312 



NOTES AND QUERIES. 



[2»'i S. X. Oct. 20. '60. 



CHANCELS. 

 (2'"> S. X. 68. 253.) 



I am very much disposed to agree with Mr. 

 Hooper in his readings, to abandon the theory 

 which supposes that the obliquity of the chancel 

 depends on the spot where the sun rises on the 

 day of the patron saint. At the same time, it 

 would have been very satisfactory if he had in- 

 formed us to what saint the church in question is 

 dedicated ; in what spot the sun rises on the day 

 of that saint, and what is the direction of the 

 ' chancel. If such information were furnished by 

 Mr. Hooper with respect to the church at Meop- 

 ham, by W. L. Y. with respect to' the parish 

 church of Eastbourne, and by one or two other 

 correspondents with respect to other churches, I 

 am persuaded that the question would speedily be 

 set at rest. For the present I will only observe 

 that I have ft'equently heard the point of sunrise 

 on the saint's day assigned as a reason why the 

 church — as a whole — should diverge from the 

 true line of east and west. It is quite con- 

 ceivable that such should be the case ; but I can- 

 not at all understand how any point assigned to 

 the rising sun should account for the chancel 

 being built in one line, and the rest of the church 

 in another. 



If, as Mr. Hooper seems inclined to suppose, 

 the divergence of the chancel was adopted for the 

 purpose of introducing a symbol, we might cer- 

 tainly expect to find the most marked examples 

 of such divergence in churches of the time of 

 King Edward III., for that was emphatically the 

 age of architectural symbolisms ; and there can 

 be no doubt that the practice in question lasted 

 only for a certain period. For instance, we should 

 certainly not expect to find a deviation from the 

 straight line in the ground plan of any church 

 older than the year 1200, either in England or on 

 the Continent. And I am persuaded that no in- 

 stance of such a deviation can be found in any 

 church built in the style of Renaissance, of which 

 St. Eustache at Paris may be taken as a model : 

 but I very much doubt whether Mr. Hooper is 

 correct in supposing that the practice in question 

 was confined within such narrow limits as the 

 reign of Edward III. At all events I can adduce 

 one instance — that of St. Mary Magdalen at 

 Taunton — where a chancel deviating from the 

 line of the nave is to be found in a church of a 

 later date. 



I quite agree with Mn. Hooper in thinking 

 that there are too many instances of deviation 

 from a straight line to admit of the probability of 

 its having been a mere blunder on the part of the 

 builders. It was clearly done advisedly : and 

 when I find a thing of this sort done advisedly in 

 the best age of Gothic architecture, I should be 

 SI9W to join with Mr. Hooper in pronouncing it 



to be an architectural defect. On the contrary, it 

 appears to me to be a question well worth looking 

 into, whether — as I suggested in a former com- 

 munication — the deviation was not adopted on 

 aBSthetic grounds. 



With respect to the church of Meopham, there 

 is one point particularly to be noted. The devia- 

 tion from a straight line is very considerable ; but 

 until "the high pews and other incumbrances" 

 were removed, it does not appear that any one 

 was aware of it. Exactly the same thing occurred 

 in the Church of St. Mary Magdalen at Taunton, 

 already adverted to. Some years ago the old pews 

 were removed, the rood-loft was taken down, and 

 then it was found that the chancel was not in a 

 straight line with the nave. I should be glad to 

 know whether among the encumbrances removed 

 at Meopham there was anything in the nature of 

 a rood-loft to arrest the eye in passing from the 

 nave to the chancel. I should also be curious to 

 enquire whether there may not be other cases, 

 where the deviation of the chancel from the 

 general line of the church remained unnoticed till 

 it was exposed to view by the clearing out of en- 

 cumbrances. P. S. CAREr. 



Your correspondents, in accounting for the ob- 

 liquity or divergence of the chancel, suggest two 

 theories, either of which, if well-established, might 

 answer the purpose. The alternative thus offered 

 invites farther inquiry. One of the two theories, viz. 

 that which supposes that the chancel is so turned 

 as to point to the exact spot in the horizon where 

 the sun rises on the day of the patron saint, may 

 easily be put to the test. The number of churches 

 in which the chancel is not in a straight line with 

 the nave is much greater than people are generally 

 aware of; and if the clergyman of every parish 

 would examine his own church, w.e should soon 

 have ample materials to enable us to decide how 

 far the rising of the sun on the day of the patron 

 saint had anything to do with the matter. The 

 other theory — that which supposes the divergence 

 to symbolise the inclination of our Lord's head 

 while hanging on the cross — does not admit of 

 being tested in the same manner. But it would 

 be interesting to ascertain whether there is any- 

 thing to be found (in the way of allusion or other- 

 wise) in support of this theory, in any work written 

 before the year 1600. At all events, it is a theory 

 that is in harmony with other architectural sym- 

 bolisms ; for instance, in the Sainie Chapelle at 

 Paris, and in many absidal cathedi'als, the painted 

 windows on the north of the altar are of a more 

 sombre hue than those on the south ; and if you 

 ask the reason, you are told that it is because our > 

 Saviour on the cross turned his face towards the ~| 

 left. Still it remains to be considered whether ' 

 any such hypothesis as this can be taken as solving 

 the whole of the question. If we examine the 



