Plate
C R _ \ Y F © R P • C I U R C M • K E M T
• SCALE-OF • FEET-
. ,'P s o l l l l l 1 1 I I I I
IO 2 0 30 4 0 50TT.ZT
Original
Quoin
Pl_?_H I
Coal Shed
Original
Quoin
Bs^tuCTura. w^rer
TW1«
Vertical
Joint
32'• 10"— 1-
fJCWIWRY-iOMITl.
0>W<&._.
C K U . 1 . B E
FL__n-n (CKAMCEL GROVrW-PL51__3
PL_W* I JG xijl-Sg dottrel?
nxvr.
FL?«ini
• 117- bn=»tCe.*z JitzeO
•M»«3 «r Pel. J^oS
( 51 )
CRAYFOKD OHUROH.
BY THE REV. G. M. LIVETT, F.S.A.
THE Church of St. Paulinus at Crayford is well known to ecclesiologists
as the church with the twin naves. A glance at the Plan
shews what is meant by the expression " twin naves." The navespace,
which measures 61 feet in length and about 44 feet in
breadth, is covered by a pair of span-roofs, which rise from a wall
carried by an arcade of four and a half arches that runs up the
centre of the nave, the half-arch having the nature of a flying arch
and abutting upon the east wall of the nave above the crown of the
chancel-arch. It is this central arcade, dividing the nave into two
nearly equal parts (the northern twin being only 6 inches wider than
the southern), that constitutes the peculiar feature of the Church.
For a long time it has been a puzzle to archaeologists. The object
of this Paper is to record a solution suggested by discoveries made
in the course of a long and careful study of the Church by Mr. W.
Braxton Sinclair, to whom the Society is indebted for the plans
and sketches which have been specially drawn to illustrate the
Paper.
These discoveries have settled once for all the question of the
position and form of the original Church: that Church occupied the
area now covered by the northern twin nave. Eemains of the west
and north walls of its nave and of the gable-wall of its chancel can
still be traced in the west, north, and east walls of the northern
twin, while the south wall of its nave must have run upon the
lines of the three westerly arches of the central arcade.
A very fair idea of the peculiar arrangement of the present
Church may be obtained from an " ink-photo " plate that appears in
Archceologia Cantiana, Vol. XVIII. , facing page 322. That plate
illustrates a Paper from the pen of the late Major Alfred Heales,
F.S.A., upon Crayford Church. The Paper is interesting from
a historical point of view, but does not afford us much help
otherwise. There is a plan of the Church, and some wood-cuts of
sections of mouldings, but they are strangely incorrect, and there-
• E 2
52 CRAYFORD CHTJRCH.
fore of little value as a basis for studying the problem which the
Church presents. A Paper of greater value for our present purpose
was written by the late Archdeacon of Maidstone, who (as Canon
Smith) became Eector of Crayford twelve years after the Church
was restored (in 1862) under the oversight of Mr. Joseph Clarke,
F.S.A. The present Eector, the Eev. J. P. Alcock, has kindly lent
me a copy of that Paper. It bears no date or printer's name.
I t appears to be a verbatim report of a lecture delivered by Canon
Smith, and internal evidence proves that it was illustrated by
tracings made from the architect's drawings of any remains of old
masonry which came under his notice.* In the absence of those
drawings Canon Smith's description of the features which they
represented is not always very clear. His evidence, however, is
very important, and in some particulars it affords remarkable
confirmation of the interpretation of the recent discoveries advanced
in this Paper. We shall discuss each point as it occurs.
Of course the problem of the twin naves cannot be considered
apart from the rest of the building. Attached to the west end of
the southern twin there is a tower with a tall narrow arch of
communication. The chancel is about half as long as the nave and
not quite as broad as one of the twins. On each side of the chancel
there is a chapel extending from the west a little more than half
its length. To the east of the north chapel there is a vestry filling
the angle which the chapel makes with the eastern part of the
chancel. The south chapel projects beyond the line of the sidewall
of the nave, and there is a south porch to the nave.
Mr. Sinclair's plan and elevations will make all clear to the armchair
student. I would direct special attention to the transverse
section of the twin naves, shewing the chancel-arch cut by the
central arcade, the two side-arches looking into the chancel-chapels,
and the arrangement of the twin roofs.f This should be studied
in connection with the ground plan of the Church and with the
longitudinal sections and elevations. The Plan shews that the
chancel, measuring about 30| feet by 18i feet, is perfectly rectangular,
and that it lines exactly with the central arcade of the nave,
that is to say, if a line drawn on the plan through the centres of the
* Enquiries have been made in many directions with a view to discovering
these drawings, said to have been preserved in the architect's office, but
unfortunately they cannot be found.
f The transverse and longitudinal sections of the Churoh, with sections of
mouldings and other details, are all shewn on PLATE II. PLATE I. contains
a series of ground-plans whioh illustrate the growth of the Churoh.
°F§»
\
CRAYFORD CHURCH. 53
columns of the arcade be produced eastwards, it coincides exactly
with the axis of the chancel. The nave is narrower at the east end
than at the west: its side-walls converge slightly towards the
central arcade as they run from west to east; the convergence
amounts to 3 inches in the case of the northern twin and to
4 inches in the southern.
The two side-arches shewn in the transverse section, one on
either side of the chancel-arch, formerly tallied with the chancelarch
in height and appearance. They were raised to their present
height in 1862. The chancel and the twin naves were in existence
long before the side-chapels were added, so that these former
side-arches (as well as the arches looking from the chapels into
the chancel) must have been inserted in outside walls which
contained windows. Above the low arch which formerly existed
on the south side Mr. Clarke found the remains of such a window.
Canon Smith described it as " a narrow lancet," that would have
come exactly in the centre of the east end of a " side-aisle."
Canon Smith's theory of the original form of the Church may
be given in his own words: " A Norman cell with a central nave
and side aisles; a chancel in line with a central nave; a tower
attached to the south aisle, the tower-arch opening into the aisle
at its west end." The Canon accounted for the existing central
arcade by thinking that three parallel span-roofs formerly rested on
the existing side-walls and on the two supposititious aisle-arcades,
and that they were abandoned in favour of two span-roofs resting
as the present roofs rest on the two side-walls and the single central
arcade, the aisle-arcades being then destroyed. Major Heales' theory
was very similar, but he thought that the alteration was made in
1630, the date of the present roofs, shortly after a fire, and that the
central arcade was made up of the remains of the two side-arcades.
In view of the recent discoveries the " side-aisle " theory must
now be definitely abandoned. Indeed, leaving those discoveries out
of the question, the theory cannot stand, for it is impossible to
squeeze a south arcade into the plan in such a way as to avoid
making it abut on to the northern respond of the tower-arch, which
therefore cannot have been designed to look into an aisle as
supposed. Moreover the tower-arch is too tall to fit into the
cross-section of such an arrangement. And again, the east and
west walls of the northern twin not-only contain no sign of there
having been a north arcade, but they afford positive proof that such
an arcade never existed. •
54 CRAIFORD CHURCH.
There is one point in Canon Smith's lecture which must be
noticed in this connection. He said: " During the last day or two,
however, I regard the conjecture of an original tripartite division
of the Church as confirmed by the discovery I have made in the
tracings of the old walls by Mr. Clarke. For there, in the central
hue of the Church where the respond of the arcade now stands,
I find that a doorway 5 feet wide was built up in the western
wall . . . . If these are the remains of the ordinary western door
into a central nave, the theory of a nave and aisles antecedent to
the present arcade and twin nave arrangement is confirmed.'
Now, as against the existence of such a doorway, we must first
note that the language used was not very positive: the Canon
speaks of " a discovery he has made in Mr. Clarke's tracings of the
old walls," and adds, " If these are the remains," etc. He did not
see the doorway, he saw only Mr. Clarke's tracings of the old walls:
there is room for a mistake. I think that the theory of a doorway
can be easily accounted for, and certainly it can be disposed of.
I t is disposed of by the fact that some of the original exterior
facing of the early-Norman wall remains under the present groundlevel
just where the doorway ought to be. The present nave-floor
is about one foot above the original level and about one foot below
the present ground-level outside the building. "We have lately
examined by digging the face of the wall below the present
ground-level and can confidently say that there was no doorway in
the position described. Moreover, we have found the sill and the
lower part of the jambs of the actual west doorway of the original
Church remaining in the wall on the central axis of the northern
twin nave. It is shewn in the sketch.* The inner face of the wall
is now covered with plaster. Mr. Clarke, however, saw the face
stript, and apparently noticed some marks which he represented in
his drawing. Probably what he saw was the rough joint of the
junction of the original west wall with the inserted west respond of
the central arcade. The joint must have run up beside the respond
at a distance from it of about a foot or a trifle less. Either Canon
Smith " discovered " in this joint, shewn in the drawing, the sign of
the jamb of a doorway, or Mr. Clarke himself mistook the rough
joint for such a sign and slightly indicated a doorway in his drawing.
Be that as it may, it is pretty certain that no doorway ever existed
in the position described. Moreover, careful measurements prove
* See PLATE II.
Pla.te II A SMUT • PAIJUNUS • CRMTORP•
C«ount> U7iE
|l * o r i
w »i laa INHMUIU
MMM
• 9 * n « _ TOH£ .
- LETT rt_Air
• RBMSIWS • ©r-KMM___
-womnsf- ^-w?__M RI© • or •
• UlAK.l-]!H;W_J_ •
•WSn__-«»r-r1I''llV»Di-KL__ •
• M©ra _n__ j_w.m»
WIHKni_ra
BBCTMOT pRi2>MT-E_nrea_ B®RI -
_
9£%HiE fflPFBE _ [OK.TCI-W
I
Sffi_TI_-V8__I&
lilil I I
0
eo y
mHHKH^&
y
K3
(E2
rt
SCALE or FEET
U& M JWMJ
£
I I
_E53Z
•L®HOPITOIPIf_?_lLi • gUCTWOH-OH-LDIB-A-B •
CRAYEORD CHURCH. 55
that the wall to the south of the respond of the central arcade
was not laid out at the same time as the wall to the north of
it. The west wall of the northern twin makes with the central
arcade an angle that is perhaps a few degrees less than a right
angle, and the west wall of the southern twin makes with it an
angle that is distinctly less than a right angle, so that not only are
the two parts of the wall, one on either side of the respond, of
different thickness, but they do not run in a straight line with one
another. This fact would of itself suggest a fallacy in the theory
that the respond was made to abut upon the centre of the west
wall of the original Norman Church.
Before we consider the site and dimensions of the original
Church and endeavour to trace the various stages of the growth of
the Church in chronological order, we shall do well to subject the
various parts of the present building to further analysis and assign
to them approximate dates.
The two chancel-chapels are the latest parts of the mediaeval
building. They are called respectively the Newbury Chapel and the
Howbury Chapel. The former, that on the north side, is also called
May Place Chapel. There is a tradition that the name of " May
Place" (which belongs to the Manor of Newbury) is a contraction of
" Mary Place." The will of Henry Harman, " Clerk of the Crown
of the lord King," mentions a Chapel of St. Mary on the north side
of the Church which the testator intended to build de novo, and in
which he willed that he himself and his wife should be buried. In
the same will, which is dated 1502, he bequeathed five marks to
" the construction or reparation of the Chapel of St. Mary the New
in the parish of Yard" (Crayford). In the will of Wm. Ladd,
dated 1504, there is a bequest to " Or Lady " in the same chapel.*
Canon Smith, who was followed by Major Heales, identified the
north chapel with that of which it is recorded (in the report of
a Eoyal Commission issued in 1548) that it was built by one John
Marshall, whose father's will was dated 1488.f The question is
thus involved in some obscurity, but there can be little doubt that
the north chapel is to be identified with " Our Lady chapel" in the
Ladd will and with " the chapel of the Blessed Mary" in the
Harman will; and judging from the architecture we cannot be in
serious error in assigning its construction to a date shortly before
* See a Paper by Mr. Leland Duncan in Archceologia Cantiana, Vol. XXIII.,
p. 138.
f Archceologia Cantiana, Vol. XVIII., pp. 324, 325.
5 6 CRAYEORD CHURCH.
or shortly after the year 1500. The chief architectural features
may be studied in the illustrations.
The south chapel seems to be a little earlier in date; its arch
shews perhaps a little more skill in construction, and the mouldings
are more refined in form. The arch is four-centred, but only
slightly removed from a two-centred arch. The form of the base,
the height of the column, and the contour of the capital more nearly
approach the details of the central arcade than do the corresponding
features of the arch of the north chapel.
_____
IV«
7—7 ^ S
\\
n
t i
. « \
6 \> \ \ * H
aa _£
>
y
QUOIN STONES OF NOETH-WEST ANGLE or VESTET.
That the north chapel was built after the vestry is proved by
a plinth which runs along the west face of the vestry wall (which
now divides the two buildings), as well as by its north-west quoin,
which remains intact, the north wall of the chapel being built up
flush against it. This is shewn in the sketch. A buttress, coeval
with the chapel, masks its junction with the earlier wall to the west
of it. The chapel is lighted by a large square-headed window of
four lights; it is covered by a span-roof running parallel with the
roof of the chancel, while inside it has a flat panelled wooden
CRAYFORD CHURCH. 57
ceiling of late date. Under the eaves on the north side there runs
a cornice, consisting of a broad overhanging casement moulding,
which is continued along the east face under the gable and is
partly covered by the ridge-roof of the vestry. This, by the way,
shews that the vestry was originally covered by a lean-to roof, the
slope of which was continuous with that of the chancel-roof.
The south chapel, which by a modern enlargement has assumed
a transeptal form, has and always had a flat roof with a parapet.
Now if these two chapels and the south porch (which seems to
be a post-Reformation erection) be eliminated from the plan of the
existing Church (PLATE I., Plan I.), there will remain a plan of the
Church as it existed towards the end of the fifteenth century. It
can be imagined so easily that no plan of it has been included in
PL_.T_ I., but to shew its outline the tower and vestry have been
•added in dotted line to Plan IV.
To reach an earlier stage in the history of the Church we have
to eliminate the vestry and the tower and to alter the central arcade.
The vestry, which stands on the north side with its end flush with
the end of the chancel, seems to have been a Perpendicular or
fifteenth-century addition to an earlier chancel. When this addition
was made the chancel-wall was made thicker by about six inches in
order to carry the plate of the rafters of a lean-to roof of the vestry.
In the centre of this wall, some four feet below the line of roof, is
a corbel, which no doubt carried a vertical wall-piece connected
with a principal rafter. Mediseval vestries in this position are not
uncommon.*
The tower presents generally a Perpendicular appearance, though
it contains a west window which some people have considered to be
earlier in date. The west doorway shews two continuous orders
with hollow chamfers, which are stopped, each by means of a highly
inclined flat slope, immediately above a slight hollow-chamfered
plinth. This is exactly the treatment of the vestry doorway of the
Stanepit Chantry-chapel in Dartford Church, which may be dated
early in the reign of Henry Vl.f In the east wall of the same
* Solihull in "Warwickshire and Eising in Norfolk have Decorated examples;
Marston in Bedfordshire supplies a Perpendicular example; Hingham in Norfolk
is an instanoe of a Perpendicular addition to a Deoorated chancel; while in
Southfleet in Kent, and in Floore and Aldwinkle in Northants, Decorated
chancels have ooeval vestries standing a little to the west of the east end. All
these examples are taken from the plans in Brandon's Parish Churches.
t See Archceologia Cantiana, Vol, XVIII., p. 385. The date given in the
referenoo is " the reign of Edward IV. probably," whioh seems to me to be too
late. Tho (Ire-place may have been inserted late in the fifteenth century.
5 8 CRAYFORD CHURCH.
chantry-chapel there is a niche which formerly contained the image
of Our Lady; it has a trif oliated' head in which the points of the
hollow-chamfered cusps approaching quite close to one another
almost form a semi-circle under the upper foil. This gives the
niche a distinctive architectural character, and as it is reproduced
both in the single and in the double lights of the upper stages of
the tower at Crayford, it follows that the two works were being
built about the same time. That the tower is all of one date,
excepting only the battlement, is evident from the similarity of the
different parts, e.g., the way in which the rear arches stop on to the
jambs. The same feature is seen in the nave-windows and in
the chancel-arch, which will come under notice presently.
I t appears, then, that in order to reach an earlier stage of the
growth of the Church, and to imagine it as it existed at the beginning
of the fifteenth century, we must eliminate from the Plan (I.)
not only the late-Perpendicular side-chapels, but also the vestry
and the tower, which were probably built respectively a few years
after and a few years before tbe middle of the fifteenth century.
If, as seems probable, the three-light windows of the twin naves
and the central arcade and chancel-arch were built about the same
time as the tower, they too must be eliminated. This will leave us
with merely the chancel and the shell of the twin naves ;* and these
parts will represent all that we now have left of the Church previous
to the building of the tower and the present central arcade and the
insertion of the three-light windows, all which we have assigned to
the first half of the fifteenth century. Fortunately, the story of
the growth of the Church, as it will be unfolded in the latter part
of this Paper, will require very little modification should experts
decide that these dates are not quite correct. It is perilous, perhaps,
for an amateur to dogmatize on points upon which even experts are
found sometimes to err.
We now come to consider the central arcade. It affords a good
illustration of the difficulty of fixing dates. A section of the base
of the columns of the arcade shews a hollow-chamfered plinth, and
above it a bell-shaped base overhanging a shallow surface of " clene
hewen asshlar," which intervenes between it and the hollow-chamfered
top of the plinth. (In mediseval contracts the plinth is called
* The elimination also of the central arcade would leave us bereft also of the
roofs of the twin naves, if wo could not find some substitute whereby the roofs
were supported previous to its ereotion. This, however, will offior no real
difficulty.
CRAYEORD CHURCH. 59
the ground-table, and the flat surface and the overhanging bellbase,
which in this case are worked on one stone, are together
called the ligemeut or ledgemeut-table.) Now this base was never
common, but its use extended over a period of not less than
one hundred and fifty years. We have it in its earliest form in
the bases of the nave-arcades at Dartford, proved by the scrollmouldings
of the caps and by the other work with which they are
associated to be not later than the middle of the fourteenth
century, perhaps earlier. It occurs iu the aisles of the nave and
presbytery of Winchester, which are dated circa 1400. After that
date it was usually modified by the addition of a " cushion"
immediately under the bell; but it is occasionally found without
the cushion at a much later date, as in the Crayford chancelchapels.
The bases, then, of the Crayford arcade afford but slight
evidence of its date.*
The bold and unbroken curves of the attached shafts and
intervening hollows of the columns are not common in the Perpendicular
period, while the design of the arches, shewing a wavemoulding
on the chamfer of the lower order and a double ogee on
that of the outer order, separated by a plain re-entrant angle, would
be consistent with a late-Decorated date.
On the other hand, there are distinct Perpendicular features:
the bell-bases are much bolder than those of Dartford, and the
debased form of the abacus and bell-moulding of the capitals as
compared with the scroll and roll of Dartford, seems to be decisive in
favour of a Perpendicular date.f Moreover, the designer seems to
have been feeliDg his way towards the form that became common in
late-Perpendicular work. He was inclined to give each shaft with
its base and cap the appearance of having an individual existence.
In the west respond he succeeded in doing this: the lower order
of the archivolt-mouldings is carried by a semi-cylindrical shaft
whose base and cap are quite independent of the rest of the design.
The respond to which the shaft is attached is flat, except that its edges
are moulded with a double ogee, which alone runs up to form the
* The use of the simple hell-base (without ground-table and sunk surface)
was very common in late-Deoorated aud early-Perpendicular times. The
ground-table associated with other forms of base made its appearance as early as
oiroa 1320 (see Willis's Winchester), and its use in late-Perpendioular times
associated with some form of bell and oushion base became almost universal.
(See a plate of oymagraphed sections in a Paper on Chart Ohuroh in this
Volume!)
f Major Heales, Archceologia Cantiana, Vol. XVIII., p. 324, favoured a
late-Deoorated date.
60 CRAYFORD CHURCH.
outer order of the arch. Certainly the spirit of the design is
Perpendicular rather than Decorated.
The architect of the late-Perpendicular chapels seems to have
been influenced by the design of the arcade. His continuous outer
orders were cut from a mould which was identical in form with
that of the double ogee of the arcade, and his inferior order repeats
the wave-moulding. His shaft is a three-quarter shaft, and it is
separated from the outer moulding on each side by a hollow casement,
which runs up round the arch, separating the two orders.
The two designs are shewn side by side in the accompanying
sketches.
\ I i
>
I
i I
i
I m
Ai ^ «X
( H1
i
i
;ti 4 1 -
i
RESPOND, SOUTH CHAPEL. RESPOND TO CENTEAL AECADE.
I take it, then, that considering all these points we cannot put
the date of the central arcade later than 1440, while some people
might like to put it twenty or thirty years earlier. The chancelarch
seems to belong to the same date as the tower and the arcade,
despite the bare appearance of its flat-faced responds, which may
be accounted for by assuming that the arch was intended to be
filled with a screen. The segmental shape was necessary in order
to permit the abutment of the central arcade upon the wall above
its crown. It is interesting to note that a similar segmental
CRAIFORD CHURCH. 61
chancel-arch existed in Dartford Parish Church previous to the
recent restoration; it is seen in a picture that hangs iu the vestry.
I t is not likely that sUch an arch was tliere when Bishop Hamo de
Hethe in 1333 put in his fine five-light window,* so we may assume
that it was inserted when the Stanepit Chapel was remodelled in the
fifteenth century. The introduction probably had some connection
with the erection of the first and lower of the two successive roodlofts,
of which many indications remain. The arrangement would
be a very uncommon one, and it is not improbable that it was
suggested by the low segmental chancel-arch inserted about the
same time at Crayford.
The Perpendicular windows of the nave have been mentioned
more than once. They are of a common type, seven in number:
four on the south side, two on the north, and one at the west end
of the northern twin. They are square-headed externally; the lights
are cinquefoiled; the wall-arches are slightly segmental. I take
it for granted that all these windows, which are plainly insertions
into au older wall on the south side as well as on the north, are of
the same date as the arcade.f They point to a considerable
remodelling of the nave in the fifteenth century.
This, then, is the nett result of our enquiries so far: the
tower, the nave-windows and central arcade, and the chancel-arch
were all built iu the second quarter of the fifteenth century; the
vestry was built perhaps a little later ; and the two chancel-chapels
were built circa 1500. All these must be eliminated from the
plan of the existing Church (Plan I.) so that we may realize the
form of the Church as it stood in the fourteenth century. But this
process leaves the Church with only one window, the south window
of the chancel,% and none in the nave, and it also leaves it without
any central arcade to support the twin roofs of the nave. Therefore
we have now to examine any evidence that may supply the
* See Archceologia Cantiana, Vol. XVIIL, p. 384, and Plate xxxix. of
Thorpe's Custumale Roff.
t There is another Perpendicular three-light window of larger dimensions
towards the east end of the north wall of the nave. Its head is segmental
externally as well as internally, and its external label is stopped with a pair of
carved figures of angels. The whole of the stonework was renewed by
Mr. Clarke, but one of the original figures may be seen in the Rector's garden,
and there seems no reason to doubt that Mr. Clarke's work is a fairly faithful
copy of the old. This window may be somewhat later than the others: perhaps
it was in some way connected with the erection of a staircase to the rood, of
whioh the remains exist in the wall immediately east of it.
X It is said that the east window cannot be relied upon as a copy of the
original.
62 CRAYFORD CHURCH.
fourteenth-century Church with windows, central arcade, and
chancel-arch. The side-windows of the chancel were probably four
in number, disposed as in Plan IV., and like the one remaining on
the south side (restored by Mr. Clarke).
Traces of red paint may be found on the existing arcade and
on the responds of the chancel-arch, which bear marks also of
fire, and, like the arches looking from the chancel into the chapels,
SECTION OF
MOULDINGS.
T
•FRAGMENT"
— *NOYM«ir*'
•^ •KECTORT?fc.
_£
J
"^rf30_!_L
CRAYFORD CHURCH. 67
The north-east quoin marks the position of the east face of the
original chancel-arch wall. Remains of the foundation of such
a wall in exactly the required positioii and of the required thickness
were discovered by Mr. Clarke. We shall have occasion later on
to quote and consider the passage from Canon Smith's lecture which
records that discovery. For our present purpose it is sufficient to
mention it: it affords trustworthy confirmation of the length of the
early-Norman nave as deduced from the foregoing data.
On the receipt of Mr. Sinclair's report of his discoveries
I immediately marked them on a copy of his plan of the existing
Church, and tried to plot a chancel of the common early-Norman
type to see how it would fit into the plan. If the reader will
glance again at the plans of Padlesworth and Dode (Vol. XXII.)
and test them with a pair of compasses he will see that the chancel
in each case, measured externally, is approximately a square
attached to the east face of the east wall of the nave, i.e., to the
chancel-arch wall. A comparison of several Kentish early-Norman
chancels suggests that the builders often (though not always) laid
them out in this way. They took the internal width of the nave,
or a little more, and made it the length of one side of their chancel
externally. The result of this method was to make the length of
the chancel internally greater than the breadth by the thickness of
their wall. Applying this method to the Crayford plan I found
that the east wall of the early-Norman chancel would coincide as
nearly as possible with the hne of the east wall of the existing twin
naves, making it probable that in the gable of the northern twin
nave some remains of the east and of the original might be found
still existing. Before this theory could be tested I received reports
of a further discovery which actually confirmed these anticipations.
To this our study must now lead up.
The remains of the early-Pointed doorway and round-headed
lights in the north wall of the original Church point to an extensive
remodelling of the Church in the early-Pointed period. The
alterations cannot have been confined to the north wall, and we
should naturally expect signs of. early-Pointed work in any remains
of the old chancel that might come to light. The discovery referred
to in the last paragraph indicates that a triplet of windows, very
similar to the early-Pointed lights of the north wall, was inserted at
that time in the east wall of the old chancel.
The remains discovered consist of nine or ten stones just
above the monument affixed to the wall near the north jamb of
. 2
68 CRAYFORD CHURCH.
the chancel-arch. The material is fire-stone, and the masonry, the
facing, and jointing are exactly like the early-Pointed work in
the side-walls of the nave. The stones form the upper part of the
common jamb and the separate springers of the splayed rear-arches
of two adjoining lights. The northern arch springs from a level
about 16 feet from the ground, 6_ inches below the tie-beam, and
4f inches above the level of the springing of the southern arch.
The common jamb from which these two arches spring at these
different heights is 7 inches in width, and its edge is 1 foot 5 inches
from the vertical line of the side of the chancel-arch. The turn of
the taller of these two arches, which run up behind the tie-beam,
may now be seen above it by any one who stands at the west end
of the Church. The outline of the lower stones is just visible
through the text which has been painted on the surface of the wall.
I t was first noticed by the Hector's colleague, the Hev. F . V. Baker,
who called Mr. Sinclair's attention to it. Its importance as bearing
upon the history of the Church cannot be overestimated. It had
escaped the notice successively of Mr. Clarke, Canon Smith, and
Major Heales; but the Church of late has been so thoroughly
examined that probably not a square foot of it that is visible has
escaped attention.
On examining the exterior face of the gable of the northern
twin, seen above the valley of the chancel and north-chapel roofs,
we have found evident remains of the early-Norman rubble walling
of the gable-wall of the original Church—the wall, that is, in which
the early-Pointed triplet was inserted,*
The result of all this is that we have been enabled to plot the
early-Norman nave exactly, and the chancel within limits of error
amounting at the most to two or three inches, the exact position of
the side-walls being alone undetermined.f In this connection the
drawings of Mr. Clarke's discoveries, if we had them, would probably
help us; and a certain importance attaches to Canon Smith's
description, to which we have occasion to refer in considering
THE EABLY-POINTED ADDITIONS.
So far we have been working on sound principles with plenty
of evidence to guide us. We now enter on questions of some
* Slightly indicated in Mr. Sinclair's bird's-eye view of the roofs.
f The Churoh stands in an angle formed by two roads running respectively
north and north-north-west. The old entrance to the ohurohyard is from the
latter road, affording a direct approaoh to the west door, The old graveyard
evidently lies to the west and south of the Church,
CRAYFORD CHURCH. 69
difficulty and a field of speculation. It seems to me impossible to
discover and work out any theory of the post-Norman growth of
this Church (consistent with the features it presents and with the
analogy of other Churches) on the assumption that the present
south wall of the nave (with its early-Pointed windows) was built
in the early-Pointed period. To begin with, I know of no analogous
case. The peculiar feature of a central arcade is not without
parallel ;* but a parallel of a side-addition of the same breadth as
the nave, and extending the whole length of a Church of the common
early-Norman type, would I think be hard to find. Of course
nothing is impossible, and exceptions to the ordinary laws of plan
X-\
HGsGsetanr/ V-, \ / / WW77%%MA *
I
H-Ho-rt i
?pnVS>u;s.lic
._*«
E
CRAYFORD CHURCH. 73
THE DECORATED ENLARGEMENT.
If we are correct in our dates the alterations made in the
fourteenth century were very considerable, and constitute by far
the most important stage in the history of the evolution of
Crayford Church. They were quite revolutionary in character.
They transgressed all the common laws of growth as illustrated by
Kentish Churches. We find extensions that have been made to
the east and to the west of the chancel-arch, but as a rule the axis
of the Church has remained unchanged, and the line of the
division between the nave with its aisles and the chancel with its
chapels has remained unchanged. At the Church of St. Lawrence,
Bamsgate, a tower seems to have been built over the original small
square chancel and a new chancel erected to the east of it, but the
dividing line between the people's nave and the eastern parts of
the Church remains unaltered.* Possibly at Throwley the dividing
line has been pushed to the east of its original position, but this
has not been worked out. I know so far of only one Kentish
Church in which there is no doubt that such a change has been
made,t that of Northfleet, where, in the fourteenth century, a large
was huilt in 1839), and the chancel was practically rebuilt, its south wall being
made to line with the nave-arcade, and its length being increased by fully ten
or twelve feet, while the north wall only of the original Norman chancel was
retained. This retention was due to the fact that additions to the north side
had been already made, consisting of a narrow aisle (7_ feet wide) and a chancelchapel,
whose side-wall was an eastward continuation of that of the aisle. (See
a Paper with plan by Major Heales in Archceologia Cantiana, Vol. XVIII.)
The north aisle has been destroyed, but the arch opening from it to the ohapel
remains, blocked.up, in the present west wall of the ohapel. The significance of
this arch has been missed by the writer of the Paper mentioned above. It is
perfeotly round-headed, and the diagonal marks of the Norman axe are still
clearly to be seen on the surface of its stones. This disposes of the theory
that the Church was originally an Early English Church with aisles. It was
a Church of the common Norman type like that at Crayford. The Early
English east end retains signs of three lancet windows, of which, if the arrangement
were not a common one, we should regard the triplet at Crayford as the
prototype. Let me here ask the reader not to attach undue importance to the
exact form of early-Pointed additions shewn in the Plan No. III. of Crayford
Church. The aisle may very well have been two or three feet wider and its
wall have been continuous with the side-wall of the chapel to the east of it, like
the arrangement that existed at St. Paul's Cray on the north side. There is no
evidence to guide us but that of analogy, and that is only general. The general
prinoiple on which the growth of the Church is worked out in this Paper is not
affected by uncertainty on these points of detail. PS.—Compare Doddington
Church.
* A similar extension with transeptal chapels was carried out at Godalming
Churoh, Surrey.
t These nbtes refer to Kent, and might be extended to include the southeastern
counties generally. But it is probable that several examples of similar
extensions might be found in the large churohes of some other counties, such as
74 CRAYFORD CHURCH.
new Church was built up round the old one.* At Crayford, in the
same century apparently, not only was Ihe line pushed eastwards,
but the axis of the chancel was shifted to the south, and the old
chancel literally absorbed and its lines obliterated by the extensive
alterations then carried out, including the adoption of the curious
device of a central arcade.
I t is probable that as a preliminary step to these alterations the
arcades on the south side of the old Church were boarded up so
that the services might be continued without interruption. The
aisle and chapel were then demolished, and at the same time the
new south wall was erected, the old doorway and windows being
rebuilt with it. The early-Pointed arcade was probably preserved
and made to serve as part of a central arcade. Then followed the
removal of the south wall of the old chancel with its arcade (the
services having been transferred to the nave of the old Church)
and the eastward extension of the nave-arcade by the addition of
an arch and a half-arch abutting upon the crown of a chancel-arch,
whereby a central arcade (the predecessor of the present arcade)
was completed, the materials of the old chapel-arcade being used
for the purpose. The work would now be far enough advanced for
the erection of a span-roof over the new southern twin nave; and
an eastward extension of the north wall of the old nave in place of
the north chancel-wall now demolished would enable the builders
to make the necessary addition to the old nave-roof so as to cover
the northern twin nave.
The new chancel, which may meanwhile have been in course of
erection (by a different set of masons), is so exactly in line with the
Norfolk and Lincolnshire, with which I am not so well acquainted. Perhaps
the fine Church of All Saints, Maidstone, ought to be noticed in this connection.
There is but slight evidence of the position of the early Churoh whioh certainly
existed on the site, but what there is suggests that it ocoupied the space
between the nave-arcades from the second piers from the west to the line of the
ohancel-arch. In spite of Mr. Cave-Browne's arguments in favour of an earlier
date, I am persuaded that the existing Church is all of one date, and that it was
founded by Arohbishop Courtney, so that one may date it circa 1400. This is
a case in which the earlier Church must have been entirely demolished. Its
plan and dimensions in no way influenced the design of Courtney's Church.
* The tower of the old Norman Church remains at the west end of the
present Church; and the three westerly bays of the south arcade are thirteenthcentury
work incorporated into the later work. These three bays, which
belonged to an added aisle, shew the length of the original nave, whioh ocoupied
the site of the western portion of the present nave. All signs of the original
chancel have disappeared. PS.—Goudhurst Churoh is another example, seen
the day before these proof-sheets oame to hand, Perhaps, also, Minster in
Thanet.
SAMT-PAULIilK
•CR_\TTORPS
CAME OF HEE T
2 3 * a io
T d j
(&J-'i~V
P^A^P.
W WMJ5B+h
^.&
•WCT"IMTta©£_-
CRAYFORD CHURCH. 75
central'arcade that it is probable that in laying it out the builders
stretched a line along the south face of the early-Pointed arcade
and, extending it eastward, used it as a guide. The chancel-roof
(the predecessor of the present roof, which is of the same date as
the present nave-roofs) was the last to be built, for its west gable,
which rises up and overlooks the valley of the twin roofs, is a mere
lath and plaster construction that rests on a tie-beam at the
extreme west end of the chancel and is built up against the face of
the nave-gables.
In reviewiug the plan of the Decorated Church as it has issued
from the foregoing data, there is an apparent difference between
the work of the chancel and that of the nave. The chancel has
thick walls, an external plinth or ground-table, diagonal buttresses
at its angles, and all new work in its windows, which are of the
style of its, period. The uave has none of these: all the windows
were old ones rebuilt, and the work of the cheapest character. Is
it possible that there was an agreement between the rector aud the
parishioners as to the plan to be followed in the enlargement of the
Church, and that each party carried out its contract according to
their means ? A course something like this seems to have been
followed at Battle Church in Sussex in the thirteenth century (see
a Paper by the present writer in the Sussex Archceological Collections,
1903) ; probably other instances might be found.
FIFTEENTH-CENTURY AUDITIONS.
The fifteenth-century additions and • alterations fall into two
periods. The earlier works, as we have seen, comprise the building
of a new chancel-arch and a new central arcade in the place of the
former one, and the remodelling of the lighting of the nave by the
iusertion of the three-light windows. The original west doorway
seems to have been preserved at this time, for the sill of the
window above it is higher than that of its companion windows.
The rebuilding of the central arcade must have been prompted by
purely aesthetic considerations. It is likely that the three westerly
arches were supported by somewhat rude square piers, that the
third free pier from the west was composite in construction,
consisting in part of the early-Pointed respond and in part of
a respond added in the fourteenth century, and that the half-arch
at the east end and the arch next to it being fourteenth-century
76 CRAYEORD CHURCH.
work were somewhat different from the other three (early-Pointed)
arches, so that the appearance of the whole arcade was patchy.*
The existing arcade has been fully discussed. It may be
noticed, however, that the spandrel of the half-arch is built of
larger stones than the other spandrels. Possibly all the old
material had been used up in the other spandrels. Mr. Sinclair,
however, suggests that
the difference in construction
is intentional,
and that it is based on
the system of corbeling,
whereby the thrust
on the chancel-arch is
reduced to a minimum.
The foundations of three
of the columns of the
arcade appear at different
levels above the
present floor. They are
not seen in the case of
the west respond or of
the east column. These
differences are probably
due to difference in
floor-level, a legacy from
the early-Pointed arcade.
The floors of our
churches remained for a
long time unpaved, and
the varying level of the
ground must account
for any difference in the
level of bases. The
material of the arcade is
Kentish rag, a material
which builders seldom used for cut-stone before the fourteenth
century, while its use does not seem to have become common before
the middle of that century.
* Doddington, originally au early-Noyman Churoh of the common type, has
a south chancel-chapel of early-Pointed date and considerable width, and a south
nave-aisle which when it was built was muoh narrower, but now is of the same
ROOD-LOFT DOORWAY IN NORTH WALL.
CRAYEORD CHURCH. 77
At the east end of the northern twin nave, on the north side,
there are remains of an entrance to stairs that at one time led up
to a rood-loft. The material is Kentish rag, and the jamb shews
a hollow moulding treated much in the same way as in the
doorway of the newel staircase of the tower.* There can be little
doubt that a rood-loft was erected across the east end of the
northern twin nave not very long after the rebuilding of the
central arcade was completed, possibly at the same rime. It is not
improbable that the fourteenth-century chancel-arch contained
a screen surmounted by a small rood. The prevailing taste of the
fifteenth century would demand a more gorgeous and conspicuous
rood. In any case it may safely be assumed that it was about the
middle of that century, or a little later—when, according to the wills
(see a Paper by Leland L. Duncan, F.S.A., in the Transactions of
the St. Paul's Eccles. Society, vol. iii., part 5), rood-lofts were
finding their way into churches all over the country—that a new
rood and a rood-loft were erected at the east end of the northern
twin nave,f which from old association would retain a character
of greater sanctity than the newer part of the nave on the south
of the arcade. Whether the window near to the blocked doorway
was put in at the same time or at a later date one cannot say for
certain.
In conclusion, I must emphasize the indebtedness of all who are
interested in Kentish architecture to Mr. W. Braxton Sinclair for
width as the chapel. (If I remember rightly there are signs of a destroyed
north nave-aisle.) It appears that when the chapel was added, the south wall
of the chancel was taken down and rebuilt with a pair of arches a little further
south. The tie-beams of the chancel seem to be the original beams lengthened
by scarfing, so as to cover the increased width. The chancel-arcade therefore
very nearly lines with the nave-arcade, but between them stands a mass of
masonry (pierced with a curious forked squint looking into both chancel
and chapel), on to which the chancel-arch and the west chapel-arch abut.
Supposing now that these two arches were removed, the two arcades would
appear to be continuous, with a bit of blank walling at their junction; and,
supposing a new chancel were added centrically to the east end of the Church,
this continuous arcade would run up to the centre of the new chancel-aroh, and
we should have the history of Crayford Churoh reproduced—one can imagine
how the "patchy" central arcade would suggest its being rebuilt. In fact,
Doddington Churoh affords an excellent object-lesson in illustration of the story
of Crayford Church, as unfolded in this Paper.
* The sill of the doorway is 2 feet 6 inches from the present floor, or about
3£ or 4 feet from the original level, not "6 feet," and must have been
approached by wooden steps.
f See Canon Scott Robertson's Paper on Kentish Rood-Soreens in Archceologia
Cantiana, Vol. XIV., pp. 371, 372, and footnotes. " "We know that there were
rood-lofts in side aisles of some churches. In Ashford Church two such lofts
were erected in A.D. 1472, one in the north aisle and another in the south
aisle."
7 8 CRAYEORD CHURCH.
•the prolonged study he has made of Crayford Church and for the
careful drawings which have contributed in no small degree to the
solution of its history; and to the Bector thanks are due for his
kind hospitality and for the ready assistance he has afforded to
Mr. Sinclair and myself in our combined labours.
APPEOXIMATE DATES.
EARLY-NORMAN Church, of which north and west walls of nave
and portion of east gable to chancel remain: (?) the Church
mentioned in Domesday under Erhede (i.e. Yarde), the old
name of Crayford.
EARLY-POINTED insertion of windows, and (?) addition of south
aisle and chapel (destroyed in fourteenth century) : circa
1200.
DECORATED enlargement, of .Church to existing plan (minus tower,
vestry, chapels, and porch), with twin roofs over nave: fourteenth
century.
PERPENDICULAR remodelling of lighting and ritual arrangements;
rebuilding of central arcade; addition of tower and vestry:
early fifteenth century ; chapels, circa 1500.
New roofs, 1630, after fire.
Modern restoration, 1862.
