|
CONCLUSION
The conventional view of St Mary’s, Patrixbourne — like that of
Barfreston’ s church — is that it was in some sense dependent on one
or other of the major ecclesiastical establishments in Canterbury. Its
chronology has generally been estimated in relation to Canterbury work
(or, occasionally, to that of Rochester), and it has often been assumed
that the same workshops or teams of itinerant workmen were involved. One
of the main conclusions of the present study is that St Mary’s should be
detached from the supposed influence of the Kentish cathedrals,
highlighting rather the potential pitfalls in dating and classifying
lesser buildings in relation to greater ones. While such a comparative
approach can be useful in the preliminary stages — not least because
greater foundations are generally better documented than lesser ones —
it has severe limitations and may lead to over-simplification. A wider
approach is needed where the work appears to have been initiated by an
individual family patron: it is to their history and connections
that we should look to understand the chronology and development of the
monuments in question. The case of Patrixbourne shows how fruitful this
can be. |
|
ACKNOWLEDGEMENTS
This paper is an abridged version of a dissertation submitted for an M.A.
in Medieval and Tudor studies at the University of Kent at Canterbury in
2000. The writer received both moral and practical support from many at
the UKC, in particular her supervisor, Dr Richard Gameson and Richard
Eales. She owes a great debt to the staff of libraries in Canterbury,
London and Normandy, especially Cressida Annersley of Canterbury Cathedral
Archives. Andrew Clague, church architect at Patrixbourne, offered an
architect’s insight into the building, and kindly allowed her to use his
firm’s plan of the building. Residents of Beaulieu Ferme in Normandy
allowed her access to the former priory there. Patrixbourne parishioners
provided a great deal of help. Rosalie Stacey has given the writer many of
her excellent photographs of the church exterior and has allowed them to
be used in the study. Plate II is reproduced with the kind permission of
the Dean and Chapter of Canterbury Cathedral.
The writer’s husband, Peter Berg, was chauffeur,
photographer, interpreter, counsellor, proof-reader and many other things.
Needless to say, the opinions expressed in the study are entirely the
writer’s and she bears full responsibility for any errors and omissions. |