By C. E. Pouting, F.S.A. 



355 



the Church for the purposes of restoration, dated 27th May, 1886 : — 



1. — The portions of original wall on the west show that the 



building of which they formed part was of quite minor 

 importance as regards dimensions^ — it can only have been 

 10ft. 8in. wide and about 17ft. high, with walls only 2ft. 

 thick. These dimensions are quite incompatible with the 

 idea of its being the original nave of a Church having such 

 a tower as this. 



2. — The east wall of the nave is nearly 4ft. thick, and there can 



be little doubt that it is of the same early work as the 

 tower, and that the original arch, or doorway (if any) 

 had, owing to its small dimensions, given way to the 

 modern brick arch, which existed previous to the recent 

 restoration. 



3. — The remains of early work at C show that the building 



eastward of the tower was 1ft. wider, northwards, than 

 the existing nave, which is not central with the tower. 



Is it not more reasonable to suppose that there were was 

 originally a nave on the site of the existing one (and of the same 

 length) with chapels on the other three sides of the tower ? (the 

 western adjunct might have been a baptistry or porch) or even 

 that the usual orientation was reversed, the apse for the high altar 

 being at the west ? The greater elaboration of the western arch 

 would favour either of these alternatives rather than the idea that 

 the eastern arch formed the entrance to the sanctuary. (It must 

 be borne in mind that there were formerly entrances to the Church 

 in the north and south walls of the aisles.) 



Then as to the date of this early work : in 1888 I submitted 

 these drawings to Mr. J. T. Micklethwaite, F.S.A., who expressed 

 a very definite opinion that the tower is a Saxon one of the 9th 

 century, the western arch having been altered in its caps, and the 

 eastern arch renewed. I have seen more Saxon work since that 

 time than I had previously, and I can now, as then, see nothing in 

 even the earliest work here incompatible with its having been done in 

 early Norman times — perhaps by the aid of Saxon craftsmen. 

 Unfortunately, before I took the restoration in hand an excellent 



