336 Note>i on Corsham Church. 



exact character requires to be ascertained by examination. It bas 

 been assumed to be Norman, but it may perhaps prove ^ to be Early 

 English. It now opens into the aisle, showing that the original 

 south aisle was lower than the present one. The same was the case 

 with the north aisle, as an examination of the west end of that 

 aisle externally shows that the upper part is built against the pre- 

 existing clerestory of the nave, of which the quoins remain. If the 

 Norman north aisle Avere of the same width as the present aisle, it 

 would be unusually wide for its height. The probability therefore 

 is that it was naiTOwer, and that the Norman doonvay, in the north 

 wall, has been shifted, in the fourteenth centuiy. 



Previous to 1878 the north aisle was most interesting, remaining, 

 in its main features, much in the condition into which it had been 

 brought in the fourteenth centmy. It is noticeable that, at that 

 date, this aisle absorbed the north transept, by the removal of the 

 west wall of the latter, and the arch, opening from the aisle into the 

 Tropenell Chapel, on the north side of the chancel, was then erected, 

 which shows either that there was an older chapel on that site, or a 

 chapel of the fourteenth century since demolished, or that the arch 

 was prepared for an intended chapel. As there remains the head 

 of an Early English lancet Avindow, just above the arch, it follows 

 that, if there was an earlier chapel, its arch of entrance was a much 

 lower one. The aisle had thi'ee two-light windows, on the north 

 side — two of which remain in situ and one has been removed into an 

 annexe, added at the " restoration," and, in the removal, has lost its 

 appearance of antiquity — and a tlu'ee-light window, which remains, 

 at the west end. All these are of good Decorated character, with 

 a peculiarity in the tracer}' , which occurs in the Decorated windows 

 at Malmesbury, and, I believe, also in Exeter Cathedral. 



Externally this aisle retained the stiimps of two original gable 

 crosses of the fom-teenth centmy, Avhich had crocheted shafts, a fact 

 which was either overlooked or disregarded, in the '' restoration," 

 and new crosses, which have no such characteristic, were substituted. 

 The roof is of the fifteenth century. 



' As the result of examination, it does not appear to be Norman, and is probably 

 Early English, perhaps altered, at a later date, internally. 



