CHAPTER III

DESCRIPTION OF THE CHURCH

We come now to a description of the church, which consists of a

rectangular _Nave_, 38 ft. long by 25 ft. wide; a _Chancel_ (in its

present form) 40 ft. by 14 ft.; a tower built in the fourteenth century,

and a modern organ chamber and vestry.

The chancel originally was not as large as it is now, and probably

extended only 18 or 20 ft. from the present chancel arch. An external

buttress on the south side marks its termination, beyond which it has

been conjectured that there was an Eastern apse, as sketched in the

annexed plan.

The first question that naturally suggests itself is with regard to the

=Dedication=. Battely, followed by Hasted, was of opinion that the church

was originally dedicated to the Blessed Virgin Mary, and afterwards

re-dedicated to St. Martin by Bishop Liudhard. For this statement there

is apparently no authority, yet we must remember that the earliest

dedications of churches were either to the Saviour, the Blessed Virgin,

or one of the twelve Apostles. That the Italian Mission followed generally

this ancient practice is shown in their dedication of the cathedrals

of Canterbury, Rochester, London, and York to Christ, St. Andrew,

St. Paul, and St. Peter respectively--of St. Augustine's Abbey church

to St. Peter and St. Paul, of another church in the same abbey to the

"Holy Mother of God," and also of the early Saxon church in Lyminge to

St. Mary; but it is unnecessary to multiply further instances, the very

rare exceptions to the rule (such as St. Pancras) applying principally

to churches which contained the relics of martyrs. This exception

would not embrace St. Martin's--and Battely's statement, therefore,

from whatever source he derived it, is not intrinsically impossible. We

can say nothing more positive in its favour--but assuming it to be true,

and that the original dedication was forgotten, nothing would be more

natural than that the re-dedication of the church should be to the saintly

Bishop of Tours, made either by Germanus in 429, or Bishop Liudhard,

or even Augustine himself. It is marvellous how widespread was the

influence of St. Martin's name. Nearly 4000 churches are dedicated to

him in France alone, and the largest number of these (in a comparison

of dioceses) is in the part of France nearest to English shores.

[Illustration: PLAN OF ST. MARTIN'S, CANTERBURY, by G. M. Livett.

_Dimensions:_ Nave, 38 by 25 ft.; Chancel, 40 by 14 ft.]

But, supposing we take literally the words of Bede, that the church

"dedicated to the honour of St. Martin, was built of old, while the

Romans still occupied Britain," we are met by this apparent difficulty.

If (as is maintained) the church was built in the fourth century, how came

it to be dedicated to St. Martin, who died about 397? Some colourable

support to the possibility of this can be derived from the fact that

the first stone church built in Scotland (at Whithern) by St. Ninian was

certainly dedicated to the same saint. There are indeed, in that case,

some special reasons, because St. Ninian, a personal friend of St. Martin,

called on him at Tours, and received from him workmen accustomed to the

Roman method of building, with whom he returned home. As the church was

in course of erection, the news of St. Martin's death reached him, and

the church was in consequence dedicated in 398 to his memory. There need

be no difficulty on the doubtfulness of such an early _Canonization_. The

first formal act of canonization by a Pope did not take place till the

ninth or tenth century. Before this, it was done in a somewhat irregular

manner by the bishop of the diocese, who recited the names of the departed

martyrs, or holy men, in the _Canon_ of the mass, not for invocation,

but in memory of those who had finished their course, and for an example

to others. It has been asserted that St. Martin was the first person to be

honoured as a confessor, that is, that he was the first who was treated as

a saint without being a martyr. In the antiphon to the Magnificat on his

festival we have, "sanctissima anima, quam etsi gladius persecutoris non

abstulit, palman tamen martyrii non amisit." Though there were _other_

St. Martins, such as the Bishop of Vienne, a Bishop of Tongres at the

end of the third century, and a Bishop of Trêves, yet there can be

little doubt that the one alluded to by Bede was the Bishop of Tours,

whose fame had completely overshadowed the rest.

Now there is one suggestion that deserves a passing notice, and that

is, the possibility of St. Martin himself having been the founder of

the church; even in a closer sense than by merely sending masons from

his monastery, as he did to St. Ninian. In the constant interchange of

communication between Britain and Gaul, not only for commercial but for

military purposes, it may have happened that Christians had migrated,

or been transferred, from Tours to Kent--and for the benefit of Christian

soldiers, St. Martin, once a soldier himself, may have urged the erection

of a church. It is unnatural to suppose that St. Martin, who travelled

over a great part of Gaul, did not in some way associate himself with

Britons, with whom he would have been brought into contact. We know this,

at any rate, that during the latter year of his episcopate he exercised

great influence over the Emperor Maximus and his Empress--and Maximus

had resided for several years in Britain, was proclaimed emperor there

in 383, had thence invaded Gaul with a fleet and army, which were

long afterwards remembered as the "emigration of a considerable part

of the British nation," and finally settled at Trêves, where he was

more than once visited by St. Martin. Some of these British emigrants

or soldiers would very naturally have returned to their native country

and brought Christianity with them. There is no conclusive reason why

St. Martin himself, either prompted thereto by Maximus, or yielding to

the entreaties of Britons whom he met at Trêves or elsewhere in Gaul,

should not have visited Canterbury in person, and there founded the

church. It is remarked by Haddan and Stubbs that "it was a peculiarity

of British Christians that churches were not dedicated to any saint

already dead, after the fashion then beginning to be common, but were

called by the name of their living founder." Or the original dedication

made by St. Martin (acting either directly or indirectly) may have

fallen into popular disuse, and been supplanted by his own name, as

was the case with the church of St. Gregory on the Coelian Hill, which

St. Gregory had dedicated to St. Andrew, but which soon after came to

be called after himself, though he was not buried there. And attention

may be directed to instances of a similar kind at Rome, where the names

of founders lingered on in churches like the Basilica Constantiniana,

Basilica Liberiana, and St. Lorenzo in Damaso. We may also note the fact,

that a chapel in Canterbury Cathedral, originally dedicated to St. Peter

and St. Paul, soon acquired the name of its founder, St. Anselm, and even

the great Cathedral itself, the "Church of Christ," was popularly known

in the Middle Ages as the Church of St. Thomas. These latter instances

are not indeed exactly parallel, because the relics of the name-saints

were actually buried in these places, but they may be quoted as showing

how readily the original dedication may have been subsequently changed;

and it would not be difficult to give additional examples.

Before proceeding to a minute description of the principal objects of

interest outside the church, we may say a few words about the =walls=,

which, however, have been so patched and repaired in successive ages, that

they have lost all signs of uniformity. The thickness of the walls is,

on an average, about 2 ft., and this dimension is noticeable, because

we meet with it over and over again in Roman villas. The materials,

too, are similar, and resemble what have been found in villas--a mass

of rather rough walling, partly of brick, partly of stone, evidently

intended to be plastered on both sides, and, to a great extent, built

with hard "sea-shore" mortar. This mortar is composed of pebbles, small

shells, etc., and is of such remarkable solidity and strength that,

although the walls of the church are thin and lofty, they have sustained

without any injury, and with comparatively low buttresses, the thrust

of a high-pitched Gothic roof. It was not uncommon for churches to be

erected on the site of, and using part of the structure of, Roman secular

buildings, or temples. And we give for what it is worth the opinion of

Mr Roach Smith, an experienced antiquary, who gave special attention

to Roman work, and who states in a letter written on January 6, 1883:

"There are many examples of churches being built upon the remains of

Roman buildings, no doubt often _temples_, and not unfrequently of a

small size. Some instances are very remarkable, as that of Britford, near

Salisbury, at old Verulam, etc. I have ever had a belief that St. Martin's

Church is founded upon, or built upon, or built into, a Roman temple."

The walls of the church form an interesting study, not only for their

venerable aspect, but also for their irregularity. The brick courses

in the =Nave= are pretty general throughout, sometimes at 9 inches apart,

sometimes as much as 20 inches, or even more. A great deal of old plaster

is found externally in the middle of the south wall of the _nave_,

and there are masses of Roman bricks congregated at the east and west

ends of the same wall (the angles of the walls in public buildings

being often composed entirely of bricks); and we find also, in parts,

large blocks of grey stone, as well as pieces of travertine, tertiary

sandstone, Kentish rag, red sandstone, Purbeck marble, chalk, and many

other geological specimens. Here and there, interspersed with Roman

bricks, are patches of "chequy" masonry, the stones being placed at wide

intervals, notably on the south-east corner, and on the north side.

The masonry of the early =chancel= is, however, entirely different, being

composed of Roman bricks laid evenly upon one another with narrow joints,

averaging four bricks to a foot. In many instances the arrises of these

bricks are sharp and true, showing no sign of having been taken from

any other building; in other cases they are more fragmentary, but we

can have no hesitation in saying that the walling of the early chancel

is well-built, satisfactory to a professional eye.

We have then these two distinct modes of building (1) Roman bricks laid

evenly and closely upon one another, (2) stone-work with courses of

Roman brick at various intervals. And we shall have to consider hereafter

whether these are genuine Roman walls, or are merely composed of Roman

materials used up for the second time, as at St. Albans and elsewhere.

We learn from competent authorities that there were five or six kinds of

Roman wall-building--(_a_) The _quadrangular_, with masses of square or

oblong stones laid alternately lengthwise and cross-wise, not cemented

by mortar, but bound together by leaden clamps, such as is found in the

so-called wall of Romulus on the Palatine; (_b_) _polygonal_ masonry,

where the stones are irregular, and with small stone splinters wedged into

the joints where necessary; (_c_) _concrete_--rude, without ornamentation,

which has at a distance the appearance of being panelled, since beams of

timber are let in to strengthen it, or sometimes thin layers of brick

to prevent settlement in the concrete from the shrinking of the lime

when it cools and dries; (_d_) _opus reticulatum_, which consists of

stone net-work of diamond-shaped blocks, as in the "Muro Torto" at Rome;

(_e_) _opus lateritium_, the ordinary construction of bricks laid evenly

upon one another (_f_) _mixture_--_i.e._ stones bonded together with

courses of bricks, sometimes at regular, often at irregular, intervals.

Mr Parker, in his "Archæology of Rome," referring to the _mixture_

(_i.e._ the style of the building used in the nave) which is so constant

in Roman wall-work, in England and Northern Europe generally, says that

in itself it is no evidence of date as to the period of Roman work,

since other things must be taken into account: but that it is found in

the circus of Maxentius, and many other places. It is usually attributed

to the beginning of the fourth century, but it occurs also at Pompeii,

in parts of the substructure of the walls of Aurelian, in tombs of the

second century at Ostia, and in some of the foundations of Hadrian's

villa near Tivoli.

With regard to the comparative antiquity of the nave and chancel, no

positive judgment has yet been arrived at. Hasted, indeed, ventured on

the opinion that the latter was the more ancient, but he also believed

that the chancel was built about the year 200 A.D., and had not the

benefit of the recent explorations, so that his opinion is, in itself,

of little value. But it has been adopted on scientific and architectural

grounds by the Rev. G. M. Livett (who has paid careful attention to

the architecture and masonry of the church) and by other distinguished

antiquaries. Their arguments are very forcible, and there is much reason

for believing that the theory will hereafter find general acceptance,

although at present further investigation is necessary before it can be

pronounced as incontrovertible.

We know indeed that some of the earliest Roman buildings were

constructed of Roman bricks or tiles laid evenly upon one another

(the _opus lateritium_), but the tiles of the first two centuries were

remarkably thin, as contrasted with later specimens. They vary, at

different periods, in length from 15 inches to 2 feet, and in thickness

from ¾ inch to 3 inches. Unfortunately little credence is now given

to the ingenious rough-and-ready rule, formulated by Mr Parker, that

where (including mortar) there are ten bricks to one foot, the wall is

of the _first_ century, as in the arches of Nero; where eight bricks,

of the _second_ century, as in the villa of Hadrian; where six bricks,

of the _third_ century, as in Aurelian's wall; where four bricks, of

the _fourth_ century. We may lament the non-acceptance of this rule,

for, were it true, we might confidently assign the early wall of the

chancel (containing four bricks to a foot) to the _fourth_ century,

which is the exact date that is claimed for it!

With regard to the =foundations=, those in the chancel are of flint-stones

and mortar, with a footing of a single course of Roman bricks, while in

the nave we find a mixture of sandy mortar and crushed flint, topped with

courses of Kentish rag-stone, and one or sometimes two courses of brick.

Closely connected with the walls are the =buttresses=. Of flat pilaster

buttresses there are at the present moment (_a_) one on the south side

of the chancel; (_b_) two at the south-east corner of the nave, at right

angles to each other; (_c_) one at the north-west corner of the nave, the

corresponding buttress at this place having been cut away. In addition

to these, there is an evidently later one on the north-east of the nave,

and a semi-circular buttress in the middle of the south wall. They have

all been repaired very frequently, especially at the top, and it is

difficult to determine which stones are original, and which have been

inserted afterwards. The sole remaining buttress in the chancel has

been mutilated in a painful manner. Not so many years ago, before the

modern quoins of Caen stone were added, it was largely composed of Roman

bricks similar to the walling. The other flat buttresses on the south

side project 6 inches from the wall, and, as we see them at present,

consist of blocks of rough-hewn Caen stone to the height of 4 ft. 6 in.,

and, above that, of Roman brick, considerably patched.

In themselves flat pilaster buttresses furnish no evidence as to date,

since they are found alike in Roman, Saxon, and Norman buildings. It is

contended by Mr Livett that the buttresses in the nave are Norman, or

(at any rate) insertions of a later date than the adjacent wall--but only

those at the south-east angle have been explored, where the foundations

seem to be of a whiter, harder mortar than those of the wall, containing

large stones, but no small angular flints. It is too early as yet to

pronounce any positive opinion on the point.

[Illustration: 2 S.-E. angle of nave, looking East (Buttress.)]

Special attention has often been called to the semi-circular buttress,

because this shape is uncommon, though something like it is found at

St. Peter's, Northampton, at the Church of St. Remi at Rheims, and

elsewhere. The outstanding portion of it measures almost exactly three

feet in circumference. It cannot have been made (as some have supposed)

to contain a staircase, because there seems no reason whatever for a

staircase at this particular place, the rood-loft being several feet

eastwards. Others have conjectured that the old church might have ended

somewhere near this point, and that then the buttress would have had

something to do with the support of the western front, or have been

a staircase up to the old belfry. But there is no foundation for this

surmise, which is disproved by the fact that the external plaster extends

on each side of the buttress, and the character of the south wall is

absolutely unbroken. This external plaster, indeed, is probably not

Roman, though it is composed to some extent of pounded brick. The buttress

bears little or no resemblance to the lofty semi-circular projection

occasionally found in Saxon towers. Its object must be left in a state

of obscurity, and it may perhaps have been a mere freak of the builder.

[Illustration: Erudito viro et Amicissimo Johi Hardy de Nottingham.

_Tabulam hanc vevet W. Stukley_

Date 1722.]

At a distance of 10 ft. 6 in. from this circular buttress we come to a

_nearly circular panel_, immediately behind the Norman piscina, which

has always been a puzzle to antiquaries. The dimensions of it, as now

seen, are roughly 4 ft. by 3 ft. 8 in. It is sunk 6 in. into the wall,

is unevenly splayed, and in parts plastered. In Stukely's engraving

of the church (1722 A.D.) it is represented as a round-headed doorway,

but there are no voussoirs or arch stones. The result of excavations

beneath the surface are doubtful. Generally speaking, there are courses

of two Roman bricks running along this part of the nave wall, below which

are Kentish rag stones, and a foundation of concrete. Singularly enough,

the _top_ row of Roman bricks (just below the opening) has been interrupted

for a space of 3 ft. 8 in., and it looks at first sight as if the _lower_

row were the sill of a doorway, from which a slight suspicion of a rough

vertical joint goes upwards for a little distance. But against this theory

we must state that the _one-brick_ course does not extend the whole width

of the panel. The immediate back of the Norman piscina was discovered

on investigation, not to be of stone, as we might have expected, but of

coarse thin plaster, and it is not impossible that this back was taken

out sometime in the Early English period, and that the opening thus made

was used as a hagioscope. No plausible theory has been advanced as to

the use of this _panel_. It was once suggested that it was a niche for a

churchyard-light, which would shine on the south side of the church. This,

sometimes consisting of a covered lamp, would be used to light at night

the mortuary convoys that came from afar, and could not always arrive

in the daytime. It was also a sort of homage rendered to the memory of

the dead, a signal recalling to passers-by the presence of the departed,

and inviting prayers for them. But this is entirely a fanciful idea.

[Illustration: 1. Section of foundation of nave-wall (under panel)]

The =doorways= are the next feature of interest. With them St. Martin's is

extremely well supplied, as (counting both ancient and modern ones)

there are no less than six, though they were doubtless not all used at

the same period. It would seem as if the architects of one age found a

positive pleasure in blocking up and replacing doorways of preceding

ages! At the south-west corner of the nave, immediately outside the

font, is an Early English doorway or porch, seven feet wide, probably

built in the thirteenth century, and now closed up with blocks of chalk,

in the middle of which is inserted part of a two-light window. This may

have been substituted for the usual Saxon "south-door." On the north

side of the nave there are also traces of an Early English porch, which

was only taken down during the present century within the memory of

persons still living. The peculiarity of this porch is that it was added

on to what we believe to be an older Norman doorway, which will be spoken

of when we describe the interior of the church.

Proceeding to the south side of the chancel and its adjacent portion of

the east wall of the nave, we come upon three curious openings. Two of

them are square-headed, (1) The one at the south-east corner of the nave

is 6 ft. high, and splayed externally, being 2 ft. 8 in. wide inside,

and 3 ft. wide outside the church. It has a lintel and threshold of

Roman brick, and has been blocked up with masses of chalk and rubble.

The plaster on the splays is still _in situ_, and was considered, at

a meeting of the British Archæological Society, to be "most probably

Roman." But it has been clearly demonstrated that it is a later insertion

in the wall. Its position at the east angle of the nave is very peculiar,

and its use has not yet been ascertained. At the beginning of the extensive

explorations that have been lately carried out, when it was believed by

some antiquaries that there was a _Western apse_ similar to that in the

Christian church at Silchester, and that the arch (described hereafter)

was the opening into this apse, this south-eastern doorway was supposed

to have been one of the entrances either to the church, or the _Narthex_

(vestibule), there being some indications of a corresponding doorway in the

north-eastern angle of the nave. This theory appears to be now generally

abandoned, but it is quite possible that it may be revived when further

excavations are made beneath the tower. (2) The other opening at the

south-west of the chancel, 6 ft. high and 3 ft. 4 in. wide externally,

has jambs of Roman bricks, with a lintel and sill formed of massive

blocks of green sandstone, much worn by weather. Internally it seems

4 ft. 7 in. at the top, but this may be accounted for by the fact that

in later times it was partially blocked up by a stone sarcophagus, and

other material: and on one side of the upper portion of the doorway, and

extending beyond it towards the west, there was opened a low side-window,

the western splayed jamb of which is still remaining, with the original

plaster. This may perhaps have been a "Lepers' window" commanding a view

of the altar of St. Mary, occupying the site of the present pulpit. This

square-headed doorway is certainly contemporaneous with the surrounding

wall. When it was first exposed, we found in it the skeleton of a sparrow!

[Illustration: S.-W. EXTERIOR OF CHANCEL.

(From a water-colour by Mrs M. Parry.)]

[Illustration: St. Martin's, Cant.--Adjunct.

Section of foundations & portion of wall, with face of chancel wall

above shewing signs of the bonding.]

Near these square-headed doorways there were discovered underground

the remains of two walls, running at right angles to the chancel, and

forming two sides of an _adjunct_ or side chapel, the southern side of

which has been destroyed in the process of digging graves. These walls

are 4 ft. 9 in. apart, and are each of them 26 in. wide, built entirely

of Roman bricks. The western wall runs eight inches beneath the eastern

angle-wall of the nave. Between the walls there is still existing part of

a flooring of _opus signinum_. There can be no doubt that this _adjunct_

is of the same workmanship, and the same date, as the early brick wall

of the chancel. The foundations of both are precisely similar, and are

constructively bonded together--the walls rest upon a footing-course

of one brick, which forms the top of a shallow foundation of flints and

stones. The brick-footing is continued along the chancel wall under the

sill of the square-headed doorway, and is irregular in its projection.

A careful examination of the existing face of the chancel wall above the

remains (which was made by Mr Livett), shows that the eastern wall of the

_adjunct_ above ground, now destroyed, was originally bonded into the

chancel wall. Every alternate course shows a broken brick, and every

intermediate course the clean edge of a brick. This bonding cannot be

traced above a line on a level with the lower edge of the lintel of the

square-headed doorway of the chancel.

What the purpose of this _adjunct_ was, we cannot positively determine.

It was suggested by the late Archbishop of Canterbury (who took the

warmest interest in the church, and also keenly watched the progress of

the excavations) that it was used as a place for baking the holy bread

employed at the celebration of the Mass. It is more probable, however,

notwithstanding its diminutive size, that it was a side-chapel with

its altar.

At a distance of 4 ft. 2 in. eastwards of the square-headed doorway is

a _semi-circular_ one. It is 6 ft. high and 2 ft. 1 in. wide. The arch

is mostly formed of converging blocks of Kentish rag, generally about

one inch apart, though somewhat closer at the crown. The span at the

springing is an inch or two wider than the span of the jambs. The imposts

are formed of two Roman tiles, the upper one overhanging the lower,

and the lower overhanging the jamb. The doorway is lined throughout with

plaster. The jambs _internally_ are of Roman bricks with occasional pieces

of Kentish rag. _Externally_, they are almost entirely of Roman bricks,

though under the west impost, 3 ft. 10 in. above the sill, there has been

inserted a fragment of freestone about 2-½ inches high, brought from

elsewhere. On this are parts of an inscription, which has been supposed

by many people to date from the ninth or tenth century, though this date

cannot be accepted as proved. The letters HONORE.. STÆ.. ET OMN[=I][=V]

S[=C][=O]R[=V] are still decipherable, and the whole may perhaps be read

as "To the honour of Saint (Mary?) and All Saints." This may have been

the dedication-stone of a church, or not impossibly the dedication-stone

of an altar, as an order was issued in the ninth century by a Saxon

archbishop, that a stone should be placed at the corner of each altar,

specifying the name of the saint or saints to whom it was dedicated.

A parallel to this has been found in the discovery of a stone from the

Saxon Church of Deerhurst, the fragmentary inscription on which has been

conjecturally read as "In honore Sanctæ Trinitatis hoc altare dedicatum

est."

[Illustration: SAXON DOORWAY IN CHANCEL (INTERIOR).

(From a Drawing by Mrs M. Parry.)]

[Illustration: SAXON DOORWAY (EXTERIOR).

(From a Photograph by the Author.)]

This round-headed doorway has been hitherto supposed to be of the same

date as the wall, but closer investigation has clearly proved that it

is a later insertion, probably made in the Saxon period, possibly as

early as St. Augustine. While in the surrounding wall there are _four_

Roman bricks to the foot, there are in the jambs of the doorway _six_

bricks to the foot; and at the time of the insertion, nearly one foot

of the surrounding wall was broken away, as will be noticed by any

experienced observer.

At 4 ft. 8 in. eastward of this doorway, we come to the chancel-buttress

which has been already described. A hole has been pierced in the wall

immediately east of the buttress, and a clean face of Roman brick has been

traced for 26 inches, in continuation of the east face of the buttress,

running therefore at right angles to the outer wall, thus clearly

showing that there was no buttress on the east side of the angle of the

original wall.

The whole controversy as to the existence of an Eastern apse is so

interesting and important, but at the same time so technical for the

ordinary reader, that we have placed, in Appendix C, a contribution which

Mr Livett has kindly sent to us, with the hope that it may be extensively

read and pondered by all those, whether antiquaries or otherwise, who

desire to weigh every point connected with the architecture and plan of

the church.

While still examining the exterior of the church, we may notice on the

east wall of the present chancel a nearly square insertion, measuring

14-½ by 13-½ inches. The matrix seems to represent traces of a brass,

with a kneeling female figure, carrying a child in her arms, with an

inscription underneath; and it may have been connected with a tomb

in that portion of the churchyard. It is of the fifteenth century,

but there is no evidence of its origin, though it has probably been

in its present position for a considerable period. The date of 1662,

and many subsequent dates and initials, have been cut into the stone,

showing the continuous existence of that pernicious class of tourists

who make a point of leaving their mark in places of interest!

Passing down the north side of the church, we may observe on the

chancel wall a piece of masonry, composed of Roman bricks, which is a

good imitation of Roman work; next the modern vestry which has no merit

except that of utility, and the traces of the Early English porch, which

has been described above--and then, rounding the north-west angle, we

come to a curious Norman squint or hagioscope, partially hidden by the

tower. The opening, sunk some three or four inches in the outer wall,

is of an oblong character. The sides are formed of worked chalk and

Kentish rag, with traces of a hinge and receptacle for a bolt, while the

lintel is composed of a piece of oak greatly decayed by age. The squint is

partially splayed on both sides, rather more on the right side than the

left, extends 18 inches into the interior of the church, and commanded

apparently a view of the high altar. Whether it was a lychnoscope,

or leper's window, or used by penitents standing under cover of a porch,

there are no grounds for determining. The actual opening does not measure

more than 12 inches by 8, and was lined originally with Norman plaster. On

the inside, where it is 15 inches across, it was till recently concealed

by the woodwork of a pew, but this has happily been removed. The masonry

inside is of a rugged character, and was evidently disturbed when the

interior of the church was covered by thick coats of plaster. Among

the fillings-up of the squint, we found three curious circular stones,

each with an ornamental _volute_ at the end. They are of oolite, and

probably formed parts of a scroll at the top of a Roman (heathen) altar,

and one of the fragments had small pieces of salmon-coloured mortar

adhering to it. We may refer to an opening in the church of St. Mary,

in Dover Castle, as being in a somewhat similar position, but there it

is generally supposed to be a lychnoscope for the use of soldiers in the

guard-room, so that they might watch the light burning at the altar on

the south-east of the nave, which was specially reserved for them.

There is a great difference of opinion as to the proper name of these

openings, two of which are certainly, and another possibly, found in

St. Martin's Church. We are told that the squint is not to be confounded

with low side-windows or lychnoscopes, originally unglazed. Squints,

as a rule, may be defined as inside the church, and the others outside,

primarily for the purpose of enabling persons in the aisles to see

the elevation of the Host at the high altar, though they are sometimes

found connected with a side-chapel, a parvise, or a tower-chamber. Their

usual height is about 4 ft. from the ground, extending upwards from 2

to 10 ft. Narrow at first, they were gradually enlarged and broadened,

as at St. Clement's and St. Peter's churches in Sandwich. Sometimes when

near a side-altar they were utilised as a credence, or had a _piscina_

sunk in them (_cf._ Crawley Church in Hampshire)--and it is not impossible

that the only real squint or hagioscope in St. Martin's Church was through

the back of the existing piscina. The other openings, as I have said,

might have been used as lepers' windows, or for penitents.

The tower was added in the fourteenth century. It is somewhat squat, and

crowned with a pyramidal top. It measures 16 ft. by 13 ft. 3 in. in length

and width, with two large buttresses on the west side, each projecting

4 ft. 3 in. It is built principally of flint with a slight intermixture

of thin mediæval tiles, and has three louvre windows, one of which,

with the peculiar "long and short" features of Saxon stone work, may

have been transferred there from some other portion of the church. The

building of this tower has probably destroyed some interesting feature,

that stood at the west end of the original church. This may have been

a western apse (so common in early basilicas) or perhaps a baptistery,

or a chamber with an arch on each of its four sides. Whatever it be,

is at present a matter of conjecture, but further explorations may solve

the mystery; and wise men will forbear to dogmatise, when their positive

theories may at any moment be overthrown.

=Description of the interior.=--The gradual ascent to St. Martin's Church

from the lych-gate is somewhat remarkable. After turning a sharp corner

in the churchyard path, you walk up nine steps to the Western Door, and

from this door there is an ascent of eleven steps to the altar. This much

resembles what is so noticeable a feature in Canterbury Cathedral. On the

south wall of the tower-porch there is inserted a monumental stone, about

which there has been a good deal of discussion. It has been described

as a piece of a Roman coffin, but this is clearly a mistake. Both the

character of the inscription, and the chamfering of the upper part,

not unlike the tomb of Stephen Langton in St. Michael's Chapel in the

Cathedral, show that it may be attributed to the thirteenth century.

The letters are fragmentary, and slightly indistinct. We can, however,

make out [dagger] [iota] [reverse solidus], and on the other side

[reverse epsilon] ARISCVS. It has been suggested that this word may

have been "Mariscus," and then the stone might possibly have been the

boundary-stone of a marsh; but I think there can be no doubt that it is

an ordinary sepulchral slab.

Till two years ago, the first feeling of visitors to the church was one of

profound disappointment. They had been informed that St. Martin's was the

oldest church in England; but the proofs of antiquity were not obvious at

a casual glance, and the Early English chancel arch presented itself most

obtrusively to the view, the walls of the nave, too, being covered with

a thick layer of modern-looking yellowish plaster. It is rather amusing,

sometimes, to hear the comments and to observe the behaviour of casual

visitors. Many of them are from the United States of America, where

the church is placed on the "list of sights" to be seen during their

European tour. A few of the more unintelligent put their heads inside

the building for two or three minutes, say to one another "this is an

interesting old church," and then walk away with a proud consciousness

that they have _done_ St. Martin's. The present writer remembers lionising

a party of Americans, and completely failing to engross their attention by

any historical or antiquarian description. At last, in despair, he asked

them to write their names in the visitors' book kept in the vestry, where

it so happened that the last names written were those of the Duchess of

Edinburgh and her children. Then their interest was at once aroused, and

they went away in a state of perfect happiness because their autographs

were inscribed in the same page as those of Royalty! At another time the

writer was preaching a sermon, on the festival of St. Martin, bishop

and confessor. He was surprised to notice an allusion to his sermon

in one of the leading London newspapers on the following day, with a

general tone of satisfaction that Protestant England still entertained

such devotion and reverence for the great _Martin Luther_, to whom (in

the correspondent's imagination) the church was dedicated! Happily such

ignorance is scarcely now possible, and the stripping of the plaster

from the nave, and also from the lower portion of the chancel, reveals

at once the antiquity of the church, so that the attention of every one

of the 10,000 tourists who annually visit it is arrested (whether they

will or no) by the rough uncoated walls.

This manifest improvement has been carried out with the kind consent and

cordial assistance of the Rev. L. J. White-Thomson, the present rector.

It is very difficult now to realise what the church must have looked like

in the earliest times. Even its shape then has been a fierce subject of

dispute. Whether the chancel was added to the nave, or the nave to the

chancel, or whether there was only the present chancel extended for a

considerable distance westward, we may perhaps assume, in the light of

very recent investigation, that there was an original chancel arch built

of Roman bricks, not unlike the arch in St. Mary's Church at Dover

Castle--and in the small, possibly apsidal, chancel the high altar would

have stood, about 18 to 20 feet eastward of the arch.

At a later period there was a _Rood-beam_ mentioned in the "Cross Light

on the Rood-loft," and alluded to in the burial of John Hougham "before

the High Cross in the Nave." The holes made for the insertion of this

Rood-beam may still be seen in the north-east and south-east angles

of the nave, about 6 ft. distant from the joints of the chancel arch,

and 10 ft. above the ground. It at one time occurred to us as possible

that the "High Cross in the Nave" might have had a parallel in the

great stone cross found in front of the central arch between the nave

and chancel at Reculver. "One of the fairest and most stately Crosses

(says Leland) I ever saw--nine feet, as I guess, in height. It standeth

like a fair column."

In mediæval times, we learn from the wills of parishioners that there

were in the church images of St. Martin, St. Mary, St. Christopher,

St. Nicholas and St. Erasmus; and each of them had a light burning before

it. How these images were distributed we have no evidence to determine,

but (perhaps) they were arranged in the following manner:--Image of

St. Martin at the east end, of St. Mary and St. Nicholas in the nave

on each side of the chancel arch, and the images of St. Christopher and

St. Erasmus at the west end of the church.

The high altar, according to custom, was evidently dedicated to

St. Martin, the altar on the north-east side of the nave to the Blessed

Virgin, and that on the south-east side to St. Nicholas. We read that

William Harry left money for a waxlight burning before the image of

St. Nicholas, "where the priest was to sing the testator's daily mass";

and there was a "Brotherhood of St. Nicholas," at whose cost fifteen

masses were to be said for the soul of Thomas Fayrhand (A.D. 1505).

Some astonishment may be caused, at first sight, by the mention of

_St. Erasmus_, but we learn from other sources that he was a popular

saint in England. Some glass, for instance, in the church of St. Botolph,

Lullingstone, represents a legend of his martyrdom, his prostrate body

lying beneath a windlass, by the winding of which the saint is being

disembowelled. He is reported to have suffered death in the Diocletian

persecution at Formiæ, where Gregory the Great testifies that his

body was still remaining, though it was afterwards translated to Cajeta.

Under the appellation of St. Elmo, he is still invoked by Mediterranean

sailors.

[Illustration: THE FONT.

_Photochrom Co. Ltd., Photo._]

Though by no means the earliest feature in point of date, yet the =Font=

is the most conspicuous object to one entering the church. It stands now

at the south-west corner, but, until fifty years ago, it stood in the

middle of the nave. We know its exact position because Stephen Fokys or

Falkes (1506) directed that he should be buried "before the font," and

his gravestone, with a small brass inserted, is still remaining. This

brass bears the following inscription:--"Pray for the souls of Stevyn

Falkes and Alys his wife: the which deceased the 10th day of May the

year of our Lord 1506. On whose souls Jesu have mercy."

The _Font_ is circular or tub-shaped, 2 ft. 5 in. high, excluding the

base on which it stands: or 3 ft. 1 in. with the base, which looks

like an old Norman mill-stone, and was probably added when the font

was moved to its present position. On examining the inside of the font

a few years ago, for the purpose of inserting a small leaden pipe to

carry away the baptismal water, we found that this base-stone had a

square opening in the centre, and bore Norman toolmarks, which it would

probably not have done had it not been originally exposed to external

view. The diameter of the inner basin of the font is 1 ft. 10 in.,

that of the outside 2 ft. 6-½ in., the circumference round the outside

being 8 ft. 2 in. It consists of a rim and three tiers. The three tiers

are made up of some twenty-two distinct stones, rounded externally, and

fitted in their place. The _lower_ tier is embellished with a continuous

pattern of scroll-work: the _second_ with groups of circles intertwining

one another (what Hasted calls a hieroglyphical true-lover's knot),

with the exception of one stone, which has six comparatively plain

circles carved upon it: the _third_ tier is of a different character,

exhibiting arches intersecting each other. At the top is a _rim_, the

ornamentation of which corresponds with that of the two lower tiers,

except one part in which there is a kind of dog-tooth work, like stars

cut in half. It has been suggested that the upper portion of this rim

was cut away for the purpose of forming a ledge on which a tall cover

might firmly rest. There are still remains of the staple by which the

cover was secured, and the font may have been locked up in the time of

Cromwell, to prevent its desecration.

The font was for a long time covered with a thick coat of whitewash.

It is lined with lead, extending downwards to a depth of 14 inches, and

the space between the lead and the bottom of the font is now filled up

with rough blocks of Caen stone and rubbish. It has probably been taken

to pieces and moved more than once. An attempt was made, by drawing

tracings of the several stones separately, to reorganise it (on paper)

in a consistent and continuous pattern, but, unfortunately, there are

two or three stones that will not fit in with the rest.

Now, as to the =date of the Font=, there is great diversity of opinion.

The character of the carving naturally suggests that it is of the later

Norman period, and is similar to that found in St. Clement's Church,

Sandwich, in the cloisters of Canterbury Cathedral, and elsewhere. But

this is by no means conclusive; for, if the font was an historical or

unusually ancient one, some pious person might have been inclined to do

honour to it by decoration. It may be pointed out that this decoration

is not _carving_ at all, but has been done with a small chisel of not

more than a quarter of an inch, and by no able hand. Instances have been

adduced of "smartening up" of a similar character.

It is certain that the composition of the font is most unusual. The

Norman fonts were, as a rule, scooped out of a single stone, as we

see, _e.g._ at Lincoln Cathedral, Sapcote, Green's Norton, Belton,

Aswarly, Darenth, and several other places. Moreover, if (which is

somewhat uncertain) St. Martin's font is of Caen stone, which the

Normans possessed abundantly, and which is easily worked, it appears

improbable that they would have built it up in such a rude manner of

twenty-two separate stones Is there any other existing font composed

in the same manner? It was said that there is, or was, at Lewknor and

at Woburn. But the vicar of Lewknor, examining his font at our request,

writes that, so far as he can see, it is made of _one_ stone: while the

church at Woburn has been rebuilt during the last thirty years, and no

one knows what has become of the original font. A general statement that

we have no Saxon fonts existing is valueless, and incapable of proof;

and we are more inclined to agree with Mr F. A. Paley ("Introduction to

Illustrations of Baptismal Fonts") that "we cannot doubt that a

considerable number of fonts now exist in England, wherein the Saxon

infant received the waters of baptism."

[Illustration: INTERIOR OF ST. MARTIN'S (SHOWING WEST WALL OF NAVE).

_Noakes, Canterbury, Photo._]

The most ancient form of fonts was octagonal, or tub-shaped, built like

a tower, as described by St. Paulinus of Nola. Some Norman fonts are

round; more often, perhaps, they are of square form, sometimes profusely

decorated with grotesque imagery, and supported by a central massive

circular stem. If we take away the sketchy chiselling, for which we have

suggested a possible reason, no one would consider the St. Martin's font

to be of Norman workmanship. Moreover, the sides of the font internally

are extremely rough, and it is unlike the Normans to bestow so little

in the way of finish.

We may conclude (as I have said) with some confidence that Ethelbert was

baptised in St. Martin's Church. No traces have been discovered there of a

baptistery--nor, indeed, of any in England before that erected (about 750)

by Cuthbert, Archbishop of Canterbury, to the east of the Cathedral. But

this does not militate against the theory that he was baptised by

_affusion_, even though not from the present font notwithstanding

traditional evidence to this effect in the seals before alluded to.

Reverence and probability alike protest against the idea, entertained

by one or two distinguished antiquaries, that the font is nothing but

the circular erection once surrounding the top of a well, or _puteus_,

as depicted by Eadwin (1130-1174) in his plan of the herbarium of the

cathedral.

[Illustration: Window openings in West wall of St. Martin's, Cant.

(By G. M. Livett.)]

Next to the font, we must direct attention to the "=West Wall of the

Nave.=" Rugged and uneven as it now appears, there is still method in

its building. Its general character is that of roughly-hewn Kentish

rag-stones (with occasional blocks of chalk) bonded together by Roman

bricks, arranged in sometimes a single, sometimes a double or even triple,

course. Here and there a single course of stones lies between the courses

of bricks, which are then 9 ins. apart. In other portions of the wall

five or six courses of stone intervene between the courses of bricks,

so that the courses of stones and bricks do not alternate regularly.

The original face of the wall is much obscured by sundry patchings and

repairs, and (on the north side) by the erection of a monumental tablet,

lately removed to the tower-porch. In the centre, over the present

doorway, is an _arch_ or opening, now filled up with courses of Roman

bricks and rubble of chalk or flint. The arch reaches to a height of 17

or 18 ft. above the floor level, a few inches of the crown having been

cut away, and is on an average 7 ft. 2 in. wide. Whether it reached

originally down to the ground, or was merely an opening of the nature

of a window, cannot be positively settled, as the fillings-up have not

yet been removed. On either side of the arch, at a distance of 2 ft.,

are two _windows_ (the upper 18 ins. of which, as they now appear, are

an extension made in Saxon or Norman times). The original windows (below

this extension) have their jambs of chalk-blocks filled in with _white_

mortar, while the arches are turned in Roman bricks and rough voussoirs

of Kentish rag-stone, with interstices of bright _pink_ mortar. These

windows are certainly built _more Romano_, and no sufficient evidence

has yet been brought forward to upset the opinion strongly held by many

archæologists--that they are _Roman_. The variation of the mortar used

in their construction from _white_ mortar in the jambs to _pink_ mortar

in the voussoirs of the arch is a very noticeable feature, and can be

exactly paralleled in the Roman Pharos at Dover. It is certainly _prima

facie_, a strong evidence of Roman workmanship. The windows are 2 ft. 8

in. wide, and would have measured 4 ft. from sill to crown. Their jambs

are splayed at an angle that would allow about 12 ins. for the actual

opening on the outer face of the wall. Their sills are respectively 9

ft. 9 in. and 10 ft. above the ground level, and the lower portion of

the south window is filled up with thin mediæval tiles, such as we find

here and there in the fourteenth-century tower, during the building of

which the _extended_ windows were undoubtedly blocked up. These _extended_

windows have no voussoirs, but were cut out of the original walling, and

simply plastered. Near them are portions of pink plaster still adhering

to the wall.

Excavations have been made below the northern portion of this western wall

in hopes of finding some of the original flooring of the church, but could

not be further prosecuted because vaults, and even detached skeletons,

were met with at a distance of only one foot below the existing pews.

The style of the north and south walls of the nave is much the same as

that of the western wall; and behind the wood-work are considerable pieces

of pink plaster, remarkable both for its hardness and texture. About this

plaster we must say a few words, as it is, in our opinion, an important

piece of evidence. It is composed of carbonate of lime imperfectly

burned, of silicious sand, and pounded Roman brick, in almost equal

proportions. It is true that some examples of this plaster have been

occasionally found in Saxon, Norman, and even Early English buildings, but

they are feeble imitations, distinguishable by the greater preponderance

of sand, neither so bright nor crisp in section, more soft and pliable,

and of a dullish colour. Two pieces of plaster were put side by side,

one from St. Martin's and another from a Roman villa at Wingham, and to

an experienced eye the texture was identical, except that the latter

was rather thinner. And on our sending to such an undoubted expert as

Mr J. T. Irvine (who had previously expressed much scepticism as to the

Roman claims of St. Martin's, though he candidly confessed that he had

not seen our recent explorations) a specimen of this plaster, he wrote

in reply that, "both as regards texture of tile and lime mixture, and the

colour produced thereby in section, it certainly seem to accord with that

of _good Roman date_."

About the middle of the north wall of the nave is a doorway, 4 ft. 2

in. wide, with jambs of Caen stones of irregular size, some of them

showing marks of axe-tooling. The date of this doorway is uncertain. The

head is destroyed and the rubble filling-up irregular, but the general

appearance seems to favour the theory that it is Norman. On the east

side of the doorway is a =stoup= for Holy Water, certainly of great

antiquity. The shape is not regular, but it may be described roughly as

measuring 20 by 17 inches.

At the south-east corner is the celebrated Norman =piscina=, said to be one

of the earliest and most beautiful in England. The size of the actual

opening is 13 by 7-½ inches with additional 4 inches to the top of

the tympanum. Its jambs are of Caen stone, with the usual tool-marks. In

it are three curious holes, two above and one below, penetrating about

2 inches into the stone. What these holes were intended for has been

a great puzzle, but perhaps short poles were inserted in them which

supported an ornamental canopy. It is not impossible that the piscina

was originally placed somewhere nearer the east wall of the nave.

[Illustration: NORMAN PISCINA.

(From a Photograph by Miss M. Bruce.)]

On the removal of the flooring beneath the piscina there was found a hole

measuring 2 ft. by 1 ft. 8 in. and 5 ins. deep with a bottom of rough

concrete, and 3 feet away were some =foundations of a wall= running

parallel to the south wall. These foundations, chiefly consisting of flint,

are about 18 ins. wide and 15 in. deep, though in parts rather fragmentary,

and they were at first supposed to be connected with the parclose of the

Altar of St. Nicholas, which formerly stood there. But Mr Livett opens

out another possibility. He writes to us as follows:--"The portion of

the east wall of the Nave, into which the south respond of the Chancel

Arch is bonded, is similar in character and material to the brick walling

of the western part of the _Chancel_, with which therefore, rather than

with the _Nave_, it must be identified in date and construction. The

same may be said of the corresponding bit of wall on the north side,

which, however, has been more interfered with by the bondings of later

work. In the face of the bit of wall on the south side, though rough

and plastered with hard cement, may be detected the broken bonders

of a wall that formerly ran westwards from it, and exactly in a line

with the south wall of the Chancel. The vertical line of the junction

of the southern face of the destroyed wall with the bit of wall under

examination can be traced clearly. It has all the proper signs of bonding,

precisely similar in treatment to the signs of bonding seen on the face

of the south wall of the Chancel immediately above the foundations of

the Adjunct. The foundations discovered under the flooring of the Nave

are in a position to have carried this destroyed wall. Though they

are fragmentary, their material and depth correspond exactly with the

foundations of the Chancel wall below the brick footings thereof. I

drew Mr W. H. St. John Hope's attention to the signs of bonding which

I have described, and from recent correspondence with him I infer that

he accepts the evidence as sufficient to prove the former existence of

a destroyed wall. The recovery of this wall running in the direction

described, and contemporaneous in date with the western part of the

Chancel, is an important factor in the consideration of the relative

dates of the existing Chancel and Nave."

Before quitting the nave, the beautiful open roof of which deserves

admiration, we must say a few words about a door or window opening from

the west wall into the tower. This is of the Decorated period, and was

perhaps connected with a tower-chamber (used in many old churches, both

as a sleeping-room, and for a study); or the watchers, who guarded

the church, would be able to see from thence the shrines with their

relics and jewels, or it may have been to enable the sacristan to know

the exact moment for ringing the Sanctus bell at the elevation of the

Host, so that the sick in their chambers, the labourers in the fields,

and the faithful in the church might join in a common act of adoration.

Let us now proceed to the =chancel=. The whole of the modern stalls were

temporarily removed with a view of facilitating further investigations

underground; but here, as in the nave, the excavations were almost

entirely put a stop to by the existence of vaults and graves, extending

right up to the walls on either side.

[Illustration: CHANCEL OF ST. MARTIN'S (SHOWING SEDILE, SAXON DOORWAY,

etc.).

_Noakes, Canterbury, Photo._]

Owing to various circumstances, it has not been considered advisable,

for the present, to strip the plaster from the chancel walls above

the height of seven or eight feet, or east of the altar rails. Enough,

however, has been done to show clearly that the present chancel may be

assigned to two, and probably to three, distinct periods. For a distance

of twenty feet eastward on each side of the chancel arch, the walls

are built of Roman bricks laid evenly upon one another, _four bricks_

(as I have before said), with their interstices of mortar, occupying

_one foot_. This portion of the church shows very careful workmanship.

It has been attributed by some to the time, and even the personal

supervision, of St. Augustine himself, but we think that with greater

probability it may be considered as _Roman_ building.

[Illustration: SEDILE.

(From a Photograph by Miss M. Blore.)]

We have already described the square-headed doorway, but may add that

(during the present spring) the lepers' window has been traced inwards

to a depth of 1 ft. 8 in. from the exterior of the wall. From this

_square-headed_ doorway the _semi-circular_ one (commented on in our

description of the exterior of the church) is 4 ft. 2 in. distant. Beyond

this the early brick wall extends eastward for 6 ft. 9 in. till we

reach a break in it, which was clearly the termination of the original

chancel. For the last two feet the work is somewhat irregular, and from

this circumstance, and from some evidence discovered at this spot on

the outside, it has been conjectured that here we have the beginning of

a Roman apse (_cf._ Appendix C). Eastward of this break, the walling

is of different workmanship, showing with the mortar-joints six bricks

to a foot, and after 3 ft. 5 in. we come to a =Sedile=, which was blocked

up with mediæval brickwork, and opened out a short time ago. It had

apparently a slightly pointed arch, of which about five inches have been

cut away. The springing line is about 2 ft. 9-½ in. above the seat;

the radii are about 3 ft. 9 in., their centres being on the springing

line. This would fix its measurements as follows:--Span, 5 ft.; depth,

about 1 ft. 3 in.; height from seat to springing line, 2 ft. 9-½; in.;

and from seat to apex, about 6 ft. 4 in. A difficulty has arisen as to the

date of the sedile from the fact that the top of it has been cut away by

the insertion of a lancet window, appearing at first sight to belong to

the Early English period, so that the sedile would seem as if it must

be of an earlier date than the window. But Mr Livett, though believing

it not impossible that the sedile and lancet window were built at the

same time, and the sill of the window altered afterwards, thinks it more

probable that the sedile and its adjoining brickwork were built late

in the twelfth century, and the lancet window inserted subsequently,

perhaps in the fourteenth century. The position of the sedile would

seem to point out that the high altar stood, in Early English times,

immediately east of the step whereon the present altar rails are placed.

The east wall of the church was partially pulled down and rebuilt about

fifty years ago, to which period we owe the pseudo-Norman work of the

reredos. The lancet windows were filled at that time with an ill-drawn

representation of the Crucifixion in the centre, and on each side with

the Ten Commandments, which were slowly fading away.

Inside the altar rails is an =aumbry=, 15 by 14 inches, with a wooden door

of "linen pattern," dating probably from the time of Henry VII. The recess

inside the door extends to a depth of 18 inches, and is still in use.

On the north side of the chancel is an arch surmounting a tomb, the

oolite slab of which measures 6 ft. 6 in. long by 2 ft. wide at the top,

and 1 ft. 6 in. wide at the foot. This tomb is apparently ancient. On the

slab is an incision that probably contained a cross. At the back of the

recess, in the wall, is an elegant Latin inscription, composed by Bishop

Claughton (of St. Albans) and placed on a brass there by Canon Chesshyre,

a former rector, to this effect: "If by chance anywhere near here lie

the remains of Bertha, wife of King Ethelbert, let them rest in peace

till the last coming of the Lord Jesus."

[Illustration: (SO-CALLED) QUEEN BERTHA'S TOMB.]

The arch above the tomb is a poor imitation of a Norman one, and stands

under a curious round-headed opening in the wall, which may mark the

position of a Norman window.

This tomb was always shown as "Queen Bertha's," and is still often

called so even in the present day, owing to the statement that the queen

was buried "in porticu Sancti Martini"; but this, of course, refers to

the apse or transept of St. Martin's Chapel in the monastery church of

St. Augustine, where Bertha was laid on the south side of the altar.

The tomb was opened on January 12th, 1883, and beneath the covering

slab of oolite was discovered a coffin of stone, hollowed out into the

shape of the body, and having a small semi-circular opening (about 9

inches in diameter) for the head of the corpse. This latter opening had

been bricked off from the rest of the tomb, and was thus formed into a

receptacle for fragments of bones and other human remains, the rest of

the coffin being filled up with flints, bricks, and rubbish. The bones

were pronounced by a surgeon who was present to be probably those of an

elderly man, aged about seventy years, and of small proportions. This was

an apparent confirmation of a theory previously broached--viz. that the

tomb possibly contained the remains of the restorer of the church in

the thirteenth century. But alas for hasty conclusions! We have since

ascertained that the tomb had been opened before 1844, and, so far as

one can trust to oral tradition, it was then empty, except for a little

human dust. Our informant also told us that there was a small cross,

made of grass, which crumbled away when exposed to the air, but he was

evidently confusing this with the cross made of two twigs that was found

at the opening of Henry IV.'s tomb in the Cathedral.

Where, then, did the bones come from? There is an arch of an Edwardian

monument in the vestry, but no coffin underneath; and our conjecture is

that, when the present vestry (a kind of recess) was thrown out from the

church, the tomb, which stood in the way, was moved back to its outer

wall, and the bones were transferred to the so-called tomb of Queen

Bertha. It is possible that the coffin-lid found in the square-headed

Roman doorway was also taken from the same source.

So far as we can ascertain, no authentic records were kept at the time

of the restoration of the church in 1844-45, which was done without a

faculty. There is no doubt that its condition then was very dilapidated,

and that we owe almost its actual preservation to the munificent

liberality of Mr Daniel Finch and the careful judgment of its rector,

Canon Chesshyre; but we must necessarily regret the absence of full

particulars, and the opportunities that were then lost of exploring

thoroughly the walls, floors, and general antiquities of the church.

[Illustration: CHRISMATORY (SHUT).

(From a Photograph by Mrs W. A. Lochée.)]

On the top of the wall-plate was found a very interesting =chrismatory=,

lately in the possession of Mrs Chesshyre of Barton Court, but now placed

in a vestry-drawer used as a museum for curiosities connected with the

church. It cannot lay claim to the same renown as the =ampulla= said to

have been used at the baptism of Clovis, when legend relates that the

clerk who bore the chrism was prevented by the crowd from reaching his

proper station, and, as the moment of unction arrived, St. Remi raised

his eyes to heaven and prayed, "when lo! suddenly a dove, white as snow,

flew towards him, bearing down in his beak an ampulla filled with chrism

from above."

Not even the most enthusiastic devotee of St. Martin's could claim this

chrismatory as having been used at the baptism of Ethelbert, for it is

clearly of the date of the fourteenth century.

At a meeting of the Society of Antiquaries on December 16th, 1880, it

was thus described:--"It is a brass box 6 inches long, 2 inches broad,

and 2 inches high. The lid is high-pitched, with slanting gable-ends

nearly equilateral, and surmounted by a vertical crest or ridge pierced

with quatrefoils. The extreme height of the lid is 2-3/8 inches; that

of the vertical crest is 7/8 inch. The lid is attached behind by two

hinges, each ½ inch broad, and of which the raised plates are riveted

to the back and lid of the box. The lid is fastened, not locked, by a

hasp attached by a plate, and dropping on to a moveable catch on the

face of the box. The upper and lower edges of the box, and its ridge,

are mounted with mouldings attached by rivets. On opening the lid we found

three oil-pots, all of them in fragments, and to none of them are the lids

still remaining. At the bottom of the pots, however, are traces of some

fibrous material. The pots, unlike the box itself, are of pewter." The

necessity of keeping the three oils--(1) the holy chrism, (2) the oil

for the sick, (3) the oil for catechumens--in distinct compartments is

insisted upon by Archbishop Ælfric: "Ye ought to have three flasks ready

for the three oils, for we dare not put them together in one oil vessel,

because each of them is hallowed apart for a particular service."

The oil was contained in tow or cotton wool on a metal prong, and so

moistened either the thumb of the priest or the person of the sick.

On the wall pierced through by the new vestry arch some remains were

discovered of an old fresco, which represents the Crucifixion of our Lord,

with St. John and the Blessed Virgin standing before the Cross. From

the character of the painting (which was copied at the time), we are

inclined to assign it to the fourteenth century.

At the same part of the church, while an opening was made ten years

ago for the organ pipes, we came across some solid oak beams running

horizontally. They are extremely hard, though worm-eaten on the surface:

and resting as they were on the top of the wall (which consisted of eight

feet of Roman brick and six feet of apparently rough Saxon work), at the

height of fourteen feet from the ground, they may have formed portions

of a Saxon roof.

[Illustration: CHRISMATORY (OPEN) SHOWING THE THREE OIL-POTS.]

The floor of the chancel is in part occupied by sepulchral slabs; one

to Sir John Finch (whose monument is described below), which has the

following inscription:--"Here is committed to the Earth, that it may

return to Earth, whatever was mortal of John Finch, Baron Fordwich, of

the ancient and noble family of Eastwell, whom it pleased, in preference

to any epitaph, to have this inscribed on his sepulchral stone, 'Here

lies the most humble servant of the best of Kings.'"

Another is that of Sir Henry Palmer of Howletts, father of thirteen

children, obiit December 10th, 1659. A third of Maria, wife of Edward

Keddell, of the Society of New Inn, London, obiit 1659, ætat: twenty.

The descendants of this Keddell are now flourishing in America. The

latter stone was removed when the new tile pavement was laid down, and

placed in the immediately adjacent wall. It is described in a record of

the last century as having been at that time in the _Nave_.

There are also two brasses, side by side, in a state of perfect

preservation. The one to the south is in memory of Michael Fraunces,

with a Latin inscription: "Here rest beneath this marble the bodies of

Michael Fraunces, gentleman, and of Jane his wife, daughter of William

Quilter, Esquire. The wife died on the 4th, the husband on the 10th,

of January 1587. Their souls are in the enjoyment of heaven." The brass

on the north side contains an effigy, and the following words written

underneath: "Here lyeth Thomas Stoughton, late of Ashe, in the countie

of Kent, gentleman, who _depted_ this life the xii^{th} of June 1591."

Between and around these brasses is a tesselated pavement, not unlike

a Roman pattern. A great part of it is modern, but some portion was

pronounced by Mr Minton's chief workman to be very old, and it is not

impossible that a few of the tiles may date from a pre-Norman period.

[Illustration: Fig. 1. Fig. 2.]

There is also, just at the entrance to the Sacrarium, a small cross let

into the floor, which is apparently the one described by Hasted, who

speaks of it as a "Cross of white marble, which has been much noticed by

the curious as of great antiquity. It is about nine inches long and six

wide." He gives a representation of it, which, however, is inaccurate,

for he represents it as of this shape, as fig. 1, whereas in reality it

is as fig. 2, and its dimensions are 18 inches by 6-½ inches. We can

only account for this variation by supposing that the upper part of the

cross had been in his time sunk into the ground, and partially covered

by the pavement.

The largest, and perhaps the principal, monument on the walls is a

cumbrous one on the south of the Sacrarium, to John Finch, Baron Fordwich,

who is described as Advocate-General and Chancellor of Queen Henrietta

Maria, Justice of the Court of Common Pleas, Privy Councillor, and

Keeper of the Great Seal. He is remarkable in history as having been

the Speaker of the House of Commons in the reign of Charles I., who was

held down in his chair by Hobbes and others, in order that the protest

against the infraction of the Petition of Right might be passed.

"Full of offices, full of days, he migrated hence to the Ancient of Days,"

aged 77, on November 20, 1660.

Beneath the monument there used to stand an altar-tomb enclosed with

iron rails, and on a tablet near some Latin verses, composed by Charles

Fotherby in the time of Charles II., "to a very noble and distinguished

man."

The other monuments in the church are not of any general interest. Several

of those mentioned by Hasted have already disappeared, including one to

Giles Talbot, rector, in 1524.

The =Bells= are three in number. One of them has no inscription, the second

bears simply the date 1641, and on the third, in old English characters,

is the legend "Sancta Caterina, ora pro nobis."

Little need be said about the modern restorations and additions. The

panelling of solid foreign oak, including the pews, was inserted by Mr

Daniel Finch in 1844. A new pulpit and stone credence-table have also been

added: the floor of the chancel has been re-tiled; the former vestry has

been turned into an organ-chamber, and, where the organ once stood, a new

vestry has been made. In it are placed old engravings of the church and a

copy of the fresco which has already been described. In the drawer-museum

there are kept, besides the chrismatory, some Saxon beads, fac-similes

of the Merovingian coins, portions of the Roman (heathen) altar, and

some pieces of pink plaster. The altar, altar cross, candlesticks, etc.,

are new, as well as a large majority of the stained glass windows, in

which the leading idea has been, as far as possible, to perpetuate events

or persons connected with early Christian history. The three lights

of the east window represent St. Augustine (1) landing at Ebb's Fleet,

(2) entering Canterbury down St. Martin's Hill, and (3) baptising King

Ethelbert; also (4) Queen Bertha attending Christian worship. In other

windows of the chancel are pictures of the death of St. Martin, and the

closing scene in the life of the Venerable Bede; while in the vestry are

two single figures, erroneously supposed to be those of Pope Gregory

and Bishop Lindhard, which were purchased some fifty years ago in

Wardour Street.

On the south side of the =Nave= is a window representing various

scenes in the Life of St. Martin--_e.g._ his entrance into the army,

his consecration as bishop, his healing a leper, etc.--while in the

baptistery is the well-known incident in the Forum at Rome, "Non Angli

sed Angeli." In a memorial window on the north side, near the pulpit,

are four female figures--Queen Bertha, her daughter St. Ethelburga,

St. Dorothea, and St. Margaret of Antioch; and in the north-west a picture

of St. Martin dividing his cloak, probably copied from Vandyke. This

latter window, as well as one in the tower, was painted in 1851 by a

Miss Harriet Ludlow Clarke, who died at Cannes in 1866, and was a lady

of some taste and distinction.

The =Churchyard=, practically the only one now in use in Canterbury, though

St. Gregory's and St. Dunstan's churchyards are open for occasional

interments, has come to be regarded as the "Campo Santo" of the city. In

modern times the ground has been opened to receive the remains of many

distinguished priests and laymen, among whom we may mention Dean Alford,

Dean Payne-Smith, Bishop Parry and Canon Robertson (the ecclesiastical

historian). Not very far from the lych-gate is a curious floriated cross,

the legend on which seems to have puzzled many writers on the history

of the church, though it bears distinctly on the front "Hew Whyte," and

on the back "and Alys his wife." It is very probable that this is not

a memorial cross, but a finial gable cross removed from the east of the

chancel roof, and originally placed there in 1484 by Hew Whyte, who was

a benefactor to the church. The cross has had many adventures. It was

taken from the churchyard during the last century, and about thirty years

ago was reposing as an ornament in the garden of a Canterbury citizen,

but was brought back in 1876, and mounted on a pedestal.

In the _Valor Ecclesiasticus_, compiled in the twenty-sixth year of King

Henry VIII., the value of the living for "tithes predyall and personal,

oblations, and other spiritual yearly profits" is estimated at £9,

and the yearly tenths at 18s., which, in the first year of Edward VI.,

were reduced to £6, 5s. and 12s. 2d. respectively. Hasted remarks that

in 1588 it was valued at £20, and there were 71 communicants. In 1640

it was valued at £40, with 70 communicants. And it appears by the

Survey of the King's Commissioners in the second year of the reign of

Edward VI. that there were _obit_ lands given and bequeathed by divers

persons, that one yearly _obit_ should be kept in this church for ever:

the yearly value of which lands was 23s. 4d., of which the distribution

to the poor was 12d., and outgoings 21d., leaving 20s. 7d. clear. Among

the =charities= bequeathed we find

(1) _Stephen Falkes_ (1506) ordered that the yearly rents and profits

coming off the little messuage, with its appurtenances, in which

Gregory Bradley then dwelt, should wholly remain to the churchwardens

of St. Martin's for ever, for the reparation of the church.

(2) _Sir Henry Palmer_, Knt., of Bekesbourne (probably the father of

the Sir Henry Palmer now interred in the chancel), by his will in 1611

gave 10s., to be yearly paid out of his Manor of Well Court, to the

minister and churchwardens of the parish towards the relief of the poor

of St. Martin's.

Both these charities have disappeared, but there are still in existence

(3) the bequest of _Dame Mabella Finch_ of £100, to be paid into the

hands of Mr Bingham, and three such other of the ablest inhabitants

of the parish of St. Martin, to be by them and the churchwardens and

overseers of it, and their successors for ever, employed for the use

and benefit of the then and hereafter poor of this parish. (An annuity

of £10 bequeathed at the same time to the rector, and his successors,

has disappeared.)

(4) _James William Bain_ left (in 1861) the sum of £100 Consols, the

proceeds to be expended for the repair of his tomb from time to time,

and any residue for the benefit of the poor of the parish.

The population of the parish at the last census was 211, and the nett

annual value of the benefice is estimated at £220.

The =Registers= date only from 1662, the preceding Registers having been

lost. No entries whatever are found in them except the bare enumeration

of births, marriages, and deaths.

The church was originally exempt, and is still exempt (as we have stated

before), from the jurisdiction of the Archdeacon of Canterbury. The

patronage of the living continued solely in the hands of the Archbishop

of Canterbury till the church was united, in 1681, with the neighbouring

church of St. Paul, by the mutual consent of the Archbishop and the

Chapter of Canterbury, the patrons of the latter. For nearly two hundred

years after this time the patronage was vested in the Archbishop,

and Dean and chapter, alternately, until a few years ago, when it was

transferred back to the Archbishop alone.

Hasted gives a full account of the manor of Caldicot, lying within the

_Borough of St. Martin_, which was part of the possessions of the see

of Canterbury, and is thus described in Domesday Book: "The archbishop

himself holds the Ville, which is called St. Martins: it belongs to

Estursete, and lies in that hundred; it was taxed at one suling and one

half ... In demesne there are two carucates and thirty-six borderers.

To this land there belong seven burgesses in Canterbury, paying eight

shillings and fourpence: there are five mills of twenty shillings, and a

small wood." Canon Scott Robertson contended, in an able article on the

"Saxon Ville of St. Martin," that, as this is contained in the survey

of Aldington, the said ville was a limb of the manor of Aldington, and

is therefore connected with the oratory of St. Martin at Romney. But

he was clearly mistaken--the ville is distinctly said to "pertain to

Estursete, and to lie in that hundred," which is now named Westgate,

in Canterbury. When Lanfranc divided the estates of the archbishop from

those of the newly-formed chapter, the different estates were variously

grouped together under the larger manors, and sometimes shifted from

one to another, for the convenience (no doubt) of their management. The

manor was appropriated afterwards to the use of the archbishop's table,

till Archbishop Reynolds gave it, at the earnest desire of the monks,

"to the Prior and Convent, inasmuch as it was a convenient place for

them to retire to, and recreate themselves, when they were wearied out

and tired, it being at no great distance from their Monastery."

In the time of Edward I. a question arose whether the _Borough of

St. Martin's_ was within the Liberties of the city, and the jury found

"that in future it should be subject and answerable with the rest of

the Citizens in all those matters which belong to the Crown: that all

residents and dwellers in the borough ought to come four times a year to

the hundred of Burgate, at the summons of the bailiffs of the city. And

in like manner that they ought to come to the Portmote of the City,

as often as the citizens should cause a common meeting to be summoned

by the blowing of the horn."

[Illustration: ST. MARTIN'S.

(From an Old Print.)]

"And so we leave _St. Martin's_. Only we wish that for the venerable

antiquity of the Church and some time Episcopal estate of the

place--things that have much dignified both--it may always flourish in

the maintenance of its due rights and respects." With these words of an

old writer, we may conclude our description of the church. In an =Appendix=

we have summed up a few remarks on the controversy that has been raging

for the last few years as to the exact origin of the building. Those

who argue against its Roman date bid us be content with the assurance

that it is undoubtedly the oldest church in England, and tell us that,

when St. Augustine knew it, it was small, but quite large enough for

the small body of Christians who came over here with Queen Bertha,

that it was probably built for her and them, though it may have been

on the site of a British church. This gives us a continuous record of

1300 years and more. But we are _not_ content! for we believe that it is

the oldest existing church in _Europe_. Older than the churches of St.

Maria Maggiore and St. Pudenziana in Rome; than St. Croce, St. Francisco,

St. Vitale, St. Apollinare in Classe and St. Apollinare Nuovo at

Ravenna. Such churches as St. John Lateran, St. Paolo fuori le Mura

and St. Clemente cannot enter into the comparison, for they have been

almost entirely rebuilt--and in France and Germany nothing has survived

down to our own time, except a few fragments of the many large churches

constructed during the Roman occupation. We all desire that _truth_ should

prevail; but that truth must be established by intimate acquaintance with

every detail of the building and a knowledge of the latest explorations,

and not depend on facts accepted from hearsay, or a desire to establish

any preconceived theory.

Whatever be the decision ultimately arrived at, none can doubt that

_St. Martin's_ is one of our grandest historical monuments. Small as it

is, it may yet vie with the magnificent cathedral of Christ Church in the

glorious associations that have clustered round its hallowed walls, and

in point of antiquity surpasses it by several centuries. It has witnessed

the progress of the English nation from barbarism to civilisation. The

ever-widening stream that has continued to flow from that tiny spring

cannot fail to impress the earnest Christian with a lesson of trust in

the mysterious ways of Providence. It has preserved its light burning

almost continuously from the time of the small band of British Christians,

of the worship of pious Queen Bertha and the great St. Augustine, down

to that solemn commemoration of 1897, when within its sacred walls were

gathered the representatives of the English Church which has spread into

all quarters of the civilised and uncivilised world.

APPENDIX A

LIST OF RECTORS. PROBABLE DATE OF INSTITUTION

John de Charleton 1314

Robert de Henney 1316

John de Bourn 1330

William de Castro 1333

John de Byngham 1349

Richard de Camsale 1349

Robert Hayward 1381

Thomas Bolter 1392

John Vag 1392

Robert Hubbyn 1408

John Lovelych 1419

Thomas Wotten 1428

William Welton 1434

Robert Hunt No Date

John Bernard 1448

John Skye 1456

John Browne 1466

Giles Talbot 1509

William Heynys 1524

John Hichecocke 1539

Thomas Nicholls 1547

John Smyth 1552

David Robson 1560

Adam More 1576

Eustace Ffrensham 1578

John Mugge 1578

John Stubbs 1587

Richard Genvey 1591

Matthew Warner 1611

Rolando Vaughan 1637

William Osborne 1661

William Osborne (jun.) 1665

Owen Evans 1681

Thomas Lamprey 1743

John Airson 1761

Thomas Freeman 1788

Thomas Antony Mutlow 1808

J. E. N. Molesworth 1829

J. Stratton 1839

W. J. Chesshyre 1842

Thomas Hirst 1859

A. B. Strettell 1874

Leslie E. Goodwin 1882

Leonard J. White-Thomson 1894

=Thomas Bolter= exchanged with =John Vag=, who was incumbent of the chantry

in the hospital of St. Thomas at Eastbridge, in the city of Canterbury.

=John Skye= exchanged with =John Bernard=. He had formerly been rector of

Dibdin, Hants.

=John Browne=, a chaplain, became rector on the resignation of John Skye.

=William Heynys= signed the Renunciation of the Papal Supremacy in 1534-5.

=Eustace Ffrensham= became insane.

APPENDIX B

DATE OF THE CHURCH

The revelation of fresh features of interest in the church by the recent

explorations has attracted wide attention, and revived the controversy as

to the probable date of the building. The whole subject was discussed in

the spring of 1896 at a meeting of the Society of Antiquaries in London,

after an able paper read by Mr W. H. St. John Hope. The question was

also brought prominently forward at the Canterbury meeting of the Royal

Archæological Institute in July 1896. What the newspapers called "The

Battle of St. Martin's" raged with unabated vigour during the week,

and, although many opinions were expressed with that _positiveness_

which is said to mark the true antiquary (a positiveness not always

founded on personal knowledge), yet by some well-known experts no pains

were spared, and no special and professional attainments were wanting,

to determine the issue on a scientific basis. It may be true to the

experience of human nature, but yet it seems a feeble conclusion, if we

confess that after all this apparently exhaustive debate, the controversy

on the main point is as much alive as ever.

Premising that by "the Chancel" is meant the original chancel extending

20 feet eastward from the nave, we may state the following four as the

only theories that now hold the field:--

(1) A Roman date for the chancel, and a later Roman date for the nave.

(2) A Roman date for the nave, and a later Roman date for the chancel.

(3) A Roman date for the chancel, and a Saxon date for the nave.

(4) An early Saxon date for the chancel, and a later Saxon date for

the nave.

Many of the architectural details bearing on the subject are so minute,

and so highly technical, that they are not suitable to the character

of this Appendix. We propose, therefore, to confine ourselves chiefly

to broad general features, and to narrow the controversy, in the first

place, to the question whether there still exists in the church any

_Roman_ workmanship, or whether even the most ancient part of it must be

assigned to the _Saxon_ period. It is difficult to avoid recapitulation

of many points alluded to in the handbook, but we may summarise the

principal arguments in favour of the _Roman_ date of portions of the

church as follows: (1) =History.=--It is distinctly mentioned by Bede

that there was (in 597) a church dedicated to St. Martin, built while

the Romans still occupied Britain. Now this is direct testimony, to

which great weight must be assigned, when we consider the character and

authority of the writer. He was born in 673--_i.e._ only seventy-six years

after the mission of Augustine, and sixty-nine years after his death,

and wrote his "Ecclesiastical History" in the first part of the eighth

century, taking the greatest possible pains to make it worthy of his

subject. His information with regard to the history of Christianity

in Kent was derived from Albinus, Abbot of St. Augustine's, who was

himself a pupil of Theodore (Archbishop of Canterbury in 668) the great

consolidator of the English Church. We are told that Albinus referred

to the records in his keeping, and sent Nothelm, a priest of London,

to search the Archives at Rome, where were preserved many valuable

letters of Gregory the Great and subsequent Popes. Considering, then,

the extreme carefulness of Bede, and the sources from which he derived

his materials, we cannot imagine any evidence (short of first-hand) more

trustworthy and valuable. That he should have written as he did, making a

positive statement that the Church was built during the Roman occupancy

of Britain, while all the time it owed its foundation to Queen Bertha

or Augustine, is perfectly incredible. The theory as to its foundation

by Queen Bertha has nothing whatever to justify it; and were the idea,

that it was founded by Augustine, true, would it not in Bede's time have

been an easily ascertained fact, capable probably of documentary proof,

especially among those who were inmates of Augustine's own monastery,

and would have claimed St. Martin's Church as a precious inheritance--the

legacy of their founder? No one impugns the general accuracy of Bede's

narrative, and the value of such historical evidence cannot be too

strongly insisted upon, for it is infinitely more weighty than any

_a priori_ arguments or negative criticism.

Let us then assume that there was a Roman church in existence

on St. Martin's Hill when Augustine came to Canterbury. Is there any

evidence to strengthen this assumption in the present building? And,

first, as regards the Nave. We have already alluded to what we consider

the valuable evidence supplied by the style and texture of the _pink_

plaster, also the variation of the mortar in the construction of the

west windows from _white_ mortar in the joints to _pink_ mortar in the

voussoirs of the arch, as well as the Roman-like character of the windows

themselves. The objection that "Roman windows were never splayed" may

be met (_a_) by the general statement that the introduction of light

by means of a splay is so natural that the idea could not have escaped

a Roman builder, especially in countries where there was less light than

in Italy. Isidore of Seville, a contemporary of Gregory the Great, living

in the midst of Roman work, must be describing what were the distinctive

features of windows around him when he says "Fenestræ sunt quibus pars

exterior angusta, et interior diffusa est"; and (_b_) Mr Roach Smith,

in his "_Collectanea Antiqua_" gives several illustrations of Roman

splayed windows at Aries, Vienne, etc., and we are informed that there

is one at South Shields, mentioned by Mr Robert Blair, F.S.A.

The character of the walls in the nave of St. Martin's seems to us to

agree pretty closely with the technical description of Roman masonry in

this country as "chiefly constructed of stone or flint, according to

the part of the country in which one or the other material prevailed,

embedded in mortar, and bonded at certain intervals throughout with

regular courses or layers of large flat bricks or tiles, which, from the

inequality of thickness and size, do not appear to have been shaped in

any regular mould."

The _Nave_ then has strong claims to Roman origin, without any reference

to the _Chancel_. Mr Livett, however, claims that, whatever be the

date of the nave, the brickwork of the original _Chancel_ is certainly

earlier, and contends that "the oldest portion of the existing building

comprises (1) the side walls of the chancel, extending for 20 feet;

(2) the foundations of the destroyed Adjunct that once stood on the south

side of the chancel; (3) a portion of the east wall of the nave on either

side of the chancel-arch, and (4) certain foundations under the floor of

the nave, supposed to be a continuation of the chancel side-walls." It

is possible that he is rather too sanguine in concluding that a general

agreement has been reached on these points. But, assuming (for the sake

of argument) that the chancel is the earlier, then, if we can establish

a reasonable probability of a Roman date for the nave, _cadit quæstio_,

so far as the "pro-Saxon" controversialists are concerned. On the other

hand, even though it be proved that the _Nave_ is post-Roman, yet still

the _Chancel_ may be Roman, since it is in their opinion of confessedly

greater antiquity.

Is there anything in the _Chancel_ to militate against its Roman

origin? It is built in _opus lateritium_, bricks laid evenly upon one

another, an ordinary style of Roman masonry; for instances of which we

may refer to remains found at the Roman villas at Wingham and Darenth,

at the Studfall Roman castrum at Lympne, the blocked sluice-gate in the

Silchester city wall, and countless other places. Allusion has been

already made to Mr Micklethwaite's paper on "Saxon Church Building,"

in which, perhaps somewhat too confidently, he assigns to the Saxon

periods the churches of Reculver, Brixworth, St. Pancras, etc. etc. It

is a remarkable fact that the plan of St. Martin's Church (either with

or without its reputed eastern apse) does not in many essential points

agree with the plan of a single one of the churches therein described.

And yet, if we accept the date of St. Martin's as post-Roman, it must

have been built within less than a hundred years of most of them. He lays

special stress on the apparent identity of character between the work

at _St. Pancras_ and in the _Chancel of St. Martin's_, saying that the

"date of one must be very near to that of the other," and as he does

not believe that St. Pancras can be Roman, therefore the same may be

predicated of St. Martin's. But he makes many assumptions to prove this,

taking imaginary sketches and theories for ascertained facts. Even so,

the shape of the supposed apse is different in the two, and there is

no north porch at St. Martin's as there is at St. Pancras, and if it

can be established (as seems likely from recent discoveries) that there

was an original chancel-arch at St. Martin's west of the side-chapel,

the dissimilarity is even more apparent.

It is outside our purpose to discuss the date of St. Pancras, though many

authorities maintain the possibility of its Roman origin. But, granting

(for the moment) that St. Pancras' Church was built or restored by

Augustine (and this is the latest date assigned to it), the identity in

plan and character of the two churches is disputable. Of course, taking

St. Martin's as it now exists, there is no similarity whatever, either in

regard to the masonry of the nave, or the general outline. There is more

similarity (with the exception of the points above mentioned) between

St. Pancras and the assumed shape of St. Martin's chancel. But here,

too, are points of difference. The walls of _St. Pancras_ are only

_1 ft. 10 in._ in thickness; they are constructed almost entirely of broken

bricks, roughly cut to a triangular shape and fitted together in the core,

the interstices being filled up with small bits of brick. The walls of

St. Martin's chancel are _2 ft. 2 in._ thick, and contain a much larger

proportion of whole bricks, about 12 inches wide, laid side by side in

each course, the interval between them being filled up with mortar and

small stones. We may mention also the difference in the treatment of

the division between nave and chancel. In the churches of St. Pancras,

Reculver, Brixworth, Peterborough, Lympne, and Rochester there was a

triple chancel-arch. In St. Martin's the space is too narrow to admit

of any such arrangement. If we carry back the original building of

St. Pancras to Roman times (and we must remember that King Ethelbert is

said by Bede to have allowed the Italian Missionaries to build and repair

_churches_ in all places) we do away with the difficulty as "to the temple

of the heathen god being built after the fashion of a Christian church."

We may pass over, as unworthy of serious discussion, the argument that

St. Martin's cannot be a Roman church, because no existing Roman churches

have yet been discovered in this country! and that it is not Roman because

its ground-plan does not tally with the ground-plan of the Roman Church

at Silchester. In the first place, we do not know what the original

ground-plan of St. Martin's was, and it has not yet been definitely

settled whether it may not have possessed side-aisles. And secondly,

to contend that it cannot be Roman because it is unlike the church at

Silchester would be to limit the capabilities of Roman builders to one

monotonous design, perpetually and exactly reproduced for a century or

more, which would be contrary both to reason and experience.

There is, however, one objection remaining which must be faced, because

it is put forward with all the professional knowledge of a skilful

architect. The nave of the church is described as "being built of old

stuff used anyway just as it came to hand, and tells of a time when there

were ruins near, at which the builders were free to help themselves--a

state of things unlikely in Roman Kent, but likely enough after, the

wars which accompanied the English occupation." This seems a forcible

argument, but it is not altogether borne out by facts, neither is it

a fair description. That a great part of St. Martin's Nave is patchy

and rudely built no one can deny; but let us consider what periods of

destructiveness and neglect it would have passed through, supposing it

to have been built in Roman times. Durovernum (Canterbury) was abandoned

by the Britons flying before the Jutish invasion, and was at first left

unoccupied by the conquerors themselves. Its site lay for many a year

uninhabited and desolate; its very name was forgotten, and the church

would naturally have fallen into a state of partial ruin. Restored at

the coming of Queen Bertha, probably ravaged by the Danes, repaired and

enlarged to a great extent in the Early English period, gradually falling

once more into decay, in what condition should we expect its walls to

be? Even within the last thirty years some interesting features have

been destroyed, and the walls have been carelessly patched. When we

consider all this, are we surprised if parts of it look like old stuff

used anyway? But (as we have stated) this is not a correct description

of the lower portion of the walls, especially where they have been

comparatively preserved behind the woodwork of the present pews. And

even if the description "old stuff," etc., be applicable to portions

of the nave walling, the same description would equally apply to the

undoubted Roman work in the Pharos at Dover.

Is there not, too, such a thing as a period of decadence in any

style? Just as there is good and bad Saxon work, good and bad Norman work,

so must there have been good and bad Roman work. We are told in an account

of the Roman excavations at Silchester that "examination showed that the

rubble masonry of the whole western range (of the basilica) was of a _very

poor character_." "The stones (in a part of the Roman wall of London) form

a mere skin, between the tile bonding courses, to the thick _irregular_

rubble core." In the same wall, above the bonding course of three rows

of tiles at the ancient ground-level, "the body of the wall is composed

throughout its height of masses of ragstone, with now and then a fragment

of chalk, bedded _very roughly_ in mortar which has been pitched in,

not run in, sometimes with so little care as to leave occasional empty

spaces amongst the stones." It seems useless to multiply quotations for

the purpose of establishing an obvious fact--viz. that granting a general

_idea_ and method pervading a building (as, we believe, there is clearly

in St. Martin's nave), it is quite possible that at a time of decadence,

and in the hands of inferior (perhaps British) workmen, this idea should

be somewhat roughly carried out. This would be eminently the case if

we attribute the erection of the nave towards the close of the fourth

century--not so very long before the Roman evacuation of Britain.

Since writing the above, we have been informed by Mr Micklethwaite

that he places the nave of St. Martin's as dating from the seventh

century--but he gives no reason for doing so, except that he thinks

the form of the western windows and some other things about the work

indicate that period--and he acknowledges that there is nothing to fix

the date closer. We have, however, at some length, pointed out reasons

that seem to us to militate against his theory, and they need not be

re-stated. Though his opinion is deservedly weighty, he has not been

able to be present at any of the excavations.

APPENDIX C

EASTERN APSE, ETC.

Mr Livett has addressed to us the following communication with reference

to the probability of there having been an eastern apse in the church,

and has furnished the subjoined sketches to illustrate his remarks:--

[Illustration: Tracings of Apse (Livett's three sketches)]

"No doubt exists in my mind that in the western half of the chancel we

have the oldest part of the existing church of St. Martin's, and I am

inclined to think that it is part of the first church built upon the

site. We must recognise, however, the possibility that the foundations

of a still earlier church remain undiscovered, either under the present

nave or elsewhere in the churchyard.

"The form of the _ground-plan_ of the _early-brick_ building (a term we

have agreed to use in reference to the masonry at the western half of

the existing chancel) has not been positively determined. Its eastern

termination was destroyed in the extension of the building in the late

twelfth or early thirteenth century, and its western end disappeared at

a far earlier date.

"The probability that this early-brick building terminated eastward in

an apse is established by a careful consideration of the existing remains

of the south-east angle of that building, marked at the present time by a

narrow pilaster-buttress facing south, near the middle of the south wall

of the chancel. This buttress has been modernised, with its Caen-stone

quoins: but its foundations, lately exposed, prove that it accurately

represents, in dimension and position, an original early-brick buttress.

The sketches (given above) illustrate the features which indicate an

apsidal termination of the original building. _No. 1_ is a plan of part

of the existing south wall of the chancel. It shows the buttress, and,

immediately east of it, the junction of the twelfth-century wall with

the early-brick wall. To complete the description of existing features,

it may be added that the inner face of the wall (above some apparent

foundations there underneath the floor of the chancel) is rough--an

evident sign that early-brick masonry attached to this face was removed

when the extension of the chancel was made. Towards the east there are

no signs to indicate where the destroyed masonry stopped; but towards

the west there are, in the arrangement of the bricks, marks of a vertical

bonding-line, exactly corresponding in position with the western face of

the buttress on the outside. In that place, then, the destroyed masonry

originally rose with a clear face looking west. How far that masonry

ran towards the north there is nothing to show. It is a significant

fact--proved by the hole lately made through the twelfth-century wall,

at its junction with the earlier work--that the end of the early-brick

wall is in plane with the eastern face of the external buttress, and

that no buttress ever existed on the eastern face of the angle.

"All these features are consistent with the supposition that the

early-brick building terminated eastwards in an apse, and consistent

with that supposition only. Had the east end been square, the natural

treatment would have been as shown in _Sketch No. 2_--there would

remain indications of a buttress on the eastern side of the angle,

the vertical bonding-joint would be seen farther west, to allow for an

end wall of the same thickness (2 ft. 2 in.) as the side-wall--and the

existing buttress, instead of being narrow, would probably be of the

same breadth as the walls.

"_Sketch No. 3_ shows the natural treatment of an apsidal termination. It

explains the absence of a buttress on the eastern face of the angle, such

buttress being unnecessary in the case of an apse: and it explains the

use of the existing narrow buttress on the southern face, as serving to

counter-act the thrust of the facing-arch of the apse. No argument can

be drawn from the patch of foundations found under the floor near the

wall--and they do not at present run across the chancel; but probably

they did so run originally, whether the end were square or apsidal,

and have been removed in the centre, to make room for burials.

"The position and arrangement of the west end of the early-brick building

cannot at present be determined. That there was a cross-wall along

the line of the present chancel-arch is certain. This is sufficiently

proved by unmistakable signs of a vertical bonding-joint on the face

of the north wall of the chancel, 2-½ inches from the east face of the

northern joint of the chancel-arch. This joint allows for a cross-wall

of exactly the normal thickness of the early-brick walling. Moreover,

you tell me that you have seen bricks in such a position under the

floor in this corner as to suggest a cross-wall. All signs of the

corresponding vertical bonding-joint on the opposite side of the chancel

have been removed in the patching of alterations which need not here be

discussed ... I omitted to say that the evidence of the cross-wall is

further strengthened by the remains of an external buttress embedded in

the east wall of the nave on the south side. Similar evidence on the

north side has been destroyed by the insertion of the small doorway

leading from the nave into the modern vestry.

"With regard to the original arrangement of this part of the early-brick

building, I am unable to make any conjecture that would satisfactorily

explain all these features. The cross-wall may possibly have been the

west wall of a small church: in which case the signs of building to the

west of it must be connected with a porch or _atrium_. I think it more

likely, however, that the cross-wall was the original division between the

chancel and a destroyed nave, and contained a single chancel-arch. The

original line of division between chancel and nave has, in most cases,

though not invariably, been preserved throughout all enlargements of our

churches. It may simply be said that there was a cross-wall as described:

the evidence for it is final.

"The _adjunct_, the foundations of which were recently exposed, on the

south side is important in this consideration: but I have not referred

to it, partly because it has been fully dealt with elsewhere, and partly

because (as I have said) I have no satisfactory suggestion for the entire

restoration of the ground-plan; nor do I venture to suggest dates either

for the early-brick building or for the nave. I am convinced that the

nave is of later date than the early-brick work" (of the chancel).

* * * * *

Transcriber's Note: On page 56 of the original, in the description of a

Saxon doorway, the author reproduces an inscription using the letters

I, V, C, and O with overbars, or macrons. These have been transcribed

here using the conventions [=I], [=V], [=C], and [=O]. On page 62, again

while reproducing an inscription, the author used graphic symbols which

have been recorded here as [dagger], [iota], and [reverse epsilon].