Church Heritage Record 610096

3-bay nave and short north aisle with low vestry at the west end, central tower, short chancel.

Nave estimated to be c 12m (40ft) x 5m (16’6ft).

An extremely complex building. Judging by the dimensions of the nave and its relatively slender tall walls, the church is probably a Saxon foundation, perhaps just pre-dating the Conquest, and there may have been an even earlier church on the site, suggested by the findings of excavations within the church in 1964. The church and settlement are mentioned in Domesday. The manor was given with the church to Tewkesbury Abbey in 1102, the charter confirmed by Henry I in 1107. The list of rectors is traced back to 1160.  The tower, chancel, south porch and north aisle were added in the 13th century.  An anchorite’s cell was built on the north side of the church in the angle between the chancel and tower, probably in the 14th century, the aperture to the chancel is still there. The north aisle was rebuilt in 1843-4, however the east wall appears to be original.

A photograph within the church shows how the interior looked in 1945.  At that time the pews were all orientated towards the east and anyone sitting in the north aisle would have had no view of the chancel. A painting in the church would appear to show the situation before the Victorian reordering, with box pews taking up just the crossing and the eastern bay of the nave, the aisle and the rest of the nave empty.  The 18th-century two-decker pulpit was on the north side of the crossing.  The church was evidently re-seated in 1844 following the reconstruction of the north aisle, with the block of box pews on the south side of the crossing and the benches with poppyheads on the north.  The benches at the west end of the nave are early 20th-century. The organ gallery at the west end of the church was erected in 1924. At about this time the vestry was added west of the north aisle and the stair tower was rebuilt. The interior was reordered in 1988, with the altar being placed on the south side of the nave and the benches in the nave and north aisle all turned to face that way.  The pulpit and remaining two box pews have also changed sides, the other box pews were removed to the local museum. 

The church and site are of the highest archaeological significance and the Sites and Monument Record should be consulted before any development of the building or site is considered.

This is a fascinating and historically important ancient church, with many features of interest and a complex history evident in the fabric, the irregular fenestration and buttressing, and the furnishings and fittings, which would repay a detailed study.  Various aspects of its development have been the subject of scholarly dispute, these arguments will be briefly rehearsed and addressed here.

The west wall of the nave is pierced by a tall pointed Perpendicular 2-light window; identical windows have been inserted in the bay to the east of the south porch and low in the side walls of the tower. The listing description considers these to be 19th-century, but they could well be 15th-century, though clearly restored in places. They contrast sharply with the obviously “new” (19th-century) windows with Decorated tracery in the chancel, discussed in detail later in the report. Both of these types of window have hood-moulds of the same type, with short run-out stops.

A reason for considering the windows to be later might be that we know that the west wall was “rebuilt” in 1924 and provided with buttresses (clearly very recent) flanking the window to support it, however the rebuilding may not have been so very radical, but rather limited to structural improvements. The apex of the west wall and crown of the north wall have clearly been rebuilt respectively with bricks and cement to suit the lower pitch of the modern nave roof (early 20th century, perhaps 1924?), obviously the fact that this is visible suggests that much of the fabric is still ancient. 

The north aisle has only one window, a tall broad pointed lancet in the west wall, and there seems no reason to suppose this is not the site of the original, 13th-century window here, although clearly heavily restored, as is this wall and the north wall, with dark flint used in both to create a chequerboard effect.  There may have been at least one window in the east wall, which has clearly not been rebuilt, as it lacks this decorative flintwork and several building phases can be discerned in it; they could only be picked apart by careful stone-for-stone recording and analysis. The possible north jamb and cill of a window can be seen high in the wall, above this is what would appear to be an earlier shoulder to the gable, suggesting a lower aisle than we see now.  Lower down, a lozenge-shaped frame of an opening can be seen, and below this again, the brick frame of a door into the aisle. The bricks look to be 19th-century, and are similar to those used to raise the nave wall-plate and in the east wall (see description of the chancel below).

The south wall of the nave just west of the porch has a single tall thin lancet, just pointed. Its location, leaving a large expanse of blank wall to the west, throws some light on one of the disputes mentioned above, namely the function of a vertical line of stones high in the wall directly adjacent to the west of it.  There has been speculation that these might be quoins, and that the Saxon nave was therefore lengthened to the west at some point by one bay. This argument is attractive, as it would give us a nave the same length as the north aisle, of two bays, explaining this discrepancy.

However, an alternative argument is that this is the east jamb of a former window, of which no other trace can now be made out; in support of this the stones do appear to be chamfered on their western face. Apparently against this argument is the fact that the line of stones meet the eaves with no sign of a springing, however the Saxon roof line may have previously been higher, and there would have been space if this had been a lancet.  A roof scar on the west face of the tower shows a steep “witches hat” roof line typical of the 13th century, which would have made the higher lancet obsolete.

This raises a further puzzle; what would another lancet be doing here, so close to the one that exists today? An answer might be that the latter was moved west in the 13th-century to make space for the porch. The reason for the lack of a window in the western bay is unclear, but attractive though the idea of a shorter Saxon nave is, it cannot be supported, at least not on this evidence; it seems more likely that we are seeing a remodelling of the existing fenestration in the 13th century, when the tower, porch, north aisle and chancel were built, with new roofs. It may be interesting to note that the only obvious external 13th-century features surviving are in the aisle (window) and porch (doorway), both added at this time.

The bay to the east of the lancet discussed above is taken up by the south porch, which is gabled with a pointed entrance with continuous mouldings, much eroded and repaired.  Mortared into the east corner angle between the south porch and nave is a very battered statue probably representing an ecclesiastical figure, with recognisable loose drapery and cowl but missing its head.  If this was a column statue, it is the only fragment of one to survive in Sussex, and one of the few 12th-century examples known in England. It is considered unlikely to have come from Kingston Buci, and the most obvious provenance is nearby Lewes Priory. It is set on a moulded base, probably not originally in association with it, and also a reused architectural fragment. Interestingly, there is an almost identical base projecting from the internal south-east jamb of the outer doorway, with an indentation probably meant to hold holy water.

To the east of this, between the porch and the Perpendicular window already mentioned in the east bay of the nave, is what would appear to be the remains of the cill of a further window, which would again have been very high in the wall and rendered obsolete by the 13th-century roof.

The stumpy central tower, hardly higher than the nave and north aisle, has a low pyramidal roof, and therefore gives little vertical emphasis. Above the already mentioned windows is a small louvred lancet high in each face, the eastern of which is within the steep roof scar of the 13th-century chancel roof.  On the south side is a broad rectangular stair turret reaching almost to the roof, rebuilt in limestone on the older sandstone foundation (also much replaced) visible in the lower part.  It has three slit openings. A painting in the church shows a more slender turret, but it is unclear how accurate this is, as it seems to show an idealised reconstruction of what the church might have looked like at some point in the past.

The chancel is lower than the nave and has a shallower pitched roof than in the past, as shown by a steeply pitched scar on the east face of the tower. There is a window in each wall, all Decorated in style with quatrefoils in the heads, 2-lights in the side walls and a 3-light in the east. These would all appear to be recent in date, perhaps late 19th century. 

The north window almost impinges on the deeply recessed simple aperture, or squint, within a round-headed arch which presumably allowed visual access to the liturgy for the anchorite in the previously attached cell.  Adjacent to the west of this is a simple pointed doorway with a continuous chamfer, much renewed.  Above the east window is a blocked brick window frame, with a segmental arch over a square frame. This would appear to be early 19th century in  date.

Moving inside, there are stone benches along the porch walls and the possible stoup referred to above, and an inner pointed entrance.  Moving through this and into the church and looking west, the gallery is above you, with twisted balustrade front, and the organ pipes displayed above.  The church contains an interesting collection of fittings of different dates, which as noted above have been reordered since Pevsner described their arrangement so enthusiastically. There is stone flagging in the nave and aisle but red carpet in the crossing and chancel, rather garish and contrasting with the whitewashed walls and mellow stonework. The nave has a slender cruck timber roof with tie-beams, the tall aisle a simple gabled and boarded roof.

The real surprise of the interior is the quality of the tall arcade arches and tower vaulting, which has delicate moulded ribs springing from clustered shafts with round abaci, the bases square and moulded.  Their slender proportions and height, coupled with the height of both aisle and nave, allow for an appreciation of space which belies the rather rustic external appearance of the church; indeed it is more reminiscent of a high status urban or monastic church, which reminds us of the importance of the location.

On the north wall of the tower space is a Commandment board within a tripartite arch-headed frame, gold letters on black, early 19th-century.  The round-headed doorway on the south side gives access to stairs to a similar blocked rood door visible above. The chancel screen has hanging ogees and is 13th-century in origin but much reduced and restored. It now demarcates the sanctuary.

There is an Easter Sepulchre, Lewknor tomb on the north side of the chancel dating from the 16th century with an ogee arch below delicate vertical Perpendicular panelling and a floral cornice. The recess within contains a small group of the Resurrection, Pieta and Trinity, much defaced, and there are the names perhaps of the perpetrators visible in the probably 17th-century graffiti across the monument.  The vaulted ceiling has small figures as bosses including the so-called “Kingston imp”, a grotesque sticking its tongue out.  Above this and on the opposite wall are wall paintings, flying cherubs holding scrolls with texts, probably 18th-century. Restored 13th-century piscina and aumbry in the south wall.