robertson has preserved the tradition that this aisle was erected in the iiicumbency of Hug-lies Hallett, cxi-rerzItev- 1824. So we must sweep away this north aisle, and i111-agiiie the origiiial north wall of the nave stand— iiig on the lines of the aisle-arcade and LiO11l-iLl11i1'],g‘ the N orinan door and l)eco1'ated window. In the next place we have to deal with the Bifrons chapel, erected i11 the fifteenth century, as proved by the ‘features of the windows and of the fom1der’s tomb in the south wall. A study of the plan leaves little doubt in the mind that this is an e11la1'ge111e11t. of a narrow aisle on the same site, EL-1). aisle C()l‘1‘€Sp011(ll1lg in every particular with tlrat running west from the tower. Furthermore, the two arches separatiiig it from the nave, manifestly of the same date as the north aisle-arcade, must be replaced in iinagination by a wall of the same diniensions as that which separates the afo1'esaid aisle from the nave. In the wall there must have been an arch of cominunication with the nave : 'p1'obal)l_\' one like the plain round Norman arch in the co1~1*'espo11<_ling wall imn1e— diately west of the tower. This conjectural restoration yields a plan of L111C01111l1011 form but of perfect symmetry, consistin_;_»; of a rather long chancel and a long 11-ave, with a single aisle and :1. tower» Pkafm] PATRIXBOURNE CHURCH: W.S.W. VIEW. [lvlislr-llfoare. PATRIXBOURNE CHURCH. 5 covered main entrance on the south side. It is a plan which could hardly have been evolved before tl1e latter part of the twelfth century. The reasons for regarding it as a creation of that period and not as the resul.t of additions made to an earlier building are several and conclusive. It is impossible to reduce it, by the subtraction of the tower and its flanking aisles, to a simple early form of known type; i11 itself it supplies a perfectly satisfactory though uncommon form for a date when church-architects were making all kinds of experiments in planning; it explains certain marked pecu- liarjties of construction; and (pace Canon Scott Robertson and Sir Gilbert Scott) all the existing Norman features point to the erection of the church in all its parts at the time which we have indicated. Evidence supporting this view will appear in the sequel. Let us now try to recover in imagination the southern or south—western aspect of the late twelfth-century building. 111 order to do this we must cut down the aisle—wall to a line about two feet above the sill of the square-headed two-light window. The wall here is thickly covered with ivy, but a close examination reveals, below that line, original surface plaster of a kind that is not found above the line. This indicates the original height of the aisle-wall. We must, therefore, remove the present ridge-roof of the aisle; we must imagine a single sloping roof covering both the nave and its aisle, and running down just above the Norman window in the west wall of the aisle. There may or there may not have been a small Norman window in this side Wall. The aisle running to the east of the tower was of the same character. The brick buttresses of the tower must also be removed. The tower will then appear rising out of this great sloping roof, its face (containing the main entrance) projecting outwards beyond the line of the low aisle-walls, and its top capped with a low pyramidal spire i11 place of the existing tall spire. The tower and entrance would thus stand out much more strikingly than at present, and the resulting aspect would be most picturesque. That this design was original, and was not achieved by the addition of aisle and tower to an earlier aisle-less nave, Phota.] PATRIXBOURNE CHURCH: SOUTH DOORWAY. [Fisk-Jllaare. PATRIXBOU RNE CHURCH. 7 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 th.e 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 ha1f—arch, similar to the one just described, when the 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 belong 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 tympanum, and its tall pointed canopy containing a niche carved with the Agnus Dei: “this design cannot well be of a date earlier than H70; and it may be ten years later.” I venture to disagree with the same authority when he says that “ the chancel arch, which is of simple and massive design . . . ., is probably of earlier date. . . . The priest’.-3 door, south of the chancel, may also be of like earlier date.” Any slight difierence that ,may be seen in the character of the work is accounted for by the fact that the plainer work was done by the banker- man while the carved work was done by a sculptor. Towards the end of the twelfth century it is possible that the bankermason was also the sculptor, but in any case the object aimed at was diiferent, and the tools used were dilferent. It is a case of difference not in the date but in the manner of working the stones. Moreover, Scott Robert- son overlooked the fact that there is work in the south doorway that was done on the bench, and that it is of the same character as that of the chancel-arch and priest’s door. This is apparent in the bases. Indeed the bases of the chancel-arch and the priest’s door are, if anything, more advanced in character than those of the south door. Again, it is impossible to dilferentiate the dates of various parts of 8 PA'1‘RIXBOURNE CHURCH. the chancel, and the “marigold window of eight lights radiating from a. central circle” which appears in the east- gable above tl1e triplet of Norman windows is distinctly a late design. The zigzag molding in the priest’s door is late in form, and the label of the rebuilt north (loor shews nail- heads which, being carved on the 0111'-M‘ fare, also indicate a. late date. Then, again, the Norman windows of the chancel are of the saline plain eliara,cte1' as that in the west wall of the aisle. The plain work of the mason and the more elaborate work of the (':L1‘V1‘1‘ in stone are ct>1iteiaporaneous. The conclusion of our study is tliat in Pat1'ixl)ourne Church we have 2111 original late-l\lor1nan plan of unusual design. It is said that at Eythorne Church, which I have not seen, the “tower is over the north porch.” On the south side of the ea,rly-Norm-an church of Trottescliffe there is a. post-Norman tower through which the only entrance runs. The same arrangement exists in the little Early English church of Westcliffe near Dover, where a tower of later date stands in front of the south doorway. These churches have no aisle. All Saints, Maidstone, supplies an instance, of early Perpendicular date, in which the old chief entrance is tlirough a tower projecting from the south aisle. A modern example may be seen i11 St. Ma,r_y’s, (lllatliam. In a footnote to his Paper (p. ]7l) Scott Robertson tells us that Sir Gilbert Scott “ considered that when the tower was built the porch here ('i.c., at Patrixhourne) was allowed to remain, as it had done be.’r'o1'0; being too beautiful to be touched.” But it is quite certain that the tower with its little circular belfry-sonndholes (compare those in the Norman tower of St. Mary’s, Dover) is of the same date as the “ porch ” or doorway. The doorway is formed in great piers of 1naso11ry which can have had no other object than the support of a tower. It is difi‘icult to believe that Sir G. Scott is correctly reported. Two brief notes may be added. The blocked squint shevvn in the plan must be of post-Norman date. 011 the south side of the window in the east wall of the Bifrons chapel there is a niche which seems to be Norman work : it must have been rebuilt into its present position.’