« PreviousContinue »
suring 12 ins. by 8 ins., lined with plaster-and it commanded apparently a view of the High Altar, which was dedicated to St. Martin.
The style of the N. and S. Walls of the Nave is much the same as that of the Western Wall, and behind the woodwork are considerable pieces of pink plaster, remarkable both for its hardness and texture. It is composed of carbonate of lime imperfectly burned, of silicious sand, and pounded Roman tile, in almost equal proportions. The subsequent imitations of this plaster, occasionally found in Saxon, Norman, and even Early English buildings, are distinguishable from it by the greater preponderance of sand. About the middle of the N. Wall is a doorway, 4 ft. 2 in. wide, with jambs of Caen stones of irregular size, some of them shewing axe-tooling. The date of this doorway is a matter of controversy. The head is destroyed and the rubble filling-in irregular, but the general appearance seems to me to favour the theory that it is Norman-and it is probable that in the restoration of the Church at the end of the twelfth or the beginning of the thirteenth century there was added the Early English porch, which was only removed some sixty or seventy years ago. On the E. side of the doorway is a stoup for Holy Water, conjectured by some to be coeval with the existing wall, and certainly of great antiquity. The shape is irregular, but it may be described roughly as measuring 20 ins. by 17 ins.
On the removal of the flooring at the S.E. corner of the Nave, near the Norman piscina, the foundations of a wall were discovered running parallel to the S. Wall of the Nave, from which it is little more than 3 ft. distant. These foundations, chiefly consisting of
flint, are about 18 ins. wide and 15 ins. deep, but they are in parts extremely fragmentary, and they may be connected with the parclose of the Altar of St. Nicholas, which formerly stood in this portion of the Church.
The Rev. G. M. Livett, however (who has paid very great and careful attention to the Architecture of the Church, and to whom I am indebted for many valuable suggestions and corrections in this Paper), has opened out another possibility. He writes to me as follows:
"The portion of the east wall of the nave, into which the south respond of the chancel arch is bonded, is similar in character and material to the brick walling of the western part of the chancel, with which, therefore, rather than with the nave, it must be identified in date and construction. The same may be said of the corresponding bit of wall on the north side, which, however, has been more interfered with by the bondings of later work. In the face of the bit of wall on the south side, though rough and plastered with hard cement, may be detected the broken bonders of a wall that formerly ran westwards from it, and exactly in a line with the south wall of the chancel. The vertical line of the junction of the southern face of the destroyed wall with the bit of wall under examination can be traced quite clearly. It has all the proper signs of bonding, precisely similar in treatment to the signs of bonding seen on the face of the south wall of the chancel immediately above the foundations of the Adjunct which you fortunately discovered by excavation. [To be described hereafter.] The foundations which you found under the flooring of the nave are in a position to have carried this destroyed wall. According to your description,