Part 3

The whole problem of the work of English masons after the Conquest is one for the solution of which we have as yet no definite data. These Nottinghamshire examples can hardly be said to do more than leave the question where they find it. The one thing that can be said positively is that such churches were built in country places at small expense, and without the trouble of dressing stone in large blocks of regular size, which was taken in cases where more money was probably forthcoming. Such buildings, it need hardly be said, were intended to have an outer as well as an inner coat of plaster. The masonry, when exposed, is interesting, but unsightly. Far different was the case with the larger churches of the Norman period in England, with the rubble core of their walling faced, out and in, with courses of dressed stone. Of these churches, in which principles of construction were gradually developed by the attempt of the builders to solve the problem offered by the stone roof and its abutments, Nottinghamshire possesses two, the priory church of Blyth and the collegiate church of Southwell. Blyth was the church of a priory of Norman Benedictines, founded in 1088 as a cell to the abbey of La Trinité on the Mont-Ste-Cathérine at Rouen. The eastern portion of the church is now gone, but the nave and north aisle of the original building remain. These must have been built very soon after the foundation: their characteristics are those of the eleventh-century Romanesque of Normandy, as we see it in the large Benedictine churches of Bernay (Eure) and Jumièges (Seine-Inférieure). The masonry with which the building is faced is composed chiefly of cubical blocks of dressed stone with wide joints. The arches of the main arcades are round-headed, and of two orders, unmoulded: both orders spring from a single soffit shaft with a trapezoidal capital and heavy abacus. The piers dividing the arches are square blocks of wall, in front of each of which a bold semi-circular shaft rises to the level of the springing of the triforium arcade. The string-course at the sill of the triforium arcade is continued as a band round the vaulting shafts. Each bay of the triforium is pierced by a single archway, about a third of the height of the corresponding arch of the main arcade. Each of these arches is of two orders: the supports are formed by the rectangular recessing of the intermediate piers, and the arches spring from impost-blocks recessed to match. The construction of the triforium is thus more logical and symmetrical than that of the main arcade below, in which the two orders of the arches find no correspondence in the jambs. The clerestory is composed of a single round-headed opening in each bay, set in the outer face of the wall. The nave originally was not vaulted, but in the thirteenth century the vaulting shafts were adapted to receive the springing of a quadripartite vault, the ribs of which spring at the level already mentioned. Both aisles, however, were probably vaulted. At the end of the thirteenth century, a very wide south aisle was built for the sake of the parochial services, and the older aisle was removed. The north aisle, however, is left as it was: each bay is covered with a groined vault of plastered rubble. The groins are winding and irregular. The builders were evidently alive to the difficulty of keeping the crown of their vault level, where the compartment with which they had to deal was oblong in shape; and the groins are made to spring, not from the same point as the transverse arches dividing each bay, but from small stilts set rather awkwardly upon the springing blocks. The whole work is severely plain: the capitals of the soffit shafts of the main arcade have small volutes at their angles, and there is simple grotesque carving on the flat face of the capitals between the volutes. One of the bases also has an excellent double roll carved in cable fashion.

The date of this work is of some importance in the general history of English architecture. Apart from the early work at Westminster, few churches in England, built wholly under Norman influence, can have been completed at an earlier date than Blyth, although the building of several was in progress at the time when Blyth was founded. The largest eleventh-century church in the neighbourhood, that of Lincoln, was consecrated in 1092; and the remains of the earliest work there have much in common with Blyth--the wide-jointed masonry, unmoulded arches, voluted capitals, broad triforium arches, and single clerestory openings. The date of the consecration of Blyth, however, is unrecorded, and it should be borne in mind that the work in 1088 would have been begun with the eastern arm, of which there is nothing left. All, therefore, that can be said about it is, that it is approximately contemporary with the eleventh-century work at Lincoln, and that the elevation adopted in the lateral walls of both churches probably supplied a model to the builders of Southwell. The monks’ quire at Blyth extended one bay west of the crossing, and, at a later date, was divided from the nave by a solid wall the whole height of the building. On this wall, towards the nave, remain traces of painting: the eastern bay of the nave is open to the garden of the modern hall near the church, and was used for some time as an aviary.

The great church of Southwell, as it stands, was begun in the days of Thomas II., archbishop of York from 1109 to 1114. The eastern arm was terminated by a rectangular chancel, while the aisles ended in apses, the walls of which were rounded externally as well as internally. Traces alone remain of this interesting plan.[7] The transepts of the twelfth-century church remain, though the apsidal chapels to the east of them have gone: the whole of the nave and south porch, the central tower, and two western towers form one work with the transepts. The general character of this work is of a rather late Romanesque type. The gables of the transepts are filled with a relieved honeycomb pattern which bears some affinity to that used in the gables abutting on the lower stages of the western towers at Lincoln. The date of the Lincoln work has been supposed to lie between 1123 and 1148, but is very probably even later than the second date. The rich string-course of chevron ornament which, in spite of some mutilation, is still continued round the nave and transepts of Southwell at the level of the sills of the aisle windows, and is raised to form the segmental head of the doorway in the south transept, is another feature which points to the late completion of the western part of the church. The northern and western doorways of the nave, the first of five, the second of four shafted orders, in addition to the continuous inner order of rows of chevrons, have a refinement of detail which suggests a date not earlier than 1150. In the side walls of the north porch, the lower stage of the central tower, and the top stage but one of the north-west tower, are arcades of intersecting rounded arches. In the south-west tower, however, the arcade in the top stage but one consists of pointed arches. The probability is that the work was slowly achieved, and was not finished until the third quarter of the twelfth century. The earliest portion appears to be the great arches beneath the central tower, with their elaborate “double-cone” ornament, which is really a highly-developed variety of the twisted-cable sculpture, such as we have noticed on the base at Blyth.[8] The main arcades of the nave were then probably built westward as an abutment to these arches. The arcades are of seven bays up to the eastern piers of the towers. The arches have a curve of rather less than a semicircle: they are framed by a band of double-billet ornament beneath a small roll: they have a deep outer order with an edge-roll, and an inner order with two thick soffit rolls. They are divided by low and massive cylindrical columns, the capitals of which are cylinders of larger diameter, carved with scalloping and other ornament. This carving is incised, and little relief is given to the scalloping. The work of the triforium, clerestory, and aisles appears to have followed the building of the main arcades.[9] The triforium, as at Blyth, has a single bold opening in each bay. The moulding of the arches is very similar to that of the arches below, but the outer band of ornament is richer. The piers dividing them are square in section, and are recessed with an angle shaft and soffit shaft, each with scalloped capitals to bear the orders of the arches. The inner faces of the arches and jambs towards the triforium passage are left unmoulded. The clerestory consists of a circular opening in each bay, framed on the outside by a continuous roll moulding. There is a barrel-vaulted clerestory passage, which opens towards the nave by a plain rounded arch with soffit shafts in each bay. No vaulting shafts were ever planned: the elevation of the nave externally is rather flat and plain, but a strong horizontal line is given by the triforium string, and the effect of light and shade caused by the clerestory openings is one of the most beautiful features of this noble church. It was originally intended to introduce sub-arches into the triforium openings, on the plan adopted at Romsey: the preparations for this subdivision remain, but it was never carried out.

The aisles are vaulted in quadripartite compartments, with massive diagonal ribs, square in section, with thick edge rolls, and a double bead on the soffit. The centre of the diagonals is considerably below their springing, with a fatal result to the artistic effect of their curve. No special provision is made for their reception either on the side of the main arcades or that of the aisle wall: their outward pressure, which is considerable, is met by shallow pilaster buttresses, which serve as thickening to the wall at the necessary points. The north porch, which has a solar or upper chamber, is barrel-vaulted. The rough rubble vault, denuded of its plaster covering, forms a strange contrast to the richness of the north doorway and the intersecting arcades of the side walls. Although, as already said, all this work, and the north porch most of all, belongs to an advanced period of the twelfth century, the actual plan, with the two rather slender western towers, may probably be assigned to the time when the rebuilding of the church was first projected by Norman builders. The two western towers planned at Melbourne (probably after 1133) and Bakewell in Derbyshire, at once recall on plan the towers of Southwell, and are less likely to have suggested them than to have been suggested by them. There is little doubt that the two towers of Worksop priory church bear witness to the influence of Southwell, while the scheme of the elevation of the nave there was derived from Blyth and Southwell, and expressed in later terms.

The vaulted crypt which remains beneath the chancel of Newark church has been curtailed of its full proportions, but is a good example of the successful ribbed vaulting of a series of narrow oblong bays, the transverse arch between each bay being omitted, as in the alternate bays at Durham. Among the parish churches of the county there are few instances of unmixed Romanesque work of post-Conquest date. Littleborough and Sookholme are aisleless chapels with rectangular chancels, and to these the greater part of the fabric at Halam may be added. East and West Leake keep enough of their possibly eleventh-century structure to enable us to realise their original appearance; but both have undergone the process of the enlargement of the chancel and the addition of a south aisle, and at East Leake the tower is of the thirteenth century. Early towers with plain details, as at Laneham and Mansfield, are not uncommon: that at Plumtree is a case in which some slight architectural enrichment has been given to a simple design. Such towers, the unbuttressed construction of which, as at East Leake, survives into the thirteenth century, seem to be the work of local masons on whom the methods of the Norman builders have made comparatively little impression. On the other hand, the distinctive ornamentation of Norman churches has left its mark on chancel arches like those of Littleborough and Harworth, and on a considerable number of doorways. The carved tympana of the doorways of Hoveringham and Everton may be assigned to the early part of the twelfth century. The tympanum, now built into the west wall of the south transept at Southwell, is earlier in date. Its rude and angular figure sculpture has been cited with some probability as Saxon, but has much in common with other late eleventh- and even twelfth-century sculpture, in which possible Scandinavian influence may be detected. Work of a similar school may be seen in the carved figures, representing nine of the months of the year, which have been built into the tower at Calverton: these seem to have been the carved _voussoirs_ of the doorway of the eleventh-century church, of which the chancel arch remains. The influence of Yorkshire building on Nottinghamshire was always strong, and we cannot expect to find in the early work of the district the refined carving of the southern schools of masons. Among doorways of a later date, the south doorway and the outer doorway of the north porch at Balderton stand easily first: these have rich and deeply-cut bands of chevron ornamentation.[10]

Arcades of twelfth-century work are very few in number: there are no cases among the parish churches where both arcades are of this date. At Thoroton, South Collingham, and South Searle the north aisle was added before the transition to Gothic had thoroughly set in; and the two last examples are peculiarly instructive. In either case the arcade is of uncommon beauty. At South Collingham it is of distinctly late Romanesque character. The capitals are scalloped, the arches have heavy double soffit rolls, the outer order has a band of chevron both on the wall and soffit planes, and each arch has a hood of “nebule” ornament, which recalls the form of the corbel table of the nave at Southwell. Large grotesque heads occur at the junction of the hoods. The date of the work is certainly earlier than 1150. The north arcade at South Scarle belongs to the third quarter of the century. The arches are rounded and of two orders. The inner order is ornamented with bands of deeply moulded lozenges, formed by opposed rows of chevrons, set both on the wall and soffit planes, the edge between the points of contact of the lozenges being left square. The outer order has a slender edge-roll: on both planes are bands of lozenges, longer and narrower than those of the inner order, with a roll moulding running through and bisecting each lozenge. The hoods are composed of a double band of chevron, arranged on both planes, the edge, as in the inner order, being left square. At the meeting of the hoods are heads. The adjacent outer orders intersect and are combined with rare skill. The column dividing the arches is cylindrical: the capital has a heavy square abacus with a long vertical hollow, and the bell has a simple band of deeply undercut foliage with angle crockets. The whole design could hardly be surpassed in any English parish church of the period. It is not fanciful to suggest that the carving of both planes throughout the arch and hood was inspired by the outer order at South Collingham, where the chevrons are arranged alternately, so as to interlock, and no straight edge is left. But the work at South Searle is of a superior delicacy of execution: in the arches the thick convex curves of Romanesque work give place to the graceful undercutting of Gothic sculpture, and in the foliage of the capitals Romanesque methods have been entirely left behind.

South Searle is, in fact, an early example of the transition which marks the end of the twelfth century. Other arcades of the period, belonging to the last quarter of the twelfth century, and showing sculptured foliage or figures, occur at Caunton and Attenborough. The date of the work at Attenborough, however, may be called in question, as it has features which indicate that it has been manipulated by clever sculptors of a much later era. Plain arcades with rounded arches, but otherwise Gothic in character, such as are common in Yorkshire, are those of Sturton-le-Steeple. The present writer, who has a clear recollection of the church as it was, saw it in its ruined state after the fire of 1901, and has visited it since its reconstruction, can testify to the substantial accuracy with which the rebuilding has been carried out. An important piece of work was begun towards the end of the twelfth century at Newark, of which the evidence remains in the clustered piers, with plain capitals and square abaci, intended, with a rather inadequate sense of the weight to be laid on them, to support a central tower. The great achievement of transitional work in Nottinghamshire, however, was the nave of Worksop priory church, the date of which is about 1175. As has been said, the Worksop builders owed something to Southwell, and their design at once recalls, in its external appearance and proportions, that which had been used at Southwell. The details are much simplified, as may be seen by comparing the elevation of the Worksop with that of the Southwell towers; and the large bull’s-eye windows of the clerestory at Southwell are not repeated at Worksop. Internally, the proportions are those of Blyth and Southwell--the low arch on the ground-floor in each bay, the wide single opening of the triforium above, the low clerestory. From a structural point of view, there is no very great advance upon Southwell in lightness of construction. The columns, alternately cylindrical and octagonal, are still squat and massive: strength of walls is still the ruling principle with the builders. But the approach to Gothic work is shown in the growing delicacy of detail, in slenderness of undercut moulding, in the use of the pointed arch, where it is not necessitated by vaulting, and in the abandonment of intricate twelfth-century ornament for carefully sculptured mouldings and for the conventional variety of carved foliage.

The district near the Trent, in the wapentakes of Bassetlaw and Newark, provides a group of village churches which contain early thirteenth-century work of rare excellence. North Collingham, Marnham, Laneham, South Leverton, Beckingham, Misterton, and Hayton, are the members of this group. The treatment of the work is by no means identical in all these cases. At Laneham the nave arches have simple mouldings of very early thirteenth-century type, cut in rectangular planes, and rest upon clustered columns, the shafts of which are engaged in a rather thick central shaft. The same treatment of arch-mouldings may be seen at Ordsall, near Retford. At North Collingham, South Leverton, and Marnham, sculptured foliage is employed in the capitals of the nave arcade. These three churches differ from each other in the design of their arches and columns, and the true parentage of North Collingham, a worthy neighbour to South Collingham, is not easy to decide. But the design of tail-shafted columns and foliated capitals at South Leverton seems to be closely allied to the early thirteenth-century work at St. Mary-le-Wigford and St. Peter-at-Gowts in Lincoln; while the low columns and graceful foliage at Marnham belong to the same family as much thirteenth-century architecture in and round Lincoln--St. Benedict’s at Lincoln, Nettleham, and Waddington, are cases in point. It is easy to understand that Lincoln may have had a great architectural influence on a church like South Leverton, which was one of the churches appropriated to the dean of Lincoln, and forming part of his “parsonage.”

The chapter of Lincoln, as has been said, possessed much property and several churches in Newark wapentake: the whole district, then, including churches, like Marnham,[11] which had no direct connection with Lincoln, might very well be brought within the sphere of the artistic influence of Lincoln. North Collingham, the advowson of which belonged to the abbey of Peterborough,[12] was well within the possible range of Lincoln influence. Misterton, on the other hand, lay outside the district to which Lincoln craftsmen were most likely to resort. The church itself belonged to the dean and chapter of York, who possessed property all round it; while five churches in the neighbourhood, East Retford, Clarborough, Everton, Hayton, and Sutton-cum-Lound with Scrooby, belonged to the collegiate chapel of St. Mary and the Holy Angels at York. In later days, Yorkshire influence was paramount in the buildings of the district; the tower of Haxey in Lincolnshire, and the tower of Gainsborough, seem to have been built by masons of the Yorkshire school. It has been explained that the possession of a church by monastic or clerical owners did not imply that the impropriators would do much for the fabric; and the examples just cited show for how little, in an architectural estimate, the actual owners of the church may count. Save only Balderton and South Leverton, those churches, in the neighbourhood of the Trent, which belonged to the dean and chapter of Lincoln, are not remarkable for their beauty, or for any traces of the handiwork of Lincoln masons in them. But it might well happen that, in the case of South Leverton, Lincoln masons were employed, and their work might bear fruit in neighbouring parishes.

The work of Lincoln masons is certainly apparent in the tower of Newark church, begun during the second quarter of the thirteenth century. We have seen that this church was the property of the Gilbertine priory of St. Katherine without Lincoln. The canons of St. Katherine’s, however, would be under no obligation to supply the church with a tower. On the other hand, the bishop of Lincoln, as lord of Newark, would have a direct responsibility, and would probably be the largest contributor to the new work. What was more natural than that masons, whose methods had been learned at Lincoln, should be employed at Newark? As a matter of fact, the Lincoln influence is clearly declared, not only in the foliated capitals of the western doorway, but also in the “smocking” pattern which is used in the upper part of the thirteenth-century work. This method of breaking up a flat surface, by a series of diagonal fillets crossing and recrossing each other, into a chequered surface of sunken lozenges, is a peculiar feature of the architectural work done at Lincoln minster in the times of Bishop Grosseteste (1235–54). It was employed again, with a little variation, towards the end of the century in the tower of Grantham, which owes much to the example of Newark.