The Ground Plan of the English Parish Church A. Hamilton Thompson 1528 downloads.pdf

The Project Gutenberg eBook of The Ground Plan of the English Parish
Church
This eBook is for the use of anyone anywhere in the United States and most other
parts of the world at no cost and with almost no restrictions whatsoever. You may
copy it, give it away or re-use it under the terms of the Project Gutenberg License
included with this eBook or online at www.gutenberg.org. If you are not located in the
United States, you will have to check the laws of the country where you are located
before using this eBook.

Title: The Ground Plan of the English Parish Church

Author: A. Hamilton Thompson

Release date: October 30, 2008 [eBook #27102]

Language: English

Other information and formats: www.gutenberg.org/ebooks/27102

Credits: Produced by Carla Foust and the Online Distributed
Proofreading Team at http://www.pgdp.net (This file was
produced from images generously made available by The
Internet Archive/American Libraries.)

*** START OF THE PROJECT GUTENBERG EBOOK THE GROUND PLAN OF
THE ENGLISH PARISH CHURCH ***

Transcriber's note
In the HTML version some of the illustrations have been moved beside the relevant
section of the text. Page numbers in the List of Illustrations reflect the position of the
illustration in the original text, but links link to current position of illustrations.

Minor punctuation errors have been corrected without notice.

An obvious printer error has been corrected. It is indicated with a mouse-hover, and it
is listed at the end.

All other inconsistencies are as in the original. The author's spelling has been
maintained.

The Cambridge Manuals of Science and
Literature

THE GROUND PLAN OF THE
ENGLISH PARISH CHURCH

CAMBRIDGE UNIVERSITY PRESS
London: FETTER LANE, E.C.
C. F. CLAY, Manager
Edinburgh: 100, PRINCES STREET

Berlin: A. ASHER AND CO.

Leipzig: F. A. BROCKHAUS
New York: G. P. PUTNAM'S SONS
Bombay and Calcutta: MACMILLAN AND CO., Ltd.
All rights reserved

Hedon, Yorkshire: nave from N.W.

THE GROUND PLAN
OF THE ENGLISH
PARISH CHURCH
BY

A. HAMILTON THOMPSON
M.A., F.S.A.

Cambridge:

at the University Press
1911

Cambridge:
PRINTED BY JOHN CLAY, M.A.
AT THE UNIVERSITY PRESS

With the exception of the coat of arms at the foot, the design on the title page is a
reproduction of one used by the earliest known Cambridge printer, John Siberch, 1521

PREFACE
There is as yet no book entirely devoted to the development of the plan of the parish
church in England, and the body of literature which bears upon the subject is not very
accessible to the ordinary student. The present volume is an attempt to indicate the
main lines on which that development proceeded. It is obvious that, from necessary
considerations of space, much has been omitted. The elevation of the building, and the
treatment of its decorative features, window-tracery, sculpture, etc., belong to another
and wider branch of architectural study, in which the parish church pursues the same
line of structural development as the cathedral or monastic church, and the
architectural forms of the timber-roofed building follow the example set by the larger
churches with their roofs of stone. To this side of the question much attention has been
devoted, and of late years increasing emphasis has been laid on the importance of the
vaulted construction of our greater churches, which is the very foundation of medieval
architecture and the secret of its progress through its various "styles." It is expected
that the reader of this book, in which a less familiar but none the less important topic
is handled, will already have some acquaintance with the general progress of medieval
architectural forms, with which the development of the ground plan keeps pace.
Some historical and architectural questions, which arise out of the consideration of the
ground plan, and have an important bearing upon it, are treated in another volume of
this series, which is intended to be complementary to the present one.
The writer is grateful to his wife, for the plans and sketches which she has drawn for
him, and for much help: to Mr C. C. Hodges and Mr J. P. Gibson, for the permission
to make use of their photographs; and to the Rev. J. C. Cox, LL.D., F.S.A., and the
Rev. R. M. Serjeantson, M.A., F.S.A., for their kindness in reading through the proofs
and supplying suggestions of the greatest value.
A. H. T.

Gretton, Northants
26 January 1911

CONTENTS

CHAPTER I
THE ORIGIN OF THE CHURCH PLAN IN ENGLAND

SECTION PAGE
1. The basilican church plan 1
2. Problem of its derivation 2
3. Rival theories of its origin 3
4. The Roman basilica: old St Peter's 6
5. Basilicas at Ravenna 8
6. Tomb-churches and baptisteries 9
7. Centralised plans at Ravenna 10
8. Relative advantages of the basilican and the centralised plan 12
9. The basilican church at Silchester 13
10. Early churches in Kent and Essex 14
11. Bradford-on-Avon, Wilts. 16
12. Escomb church, Durham 16
13. Early Northumbrian churches 18
14. Wilfrid's churches at Hexham and Ripon 20
15, 16. Brixworth, Northants: other basilican plans 21
17. Exceptional occurrence of the basilican plan in England 24

CHAPTER II
PARISH CHURCHES OF THE LATER SAXON PERIOD

SECTION PAGE
18. The normal pre-Conquest plan 27
19. The western bell-tower 29
Plans in which the ground floor of the tower forms the body of the
20. 30
church
21. Barton-on-Humber and the centralised plan 33
22. Centralised planning in England 34
23. The Saxon lateral porch 35
24. Development of the transeptal chapel 36
25. Towers between nave and chancel 37
26, 27. Development of the cruciform plan 38
28. Influence of local material upon the aisleless church plan 42

CHAPTER III
THE AISLELESS CHURCH OF THE NORMAN PERIOD

SECTION PAGE
29. Survival and development of the aisleless plan after the Conquest 44
30. The nave of the aisleless church 46
31. Rectangular chancels 47
32. Churches with no structural division between nave and chancel 49
33. Churches with apsidal chancels 49
34. The quire 53
35. The transeptal chapel 54
36. Cruciform plans: North Newbald and Melbourne 58
37. Later developments of the cruciform plan 60
38. Symbolism in planning 62

CHAPTER IV
THE AISLED PARISH CHURCH

I. NAVE, TOWER, AND PORCHES

SECTION PAGE
39. Survival of the aisleless plan 64
40. The addition of aisles 66
41. Use of aisles for side altars 66
42. Twelfth century aisled plans 69
43. Ordinary method of adding aisles 70
44, 45. Consequent irregularities of plan 74
46. Gradual addition of aisles 77
47. Raunds church, Northants 79
48. Conservative feeling of the builders for old work 81
49. Aisles widened and rebuilt 83
50. Rebuilding of aisles as chantry chapels: Harringworth, Northants 84
51. Newark, Cirencester, Northleach, and Grantham 87
52. Naves lengthened westward 92
53. The western tower in relation to the plan 94
54. Engaged western towers, etc. 96
55. Rebuilding of towers 98
56. Porches 99
57. Position of the porch in the plan 99

CHAPTER V
THE AISLED PARISH CHURCH

II. TRANSEPTS AND CHANCEL

SECTION PAGE
58. Cruciform churches with aisled transepts 101
59. Addition of transeptal chapels 102
60. Variety of treatment of transeptal chapels 105
61. Transeptal chapels as a key to original ground plans 107
62. Incomplete cruciform plans 108
63. Irregular cruciform plans 110
64. Central towers with transeptal chapels 113
65. Transeptal towers 113
66. Lengthening of chancels 114
67. Encroachment of the chancel on the nave: Tansor 115
68. Chancel chapels 117
69. Churches with one chancel chapel 119
70. Chantry chapels attached to chancels 120
71. Effect of the addition of chapels on the cruciform plan 121
72. The aisled rectangular plan 124
73. Variations of the plan with aisled nave and chancel 126
74. Development of the aisled rectangle at Grantham 129
75. Deviation of the axis of the chancel 131
Index of Places 134

LIST OF ILLUSTRATIONS
Hedon. Interior of nave Frontispiece

FIGS. PAGE
1 Plan of old St Peter's 6
2 Plan of San Vitale, Ravenna 11
3 Plan of Escomb—typical Saxon church 17
4 St Peter's, Barton-on-Humber 31
5 Aisleless plan, 12th cent. 45
6 Birkin, Yorkshire: interior 51
7 Two aisleless plans with central tower 55
8 North Newbald 57
9 Sketch of older wall above nave arcade, Gretton 72
10 Plan of Raunds church 80
11 Plan of Harringworth church 85
12 Two plans, nos. 1 and 2, of Grantham church 88
13 Sketch of arch joining arcade to tower, Gretton 93
Plan of 13th cent. church: W. tower, S. Porch, transeptal
14 103
chapels
15 St Mary's, Beverley. Interior of transept. 111
16 Plans of Grantham church, nos. 3 and 4 130

CHAPTER I
THE ORIGIN OF THE CHURCH PLAN IN ENGLAND

§ 1. Side by side with the establishment of Christianity as the religion of the Roman
empire, there appeared a fully developed plan for places of Christian worship. The
normal Christian church of the fourth century of our era was an aisled building with
the entrance at one end, and a semi-circular projection known as the apse at the other.
The body of the building, the nave with its aisles, was used by the congregation, the
quire of singers occupying a space, enclosed within low walls, at the end nearest the
apse. In the apse, raised above the level of the nave, was the altar, behind which,
ranged round the wall, were the seats for the bishop and assistant clergy. This type of
church, of which the aisled nave and the apse are the essential parts, is known as the
basilica. The name, employed to designate a "royal" or magnificent building, had long
been applied to large buildings, whether open to the sky or roofed, which were used,
partly as commercial exchanges, partly as halls of justice. It is still often said that the
Christian basilicas were merely adaptations of such buildings to sacred purposes.
Some of the features of the Christian plan are akin to those of the secular basilica. The
apse with its semi-circular range of seats and its altar reproduces the judicial tribune,
with its seats for the praetor and his assistant judges, and its altar on which oaths were
taken. The open galleries, which in some of the earliest Christian basilicas at Rome
form an upper story to the aisles, recall the galleries above the colonnades which
surrounded the central hall of some of the larger secular basilicas. Again, the atrium or
forecourt through which the Christian basilica was often approached has been
supposed to be derived from the forum in connexion with which the secular basilica
was frequently built.
§ 2. However, while the atrium of the Christian basilica is merely an outer court, the
secular basilica, when planned, like the Basilica Ulpia at Rome, with direct relation to
a forum, was a principal building in connexion with the forum, but not a building of
which the forum was a mere annexe. Further, when we begin to seek for a complete
identification of the Christian with the secular basilica, we are met by the obstacle that
the secular basilica had no fixed plan. If we try to trace any principle of development
in its plan, we find that this development is directly inverse to that of the Christian
basilica. The secular basilica, in earlier examples a colonnaded building with its
central space open to the sky, became at a later time a roofed hall, either, as in the case
of the basilica at Trier, without aisles, or, like the basilica of Maxentius or Constantine
in the Roman forum, with a series of deep recesses at the side, the vaulted roofs of
which served to counteract the outward pressure of the main vault. The Christian
basilica, if it were a mere imitation of this type of building, would follow the same

line of development; but, as a matter of fact, the highest type of Christian church is
always a colonnaded or aisled building. And, even if the Christian apse derived its
arrangement from the apse or apses which projected from the ends or sides of the
secular basilicas, there is again a difference. The apse with its altar was the main
feature of the interior of the Christian church: it was the place in which the chief rite
of Christian worship was performed before the eyes of all. In the secular basilica the
apse was devoted to special purposes which set it apart from the main business of the
body of the building: it was an appendage to the central hall, not necessarily within
view of every part of it. In fact, the relation of the apse to the main building was
totally different in the two cases.
§ 3. It seems probable, then, that the identity between the two buildings is mainly an
identity of name, and that Christian builders, in seeking for suitable arrangements for
public worship, may have borrowed some details from the arrangements of the secular
basilica. It is natural, however, to look for the origin of a religious plan in buildings
devoted to religious purposes. The Roman temple supplied no help for the plan of
buildings which were required for public worship. Of recent years, it has been
customary to assume that the Christian basilica took its form from the inner halls of
the private houses of those wealthy citizens who embraced Christianity in its early
days. Such halls may have been used for Christian services; and if their plan was
adopted for the Christian basilica, the mature state of the basilican plan at its first
appearance can be explained. The atrium or entrance hall of the house is represented
on this hypothesis by the forecourt of the basilica; the peristyle, or colonnade round
the inner room, becomes the aisles and the space screened off at the entrance for those
not entitled to take full part in the service; the colonnade at the further end survives in
the arcaded screen which existed, for example, in old St Peter's at Rome; the apse
takes the place of the tablinum, where the most sacred relics of family life were
preserved; and the transept, which is found in some of the early Roman basilican
plans, represents the alae, or transverse space, which existed between the tablinum
and the main body of the hall. But these close analogies are the result of an
assumption by no means certain. It is always probable that the basilican plan had its
origin in a plan originally aisleless. Some, intent on its religious source, explain it as a
development of the plan of the Jewish synagogue. Others, regarding assemblies of
Christians for public worship as, in their essence, meetings of persons associated in
common brotherhood, have derived the basilica directly from the aisleless scholae
which were the meeting-places of the various confraternities or collegia of ancient
Rome. In these there is an apse at one end of the building; and, if we imagine aisles
added by the piercing of the walls with rows of arches and columns, we have at once
the essential features of the basilican plan. Each theory has its attractions and its
difficulties; and to none is it possible to give unqualified adherence. It may be stated,
as a tentative conclusion, that the basilican plan probably had its origin in an aisleless
form of building, and thus pursued a course directly opposite to the development of

the secular basilica. But it seems clear that, in many details of the plan, especially as
we see it in Rome, the peristyled hall was kept in mind; while in two features, the
arrangement of the apse and the occasional appearance of galleries above the aisles,
the secular basilica was taken into consideration. The policy of the early Christian
Church, when its services were sanctioned by the state, was to adapt existing and
familiar forms where they could be suitably reproduced.

Fig. 1. Plan of old St Peter's: (1) atrium or fore-court; (2) nave with double aisles;
(3) site of screen-colonnade; (4, 4) transepts; (5) apse with crypt below.
§ 4. The plan of the old basilica of St Peter at Rome, founded by Constantine the
Great, and destroyed early in the sixteenth century to make way for the present
church, explains the principal features of the basilican plan in its developed state. (1)
In common with other early basilicas in Rome, and in other parts of western Europe,
the entrance was at the east, and the altar at the west end, so that the celebrant faced
the congregation during the divine office. (2) The church was approached through a
cloistered atrium or fore-court, in the middle of which was a fountain, the place of
purification for those intending to enter the church. (3) At the west end of the cloister
three doorways opened into the nave of the church, and one on either side into the side
aisles. (4) The nave communicated with the aisles by a row of columns beneath an
entablature: there were also outer aisles, communicating with the inner by columns
bearing rounded arches. (5) The side walls of the nave, above the entablature, were
not pierced for galleries, but were covered by two rows of mosaic pictures, one above
the other, on each side, the upper row corresponding to the height of the space
between the outer and inner roofs of the aisle. Above this, the walls rose into a
clerestory, pierced with round-headed windows at regular intervals; and a high
entablature supported the great tie-beams of the wooden roof. (6) The quire of singers,
divided from the rest of the church by low screen walls, probably occupied the centre
of the western portion of the nave. (7) A tall open arch divided the nave from the
transept, which was of equal height with the nave, and projected south and north as far

as the walls of the outer aisles. Here probably were places reserved for distinguished
persons, near the platform of the altar. (8) West of the transept, entered by a tall and
wide arch, was the apse. Beneath the arch was a screen, formed by a row of columns,
under an entablature which bore statues of our Lord and the apostles: this crossed the
arch at the foot of the steps leading to the altar and seats of the clergy. (9) Beneath the
altar platform, and entered by doorways on each side of the flight of steps, was the
crypt or confessio, the traditional place of martyrdom of St Peter, and the resort of
pilgrims to the tomb of the apostles. The hallowed place was immediately beneath the
altar.
§ 5. The sixth century basilicas of Ravenna, Sant' Apollinare in Classe and Sant'
Apollinare Nuovo, differ in plan from the Roman basilicas (1) in the fact that they
have always had the altar at the east, and the entrance at the west end; (2) by
substituting, for a colonnaded atrium, a closed porch or narthex in front of the
entrance of the building. In process of time, two of the greater Roman basilicas, San
Paolo and San Lorenzo fuori le Mura, were enlarged in a westward direction, so that
the positions of the altar and entrance were reversed; and, in several of the early
basilicas at Rome, a space near the entrance of the nave was screened off, from which
penitents and catechumens might watch the service. But, in the first instance, the
eastern chancel and the structural narthex appear to have been introduced from the
eastern empire. Neither at Ravenna nor at Rome did bell-towers originally form part
of the plan of the basilica: the round campanili of both churches at Ravenna are
certainly later additions. It may also be noted (1) that ordinarily the aisles were single,
not double as at old St Peter's. (2) The columned screen of the apse at old St Peter's
appears to have been exceptional. The ordinary screen or cancelli, from which is
derived our word "chancel" for the space thus enclosed, was a low wall. This is the
arrangement at the basilica of San Clemente, in which the enclosed quire also remains.
(3) The transept, even in Rome, was an exceptional arrangement, and does not appear
in the basilicas of Ravenna.
§ 6. Another type of plan, however, was used in Rome for churches devoted to the
special purposes of burial and baptism. In this case the buildings were planned round
a central point, and at Rome were uniformly circular. Recesses round the walls of the
mausoleum-church contained sarcophagi: in the centre of the baptistery was the great
font. The church of Santa Costanza, outside the north-eastern walls of Rome, circular
in plan, with a vaulted aisle surrounding the central space, was built by Constantine
the Great as a tomb-church for his family, and was also used as a baptistery. Both
these uses were direct adaptations of pagan customs. The baptistery, with its central
font for total immersion, was simply a large bath-room, like the great rotunda of the
baths of Caracalla. The mausoleum preserved the form of which the finest example is
the tomb of Hadrian, now known as the castle of Sant' Angelo. In the course of the
middle ages, certain tomb-churches in Rome, with a centralised plan, were turned into
places of public worship. But, for the plan of the ordinary church, the basilica, with its

longitudinal axis, was general. In the eastern empire, on the other hand, the centralised
plan was employed from an early date for large churches; and in this way was evolved
the magnificent style of architecture which culminated in Santa Sophia at
Constantinople. Here the centralised plan was triumphantly adapted to the internal
arrangements of the basilica.
§ 7. The city of Ravenna, closely connected historically both with Rome and
Constantinople, contains a series of monuments which is of unequalled interest in the
history of the centralised plan. (1) The mausoleum of the empress Galla Placidia,
sister of the emperor Honorius, who died in 450 A.D., is a building of cruciform
shape, consisting of a square central space covered by a dome, with rectangular
projections on all four sides. The projection through which the building is entered is
longer than the others, and the plan thus forms the Latin cross so common in the
churches of the middle ages. (2) To the same period belongs the octagonal baptistery,
known as San Giovanni in Fonte. (3) In 493 A.D. Theodoric the Ostrogoth obtained
possession of Ravenna. To the period of his rule belongs the Arian baptistery, also
octagonal, known as Santa Maria in Cosmedin. (4) Theodoric died in 526 A.D. His
mausoleum is formed by a polygon of ten equal sides, with a smaller decagonal upper
stage, a circular attic above which bears the great monolithic dome. In the lower story
was the tomb: the internal plan is a Greek cross, i.e. there is a central space with
recesses of equal depth on all four sides. (5) In the year of the death of Theodoric, the
octagonal church of San Vitale was begun. It was consecrated in 547, when Ravenna
had become the capital of the Italian province of Justinian's empire. Its somewhat
complicated plan was clearly derived from an eastern source, but not from Santa
Sophia, which was not begun till 532 A.D. The central space is almost circular.
Between each of the piers which support the octagonal clerestory at the base of the
cupola is an apsidal recess, with three arches on the ground floor opening into the
encircling aisle, and three upper arches opening into the gallery above the aisle. On
the east side of the central space this arrangement is broken, and one tall arch opens
into the chancel, which ends in a projecting apse, semi-circular inside, but a half
octagon outside. The aisle with the gallery above thus occupies seven sides of the
outer octagon, the eighth side being occupied by the western part of the chancel.

Fig. 2. Plan of San Vitale, Ravenna: (1) narthex with flanking turrets, as
originally arranged; (2) central nave; (3) chancel and altar.
§ 8. Of the two types of plan, which can be studied so satisfactorily at Ravenna, the
ordinary basilican type is the more convenient. The long nave provides the necessary
accommodation for worshippers, the raised apse gives a theatre for the performance of
service within view of everybody, the aisles facilitate the going and coming of the
congregation, and prevent over-crowding. The centralised plan provides, it is true, a
large central area conveniently near the altar; but the provision of a chancel or altar-
space necessitates the grafting on the plan of a feature borrowed from the ordinary
basilica, which, as at San Vitale, breaks the symmetry of the design. At Santa Sophia,
the basilican chancel forms an indissoluble part of a centralised plan; but this feat is
beyond the reach of an ordinary architect. Even at San Vitale the planning is highly
complicated, and must be due to an architect of some genius. In addition to
complications of design, the centralised plan raised questions of roofing which did not
trouble the builders of the long wooden-roofed basilicas. The vaulted half-dome of the
basilican apse was a simple matter, compared with the mighty dome of Santa Sophia
and its cluster of abutting half-domes. It was in the centralised churches, with their
domed vaults and the groined vaults of their aisles, that the history of medieval

vaulting began. But, even when medieval masons had learned to regard the vaulting of
their churches as the controlling principle of their art, they left the centralised plan
almost entirely alone, and applied what it had taught them to the work of roofing
basilicas with vaults of stone. We shall trace the influence of the centralised church as
we proceed; but the influence of the basilica will be found to predominate in the
history of medieval planning.
§ 9. In England, as in other portions of the Roman empire, we might naturally expect
to find the basilican plan applied to the earliest Christian churches. The foundations of
a small Romano-British basilican church have been discovered at Silchester in
Hampshire. The apse, as in the Roman basilicas, was at the west end. The nave had
aisles, which, at the end nearest the apse, broadened out into two transept-like
projections. The entrance front of the church was covered by a narthex, the whole
width of nave and aisles. This feature, as has been shown, is of eastern rather than of
Roman origin; while the projections at the end of the aisles appear to have been, not
transepts like those at old St Peter's, but separate chambers corresponding to those
which, in eastern churches, flank the chancel, and are used for special ritual purposes.
In fact, the basilica at Silchester recalls the plans of the early basilicas of north Africa
more closely than those of the basilicas of Rome; while it has, unlike them, the
Roman feature of the western apse. This, however, gives rise to questions which, in
our present state of knowledge, are beyond solution.
§ 10. Of the seven churches which are usually connected with the missionary activity
of St Augustine and his companions, five, of which we have ruins or foundations,
certainly ended in apses; and the apse in each case was divided from the nave, not by
a single arch, but by an arcade with three openings, which recalls the screen-
colonnade at old St Peter's. But only one church in the group, the ruined church of
Reculver, followed the plan of the aisled nave of the basilica. From the description
which remains of the early cathedral of Canterbury, destroyed by fire in 1067, we can
see that it, too, was an aisled basilica, with its original apse at the west end. But the
first cathedral of Rochester, the plan and extent of which may be gathered from
existing foundations, was an aisleless building with an eastern apse. The church of St
Pancras at Canterbury, the lower courses of the walls of which in great part remain,
had an aisleless nave, divided from an apsidal chancel by a screen-wall with three
openings, that in the middle being wider than the others. The foundations of two of the
four columns which flanked these openings can still be traced. The walls of the
chancel, which was slightly narrower than the nave, were continued straight for a little
way beyond the screen-wall; and then the curve of the apse began. St Pancras also
possessed a square entrance porch, much narrower than the nave, at its west end, and
two chapels projecting from the nave on either side, half-way up its length. The
church is thus cruciform in plan. The western porch and the chapels seem to have
been added as the work proceeded, and not to have been contemplated in the original
design. The material of the building is Roman brick, and buttress projections occur at

the western angles of the nave and porch, in the fragment which remains of the south
wall of the chancel, and at the outer angles of the side chapels. Small buttresses are
also found at the angles and on the sides of St Peter's on the Wall in Essex.
§ 11. In one respect the plan of St Pancras at Canterbury is allied to that of the church
at Bradford-on-Avon in Wiltshire. At Bradford there remains one of the two porches,
which also were probably side chapels, projecting from the sides of the nave. But at
Bradford the remaining porch is larger in proportion to the nave than is the case at St
Pancras. There is no entrance porch on the west side. Further, the chancel at Bradford
is rectangular, not apsidal. Instead of a screen-wall with a central opening nine feet
wide, the wall dividing nave from chancel is pierced by a small arch only 3 ft. 6 in.
wide. The date of this little church is a matter of great difficulty; and the character of
its masonry seems to demand for it a later date than the early one popularly claimed
for it. The contrast with St Pancras is accentuated further by the fact that the internal
measurements of the nave show a different scheme of proportion. The nave of St
Pancras is some three feet broader in proportion to its length than the much shorter
nave at Bradford.
§ 12. A closer parallel to Bradford-on-Avon is found in the little church of Escomb,
near Bishop Auckland. No record of the early history of this building is known; but its
masonry is almost entirely composed of re-used Roman dressed stone-work. In this
respect it presents a contrast to Bradford. In another respect the two churches are
unlike. Both have their entrances in the side walls; but at Escomb there were no
original porches covering the doorways, while there are traces of what may have been
an entrance porch, like that of St Pancras, at the west end. But they have these points
in common: (1) the nave at Escomb is long in proportion to its width; (2) the chancel
is a rectangular eastern projection, narrower and much shorter than the nave; (3) there
is a solid wall of division between nave and chancel, pierced by a narrow arch,
broader than that of Bradford, but very much higher in proportion to its width. It may
be added that the walls of both churches are high in proportion to their length and
breadth, and that at Escomb the original windows are small openings with rounded
and flat lintel-heads, and with internal splays.

Fig. 3. Plan of Escomb—typical Saxon church.
§ 13. It is, however, with the plan that we are concerned. We now have met with three
separate forms in England, viz. (1) the rare basilican plan; (2) the "Kentish" plan of
aisleless nave with apsidal chancel; (3) the plan of aisleless nave with rectangular
chancel. We also have seen that the screen-wall is common to (1) and (2), while the
single chancel arch belongs to (3); and that side chapels and western porches are
found incidentally in (2) and (3). Now, the early date of Escomb, apart from the
evidence supplied by its masonry, can be suspected only by its analogy to the plan of
other churches of which the date is practically certain. Two such churches remain in
the same county of Durham. One is at Monkwearmouth, now a part of Sunderland. Its
nave and the lowest stage of its western tower represent, and in great part actually are,
the nave and western porch of an early Saxon church, which is generally identified
with the church built here by Benedict Biscop for the monastery which he founded in
672 A.D. The nave was originally aisleless, long, narrow and lofty: the entrance porch
had an upper story finished with a gabled roof, and a vaulted ground-floor with
entrances on three sides. There was evidently a chancel arch, and probably the chancel
was rectangular. The material of the building was not Roman; but, in the decoration
applied to it, Roman work was imitated. Only a few miles further north, Benedict
founded, in 680 A.D., the sister monastery of Jarrow. The long and narrow chancel of
the present church of St Paul was the body of a church somewhat similar to that of
Monkwearmouth. Stone-work which may represent the jambs of a broad chancel arch
can be traced in the east wall; but this cannot be stated with positive certainty. The
lower part of the tower, now between the present chancel and nave, may represent an
original western porch; but, in its present state, it is of much later date than the work
east of it, and its site must have been broadened when the tower was first planned. At
Jarrow there is no Roman stone-work; but one type of Roman masonry has been
imitated by the builders in the walls of the chancel, and small decorative shafts, turned

in a lathe after the Roman fashion, such as exist at Monkwearmouth, have been found
in the building. The inscribed stone, recording the dedication of the church, is
preserved in the wall above the western tower-arch: the date given is 23 April, 684
A.D. In this inscription the building, though aisleless, is called a basilica. The word
was now probably used to signify a Christian church, irrespective of its plan. A third
early church in this district is that of Corbridge, near Hexham. Here, as at
Monkwearmouth, the ground story of the tower was originally a western porch; while
the lofty arch between tower and nave is, like the chancel arch at Escomb, entirely
composed of dressed Roman masonry, and seems to have been removed from one of
the buildings of the Roman station of Corstopitum, as the arch at Escomb was
probably removed from the not far distant station of Vinovium.
§ 14. The date to which these four northern churches may be assigned is the half
century of the activity of St Wilfrid in England (664-709 A.D.). Bede's account of the
architectural work of Wilfrid's friend, Benedict Biscop, shows that he procured, for
the building of the church at Monkwearmouth, stonemasons and glaziers from Gaul,
who were acquainted with "the manner of the Romans." The account which another
contemporary, Eddius, gives of Wilfrid's church at Hexham, is clear proof that this
important building was a reproduction, in plan and elevation, of the aisled basilicas of
the continent—a fact in keeping with Wilfrid's life-long aim of bringing English
Christianity into closer touch with the main current of historic Christianity in Rome
and Gaul. The foundations of the outer walls of most of Wilfrid's church were
uncovered when, lately, the new nave of Hexham priory church was begun; but one of
its features has been long known, and is of the highest interest. The crypt for relics
below the apse and high altar consists of an oblong chamber, with a western vestibule,
approached by a straight stairway from the nave. In addition to the western stair, there
are two stairs which communicated with the apse. That on the south side remains
perfect, and ends in a passage and vestibule, through which the relic-chamber is
entered. The northern stairway leads through a passage to the western vestibule, at the
foot of the stair from the nave. The crypt of Wilfrid's contemporary basilica at Ripon
also remains: here the arrangement is less complicated; but the arrangement of the
main relic-chamber is equally the chief feature of the plan.
§ 15. The foundations of the Saxon church at Peterborough present many difficulties,
and may be of a later date than the foundation of the monastery in 655 A.D. But no
such difficulties of date or plan exist with regard to the large Saxon church at
Brixworth, between Northampton and Market Harborough. Its size and the fact that
Roman material has been much re-used in its building have given rise to the tradition
that it is a secular basilica applied to the purposes of a Christian church. As a matter of
fact, the Roman brick-work has been re-used in obvious ignorance of Roman
methods; so that this circumstance alone would make the legend improbable. The date
of the building can hardly be earlier than about 680 A.D., when a monastery was
founded here by a colony of monks from Peterborough. The plan originally consisted

of (1) a western entrance porch, with a lofty western doorway, and smaller doorways
on north and south; (2) a broad nave, divided from the aisles by arches, which spring
from large square piers of plain brick-work; (3) a rectangular presbytery, divided from
the nave by a screen-wall pierced with three arches; (4) an apsidal chancel, entered
from the presbytery by a single arch. On each side of the chancel arch, a doorway
entered into a narrow vaulted passage below the ground level, which probably formed
an aisle round a crypt below the apse. At a later date, probably in the period of quiet
following the later Danish invasions, the apse seems to have been rebuilt, polygonal
externally, semi-circular on the inside, and the central crypt-chamber was then
possibly filled up. The western porch was also used as the foundation for a tower, and
the western arch blocked up with a filling containing a lower doorway, through which
the circular turret for the tower-stair was entered. The aisles, either then or at a
somewhat later date, having probably fallen into ruin, were removed. The clerestory
of the nave remains, with unusually broad round-headed windows.
§ 16. The original plan of Brixworth has points in common with some of the other
plans which have been noted. In its triple arched screen-wall it recalls the Kentish type
of church; its rectangular presbytery between nave and apse is a development of the
chancel space which existed west of the spring of the apse at St Pancras. It shares its
western porch with St Pancras and two, if not four, of the northern group of churches.
In the north and south doorways of this porch it has kinship with Monkwearmouth,
and at Brixworth there are definite signs that these doorways led into passages which
may have been connected with other buildings of the monastery, or possibly even with
an atrium or fore-court. The aisled nave and the traces of a crypt bring it into relation,
not merely with Hexham or Ripon, but with the historical church plan of western
Europe generally. At the same time, the plan, regarded as that of an English church, is
exceptional. The aisled plan of the parish church was arrived at in spite, not in
consequence, of the few early aisled churches which might have supplied it with a
model. During the epoch which followed the Danish invasions the aisleless plan was
deliberately preferred: the rectangular chancel entirely superseded the apse. No further
example of the structural screen-wall occurs. In addition to those mentioned, only
three more pre-Conquest examples of crypts are known, and such crypts as occur in
parish churches after the Conquest are exceptional, and are usually due to exigencies
of site. Only three more aisled churches of unquestionably pre-Conquest date exist
above ground. Reculver has been mentioned. The others are Lydd in Kent, where only
indications of an arcade remain, and the complete basilican church of Wing, near
Leighton Buzzard, which has a polygonal apse with a crypt below. Wing is probably
much later in date than most of Brixworth, but one cannot but be struck by a certain
resemblance in construction between the two naves, and in plan between the crypt at
Wing and the remains of the crypt at Brixworth.
§ 17. These early churches have been treated at some length, because they contain
certain essential elements of planning in a state of probation. The basilican plan was

doubtless the ideal of English builders during the sixth and early seventh centuries,
but an ideal which was hard to compass where good building material was not
plentiful. Thus Augustine and his companions contented themselves in most instances
with a plan which recalled the aisled basilica, without following out its more elaborate
details. It is remarkable that they should have departed from the usual Roman custom,
and made their chancels at the east end of their churches: it is also remarkable to find
at St Pancras the western porch, the origin of which appears to be the non-Roman
narthex. Models existed, no doubt in the ruins of the Romano-British churches, which
they repaired; and we have seen that at Silchester there is a regular narthex, while, on
the other hand, there is a western apse. These models, however, were probably all of
one general type, in which the chancel end was formed by an apsidal projection.
When Roman Christianity reached the north, it had to contend with the efforts of
Celtic missionaries; and those efforts were not met by it effectively until, in 664, the
energetic leadership of Wilfrid secured a triumph for his party at the council of
Whitby. Of the Celtic churches of the north we know but little: it seems likely that
they were for the most part plain oratories of stone or wood, with or without a separate
chancel. The simplest form, obviously, which a church can assume is a plain rectangle
with an altar at one end. As the desirability of a special enclosure for the altar is
recognised, a smaller rectangle will be added at the altar end of the main building, and
so the distinction between nave and chancel will be formed. There are indications of
this natural growth of plan in some of the early religious buildings in Ireland. In
remote districts, as in Wales, the simple nave and chancel plan is general all through
the middle ages; and the smaller country churches often follow the common Celtic
plan of a single rectangle with no structural division. The ruined chapel at Heysham in
Lancashire, a work of early date, is an undivided rectangle in plan. This is the form
which would suggest itself naturally to the unskilled builder: the division of nave and
chancel into a larger and smaller rectangle is the next step which would occur to his
intelligence in the ordinary course of things. It is possible that Wilfrid and Benedict
Biscop found that their aims would be best served by adhering in certain instances to
the familiar Celtic plan, and so, while they hired foreign masons and craftsmen to
build and furnish their earlier churches, and to set the example of building stone
churches after the manner of the Romans, they were careful to avoid the prejudice
which insistence on a new plan would have excited. The simplicity, moreover, of a
plan like that at Escomb, which requires little architectural skill to work upon, may
have been a recommendation; and the fact that the construction of an apse is more
difficult than that of a rectangular chancel must have weighed powerfully with
English masons, both at this time and later. The fact remains that, in the early age of
our church architecture in stone, the aisled basilica was a rare exception, and the
rectangular chancel was, in the north, at least as common as the apse.

CHAPTER II
PARISH CHURCHES OF THE LATER SAXON PERIOD

§ 18. In later Saxon churches the aisleless plan and the rectangular chancel were
normal. Instances of an aisled plan after the seventh century have been noted already:
it has been seen that there are only two definite examples, and, although there may be
indications of others, these are few and far between and uncertain. The apsidal chancel
again is exceedingly rare. We have noted it in combination with other basilican
features at Wing: the instances in which it occurs again are very few, and in these, as
in the important monastic church of Deerhurst, there are other variations from the
aisleless plan. In by far the largest number of examples, the plan adhered to was that
simple one of which we have a complete prototype at Escomb. Late Saxon fabrics
which remain free of later additions are few; but there is a considerable number of
churches which still keep the quoins of an aisleless Saxon nave in situ, although aisles
have been added during the twelfth or thirteenth centuries. Such are St Mary-le-
Wigford and St Peter-at-Gowts at Lincoln, Bracebridge in the western suburb of
Lincoln, St Benet's at Cambridge, and Wittering, near Stamford. At Winterton in
Lincolnshire large pieces of the western part of both walls of the nave were kept as an
abutment to the tower, when aisles were added. Sometimes, as at Geddington and
Brigstock in Northamptonshire, the whole wall above the nave arcades is the upper
part of the wall of the aisleless building; and instances in which blocked window
openings, of a not improbably pre-Conquest date, remain in walls that have
subsequently been pierced with arcades, are exceedingly common. If an untouched
Saxon nave is a rare thing, an unaltered Saxon chancel is obviously rarer. The small
rectangular chancel of the large medieval church at Repton, in Derbyshire, is
practically unique; it was probably preserved for the sake of the crypt beneath, which,
at first a plain rectangular chamber, was subsequently, but still in pre-Conquest times,
vaulted in compartments supported by columns. But at Sidbury in Devon, where there
is a small rectangular crypt, the chancel above was rebuilt in the twelfth, and
lengthened in the thirteenth century, without any reference to the line of the walls of
the crypt below it. A good example of an unaltered late Saxon fabric is the church of
Coln Rogers in Gloucestershire. Here the western tower, built up inside the nave, is a
later addition, but the nave, rectangular chancel, and arch between them, are still
intact. The chancel arch, though by no means broad, is yet much wider than those at
Escomb and Bradford-on-Avon; and its width probably represents the normal width of
a chancel arch of this period.
§ 19. An addition occurs in most of these late Saxon plans, which had a great
influence on the subsequent, and even on the contemporary, development of the

church plan. We have noted that at Rome and Ravenna towers formed no part of the
original basilican plan, but were added later as campanili. In England it appears that
the tower formed no part of the plan until, at any rate, the epoch of the Danish wars.
Western bell-towers were very general by the beginning of the eleventh century. In
most of these towers, the ground floor forms an entrance porch; but it does not follow
that the western tower in England was generated by the heightening of the western
porch. The porches of Brixworth and Monkwearmouth were probably not heightened
until the western tower had come into existence elsewhere. An origin for the western
tower has been sought in the fore-buildings which occur in some of the early German
churches, and contain separate upper chambers. It may be that, derived from this
source, the western tower superseded the porch, and, where porches existed, they were
adapted to the new fashion.
§ 20. The towers of Earl's Barton, Barnack, and St Peter's at Barton-on-Humber, are
perhaps the most obviously interesting relics of Saxon architecture which we possess.
All are much larger in area than the normal western tower of the later Saxon period.
Earl's Barton is a western tower, and its ground floor has probably always served as a
porch: the rest of the church, however, is a medieval building of various periods. At
Barnack, again, the complete plan of the Saxon church has been lost. Here, however,
the western tower was something more than a porch. The doorway is not in the west,
but in the south wall; and in the west wall, inside the church, is a niche with a
triangular head, which was certainly neither doorway nor window, but a seat. Whether
this implies that the ground floor of the tower was used for special religious functions,
or for some purpose connected with the common life of the parish, is not clear; but it
shows, at any rate, that there was some good reason for the unusually roomy planning
of the tower. We stand on firmer ground at Barton-on-Humber. Here, again, a large
medieval church exists to the east of the tower. But upon its western side is a small
rectangular building of contemporary date, which was not a porch in front of the
tower, but a westward extension of the body of the church, the main entrances being
on either side of the tower. The foundations of a similar projecting building have been
discovered to the east of the tower, beneath the floor of the later nave. It is therefore
clear that the ground floor of the tower, or rather of a high tower-like building, formed
the body of the church, and that the eastern projection was the chancel. There are clear
indications at Broughton, also in north Lincolnshire, that this plan was used, at any
rate, once again. The tower at Broughton is obviously later than that at Barton: the
doorway, whose details are of a post-Conquest character, is in the south wall; and a
large circular stair-turret, like that at Brixworth, projects from the west wall. Probably
there was only a chancel here, and no western annexe to correspond. A similar stair-
turret occurs at Hough-on-the-Hill, between Grantham and Lincoln: the tower, now
western, has a doorway in the south wall, and probably stands mid-way in date
between Barton and Broughton. It is planned on a very ample scale, with thin walls
and a large floor-space. The main fabric of the church is altogether of a later date; and

there are no indications, at any rate above ground, of an earlier building east of the
tower. The size of the tower, the provision of a stair-turret, as at Broughton, to leave
the ground floor clear, suggest that here we may have a third example of the plan in
which the tower covered the main body of the church. The arrangement at Barnack
gives grounds for a suspicion of something of the same kind there. In all these cases
the tower has been a tower from the beginning; but at Barton-on-Humber the
uppermost stage was added towards the end of the Saxon period.

Fig. 4. St Peter's, Barton-on-Humber: from S.W.
§ 21. In these buildings we seem to discover the influence of the centralised plan,
acting through the channel of German art. It would be absurd to say that the plan of
Barton-on-Humber was inspired by the plan of the palace-church at Aachen, which
was an adaptation, with some improvement, of the plan of San Vitale at Ravenna. No
masterly intellectual effort, such as the Aachen plan shows, was necessary to plan a
rectangle with two smaller rectangles at either end. But the church at Aachen had

made the centralised plan familiar to the builders of western Europe. In Germany and
in France there are traces of its influence; and we may reasonably suppose that the
builders of Barton-on-Humber were acquainted with the existence of an alternative to
the usual plan of the church with a longitudinal axis, and did not arrive by haphazard
at their concentration of the plan upon a central point. One earlier example of the
centralised plan is known to have existed in England. In addition to his basilica at
Hexham, Wilfrid had built another church there in the shape of a Greek cross. The
description of it which we possess shows that the central space was the actual church,
that it was tower-like in form, and nearly circular in shape, and that the arms were
simply porch-like projections. Probably it was a combination of baptistery with tomb-
church. It is not likely that the simple plan of Barton was derived from that at
Hexham. Both were probably the result of continental influence; but, while the church
at Hexham may have been the work of Gallo-Roman masons in direct communication
with the general current of architectural progress, the church at Barton was probably
built by Englishmen, who adapted the centralised plan to methods natural to their
comparative want of skill.
§ 22. Neither at this time nor later did the centralised plan in England develop along
the lines suggested by Barton-on-Humber. No real development on such lines was
possible. In Germany, the achievement at Aachen made possible the polygonal nave of
St Gereon at Cologne and the centralised plan of the Liebfrauenkirche at Trier, as well
as many twelfth and thirteenth century churches whose complicated parts are planned
and massed together with relation to a central tower space. In England, however, the
habit of dealing with circular or polygonal forms made little progress; and our few
"round churches," the plan of the naves of which was a devout imitation of the church
of the Holy Sepulchre at Jerusalem, and our polygonal chapter houses, are almost all
that we have to show in the way of attempts at a definitely centralised plan. Our
church plan develops as the result of an effort to combine a series of rectangles
effectively; and, while this combination can be attempted in several different ways, it
is obvious that the rigid lines of the rectangle do not admit of that free scope in
centralised planning which is given by the circle or polygon.
§ 23. We have seen, however, that, even in the earliest days, there was a tendency to
admit additions to the simple longitudinal plan, which, in process of time, were bound
to give birth, if not to a definitely centralised plan, to something, at any rate, in which
a central point counted for much. A feature of the early cathedral and of St Pancras at
Canterbury, was the projection of porticus, porches or side chapels, from the nave.
These were entered by archways pierced in the centre of the lateral walls. In the
cathedral they had outer doorways, and formed the main entrances of the church, on
the north from the monastery, on the south from the city. The south porch contained
the altar of St Gregory, and, as Eadmer tells us, was used as a court of justice to which
litigants, in process of time, resorted from every part of England. In the north porch,
dedicated to St Martin, was held the school of the monastery. Upon both porches

towers were built at a date which cannot be ascertained, but was probably later than
the time of Augustine. Of the use of the porches at St Pancras, which did not contain
outer doorways, it is impossible to say anything definitely. Entrance porches, of which
one remains, projected from the sides of the church at Bradford-on-Avon: the outer
and inner doorways of the north porch are extremely narrow, and are placed west of
the centre of its north and south walls. It is possible, therefore, that there was an altar
in this porch, so that it served the double purpose of entrance porch and side chapel.
§ 24. As time went on, the western porch beneath the tower was disused as a public
entrance. The principal entrance of most churches is on the south side, west of the
centre of the aisle wall, and is usually covered by a porch. There is a Saxon example
of this at Bishopstone in Sussex, where, as at Bradford, room seems to have been left
for an altar on the east side. However, the main entrance of the ordinary Saxon church
was at the west end, through the ground floor of the tower. The porch in the lateral
wall seems to have been regarded primarily as a side chapel; and in some later Saxon
churches the porches were dissociated from lateral doorways, and were planned as
closed projections from the eastern part of the north and south walls of the nave. This
seems to have happened at Britford, near Salisbury, where archways remain on both
sides near the east end of the nave. At Deerhurst square projections were entered from
both sides of the nave, immediately west of the chancel arch; and it is probable that
there were somewhat similar projections at Repton. At Worth in Sussex, where the
north and south doorways of the nave are Saxon, and there is no western entrance or
original tower, there are large Saxon chapels projecting from the eastern part of the
nave, and entered by wide arches. The cruciform plan is sufficiently marked in the
conjectural restorations of Deerhurst and Repton. At Worth it is quite unmistakable.
§ 25. At Worth, however, in spite of the dignity of the lateral arches, the chapels are
still porch-like excrescences, larger in scale than usual, but lower in elevation than the
nave. In elevation their transept-like appearance is less noticeable than on plan.
Moreover, the length of the nave remains unbroken from west wall to chancel arch: no
central space is marked off to which these transeptal projections give emphasis.
Nevertheless, a suggestion of an intermediate space between nave and chancel is
given; and this space is definitely marked in the plans of churches which may be quite
as early in date as Worth—i.e. about the first half of the eleventh century—by the
admission of a tower between nave and chancel. The eastern part of the walls of the
nave at St Mary's in Dover Castle are continued upwards as a tower, with small
rectangular chapels projecting from the sides of the ground floor. Externally, no
division between the tower and nave is noticeable; but, inside the church, in addition
to the chancel arch and the arches into the chapels, a fourth arch is pierced in the
western wall of the tower, and so an intermediate space between tower and nave is
effectually created. At Breamore in Hants, a further step is taken. The tower space,
between nave and chancel, is of the same width as the nave; but, in addition to the
necessary internal division, an external division is also marked by the quoins of the

tower, which are complete to the ground. Only one chapel remains at Breamore, on
the south of the tower, entered by a narrow Saxon archway; but there was originally
another on the north.
§ 26. The chapels which project from these early "central" towers are, it is to be noted,
not true transepts. They are narrower than the tower, which is built up from the
ground, and not upon a system of piers and arches which require lateral abutments in
the form of transepts. The western tower is transferred, as it were, to a point near the
centre of the church, assumes the width of the nave, and is provided with transeptal
excrescences, to communicate with which its side walls are pierced. Such
excrescences are not necessary. At Stanton Lacy, in Shropshire, there is only one. At
Dunham Magna, in Norfolk, and other places, such as Waith in Lincolnshire, there
are, or were originally, none at all. The construction of the "central" tower upon piers
connected by arches was beyond the skill of the ordinary Saxon builder; and its
natural consequence, the development of the full cruciform plan, with transepts of the
height and width of nave and chancel, was thus out of his reach. We know, from
contemporary evidence, that one important abbey church, that of Ramsey, had a
central tower which was built upon piers and arches as early as 974 A.D.; and perhaps
this was the case in other large churches. But, even in the large church of Stow in
Lincolnshire, which is commonly taken on trust, without sufficient historical
evidence, as the cathedral church of the Saxon diocese of Lindsey, although an
advance in transeptal construction was made, the main principle was imperfectly
grasped. This church was made the home of a community of clergy about the
beginning of the reign of Edward the Confessor, by Leofric, earl of Mercia, and his
wife Godiva. It was restored after the Conquest by Rémi, the first Norman bishop of
Lincoln. The aisleless nave and chancel are Norman work of two periods: probably
the nave was rebuilt upon Saxon foundations. The transepts, however, of considerable
length and equal height with nave and chancel, were retained from the pre-Conquest
building. The tall jambs of the arches of the central tower also remain on all four
sides. The arches which they bear are of early Norman character; and the present
tower is a late Gothic structure, the arches and piers of which are built up on the inner
side of the older masonry. But the Saxon tower space, including the area of the arch-
jambs, is rather wider than the arms of the cross which project from it. The tower
formed a separate building, with quoins complete from the ground, and nave, chancel,
and transepts, instead of combining to support it, were mere excrescences from it,
entered by arches in its walls. Possibly the example of Barton-on-Humber may have
had to do with this treatment of the tower as a separate central pavilion, which may
have been deliberately preferred to the arch and pier treatment. In other respects the
plan is an advance upon the plans of Dover and Breamore. And the necessary advance
upon Stow is found in the church of Norton-on-Tees in south Durham. Here the tower,
between nave and chancel, rests on piers connected by arches. The arches have been
widened; two have been entirely rebuilt at a later date; and the rest of the church has

been subjected at different times to enlargement and rebuilding. In spite of this, we
have at Norton our earliest surviving example of a plan in which the various portions
of the church—nave, chancel, and transepts—are gathered together in one structural
connexion. The tower is to the east of the centre of the longitudinal axis of the church;
but structurally, it is the central point with regard to which the building is planned, and
the unity of the composition depends upon it.
§ 27. We have arrived thus at a centralised plan of cruciform shape, of which the
component parts are rectangular, the central space being approximately a square. The
examples which have been given cannot be proved to follow one another in
chronological order, but they represent successive steps in planning and construction,
of which Norton-on-Tees is the highest. The importance of the inclusion of the tower
in the plan is obvious. In its early appearances, its position is unsettled, but the natural
tendency is to place it above a main entrance; and this is usually at the west end of the
building. Where the builders aim at a simple centralised plan, the high central
rectangle will form, like the round or octagonal central space of Wilfrid's church of St
Mary at Hexham, ecclesia ... in modum turris erecta, and, as at Barton-on-Humber,
will possibly be heightened by a later generation into a real tower. The distinction of
the side chapel from the entrance porches, becoming more fully recognised, will lead
to the building of transeptal chapels at the east end of the nave; and thus an important
addition will be made to the ordinary longitudinal plan. The need of some central
building, against which these additions may abut, will be felt. The tower will thus be
introduced between nave and chancel, either as an independent structure, or as an
upward extension of part of the side walls. The transepts thus, as at Stow, can be
raised to an equal height with nave and chancel. From this to a plan in which the
component parts are recognised as interdependent, and are closely knit together in
structural unity, is an obvious step. At this point, architectural skill, as distinct from
mere building ingenuity, comes into play.
§ 28. As we proceed, we shall find survivals of old plans, even at an advanced period
in the middle ages, which prove that progress in architecture was by no means of an
uniform kind. Builders in remote, and especially in hilly, districts, from Saxon times
to the present day, have naturally restricted themselves to plans which require as little
cost as possible to carry out. Local building material is also an important
consideration. In districts where good building stone is to be obtained on the spot, or
where money is plentiful and water carriage is possible, the development of plan is
naturally rapid, and every fifty years or so, additions to churches will be made in
which the old plan will become entirely transformed. In woodland districts, the plan
will be controlled to no small extent by the requirements of timber construction. In
such regions, Saxon churches were probably built of wood. The only wooden church
of Saxon times which remains is that of Greenstead in south Essex, with a rectangular
chancel and aisleless nave constructed of vertical logs placed side by side, and framed
originally into a timber plinth. However, it may be stated as a general rule, that,

whatever may be the helps or hindrances to development provided by local materials,
the real starting-point of the parish church plan of the middle ages is in every part of
the country an aisleless plan; and that this plan consists either of a nave and chancel
with a longitudinal axis, or of a nave and chancel whose longitudinal axis is
intersected by a transverse axis across transepts. Variations, no doubt, occur; but these
will never carry us far from one or other of these fundamental plans. The aisled
basilica of the continent found no scope for itself in Saxon England; and it was
through an interval of aisleless building that the aisled plan eventually became
acclimatised, and then in a form which bears only a superficial kinship to the basilican
plan.

CHAPTER III
THE AISLELESS CHURCH OF THE NORMAN PERIOD

§ 29. During the century after the Norman Conquest, the great abbey churches and
cathedrals represent the work of a foreign architectural school, gradually acclimatising
itself in England; while, on the other hand, the parish church continued to be planned
by local men, open to receive the improvements which more skilled foreign masons
had introduced. Consequently, while local art received a continually increasing
refinement, the plan of the church developed upon traditional lines, and not upon
those novel lines which foreign masons would have laid down for it. The chief proof
of this is seen in the persistence of the aisleless plan with rectangular chancel and
western tower. The tendency of a Norman builder would be to design his church with
an apsidal chancel, transepts, and a central tower; his practice would vary, but this
would be his favourite plan. On the other hand, the rectangular chancel and western
tower remained the favourite terminations of the parish church in England. But, while
a large number of rubble-built, unbuttressed Norman towers, usually heightened or
otherwise altered in the later middle ages, remain in many parts of England, their
relation to the plan suffers some change. The ground floor of the Saxon tower was, as
we have noticed, the main entrance to the church. The Norman western tower either
contained no western doorway at all, or provided merely an entrance, which was used
only on special occasions. At Caistor the ground floor was probably the main porch of
the aisleless church; and there are exceptional instances, as at Finchingfield in Essex,
where, in fairly advanced Norman work, the same arrangement was clearly
contemplated. On the other hand, at Laceby, between Caistor and Grimsby, a south
doorway, coeval with the western tower, has always been the main entrance to the
church. Similarly, at Hooton Pagnell, and at Blatherwycke in Northamptonshire, south
doorways, of the same age as the tower, form the chief entrance. These last three are
early Norman examples; but we may go back even further, to find the same thing in
churches which are usually reckoned as late Saxon work, at Heapham in Lincolnshire,
and Kirk Hammerton, between York and Boroughbridge. In south Yorkshire there are
a few churches of the middle of the twelfth century whose western towers are
noticeably derived, in their plan and general construction, from the Saxon type—
Birkin, Brayton, and Riccall. But in all three, the main entrance to the church was
made through a south doorway, the arch of which is covered with elaborate late
Norman ornaments. The western tower was thus reduced to the state of a bell-tower at
one end of the church, and, while increasing in size and in magnificence, was actually
a less indispensable part of the plan than before.

Fig. 5. Aisleless plan: 12th century.
§ 30. The nave of the Norman aisleless church was usually short, and, where the
church was entirely rebuilt, rather wide in proportion to its length. The naves of
churches like Garton-on-the-Wolds or Kirkburn in Yorkshire, give the effect of
spacious halls, of no great length, but wide and lofty. It cannot be doubted, however,
that the fabric of the Saxon church was frequently kept, or that the church was rebuilt
upon Saxon foundations. It is not unusual, as already stated, to find Saxon quoins still
existing at the angles of naves to which aisles have subsequently been added.
Evidences, on the other hand, of the westward lengthening of a Saxon nave in the
Norman period appear to be rare. At North Witham in south Lincolnshire, the south
and (blocked) north doorways are Norman work, in the usual position near the west
end of the nave. East of them, however, in the centre of the nave walls, there are
distinct traces of the inner openings of a north and south doorway, which may belong
to the late Saxon period. That we have here a case of the twelfth century lengthening
of an earlier nave may be inferred. The probability is increased by the fact that, in the
neighbouring church of Colsterworth, where aisles were added during the early
Norman period to a late Saxon fabric, the nave and aisles, towards the end of the
twelfth century, were certainly extended a bay westward. As little architectural work is
done without a precedent, we may assume that the builders at Colsterworth were
following the example of North Witham.
§ 31. The great majority of Norman rectangular chancels have been lengthened and
enlarged; for the plain "altar-house" at the east end of the nave was too small for the
purposes of the ritual of the thirteenth and fourteenth centuries, and afforded no
intermediate space between nave and chancel. However, short and approximately
square chancels were by no means invariable; and, before the middle of the twelfth
century, oblong chancels of considerable length in proportion to their width were
being built. There is a good early twelfth century example at Moor Monkton, in the

Ainsty of York; and the chancel of the middle of the twelfth century at Earl's Barton,
Northants, is of considerable depth, and was of ample size for all later purposes. At
Earl's Barton the eastern portion was the chancel proper; while the western portion
supplied that space for a quire which was not provided in less elongated plans. In by
far the larger number of cases, the rectangular chancel had a wooden roof. There is,
however, a fair number of churches in which the system of ribbed vaulting, as
employed in larger buildings, was used. Thus at Heddon-on-the-Wall,
Northumberland, there is a small square chancel with a ribbed vault. At Warkworth,
there is a long vaulted chancel of two bays, built during the first quarter of the twelfth
century; and at Tickencote, Rutland, two bays are combined in one by the use of
sexpartite vaulting. In these cases the chancel arches are wide, forming the western
transverse arches of the vaulting: that at Tickencote is of remarkable magnificence.
§ 32. There are certain cases in which the chancel was of the same width as the nave,
and no structural division existed between them. At Askham Bryan and at the chapel
of Copmanthorpe, near York, the plan, externally and internally, is a plain undivided
oblong. At Tansor, Northants, the chancel was rebuilt about 1140, when the side walls
were set back in a line with those of the nave. In St Mary's in the Castle at Leicester,
the long and very narrow nave was, as may still be clearly seen, continued eastward
without a break into the long and narrow quire and chancel. Here the eastern half was
used, no doubt, by the college of dean and canons, while the western half was the
parish church. The beautiful church of St Peter, Northampton, built towards the end of
the third quarter of the twelfth century, gives us a complete example of an undivided
plan, aisled throughout save in the eastern bay, which forms a projecting chancel east
of the aisles of the choir.
§ 33. Hitherto we have dealt merely with the rectangular chancel. But there are also
churches which end in an eastern apse. These are comparatively few and exceptional.
In Yorkshire, where the number of Norman rectangular chancels is large, and
buildings such as Adel exhibit the aisleless church in its highest state of architectural
development, the number of apsidal chancels can be counted on the fingers of one
hand. In Sussex, where Caen stone was largely used, and we should expect foreign
influence to be noticeable, the proportion of apsidal chancels is small. In
Gloucestershire, the Cotswold district contains several small Norman churches, which
have been little altered: the rectangular chancel is universal. These are typical
districts; and, to state a general rule, we may say that, while the apsidal chancel is
foreign to no part of England, and occurs in unexpected places, as in the chapel of Old
Bewick, Northumberland, it is never general in any single region. Its rarity is an
important fact. Were our parish churches the work of masons sent out from the larger
churches and monasteries, we should expect to find it a common feature; for in those
buildings the apsidal plan prevailed. But, in the hands of local masons, its sparing
employment is easily explained. To build an apse needs skill, not only in planning, but
in stone-cutting. The question of vaulting the apse increases the difficulty and the

expense. These difficulties would not trouble masons who had worked at the building
of Durham or Ely or Winchester; nor would expense trouble the monasteries, which,
according to the popular idea, were so ready to lavish money on the fabrics of parish
churches. Many apsidal chancels have disappeared, no doubt; but, if we take the bulk
of those which remain into account, we shall find that they have a habit of occurring
in small groups, as in Berkshire, where three occur together within a single old rural
deanery, and that the large majority of the churches in which they are found were not
monastic property. A few belonged to preceptories of Knights Templars in their
neighbourhood; and perhaps we may see in their apses a reference to the circular form
of the Holy Sepulchre. But, as a rule, we may say that a band of masons in certain
neighbourhoods developed some skill in building apses, that money was forthcoming,
and that so a few examples came into existence. In one curious instance, Langford in
Essex, which is within easy distance of four or five other apsed churches, there is an
apse at the west, and there are foundations of another at the east end of the building.
For this church a Saxon origin has been claimed: the plan, at any rate, indicates a
survival of a plan once common in western Christendom, and especially in the
German provinces. In apsed churches, like Birkin in Yorkshire, the apse does not
spring from points directly east of the chancel arch. The arch is wide and lofty; behind
it is a nearly square rectangular space, which is divided from the apse by another arch.
At Birkin the apse has ribbed vaulting, which allows the walls to be pierced freely for
windows. At Copford in Essex, Old Bewick, and other places, the roof is a half-dome
without ribs: this allows for the display of mural painting, but admits of less light.

Fig. 6. Birkin, Yorkshire: interior.
§ 34. The most important feature in the apsidal plan is the provision of the distinctly
marked quire space between the nave and chancel. This space also occurs in plans
where the chancel is rectangular; but in such cases it becomes the ground story of a
tower. There are famous examples of this at Iffley, near Oxford, and Studland in
Dorset, where the chancels are vaulted. Coln St Denis in Gloucestershire, where the
tower is of very wide area, and projects noticeably north and south of nave and
chancel; and Christon in Somerset, are further instances of the plan. The tower
between nave and chancel, without transepts, is seldom found in an apsidal plan. It
occurs at Newhaven in Sussex, where there is a small apse. Here the plan is virtually
that of some small parish churches in Normandy, such as Yainville, near Jumièges.
The majority of such plans in England, however, end in a rectangular chancel.
Precedent for the plan is, as we have seen, to be found in Saxon churches. At St
Pancras, Canterbury, we have noticed the westward prolongation of the apse: at

Brixworth a definite presbytery or quire space was planned, on a large scale, between
apse and nave. In later Saxon churches, where the chancel was rectangular, a tower,
with or without transeptal chapels, was sometimes built between nave and chancel;
and here, although externally the division was not always clearly marked, an internal
quire space was divided off from the nave by the western arch of the tower. The
aisleless plan, therefore, with a tower above the quire, and a rectangular chancel,
points to a development along old-fashioned lines, even in churches in which, as at
Iffley, the builders have acquired great skill in expressing themselves in Norman
terms. In certain districts, as in Gloucestershire, this plan was a favourite one. Even in
the fourteenth century, Leckhampton church, near Cheltenham, was rebuilt in faithful
adherence to this tradition. Here the tower is narrower than the small chancel, and the
nave has a south aisle.

Fig. 7. Two aisleless plans with central tower: (1) tower between nave and
chancel; (2) tower over crossing of transepts with nave and chancel.
§ 35. In the cases of Dover, Breamore, Stow, and Norton, we have watched the
gradual evolution of the cruciform plan with central tower. It must be noted once more
that to the cruciform plan the central tower built on piers and arches is essential. It is
possible, as in the Gloucestershire churches of Almondsbury and Avening, to pierce
the north and south walls of a tower and add transeptal chapels: the plan will have a

cruciform appearance, but will still be only an elongated plan with lateral additions. It
is possible, in a church where there is no central tower at all, to extend the side walls
at right angles north and south, and so form transepts; but here again the transepts
have no structural reference to a central point in the plan, but are mere widenings of
the nave or aisles. The thirteenth century aisleless churches of Potterne, in Wiltshire,
and Acton Burnell, in Shropshire, are both cruciform in plan. The church at Potterne
was planned throughout with reference to the crossing of transepts, nave, and quire,
above which its central tower rose: the tower space is the central point of the whole.
But, at Acton Burnell, there is no central tower or space: the body of the church
consists of a long aisleless nave and an aisleless chancel beyond; and the transeptal
chapels are simply stuck on, as it were, to the eastern part of either wall of the nave.
This is at once noticeable in elevation, when the chapels are seen to be mere
excrescences, with roofs lower than the nave. Moreover, where there is a true central
crossing, with a tower above, such as we find in almost all our cathedrals, a transept
on either side is necessary for the support of the tower. The transepts need not be
wholly symmetrical, although in most cases they are; but they must be there. On the
other hand, where there is no central tower, and the crossing is merely apparent,
symmetry of treatment is quite unnecessary. While there are two transeptal chapels of
similar size at Acton Burnell, or at Achurch in Northamptonshire, there are far more
instances in which a less regular treatment was adopted. Thus, at Childs Wickham in
Gloucestershire, and Montacute in Somerset, there is only one transeptal chapel, in
each case on the north side. At Corbridge in Northumberland, transeptal chapels,
extended outwards from the aisle walls, are of different lengths. At Medbourne in
Leicestershire, a long aisleless transeptal chapel was built out from the north side of
the nave in the thirteenth century. Within the next fifty years a south chapel was built,
but, instead of copying the proportions of the northern chapel symmetrically, the
builders gave their new chapel a much greater width, and placed its altars in an eastern
aisle. The plan is thus accidentally cruciform. At Acton Burnell and Achurch it is, no
doubt, designedly cruciform; at Montacute and Childs Wickham, imperfectly
cruciform. But all three varieties belong to one class, the longitudinal plan with
transeptal extensions. The structural feature which makes the truly cruciform plan, the
central tower upon arches and piers, is wanting. And this distinction between churches
planned from a centre, and churches whose plan follows a longitudinal axis, although
often overlooked, is essential.

Fig. 8. North Newbald, Yorkshire: tower arches, chancel and S. transept, from
N.W.
§ 36. A noble example of a Norman cruciform church, whose plan has suffered little
alteration, exists at North Newbald in the east Riding of Yorkshire. At each angle of
the crossing are masses of shafted piers, connected by wide and lofty rounded arches.
The nave, as is usual, is the longest arm of the four, so that the plan is a Latin cross. It
has north and south doorways: there are also doorways in the end walls of the
transepts, placed in the western part of each wall. In the east wall of each transept is
an arch, now blocked up, the filling being pierced with fifteenth century windows.
These arches are the openings of original apses, which contained the transept altars.
The chancel, probably always rectangular, was rebuilt in the fifteenth century. As a
corollary of the true cruciform plan, the four arms are all of equal width. At Bampton-
in-the-Bush, Oxon, where the plan of the church was greatly altered in the thirteenth
century by the addition of aisles, the Norman plan was very similar to that of North

Newbald. The cruciform plan of Melbourne, Derbyshire, with its aisled nave, was
probably inspired more directly by continental examples. The aisleless chancel was
vaulted, and ended in an apse, which was squared in later times by the addition of a
rectangular piece east of its springing points. Out of the east walls of the short
transepts opened wide apses, the walls of which joined the western ends of the walls
of the chancel. Thus, externally, the plan of the eastern part of the church was closely
allied to the plan with three apses which, in some of our larger churches, was derived
from Normandy. At Melbourne, however, there are important variations from this
plan. The chancel is short, there are no quire aisles, and the transept apses were
rounded externally. In the larger churches of Normandy, the side apses were at the end
of the quire aisles, and were usually squared externally, while the apses projecting
from the east walls of the transepts, as at Saint-Georges-de-Boscherville, were left
rounded. At Newbald and Bampton there seems to have been no attempt to give
complete unity of design, as at Melbourne, to the rectangular chancel and transeptal
apses. In any case, transeptal apses were the exception in the plans of our Norman
cruciform churches, although their convenience for holding altars is obvious.
§ 37. The cruciform plan, beautiful as it is, was never generally adopted. It was
inconvenient for purposes of public worship, as long as the rounded arch remained
fashionable. In our own day, even in churches where the central tower is carried on
high pointed arches, and the view of the altar is practically unhindered, the chancel is
cut off from the nave by the crossing, and the acoustic problem, which in modern
church planning is so necessary a consideration, is almost insurmountable. In the
middle ages, this problem was not so acute; but it was undesirable that the interior of
the chancel should be nearly invisible from the nave. At Newbald the tower arches are
planned upon a liberal scale: at Bampton, on the other hand, where the eastern tower
arch is left, the others having been rebuilt in the thirteenth century, it is very low. The
low tower arches at Burford, Oxon, and the narrow arches at St Giles, Northampton,
are examples of the way in which the supports of the Norman central tower interfered
with the internal convenience of churches. It was not until much later that this
difficulty was solved, and then only in one or two cases, when the cruciform plan had
become exceptional. The plans of Bampton, Burford, and Witney, show how the
builders of west Oxfordshire experimented in cruciform planning. The division
between chancel and nave is felt much less at Witney than in the other two churches;
for the great thirteenth century tower and spire, resting upon massive piers joined by
pointed arches, throw a considerable portion of their weight upon nave and transept
arcades, whose exceptional massiveness gives unity to the whole design. In the
fifteenth century, however, the rebuilders of the aisleless church of Minster Lovell,
between Witney and Burford, solved the problem by removing the supports of their
square central tower from the angles of the crossing to points entirely within the
church, and building arches from the piers thus formed to the angles of the crossing.
The comparatively light piers, instead of hindering the view, allow of easy access

from the nave to the transepts, and there is hardly a point in the body of the church
from which seeing and hearing alike are in any way impeded. With the earlier
builders, however, the natural course was to leave the piers where they were, and
endeavour to lighten them as far as possible; and, in aisled churches, the difficulties
involved often led to the abandonment of the complete cruciform plan.
§ 38. The cruciform church gives occasion for a brief remark on one aspect of
medieval building which is often exaggerated. The revival of interest in medieval
architecture, in the early part of the nineteenth century, was accompanied by an
insistence on symbolism in the plan and design of churches. A minute symbolism,
which often was the fruit of pious imagination, or was derived from the fancies of
post-medieval writers on ritual, was read into every detail of the medieval church
fabric. It is true that, as has been said, some builders worked imaginatively, imitating
in the round naves of a few churches the rotunda of the Holy Sepulchre. Other
instances of devout imitation might be found, if we looked for them. But the imitation
of a concrete model is a different thing from translating abstract mysteries into the
plan and elevation of a building. And, although the ground plan with nave, transepts,
and chancel, certainly forms a cross; and, although, as time went on, the resemblance
to the chief symbol of the Christian faith was no doubt recognised and valued, the
plan itself, as we have shown, came into being from entirely natural causes. Where the
central tower was introduced, the plan was dictated by structural necessity. Where
there was no central tower, transeptal chapels provided accommodation for altars, for
which the body of the church afforded no convenience. In this and in other cases,
medieval builders were impelled by practical common sense and the requirements of
the services of the church; and symbolism, if it was a consideration at all, was purely
secondary.

CHAPTER IV
THE AISLED PARISH CHURCH

I. Nave, Tower, and Porches

§ 39. The variations of the aisleless plan, which have been indicated, are all of which
it is capable. Naturally, after the twelfth century, many aisleless churches were still
built, and are common in country districts. In their humblest form we find them in the
small churches of highland regions, the masonry of which is so rough that their date is
often a matter of doubt. Sometimes they have been rebuilt, with a lengthened chancel,
as at West Heslerton, near Scarborough. In many instances, we have aisleless country
churches rebuilt in the fourteenth and fifteenth centuries, with western towers. This,
uncommon in no part of England, is especially common in Norfolk and Suffolk; and
some of these churches, like Ranworth in Norfolk, have much dignity and
spaciousness of proportion. In some late Gothic churches the structural division
between nave and chancel is left out, and the building has been deliberately planned as
a spacious aisleless rectangle, of which the eastern bay is allotted to the chancel. This
happens at Temple Balsall in Warwickshire and the chapel of South Skirlaugh in
Yorkshire. Aisleless plans with one or two transeptal chapels are to be found all
through the middle ages: Acton Burnell represents a thoroughly symmetrical
employment of this type. On the other hand, aisleless cruciform plans with central
towers are by no means common after the twelfth century. Potterne is a perfect
development of this plan in the thirteenth century. There is a complete aisleless
cruciform plan at Othery, near Bridgwater, where the tall central tower is quite out of
proportion to the humble church above which it rises, and has necessitated substantial
outer buttressing. Here probably the church was rebuilt on earlier foundations,
transepts being possibly added. In many instances an aisleless cruciform church seems
to have been rebuilt on the lines of a complete Norman plan. This was with little doubt
the case at Acaster Malbis, near York, where the church is planned with direct relation
to the central space, but without a tower; and the foundations of earlier walls can be
traced all round the building, at the foot of the walls built in the fourteenth century.
The absence of the tower is an anomaly, but is one method of solving the problem of
the connexion between nave and chancel in the cruciform plan.
§ 40. Thus, if here and there we can detect novelties which make for improvements
upon the aisleless plan, the plan itself is subject to no general development upon its
own unelastic lines. The real course of development is to be traced in the gradual
addition of aisles to the church. Just as the basilica may have come into existence by

the addition of aisles to an aisleless building, so the parish church was enlarged by the
piercing of its walls for columns and arches, and the incorporation of aisles with the
main building. The usefulness of aisles is at once apparent. They afford greater space
for the distribution of the congregation. The aisleless church may be inconveniently
crowded from wall to wall: on the other hand, where spaces are left between the nave
and side walls, the congregation will mass itself in the nave, but the aisles will be left
free until the nave is filled, and thus there will be free access through the side
doorways for as long a time as possible. Aisles also afford a clear space for
processions, and allow them to turn inside the church at a certain point and without
difficulty. In addition to this, aisles form a convenient situation for the smaller altars
of a church, and, from an early date, were added with this view.
§ 41. A parish church usually contained more than one altar, even if served by a single
priest. In the small aisleless church of Patricio in Breconshire, in addition to the altar
in the chancel, there were two smaller altars, which still remain in place, on either side
of the central doorway of the rood screen. Such altars were dedicated in honour of
various saints; and mass would be said at them on the festivals of those saints and on
other occasions. The various popular devotions which came into being in the middle
ages, led to the multiplication of special altars and chapels. In cathedral and abbey
churches, where there were many priests, the provision of a number of altars was,
from the first, a necessity. To this is due the adoption, from the beginning, of the aisled
plan in our larger churches, where it is a direct inheritance from the basilican plan. At
Norwich and at Gloucester, for instance, the apse was provided with an encircling
aisle, which gave access to small apsidal chapels. The transepts also had eastern
chapels ending in apses. At Durham each transept had an eastern aisle, containing a
row of such chapels; and the abnormal development of the transepts in thirteenth
century churches, as at York, Lincoln, and Salisbury, and the occasional provision of
an eastern transept, or of a great transverse eastern arm, like the Nine Altars at
Fountains and Durham, was made with a view to the continually growing number of
altars and daily masses. In Cistercian abbeys, the churches of which were wholly
devoted to the uses of the monastery, the aisles of the nave were divided into chapels
by transverse walls. In the secular cathedral of Chichester, where the aisles had to be
left free, outer aisles, similarly divided, were made. Great French cathedrals, like
Amiens, not only have a complicated series of chapels opening from the aisles of the
apse, but have their naves lined with chapels, which were formed by removing the
outer walls of the aisles to a level with the outer face of the buttresses. The ordinary
parish church had no need of these elaborate arrangements, although in towns and in
districts where money was plentiful and its possessors recognised its true source,
plans hardly less spacious than those of the cathedral and monastery churches came
into being. But it is obvious that, in a church where there were no more than two or
three altars, space would be gained by removing them from the body of the church to
the end of the aisles. In some twelfth century churches there were probably altars

against the wall on either side of the narrow chancel arch; and, in later days, as at
Ranworth and Patricio, when the rood screen filled the lower part of a broad arch,
altars were placed against the screen. In the first case, the chancel arch might have
been widened; in the second case, the sides of the screen would have been freed, by
the addition of aisles into which the altars could have been removed.
§ 42. The most common plan of the aisled church is formed by an aisled nave with a
long aisleless chancel, western tower, and south porch. So common is this that it may
be spoken of as the normal plan of the larger English parish church. There must have
been, we already have said, a very large number of aisleless churches in England at
the time of the Conquest. Where Norman builders reconstructed parish churches, they
showed a distinct preference for the aisleless plan. But, in many churches, built about
or soon after the beginning of the twelfth century, aisles were planned and executed.
The walls of earlier churches were entirely taken down, and new arcades built in their
place, not necessarily on the precise line of the old foundations. Aisled twelfth century
naves on a magnificent scale may be seen, for example, at Melbourne in Derbyshire,
and Sherburn-in-Elmet, between York and Leeds. Both places were important
episcopal residences: Melbourne belonged to the bishops of Carlisle; the manor of
Sherburn was the head of a barony of the archbishops of York, who, all through the
middle ages, did much to promote architecture on their domains. Another twelfth
century nave of great magnificence is that of Norham-on-Tweed, which belonged to
the cathedral priory of Durham; and, although we must not assume that it was built at
the expense of the monastery, it doubtless owes its stately proportions to the influence
of the mother house. Less imposing in elevation, but richer in refined detail, are such
aisled naves as those of Long Sutton in south Lincolnshire, and Walsoken in west
Norfolk, which belong to the later part of the twelfth century. The plans in each case
are very regular; and the new arcades were probably built, at any rate in part, on older
foundations. These naves reach the extent, unusual in a parish church, of seven bays.
The nave of Norham is of five bays. Melbourne has five bays, but the plan of the
church was as exceptional at the west as at the east end. Western towers were planned,
but not completed, at the end of either aisle: this feature, probably imitated from
Southwell minster, was also contemplated at Bakewell in Derbyshire. Between the
towers was an extra western bay of the nave, divided into two stories, the lower
forming a vaulted return aisle, the upper forming a gallery. There are only four bays at
Sherburn, but here the aisles were continued as far as the western face of the tower.
The tower is thus engaged within the aisles, and its vaulted ground floor forms, like
the western bay at Melbourne, a return to them.
§ 43. But, when the question of adding aisles to a church arose, the builders were met
by the difficulty that the church was wanted constantly for service. The taking down
of the walls and the building of new arcades interfered with this necessary use of the
fabric. In our own day a congregation, driven out by builders or restorers, can resort to
a school room or mission room. In the middle ages, these alternatives were unknown;

and the church was positively indispensable. With this in view, the builders were
obliged to add their aisles without touching more of the main fabric than they could
help. Usually, then, they took the length of the existing aisleless building for the
length of their aisles. They then set out the aisles upon either side of the church,
building the outer walls, and dividing them into bays by external buttresses. Then,
opposite each buttress, they proceeded to break through the walls of the church.
Leaving a piece of the old wall to serve as a footing for each column, they built up the
columns in the thickness of the wall, the masonry being gradually removed as each
rose in height. The arches were made in the same way, the wall being removed by
degrees until the two sides of each arch met at the key-stone. The aisles were then
roofed, and, finally, the masses of wall which still remained beneath each arch were
broken down, and the nave and aisles thrown into one. The old masonry could be
removed through the doorways of the aisles; and sometimes one of the end walls of
either aisle was left unbuilt to the last, so that the masons could have free entrance for
new, and exit for old, material. The old walls of the nave, above the columns and
arches, were left untouched. In this way the upper parts of the walls of several Saxon
naves—more, probably, than we have opportunity of discovering—remain to us. The
north wall at Geddington in Northamptonshire is the most striking instance. The
practice was so common as to be general. In hundreds of country churches the plinths
on which the columns of the nave rest are probably pieces of the foundation of the
older wall, refaced, or even left in the rough. Instances are nearly as common in which
the heads of the new arches have blocked earlier windows; for, in the eleventh and
twelfth centuries, when glass was rare and expensive, and the openings were usually
closed by latticed shutters, the windows were set high in the wall. There is a
remarkable example of the retention of old work at Seamer, near Scarborough. To this
fine twelfth century aisleless church a north aisle was added in the fifteenth century.
The builders, possibly wishing to avoid expense, employed the old method, which in
those days of prosperity and general rebuilding had fallen into disuse. In order not to
interfere with the older windows, they deliberately made their arches very low: the
result is that, from the interior of the aisle, one can see that the old wall was almost
entirely kept, the new columns being built up on the line of the flat pilaster buttresses,
which were left unaltered above the capitals. Sometimes, the connexion between nave
and aisles was made by cutting arches at intervals in the wall, without building
columns. The north arcade at Billingham in Durham, and the thirteenth century
arcades at Tytherington in Gloucestershire consist of arches with large masses of the
earlier wall left between them. Such a method was economical, as much less dressed
stone was required; and we find it employed at Copford in Essex, where good
building stone was hard to get. Nevertheless, it prevented the free circulation of light
from the windows of the aisles, and practically shut off the aisles from the church.

Fig. 9. Gretton, Northants: arcade of nave showing blocked window head.
§ 44. There is one obvious consequence of the setting out of aisles on either side of an
existing building which, although an imperfection in itself, contributes greatly to the
variety of the parish church plan. The builders cannot see both their aisles at one and
the same time: the older church comes in between. In fact, until the nave and aisles are
actually joined, at the close of the work, by the breaking down of the walls beneath
the arches, there can be no opportunity of appreciating the full effect of the work.
There is a famous instance at Beverley minster of the mistakes to which the presence
of the older building may lead. The aisles of the nave were set out in the fourteenth
century on either side of an older and shorter nave. The south aisle was set out first,
the width of the eastern bay being measured from a new buttress in the angle of nave
and transept. On the north side there was a thirteenth century buttress in this position:
the builders, in setting out their north aisle, overlooked the fact that this buttress was
of less projection than the newly built one on the other side, with the result that their
buttress measurements throughout varied on both sides, while the standard of width
between the buttresses, which had been employed on the south side, was retained.
Consequently, as the columns, in a vaulted church, have to be built in line with the
buttresses of the corresponding aisle walls, the columns were not opposite one
another, and the discrepancy increased as the church advanced westward. When the
builders got clear of the intervening building, in the western bays of the nave, they

were able to rectify their mistake slightly; but the effect is unpleasantly noticeable in
the obliquity of the transverse arches of the vaulting.
§ 45. If errors like this could take place in churches where the width of the bays of the
aisles was calculated, they were much more likely to take place where builders
worked with less accurate ideas of measurement. In an unvaulted church, where the
pressure of the roof is not a serious factor in the construction, the exact
correspondence of pier to buttress need not be taken into account; and there are many
churches in which the spacing of the aisles is quite independent of that of the arcades.
This happens at Melbourne, where the church was not planned for stone vaulting. The
builders seem to have thought that they could get in six bays between the transept and
the space planned for one of the western towers; but found that, on the measurements
they had adopted, there was room only for five. They corrected their miscalculation by
broadening the division of the wall between the fourth and fifth bay of the aisles.
When they came to build the arcades, they were conscious of their previous error, and
planned them in five equal bays irrespective of the plan of the aisles. In churches of
the fourteenth and fifteenth centuries, especially in districts like Norfolk or south
Lincolnshire, where much rebuilding was done, the regularity of plan is often
remarkable. The nave of the famous church of Heckington, near Sleaford, was
planned with an exact correspondence between aisles and arcades: pier is opposite
buttress, window opposite window. Islip and Brampton Ash in Northamptonshire
show an equal accuracy. But, while such agreement is desirable, it is neither necessary
nor general. And, where the arcades are broken through earlier walls, the
correspondence is seldom very precise. The central line of the east walls of the aisles,
as set out first, will usually correspond to a line drawn across the centre of the chancel
arch: similarly, the line of the west walls will be an extension of the west wall of the
nave, or of a line drawn across the tower arch. The aisles will be spaced into as many
equal, or nearly equal bays, as can be got in between the buttresses at either end.
When, however, the building of the arcade is taken in hand, the responds or half-piers
at either end will seldom be built directly against the piers of the chancel arch, or
against the west wall of the nave; but projecting pieces of the old walls will be left as
a backing to them. It follows that, although the arcade may be divided into the same
number of bays as the aisles, the standard of spacing will be different, and
consequently, unless a very regular system of planning is adopted, the piers will not be
exactly opposite the solid portions of the aisle walls, and consequently the centres of
the arches will be out of line with the centres of the windows. Again, it may be that,
by accident or design, the backing for the responds may project more on one side of
the nave than on the other, at either or both ends. The result will be that the piers of
one arcade will be out of line with those of the arcade opposite. That discrepancies of
this kind were sometimes the result of intention cannot be denied; but there is
generally some practical reason to be found for the intention, and the discrepancies
themselves were a pis aller which the builders would have avoided, if they could.

That deliberate irregularity with which medieval masons are sometimes credited is a
fancy, which careful consideration of the circumstances will dispel.
§ 46. Hitherto we have spoken of the aisled nave as though both aisles were planned at
one and the same time. This, however, was by no means always the case. At Gretton
in Northamptonshire, the north aisle was built soon after the beginning of the twelfth
century: the south aisle followed twenty or thirty years later. The north arcade at
Northallerton is of massive twelfth century work, with rounded arches: the south
arcade was added in the thirteenth century, and has slender columns with pointed
arches. In such cases, the north aisle may have been built first, to avoid interference
with the burial ground south of the church. Very often only one aisle was added. The
little church of Whitwell, Rutland, has a south aisle, added in the fourteenth century,
with a chapel at its east end. No north aisle was built: but a drain in the north wall of
the nave shows that there was a third altar against the north side of the rood screen.
Usually, when one aisle was built long after another, the spacing of the new arcade
was made to correspond with that of the old. If the old arcade had heavy twelfth
century columns, the new one, with its lighter columns, would have broader arches.
But it sometimes happens that the old spacing was disregarded, for very good reasons.
The north arcade of Middleton Tyas church, in north Yorkshire, consists of six bays:
the columns are heavy, the arches low and round headed, and very narrow. The
interior of the church must have been very dark; and the builders of the south aisle, in
the fourteenth century, aimed at throwing more light upon it. They therefore planned
their new arcade, with broad pointed arches springing from octagonal columns, in four
instead of six bays, and so, from broad windows in the aisle, introduced the necessary
light. Something of the same kind happened at Theddingworth in Leicestershire: the
effect is, of course, one-sided, but in both cases the light admitted enhances the merits
of the earlier arcade, which, until then, had to be taken on trust.
§ 47. But there are further instances—and these, perhaps, are the most instructive—
where aisles were not merely built at two different periods, but where the growth of
one or both aisles was gradual. As an instance of this, may be cited the beautiful
church of Raunds in Northamptonshire. Raunds seems to have been one of those cases
in which the Norman chancel and nave were of the same width, and possibly were
undivided by any chancel arch. In the thirteenth century the west tower and spire were
built, and a broad south aisle was added to the nave. This aisle was of four bays, and
the point at which it stopped probably marked the dividing line between the nave and
chancel. However, the builders certainly intended to carry on the aisle eastward, as a
south chapel to the chancel, which they now rebuilt and lengthened. Early in the
fourteenth century, the south aisle was continued eastward, an arcade of five bays
being added to the four bays already existing. The new bays were made rather
narrower than those in the earlier part of the arcade. A strange feature of the new work
was the insertion of a chancel arch, the south pier of which bisects one of the new
arches. Thus, while three bays and a half of the new arcade belong to the chancel and

quire, a bay and a half belong to the nave. The arch dividing the south aisle from the
chancel chapel springs from the pier between the end of the old arcade and the
inserted pier of the chancel arch. At the same time, the outer wall of the south aisle
seems to have been practically rebuilt, although much of the older work was retained.
There may have been a thirteenth century north aisle as well. Whether this was the
case or no, a new north aisle and arcade were built during the fourteenth century. The
aisle was set out in seven bays, six of which contained broad three-light windows,
while a north doorway was made in the third bay from the west end. The east wall was
built on foundations in a line with the chancel arch, while the west wall was in a line
with the tower arch and west wall of the south aisle. It is obvious, therefore, that the
planning of the new aisle was totally different from that of the older aisle and chapel.
However, when the builders came to their arcade, instead of building it in seven bays,
as the new aisle demanded, they built it in five, setting their new columns in a line
with those on the opposite side. But while, on the south side, there was an awkward
half-bay between the end of the arcade and the chancel arch, a solid piece of wall was
left between the north pier of the chancel arch and the eastern respond of the new
arcade. A compromise was thus effected between the aisles, and an appearance of
regularity was ensured. Directly, however, one begins to examine the plan of the
church, and to trace the transverse lines from window to window, and buttress to
buttress, it will be found that only in one place can a line be drawn which will pass
straight from the centre of one buttress to that of the buttress opposite, and will pass
through the centre of the intervening columns on its way.

Fig. 10. Plan of Raunds church, Northants.
§ 48. It already has been shown that builders were very unwilling, in making
their additions to churches, to destroy old work altogether. At times they
displayed an extraordinary conservatism in their re-use of old material in
their new work. This was not invariable. In the splendid churches of south
Lincolnshire, during the fourteenth century, their aim seems to have been
complete rebuilding; and such examples as the magnificent nave at Swaton,
near Sleaford, or the neighbouring church of Billingborough, show how old
work must have been swept away by the enthusiasm for lofty arcades,
elaborately traceried windows, and walls of dressed stone-work. On the
other hand, half the charm of the hardly less beautiful churches of
Northamptonshire is the result of the clever way in which the masons dove-
tailed all the old stone-work which was worth preserving into their new
additions. Such churches as Tansor and Oundle are, for that reason,
unexcelled in interest, offering, as they do, almost inexhaustible problems as
to the development of their plan. In all parts of England we find that
builders, whatever else they destroyed, carefully kept, as a general rule, the
doorways, and especially the south doorway, of the buildings which they
enlarged. This accounts for the large number of handsome Norman
doorways which remain in the walls of aisles obviously later than the

doorways themselves. At Birkin in Yorkshire, the south aisle was not built
till the middle of the fourteenth century, but the doorway was removed to its
new position from the wall of the aisleless church. One very exceptional
case occurs at Felton in Northumberland. Towards the beginning of the
thirteenth century, the west part of the south wall of the church was cut
through, a chapel was added, and, east of the chapel, a porch was built.
Rather more than fifty or sixty years later, it was determined to add a south
aisle the full length of the nave. The width of the aisle was taken from that of
the existing chapel and porch. To connect the chapel with the new work, the
side walls of the porch were cut through. The outer doorway of the porch
became the new south doorway, while the inner doorway was kept unaltered,
as an arch in the new arcade.
§ 49. Features which have been touched upon in connexion with Raunds
bring us to two new features in the plan—the rebuilding of aisles and the
lengthening of churches westward. In most parish churches, aisles, when
they were added at first, were extremely narrow. The west wall of Hallaton
church in Leicestershire, for example, shows that, in the fourteenth century,
originally narrow aisles were heightened and widened. The roof lines of the
earlier aisles remain; they were clearly under the same roof as the nave of
the church, and had very low side walls. This was not always the case. At
Raunds the thirteenth century south aisle was always broad and lofty, and
must have had its own roof from the first. And, as the principles of Gothic
construction became more familiar, and the larger churches began to
exercise a more wide-spread influence upon the parish church, aisles began
to increase in breadth and elevation. The small and narrow windows of
churches of the twelfth and early thirteenth centuries gave way to the broad
mullioned and traceried windows of fully developed Gothic work. For these,
with their advantage of increased light, more headway was necessary. Aisle
walls were consequently heightened or altogether rebuilt. The acutely
pointed roof of the nave could no longer be continued downwards to cover
these higher aisles. The aisle was consequently covered with a lean-to roof,
or with a separate gabled roof of its own. A free increase in width was thus
possible. The church of Appleton-le-Street in Yorkshire has a short nave with
north and south aisles. The north aisle, added in the early part of the
thirteenth century, is narrow, and the roof of the nave was continued over it.
The south aisle, which was probably rebuilt a little before 1300, is broader
and has a separate lean-to roof. The wide east window of this aisle could not

have been introduced, had the south aisle been built to match the scale of the
north aisle.

Fig. 11. Plan of Harringworth church, Northants.
§ 50. The introduction of more light, however, was not the only reason for
the rebuilding and heightening of aisles. The east end of an aisle, as has been
said, provided a convenient place for one of the side altars of the church.
This was the case even in the narrow aisles of the twelfth and thirteenth
century, many of which, like the north aisle of Great Easton church in
Leicestershire, provided with a drain, aumbry, or a corbel for a statue, bear
witness to the existence of a contemporary altar. At Harringworth in
Northamptonshire there had been an aisleless church, to which a tower had
been added at the end of the twelfth, and aisles early in the thirteenth
century. On 24 October 1305 Edward I granted letters patent to William la
Zouche, by which he had licence to assign a certain amount of land to two
chantry chaplains in the chapel of All Saints. This may have been his private
chapel, but was possibly in the church. A little earlier than this, to judge by
the character of the architecture, a new north aisle had been built, with a new
altar at the east end. Very soon after the granting of the licence, it would

appear that the whole of the south arcade was taken down, and a new south
aisle and arcade built. The work was done in a very conservative spirit, for
the old thirteenth century porch and inner doorway were rebuilt on the new
site, and an old string-course was re-used internally, beneath the new
windows. The piscina and the three sedilia, which belonged to the altar at the
end of the aisle, remain in the south wall, and there are corbels for statues on
either side of the east window. However, rebuilding did not stop here; for it
seems that, during the next few years, the north arcade was entirely rebuilt
so as nearly to match that on the south. Thus the work, beginning with the
north aisle, and extending over some thirty or forty years, finished on the
side on which it began. Numerous examples of a closely parallel kind,
fortified by documentary evidence, might be given.
§ 51. The rebuilding of the south aisle, about 1313, at Newark, was the
prelude to an entire rebuilding of the church, which extended over many
years. The builders began by setting out their aisles as usual, and by the
middle of the fourteenth century the south aisle was finished, and the lower
courses of the north aisle and the new aisled chancel were built. However, in
1349, the Black Death interrupted the work. The north aisle and chancel
were not completed, and the new arcades of nave and chancel were not built
until the fifteenth century. In this case there were certainly older, and almost
certainly narrower aisles. The rebuilding included aisles on a larger scale,
and new internal arcades whose spacing corresponded to the spacing of the
aisle walls. All systematic rebuilding, in the full development of Gothic art,
began with the planning of the aisles. The naves of Cirencester and
Northleach churches, rebuilt at the end of the middle ages, are examples of
this method. The arcades at Cirencester are known to have been built about
1514-5; but the aisles were obviously completed first, and their remodelling
may have been begun in the second quarter of the fifteenth century. At
Northleach the nave was finished about 1458; and there seems to have been
a break of some years between the building of the aisles and the destruction
of the older church which, no doubt, lay within them. But it did not always
happen that the full intention of the builders was carried out. One of the most
splendid schemes which we possess for the enlargement of a parish church
was the great enterprise begun at Grantham soon after the middle of the
thirteenth century. An aisleless Norman church had been enlarged at the end
of the twelfth century by the addition of aisles to the nave, the connexion
being formed by arcades of rounded arches springing from very elegant

clustered columns. Above the arcades were low clerestories, lighted by
round-headed windows. About 1230, the neighbouring church of Newark
was taken in hand by masons, who built a new west tower up to a certain
height, and, as an afterthought, planned aisles to engage the tower
completely. As we have seen, the building of the aisles at Newark upon their
present scale did not begin till much later. The work of rebuilding at
Grantham was clearly inspired by that already begun at Newark. A tower
was planned on a site much to the west of the nave, and was engaged within
very broad aisles. The tower and north aisle were set out first. The north
aisle was divided into seven bays, with a large traceried window in each bay,
the western bay being much wider between the buttresses than the rest,
owing to the greater space taken up by the tower and its piers internally. The
remaining six bays were set out with equal widths between the buttresses,
the middle bay of the aisle being covered by a porch. The eastern bay
overlapped the western part of the aisleless chancel, its western buttress
being in a line with the division between chancel and nave. The western bay
of the south aisle was set out about the same time, and there was, no doubt,
an intention of proceeding with the rest on the same lines as in the north
aisle. There can also be little doubt that the builders intended to take down
the old arcades, and build new arcades, with spacing corresponding to that of
their aisles, and to lengthen the chancel eastwards, while bringing its western
portion into the nave. The tower and north aisle were built on the intended
scale; and, when the tower had risen to a certain height, the ambition of the
builders was fired to add to it an extra stage, hitherto uncontemplated, below
the spire with which it was to be crowned. This project of giving their
church a tower and stone spire, which remained, for many years, the loftiest
in England, evidently curtailed the full accomplishment of their earlier plan.
The columns of the old arcades were kept, and the tower was connected by
arcades of two bays with the angles of the west wall of the old church; while
an arch was pierced through the north wall of the chancel, to give access to
the east bay of the new aisle. The new arches were pointed: in order to match
them, the older round-headed arches were taken down, and pointed arches
built, which cut into and blocked the clerestory windows. This change was
made with great economy of material, the springing stones of some of the
old arches being kept to afford footing for the new. When the south aisle was
seriously begun, about 1300, similar economy was shown. Four bays, in
addition to the western bay, were spaced out, without regard to the plan of
the north aisle. The fourth bay from the west was covered by a porch,

smaller than that on the north side; and the east wall of the aisle was
probably built on a line with the division between nave and chancel. Half a
century later, the east wall was taken down, and the south aisle was extended
to the full length of the chancel; but this later development was not
contemplated by the thirteenth century builders. These hesitations and
changes, consequent upon the expense entailed by the north aisle and by the
alteration in the elevation of the tower and spire, make Grantham second to
no English church in interest.

Fig. 12. Plans of Grantham church: (1) probable arrangement about
1190; (2) at beginning of 14th century.

§ 52. Grantham also provides us with a lengthened nave. The position of its
earlier west wall is clearly shown by the masses of masonry which occur
between the eastern bay of the new, and western bay of the old, arcade on
either side. The responds on the eastern side of these pieces of wall are
twelfth century work: on the west side, they belong to the later part of the
thirteenth century. Such lengthening was probably very common in later
Gothic times, and we may surmise that it took place in many instances where
arcades were entirely rebuilt, and no visible trace of the process was left.
However, there are many churches in which one or more extra bays have
been added to the nave, and the join of the old and new work is marked as at
Grantham. Whaplode church in south Lincolnshire had its early twelfth
century nave lengthened by three bays about 1180. At Colsterworth, near
Grantham, a western bay was added to the nave about the same time, and an
earlier north aisle lengthened. Above the piece of wall which occurs between
the older and newer work, the quoins of the aisleless church remain entire.
Usually, as at Grantham, the lengthening of the nave was undertaken in
connexion with a new western tower, which was built up outside the church,
and then connected with it by one or two bays of arcading. Almost
contemporary with the tower and spire of Grantham are those of Tilney All
Saints, near Lynn. Here a single bay was added west of the late twelfth
century nave; and, as no new aisles were contemplated, the old arcades, with
their rounded arches, were left intact. Bubwith in Yorkshire, and Caunton in
Nottinghamshire, are later examples of churches where the tower was built
west of the end of an earlier nave, and a bay was built to connect it with the
older work. Sometimes, as at Gretton in Northamptonshire, where the slope
of a steep hill forbade extension far to the west, a new tower was built only a
few feet beyond the limit of the old nave. In such a case, the side walls of the
nave might be carried solid westwards to meet the tower, or, as happened at
Gretton, narrow arches might be made between the tower and the west end
of the older wall. The beautiful tower and spire at Oundle were built just
outside the west wall of the thirteenth century nave; and were doubtless
intended to be followed by a complete rebuilding of the arcades—such a
rebuilding as took place at Lavenham in Suffolk, towards the end of the
fifteenth century. The idea, however, was abandoned, and the space between
the arcades and the tower filled in solid with rather rough masonry.

Fig. 13. Gretton, Northants: extension of 12th century arcade to meet
15th century tower.
§ 53. The position of the western tower in the plan is normally at the west
end of the nave, with which it is connected by an arch, low at first, but loftier
as time goes on, until, in later Gothic churches, its height frequently is nearly
that of the whole nave. The remaining three walls are usually external, and
clear of the aisles. But sometimes, owing to a freak of planning, or, more
frequently, owing to the conditions of the site, the tower is, as at Bibury, at
the west end of one of the aisles. At Gedling in Nottinghamshire the tower
and spire are at the end of the north aisle. The tower of St Michael's,
Cambridge, is at the west end of the south aisle: probably the western
extension of the church was prevented by the neighbourhood of the street, a
circumstance which often accounts for the irregularity of plan in some town
churches. At St Mary Redcliffe, Bristol, built on the edge of the "red cliff"
from which it takes its name, the tower and spire are at the end of the north
aisle: had they been planned in the usual place, a full bay of the nave would
have been sacrificed. The tower at Spalding was planned, in the first
instance, to stand against the south wall of the west bay of the south aisle:
subsequently a new south aisle was built east of it. One of the most curious

instances is that of St Mary's at Leicester, where the tower, subsequently, as
at Spalding, heightened by a spire, was planned in the thirteenth century,
outside a very narrow south aisle. A tower at the west end of the nave would
have encroached upon the inner ward of the adjacent castle. The chancel of
St Mary's was used for collegiate services, and parochial accommodation
was limited. Towards the end of the thirteenth century, a very wide south
aisle, a parish church in itself, was built the full length of the nave, and
overlapping the chancel at the east end. The tower was left standing on piers
entirely within the west end of the new aisle. It may be added that, where
towers occur at the end of aisles, they seldom project beyond the west wall
of the nave, but open into the nave by an arch in the north or south wall, as
the case may be. Plans with two western towers, as at Melbourne or St
Margaret's at Lynn, are of very rare occurrence; and, where they are found,
the plan was probably designed on more ambitious lines than those of the
ordinary parish church.
§ 54. The plan in which the western tower is engaged within the aisles—that
is, where the aisles are brought up flush with the west end of the church—is
not very common. Still, instances occur in all parts of England. At
Grantham, the plan is deliberate. It was imitated, as has been said, from
Newark, where the side walls of the tower had been pierced with arches as
an after-thought. Newark, in turn, may have taken the design from Tickhill
in south Yorkshire; and the design at Tickhill may have been taken from the
early and unpretentious example at Sherburn-in-Elmet. Grantham probably
suggested other similar designs, such as Ewerby, near Sleaford. Several of
our finest late Gothic churches, like St Nicholas at Newcastle, have plans in
which the aisles are continued up to the west face of the tower. The method
affords full development to the aisles, and, as at Sileby in Leicestershire, has
an imposing interior effect. Outside, however, the aisles crowd the base of
the tower too much, and the fine effect of a lofty, free standing tower is lost.
Sometimes aisles were extended westwards, so as to engage an earlier tower,
as at Sleaford, where the low tower and spire are almost overwhelmed by a
pair of wide fourteenth century aisles. At Brigstock and Winterton, late
Saxon towers have been left without alteration inside aisles which have been
brought westward in the thirteenth and fourteenth centuries. The nave of
Holy Trinity, Cambridge, was much widened in the fourteenth century, and a
small tower and spire of earlier date were brought entirely within the new
nave, as happened in the south aisle at St Mary's, Leicester, and were left

without sufficient abutment. As a consequence, the arches of the ground
story had to be strengthened about a century later with additional masonry.
Cases occur, as at Coln Rogers in Gloucestershire, where a tower has been
built within the west end of an earlier church. In most of such instances, the
churchyard boundary probably allowed of no further building westward. The
nearness of the churchyard boundary also seems to have given cause to a
peculiarity which may be seen at Wollaton, near Nottingham, Dedham in
Essex, and in a few other places, where the west tower is in its usual
position, but is pierced from north to south by an archway. It is possible that
this gave facility to processions, which could thus pass round the church
without leaving consecrated ground. The tower of old All Saints, Cambridge,
now destroyed, projected over the public foot-way of the street, which
passed through its ground story; while St John's, Bristol, is built on the city
wall, and the tower and spire, which it shared with the adjoining church of St
Lawrence, are over the south gate of the city.
§ 55. Sometimes, as at Oundle, the tower was rebuilt with a view to the
reconstruction of the whole church. But, as also at Oundle, the design was
often abandoned, or was altered. The magnificent tower of St Michael's,
Coventry, was built, between 1373 and 1394, at the west end of an older
nave: its spire was not begun till 1430. Whether the rebuilding of the nave
was contemplated when the tower was begun, it is impossible to say. A new
nave was actually begun in 1432, and finished in 1450. A thoroughfare
immediately south of the church prevented extension on that side. The old
south porch was retained in place as the principal entrance, so that the line of
the wall of the south aisle follows closely that of the original church. The
new south arcade was set out, not in a line with the south-east buttress of the
tower, but somewhat to the north of it, so that the buttress is external; while,
for the width of the nave, a space approximating to twice the internal breadth
of the tower was taken. The tower is thus placed almost wholly south of the
central axis of the nave produced westward. Here, once more, we may note
the influence of site on the plan.
§ 56. The people's entrance to the church was ordinarily through a porch,
covering the north or south doorway of the nave. The south doorway is
usually covered by a porch. Frequently, as at Hallaton in Leicestershire, or
Henbury in Gloucestershire, there is a north as well as a south porch. At
Warmington, near Oundle, where there is a beautiful doorway in the west

tower, the vaulted south porch is the principal entrance; but there is also a
somewhat smaller north porch, also vaulted. The chief porch at Grantham is
on the north side; but there is also a large porch on the south. At Newark,
there is only a south porch, on the side of the church next the market place.
The south porch of St Mary Redcliffe, at Bristol, is the ordinary entrance of
the church; but the chief entrance of the building, until the fifteenth century,
was on the north side, at the head of the abrupt slope towards the city. In the
fourteenth century, this entrance was covered by a large and lofty octagonal
porch, approached by a flight of steps. There is an octagonal south porch at
Chipping Norton, and a hexagonal south porch at Ludlow. The magnificent
porches of the fifteenth century, as at Burford in Oxfordshire, Northleach in
Gloucestershire, Worstead in Norfolk, Walberswick in Suffolk, St Mary
Magdalene's at Taunton, or Yatton in Somerset, are usually on the south side
of the church.
§ 57. The positions of the porch and doorway in the wall of the aisle vary. At
St Nicholas, Newcastle, where the west tower is engaged within the aisles,
there is a porch in the western bay of each aisle. Usually, however, the porch
will be found in the second bay of one of the aisles, counting from the west
end. Sometimes, especially in larger churches, the porch occurs a bay further
east. At Warmington and at Grantham, the two porches of either church are
nearly opposite each other, and project approximately from the centre of the
walls of the aisles. Where the porch has been pushed eastward in this way,
the west end of the aisle seems to have been occupied by one or more
chapels. There are indications of this at Warmington; while, in the
neighbouring church of Tansor, where the porch is in the usual place, but the
aisle has been lengthened somewhat to the west, there was certainly an altar
west, as well as east, of the porch. There was at least one chantry chapel
west of the south porch at Grantham. The south porch at Ludlow covers the
wall of the third bay of the aisle from the west: here there were two chapels
in the western part of the aisle. There was another chapel at the west end of
the north aisle. It can hardly be proved that the position of porches was
actually planned with this use of the aisles in view; but there can be no doubt
that advantage was frequently taken of the space thus added to the aisle.

CHAPTER V
THE AISLED PARISH CHURCH

II. Transepts and Chancel

§ 58. The aisled nave, with its usual appendages of porch and tower, has now
been described at length. Before we proceed to the development of the
chancel, the transepts or transeptal chapels of the parish church invite
discussion. The distinction between true transepts, in churches with central
towers, and the transeptal chapels which are nothing more than northern and
southern extensions of the aisles, has been made already; and it has been
seen that the cruciform plan with central tower reached a very full state of
perfection during the twelfth century. Further dignity was given to some
cruciform churches by the addition of aisles to the transepts. St Mary
Redcliffe at Bristol, the plan of which is that of a large collegiate or
cathedral rather than a parish church, has transepts with eastern and western
aisles: there is no central tower, but the transepts form a definite cross-arm to
the church, which was designed with regard to the central point formed by
the crossing of a longitudinal and a transverse axis. There are few churches
in England as beautiful as that of Melton Mowbray, with its aisled transepts
and tower above the crossing: had the chancel only been planned on a larger
scale and with aisles, the unrivalled beauty and dignity of St Mary Redcliffe
might have been approached here. The cruciform plan with central tower is
the most noble of all church plans, when carried out by builders with large
ideas. Churches like Ludlow, Nantwich, Holy Trinity and St John's at
Coventry, St Mary's at Beverley, excite an admiration which is the natural
result of the fact that the plan, instead of straggling in the ordinary way from
east to west, is brought to a focus beneath the central tower.

Fig. 14. Plan of 13th century church: west tower, south porch, unequal
transeptal chapels.
§ 59. Apart, however, from the tower above the crossing, the transept had a
value of its own. It gave additional room for the side altars of the church.
The transeptal chapels at Worth allowed of greater width for the chancel
arch: the altars, which naturally would have stood against the wall on either
side of the chancel arch, could be placed within these excrescences from the
north and south walls of the church, and the central space was thus left clear.
This method of extension of the church by adding north and south chapels to
the nave was pursued throughout the middle ages. The thirteenth century
plan of Acton Burnell is virtually identical with the tenth or eleventh century
plan of Worth. In aisled churches, such transeptal additions are simply
outgrowths of the aisle walls, and were not necessarily planned with any
regard to the spacing of the arcades of the nave. They may, of course, be
placed symmetrically at the east end of the aisles, the width of each chapel
corresponding to the width of the arch of the arcade which is opposite its
opening. Thus Exton church in Rutland, rebuilt about the beginning of the
thirteenth century, has north and south transeptal chapels whose width is that
of the eastern bay of each arcade. A transverse arch was thrown across each
aisle at its junction with the adjacent chapel. Here the chapels form quasi-
transepts in perfect union with the design of nave and aisles. Symmetrical

plans in which it is clear at a glance that the transeptal chapels are
developments of the aisles, and have no necessary relation to the nave, are
those of Kegworth in Leicestershire, rebuilt in the fourteenth century, and
Aylsham, Cawston, and Sall in Norfolk, which belong to the fifteenth
century. But even more obvious than these are the plans in which transeptal
chapels have been thrown out at different periods, or even at one and the
same period, without the least regard to symmetry. A small aisleless nave at
Stretton in Rutland received a north aisle about the beginning of the
thirteenth century. Soon after, the eastern part of the side walls was taken
down, and chapels built out to north and south. The width of the south
chapel was determined by that of the old chancel arch, which was rebuilt
between the chapel and the nave, there being no aisle on that side. The north
chapel, on the other hand, was formed simply by returning the wall of the
aisle northward, and throwing a transverse arch across the aisle from the
wall above the arcade. Its width corresponds roughly with that of the south
chapel, but has no correspondence with that of the adjacent bay of the
arcade. Examples of this form of growth of plan, dictated by convenience
and the necessity of the moment, are common in every part of England.
§ 60. It is quite clear that the transeptal chapel, being nothing more than an
excrescence from the wall of a nave or aisle, is a feature which may be
treated with some freedom. Its width and length are dependent upon the
convenience and will of the builders. The north chapel of the aisleless
church of Clapton-in-Gordano, Somerset, is entered by an arch in the east
part of the north wall: the chapel itself, however, extends some distance
westward, so that its longer axis is parallel to the longer axis of the nave.
The south chapel, again, at Lowick in Northamptonshire has its longer axis
from east to west, although its roof is at right angles to that of the adjacent
aisle. Externally, its transeptal character is apparent; internally, it has the
appearance of an additional south aisle. A chantry was founded in this chapel
in 1498. Very often, where special chantry chapels were built, they took the
position of transeptal chapels. Cases in point are the late Gothic chantry
chapels in All Saints and St Lawrence's at Evesham. Such chapels may
obviously be lengthened westward, like the chapel at Clapton-in-Gordano,
so that they become additional aisles. The Milcombe chapel at Bloxham in
Oxfordshire, the Greenway aisle at Tiverton in Devonshire, and the side
chapels of the north and south aisles at St Andrew's, Plymouth, and
Plympton St Mary are the logical outcome of the habit of adding transeptal

chapels to the plan. Two transeptal chapels of the ordinary type are found in
other Devonshire churches rebuilt in the fifteenth century, as at East
Portlemouth: the Kirkham chapel at Paignton, famous for its carved stone-
work, is transeptal. From this it is but a step to the chapels at Plymouth and
Plympton, with their longer axes from east to west: while the aisle at
Tiverton (1517) develops naturally, in the churches of Cullompton (1526)
and Ottery St Mary (before 1530), into a vaulted aisle the full length of the
nave. At Bloxham, on the other hand, the Milcombe chapel, which extends
from the east wall of the south aisle as far as the porch, was probably grafted
upon an earlier and smaller transeptal chapel. A comparison with the
neighbouring church of Adderbury shows that the fabric of the transeptal
chapels at Adderbury is largely of the twelfth century. The north chapel at
Bloxham is, in its present state, much later; but the similarity of plan to that
of Adderbury leads to the justifiable conclusion that it was rebuilt on old
foundations, and that there was a similar south chapel. About 1290 the aisles
at Bloxham were widened, and a beautiful arcade of two bays was built at
the east end of the north aisle, between it and the north chapel. Within the
next few years, the aisles at Adderbury were also widened, and arcades
similar to that at Bloxham, though coarser in detail, were built at the east end
of either aisle. The projection of the transeptal chapels from the side walls
was now very slight; and, in the fifteenth century, the projection of the south
chapel at Bloxham was absorbed by the building of the Milcombe chapel,
between which and the south aisle an arcade of two bays was made. There is
more intrinsic interest in this gradual development of plan than in the
Devonshire plans we have noticed, which are all due to fifteenth century
rebuildings; and the mutual influence exercised throughout the middle ages
by two neighbouring churches like Bloxham and Adderbury gives us an
insight into the progress of local art which the energy of fifteenth century
masons in certain districts has somewhat obscured. From the arrangement of
the south transept at Adderbury, there appear to have been two altars in each
of the chapels.
§ 61. Transeptal chapels occasionally appear in unusual positions. For
example, at Branscombe in south Devon, there is a tower between nave and
chancel. There are, however, no transepts; but transeptal chapels are built out
from the walls of the aisleless nave, west of the tower. These chapels appear
to be enlargements of earlier transeptal chapels; while the tower seems to
have been built over the chancel of the earlier church. Heckington church in

south Lincolnshire was rebuilt in the fourteenth century. The nave has aisles
with transeptal chapels, very regular and symmetrical in plan, but is
continued beyond the opening of the transeptal projections by an aisleless
bay, east of which comes the chancel arch. At Bottesford in north
Lincolnshire, where much rebuilding was done in the thirteenth century, the
transeptal chapels open from the bay east of the chancel arch. In the case of
Heckington, the earlier church was probably cruciform: when the rebuilding
came to pass, the ground plan of the western portion of the church was kept,
while the chancel was built on an extended plan, and the site of the western
part of the old chancel thrown into the nave. The case of Bottesford is
probably accounted for in the opposite way: the site was not enlarged
eastwards, but the chancel was lengthened by the absorption of the eastern
part of the old nave.
§ 62. There are a number of cases in which transeptal chapels have been kept
from an earlier cruciform plan, in which they may have formed true
transepts. The fine church of Oundle, whose western tower and spire already
have been mentioned as built about 1400, has very fully developed transeptal
chapels. The nave and aisles, and the greater part of the chapels, are, in their
present state, work of the thirteenth century; but the eastern bay of the
present nave was entirely remodelled about 1350, when a clerestory was
added. This bay had evidently been designed to carry a central tower: the
nave arcades stop west of it, and there is a thick piece of wall between them
and the arches opening from it into the chapels. These arches and the chancel
arch were entirely reconstructed at the time just mentioned. The western
arch, however, was removed, and an original crossing was thus converted
into a bay of the nave. Whether there ever was a central tower is, of course,
an uncertain point; but the building of a west tower on a new site not many
years after this reconstruction is a fact which makes the previous existence
of a central tower probable. The removal of a central tower would be due to
one of two causes. Either its supports were weak, or it blocked up the space
between nave and chancel too much. The central tower of Petersfield in
Hampshire was taken down; but its east wall still remains between nave and
chancel. However, if there are cases in which a central tower was removed,
and a west tower built, there are probably more in which a central tower was
planned, and then abandoned. Campsall church, near Doncaster, has
unmistakable signs of a projected cruciform plan with a central tower, and
has a regular crossing with transepts. But it is probable that the builders

changed their minds before the nave was finished; and, although they
doubtless left the arches, which were intended to bear their tower, for a later
generation to remove and rebuild, they went westward and built a tower at
the other end of the nave. This tower was finished towards the end of the
third quarter of the twelfth century. The builders of Newark church, who
were peculiarly susceptible to after-thoughts, apparently planned a central
tower in the later part of the twelfth century. It is difficult to explain
otherwise the slender clusters of shafts which project into the nave from the
first pier west of the chancel arch on either side. Such piers were hardly
capable of bearing the weight of a tower; and so the builders must have
thought. Early in the thirteenth century, they began the present west tower,
the first stage of a rebuilding which, with long intervals, continued into the
sixteenth century. The final step by which the church reached its present plan
was the addition of a transeptal chapel to either aisle, opposite the site
which, more than three centuries before, had been chosen for the piers of the
abandoned central tower.
§ 63. Even in strictly cruciform churches, transepts were sometimes treated
with a freedom which was more appropriate to the transeptal chapel. It is not
unusual to find one transept longer than the other, as at Felmersham in
Bedfordshire. Here, however, the transepts are not only of different lengths,
but the south transept is loftier, as well as shorter, than the north, which is
little more than a chapel-like excrescence from the tower. At Witney in
Oxfordshire both transepts are of great projection, but the north transept is
slightly longer than that on the south.Both have considerable traces of
thirteenth century work; but, in the fourteenth century, the north transept was
lengthened by an addition divided into two stories, the upper of which was a
chapel, while the lower was probably a vaulted bone-hole. The south
transept was also lengthened; and a chapel was built, projecting from its east
wall near the south end. Both transepts have western aisles: that of the north
transept, which stops short of the two-storied extension, contained an altar
near the north end. There are traces of at least three other altars in the
transepts, so that there was excellent reason for their somewhat unusual
projection. At St Mary's, Beverley, an eastern aisle was added to the south
transept in the fifteenth century, to provide more room for altars. The north
transept already had a large chapel of two stages upon its eastern side, so
that the plan was treated unsymmetrically. The tower of St Mary's at Stafford
rests on heavy piers and narrow arches, and is flanked by north and south

transepts. However, while the south transept, of good thirteenth century
work, is rather small and short, the north transept was rebuilt with great
magnificence in the fourteenth century, and its internal effect is that of a
large side chapel rather than a transept. Aisled transepts are never common,
even in large churches. Instances in which a transeptal chapel is aisled are
even less common. The aisled south chapel at Medbourne in Leicestershire
has been mentioned in an earlier chapter. Oakham and Langham churches in
Rutland have large transeptal chapels with western aisles: the north chapel at
Langham was removed in the fifteenth century, when the aisles of the nave
were widened.

Fig. 15. St Mary's, Beverley: arcades of quire and S. transept, from S.W.
§ 64. Reference has also been made to those plans in which the side walls of
a tower between chancel and nave have been pierced with arches, and quasi-
transepts have been constructed. This is very noticeable at Almondsbury in
Gloucestershire, where the transeptal chapels, turned at a later date into
burial-places for two local families, are very large and roomy. The cross-plan
of Burford church in Oxfordshire was formed in this way, early in the
thirteenth century. Plans like this, in which the chapels grow out of the
central space, instead of being planned from the first in relation to it, are
imperfectly cruciform; but are highly characteristic of the irregular methods
of development pursued by the builders of medieval parish churches.
§ 65. Towers above transeptal chapels are not uncommon. The two transeptal
towers at Ottery St Mary in Devon were doubtless copied from the
arrangement at Exeter cathedral: there was an altar against the east wall of
each chapel. The tower at Coln St Aldwyn, Gloucestershire, rises above a
south chapel projecting from an aisleless nave. This addition was made in
the fifteenth century. At Duddington in Northamptonshire the ground floor
of the tower virtually forms, in its present state, an eastward extension of the
south aisle parallel to the western part of the chancel: the original plan was
probably similar to the present plan of Coln St Aldwyn. The noble church of
Whaplode had transeptal chapels projecting from the east end of either aisle:
the thirteenth century tower is above the south chapel. At Clymping in
Sussex the arrangement is very peculiar. The church, which is almost
entirely of the thirteenth century, has north and south transeptal chapels, and
only a south aisle to the nave. The tower, which is at the end of the south
chapel, is earlier than the rest of the building, but is clearly in its original
position.
§ 66. The early progress of Gothic art in parish churches was marked by a
general lengthening of chancels, analogous to that elongation of the eastern
arm which is characteristic of cathedrals and monastic churches. This may
be seen very clearly at Iffley, near Oxford, and Avening in Gloucestershire,
where vaulted chancels of the twelfth century were lengthened in the
thirteenth century by an eastern bay. Sometimes, as at St Mary's,
Shrewsbury, where successive generations of builders were very faithful to
the remains of earlier work, the old sedilia of a twelfth century chancel have
been left in place. But, as a rule, the enlargement of the chancel implied an

entire reconstruction, or the entire transformation of old work by the
insertion of new windows or buttresses. From the end of the twelfth century
onwards, the normal chancel of the parish church has a length which is from
a half to two-thirds of the length of the nave, the nave being slightly broader
than the chancel. This is the case with most of those Norfolk churches,
which may be regarded as the ideal examples of parish church planning.
Room was in this way secured both for the altar and the quire stalls, for
which the ordinary rectangular chancel offered a very restricted space.
§ 67. Sometimes a new chancel encroached upon the nave. This happened at
Skipwith in Yorkshire, where the church underwent some alteration about
the middle of the fourteenth century. The new chancel was made of the same
width as the nave; and apparently the old chancel arch was entirely removed,
and its site, with the part of the nave immediately west of it, made into an
extra bay of the chancel. No new chancel arch was built. One of the most
curious and perplexing instances, in which additional westward room has
been given to the chancel, and there is no structural division between
chancel and nave, is at Tansor in Northants. The perplexity which arises here
is due to the plentiful re-use of old work by the builders, the presence of
which in unexpected places makes the history of the building a nearly
insoluble puzzle. The church reached its present length about 1140, when
probably the Saxon nave was left as the west part of a church, which was
now of the same width the whole way through, and had no chancel arch.
Some forty years later, narrow aisles of three bays were added to the nave;
and, about the same time, a transeptal chapel may have been thrown out
from the south wall, immediately east of the south aisle. As the church
stands on southward sloping ground, there seems to have been no room for
another chapel on the north side. In the thirteenth century, the aisles were
lengthened eastwards, to flank the western part of the chancel. The builders
moved back the eastern responds of the old arcades to the points from which
the lengthened arcades were to start. They set themselves, however, a
difficult problem when they reserved a space at the end of the north aisle for
a sacristy, and set the respond on the west side of this narrow bay. Their
north aisle thus consisted of five bays and a very narrow eastern bay for the
sacristy. On the south side no space corresponding to the sacristy was
marked out, although the eastern respond was placed in a line with the east
side of the opening of the sacristy. The number of bays on the south side had
to be five, as there was no room for six. The result is that the pillars of the

arcades, with the exception of those of the two bays furthest west, which
were left unaltered, are not opposite each other. In the meantime, the old
transeptal chapel was left standing between a south aisle and a short south
chapel of the chancel. About 1300, the aisle and chapel seem to have been
widened to the full length of the transeptal chapel, and thus a broad south
aisle was formed. In this plan, the chancel proper projects for some distance
east of the aisles; but, for ritual purposes, the eastern part of the nave,
corresponding to the eastern bay of the north aisle and the sacristy bay
beyond, forms, and has formed since the twelfth century, a western extension
of the chancel.
§ 68. The addition of aisles to chancels was an even more gradual process
than the addition of aisles to naves; and, as a rule, the aisles were at first
mere chapels. Chancel aisles or chapels of twelfth century date are not very
common in smaller churches. But a plan like that at Melbourne, where the
apsidal chapels east of the transepts flank the chancel very closely, leads
naturally to the provision of chapels communicating directly with the
chancel. The logical consequence of such a plan is seen at Oundle, at the
close of the twelfth century, where rectangular chapels were built along the
north and south walls of the western part of the chancel. The walls were
pierced with broad, low arches, and arches were built between the chapels
and the transepts. The chapels, in this instance, are at the back of the quire
stalls; and a long projecting piece of aisleless chancel was left beyond them,
to which, in the fifteenth century, a large northern vestry was added. This
plan, where both chancel chapels were added at much the same time and on
the same scale, is symmetrical. But, as a rule, chancel chapels were built just
when they were needed. At Arksey, near Doncaster, where, as at St Mary's,
Shrewsbury, the walls of late twelfth century transepts have been largely
preserved inside the church in spite of many alterations, the chancel is a long
aisleless twelfth century building east of a central tower. Towards the end of
the thirteenth century, the north chancel wall was pierced, and a narrow
chapel built, which was one bay shorter than the chancel itself. In the
fourteenth and fifteenth centuries the nave was enlarged, and the south aisle
was widened to the full length of the south transept. A south chapel was
added to the chancel: its outer wall was continued from the south wall of the
transept, and carried eastwards for a little distance beyond the east wall of
the chancel. Thus chancel, south chapel, and north chapel, are all of three
different lengths and breadths, the south chapel being the longest and widest.

When the south chapel was built, a considerable portion of the old chancel
wall was left untouched on its north side. It is obvious that the methods of
building employed in such additions were those which have been described
in connexion with the addition of aisles to a nave. It is no uncommon thing
to enter, as at Tamworth, a chancel aisle or chantry chapel, and find
substantial remains of the old outer wall of the chancel, which has been
pierced with one or more arches of communication.
§ 69. As the relative dates and proportions of chancel chapels vary so
greatly, it is obvious that in many cases only one will be found. We
frequently meet with churches which have only one aisle to the nave; but
these are for the most part small buildings, and one aisle usually, in larger
buildings, presupposes another, although symmetry of proportion need not
be expected. However, many important churches have one chancel chapel,
and no more. Raunds in Northamptonshire, and Leverington in
Cambridgeshire, have south, but not north, chapels. Stanion in
Northamptonshire, and Hullavington in Wiltshire, have north, but not south
chapels. In both these last cases, the chapels are simply continuations of the
aisles, without a break or intermediate arch; and the chapel at Stanion is
neither more nor less than a second chancel. As the dedication of Stanion
church is to St Peter and St Paul, it is not unlikely that the prominence given
to the north chapel may be due to the provision of altars for both saints. The
same consideration may have influenced the building of the church at
Wisbech, which is also dedicated to St Peter and St Paul. Here, the twelfth
century chancel had a south chapel; but when, at the end of the thirteenth
century, the chancel was lengthened, the south chapel was also enlarged into
what is practically a second chancel. Not only this, but the south aisle of the
church was rebuilt on the scale of a second nave, a second south aisle was
built out beyond it, and the whole church, which afterwards was enlarged
towards the north and otherwise altered, was more than doubled in size.
§ 70. Where chantry chapels are attached to one side or other of a chancel,
their variations in size and plan are almost infinite. In the smallest examples,
they are mere projections from the wall of the chancel, and little more than
tomb recesses, such as the Cresacre chapel at Barnburgh, near Rotherham, or
the Booth chapel on the south side of the chancel at Sawley in Derbyshire.
The little north chapel of the chancel at Clapton-in-Gordano in Somerset
may have served as a vestry. At Brancepeth, near Durham, where there is a

long chancel and an aisled nave with transeptal chapels, a south chantry
chapel adjoins the east side of the south transeptal chapel, while a north
chantry chapel forms an independent excrescence from the north wall, and is
shut off from the chancel by a doorway. Brigstock in Northamptonshire has a
very large north chancel chapel, which is virtually the eastern portion of a
widened aisle: the south chapel, on the other hand, is of much later date, and
is so small that there must have been room in it for an altar and little more.
These smaller chantry chapels, like the beautiful south chapel at Aldwinkle
All Saints, Northants, have often great architectural beauty of their own, and
give great variety to the plan of the church. But chancel chapels are often
larger and more important, like the fourteenth century south chapel at
Leverton, near Boston, which is practically a separate building, separated
from the chancel by a wall without an arcade, or like the very spacious north
chapel of the priory church at Brecon. The south chapel of the chancel at
Berkeley in Gloucestershire, and the Clopton chapel at Long Melford in
Suffolk, are shut off from the adjacent parts of the church, and belong to that
class of chantry chapel of which our cathedrals furnish many examples. In
this case, the chapel is a small separate building, attached to the fabric of the
church, but hardly forming an integral part of it.
§ 71. One very important consequence of the addition of aisles and chantry
chapels to chancels, at any rate on a large scale, is seen where they are
applied to plans originally cruciform. We have already seen that at St Mary's,
Shrewsbury, and at Arksey, although much of the fabric of the old transepts
was left, broad chancel chapels tended to obliterate the cruciform character
of the building. The transepts at Spalding almost escape notice, owing to the
double aisle on the south side of the nave, the aisle and north chapel on the
opposite side, and the large chapel east of the south transept. Moreover,
when, in the fourteenth and fifteenth centuries, aisles were rebuilt or
widened, there was always, as at Tansor, a tendency to decide the width of
the aisle by the length of an existing transept or transeptal chapel, and to
build the new outer wall flush with its gable wall. In this case, the aisle
would be planned to communicate with the transept, and the west wall of the
transept would have to be cut through. Where, as at Arksey, there was a
central tower, the old transept was structurally necessary, and only as much
of its masonry would be removed as was absolutely necessary. But we have
seen that there were cases in which it was thought advisable to take down the
central tower altogether, and build a new one at the west end, in which case

the transepts were of no structural use; and there were far more cases in
which the transeptal excrescences were merely projecting chapels. In these
instances, the transept was felt to intervene awkwardly between the aisles of
nave and chancel. Accordingly, its side walls and gabled roof were taken
down, its end wall was remodelled, and it was placed under one roof with
the adjacent aisles, in which it became merged. The cruciform plan was thus
lost in certain churches, becoming absorbed in the ordinary elongated plan,
with aisles to nave and chancel. Tamworth church in Staffordshire, and
Marshfield in Gloucestershire, had twelfth century central towers. These
were removed or destroyed, at Tamworth in the fourteenth, at Marshfield in
the fifteenth century, and the aisles and chancel chapels were widened to the
original length, approximately, of the transepts. The north and south arches
of the crossing, however, remain in a blocked condition, and tell the tale of
what has happened. Wakefield cathedral is another instance of a large parish
church whose aisleless cruciform plan has gradually disappeared within the
aisles, until the plan is—or was till the additions of a few years ago—an
aisled rectangle, the origin of which is certainly not obvious at first sight.
The transformations here described must clearly be understood not to apply
to cruciform churches generally, but merely to churches which, with an
originally cruciform plan, needed enlargement. Many handsome late Gothic
buildings, like the churches of Rotherham and Chesterfield, or St Mary's at
Nottingham, are regular cruciform churches with central towers; and
sometimes, as at Newark, transeptal chapels were the latest of all additions
to a church. But, where the transeptal chapel cramped necessary space, it had
to disappear. At St Margaret's, Leicester, the arches into the transeptal
chapels remain; but the chapels themselves have entirely disappeared, and
the arches merely form part of the arcade between the nave and its broad
aisles.
§ 72. The aim of restorers and rebuilders from the middle of the fourteenth
century onwards was to convert the church into a rectangle with aisles. As
we have seen, the chancel was constantly, in late Gothic churches, an
aisleless projection from the main fabric; but, where it was aisled, the old
haphazard methods were often abandoned, and the aisles were made of
approximately equal size. The old distinction between nave and chancel,
marked by the chancel arch, and the arches between chapels and aisles,
begin to vanish. Where the chancel arch was kept, as at Long Sutton in
Lincolnshire, new chancel chapels were prolonged westward on each side of

the nave, in place of the old nave aisles. Fairford church in Gloucestershire
was rebuilt towards the end of the fifteenth century, to contain the splendid
stained glass which had just been acquired for it. A central tower was built
on strong piers, as a concession to the old plan; but the aisles of the nave
were continued on either side of the tower and along the sides of the chancel
till within a bay of the east end. But, in a great many churches, not merely
the aisles, but the nave and chancel also became continuous, without a
structural division. This feature, common in East Anglia and the south-west
of England, was the result of the importance of carved and painted wood-
work in late Gothic churches. The rood screen, stretching across nave and
aisles, appeared to full advantage, when unbroken by the chancel arch. The
splendid timber roofs of nave and aisles gained in effect, if they formed, as
at Southwold, or in the churches of Norwich, an unbroken covering to the
church from end to end. In Norfolk and Suffolk, where the work of
rebuilding began in the fourteenth century, as at Cawston, Worstead, or
Tunstead, the chancel arch was often kept. At Worstead and other Norfolk
churches the method pursued by the builders was precisely opposite to that
which we have seen employed by Gloucestershire masons at Cirencester and
other places, and may see in most of the fifteenth century churches of
Somerset. The arcades were rebuilt first, and the aisles followed. Many of
these churches were doubtless enlarged from much smaller buildings. The
south aisle at Ingham was probably the nave of the earlier church, to which
the present nave, north aisle, chancel, and west tower, were added. The aisles
in most cases continued at a uniform width eastward as chancel chapels. The
north aisle at Worstead was continued by a two-storied sacristy to the level
of the east wall of the chancel. The south aisle stops at a bay short of the east
wall, leaving the end of the chancel projecting as an altar space. Whether the
chancel arch was retained or not, the projection of this aisleless eastern bay
became a very general feature of the larger churches of East Anglia, and, in
churches like Trunch, Southwold, and Clare, its tall side windows flood the
space with light The most striking example of this plan is at Long Melford in
Suffolk, where there is no chancel arch, and the actual chancel projects
beyond the aisles. Here, however, it is flanked on the north by the Clopton
chapel, and on the south by the vestry, which forms a covered way to the
detached lady chapel further east. The Long Melford plan, with a projecting
altar space, and without a chancel arch, is nearly universal in Cornwall, and
is common in south Devon, where, as at Totnes, the aisles of the chancel are
usually little more than comparatively short chapels, and sometimes, as at

West Alvington, near Kingsbridge, extend only a bay beyond the screen. Its
great advantages, apart from the display of wood-work which it permits, are
the gain of internal space permitted by the reduction of the solid portions of
the building to a minimum, the additional light admitted by the same means,
and the long uninterrupted clerestory which forms a wall of glass, with thin
stone divisions, on each side of the upper part of the church.
§ 73. The tendency to give the whole church aisles of equal width
throughout, and extending along its whole length, was irresistible, especially
in East Anglia. The church of North Walsham, rebuilt towards the end of the
fourteenth century, is a great rectangle of three parallel divisions, with axes
from east to west, and of nearly equal breadth. The chapel of St Nicholas at
Lynn, rebuilt in 1419, is an even more striking example of the same design:
in both cases the simple and somewhat monotonous plan is varied by the
projection of a handsome south porch. At Lynn, the thirteenth century west
tower, with a spire, was kept at the south-west corner of the aisled building.
But the aisled rectangular plan, if it attained its highest development in East
Anglia, had been reached already in other parts of England by gradual
methods. It has sometimes been fathered upon aisled naves of friary
churches, which, like the great nave of the Black friars at Norwich, afforded
space for large congregations who came to hear sermons. But it is probable
that the first churches which followed the course of expansion into the aisled
rectangle were directly influenced by the example of the larger churches,
like Lincoln, or, at a later date, York, which, in extending their eastern arms,
aisled their quires, presbyteries, and eastern chapels, right up to the east wall.
Thus the whole quire and chancel of Newark, with aisles extending their
whole length, were planned in the early part of the fourteenth century, when
the great eastern chapel, the "Angel Quire," of Lincoln, was little more than
a generation old; and, although the progress of the work was long delayed,
the eventual arrangement, in which the high altar was brought two bays
forward from the east wall, and a spacious chapel was left at the back,
exactly recalls the arrangements of Lincoln and York. Similarly the quire and
chancel of the cruciform church of Holy Trinity at Hull are aisled to their full
length: the arrangement, again, is that of a cathedral rather than a parish
church. The influence of cathedral plans is clearly visible in St Mary
Redcliffe at Bristol, and in the collegiate churches of Ottery St Mary and
Crediton: but here the type followed is not that of Lincoln and York, but that
more usual in the west and south of England at Hereford, Wells, Salisbury,

Exeter, and elsewhere, where the aisles of the chancel are returned at the
back of the east wall, and form a vestibule to a projecting aisleless lady
chapel. This type of plan occurs outside its regular district at Tickhill, on the
borders of Yorkshire and Nottinghamshire. But it is naturally exceptional,
and would be used only where there was plenty of money and space to spare:
it demands for its full effect a considerable elevation, involving a large
clerestory, and a church could seldom, if ever, be found whose original plan
invited expansion on these lines. On the other hand, the aisling of the
chancel throughout was simply the logical development of the ordinary
church plan: if the plans of cathedrals may have suggested the later
developments at churches like Newark or Hull, the simple aisled rectangle,
with its three parallel divisions, and without any clerestory to distinguish the
nave from the aisles—a plan remarkably characteristic of Cornwall—came
into existence in the ordinary course of things, by an extension of the wings
of the building until they flanked the whole of the nave and chancel.
§ 74. The work done at Grantham in the fourteenth and fifteenth centuries
illustrates the purely natural development of the ordinary aisled church into
the aisled rectangle. We have seen, in an earlier chapter, that, soon after
1300, the church consisted of an aisleless chancel, which was, however,
overlapped at the west end by the north aisle of the nave; a nave, the north
and south aisles of which followed different systems of spacing; a western
tower and spire, engaged within the aisles; and north and south porches.
Several chantries were founded in the church during the fourteenth century.
Not long after the Black Death of 1349, the south aisle was extended
eastward to the whole length of the chancel. The south wall of the chancel
was pierced by an arcade; and the lady chapel thus formed was raised upon a
double crypt. It was not until more than a century later that the east wall of
the north aisle was taken down, and the "Corpus Christi chancel" built out,
continuing the north aisle without a break, and completely flanking the north
wall of the chancel, through which an arcade was made. Here the reason of
expansion was obviously the growth of chantry chapels; and the expansion
follows the simplest course. The last addition to the fabric was the present
vestry, in which was a chantry founded by the Hall family. This was built out
at right angles to the north aisle, at the point where the old work was met by
the later extension. Not until the church had been fully aisled, and afforded
no further room for new altars, were chantry chapels usually added in the
shape of excrescences from the fabric.

Fig. 16. Plans of Grantham church: (3) about 1350; (4) present day.
§ 75. One interesting feature in the planning of chancels, which has been
much discussed, is worth a note. This is the fact that the axis of the chancel
is frequently out of line with the axis of the nave, and generally has a slight
northward inclination. Sometimes, as at Henbury in Gloucestershire, the
inclination is very considerable, so that, from the west end of the church,

nearly a quarter of the east wall is out of sight. Usually, the inclination is
very slight; and there are many cases in which it is not northward, but
southward—Sidbury and Salcombe Regis, near Sidmouth, Eastbourne in
Sussex and Aldwinkle St Peter in Northants, are cases in point. The popular
explanation is that it symbolises the leaning of our Saviour's head upon the
cross. Like most symbolical explanations, this is founded entirely upon
fancy: the inclination is by no means confined to churches with cross plans,
and, if it were, the theorists who argue from this standpoint confound the
symbolism of the cross-plan between the cross itself and the Body which it
bore. Others have sought to explain the phenomenon by suggesting that the
orientation of the chancel followed the direction in which the sun rose on the
morning of the patronal feast. A succession of visits at sunrise to churches on
appropriate dates has not hitherto been attempted upon a comprehensive
scale: if it were undertaken, it probably would be found that the sun, instead
of rising obediently opposite the middle light of every east window, as the
theory requires, would have many puzzling exceptions in reserve. The
marked divergence of axis at Henbury is explained by the site of the
building, which is on a gentle slope, with the axis of the nave distinctly from
south-east to north-west. When the chancel was rebuilt in the thirteenth
century, the masons kept as high upon the slope as they could, and so twisted
the axis of the chancel a little further east. But we must also remember that,
when chancels were lengthened and rebuilt, the work was done while the old
chancels were still standing. The axis of the old chancel might be out of line
with that of the nave. Unless very careful measurements were taken, the new
east wall would probably be not quite parallel with the old east wall of the
chancel. The side walls would be set out at right angles to the new east wall;
and thus, when the new chancel was joined to the church, the divergence of
axis would be more palpable than before. Or, for the same reason, a
divergence of axis might be created for the first time. This seems to be the
common sense explanation of a very common feature. But it must be added
that there are instances in which the inclination is so decided that one is
tempted to conclude either that the masons had very crooked sight, or that
they were playing tricks with their perspective. The feature, where it is at all
marked, is something of a deformity. In our own day it has been introduced,
apparently by design, into the plan of Truro cathedral. In medieval work,
however, it will seldom be found in a chancel where no enlargement upon an
early site has taken place; and it seems safe to conclude that, like so much

else in medieval building which is irregular, it generally arises from the
rebuilding of a fabric upon an encumbered site.

INDEX OF PLACES
Aachen, Rhenish Prussia, palace church, 33, 34

Acaster Malbis, Yorks., 65

Achurch, Northants., 56, 58

Acton Burnell, Salop., 55, 56, 58, 65, 102

Adderbury, Oxon., 106, 107

Adel, Yorks., 49

Africa, basilicas in north, 14

Aldwinkle, Northants., All Saints, 121;
St Peter, 131

Almondsbury, Glouces., 54, 113

Alvington, West, Devon, 126

Amiens, France (Somme), cathedral, 68

Appleton-le-Street, Yorks., 84

Arksey, Yorks., 118, 121, 122

Askham Bryan, Yorks., 49

Avening, Glouces., 54, 114

Aylsham, Norfolk, 104

Bakewell, Derby, 70

Bampton-in-the-Bush, Oxon., 59, 60, 61

Barnack, Northants., 30, 32

Barnburgh, Yorks., 120

Barton-on-Humber, Lincs., St

Peter, 30, 32, 33, 34, 40, 41

Berkeley, Glouces., 121

Beverley, Yorks., minster, 74, 75;
St Mary, 102, 111, 112

Bewick, Old, Northumb., 50, 52

Bibury, Glouces., 94

Billingborough, Lincs., 82

Billingham, Durham, 73

Birkin, Yorks., 46, 51, 52, 82, 83

Bishopstone, Sussex, 36

Blatherwycke, Northants., 46

Bloxham, Oxon., 105, 106, 107

Bottesford, Lincs., 108

Bracebridge, Lincs., 28

Bradford-on-Avon, Wilts., 16, 29, 36

Bradwell-juxta-Mare, Essex, St Peter's on the Wall, 16

Brampton Ash, Northants., 76

Brancepeth, Durham, 120

Branscombe, Devon, 107

Brayton, Yorks., 46

Breamore, Hants., 38, 40, 54

Brecon, priory church, 121

Brigstock, Northants., 28, 97, 120, 121

Bristol, St John Baptist, 98;
St Lawrence, 98;
St Mary Redcliffe, 95, 99, 101, 102, 128

Britford, Wilts., 36

Brixworth, Northants., 21, 22, 23, 24, 29, 32, 53

Broughton, Lincs., 32

Bubwith, Yorks., 93

Burford, Oxon., 60, 61, 99, 113

Caistor, Lincs., 45

Cambridge, All Saints, 97, 98;
St Benedict, 28;
Holy Trinity, 97;
St Michael, 94, 95

Campsall, Yorks., 109, 110

Canterbury, Kent, cathedral, 15, 35;
St Pancras, 15, 16, 23, 24, 35, 36, 53

Caunton, Notts., 93

Cawston, Norfolk, 104, 125

Chesterfield, Derby, 123

Chichester, Sussex, cathedral, 68

Childs Wickham, Glouces., 56, 58

Chipping Norton, Oxon., 99

Christon, Som., 53

Cirencester, Glouces., 87, 88, 89, 125

Clapton-in-Gordano, Som., 105, 120

Clare, Suffolk, 126

Clymping, Sussex, 114

Coln Rogers, Glouces., 28, 29, 97

Coln St Aldwyn, Glouces., 113, 114

Coln St Denis, Glouces., 53

Cologne, Rhenish Prussia, St Gereon, 34

Colsterworth, Lincs., 47, 92

Constantinople, Sta Sophia, 10, 12, 13

Copford, Essex, 52, 74

Copmanthorpe, Yorks., 49

Corbridge-on-Tyne, Northumb., 19, 20, 56

Corstopitum, see Corbridge-on-Tyne

Coventry, Warwicks., Holy Trinity, 102;
St John Baptist, 102;
St Michael, 98

Crediton, Devon, 128

Cullompton, Devon, 106

Dedham, Essex, 97

Deerhurst, Glouces., 27, 36, 37

Dover, Kent, St Mary in the Castle, 37, 38, 40, 54

Duddington, Northants., 114

Dunham Magna, Norfolk, 38

Durham, cathedral, 50, 67, 69

Earl's Barton, Northants., 30, 48

Eastbourne, Sussex, 131

Easton, Great, Leices., 86

Ely, Cambs., cathedral, 50

Escomb, Durham, 17, 18, 20, 26, 27, 29

Evesham, Worces., All Saints, 105;
St Lawrence, 105

Ewerby, Lincs., 96

Exeter, Devon, cathedral, 113, 128

Exton, Rutland, 103, 104

Fairford, Glouces., 124

Felmersham, Beds., 110

Felton, Northumb., 83

Finchingfield, Essex, 45

Fountains abbey, Yorks., 67

Garton-on-the-Wolds, Yorks., 46

Geddington, Northants., 28, 72

Gedling, Notts., 94

Gloucester, cathedral, 67

Grantham, Lincs., 88, 89, 90, 91, 92, 96, 99, 100, 129, 130, 131

Greenstead, Essex, 43

Gretton, Northants., 72, 78, 93, 94

Hallaton, Leices., 83, 99

Harringworth, Northants., 85, 86, 87

Heapham, Lincs., 46

Heckington, Lincs., 76, 107, 108

Heddon-on-the-Wall, Northumb., 48

Henbury, Glouces., 99, 131, 132

Hereford, cathedral, 128

Heslerton, West, Yorks., 64

Hexham, Northumb., priory church, 20, 21, 23;
St Mary, 33, 34, 41

Heysham, Lancs., 25

Hooton Pagnell, Yorks., 46

Hough-on-the-Hill, Lincs., 32

Hull, Yorks., Holy Trinity, 128, 129

Hullavington, Wilts., 119

Iffley, Oxon., 53, 54, 114

Islip, Northants., 76

Jarrow-on-Tyne, Durham, St Paul, 19

Jerusalem, Holy Sepulchre, 34, 52, 62

Kegworth, Leices., 104

Kirkburn, Yorks., 46

Kirk Hammerton, Yorks., 46

Laceby, Lincs., 45

Langford, Essex, 52

Langham, Rutland, 113

Lavenham, Suffolk, 94

Leckhampton, Glouces., 54

Leicester, St Margaret, 123, 124;
St Mary in the Castle, 49, 95, 97

Leverington, Cambs., 119

Leverton, Lincs., 121

Lincoln, cathedral, 67, 127, 128;
St Mary-le-Wigford, 28; St
Peter-at-Gowts, 28

Lowick, Northants., 105

Ludlow, Salop., 99, 100, 102

Lydd, Kent, 24

Lynn, King's, Norfolk, St Margaret, 96;
St Nicholas, 127

Marshfield, Glouces., 123

Medbourne, Leices., 56, 58, 113

Melbourne, Derby, 59, 60, 69, 70, 75, 76, 96, 117

Melford, Long, Suffolk, 121, 126

Melton Mowbray, Leices., 102

Middleton Tyas, Yorks., 78, 79

Minster Lovell, Oxon., 61

Monkwearmouth, Durham, 18, 19, 20, 23, 29

Montacute, Som., 56, 58

Moor Monkton, Yorks., 48

Nantwich, Cheshire, 102

Newark-on-Trent, Notts., 87, 89, 96, 99, 110, 123, 127, 128, 129

Newbald, North, Yorks., 57, 58, 59, 60

Newcastle-on-Tyne, Northumb., St Nicholas, 96, 100

Newhaven, Sussex, 53

Norham-on-Tweed, Northumb., 69, 70

Northallerton, Yorks., 78

Northampton, St Giles, 60, 61;
St Peter, 49

Northleach, Glouces., 87, 88, 89, 99

Norton-on-Tees, Durham, 40, 41, 54

Norwich, cathedral, 67;
church of Black friars, 127

Nottingham, St Mary, 123

Oakham, Rutland, 113

Othery, Som., 65

Othona, see Bradwell-juxta-Mare

Ottery St Mary, Devon, 106, 113, 128

Oundle, Northants., 82, 94, 98, 108, 109, 117, 118

Paignton, Devon, 106

Patricio, Brecon, 66, 67, 68

Peterborough, Northants., Saxon abbey church, 21, 22

Petersfield, Hants., 109

Plymouth, Devon, St Andrew, 105, 106

Plympton St Mary, Devon, 105, 106

Portlemouth, East, Devon, 106

Potterne, Wilts., 55, 56, 65

Ramsey, Hunts., Saxon abbey church, 39

Ranworth, Norfolk, 64, 68

Raunds, Northants., 79, 80, 81, 83, 84, 119

Ravenna, Italy, Mausoleum of Galla Placidia, 10;
of Theodoric, 10, 11, 12;
Sant' Apollinare in Classe, 8, 9;
Sant' Apollinare Nuovo, 8, 9;
San Giovanni in Fonte, 10;
Sta Maria in Cosmedin, 10;
San Vitale, 11, 12, 13, 33

Reculver, Kent, 15, 24

Repton, Derby, 28, 37

Riccall, Yorks., 46

Ripon, Yorks, cathedral, 21, 23

Rochester, Kent, cathedral, 15

Rome, Basilica of Maxentius, 3;
Basilica Ulpia, 2;
Baths of Caracalla, 9;
Castle of Sant' Angelo, 9;
San Clemente, 9;
Sta Costanza, 9;
San Lorenzo fuori le Mura, 8;
San Paolo, 8;
old St Peter's, 4, 6, 7, 8, 14, 15;
scholae, 5

Rotherham, Yorks., 123

St-Georges-de-Boscherville, France (Seine-Inf.), 60

St Peter's on the Wall, see Bradwell-juxta-Mare

Salcombe Regis, Devon, 131

Salisbury, Wilts., cathedral, 67, 128

Sall, Norfolk, 104

Sawley, Derby, 120

Seamer, Yorks., 73

Sherburn-in-Elmet, Yorks., 69, 70, 96

Shrewsbury, Salop., St Mary, 114, 118, 121

Sidbury, Devon, 28, 131

Silchester, Hants., 14, 24, 25

Sileby, Leices., 96

Skipwith, Yorks., 115

Skirlaugh, South, Yorks., 65

Sleaford, Lincs., 82, 97

Southwell, Notts., cathedral, 70

Southwold, Suffolk, 125, 126

Spalding, Lincs., 95, 122

Stafford, St Mary, 112

Stanion, Northants., 119

Stanton Lacy, Salop., 38

Stow, Lincs., 39, 40, 42, 54

Stretton-in-the-Street, Rutland, 104

Studland, Dorset, 53

Sutton, Long, Lincs., 70, 124

Swaton, Lincs., 82

Tamworth, Staffs., 119, 123

Tansor, Northants., 49, 82, 100, 115, 116, 117, 122

Taunton, Som., St Mary Magdalene, 99

Temple Balsall, Warwicks., 65

Theddingworth, Leices., 79

Tickencote, Rutland, 48

Tickhill, Yorks., 96, 128

Tilney All Saints, Norfolk, 92, 93

Tiverton, Devon, 105, 106

Totnes, Devon, 126

Trier, Rhenish Prussia, basilica, 3;
Liebfrauenkirche, 34

Trunch, Norfolk, 126

Truro, Cornwall, cathedral, 133

Tunstead, Norfolk, 125

Tytherington, Glouces., 73

Vinovium, see Escomb.

Waith, Lincs., 38, 39

Wakefield, Yorks., cathedral, 123

Walberswick, Suffolk, 99

Walsham, North, Norfolk, 127

Walsoken, Norfolk, 70

Warkworth, Northumb., 48

Warmington, Northants., 99, 100

Wells, Som., cathedral, 128

Whaplode, Lincs., 92, 114

Whitwell, Rutland, 78

Winchester, cathedral, 50

Wing, Bucks., 24, 27

Winterton, Lincs., 28, 97

Wisbech, Cambs., 120

Witham, North, Lincs., 47

Witney, Oxon., 61, 110, 112

Wittering, Northants., 28

Wollaton, Notts., 97

Worstead, Norfolk, 99, 125

Worth, Sussex, 37, 102, 103

Yainville, France (Seine-Inf.), 53

Yatton, Som., 99

York, cathedral, 67, 127, 128

Ythanceaster, see Bradwell-juxta-Mare

CAMBRIDGE: PRINTED BY JOHN CLAY, M.A. AT THE UNIVERSITY PRESS

Transcriber's note

In the HTML version some of the illustrations have been moved beside the
relevant section of the text. Page numbers in the List of Illustrations reflect
the position of the illustration in the original text, but links link to current
position of illustrations.

Minor punctuation errors have been corrected without notice.

An obvious printer error has been corrected, and it is listed below.

All other inconsistencies are as in the original. The author's spelling has been
maintained.

Page 36: "a Saxon ex-example" changed to "a Saxon example".

*** END OF THE PROJECT GUTENBERG EBOOK THE GROUND
PLAN OF THE ENGLISH PARISH CHURCH ***

Updated editions will replace the previous one—the old editions will be
renamed.

Creating the works from print editions not protected by U.S. copyright law
means that no one owns a United States copyright in these works, so the
Foundation (and you!) can copy and distribute it in the United States
without permission and without paying copyright royalties. Special rules,
set forth in the General Terms of Use part of this license, apply to copying
and distributing Project Gutenberg™ electronic works to protect the
PROJECT GUTENBERG™ concept and trademark. Project Gutenberg is a
registered trademark, and may not be used if you charge for an eBook,
except by following the terms of the trademark license, including paying
royalties for use of the Project Gutenberg trademark. If you do not charge
anything for copies of this eBook, complying with the trademark license is
very easy. You may use this eBook for nearly any purpose such as creation
of derivative works, reports, performances and research. Project Gutenberg
eBooks may be modified and printed and given away—you may do
practically ANYTHING in the United States with eBooks not protected by
U.S. copyright law. Redistribution is subject to the trademark license,
especially commercial redistribution.

START: FULL LICENSE

THE FULL PROJECT GUTENBERG™ LICENSE
PLEASE READ THIS BEFORE YOU DISTRIBUTE OR USE THIS WORK

To protect the Project Gutenberg™ mission of promoting the free
distribution of electronic works, by using or distributing this work (or any
other work associated in any way with the phrase “Project Gutenberg”), you
agree to comply with all the terms of the Full Project Gutenberg License
available with this file or online at www.gutenberg.org/license.

Section 1. General Terms of Use and Redistributing
Project Gutenberg electronic works

1.A. By reading or using any part of this Project Gutenberg electronic work,
you indicate that you have read, understand, agree to and accept all the
terms of this license and intellectual property (trademark/copyright)
agreement. If you do not agree to abide by all the terms of this agreement,
you must cease using and return or destroy all copies of Project Gutenberg
electronic works in your possession. If you paid a fee for obtaining a copy
of or access to a Project Gutenberg electronic work and you do not agree to
be bound by the terms of this agreement, you may obtain a refund from the
person or entity to whom you paid the fee as set forth in paragraph 1.E.8.

1.B. “Project Gutenberg” is a registered trademark. It may only be used on
or associated in any way with an electronic work by people who agree to be
bound by the terms of this agreement. There are a few things that you can
do with most Project Gutenberg electronic works even without complying
with the full terms of this agreement. See paragraph 1.C below. There are a
lot of things you can do with Project Gutenberg electronic works if you
follow the terms of this agreement and help preserve free future access to
Project Gutenberg electronic works. See paragraph 1.E below.

1.C. The Project Gutenberg Literary Archive Foundation (“the Foundation”
or PGLAF), owns a compilation copyright in the collection of Project
Gutenberg electronic works. Nearly all the individual works in the
collection are in the public domain in the United States. If an individual
work is unprotected by copyright law in the United States and you are

located in the United States, we do not claim a right to prevent you from
copying, distributing, performing, displaying or creating derivative works
based on the work as long as all references to Project Gutenberg are
removed. Of course, we hope that you will support the Project Gutenberg
mission of promoting free access to electronic works by freely sharing
Project Gutenberg works in compliance with the terms of this agreement for
keeping the Project Gutenberg name associated with the work. You can
easily comply with the terms of this agreement by keeping this work in the
same format with its attached full Project Gutenberg License when you
share it without charge with others.

1.D. The copyright laws of the place where you are located also govern
what you can do with this work. Copyright laws in most countries are in a
constant state of change. If you are outside the United States, check the
laws of your country in addition to the terms of this agreement before
downloading, copying, displaying, performing, distributing or creating
derivative works based on this work or any other Project Gutenberg work.
The Foundation makes no representations concerning the copyright status
of any work in any country other than the United States.

1.E. Unless you have removed all references to Project Gutenberg:

1.E.1. The following sentence, with active links to, or other immediate
access to, the full Project Gutenberg License must appear prominently
whenever any copy of a Project Gutenberg work (any work on which the
phrase “Project Gutenberg” appears, or with which the phrase “Project
Gutenberg” is associated) is accessed, displayed, performed, viewed, copied
or distributed:

This eBook is for the use of anyone anywhere in the United States
and most other parts of the world at no cost and with almost no
restrictions whatsoever. You may copy it, give it away or re-use it
under the terms of the Project Gutenberg™ License included with
this eBook or online at www.gutenberg.org. If you are not located in
the United States, you will have to check the laws of the country
where you are located before using this eBook.

1.E.2. If an individual Project Gutenberg electronic work is derived from
texts not protected by U.S. copyright law (does not contain a notice
indicating that it is posted with permission of the copyright holder), the
work can be copied and distributed to anyone in the United States without
paying any fees or charges. If you are redistributing or providing access to a
work with the phrase “Project Gutenberg” associated with or appearing on
the work, you must comply either with the requirements of paragraphs
1.E.1 through 1.E.7 or obtain permission for the use of the work and the
Project Gutenberg trademark as set forth in paragraphs 1.E.8 or 1.E.9.

1.E.3. If an individual Project Gutenberg electronic work is posted with the
permission of the copyright holder, your use and distribution must comply
with both paragraphs 1.E.1 through 1.E.7 and any additional terms imposed
by the copyright holder. Additional terms will be linked to the Project
Gutenberg License for all works posted with the permission of the
copyright holder found at the beginning of this work.

1.E.4. Do not unlink or detach or remove the full Project Gutenberg License
terms from this work, or any files containing a part of this work or any
other work associated with Project Gutenberg.

1.E.5. Do not copy, display, perform, distribute or redistribute this
electronic work, or any part of this electronic work, without prominently
displaying the sentence set forth in paragraph 1.E.1 with active links or
immediate access to the full terms of the Project Gutenberg License.

1.E.6. You may convert to and distribute this work in any binary,
compressed, marked up, nonproprietary or proprietary form, including any
word processing or hypertext form. However, if you provide access to or
distribute copies of a Project Gutenberg work in a format other than “Plain
Vanilla ASCII” or other format used in the official version posted on the
official Project Gutenberg website (www.gutenberg.org), you must, at no
additional cost, fee or expense to the user, provide a copy, a means of
exporting a copy, or a means of obtaining a copy upon request, of the work
in its original “Plain Vanilla ASCII” or other form. Any alternate format
must include the full Project Gutenberg License as specified in paragraph
1.E.1.

1.E.7. Do not charge a fee for access to, viewing, displaying, performing,
copying or distributing any Project Gutenberg works unless you comply
with paragraph 1.E.8 or 1.E.9.

1.E.8. You may charge a reasonable fee for copies of or providing access to
or distributing Project Gutenberg electronic works provided that:

• You pay a royalty fee of 20% of the gross profits you derive from the
use of Project Gutenberg works calculated using the method you
already use to calculate your applicable taxes. The fee is owed to the
owner of the Project Gutenberg trademark, but he has agreed to donate
royalties under this paragraph to the Project Gutenberg Literary
Archive Foundation. Royalty payments must be paid within 60 days
following each date on which you prepare (or are legally required to
prepare) your periodic tax returns. Royalty payments should be clearly
marked as such and sent to the Project Gutenberg Literary Archive
Foundation at the address specified in Section 4, “Information about
donations to the Project Gutenberg Literary Archive Foundation.”

• You provide a full refund of any money paid by a user who notifies
you in writing (or by e-mail) within 30 days of receipt that s/he does
not agree to the terms of the full Project Gutenberg™ License. You
must require such a user to return or destroy all copies of the works
possessed in a physical medium and discontinue all use of and all
access to other copies of Project Gutenberg™ works.

• You provide, in accordance with paragraph 1.F.3, a full refund of any
money paid for a work or a replacement copy, if a defect in the
electronic work is discovered and reported to you within 90 days of
receipt of the work.

• You comply with all other terms of this agreement for free distribution
of Project Gutenberg™ works.

1.E.9. If you wish to charge a fee or distribute a Project Gutenberg™
electronic work or group of works on different terms than are set forth in
this agreement, you must obtain permission in writing from the Project
Gutenberg Literary Archive Foundation, the manager of the Project

Gutenberg™ trademark. Contact the Foundation as set forth in Section 3
below.

1.F.

1.F.1. Project Gutenberg volunteers and employees expend considerable
effort to identify, do copyright research on, transcribe and proofread works
not protected by U.S. copyright law in creating the Project Gutenberg™
collection. Despite these efforts, Project Gutenberg™ electronic works, and
the medium on which they may be stored, may contain “Defects,” such as,
but not limited to, incomplete, inaccurate or corrupt data, transcription
errors, a copyright or other intellectual property infringement, a defective or
damaged disk or other medium, a computer virus, or computer codes that
damage or cannot be read by your equipment.

1.F.2. LIMITED WARRANTY, DISCLAIMER OF DAMAGES - Except
for the “Right of Replacement or Refund” described in paragraph 1.F.3, the
Project Gutenberg Literary Archive Foundation, the owner of the Project
Gutenberg™ trademark, and any other party distributing a Project
Gutenberg™ electronic work under this agreement, disclaim all liability to
you for damages, costs and expenses, including legal fees. YOU AGREE
THAT YOU HAVE NO REMEDIES FOR NEGLIGENCE, STRICT
LIABILITY, BREACH OF WARRANTY OR BREACH OF CONTRACT
EXCEPT THOSE PROVIDED IN PARAGRAPH 1.F.3. YOU AGREE
THAT THE FOUNDATION, THE TRADEMARK OWNER, AND ANY
DISTRIBUTOR UNDER THIS AGREEMENT WILL NOT BE LIABLE
TO YOU FOR ACTUAL, DIRECT, INDIRECT, CONSEQUENTIAL,
PUNITIVE OR INCIDENTAL DAMAGES EVEN IF YOU GIVE
NOTICE OF THE POSSIBILITY OF SUCH DAMAGE.

1.F.3. LIMITED RIGHT OF REPLACEMENT OR REFUND - If you
discover a defect in this electronic work within 90 days of receiving it, you
can receive a refund of the money (if any) you paid for it by sending a
written explanation to the person you received the work from. If you
received the work on a physical medium, you must return the medium with
your written explanation. The person or entity that provided you with the
defective work may elect to provide a replacement copy in lieu of a refund.
If you received the work electronically, the person or entity providing it to

you may choose to give you a second opportunity to receive the work
electronically in lieu of a refund. If the second copy is also defective, you
may demand a refund in writing without further opportunities to fix the
problem.

1.F.4. Except for the limited right of replacement or refund set forth in
paragraph 1.F.3, this work is provided to you ‘AS-IS’, WITH NO OTHER
WARRANTIES OF ANY KIND, EXPRESS OR IMPLIED, INCLUDING
BUT NOT LIMITED TO WARRANTIES OF MERCHANTABILITY OR
FITNESS FOR ANY PURPOSE.

1.F.5. Some states do not allow disclaimers of certain implied warranties or
the exclusion or limitation of certain types of damages. If any disclaimer or
limitation set forth in this agreement violates the law of the state applicable
to this agreement, the agreement shall be interpreted to make the maximum
disclaimer or limitation permitted by the applicable state law. The invalidity
or unenforceability of any provision of this agreement shall not void the
remaining provisions.

1.F.6. INDEMNITY - You agree to indemnify and hold the Foundation, the
trademark owner, any agent or employee of the Foundation, anyone
providing copies of Project Gutenberg™ electronic works in accordance
with this agreement, and any volunteers associated with the production,
promotion and distribution of Project Gutenberg™ electronic works,
harmless from all liability, costs and expenses, including legal fees, that
arise directly or indirectly from any of the following which you do or cause
to occur: (a) distribution of this or any Project Gutenberg work, (b)
alteration, modification, or additions or deletions to any Project Gutenberg
work, and (c) any Defect you cause.

Section 2. Information about the Mission of Project
Gutenberg

Project Gutenberg is synonymous with the free distribution of electronic
works in formats readable by the widest variety of computers including
obsolete, old, middle-aged and new computers. It exists because of the

efforts of hundreds of volunteers and donations from people in all walks of
life.

Volunteers and financial support to provide volunteers with the assistance
they need are critical to reaching Project Gutenberg’s goals and ensuring
that the Project Gutenberg collection will remain freely available for
generations to come. In 2001, the Project Gutenberg Literary Archive
Foundation was created to provide a secure and permanent future for
Project Gutenberg and future generations. To learn more about the Project
Gutenberg Literary Archive Foundation and how your efforts and donations
can help, see Sections 3 and 4 and the Foundation information page at
www.gutenberg.org.

Section 3. Information about the Project Gutenberg
Literary Archive Foundation

The Project Gutenberg Literary Archive Foundation is a non-profit 501(c)
(3) educational corporation organized under the laws of the state of
Mississippi and granted tax exempt status by the Internal Revenue Service.
The Foundation’s EIN or federal tax identification number is 64-6221541.
Contributions to the Project Gutenberg Literary Archive Foundation are tax
deductible to the full extent permitted by U.S. federal laws and your state’s
laws.

The Foundation’s business office is located at 41 Watchung Plaza #516,
Montclair NJ 07042, USA, +1 (862) 621-9288. Email contact links and up
to date contact information can be found at the Foundation’s website and
official page at www.gutenberg.org/contact

Section 4. Information about Donations to the Project
Gutenberg Literary Archive Foundation

Project Gutenberg™ depends upon and cannot survive without widespread
public support and donations to carry out its mission of increasing the
number of public domain and licensed works that can be freely distributed
in machine-readable form accessible by the widest array of equipment

including outdated equipment. Many small donations ($1 to $5,000) are
particularly important to maintaining tax exempt status with the IRS.

The Foundation is committed to complying with the laws regulating
charities and charitable donations in all 50 states of the United States.
Compliance requirements are not uniform and it takes a considerable effort,
much paperwork and many fees to meet and keep up with these
requirements. We do not solicit donations in locations where we have not
received written confirmation of compliance. To SEND DONATIONS or
determine the status of compliance for any particular state visit
www.gutenberg.org/donate.

While we cannot and do not solicit contributions from states where we have
not met the solicitation requirements, we know of no prohibition against
accepting unsolicited donations from donors in such states who approach us
with offers to donate.

International donations are gratefully accepted, but we cannot make any
statements concerning tax treatment of donations received from outside the
United States. U.S. laws alone swamp our small staff.

Please check the Project Gutenberg web pages for current donation methods
and addresses. Donations are accepted in a number of other ways including
checks, online payments and credit card donations. To donate, please visit:
www.gutenberg.org/donate.

Section 5. General Information About Project Gutenberg
electronic works

Professor Michael S. Hart was the originator of the Project Gutenberg
concept of a library of electronic works that could be freely shared with
anyone. For forty years, he produced and distributed Project Gutenberg
eBooks with only a loose network of volunteer support.

Project Gutenberg eBooks are often created from several printed editions,
all of which are confirmed as not protected by copyright in the U.S. unless a

copyright notice is included. Thus, we do not necessarily keep eBooks in
compliance with any particular paper edition.

Most people start at our website which has the main PG search facility:
www.gutenberg.org.

This website includes information about Project Gutenberg, including how
to make donations to the Project Gutenberg Literary Archive Foundation,
how to help produce our new eBooks, and how to subscribe to our email
newsletter to hear about new eBooks.