Two Kentish Carmelite Houses-Aylesford and Sandwich

^ritolojjm djanitaira TWO KENTISH CAEMELITE HOUSES— AYLESFORD AND SANDWICH By S. E. RIGOLD, F.S.A. THEKE were three Carmelite houses in Kent, out of a total for England and Wales of forty-one1—Aylesford, Lossenham in Newenden and Sandwich. The so-called White friars of Canterbury were in fact Austin friars. Since the mendicant orders held little land and few titles to hand on to their successors the documentation of individual houses is thin. But among the later medieval Carmelites there was a lively interest in the history of their order: a fifteenth-century Prior of Maiden, Richard Hely, compiled a table of houses in order of traditional foundation, which is preserved in a notebook of Stowe's,2 while John Bale, another late, and often unfriendly, witness, had been Prior of Ipswich. We have largely to rely on such derivative sources for the origin of each house. In Hely's list Hulne in Northumberland and Aylesford come first and second and are both ascribed to 1240; they certainly represent the two detachments of the original plantation of theorder, which did not, however, arrive until the end of 1241. Others of Hely's dates can be shown to be a few years out. 'Newenden' is placed third with a date of 1241 and Sandwich sixteenth in 1272. While the precise years must be treated with reserve, there is no doubt that Lossenham was a very early settlement, while Sandwich belongs, with the majority of the houses of the order, to the last third of the thirteenth century. Though they did not owe them a heavy basic endowment, Carmelite houses honoured the Founder's family and expected them or their- successors to continue their alms. In an abbreviated cartulary of Aylesford, also preserved by Stowe,8 the seventh in succession from the 'first founder' Richard de Grey is called 'seventh founder', while Hely several times mentions a 'second founder', which should here mean something quite 1 Knowles and Hadcook, Medieval Religious Houses, 196 ff. 2 B.M., Harl. 539,143. 3 B. M., Stowe 938, 76. 1 1 TWO KENTISH CARMELITE HOUSES specific—the immediate recipient of the original founder's rights, whether by inheritance or by other conveyance. Because they generally occupied town sites that were quickly converted to other uses, Friary buildings in England (but not in Ireland) have a low rate of survival. True, a higher proportion of the Carmelites and Austin friars than of the two more numerous orders were in the country. On the limited available evidence it appears legitimate to elucidate the plans of one order of Friars by analogy with those of other Friars within the same province (perhaps the most obvious instance is the odd, single-transept church used by all four orders in Ireland). This is in complete contrast with the universal buildingdiscipline of the Cistercians. But it is also apparent that there was a considerable development of the accepted and generalized friary plan within any province from the thirteenth century onwards and that communities whose original endowment was very small and who built from income rather than from capital, lent themselves to new and economical concepts of conventual building. The narrow steeple over the 'walking-place' that has come to be regarded as typical of friaries, both in England and Ireland, was one of these novelties, originating early in the fourteenth century. The search, then, is not so much for a distinctively Carmelite plan as for a typical English friary of a particular period. It is unfortunate that the two plans here discussed were not recovered under the sort of archaeological conditions that might establish a firm relative date for all their parts. Both Aylesford and Sandwich have already been cursorily treated in Arch. Cant.4 It is unnecessary to repeat all the documentation collected in V.C.H. Kent, II, 201 and 204, respectively, where it is not strictly germane to their development and structural history. The purpose of this article is to remedy the archaeological deficiencies of the earlier notices and to present all that is firmly known of plans that have now partly been built over. Lossenham remains unexplored.5 HISTORY AYLESFORD The manor was reckoned as one intact knight's fee, held by Richard de Grey of Codnor (Derbyshire), in 1253-4, i.e. after the friary was well 4 Arch. Cant., lxiii (1950), 60, and xlviii (1936), 225. B v. Arch. Cant., xiv (1882), 311, for an inventory made at the Dissolution. The site is near a river, as at Aylesford, but on a slight ridge. The present house, of the 1660's, remodelled later, stands within a moated site, apparently representing the capital messuage which was not alienated by the Auohers -when they founded the friary. The O.S. map marks the site of this to the east of the moat at a spot where Major J. R. McGrindle, the present owner of the house, assures me that building-materials are found. Nothing is visible on or above the surface. 2 TWO KENTISH CARMELITE HOUSES established.6 The small parcel occupied by the friars was not the only one in the manor granted in frankalmoign to a religious house7 and it was hardly economically self-supporting. Being quite near the south coast, it probably sheltered the whole Carmelite party until the group under de Vesci's patronage moved north to Hulne,8 but de Grey'sgroup remained technically guests until 1247, when the bishop of .Rochester, Richard of Wendover, issued a formal faculty for them to establish a dwelling-place and a chapel and an indulgence to help the building of the chapel,9 which the same bishop consecrated in 1248.10 The Carmelites had not yet acquired immunity from episcopal jurisdiction. About the same time the King acknowledged the community with a pittance.11 These provisions do not imply a full claustral lay-out, but the chapel was evidently a ground-floor building, suitable for burial. Richard de Grey then established the Carmelites in London, probably in 1253,1 2 but the Aylesford community remained and Richard's grandson, Henry (baron Grey by writ in 1299) seems to have been the next to show any active interest in it and was buried there in 1308, after which the house became, in effect, a family chantry with a rather unusual college to celebrate there.13 His son Richard increased the tenement in 131814 and his grandson, John (third baron from 1335 to 1392), obtaining a relaxation of dietary discipline for the friars15 and a relaxation of penance for pilgrims visiting the house.16 This growth would call for such improvements to the buildings as a proper stone cloister by the first half of the fourteenth century, and a new church was envisaged in 1348, when the ground for it was dedicated (by a Carmelite bishop under exemption from the diocesan).1 7 Work proceeded very slowly; the quire may not even have been finished when the third baron was buried in 1392, if it was still described as 'new' when the fifth baron was buried in 1430,18 but already in 1417 bishop Yonge of Rochester had consecrated a church that was complete enough to have c Arch. Cant., xii (1878), 224; cf. Regist. Roffense, 154 (21 Ed. I). 7 The hospital of Strood has woodland and messuages in the parish, besides the church (Cal. Ch. R., 1226-57, 293; Cal. Pap. Reg., Letters, I, 329; Regist. Roff., 147-9, 153). The Valor Ecclesiasticus records a rent still due to the Master from the friars. The friars also had woodland and were able to supply elms to the Bridge Wardens of Roohester in 1400. 8 W. St. John Hope in Arch. Jour., xlvii (1890), 105; site excavated 1888-9. 0 In the cartulary (note 3), dated Trottisoliffe, 25.1.1246-7. 10 ibid, (note 3). " Cal. Lib. R., 1245-61, 163. 12 J. R. H. Moorman, Church Life in Eng. in the Thirteenth Cent., 367, pace V.C.H. London, I, 507. 13 of. Complete Peerage, III, 123 ff. 14 Cal. Pat. R., 1317-21, 142; 3 acres added. 15 Cal. Pap. Reg., Petitions, I, 286. " Cal. Pap. Reg., Letters, I I I , 573. 17 In cartulary (note 3); the bishop was John Pascal. 18 So the Complete Peerage, but the citation probably refers to 1392. 3 TWO KENTISH CARMELITE HOUSES included the nave altars.19 There was certainly building in progress in the 1380's and 90's when Sir Richard atte Lese (whose brass is at Sheldwich) left a bequest20 (as he also did to Sandwich), when a local man, Rynger, established a private ohantry2 1 and when arrangements were made for a new water-supply.22 After the church was finished attention was turned to modernizing the cloister; here the key document is a small bequest in 1451,23 but the work was evidently slow enough still to be calling for money as late as 1513.24 The surviving outer curia and both gatehouses bear witness to this steady rebuilding to the end of the fifteenth century and beyond. The seventh and last baron Grey was buried at Aylesford in 1492.25 Summarizing, the documents point to a first church in the late 1240's, totally rebuilt between the 1380's (or possibly earlier) and the 1410's, and a first substantial set of claustral buildings from the early fourteenth century, which were being transformed from the mid-fifteenth until the eve of the dissolution. The tenurial history after the dissolution in 1538 can be followed elsewhere.26 Suffice it to say that a number of ultimate gothic features that could just be pre-dissolution,27 would rather seem to belong either to John Sedley's reconstruction in the 1590's (date-stones of 1590 and 1592 are associated with rather unequal detail), or to some adaptation soon after the dissolution. The splendid interior refurbishment by Sir John Banks in the 1670's (see the plan and description made under his successors by marriage, the Finch earls of Aylesford)28 was lost when the house was gutted by fire in 1930. There is some photographic record of the ensuing restoration by the then owner, Copley D. Hewitt,2 9 when many medieval features were revealed, but were generally in such a state as to necessitate completely new dressings. In 1949 the Carmelites repurchased the house. Before the community could occupy it it was repaired and adapted under the direction of Mr. Hugh Braun, who took the opportunity to do some limited trenching and gave an account of his findings to the Society of Antiquaries. A short version of this paper was published in Arch. Cant., lxiii (1950) with schematic reconstructed plans and elevations. 10 In cartulary (note 3); 'tempore septimi fundatoris'—really the sixth (ob. 1418), unless one year is out. 20 or Leese; Knight of the Shire 1366 ob. 1394 v. Arch. Cant., xviii (1889), 290; for his will, Cal. Kentish WiUs, 1384-1559 in Prerog.Co. Canterbury. 21 Regist. Rojf., 154-5. 22 Cal. Pat.. R., 1391-6, 371 (1394). The aqueduct led from Burnham. 23 v. Appendix A. 21 ibid. 26 Complete Peerage, VT, 132; for his will, N. H. Nicolas, Testam. Vetusta, 411. 20 e.g. Hasted, also Thorpe, Bib. Top. Brit., vi, pt. 1,1. 27 e.g. most of the doorways in large ragstone ashlar with drafted margins. 28 Thorpe, as note 25; plan follows p. 28. 20 High Sheriff 1929-30, and a Scout dignitary. Photographs of repairs in Nat. Buildings Records. 4 TWO KENTISH CARMELITE HOUSES In 1959 a new and un-traditional church was erected, with transepts or 'tribunes' leading saltire-wise from a central sanctuary to subordinate chapels, the central alt ,i-r being near the site of the quire altar of the medieval church. The emplacement for this was formed by lowe ing the site of the eastern arm and east range. This was done mechanically, but the operation provided a 'free' area-excavation of the greater part of the church and east-range. Two independent surveys were made, admittedly not under ideal archaeological conditions, which form the basis for the plan here presented. The open-air 'nave' to the west of the new church is now paved and the present information about the foundations now covered over must suffice for the foreseeable future. In presenting this account of the remains, together with the foregoing re-assessment of the documentation, the writer gratefully acknowledges the help and encouragement of the former Prior, Fr. Malachy Lynch, of Brother Conlett and others of the convent, and of his fellow-surveyor Mr. Anthony Gilbert Scott, then living with the community. SANDWICH In Hely's table30 the 'first founder' is named as Henry Coufeld 'from Germany' (de Alemania), the second, 'by concession', as Thomas Balseforde 'earl of Worcester' and the date of foundation 1272. Henry is otherwise untraceable, but a Coufeld or Coufeud with the low-German name of Godekyn occurs in London under Edward I3 1 and the possession of an altar to St. Garion (i.e. St. Gereon of Cologne)32 affirms the German affinities of the house. There was never a Balsford earl of Worcester, but the only known Balsford place-name (Balsford Hall in Beoley) is in fact in Worcestershire, and Hely or his source, had evidently confused comit(ej with comit(atus). This Thomas Balsford 'from Worcestershire' is equally untraceable, but it is likely enough that Henry, who must have held enough land in Sandwich to accommodate the friars, had for some reason to surrender his holdings and rights to someone else—a transaction that probably took place not in Sandwich but in London. The date cannot be far wrong: in 1280 John de Sandwich (ob. 1282) of the important and genealogically difficult local family,33 was licensed to augment the Carmelites' existing holding of land,34 and it is clear that he also obtained the founder's privileges. Only thus can another and obviously garbled late tradition be explained, which names 'William Lord Clinton' Lord of Folkestone as 'second founder' 30 v.s., note 2. 31 Rotuli Hundredorum, I (1812) 404, 421, 423. 32 Appendix A, sub anno 1602. 33 J. R. Planche, A Corner of Kent, 296 ff. 34 Cal. Pat. R., 1272-81, 404. 5 TWO KENTISH CARMELITE HOUSES and large benefactor in 20 Ed. I (1291-2).3& No member of the midland family of Clinton of Maxstoke and Kenilworth (Warwicks) had any interest in Kent until 1328, when William Clinton, created earl of Huntingdon, but never 'Lord Clinton',36 married the 'Infanta' Juliana de Leybourne, ultimate heiress, among much more, of John de Sandwich's lordship of Folkestone. The reference is obviously either to Huntingdon, who was a hero and champion to the men of Sandwich as commander of the Cinque Ports squadron at Sluis, or to his nephew John Lord Clinton who succeeded to Folkestone in 1354, and the date perhaps records a donation either by Huntingdon in 20 Ed. Ill, or by John de Sandwich in 10 Ed. I, or a confusion of both. Yet a third late source names a Thomas Crawthorne as a principal benefactor in the time of Edward I;37 he, again is otherwise untraced, but the Crawthornes were minor local landholders and kinsmen or clients of the Sandwich family.38 All these documents point to a small foundation in or about 1272, enlarged a few years later by John de Sandwich and his fellows and a house of some substance by c. 1300, and perhaps again enlarged in the second quarter of the fourteenth century. Though not rich the house was not so utterly dependent as Aylesford, and its circumstances would require a complete claustral lay-out by c. 1300. A private conduit, a convenience that friars always looked for, was arranged in 1306,39 nearly a century before Aylesford. had one.40 These early buildings would seem to have lasted substantially for the whole duration of the friary, but bequests show that slow, and perhaps modest, repairs were in progress on church in 1474 and 1481, on the cloister in 1523, and again on the church between 1526 and 1537.4 1 Indeed, the house seems to have been in a flourishing state and attracting undiminished legacies in its latest days. I t possessed an image of the Virgin which had earned a particular indulgence from bishop Brantingham of Exeter as early as 1370.42 In 1482 a general chapter of the order was held there, with some subsidy from the corporation.43 The verse epitaphs of the fifteenth century, recorded by Weaver44 from Bale, suggest that the house 36 W. Boys, Coll. for a History of Sandwich, I, 175; 'from a MS (unspecified) in my (Boys') possession'. 30 Complete Peerage (under 'Clinton' and 'Huntingdon'); for a traditional view of him see F. W. Steer, John Philipot's Roll of the Constables of Dover and Lord Wardens ..., 24. 37 Hasted, ultimately from Bale (?). 88 Planch6, A Comer of Kent, 297 and note. 3i Cal. Pat. R., 1301-7, 440; land with spring at Wodnesborough alienated in mortmain. For friary conduits in general, see A. R. Martin, Franciscan Architecture in England (Br. Soc. Franciscan Studies, 18), 39. 40 v.s.,note21. 41 Appendix A, under those years. 42 Exeter Episc. Reg. VII (Brantyngham), I, 223. 43 Sandwich Corp. Records—Year Book, 273 d, cited also by Boys. 44 Ancient Funeral Monuments (1767 ed.), 62. 6 TWO KENTISH CARMELITE HOUSES was not behind the rest of late medieval Carmelites in a certain urbanity and humane learning. After the surrender in 1538 some of the buildings were probably downed forthwith to provide material for fortification,45 but they were not totally grubbed up and excavation indicates that the more adaptable buildings were left standing. In 1540 the notorious and unfortunate Arden of Faversham acquired the precinct,46 while a certain James Hall still held 'certain void premises' by lease granted by the Carmelites.47 In 1573 a motion was made to purchase the 'Friars' (Hhe whole precinct or just the messuage now called Whitefriars House) for the Corporation. 48 The same question of precise identity affects the 'Fryers', listed among the properties of a certain Mr. Cooke, one of the 'Forreners dwellinge without us', in the Shipping-cess of 1595. The same document names 'a garden next the Fryers gate', which would appear to have been still standing.4 8 The finds suggest that some of the buildings remained in use until the seventeenth century, but by Boys' time (1790's)49 the precinct was vacant, as his map, which marks the moats, shows, though another writer of 1790 records not only foundations then visible, but 'side-walls of the avenue' from the gate on the Moatsole.50 At some date before 1936 burials had been found in the N.W. of the precinct. The whole precinct was parcel of the land of the house called Whitefriars in 1936, when the then owner, Dr. John Harrisson allowed the late Mr. W. P. D. Stebbing to uncover the foundations, with the aid of a fund for the research into the history of Sandwich, administered by Alderman W. R. Rose. The excavation occupied fifteen weeks from 18th June, 1936. An interim report (but with only the most general indication of the precise location) promptly appeared in Arch. Cant., xlviii (1936), 225, Stebbing being then editor. But nothing more was done until 1962, when the present owners of Whitefriars, Mr. and Mrs. H. S. Deighton, sought permission to build four blocks of flats on the precinct. I t was understood that the first block would, in any case come clear of any known part of the claustral complex, and that, in the light of what was thought to be the position of the buildings, all the flats 46 of. Rutton in Arch. Cant., xxiii (1898), 25, but there is no proof that the Whitefriars provided the material shipped from Sandwich. 4« L. and P., Hen. VIII, xvi, 831(17); cf. also Arch. Cant., xxxiv (1920), 101. " Cited by Stebbing from Corporation records; cf. also Boys, op. cit., 180. 48 Both copied in ext&nso by Stebbing from Corporation records. For Whitefriars House cf. Arch. Cant., lix (1946), 115. 4U Boys' map (op. cit., opp. p. 790) marks three plots—the trapezoidal piece within the S.E. moat or channel, the larger one to the N.E., containing the remains and extending -well into the present cattle-market, and the strip to the W. between these and the Rope-walk, as having belonged to the Friars. He also records the descent of Whitefriars House to his own family. 60 The Kentish Traveller's Companion (3rd. ed.), 289. 7 TWO KENTISH CARMELITE HOUSES were intended to avoid violating the foundations. In the event, the fourth block, the only one yet complete, was built first, and foundations were exposed, thought to be part of some unrecorded subordinate building, but in fact part of the refectory (compare Fig. 2, below). I t was now too late to resite the building or lay on an emergency excavation, but the trenches were observed by Mr. B. Roberts, the Town Clerk, and Dr. J. S. Ogilvie, to whose help, as well as to Mr. Deighton, the writer is most indebted in his attempt to reconstruct and properly base the plan of the friary. The discovery of the survey notes and some of the small finds among Mr. Stebbing's legacies, kindly communicated to the writer by his colleague Mr. G. C. Dunning, led him to re-examine the site and the other small-finds and records to which Mr. Deighton and Mr. Roberts have kindly granted him free access. The plan and interpretation which he presents is an attempt at reconciliation of sometimes inadequate and divergent evidence, and may be subject to correction if partial re-excavation is ever undertaken. ESTABLISHMENT AND INTERPRETATION OF PLANS AYLESFORD In Arch. Cant., lxii<, Mr. Braun printed a site-plan and more detailed ones at ground-floor (including the outer curia) and first-floor levels. The site-plan is adequate for its purpose and does not need repetition in this volume. But the larger plans are very schematic—all the angles in the claustral complex are shown as perfect right-angles, and though a distinction is made between upstanding medieval walls and destroyed ones, there is no indication of what was established by excavation and what is conjectural. From a few well-placed cross trenches, Mr. Braun was able to calculate the general form and size of the latest church, but he also supplied an unwarranted reconstruction of the east range, where he admits that he was able to do little. The stripping of the eastern two-thirds of the church and most of the east range in 1959 revealed the plan at the level of the lowest footings (and sometimes a course of two higher) almost in its entirety. The plan is recorded at this level and allowance must be made for a slight reduction in thickness at the actual walls. The earlier robbing and disturbance of floors had evidently penetrated almost to this depth and little archaeological damage seems to have done, but there was no opportunity to test the stratigraphic relation of the various modifications of plan. The author surveyed the exposed area of the church and parts of the east range. Subsequently Mr. Anthony Gflbert Scott covered the whole east range and much of the church. These two surveys in large part overlap and substantially agree. For the western part of the nave we have still to rely on Mr. Braun's data, where one of his 8 INNER GATE OS D U NEW QUIRl NAVE mm CLOISTER GARTH REFECTORY OVER Standing mediaeval buildings Obserivd footings, probably primary Observed footings, secondary SOUTH COURT? and doubtful — Footings after il Braun Conjectural — Approximate position of post mediaeval buildings Drains GUEST HOUSE ? Scale of Feet 5 0 Scale of Metres- AYLESFORD, CARMELITE FRIAAY J7io.il. TWO KENTISH CARMELITE HOUSES trenches lay open for some time and the lines he established are now marked on the paving. The footings were of flagstone rubble with a small admixture of flint and no particular distinction between face and core, nor any easy criteria for dating. But the outline of the earlier church, on a different axis from its successor, and the accurate plotting of other deflections provide some indication of development, though much of the east range remains problematic. The writer then reexamined the standing buildings, where further repairs have taken place. The plan presented here (Fig. 1) is a conflation of the two surveys of the buried foundations (marking only those remains which have been seen and measured by either witness, or both) tied into a revised plan of the upstanding medieval claustral buildings, at plinth level, with later structures marked in outline for reference. This does not extend to the buildings round the curia, which are all well shown on Mr. Braun's plan, though a more precise examination of the late monastic and the, possibly post-dissolution, ultimate gothic elements would be useful. The remains are recorded, without prejudice as to date, and with the proviso that some straight joints, etc., may have been missed. A tentative consideration of the various components follows. The Early Quire Two parallel footings, one on the south side of the later quire and the other through the middle of the 'walking place', but not bonded to it, must surely be those of the first quire, which would then have had the likely internal breadth of 24 ft. (7-2 m.) and a probable length of 64 ft. (19 m.), much the same as at Hume,51 close to the probable dimensions of the Sandwich quire, and apparently the regular size for the quires of early Carmelite and other lesser friary churches, such as the Blackfriars of Brecon.52 The larger Franciscan quires approached 100 ft. The New Quire and Walking-place (Plate I, A) These were very much as Mr. Braun reconstructed them. The quire was again probably 24 ft. wide above footing-level and 72 ft. (21 -5 m.) long, in four bays separated by deep buttresses. It was evidently a high building, conceived as a structural entity. Any indication whether or not there was, as at Coventry,^3 a resonance-passage under the stalls had disappeared^ A number of burials in the presbytery, some in ragstone cists, including one on the axis, in the place of honour proper to a founder, were laid bare, just beneath the tracks of the machine; 61 Arch. Jour.,idvii (1890), 105. 82 A. R. Martin, Franciscan Archit. in England, 14, plan opp. 22. 55 Excavated by Mrs. C. Woodfleld; interim reports in Medieval Archosol., v (1961), 314; vi-vii ('62-3), 317; viii ('64), 245. ' 9 TWO KENTISH CARMELITE HOUSES these probably include those of the Greys. At least one sacristy or chantry-chapel had been thrown out between the buttresses on the south side. The heavy transverse footings of the 'walking-place', on the axis of the east cloister walk, undoubtedly carried a typical friars' axial tower and the emplacement for a spiral stair was visible in the south-west corner. The slight westward buttresses were straightjointed to the nave footings and there was certainly a break in construction at this point, whether or not the nave was ever entirely reconstructed. The Nave The walls of this, anyway in its final form, diverged towards the west. The breadth of 30 ft. (9 m.) given by Mr. Braun was evidently obtained at that end, where he certainly cross-trenched it.54 The south wall had the same direction as the early quire, while the north was apparently more or less on the line of the new. The final span is large, but manageable, for a single-span roof but originally it would have had its south wall near to that of the later north cloister walk, and it seems then to have had a north aisle, much as at Sandwich. A possible explanation for the divergent walls is that the aisle remained in use while the south wall was reconstructed with deep buttresses on an inset line, but parallel with the arcade; the arcade was then demolished but the old, ill-set-out north wall, where no traces of buttresses have been found, was retained. The direction of the new quire would thus have been based on that of the north aisle. The East Range This was the essential part of a conventual lay-out and the first to be built; for a small community, such as the brethren of a hospital, it was all that was needed, and the complete habitation for the original settlement of friars would have been found there. It is presumed that its ground-floor face always ran from the same north-east angle of the cloister-walk—at least, no other building-line has been found. A fairly heavy, but interrupted wall, some 20 ft. (6 m.) east and a mutilated north wall, separated from the old quire by a passage, later blocked, (but not by a 'court') have been found. This item, taken by itself, is something as Mr. Braun surmised, but whether he had any evidence that the south wall originally continued that of the south range is not explicit; if it did, it was certainly cut back when the earlier, certainly medieval, river-wall was erected. The undercroft was divided into three compartments and then re-divided. There was an eastern exten- 64 His trenching is visible in Knowles and St. Joseph, Monastic Sites from the Air, 255. 10 PLATE I ,,"• : • MN -, zpmz. A. Aylesford Friary. Footings of Walking-Place Tower and New Quire, from west. Photo by R. W. Wardtfl, Crown Copyright reserved B. Aylesford Friarj-. South and West Ranges of Cloister, from north-east. [fact p. 10 PLATE II v V' :-0*-, ' ' It , " I I I II,, " ''' ''' i J -U..L L U i J 1J i l l 1J I I I LI i I I L ^ g ' $%i i i i I I i I I l»/l i I I I I 11 [ i I , 1 1 I I I i 1 i i.U I ' ! I ! ' I I ' I : ' ' 1 ' ! ' ! 1 ! ! 1 ' ! ! M I ! 1 rI I' M I l i ! ! M ! 1 ' 1 | I M ! | | | | 1 | n i M T Rope Walk SITE PLAN Mem Feel FIG. 2. 25 50 100 150 200 century type, apparently much the same in treatment wherever it occurs (it was best present on the north and eastern part of the south sides of the refectory) contrasts with the small, well-coursed, and apparently rather miscellaneous rubble walling. The footings, where described, were of lime-mortar or chalk contrasting with the plentiful ragstone rubble at Aylesford. 14 qd ,linlLUlllllll1 NAVE r -'linilinilVJ-._ c /. o / s r /• GARTH to SOUTH COURT ITIIIIIIIIIIIIIIIIIIMIIIUHMIIMIIIIIIIIIIMNMNIIIIU no r'L HW/s &. & •3 I i

Previous
Previous

Rules

Next
Next

Two Kentish Hospitals Re-examined. Addenda and Corrigenda