Plans of and Brief Architectural Notes on Kent Churches - Part I

PLANS OF, AND BRIEF ARCHITECTURAL NOTES ON, KENT CHURCHES. 3 Canon Scott Robertson (Vol. XVI) and the Rev. Canon G. M. Livett (Vol. XLVI), the latter illustrating his paper with a plan drawn with all his wonted skill and accuracy. It might therefore appear that there was nothing further to say, but the story of the growth of the building is such an involved and complicated one, and the reliably dated material so scanty, that there is yet another theory that may explain'the unusual character of the building. That is the purpose of these notes, but, to obviate the possibility of the pages of our Journal being overburdened by the conflicting theories of differing individuals, I submitted these notes some years ago to Mr. Livett for his comments, to be added to my criticisms when they were printed. But owing to the poor state of his health, he felt unable to deal with the matter, and the regrettable continuance of his indisposition has further delayed any comments. So I print my notes and plan with a clear understanding that the last word on this puzzling church may not have been said. My objections to Mr. Livett's scheme of growth are briefly : (1) The rebuilding of an apse in the thirteenth century is such an unusual occurrence that it immediately calls for careful examination of the evidence, being suspect from the beginning. (2) Even more unusual is, as is postulated in this case, the rebuilding of an apse on foundations that are partly new, and in part those of the old apse. (3) Livett's plan shows clearly that this is implied, as his thirteenth century apse is rebuilt eccentrically on the foundations of the earlier (twelfth century) structure. (4) His scheme of development is based on the axis of the present nave, and he aims to project a church with a chancel on the same alignment. (5) There is an objection similar to No. 3 in the matter of the rebuilding of the north chancel wall. Here also, according to his plan, the rebuilt wall is partly overlapping the earlier footings. (6) There is no evidence that the existing north nave wall is of twelfth century workmanship. (7) There are two chamfered projections at the west end of the nave. These are twice spoken of as diagonal buttresses (pp. 161 and 170) of the thirteenth century tower, and as such they are shown on the plan. But how can these be buttresses if between them and the tower east wall, is shown a piece of twelfth century masonry ?