http://kentarchaeology.org.uk/research/archaeologia-cantiana/

Kent Archaeological Society is a registered charity number 223382© 2017 Kent Archaeological Society

( 1 4 1 )

W H I T F I E L D A L I A S B E U E S F E L D .BY GREVILE M. LIVETT, F.S.A.(Hon. Canon of Rochester.)

1. A SAXON THREE-COMPARTMENT CHURCH.THE Saxon Church of Beuesfeld, known since the sixteenthcentury as Whitfield, appears on examination to have beenan example of the so-called three-compartment type, consist-ing of nave, chancel, and apsidal sanctuary. I n this typethere is an aisleless rectangular nave, usually rather long inproportion to its breadth, and having an arch known as thechancel-arch in its east wall. U p o n that wall with its gableabuts the chancel, narrower and less lofty, forming a spacesquare or slightly oblong, and having in its end-wall an archthat may be called the apse-arch. U p o n this second andlower gable-wall there abuts in like manner the sanctuary oraltar-house, known as the apse: t h i s sanctuary, narrowerand less lofty, has usually the form of an elongated apse,its side-walls and ridge-roof running parallel from the end-wall of the chancel for a distance that may be only a fewinches, or may be a few feet, and then dying into its semi-circular or apsidal end.

This detailed description of a three-compartment churchwould perhaps be superfluous were i t not necessary f or thereader to realise i t accurately in imagination in order to beable to follow the changes by which Whitf ield Church wasevolved out of Beuesfeld. I t s distinguishing feature is thestructural d i v i s i on between chancel a n d sanctuary,emphasised inside b y the apse-arch and outside b y thequoins of the gable-end of the chance1.1

1 i t is this feature which distinguishes the three-compartment from thetwo-compartment type, in which the side-walls of the chancel are roundedoff-into a semi-circular apse. Apart from the seventh century churches,e.g., Rochester and Lyminge, no example of this type has yet been dis-covered in Kent. Surrey supplies an example at Caterham. Probablysome fifty existing elsewhere might be listed. Good photographs ofHeckingham, Norfolk, and Bengeo, Hertford, may be seen in Bond, Engl.Ch. Arch., p. 180. I t is merely a variant of the common two-compartmentsquare-ended type of early church (see plans of Paddlesworth and Dode,Arch., Cant., xxi., 260) from which most of our parish churches have grown.

1 4 2 W H I T F I E L D A L I A S B E U E S F E L D .

2. OTHER EXAMPLES OF THE TYPE.Churches o f the three-compartment type are rare.

Rumour says that Bishopstone Church, the foundations ofwhich are now being excavated by the Office of Works,supplies a second Saxon example. I know of no other ofthat period. Professor Baldwin Brown mentions none.'A few examples of Norman date have come under my notice.A separate Paper in a later volume will be devoted to theChapel of St. Bartholomew's Hospital, Rochester, formerlya leper hospital. T h e existence of a Saxon example atBeuesfeld probably accounts for the adoption of the type atSutton-by-Dover, which is only two miles distant, describedin an Appendix to this Paper. M r . Walter Godfrey hasreported further Norman examples of the type: one atDunwich (Suffolk),2 another at Maldon (Essex), in each casethe chapel of a leper-house, and a third in the old parishchurch of East Ham (Essex), a. brief description of whichappears in the Appendix. I should be grateful for informa-tion of other examples. I n the accompanying plate I haveincorporated diminutive plans of Beuesfeld, Sutton andEast Ham on the same scale for purposes of comparison.

3. THE CHURCH BEFORE RESTORATION IN 1894.The Church of Whitfield was " restored " by Ewan

Christian in 1894. Fortunately his plan is sti l l extant,showing the alterations he proposed.to make, and indicating,in part at least, what he found before those alterations wereeffected. Further information may be gathered from aPaper written by E. P. Loftus Brock, F.S.A., and read onthe occasion of the Society's visit to the Church in 1892.

1 The well-known seventh century church o f Brixworth, Northants,in its existing state conforms to the type; b u t originally i t had aisles anda burial passage round the apse, as well as other distinguishing features.The small under-church or crypt of St. Germain, Amiens, an interestingbuilding attributed to the fourth century, shows a three-compartment planin which the nave and chancel, both supplied with benches along the walls,are of the same width, with a level floor; t he floor of the apse is eighteeninches higher; entrance in the centre of the west wall.

2 See plan o f the Church of the Hospital of St. James, Dunwich, inArchcaologia, Vol. X I I , (1796), plate X X X V I L

W H I T F I E L D A L I A S BETJESFELD. 1 4 3

That Paper" describes the church as consisting of " a nave;a small chancel hardly longer than its width; a low [north]aisle, which formerly extended along the whole length o fnave and chancel, terminating flush a t the east and westends respectively. T h e aisle to the nave disappeared in theseventeenth century, when a large brick addition through[nearly] the whole length of the nave was carried out north-wards, ending with a north gable. I t is now separated fromthe nave by a huge elliptical arch . . . "

Ewan Christian's plan indicates this Jacobean wideningof the western half of the said low aisle, and I have reproducedits lines, with its massive angle-buttresses, in broken lines onmy plan. T h e eastern portion o f the o ld aisle was lef tunaltered by the Jacobean builders; i t was covered by asharply-sloping roof which ran down continuously from theridge of the roof that still runs level from west to east overnave and chancel. T h e Jacobean addition, which had atranseptal roof wi th north gable and may possibly havebeen bui l t t o afford space for a children's gallery, EwanChristian demolished. H e pulled down also the remainingportion of the old aisle-wall and its sloping roof; extendednorthwards its east and west walls, and bui l t a new aisle5/ feet wider than the old, covering i t w i th a ridge roof.The huge elliptical arch he replaced by the existing two-arched arcade.

The width of the old aisle, which is plotted in my planin double-dot and double-dash lines, is clearly marked in theend-walls of the new aisle by the straight joints of the originalquoins ( j , k) bui l t wi th roughly-squared slab-flints. T h eperiod is fixed b y an original Ear ly English lancet tha tremains in the east end-wall: i t may be dated c.1220.

I t must here be borne in mind that the present secondchancel is a modern building erected by Ewan Christian:it did not exist when Loftus Brock wrote. T h e latter speaksof the end-walls of the aisle as terminating flush wi th theeast and west ends of the chancel and nave respectively.As regards the east end this cannot have been quite accurate,

1 Printed in Arch. Cant., Vol. xxi.

1 4 4 W H I T F I E L D A L I A S B E I J E S F E L D .

for, as my plan shows, the plane of the outer face of the aisleend-wall is several inches east of that of the gable of thechancel. T h e junction (e), as he saw it, must have beenawkward, and it is strange that he did not remark upon itand connect i t with a destroyed "second chancel beyondthe existing one " of which he saw " indications " in "anacutely-pointed arch marked in the east wall [of the chancel)now filled in with a modern window."

There can be little doubt that Loftus Brock thoughtthat the Saxon chancel was square-ended and that a secondchancel had been added and subsequently destroyed, itspointed arch being then blocked and a modern window builtin the blocking. H e seems to have failed to hit upon theidea which this Paper is designed to prove, namely, that thesecond chancel with its pointed arch replaced an apse whichwas entered through a narrower arch and formed the sanctuaryof a three-compartment Saxon church.

Ewan Christian's report, dated 4th March, 1894, like-wise reveals no suspicion of such an original Saxon apse;but as we shall see later he was undoubtedly correct, not onlyin assuming like Loftus Brock the former existence of asecond chancel, square-ended, but also in attributing i t tothe Early English period. I n that style he proposed torebuild it. The extraordinary form which he gave to hisrestoration, making his new second chancel wider than thechancel proper, was based upon features which he examinedmore closely and interpreted with greater definition thanLoftus Brock had attempted. W e have to try to imaginewhat he saw. Inside he saw in the east wall sufficient tosuggest the former existence of such a second chancel: therewas the modern east window of debased character, framedby a pointed arch which springing from the side-walls spannedthe whole width of the chancel. Doubtless the wall wasplastered, but the plaster-surface would show signs of thewrought-stone voussoirs of the arch under it. Perhaps alsoindications of the imposts. projecting from the side-wallsinto the blocking masonry flush with its face were apparent.Outside, where the plaster may have fallen away, or would

WHITFIELD ALIAS BETJESFELD. 1 4 5

be removed for the purpose of examination, the architectsaw not only the same features as on the inside but also oneother and more significant feature which did not exist on theinside—be saw on either side a wrought-stone quoin support-ing the end of the impost and making a straight vertical jointon the face of the wall (g, h). N o w it must have occurred tohim that there would have been no need for such quoinsif the side-walls of the extension, the second chancel, had beena mere prolongation of the side-walls of the old chancel:he concluded that the extension must have been wider thanthe chancel, and he planned his new extension accordingly,doing so in spite of the fact that his side-walls would abutupon the ends of the chancel-walls (eg , fh) i n such a way asto overlap them outwards.

The correctness of the architect's deduction, and thecoincidence of the lines he planned with those of the destroyedbuilding, was strikingly confirmed when the ground was beingprepared for his new building. T h e following passage occursin a letter written under date 11th May, 1894, by Mr. WalterHamilton, rector of Waldershare and vicar of Whitfield, inreference to a visit which he had recently paid to the churchin company with the architect :—

"We also found the foundations of what must have beena square-headed chancel to the east of the existing one, occupyingwithin an inch or two the exact space which the new one is designed to fill ."

I t will not be unreasonable, then, that in our discussionof the problem involved, we assume that the modern buildingaccurately represents, i n plan a t least, the Early Englishaddition to the Saxon chancel. O n that assumption therecovery of a Saxon apse Mainly depends. T h a t foundationsof an apse were not discovered at the same time may easilybe explained: they lay, and possibly still lie, wholly withinthe space; and, as they were not thought of, they were notlooked for.

4. AFTER RESTORATION.Professor Baldwin Brown, in his Anglo-Saxon, Architecture

(Vol. I I of The Arts in Early England: 2nd ed., 1925, p. 485)describes this church as " a n excellent example of a small

146 W H I T F I E L D ALIAS BEITESFELD.Saxon nave-and-chancel church of the Third Period" [thelatter part of the tenth and early eleventh century] "wherethe chancel has been extended and aisles were added withoutdestroying the nave walls, which are about 2 ft. thick andmore than 15 ft. high. I n the south wall there is preserveda double-splayed window. T h e altered chancel a r c hadmits us to a space originally about 9 ft. 6 in. square, bu tthis has now been extended eastwards. T h e chancel wallswere only 1 ft. 9 in. thick. A good deal of the old plasteringsurvives."

The Professor attaches to his note a small rectangularplan w h i c h I have ventured t o copy a n d reproduceon a s t i l l smaller scale. H e has no concern w i th theremarkable irregularity of the lines of the church. H e isonly concerned to show " a small Saxon nave-and-chancelchurch," and he represents its lines in full black, disregardingall la ter insertions and additions. B u t h e makes onesignificant exception: the east wall of the chancel he leavesopen. I am thankful for this intimation that the Professorhas some doubt in his mind! H e has not had leisure tomake ful l investigation of the east end, and the idea of aSaxon apse has therefore not occurred to him.

5. SAXON REMAINS.

The West front is the only part of the Saxon churchthat shows i t s walling o f irregular f l i n t -rubble. N o t asingle original quoin remains: a l l have been removed orcovered except the SW. quoin of the nave (a), and that hasbeen rebuilt w i th stones gathered f rom various sources.I do not think any Caen-stone was used in the Saxon build-ing: I doubt i f that stone was imported in Saxon times.The arch of an original west doorway, now blocked, wasturned in cut slab-flints; i t s jambs, which are not distinctlyvisible, may have been merely plastered fl int-rubble. T h esame may be surmised of the chancel-arch, which EwanChristian in his report described as " a rough chancel-archof tal l proportions." I n the restoration i t was faced with

W H I T F I E L D A L I A S B E I T E S F E L D . 1 4 7

brick and plastered. A double-splayed loop (m) above thesouth door seems to have been formed in flint-rubble: EwanChristian found i t blocked internally but visible above theporch externally (see photo.) : its internal splays are unequal:i t was originally fitted, apparently, wi th a mid-wall panelpierced for l ight . T h e quoins ( j , k ) o f the long Ear lyEnglish aisle a r e bu i l t i n c u t s lab-flints : t hese m a yhave come from the corresponding quoins of the nave-wall(b, c).

The little window in the west gable (see photo.) is formedof sandstone, probably from the Hythe beds: the round headis cut out of a single stone; i ts two sloping sides, also out ofsingle stones. T h e opening measures 16 in. f rom si l l t ospringing, 16 in. wide at the bottom, 13/ in. at the top. I tis rebated externally fo r a shutter, which b y reason o finaccessibility must have been fixed and pierced. I examinedthe masonry b y means of a ladder and found that one ofthe jamb-stones retained the marks of coarse axe-tooling.The same coarse tooling may be seen on two large pillar-likestones worked into the jambs of the rear-arch of the southdoor, and there is a similar pillar-stone in the SW. quoin ofthe nave: probably they are Saxon stones re-used. T h elittle double-splayed window above the south door is irregularin shape, bu i l t o f f l in t rubble, now plastered inside andrough-cast outside.

Near the end of the N. wall of the nave o f the churchat Stourmouth there is a little window, blocked externally,which i f opened out would be seen to be exactly like thedouble-splayed window at Whitfield. T h e internal splays,which are visible, are similarly unequal, so that the mid-wall opening was not vertically in the centre of the rearopening.

The foregoing notes suggest that the builders' resourcesand their tectonic ability were slight; they included in theirnumber no skilled bankerman ; t h e blocks o f sandstonethey may have quarried from the ruins of Roman Napchester ;the rest of their stone they gathered from the surface ofthe Downs.

10

1 4 8 W H I T F I E L D A L I A S BEITESFELD.

6. NORMAN ENLARGEMENT.The first enlargement of the church was the work of

skilled masons in the Norman style in the second or thirddecade o f the twelfth century. I t consisted o f a southaisle stretching from the west end of the nave to the eastend o f the chancel. I t was destroyed about a centurylater. T h e central column and two half-column respondsof the two-arched arcade that separated the aisle from thenave, wi th their scallop-capitals and typical mid-Normanbases, are visible, embedded in the Saxon nave-wall. T h ematerial is Caen-stone. A single arch of the same building,inserted in the south wall of the chancel, was opened out in1894, when Ewan Christian built a vestry on the site of theeastern end of the destroyed aisle. I n m y plan I haveindicated the aisle by dot and double-dash lines, giving i t awidth of 6 feet, as that is the width of a long south-aisle ofthe same character, with a very similar arcade, added aboutthe same time in the neighbouring church of East Langdon.

A peculiar feature of the work in both churches is seenin the rounding off of the eastern quoin of the nave, thepurpose of which must be left to the reader's imagination.At Whitfield this rounded angle is now visible only abovethe roof of the modern vestry. T h a t the rounding off wascontinued upwards to the eaves of the nave roof seems to besufficient evidence that it was bytb e mid-Norman builders of theaisle that the height of the side-walls and gable-end of thechancel was raised some 18 in. or 2 ft. to carry a prolongationof the nave roof eastwards over the chancel. T h i s enabledthem to cover the whole length of their aisle without breakby a sharply-sloping roof running down from the ridge tothe eaves of their low aisle-wall.

7. EARLY ENGLISH ALTERATIONS.The Norman aisle was destroyed early in the thirteenth

century. I t is important to realise that the Early Englishbuilders preserved the wrought-stone of its quoins and archesfor use in the alterations and additions which they took in

WHITFIELD. A L I A S B E I I E S F E L D . 1 4 9

hand. These works included: (1) the blocking of the Saxonwest door; (2) the insertion of a lancet-light above it, and,possibly, of another lancet in place of a Saxon double-splayedloop in the south wall (at n) like its fellow (m) which theyblocked; ( 3 ) t he erection o f a south porch and door ;(4) a north aisle; a n d (5) a new sanctuary east o f thechancel.

(1, 2.) T h e Saxon west entrance consisted probably ofa straight-through round-arched opening with a wooden door.In blocking it the Early English builders left a shallow internalrecess, the quoins of which they renewed in Norman wrought-stone, some of i t refaced with the chisel. A b o v e i t theyinserted a lancet light, the sloping sill of which cut through thehead of the old door-arch, which they replaced by a depressedarch n o w represented b y modern stone-work. L a t e r,probably in the seventeenth century, the E.E. lancet wasreplaced by a round-headed window framed in wood, forwhich Ewan Christian substituted the existing window.(3.) T h e south doorway has a sharply-pointed arch withoutimpost mouldings, built mainly of Norman stones. A t thespringing there is on each side a piece o f Roman brick.The springer on each side is much longer (12 in.) than theother voussoirs, which are all Norman-faced stones: the oneon the west side is superficially divided into two b y anincised line, to match the size of the other voussoirs : i t isfaced with the E.E. chisel, part of i t vertically, the otherpart horizontally. T h e chamfer of the outer edge is stoppednear the ground on either side with a broach. T h i s doorwayis 2 ft. 6 in. through, 6 in. more than the thickness of the wall.This suggests that a porch was built at the same time, andin the plan I have t inted the existing modern porch asrestored E.E. I failed to examine i ts junctions with thewall, and feel a doubt. I n any case, the porch has beenrebuilt more than once. ( 4 . ) T h e E.E. nor th aisle hasalready been described. A note may be added o f t hesingular way in which the NE. quoin of the nave was cutback, and the plain and rude character of the pointed openingcut through the adjoining wall of the chancel. W h e n they

1 5 0 W H I T F I E L D A L I A S B E U E S F E L D .

came to the addition of this aisle the E.E. builders must haveexhausted the supply of Caen-stone they had got from theirdemolition of the Norman south aisle.'

8. T H E SAXON APSE AND THE EARLY ENGLISH SANCTUARY.We are now prepared to deal further with the question

of a Saxon apse and with its replacement by an Early Englishsecond chancel, remembering that the latter is well repre-sented by the modern east-end. Remains of such an apseare either absent or invisible, and the evidence in favour ofi t is purely circumstantial, but still weighty enough to bringconviction. H a d there been no apse the E.E. builders wouldsurely have fulfilled a desire to extend a square-ended chancelin the way that was usually adopted. T h e y would havecompleted the new walls as far as possible outside the thenexisting chancel and without disturbing i t , ranging theirside-walls exactly in line wi th i ts side-walls. T h e n theywould have pulled down the old east wall; made good thejunction of the new with the old side-walls; and, lastly,they would have prolonged the old roof to cover the addition.In a word, the old east wal l and i ts gable would havedisappeared, and the breadth and height of the old chanceland its extension would have been the same from end to end.The method and the result would have been the same if theoriginal church to be extended had been a two-compartmentapsidal building, i.e., i f the chancel side-walls instead o fending square had turned t o form a semi-circle withoutapse-arch.

1 The little Church of Caterham, Surrey, affords a striking parallel toWhitfield in the stages of i ts growth. T h e original nucleus was a twocompartment building of early-Norman date. T h e chancel terminated inan apse which on plan sprang directly f r o m i ts side-walls. A longuninterrupted south aisle, planned like that at Whitfield, finishing eastwardsin line with the chord of the apse, was added in later Norman times. A sat Whitfield, that aisle was destroyed in the Early English period, its archeswere blocked, a doorway was built in the blocking of the western arch, anew aisle of the same uncommon kind was built on the north side of naveand chancel, and a square-ended addition was made to the chancel andthe apse demolished. ( T h e foundations o f the apse and two or threefeet of its curving wall on the south side were recently discovered by Mr.P. M. Johnston, F.S.A., who has kindly sent me particulars thereof.) A s atWhitfield, again, when the aisle and extended chancel were built the N.B.quoin of the nave was splayed off.

WHITFIELD ALIAS BEITESFELD. 1 5 1

The remains at Whitfield are not consistent with eitherof these suppositions: t h e extension here was made in anunique addition and calls for a corresponding explanation,but i t was made on the same principle of leaving the oldending untouched and the services held therein undisturbedas long as possible. L e t us imagine such an apse and apse-arch as I have delineated in dot-and-dash lines in my plan.Its " all-over " breadth would be slightly less than that ofthe chancel, leaving the external quoins (e, f) free; and itsinterior width likewise would be slightly less. I t would alsobe lower in height than the chancel, against the east wallof which i t would be built. T o receive i ts abutment i twould be necessary that the chancel should have an eastwall and gable, and that again would require an arch ofcommunication and support, viz., a n apse-arch, sl ightlynarrower in span than the width of the apse. T h e side-wallsof an Ear ly English extension bui l t round such an apsewould necessarily stand exactly where the walls o f theexisting modern sanctuary stand: the i r position would bedetermined almost to a n inch b y these conditions. Imaintain t h a t such a n apse and apse-arch formed thesanctuary of the Saxon church and that the E.E. sanctuaryclosely represented by the modern sanctuary, was bui l t upround it in the way described. Moreover there seems to beno other possible explanation of certain other features whichmay now be noticed.

The Early English builders preserved the gable-end ofthe Saxon chancel, which, as we have seen, had been raisedin height in the Norman period. T h e old apse-arch whichit contained they took out, increasing the Width and heightof the opening to receive their pointed arch? T h e span oftheir arch they made of the full width of the chancel at itseast end. I t springs from a rude string-impost of their ownconstruction, inserted into the side-walls o f the chancelafter they had demolished the responds o f the original

The contrivance by which they supported the wall above while theydid this remains a mystery. I n hundreds o f churches old walls werepierced for the insertion of an arch or an arcade in medimval times: whatwas the process employed?

1 5 2 W H I T F I E L D A L I A S B E I T E S F E L D .

narrower arch, cutting back to the plane of the side-wallsand making good the rough face thus left. I n the processthey had to deal with a ragged quoin on either side (at gand h) : t h i s they made good by building up a quoin ofwrought-stones obtained from the quoins o f the Normanaisle which they had destroyed: t h e material is Norman,and its axe-tooled facing is well preserved, but the buildingis E.E. T h e same may be said of the edge-stones of the plainpointed arch, which were not cut for the position they nowfi l l : t h e y were obtained from the arches of the Normanaisle-arcade which the E.E. builders blocked; they are axe-tooled and the larger ones plainly show that the curve of theirsoffit is more pronounced than that of the arch in whichthey now appear. T h e only stones in this arch that werecut by the E.E. builders are those of which the imposts areformed. T h e y are rudely shaped a n d m a y easily b emistaken for poor Norman work. S im i la r imposts of rudeNormanesque character occur in the E.E. chancel-arch ofWestcliffe.

In plotting their churches on the ground early mediwvalbuilders, while they often failed t o get the angles right,usually contrived t o get the sides fa i r ly parallel. T h edivergence of the side-walls of the short chancel of Beuesfeldis remarkable : i t is quite 8 in. wider at the east end than atthe west. Possibly this divergence was intentional—to allowa little extra space in front of the altar. T h e Saxon apse-arch must have been plain, like the chancel-arch, bu t lesslofty and probably a little wider.

In concluding this Paper I wish to express my gratitudeto the Vicar, the Rev. Edward Thompson, who has shewnme hospitality and has been at pains from time to time toanswer requests for information about the church, in whichhe takes a well-informed interest; and also to the Rev. ArthurCollins, of Staple, who has made journeys both to Whitfieldand t o Sutton t o take photographs which have greatlyassisted me in the writing of the Paper.

•113A0U-A11-1110.1-1.11S 1 7 6 £ • s 0 1 . 4

• MOU9N1V1 isva • 1 S91.4

W H I T F I E L D A L I A S B E U E S F E L D . 1 5 3

APPENDIX.The Plate of Plans. Whitf ield was drawn to a quarter-inch

scale, i.e., four feet to the inch; being reduced to one-thirdlinear it appears on the plate as twelve feet to the inch. T h ediminutive plan of Saxon " Beuesfeld " (drawn sixteen feet tothe inch and appearing as forty-eight feet) is inserted to showWhitfield plainly i n its original state. F o r comparison withBeuesfeld the three-compartment .churches of East Ham andSutton have been specially measured and are shown on the samesmall scale, in which of course great accuracy of detail is im-possible. B r i e f descriptions o f these churches are appended.In the Plate of photographs, kindly taken by the Rev. A. H.Collins, two capitals of the chancel-arch at East Langdon areincluded for comparison with Sutton. I t is hoped that a briefdescription of E. Langdon will appear in a later volume.

East Ham. T h e west wall of the nave is so much encumberedby the supports of a west tower that accurate measurement isdifficult; i t was about four feet thick; t h e side-walls, threefeet. T h e chancel-arch has been removed. Wa l l s of chanceland apse-arch, two feet nine inches. W a l l of apse, onefoot nineinches, increased by pilaster-strips inside and outside to two feetnine inches. He igh t of nave, twenty feet; o f chancel, eighteenfeet; o f apse, about sixteen feet. Originally there were threewindows on each side of nave; one on each side of chancel;three in the semi-circle of a stilted apse; those marked with a

are either blocked o r enlarged. We s t and south doors.Exterior wall-face, alternate thick and thin courses of Kentishrag; the thick courses mostly of large blocks with some smallerstones set aslant. Quoins of Caen-stone and Kentish rag orsandstone mixed. Wrought-stone of windows and doorways,Caen-stone. T h e south doorway has a pair of angle-shafts withcushion caps and hollow-chamfered abaci from which springs abold round. T h e two cushions of the capital are separated bythree arrises that rise from the necking wedge-shaped to a point.(Cf. the lance-head that separates the cushions of the capitalsin the crypt of St.-Mary-le-Bow, c.1090.) T h e west doorwayhas three orders; the innermost, a broad half-round on whichthe doors close; the outermost, an angle-shaft in the jamb witha corresponding round in the arch; the middle order, an angle-shaft and above the cushion cap a molded splay consisting of

154 W H I T F I E L D A L I A S BEUESFELD.

,Jac: obc.xin1 —

, d e s . t r o y e c l_ . k Early Engl. WA

_ r e b u i l t '94 FIM4 dest.royes.A

M odern 94:Ed

SUTTON()OVER

i k 4 1 1 M M V ,

1-•• — • —. . \II I . i , \

I.I.

i1 j i

I I• —:— • — • ''. . / .

k . .......

Saxon 11111111.:clotroy_O

Norman M E

5 1 0 I 5 Z 0 Z 5 3 0

U_Lii1.1_11.1LL_IA±±11_,1

w 11 NE

oo ç o 0 2 0I I I I

A F T E R PROF.8 E

E A S T H A I M

al,I. 6 2 1

W H I T F I E L D A L I A S B E U E S F E L D . 1 5 5

two edge-rounds separated by an arris, in section like an early-Norman vaulting rib. T h e sides of the chancel are enriched withslightly recessed wall-arcading, seven pointed arches on each side,formed by the intersection of round-headed continuous arches.enriched with a simple zig-zag of early character.'

All these features point to an early date—not later, I think,than the last decade of the 11th century. I n the plan I have

22

East Ham

ventured to restore the chancel-arch which with i ts gable-wallhas been whol ly removed. Perhaps t h e most remarkablefeature is the quarter-round that fills the angle of the junctionof the east wall of the chancel with each of the side-walls. T h edisposition o f the arcading suggests that there were similarquarter-shafts in the western angles of the chancel. T h e same

1 See the accompanying sketeh and compare the chevron molding of the-west door of St. Nicholas, Harbledown, dated c. 1084.

1 5 6 W H I T F I E L D A L I A S BETTESFELD.

feature is seen in the late-Saxon cathedral church of North Elm-ham, Norfolk, but in that case they occur in the external anglesof the buildings—see a paper in Antiq. Journ., Oct., 1926, byA. W. Clapham, F.S.A., and W. H. Godfrey, F.S.A.

Sutton. T h e adoption of the three-compartment plan bythe builders of the church of St. Peter and St. Paul, Sutton-by-Dover, a chapelry of Little Mongeham, was due, doubtless, to theexistence of a church of that rare type in the neighbouring parishof Whitfield. Hasted says this church was partly destroyed byan earthquake in 1688. G lynne, who visited the church in1870, wrote that i t had recently undergone restoration andpartial rebuilding and that its original form and features had beengenerally maintained. T h e apse and its arch are modern. I fthe features of the apse were copied from those of its predecessoras Glynne implies, they can be only a poor imitation; but in viewof the arcading that runs round the ruined apse of the three-compartment church of St. James at Dunwichl there is no reasonto doubt that a similar arcading in the modern apse at Suttonrepresents the original arrangement. Though the apse-archalso is modern, the quoins outside are ancient, and I think that theouter surface of the apse-wall for a foot or two near the southernquoin is likewise original. T h e windows marked in the plan witha cross are replacements of the original windows. T h e chancel-arch has a plain soffit and rises from imposts enriched with panelsof narrow round-tipped leaves (twenty in the panel on the frontface) and, underneath, a kind of billet ornament worked on around. T h e south wall of the nave is covered with roughcast,which returns round the SW. quoin. T h e rest of the west endand all along the north side the original walling of coursed flintsremains, with the original quoins of Caen-stone. T h e roundheads of tall windows are constructed with three voussoirs onwhich, as may be seen on the north side, there is cut a super-ficial ornament of interlacing strap-work studded with smallpearls. I t is much weather-worn, and in part undecipherable.(See the photograph). T h e accompanying sketch is a rough

1 The side-walls also of the chancel at Dunwich, like those at East Ham,have arcading of intersecting round arches, though the details are different,the arches being supported by shafts and cushion caps. M iss Clay tells usthe leper-house a t Dunwich was founded in 1199; photographs of therum., lent to me by the Vicar, the Rev. A. Scott Thompson, suggest anFarber date. T h e church was slightly larger than East Ham. S e e planin Archceologia, vol. xii.

W H I T F I E L D A L I A S B E U E S F E L D . 1 5 7

attempt to show the complete design. A similar ornament iscut on the impost of the south respond of the chancel-arch ofEast Langdon (see photograph). There are rude examples ofthe kind of interlacing strapwork seen on the Norman (sic) fontin St. Martin's, Canterbury, on the lintel of the little Normantower-door at Sandwich, and elsewhere. T h e north respond atEast Langdon has a key-ornament of the same.

There are north and south doorways opposite to one another.The south doorway bears no signs of a door, but is a straight-through arch of early character, without imposts, edged with

-

•

\N‘_ \ \ \ , • '

NG ) \ • .1 j : i/:'\//).'11.(4, '•::;'*:-""-"`;'1 •

<

.1- •

SUTTON, N E A R DOVER.

Caen-stone cleanly-faced and clearly of Norman workmanship.I t now leads into a small vestry with thin walls and a mock-Norman window. I failed to examine this building carefully,but my impression is that i t represents a Norman porticu,s.That it formed part of the plan of the Norman church is evidentfrom the arrangement of the nave windows in relation to it. T h eporch on the opposite side tallies with i t in size and position.The north doorway is highly enriched and the carving is so wellpreserved as to suggest that from the first a porch protected it.Angle-shafts with ornamented cushion caps support an orderslightly recessed from the wall-face and consisting of an edge-rollaround which runs a ring of lozenge. Around it, on the wall-face and in place of a label, is a superficial molding of three rings

1 5 8 W H I T F I E L D A L I A S B E I T E S F E L D .

of another form of lozenge. Wi th in it the tympanum is supportedby a wooden lintel (not an uncommon feature in Norman workin Kent), and is constructed in three courses slightly carved, eachwith three rows of small squares or oblongs enclosing pearledstars. T h e abaci o f thecapitals are faced with thesame kind of star, with abillet o rnament under-neath. T h e caps are scal-loped and the faces incisedwith inturning sp i ra l s ,while the cushions of thewestern cap are formedinto bundles of reeds, andthose o f the eastern capare ornamented with inter-lacing strapwork like theheads o f the windows.Such description may seemmeticulously detailed, butthe subject which n o wneeds attention more per-haps than any other i nAnglo -Norman architec-ture is the development of ornament as an aid to the chron-ology of the style. I think that Sutton may be dated provisionallynot later than the third decade of the 12th century.

G.M.L.

SUTTON, N E A R DOVER.