The Architectural History of Great Chart Church, with a Note on Ashford Church and some local Mouldings

GREAT CHART CHURCH. GROUND PLAN&SECTIONS MEASURED &• DRAWN BY GM. LIVETT. 1902-3. __,•"• ,-^. IT ™ , v- - - -__k-«i_a:._eP!lP^fl' F IIII" till ' _____ i__&*_•___• /*A' ^__ i_sfi.4i • KB' -: ITi _ '' vMFll i ' l 1! ;-JHiliB n Wj-fi | * J f, . u f i ! J__7P__P_B • _•__• t El '.'** ""1 •• _H*-l_B - ____l___t___i^___I_j'li ? GH P H *w JB___________tet________.iL 1 __ _ L ' _W_ _ _ _ T _ •••'-*-'• >__2 i ' 1 i _B»ri»wy_-. . I'- ..T:V .^-'*-- • - '•"- J* '.- ! SOUTH-EAST VIEW OF GREAT CHART CHURCH. G. M. L., 1903. GREAT CHART CHURCH. 113 side of the chancel, it must be borne in mind that they were practically hidden from view by the broad roof-loft beneath them. The two remaining arches on either side were built with newly-cut voussoirs of larger size, and with hollow chamfers, according to the prevailing fashion of the time. I t has been previously noticed that the nave-clerestory was extended eastwards over the rood-loft, and that a part of the chancel-roof was removed to make way for the new roof. A massive tie-beam, resting on the ends of the clerestory walls, carries the gable of the Perpendicular roof. The triangular spaces under the beam and within the ends of the clerestory walls on either side of the chancel-roof are filled with nine-inch walling composed almost entirely of Boman bricks. All this may be seen by anyone who will take the trouble to go on to the roof of the chancel. In making good the end of the chancel-roof the fifteenth-century architect inserted the tie-beam seen within the Church. To it probably are framed the ends of the plates which secure the feet of the rafters. The timbers are hidden by a modern ceiling of wood. The clerestory windows above the rood-loft, one on each side, are three-light square-headed windows of ordinary pattern. In the nave the clerestory has three similar two-light windows on either side above the arcade-arches.* The nave-roof is a plain collar-beam roof with vertical struts and small collar-braces. It also has five tie-beams: one at each end, one directly over the chancel-arch, and two in the nave. They are so disposed that in four cases the feet of a pair of common rafters, as well as the adjoining vertical struts, could be (and doubtless are) framed into the beam. In one case, however, the beam lies between the rafters: doubtless the wall-plates are framed into it. At the west end of the south chapel there is an alteration in the roof which is worth notice. The pointed roof stops short of the west end by 4_ feet, and that space is covered hy a flat roof of the same pitch and design as the adjoining aisle-roof, but (of course) not of the same date. In the side-wall within the same space there is a two-light window (d)* of the same pattern as the clerestory windows, but slightly smaller. Possibly this window was related in some way to the rood-loft. Eor a reason that is not quite clear the fifteenth-century architect removed the west gable of the chapel and about 6_ feet of the roof, and extended the flat * See the photograph of the exterior of the Church. VOL. xxvi, I 114 GREAT CHART CHURCH. roof of the aisle to that amount, heightening the side-wall to carry it. That this bit of roof is not of the same date as the aisleroof is proved by slight differences in the pattern and scantling of the wall-plates and rafters. The external wall-plate has a joint at the required point, and the added portion is quite different from that to the west. This can only be seen at close quarters by means of a ladder. The interesting question of the exact line of separation between rector and people in this Church still remains. There can be no doubt, I think, that the great cross-arch marks the eastern limit of the nave in mediseval times. If there was no central tower, it stands on the line of the original chancel-arch; if there was a tower, then that arch stands on the site of its west wall. But the position of the arch does not settle the question. The people's seats run beyond the original limit of the nave, and the westward limit of the choir seats and Godington pew runs across the Church at a distance of 7 feet 9 inches from the eastern face of the chancelarch; while a slight rise of floor-level and a difference in the character of the paving occurs at 7£ inches further east, and the nave-roof extends nearly 11 feet beyond its original limit. Perhaps the solution of the question will be found in the acceptance of the central-tower theory. Eor the purpose of worship the tower-space would be no man's land; and on the removal of the tower the right to occupy that space might very well have been decided by division and the erection of a rood-screen about 8 feet east of the new cross-arch. A new rood-loft built at the end of the fifteenth century would naturally be placed on the same line. This seems to be a natural and feasible explanation, both of the anomalous position of the rood-loft to the east of the chancelarch, and of the ill-defined line of separation between people and parson in the Church. It would be interesting to learn who has been charged from time to time with the repair of the eastward extension of the nave-roof—rector or churchwardens ? There is a similar case of uncertainty at East Malling Church, where the rectorial pews extend under the chancel-arch westwards to the middle of the easternmost severy of the nave. The entrances to the rood-loft are seen in the piers on the west side of that severy. At St. Peter's, Thanet, there was formerly a rood-loft on the east side of the chancel-arch. The entrance to the loft remains on the north side of the chancel, above the first free column of the GREAT CHART CHURCH. 115 arcade of a chancel-chapel. Canon Scott Bobertson believed that there was once an early-English tower on the south side of the first bay of tbe chancel.* It would be interesting to hear of other examples.? The Editors have kindly favoured me with au advance copy of a Paper that is to appear in this Volume from the pen of the Eev. Harry W. Eussell. It contains some confirmation of the dates assumed in this Paper. Mr. Eussell quotes from Weever the names of sixteen men of whom portraitures formerly existed in a fifteenth-century window in the north chapel, and who were accounted by tradition, " from the father to the sonne," to have been the builders of the Church. Mr. Eussell says the name of one of them, Thomas Wred, appears as that of a witness in the Christ Church Eegisters in 1345, and adds that the sixteen names probably represent benefactors who lived in the second half of the fourteenth century. In the north chapel stands a fine altar-tomb of William and Alice Goldwell, who died in 1485. Their son was James Goldwell, who became Vicar of Great Chart in 1458, holding at the same time many valuable preferments. He became Bishop of Norwich in 1472, when he obtained from the Pope " an indulgence in aid of the restoration of Great Chart Church, which had been damaged by fire." A broken inscription in a window, quoted by Weever, suggests that he had commenced work at Great Chart before his consecration to the bishopric. Thomas Twysden of Chelmington in Great Chart, by his will dated 12 Oct. 1500,$ provided that if his children should die without heirs his executors should sell his lands and give " to the most nedefull workys of the said Churche xx1." This was a large sum of money, and though the Church did not benefit by it, the provision of the will proves that important work was in progress as late as the year 1500. The conclusion to * Archceologia Cantiana, Vol. XII., p. 379 et seq. f Reader, please send " copy " to the Editors for " Notes and Queries " in the next volume. PS.—The Rev. Walter Marshall, P.S.A., writes, under date 25 May 1903: " Many churches shew the entrance on to the rood-loft high up in the wall, just east of the chancel-arch, but I do not know of any rood-lofts positively placed east of the chancel-arch, except perhaps at Beckley (Sussex), where the upper entrance to the rood-loft (not now existing) is halfway between the ohancel-arch and the east wall of the church ! In some cases the upper entrance does not prove the position of the rood-loft, because the entrance need not, could not, always have been straight on to the loft itself." % See copy of will in Arohceologia Cantiana, Vol. IIL, p. 202. I 2 116 GREAT CHART CHURCH. be drawn from all these notices is that the fifteenth-century alterations were begun about 1460, and were still incomplete at the very end of the century. Before reading Mr. Eussell's Paper I had written the following note upon the Goldwell altar-tomb:— I t will be noticed that the plinth moulding has the form of the bell and cushion seen in the bases of the late columns of the chancel-arcade on the north side; and that both the ends and the sides of the tomb are adorned with arcading which bears a strong resemblance to the tracery of' the square-headed Perpendicular windows of the Church.* We cannot be far wrong, therefore, in assigning the windows, which are associated with the building of the flat roofs over the nave-aisles, to the third quarter of the fifteenth century, and the nave-roof and its contemporaneous works to the end of the century. ASHEOED CHTJECH. The neighbouring Church at Ashford has a history which in many respects is similar to that of Great Chart. In the quoins at the junction of the aisle half-arch and the transept on both sides there are several pieces of thirteenth-century stone, and one or two bits of Caen-stone shewing the characteristic face-marks of the hankerman's axe. There was a Norman Church at Ashford, as at Chart. Probably it had a central tower, either with or without transepts. In the thirteenth century there appears to have been some alteration. The upper orders of the late fourteenth-century arcades in the south transept are composed of small voussoirs of fire-stone, possibly in situ, probably from arches in a similar position.? This suggests that'Ashford Church in the thirteenth * See PLATE II. t In Selling Ohurch, near Paversham, the recent removal of plaster from the stone-work of the nave-arcades has revealed a similar composite construction— the upper orders of all the arches consist of thirteenth-century voussoirs of firestone, which must have come from early-Pointed arcades of exactly the same form and disposition as the present arcades. The remains of a plinth also of one of the early bases has been uncovered. In the rebuilding or remodelling of the arcades with Kentish rag, either the upper orders of the old arches were retained in situ and underbuilt, or the new arches were raised on taller columns and the old voussoirs re-used so far as they would serve, A somewhat similar device was followed by the later-Norman builders at Roohester when they remodelled the early-Norman arohes of the nave-arcades: thoy retained the inferior order and rebuilt the superior order with new voussoirs. G. M. I.., 190:!. ASHFORD CHURCH: LOOKING SOUTH-WEST. FROM THE NORTH-KAST BAY (IF THE CHANCEL. GREAT CHART CHURCH. 117 century was cruciform. Then came a considerable remodelling in the fourteenth century, of which there is abundant evidence in the arcades of the chancel, south transept, and nave.* Then followed the insertion of new windows throughout, and the rebuilding of the central tower by Sir John Eogge circa 1475. The fourteenthcentury columns of the chancel carry arches of a tall segmentalpointed character, the whole wall on each side having apparently been rebuilt at the same time as the tower. The western bay of the nave is modern, and the aisles have been widened, I believe, in recent times. The accompanying photograph was taken from the north-east chapel. LOCAL MOULDINGS. (PLATE III.) Little need be added to what has already been said about some of the mouldings shewn in this Plate. The majority of them illustrate the Papers on Great Chart and High Halden. Others have been included as a contribution to the study of local mouldings, whereby it is hoped some doubtful questions of date may ere long be finally settled. Those examples to which a date in figures is attached are approximately dated by documentary evidence; the dates suggested for some of the others may require revision. In writing upon Crayford Churoh in this Volume, I referred to the caps of the nave-arcades of Dartford as shewing a scroll-and-roll moulding. I was writing from memory, and the cymagram which has just been taken for mo by one of the school-teaohers (Mr. P. Bell) shews that the description is somewhat inaccurate. The aroades, however, are associated with work which undoubtedly is late-Deoorated, and, if Canon Scott Robertson's date for them is even approximately correot,f the capital is interesting as an example of the early debasement of the true soroll-and-roll moulding and the early introduction of the bevelled top in the abacus, and thus it would afford confirmation of the early date (middle fourteenth-century) which in this Paper I have ventured to assign to the arcades of Great Chart. The form of the capitals at Great Chart (No. 13; see also PLATE II.), almost always associated with some form of bellbase, is very common in Kentish churches, and very possibly it may eventually prove to be a fact that caps of this form originated at works connected with some Kentish-rag quarry, and that they were supplied with very little variation in form to all parts of the county throughout a prolonged period.! The question would be settled if we could organize a systematio collection of caref ully- * See the mouldings in PLATE III. t Canon Scott Robertson, in Archceologia Cantiana, Vol. XVIII., p. 384, expressed an opinion that " the whole work seems to have been completed by the year 1333." X The example from Wateringbury (No. 9) shews a later variation. 118 GREAT CHART CHURCH. measured sections, taken either with the oymagraph or with strips of lead in the way suggested hy the late P. A. Paley in his Gothic Moldings. The group from Ashford is interesting as shewing the evolution of the bell and cushion base and allied forms, of which the early fourteenth-century base at Horsmonden (No. 30) suggests the initial conception. No. 6, from Maidstone, shews an early example of the fully-developed hell and cushion base, of which Nos. 4 and 16 prove the use nearly a century later. The Maidstone sections, Nos. 6 and 6A, which are worked in Caen-stone, shew the contemporaneous use of the scroll-moulding and a debased form of scroll in the same building, even in the same capital, e.g., in the abacus and the necking in No. 6. Kentish rag is the material of most of the other examples. Recurring to the subject of the working of stones in the quarry, reference may be made to a fabric roll of Rochester Castle, dated 136g-$, and printed in Archceologia Cantiana, Vol. II., p. I l l et seq. Mention is therein made of free-stone from Beer, Caen, Stapleton, Reigate, and Pairlight; of rag from Maidstone ; and of a large quantity of wrought stone from Boughton Monchelsea. It appears that this last-named stone was ready-wrought at the quarries before being taken to Rochester. It was used for newels, coping-stones, drip-stones, strings, cornices, base-courses, and other like purposes. The free-stone in this case appears to have been worked at the Castle. But in our country churches in some districts comparatively little free-stone was used in the fourteenth and fifteenth centuries, and I doubt not that much of the stone for windows, doors, and arches was worked at the quarries at Boughton Monchelsea, East Parleigh, and other places near Maidstone. Perhaps a collection of masons' marks, as well as of mouldings, would throw some light on the subjeot. But the investigation suggested would not be confined to the fourteenth and fifteenth centuries, or to the use of Kentish rag only. I have myself noticed interesting relationship of work and workmen in two instances. The Church of Horton Kirby was undoubtedly built by the same masons as the choir of Roohester Cathedral, using the same moulds and the same kind of stone, early in the thirteenth century; and there are parts of the ohurches of High Halden, Goudhurst, and Horsmonden which were all designed by one man, and erected with stone from one quarry, early in the fourteenth century. " N _f r S '. V.I l\0 5 10 15 ao inches. L d I I 1 I 1 I I I I 1 I I 1 1 1 I 1 1 i J Ashford Hmxbi!/ 5a. N a v e , 14*. 6. A r c a d b. 5.Tfans.?V ^. T owe r , circa I475- VV^t"enngbury g.CbGncel-ar-cl^lsrfv? Dartford Q. Nave arcade., 1-^tk- Ga. Porch, \c«c« rVavPord 7 . SfrVrvg, j ^ ° ° - ^, o denial afcade, 15*. 10a. N-Chanel , ci^. 1500 Grfeat" Char f U.TovverOoor;) . . t i - e . Door, I»»«»-' 13, A r c a d e , J '^tfi- l^« M- AUl e ftpof,7mu..- 16. S . AisleKp©f>>,b'*' iG.M.thancel-Arc?, High Halden 18. Nave Arc<*4eo l.door* 2^ a.. Wall-$>lafe, 7 (Nave- JL^ b.TTe-be«m,5vRoof ,. Hi^h Halden 25b. «Tambj S.Torcii-i>oor,3 »4&»- early ~ Km. 2.4 a. Tie-beam, 7+ kUU Q± icik. 17, Vestibule X>oor-Jamb, I5"»• h o r s m o n d e n , earlvi<4-rit.- 30. Nave-ayes. 3.