« PreviousContinue »
Roman tiles and rough voussoirs of Kentish ragstone with interstices of bright pink mortar.
These windows are certainly built more Romano, and no sufficient evidence has yet been brought forward to upset the opinion strongly held by many antiquarians-that they are Roman. They are 2 ft. 8in. wide, and would have measured 4 ft. from sill to crown. Their jambs are splayed at an angle that would allow about 12 ins. for the actual opening on the outer face of the wall. Their sills are respectively 9 ft. 9 in. and 10 ft. above the ground level; and the lower portion of the South Window is filled up with thin mediæval tiles.*
The extended windows were undoubtedly blocked up when the tower was built in the fourteenth century. Their heads have no voussoirs, but were cut out of the original walling, and simply plastered. Near them are portions of pink plaster still adhering to the wall.
Excavations were made below the northern portion of this Western Wall in hopes of finding some of the original flooring of the Church, but could not be further prosecuted because vaults and even detached skeletons were met with at a distance of no more than 1 ft. below the existing pews.
In the same corner, partially covered by the N. Wall of the tower, there has been exposed by the removal of the woodwork the Norman squint or lychnoscope, the sides of which are formed of worked chalk and Kentish rag, with traces of a hinge and receptacle for a bolt, while the lintel is composed of a piece of oak greatly decayed by age. This lychnoscope is partially splayed on both sides, rather more to the S. than the N. side, the actual opening meaCf. Sketch.
ST. MARTIN'S CHURCH, CANTERBURY.
BY THE REV. CHARLES F. ROUTLEDGE, F.S.A.
RECENT explorations have once more directed our attention to the history and structure of this remarkable Church. If only a little more care and thought had been bestowed upon it during preceding centuries, not only would the present generation have been saved a vast amount of difficult and perplexing controversy, but the building itself would not have suffered from unsuitable restoration, or been exposed to partial decay and the destruction of countless interesting features.
As it is, no systematic record of the Church's annals has come down to us, no description of its internal arrangements save what can be inferred from the casual wills of parishioners before the Reformation, no entries respecting its history in the Registers or Churchwardens' Accounts-I might almost add, no trustworthy picture, for the old prints, from the seventeenth century downwards, are extremely fanciful and inaccurate. So far has this process of silence been carried out that even the extensive restorations made fifty years ago under the guidance of Mr. Daniel Finch and Canon Chesshyre have not been recorded. They were apparently executed without any faculty from the Archbishop, and no papers are extant shew