The Barfrestone Conundrum: 'Much Restored' but 'Virtually Unaltered'

THE BARFRESTONE conundrum: ‘MUCH RESTORED’ BUT ‘VIRTUALLY UNALTERED’

charles coulson

R.C. Hussey’s careful memorandum in Archaeologia Cantiana (1886) of his conscientious work in 1839-41 failed to shield him from criticism during his own lifetime of having falsified a ‘gem’. This tendency has continued, even (especially) in scholarly publications such as A.W. Clapham’s , Romanesque Architecture (1934). Belief that the church was ‘rebuilt’ has persisted and has recently been re-stated in Norman Churches in Canterbury Diocese (Berg. M. and Jones, H., 2009).

This paper summarises, as succinctly as possible, the case vindicating Hussey as well as the authenticity of St Nicholas Church.

How it can be that a very early ‘Victorian restoration’ should not have tampered with the architectural evidence is a very persistent concern. John Betjeman’s, Collins Guide to Parish Churches (1958, p. 238), puts the perceived ambiguity very neatly regarding Barfrestone. ‘St Nicholas Church the best Norman church in Kent, is virtually unaltered, though much restored 1839-41 by Blore’. Had Edward Blore, the versatile architect of lucrative country houses in the Gothic Style,¹ truly done the ‘repairs’ which his 1839 report recommended doubt would be in order.² Fortunately, however, they were entrusted to Thomas Rickman and Richard Charles Hussey, pupil then partner of the ailing but scholarly pioneer Gothicist.³

At the end of his life, facing criticism from an architecturally and historically aware generation, Hussey in 1886 published in this Journal a meticulous record and apologia.⁴ The present author’s analysis of this set out below, pictorially and diagrammatically, using in part the very careful (but not infallible) drawings commissioned for vol. IV of John Britton’s Architectural Antiquities (1814),⁵ shows how careful Hussey was, and knew he had to be. Close study of the building as it now is bears out this impression. If his account is silent regarding any feature its originality and location can be accepted. His omissions are very few. He did not touch the roofs and makes no mention, for instance, of replacing the east coping to the Nave gable with a shallow eave (Fig. 1a), but the excellent quality heavy lead trough gutters (replaced with obvious iron in May 1991) (Fig. 7b) were 1889-90 additions, not his, and the re-roofing was before his time. Invention, that egotistic propensity of the typical Victorian ‘restorer’ (e.g. Ripple church, near Deal), he scrupulously avoided: he frankly admits to the deliberately obvious tympanum to the north Nave Doorway, but it is utterly plain (Fig. 7c).

With precocious adherence to modern ‘best practice’ Hussey marks his various resetting of loose flints in the lower walls with punctilious knapping. Specifically he disowned the three replacement corbels on the south-west angle of the Nave, which are crude in material and in style, as done ‘a few years previously’ (Fig. 6d).⁶ There is some contradiction: he wanted to show both how necessary his work was in 1839 as well as how limited and how careful.

The form of the early post-Conquest church at Barfrestone closely controlled the splendid but incongruously economical makeover of c.1175-80. Another set of constraints, general not peculiar, was the universal practice of using ‘layers’ or ‘setters’ on site to sort out and place the cut-stone ashlars and sculptures (strings, doorway elements, window dressings, figure carvings: Figs 9f, 9g, 9h, 9i, 7b) produced by the tailleurs and imagours whose work was done at major building sites (such as Canterbury cathedral) and at the quarry itself.⁷ At small works the mason layers would be assembling ready-made ‘kits of parts’: at Barfrestone they often had to improvise, roughing out substitutes for missing elements and adapting prepared stonework to fit (Figs 3a, 2b, 2c). This has given rise to speculation about re-use in c.1175-80 of materials from Hackington college by Canterbury, a hypothesis advanced by Hussey and reinforced by the very astute and scholarly Rector Hessing (1964-71), but on specific as well as general grounds quite untenable.⁸ Erratic extemporisation has given an entirely false impression of a building with details confected and tampered with subsequent to c.1180 (Fig. 4b). Because abundant pictorial evidence and antiquarian interest at the interface of the Gothic with the Classical Revival periods⁹ rules out interference before 1839 (with very minor and late exceptions) doubts have been focused on the ‘restoration’ by Hussey. Admiration for the overall ‘perfection’ and for the highly photogenic sculptures has thus been tainted by the suspicion that the building is simply ‘too good to be true’.

The west wall of the Nave can easily be seen for what it is. John Newman (1983) unhesitatingly states that this wall is ‘late 11th century not of 12th-century date, as are the inserted lancet and quatrefoil’¹⁰ disregarding the Perpendicular style two-light window (Fig. 6a). Corroborative indications are numerous: irregularity of layout, divergent orientation of Nave and Chancel,¹¹ erratic coursing of face-work ashlar on all five sides (Chancel east wall excepted), especially the inlaying of specially cut blocksabove the drip-moulds of windows and recesses up to the horizontals between the cornice corbels (Figs 3b, 3c). Despite the lichen this is seen everywhere except the Nave south side, recently cleaned and lime-washed.¹² Equally eloquent are the ironstone bonders on the south-west and north-west angles of the Nave, around which the Caen stone has been worked (Figs 6a, 6b); the gauche misalignment and rudimentary buttress on the north-west angle (Figs 8a, 8b) and perhaps the low-relief grotesques facing each other on the jambs of the blocked North Door (Fig. 7d).

Turning to the (blocked) Priest’s Door on the south Chancel wall, intimations of the post-Conquest, Saxo-Norman overlap quickly mount up.¹³ The jamb-shafts are engaged (incised from the quoins). A thresh-hold step has been put in before the door was blocked (modern render) as the floor is nearly 12in. above the quarry-tiles set in mortar found by Hussey. The LHS (west) capital is a ‘volute’, typical of the1080s (Figs 10a, 10b, 10c); (a local example is the chancel-arch capitals at West Cliffe, St Margaret’s). That on the RHS is a ‘leaf’ (Fig. 10d). Both have cable-moulded astragal ‘neckings’ and are more worn than the c.1175-80 over-large abacus with chip (sunk star) decoration and heavy hollow chamferleft over, for example, from the north Chancel lower string (Figs 10c, 10d). As with the South Door, the original opening was rather too narrow, although the broken-away Tympanum and arch-ring mouldings (‘dog tooth’ and chevron on edge) are all in due proportion and agree with the c.1175-80 enrichment inside the church and outside.

With about 4,000 visitors each year to the church the South Door must be one of the most photographed architectural features in Kent (Fig. 9b). The fascination of the carvings has distracted attention from the inner capitals (both sides) which closely match those of the Priest’s Door. Moreover the c.1175-80 over-capitals were cut back to be wedged in (Figs 9c, 9h, 9i) by the same lateral contraction as is clear in the recess overhead and elsewhere, except in the Chancel.

Pointed arches, less acute in the north Nave wall (which is nearly 60cm longer than the South) are not stylistic (i.e. Transitional) as in c.1175-80 they could be but a layers’ expedient, as Rector Hessing showed, produced by reducing a voussoir at the crown to a sharper wedge and trimming the others (Fig. 6c). The late 11th-century church was awkwardly small (interior length 43ft 6in.) and the new stonework had to be crammed in. All these numerous incongruities are intact.¹⁴ The tympanum, with its Christ-in-Majesty and the four surrounding ‘orders’ comprising the upper-door-case, despite the extra detached shafts and capitals to the expansive abacus, ‘overflow’ the space available. There has been some original rearrangement of the door-head elements, but the ensemble has striking integrity (Fig. 9e).

In modern times (before 1839) alterations were made to the church.¹⁵ Those now apparent include the three corbels to the south-west cornice of the Nave; replacement of lintel-slabs to the north-west angle (Fig. 8c) and most of the north side cornice and a few elsewhere, so far as type of stone, workmanship of the interrupted roll moulding (‘billet’) and other signs can be interpreted; also that tiles at some date were put in the base of the recesses as a weathering course. These, as Hussey tells us, he replaced in stone (Fig. 5c). A pictorial engraving of ‘Romantic ruin’ type (1829) may exaggerate but does show the state of the north side of the Nave, along with sunken roofs (reconstructed with ceilings pre-Hussey) and general dilapidation especially to the copings of the two gables (Fig. 1b). The architect responsible is likely to have been Edward Blore, whose 1839 report omitted mention of the roofs entirely.

The terms of the 1840 Diocesan Faculty show heightened concern. A ‘committee of noblemen and gentlemen’ had already raised £600 (against an estimated cost of £450, eventually £800). John Horton, Churchwarden, and James Gillman, Rector, had taken formal steps in due form in April 1840. By July, after notices ‘fixed to the principal door’, no objections having been made in the Cathedral, Faculty was duly issued. What most concerned the parish was the restoration by infilling of ‘the two recesses cut in the N and S walls’ of the Nave (flanking the Chancel arch altars).¹⁶ Although alterations and repairs were envisaged including ‘re-pewing and re-siting’ of the reading desk as the committee may advise’ and the archdeacon permit, the Chancel where found necessary was to be ‘taken down and reconstructed’, but the Nave ‘repaired’ only. Despite this Hussey was very far from having a free hand. He scrupulously left alone the roofs and their attached lath and plaster ceilings, that ‘civilising’ 18th-century feature generally torn down by the Victorians in their drive for ‘honesty of construction’.¹⁷ Plaster renderings were also ‘scraped’ with much less respect for medieval aesthetics and regard for the practicalities of weather-proofing.

By the 1880s, nevertheless, a strong reaction had already set in against unscholarly misrepresentations of Gothic architecture. Archbishop Benson had no Diocesan Advisory Committee to vet Faculty applications but the first bishop of the new See and splendid vaulted modern Cathedral of Truro wrote personally to the Rector in 1885:

I rely on your guardianship of every weathered stone of this old treasure. Its restoration is a great responsibility, and if it were renovated as some of our churches are, there would be just complaint … I should … dread restoration above anything’.¹⁸

This was the cultural atmosphere which caused Richard Hussey in 1886 to defend the work he had done at Barfrestone at the start of his independent career, over 45 years previously. In what follows, that record published in Archaeologia Cantiana is diagrammatically annotated, using for convenience and as primary evidence, the 1812 engravings recorded in John Britton’s Architectural Antiquities IV, 1814. Significant errors are: showing the lower walls as ashlar instead of flint-rubble; depicting the drip-moulds to the 5 recesses as semi-circular when they are variously pointed (cf. south side); some earthing-up of the angles is shown; also moderate simplification of details throughout. Hussey’s remarks are abbreviated ‘in double quotes’ and keyed by letter to the respective feature, with an illustrated commentary appended (See Plates I-VII, pages 170-183).

Improvisations of the Layers

The crowning semi-circle of the South Door confirms much, notably the layers’ jig-saw puzzle and the afterthoughts, most conspicuously the inclusion of ‘Becket’ (Fig. 9f) during the building.¹⁹ Among numerous oddities and mis-placements, cloaked by Classical regularity, is the rough RHS wedge spring-stone (Fig. 9i) to the Roll surrounding the Tympanum (itself faultless and no doubt specially commissioned). Other oddities are less obvious. The Second Coming plaque, however, set in the especially ornate south Chancel recess (Fig. 3b: Heavenly Jerusalem descending, lobster-tailed monster with eroded St Michael) is awkwardly inset, apparently cut back to fit.

The same spirit of improvising by layers, who could dress freestone but not do the fine chisel work of the imagers, stands out in the brackets of the two watchful Lions at the east corners of the Chancel Upper String.²⁰ The Cornice corbels everywhere, and the extra carvings, were regularly set, or crammed in ingeniously or just ‘lost’ in the masonry. All are correct in scale but fall into three or four distinct types: architectural/floral, human or anthropological, animal grotesque/mythological, each probably the speciality of individual Imagers.

Envoi

Herbert Smith’s letter of 27 September 1839 to the President of Trinity College, Oxford, shows that the paintings which covered much of the Chancel interior were recorded before Hussey began work (Fig. 5b),²¹ one of several important precursors, connected with the entire re-roofing, including the interior lath and plaster ceiling, to the original medieval pitch. This will have been done after 1829, needing no mention in Blore’s 1839 survey, and lasted until c.1900 when the present handsome ‘Edwardian’ semicircular ceiling and tie beams were put in. The new oak altar rail is in similar vein. The present ‘shrine’ feeling is not the primitive, open-to-the-roof style that Archbishop Benson favoured. It also detracts somewhat from the original and authentic interior.²²

A fortunately short-lived brick porch (Fig. 1a) has left no trace, apart from possible damage to the South Door east and west abacus and outermost ring (Fig. 9b). The original Quatrefoil in the west Nave gable (Fig. 6a) has been glazed after removal of the bell to the adjacent yew. But for the pair of Decorated south Chancel windows and the altar recesses virtually the only Medieval structural intrusion is the late 15th-century two-light window (Fig. 6a). That St Nicholas’ church, against all the odds, survived nearly all the normal vicissitudes is perhaps the most remarkable thing about it – in no order of importance these include expansion for enlarged population or patron’s wealth’, 18th- and earlier 19th-century meddling and vandalism; inconsiderate ‘Victorian restoration’ and cumulative lack of care by lay people and incumbents. The likelihood of neglect as a rectory enjoying unappropriated glebe, but only the tithes of a small and poor parish, was strong. What covered the dangerous period, from the mid 18th to mid 19th century, was antiquarian and learned knowledge of this rather remote parish church and the work, truly of conservation, by Richard Charles Hussey.²³

The author’s overall contention is that Hussey’s ‘restoration’ was extremely careful, as borne out by the above material collating his account of what he did, together with a methodical examination of the fabric as it now is. By reconstructing the original church of c.1075 and analysing from architectural descriptions and other documentary sources, what has been done subsequently (notably c.1900) it has been possible to see Hussey’s work as truly ‘conservation’ as now understood and not as ‘Victorian restoration’.

acknowledgement

Richard Hoskins provided invaluable assistance with internet research, produced the draft version and provided the illustrations, many of which are his own photographs.

endnotes

CAT Canterbury Archaeological Trust

Gent’s Mag. The Gentleman’s Magazine

Trans. RIBA Transactions of the Royal Institute of British Architects

Arch. J. Archaeological Journal

V & A Victoria and Albert Museum.

¹ M. Girouard, The Victorian Country House, e.g. p. 436.

² Text of 1840 Faculty entrusting the work to Rickman (d. 1841) and Hussey, ‘of Birmingham, architects’; transcribed by Edward Hessing, rector, in MS note to his guide (c.1970), Barfreystone Church, personal copy in Diocesan Archives, per Mary Berg.

³ Founder-members of The Oxford Society for Promoting the Study of Gothic Architecture (1840), with Blore, Palgrave, Salvin, Twopenny, Willis and other luminaries: Gent’s Mag., 11, 1839, p. 415. See Rickman’s, An Attempt to Discriminate the Styles of Architecture in England (1818); and e.g. K. Clark, The Gothic Revival (1928), p. 75.

⁴ Archaeologia. Cantiana, 16 (1886), 142-51. For a remote parish church Barfrestone was quite exceptionally well known to antiquaries before 1839, with numerous engravings. Hussey’s obituary (The Builder, 52, p. 215; Trans. RIBA, NS3, pp. 163-6), though a former RIBA vice-president, stigmatised him as ‘architect and controversial church restorer’.

⁵ Drawings by J. and M. Gandy, engraved mainly by the well-known John Le Keux and K. Sands, called ‘the scientific artist’ in John Britton’s Architectural Antiquities of Great Britain, vol. 4 (1814), pp. 41-52 (mainly Charles Clarke, f.s.a., with brief comments by Britton on the engravings pp. 51-2). See Fig.7b for gutters: installed 1889 and replaced in 1991; Hessing MS note to p. 12 (see endnote 2).

⁶ Hussey (and Rickman) were also in 1839-41, in orthodox ‘restorers’ manner, providing nearby Goodnestone church with its ‘nave, south porch and chancel in 12th-century style, etc., the additions having a ‘unified design of high quality (given the date)’ per John Newman, Buildings of England, pp. 334-5. Such contracts could be lucrative – but Hussey acted at Barfrestone without fee (Hessing MS, f.p. 10). Personal oversight of both simultaneously is likely. Contemporary working notes, and visits in retirement (1871) from Harbledown (by Canterbury) doubtless supplied the abundant detail and thoughts summarised in his 1886 memorandum (see note 4).

⁷ D. Knoop and G.P. Jones, The Medieval Mason (Manchester, 1933; repr. 1949), esp. p. 83; Hessing, pp. 6-7, 9-10 etc.

⁸ Hussey pp. 150-1; Hessing, pp. 6, 8, 9-10; A. Linklater, CAT, Nov. 2002, sheets 4, 5; and Canterbury Archaeology, 2004-5, pp. 30-1.

⁹ Fig. 9a; drawing of the South door by James Gandy, engraved by John Le Keux, in classical manner. Details of the medallions are quite accurate, otherwise impressionistic, but wrongly proportioned (too wide; contracted in c.1175-80 to fit the original opening: Fig. 9c).

¹⁰ Buildings of England, pp. 133-4. Unless the door irons (‘strap hinges scrolled and bifurcated’) are quite correctly shown in Fig. 9a (c.1812), Newman’s 19th- century attribution (belied by their erosion and traditional belief), may be correct. The planks with ‘wandering tongues’ are not old.

¹¹ Often shown with Chancel and Nave on the same axis, but correctly by Howard Jones in Norman Churches in the Canterbury Diocese (The History Press, 2009), M. Berg and H. Jones, p. 64 (despite erroneous annotation); and by Linklater, CAT, 2002 (Fig. 11). Hessing’s belief that Hussey’s reference to the ‘upper part of the west wall’ built thinner than the rest meant the exterior, and that re-facing the gable was aborted by having to use the masonry for the (added) sub-structure of the east Chancel wall, rests mainly on a mis-reading (Hessing, p. 22; Hussey, p. 145).

¹² Cutting back into the rubble core, at Barfrestone to set in the string course for the upper-wall ashlaring, occurs c.1200 at nearby Eastry and much later in the Perpendicular style makeover of Winchester Cathedral nave. ‘Notching’ of stones to fit together was an Anglo-Saxon technique – e.g. Bradford on Avon: H.M. Taylor, Arch. J., vol. 127 (1970), pp. 89-118, esp. p. 116 n. 22; also Arch J.,vols. 129, 130 (plan and drawings).

¹³ Eric Fernie, The Architecture of Norman England (Oxford, 2000), pp. 19 et seq., 45, 208-25, 243 (Bramber, outside the castle gate; Durham chapel). Nearby Nonington church (Kent) has some surviving and much re-used carvings of this period.

¹⁴ E.g. the knights on the RHS (E) upper capitals have under-arm ‘couched’ lances, a later method than the variously used javelin- type light lances depicted in the Bayeux Tapestry (c.1086). The front-facing knight has been partly cut off and does not pair with the dragon (Fig. 9i). Some crude pointing on the whole door, and surface shine, are due to the Silane preservative compound developed by Ken Hempel, chief sculpture-restorer at the V & A, and applied in the 1980s. Scratch carvings on the jambs (a head, serifed crosses, mass-dials, etc.) and severe wear next to the door affirm ancient but undateable popular usage (Fig. 9d).

¹⁵ Other pre-1839 works include the two tie rods put into the east walls of Nave and Chancel (removed by Hussey); replacement of cornice lintels, especially to the north Nave; three cornice corbels to the south-west Nave (Fig. 6d); blocking etc. of the Priest’s Door; raising and re-paving of the (Chancel) floor; weathering courses to the E end substructure; removal of the east Nave gable coping; infilling ‘with plaster’ of the inside west Nave gable, etc.

¹⁶ The hollows would have facilitated medieval use of the altars. Hussey (1886, p. 148) noted a possible filled-up squint at the back of the S one – but did as he was instructed, feeling also that they weakened the east Nave dividing wall. One of the prints issued to raise money shows the N ‘recess’, but W. Twopenny exaggerated the deformation of the Chancel arch aggravated as usual by movement of the north abutment (see Nave Exterior Figs I (D), 5d; Interior Fig. 5a).

¹⁷ Fig. 1c shows axial pews and lath and plaster ceiled Nave as Hussey found it. An oak ceiling to Nave (with tie beam marked ‘1900’) and Chancel replaced the lath and plaster in 1889-1901, with ‘a new roof … on the Chancel’ and ‘lead gulleys’ to the Chancel eaves, ‘having been none previously’. The masonry was not interfered with: Vestry Book, Edward Austen, rector: Hessing MS, f.p. 12, 24 vo. In spite of vertical elongation and the absence of the ‘stone pulpit’ removed in 1900 and very archaic style this print is late 19th century, ante-dating the 1910 rearrangement of the pews. But it is the only visual record of the pre-1900 ceilings.

¹⁸ Hessing MS, p. 24 vo. A belfry was proposed for the west wall of the Nave. The architect J.P. Seddon prepared plans dated May 1900, but Benson finally objected that it would be ‘out of character’. The bell which hung inside the Quatrefoil (Fig. 6a) was put in the yew tree. After 1889 the original dripping eaves received gutters (Fig. 7b). A plaque (west wall of Nave) by Rector Dowse (1910) records the pew, etc., rearrangement. The gutters were replaced in 1991 with the present utilitarian iron ‘rainwater goods’, retaining the exquisite hopper heads, hopefully less vulnerable to theft, with a ‘French drain’ around the base of the walls (Martin Caröe, architect).

¹⁹ Becket was Canonised in 1173, but with a popular following and pilgrimage soon after his assassination, the extemporised rearrangement (off-centre, cable mould and bead interrupted, etc. Fig. 9f), leave alone location over the Christ-in-Majesty, preclude St Nicholas (bishop of Myra)cp. R. Gameson, Arch. J., 151 (1994), supplement, pp. 15-16) (viewing the pointed arches purely stylistically).

²⁰ Fig. 4c (south- east) has a corbel roughed out of two elements of an angular chevron moulding. Those on the north-east corner (Fig. 4b) evidently come from a reeded column. Both brackets support entirely crude unpretentious rough slabs of stone.

²¹ Barfreston Church, Historical Miscellanea (Dover n.d. post 1901), pp. 21-2. Accidentally found ‘by scraping whitewash from the window recesses’. Hussey tells us (p. 149) that attempts to cut out the paintings (consistently dated c.1180) were abandoned, the plaster being too thin. Smith’s commission came from W. Twopenny, author of the polemical Chancel arch drawing (Fig. 9e), in the belief that the church ‘was shortly to be taken down’ (loosely-used but here defined as ‘the same stones to be replaced with fresh mortar’). Some recovery of the paintings was achieved in the 1920s under Rector Boyer by Prof. Tristram, and again in 1967 by Clive Rouse: Hessing pp. 28-9.

²² Fig. 1a indicates the steeper original pitch of the Chancel roof, the east Nave gable, the porch, and schematic detail. This, the Petrie watercolour from the KAS Library, Maidstone, has kindly been dated by Mary Berg to 1807 (pers. comm. 1.X.2004).

²³ An explanation of the innumerable economical expedients resorted to by the rich Adam de Port may be that for the whole of the relevant period, 1171/2 until 1187/8, his lands were forfeited, he having incurred Henry II’s ill will (malevolentia and indignatio). He continued, nonetheless, to rebuild Warneford church, Hants., ‘c. 1180’. Not until 34 Henry II, when Adam paid £200 to have his homage accepted, was he given formal possession (seisin) of his revenues: J.J. Joliffe, Angevin Kingship, 2nd edn. (London, 1963), p. 96 n. 2, citing Pipe Roll 34 Hen II, p. 173; also W.L. Warren, King John (London, 1961), p. 177; ‘not c.1180’, M.E. Wood, Medieval House (London, 1965), p. 11; I.J. Sanders, English Baronies, 1086-1327 (Oxford, 1960), pp. 9, 57, 105, ascribes his deprivation to ‘alleged treason’. As Joliffe abundantly shows, mere whim sufficed.

²⁴ Gerald Cobb, English Cathedrals: the Forgotten Centuries – Restoration and Change from 1530 to the Present Day (London, 1980), shows how ten great churches have been often drastically adapted (architectural features as well as arrangement of fittings) to changing tastes. But sometimes it was unobtrusively done, passing for original. This was not so with the c.1860 mosaic behind the Chancel curtain.

²⁵ Reproduced, Arts Council, English Romanesque Art, 1066-1200 (exhibition catalogue, London 1984), pp. 47, 373, ‘the recovery of the Romanesque’: shows its condition before it was ‘tidied up in a restoration of 1839-41 by R.C. Hussey’, including the bell-cot on the gable-end for the sacring bell.

Figs 1a-c General views of Barfrestone Church: a) The Petrie watercolour of 1807 (KAS Library); b) ‘Romantic Ruin’ engraving of 1829; c) The Nave interior in the late 1800s by W. Burgess.

c

a

b

b

a

e

d

c

Figs 2a-e Chancel Exterior North: a) Chancel, north side; b) Chancel, north side detail; c) Chancel, north side detail; d) Crack in the string with patch of re-set knapped flints below; e) Plumb line showing minimal lean of wall.

b

a

c

d

Figs 3a-d Chancel Exterior South: a) Chancel, south side; b) Erratic coursing of ashlar around ‘Jerusalem Plaque’; c) Chancel, south side – erratic coursing of ashlar; d) Corbel head to window hood.

Figs 4a-c Chancel Exterior East: a) East end exterior in 1978; b) North-east corner – a corbel made of elements of a reeded column; c) South-east corner – a corbel made of elements of an annular chevron moulding.

a

b

c

Figs 5a-c Chancel Interior: a) Chancel arch in 1840 by W. Twopenny; b) Medieval wall paintings as recorded in 1839; c) Chancel interior stripped of plaster in 2004.

a

b

c

Figs 6a-d Nave Exterior South and West: a) West wall of Nave; b) Ironstone bonders at south-west corner of Nave; c) Nave, south side – trimmed voussoir producing ‘Transitional’ style arch; d) Corbels at south-west corner of Nave.

a

c

d

b

b

a

d

c

Figs 7a-d Nave Exterior North: a) The Nave exterior, north side; b) The 1881to 1991 gutters; c) The blocked north door with knapped flint infill; d) Grotesque face on the north door jamb, west side.

Figs 8a-d Nave exterior North-west: a) Rudimentary buttress; b) Detail of buttress; c) Stone weathering tiles in north Chancel recesses; d) Lintel slabs.

a

c

d

b

Figs 9a-d The South Door: a) The South door (Britton 1814, Pl. IV); b) The South door in 2011; c) East side capitals; d) Scratch carvings on east side door jamb

c

a

b

d

g

f

e

i

h

Figs 9e-i The South Door: e) Tympanum; f) Carved figures over doorway; g) Volute capital, east side; h) Capitals, west side; i) Capitals , east side.

Figs 10a-d The Priest’s Door: a) The Priest’s Door; b) Head of Priest’s Door; c) Volute capital, west side; d) Leaf capital, east side.

a

d

c

b

Fig. 11 Plan of St Nicholas’ Church, Barfrestone; A. Linklater, Canterbury Archaeology, 2004-5, pp. 30-1 (reproduced by permission).

PLATE I Exterior, North Side: J. Britton, Architectural Antiquities of Great Britain, vol. 4 (1814), pl. IIIB.

PLATE I EXTERIOR NORTH SIDE - Britton 1814, pl. IIIB

	Hussey’s 1886 notes	Comments
A	Impost-moulding and the first stone of the hood-moulding over it were renewed. (p. 144). (Figs 8a, 5c)
B	Part of the external string was worked on the back of corbels like those in the cornice. (p. 148) (conjecture on the pre-1839 repair).	Examples of indications of surplus carved stone and of layers’ ingenuity.
C	Tympanum supplied as indicated by construction details. (p. 144). (Figs 7c, 7d)	Scrupulously left plain and Doorway blocking (not mentioned) marked with ‘trademark’ knapped flints. The LHS and RHS shallow Grotesques may be re-used, (Fig. 7d).
D	Angle in very bad state; still moving despite the iron tie. (p. 142); Lower part re-built; small break in outer face of wall. (p. 144). (Figs 2c, 2e, 7a)	Fig. 2d shows a very slight crack in the String, with small patch below of re-set knapped flints. There is no bulge commensurate to the Chancel Arch distortion suggested in Fig. 5a. The wall at this point has no more lean than normal, by plumb line measurement: (Fig. 2e).
E	On the N side of the Chancel very few stones were required; but most of the flint walling, below the string, was renewed. (p. 145).	Undisturbed render towards the prop-buttress contrasting with knapped flintwork (Fig. 2a).

PLATE II Exterior, South Side: J. Britton, Architectural Antiquities of Great Britain, vol. 4 (1814), pl. IA.

PLATE II EXTERIOR SOUTH SIDE - Britton 1814, pl. IA

	Hussey’s 1886 notes	Comments
F	The S wall penetrated by ivy. The (lime) mortar appeared never to have been good; could be taken out in loose pieces; flints also loose. The ashlar masonry of Caen stone was mostly sound” throughout the building (p. 143).	Re-setting flints to walls 700 years old is normal maintenance and superficial.
G	Four new stones inserted (SE); three new stones inserted (SW). (p.143)	Insertions so well matched as to be undetectable after 170 years to now.
H	A few new stones inserted in the jambs; new plinths to both shafts; new base to W. (pp. 143-4).	Condition c.1812 rationalised in Fig. 9a; as now in Figs 9b, 9g, 9h, 9i, etc.
I	Old Chancel floor nearly 12in. below present, of quarry tiles on mortar. (p. 149).	A roughly-inserted thresh-hold stone to the Priest’s Door (e.g. Fig. 10a) will precede the blocking and insertion of the (late 19th century) cupboard (see below).
J	“Jambs and Heads of both Windows are new, including spring-stones and corbel heads to hoods (Fig. 3d, RHS) of Plaque recess and its E jamb border. (p. 144).	Cusped heads of Decorated style (late 13th – early 14th century) widened windows and cutting back of interior splays to improve lighting: (Fig. 5b) (H.L. Smith, 1839). Altering these two windows to the same form as the others, largely by salvaging the stones (lime mortar easily removed) shows conservation as it was never practised in the Middle Ages and seldom in the 19th century.24
		The ‘Jerusalem Plaque’ (author’s term) is discussed below. The ‘shapeless carving’ in the west recess of the Chancel has vanished. Probably unattached and not original.

PLATE III Chancel East Exterior: 1773 engraving after ‘Pen and Wash’ drawing in the Lyttelton portfolio ‘of Saxon Churches’. ²⁵

PLATE III CHANCEL: EAST EXTERIOR - 1773 engraving after ‘Pen and wash’ drawing in the Lyttelton portfolio ‘of Saxon Churches’, 1749.

	Hussey’s 1886 notes	Comments
L	A large part of this end of the church was rebuilt (p. 145) the two arched recesses and piers on new foundations, a few new stones being introduced. Two weathering courses above are entirely new. The old weatherings were not original. (p. 144).	cp. p. 143, F, above on general soundness of all ashlar; i.e. stones taken out, cleaned, re-mortared and put back. Actual replacements in new stone, copying the old, are still few. Replacement of weathering stones to the sloping offset (Fig. 4a) will be a pre-Hussey repair.
M	A few new stones to the Upper String, and 5 in the weathering course. (p. 144).
N	Two new stones to the Window circumference; a few built into the Gable. (pp. 142-3).
O	Whole Gable Coping is new; a small figure taken from the S weathering course below was fixed in it. (p. 145).	A harsher stone was used. A normal 19th-century repair. Moving “the figure” is odd.
P	Two upper stones of both knees (base-blocks to coping) copied from the old. (p. 145).	These blocks stopped slipping of the coping. The shallow eave to the east nave roof replacing the original gable (Fig. 1a) will have been done in the pre-Hussey repair.
Q	Rather an anomalous feature, not bonded onto the wall, using up surplus material. (p. 151).	Hessing (e. g. pp. 19-20) thought this a contemporary afterthought in emergency using material meant for the upper Nave W wall (mis-reading Hussey p. 145). It merely supported the heavy two-storey masonry on the terraced hill-slope.

PLATE IV Interior Section, North Side: J. Britton, Architectural Antiquities of Great Britain, vol. 4 (1814), pl. IIIA.

PLATE IV INTERIOR SECTION NORTH SIDE – Britton, 1814, Pl. IIIA

Note – this is the only Interior among the ‘Britton’ engravings

	Hussey’s 1886 notes	Comments
R	The upper part of the W wall, originally built of less thickness than the part below, had been filled out with plastering. It is now filled out with walling. (p. 145).	A normal thinning to lighten a gable wall. Hussey found here (as elsewhere) several unused carvings built in (p. 148), mis-understood by Hessing as outside. Hussey remarks on the absence of tie-beams to the Nave and Chancel roofs (p. 142), a cause of the slight outward lean exaggerated by internal batter, but he notes that iron tie-rods had been ineffectually put into both E walls.
S	String new except for one stone at each end of this portion with figures carved; in their present positions … doubtful if coeval. (i.e. re-arranged) (p. 145)	One quaintly-carved stone (homunculus, monkey, rabbit in a bucket, and hare) by the modern pulpit may be c. 1080; ‘probably not coeval’ as Hussey notes. The upper string-hood mould of ‘dog tooth’ is apparently untouched. On the S side, three surplus (?) cornice carvings have been inserted by the original layers as hood-terminals.
T	Both bases (of the angle-roll moulding) are new. (p. 145).
U	The upper string has a few pieces of new stone; nearly all rebuilt below except W part. (p. 147).	For extent of ‘rebuild’ of north Chancel wall see Fig. 2a; interior stripped of plaster in 2004 (Fig. 5d), showing Aumbry with Hussey’s ‘new stone bottom and lintel’ (p. 145) and its (early) relocation.

PLATE V Chancel Interior (as now).

PLATE V CHANCEL INTERIOR, SOUTH (AS NOW)

	Hussey’s 1886 notes	Comments
V	Two small windows of Decorated date removed; primary arrangement restored; using original stones with a few new ones; E jambs original, W jambs restored.” (pp. 146-7).
W	Upper string new except for two small stones; corbel head (to W hood) and string W of it new.” (pp. 146-7).
X	Aumbry (Piscina) given stone lintel and new bottom. (p. 147).
Y	Arch of the small doorway, corbel-heads and string to W are new; doorway appeared blocked long ago and altered internally to square head; construction showed former arch. (p. 147).	The LH corbel to the blocked doorway is a ‘lion’, like the one north Chancel cornice corbel – i.e. also not original; similarly the corbel 3rd E outside. Damage to the Priest’s Door head (Fig. 10b), the raising of the floor and the thresh-hold block are likely to be associated (and later Medieval). 2004 plaster renovation to remedy rising damp revealed blocking under the cupboard to be entirely of brick suggesting a more recent date for the blocking of the doorway. Externally, as elsewhere, mainly in the S side Recesses, rain-proofing is by recent render-coat.

PLATE VI Nave East Interior (as now).

PLATE VI NAVE EAST INTERIOR (AS NOW)

	Hussey’s 1886 notes	Comments
Z	Part of the gable seemed of later date; infill contains surplus carvings (p. 149); all above the Chancel arch was shored up; all below was entirely rebuilt on foundations moved slightly W to bring into plumb. (pp. 145-6).	The original (c. 1080) E wall and gable were apparently not taken out in c. 1175-80 since the arch and recesses are in a “rather darker mortar than the rest of the building”, including the apex of the gable (Z – above; p. 148). The north-east Nave wall bulge conflicts with the “greatly shattered” wording (p. 142; Figs 5a, 2a, 2d, 2e). Comparison with insertion of the S Door suggests that the Chancel arch was similarly put in: if so, with a floor nearly 12” lower, it meant a very lofty narrow arch in Northern Saxon style (e. g. Escomb). The long (but well cut) bonders in the Nave west wall also indicate early post-Conquest date. The filled-in recesses were probably (late) medieval, like the Perp. window. Leaving the gable intact avoided disturbing the lath and plaster ceiling (Fig. 1c). Fig. 1b’s ‘ruinous condition’ (p. 142) contrasts with ‘very small proportion laid open’ (p. 149).
AA	A few small pieces of new stone were requisite in reconstructing the large arch, probably as set more accurately than originally; a few through-stones were put in the soffit.
BB	Recesses filled in. (p. 145).
CC	The base of the E jamb … and the string below from the middle of the window eastwards are new.” (p. 145)
DD	Very greatly distorted. (p. 142).
EE	One new stone supplied. (N); Some rearrangement. (N and S); 4 new stones.(S) (p. 146).
FF	Impost mouldings N are S are new, copied from originals; clasping band (N) is new. (p. 148).
GG	Rough flint arches found embedded.; trace of a possible squint. (S) (p. 148).

PLATE VII Chancel Interior, East Wall: J. Britton, Architectural Antiquities of Great Britain, vol. 4 (1814), pl. IIA.

PLATE VII CHANCEL INTERIOR, EAST WALL – Britton, 1814, Pl. IIA

	Hussey’s 1886 notes	Comments
HH	E end still moving, unlike E nave, despite iron tie. (p. 142).	These two ties will be a pre-1839 repair (“a few years previously” - ? Blore).
II	[Inside face] entirely rebuilt above the lower windows. (p. 147).	Meticulous numbering in situ and survey-sketch will have been required.
JJ	String [hood] … a little new masonry, and in the windows, required. (p. 147).	Now difficult to detect owing to whitewash and poor lighting, but clearly correct
KK	The Mullion (“one”, alibi) of the circular window, with its head and base, were of oak, [now] renewed in stone. The shaft of another, and the head of a third, also. (p. 147).	Further indication of layers’ ingenuity dealing with an incomplete ‘kit of parts’.
LL	The tracery was repaired; one new stone inserted at the top of the circumference.
		General: record of the pre-1839 roof structure, with wall-plate and rafters crossing the Wheel Window. If the Chancel arch ‘was pitched unusually high to clear it, as seen from the out-of-line Nave’ (Hessing p. 25), then 11th-century arch will not be the cause of its unusually narrow and lofty proportions (comments next above). The pitch of the Chancel roof, as shown, was as low as the Wheel allowed, a fact confirmed by the various early engravings, between this (1749) and 1829 (Fig. 1b).