|
twelfth Century’ in Art and Patronage
in the English Romanesque, ed. S. Macready and F. H. Thompson (London,
1986), pp. 52 and 57, P1. XXV.
13 Sanders refers to Maud and Joan as Ingeiram’s
sisters, but it is clear from medieval sources that they were his
daughters because their husbands are reported to be sons-in-law.
14 W. Dugdale, Monasticon Anglicanum, 6 vols.
(London, 1840), 4 (ii), p. 1012. Boudet, ‘Le Prieuré de Beaulieu’, p.
2 (see note 39).
15 Comparing the church with the celebrated Anglo-Saxon
one at Barton-on-Humber, Kahn suggests that the position of the tower
projecting from the middle of the south aisle indicates that the original
plan was similar. The lower two stages of the tower at Barton have been
dated to the latter part of the tenth century.
16 H. M. andJ. Taylor,Anglo-Saxon Architecture, 3
vols (Cambridge, 1965-78), 1, p. 56. Aldington, Cheriton, Lyminge, St
Margaret’s at Cliffe, West Stourmouth and Willesborough are among those
identified. For Whitfield see also, ‘A Victorian photograph of Whitfield
Church (pre-restoration)’, Archaeologia Cantiana, Cxx (2000),
381-5.
17 Called the Isaak chapel by Hasted, and also the
chapel of Saint John. The Isaacs were the manorial lords of Hode and
Howletts from the fourteenth to the sixteenth centuries.
18 Livett suggests that originally a single sloping roof
covered both the nave and the aisle and that the aisle wall was later
raised.
19 Exceptions
to this rule are St Margaret’s at Cliffe where the door is at the west
end, and Cintheaux where the door is towards the west end of the south
aisle.
20 For example, Barfreston, Castle Hedingham (Essex) and
St Dunstan, Canterbury.
21 Until the mid-nineteenth century there was an
additional, rectilinear window in the centre of the south aisle wall but
this was part of a nineteenth-century programme of alterations. |
|
22
For example, Barfreston, Castle Hedingham (Essex) and Brabourne (the last
in the north rather than the south wall).
23 This view is not supported by Livett who thought the
arches contemporary with the north aisle.
24 Permission was given in 1875 to ‘raise the chancel’.
However, the roof level seems largely unaltered, implying that the floor
was raised.
25 The top of the arch has been repaired. The current
church architect, Andrew Clague, suggests that one of the reasons for
building the Bifrons Chapel may have been to provide structural support
for the arch. In that case, it is possible that there was a buttress on
the north side, which was removed when the north aisle was built in the
nineteenth century.
26 A. W. Clapham likens the Irish gables, which he calls
pediments, to Anglo-Saxon work rather than Anglo-Norman in Romanesque
Architecture in Western Europe (Oxford, 1936), p. 155.
27 Romanesque parallels for this include: a portrait of
Thomas Becket, Cambridge, Trinity College MS B.5.5, fo. 130v: and
work commissioned by Henry de Blois (British Museum Catalogue nos. 277a
and b).
28 Kahn, D., Canterbury Cathedral and its Romanesque
Sculpture (London, 1991), p. 21, suggests that these are apostles.
Musset agrees, but Philip McAleer, ‘The Significance of the West Front
of Rochester Cathedral’, Archaeologia Cantiana, XCIX (1983),
139-158 (at 141) writes that the lintel comprises eight interlocked stones
which do not quite fit into place implying that it may have been reused
and may indeed have had twelve figures originally.
29 There is some dog-tooth work on the water
tower at Canterbury Cathedral dated to
1150-60 by Kahn, p.73. |