A Plan and architectural Description of the medieval Remains of Davington Priory
A PLAN AND
ARCHITECTURAL DESCRIPTION
OF THE MEDIEVAL REMAINS
OF DAVINGTON PRIORY
P. J. TESTER, F.S.A.
'It is not to the credit of Kent archaeologists that this notable house is
without historical plan and an adequate description, as much of the
nunnery survives. The greater part of the early church is roofed and
used for services, and the cloister and some of the surrounding
buildings can be traced. A very little research would probably reveal
much more, including the form of the east end of the church.'
This was written in 1954 concerning Davington Priory by the late F.
C. Elliston-Erwood in a contribution to volume lix of The South
Easern Naturalist and Antiquary on the subject of 'The present State of
Monastic Archaeology in Kent'. The present article is an attempt to
remove this reproach, and is also intended to record the results of some
excavations carried out in 1977.1
Almost all that remains above ground of the Priory founded for
Benedictine nuns by Pule de Newenham in 1153 is the twelfthcentury
nave with the attached west range now occupied as a private
dwelling. In 1845 the place was acquired by the noted antiquary and
artist, Thomas Willement, who set about restoring the church and house
with typical Victorian thoroughness. Fortunately, he left notes and
grawings describing the buildings before his re-ordering of the interior,
and these are of value in attempting to make out the architectural
development. I am grateful to the present owner, our Member Mr.
Christopher Gibbs, for allowing me to use Willement's manuscript
notes and also for permisson to excavate in the garden to establish the
layout of the destroyed parts of the Priory.
In endeavouring to elucidate the architectural history of the
1 A brief history of the Priory is given in The Victoria History of Kent, ii (1926).
205
P. J. TESTER
buildings after their nineteenth-century restoration, it is difficult to be
certain of the true age of some portions of the fabric.2 The
accompanying plan (Fig. 1) is simplified, with many post-Dissolution
additions omitted, and one cannot be certain that some of the features
shown as medieval are not, in fact, Victorian replacements. Never-theless,
I am confident of the general accuracy, and the finer points still
open to dispute may one day be settled by the appearance of new
evidence.
The Church
The twelfth-century nave is of a very austere architectural character,
opening into the north aisle by an arcade of unmoulded and
unchamfered semicircular arches resting on rectangular piers. Above is
a clerestory of round-headed windows matched on the south where
they are blocked by a post-Dissolution building on the site of the north
walk of the cloister. The lower part of the east wall consists of the
medieval rood screen with blocked pointed-arched openings at each
end. Above this, the wall containing a triplet of lancet windows is
Willement's, including the painted glass.
Originally, the west end possessed two towers, only the southern of
which remains to its full height, and both open into the aisles by plain
pointed arches, the south aisle being a single bay in length. There is no
evidence that it was ever longer, and recent stripping of plaster from
the south side of the wall for a distance of 15 ft. east of the doorway
into the cloister has revealed no trace of blocked arcade openings. We
are led to assume that the position of the cloister was already
established before the south aisle was planned and that its eastward
extension was prevented by this factor. 3 It is possible that at the time of
the founding of the nunnery the nave was unaisled and that the aisles
and western towers were additions made soon after. The plain piers
and arches suggest piercings and the general irregularity of the layout
supports this theory.
In the south wall is a plain round-headed doorway communicating
with the cloister and splayed externally instead of in the more usual
manner. Its simplicity contrasts with the very elaborate latetwelfth-
century doorway at the west end. Mr. John Newman has
observed that mouldings on the abaci of this doorway resemble those
of the pier arcade,4 and this argues in favour of their contemporaneity.
2 This applies particularly to the south aisle of the nave and the north wall of the
refectory.
3 A similar arrangement obtained at Boxgrove Priory in Sussex.
4 The Buildings of England-N.E. and E. Kent (1969), 267.
206
r---------,
r-------- 1 I
I : CHAPE.L
I I
it==n1trrrrrn:,§§Cl13!Jmr ___ J
- _____ J
·--------·· '-----------------------------
-
---- ____ .. _.,. _____ .. ------- -------
NAVE.
0
0 ,,
-------------
- - - -- -- -- - -- -
' I
o I
PARLOUR
HALL
F.P.
W,--------- 7j
W I
CHAPTER HOUSE
•:: I I cLorsTER i r-f ::------1--j ·· I I : I
\
I I
C ',' } ! ! I™ I
-------: \----
1 I I
I
I
-------- -------:-:-:-:--:--:---J I I
BUTTERY I
'' :---:-:-:-------, ! D
OR
ORY
i I
---7-r-
------ l I
-..!.i.-- : REFECTORY I
I l i
: !________ : :
------------------- I I '1 lI --- ---J I l
10 20 -;-.;T- - I j I I Lo-...w.L.......... .f o
---,,........,,-.-,1--.--3 r'-
o
-,----,--r'"'°
-.---,-,-, I I I l 0 10 IS METRES
Fig. I
DAVINGTON PRIORY
RECONSTRUCTION Of THE ME.DIE.VAL LAYOUT
STANDING
- l2TK CENTURY
- 13TII
- 14TK
JSTK
[TI] POST DISSOLUTION
!;;XCAVATED
PRIMARY
LATER
' ROBBED
p.J, TESTER 1979
PLAN AND DESCRIPTION OF REMAINS OF DAVINGTON PRIORY
Moreover, the pointed form of the tower arches towards the aisles
favours a late date in the twelfth century rather than earlier.
The thin outer wall of the north aisle is of later construction and
cannot be earlier than the thirteenth century. It contains five Early
English lancet windows and its rubble walling can be seen externally to
contrast in character with that of the northwest tower. There must
have been an earlier aisle wall in this position, however, contemporary
with the north arcade, and it is puzzling to know why it should have
been replaced after so short an interval. The width of the tower arch
would prevent the earlier aisle being more than a foot narrower than at
present so that if the purpose of rebuilding was to provide more space
the need for it must have been considered sufficiently pressing to justify
the alteration. Perhaps it was connected with the establishment of a
chapel in the aisle, for obviously the setting back of a length of the wall
at the east end was to allow adequate accommodation for an altar and
there is a piscina in the end wall towards the south. This end wall was
rebuilt by Willement who left on record that it exactly reproduces its
medieval predecessor and that the doorway and piscina were reset in
their correct relative positions. The cill of the doorway, however, was
raised on account of the burial vault he made for himself and his family
beneath the floor of the modem vestry.
Willement was under the mistaken impression that the nuns
worshipped in the nave while the laity used the eastern part of the
church long since destroyed, and this has been repeated by later writers
on the Priory.5 The reverse is, of course, infinitely more probable as it
would confonn with the arrangement in the vast majority of medieval
religious houses. Willement declared himself unable to find traces of
the foundations of the eastern part, but some limited excavations
directed by the present writer in 1977 produced enough evidence to
allow a tentative restoration to be made.
One can assume that the twelfth