Pliolo 1 VIEW FROM f.S.f. [F. J. Par8on.t, Ltd.
.f reA. Cant. X.Li.
HYTHE CHURCH .
( 273 ')
THE ARCHITECTURAL HIS'l'ORY OF THE
CHURCH OF ST. LEONARD, HYTHE.
BY THE REV, G. M, LIVETT, F.S . .A. •
.A. DESCRIPTION of St. Leonard's ChU1'ch, Hythe, given by the
Vicar, the Rev. Herbert Dale, at the Annual Meeting of the
Society in July, 1912, is printed in this volume. In the present
Paper, designed to be purely architectural in character, a
ce1·ta.i.n amoU11t of repetition will be necessary in order to
present the facts, and deductions tberefrom, in a manner
intelligent to the reacl:er. · The reader is invited to make a
preliminary study of the illustrations, and also to· make
constant reference to them while perusing the Paper. Some
of the photographs here reproduced were .ta.ken by Mr. Hubert
Elgar, the Society's honorary photographer; others have
been supplied by Messrs: F. J. Parsons, Lta . .J<· The plans and
sections have been specially prepared, for publication in this
volume, by Mr. W. H. Elgar of Folkestone, who for the time
and pains he has bestowed upon them has placed the Society
under a deep debt of gratitude. The main lines of the
general ground-plan were taken from measlll'ements made
by myself and· carefully plotted, and I am responsible also
for the historical ground-plan and section of the church
(which Mr. W. H. Elgar has ki:irdly redrawn for reproduction),
as well as for the arrangement of the plate of
mouldings; for all the rest, namely, for the details of the plan,
the cymagraphs of the mouldings, the three a.rchitectural
sections, and the isometric projection of the building, Mr.
Elgar is alone responsible. The view of the architectural
history of the church expressed in this Paper is the result of
a careful survey and study of the building, with the assistance
of these plans and sections, and a discussion of doubtful
points with Mr. Dale, Mr. Elgar and Dr. Randall Davis. It
* 145 High Street, Ilythe.
YOL. XXX, ·r
274 CHURCH OF sr. LEON.ARD, HYTilE.
has not been reached without considerable hesitation:
indeed, while the evolution of the building herein sketched
out seems to me to be, not only possibly but rather probably,
the true solution of the problem which the building presents
to the student, a.t the same time it must be confessed that
with regard to the destroyed eastem portions it draws
largely upon the imagination : in some respects it has been
reached by the exclusion of theories that seemed to be
untenable rather than by positive evidence remaining in the
structure. I shall venture to state .my view without confusing
the sketch by detailed discussion of rejected theories.·
The church is certainly one of the most attractive in
Kent. Its situation is remarkable, standing as it does upon
the steep slope of the cliffs that dominate the old Cinque
Port, immediately above the town that borders the dried-up
haven, overlooking the houses that are crowded together
with small gardens enclosed by old stone walls, and the long
level lanes and streets that run east and west closely parallel
and a1·e connected at short intervals with one another and
the High Street by little cross-lanes running up and down
the slope. The building is romantic in character, with its
unique ambulatory and. charnel-house, and its lofty EarJy
English sanctuary telling of the old-time prosperity and
almost in the same breath of the threatened decline of the
port, and. again of the modern revival of the town's fortunes
-for that sanctuary remained with its vaulting unfinished
until a recent geueration of worshippers found funds to
complete a design which in gra11deur and dignity, if not in
beauty of detail, rivals the charming chUl'ch of Stone near
Dartford.. The chancel, with its fine western arch, its
arcades of clustered Purbeck shafts and moulded arches and
its tall triplet of graceful eastern lancets enshrining its
sanctuary, rears itself, like the choirs of Canterbury and
Rochester, by an approach of many steps, ab@ve the level of
the more plain and lowly nave of the people: it is a :fitting
symbol of the high and holy place of the lofty One that
inhabiteth eternity and dwells also with them that are of a
contrite and humble spirit.
CHURCH OF ST., LEONARD, HYTHE. 275
The meagre materials which we possess of the early
history of Hythe point to its being a place of some importance,
owing to its port and shipping; in the eleventh century.
It is not known when it first received from the
Crown special privileges in return for liability to shipservice.
There is no doubt that royal charters were granted
to it long before the confederation of the Cinque Ports· by
Edward I. in 1278; it certainly received a. charter in the
reign of King John, and probably one as early as that of
Henry II.* Those early charters purported to trace its
royal franchises, like those of Dover, back to the time of
Edward the Confessor. That such 1·elationship existed at so
early a date between the Crown and the town seems open to
doubt, for in Domesday there is 110 hint of ship-service and
privileges such as are noted in connection with Dover. In
the trouble with Earl God wine in 1052 the Confessor seems
to have relied solely upon the Thames for his ships. We
learn from the Anglo-Saxon Chronicle that the king ordered
forty smacks to be equipped, and sent them to Sandwich,
whe1·e they lay for many weeks, and failing to intercept the
earl they retw-ned "homeward to London." But the same
account reveals the prosperity of Hythe at that irime, for it
tells how Godwine and his son Harold coUected iihips and
shipmen and stores from that port, as well as from others
on the Kentish coast, and with them followed the king's
fleet to Southwark.
The earliest undisputed documenta.ry reference to Hythe
is a record of the g-rant of Saltwood and Hethe to Christchurch
by 6ne Haldene or Halfdene, pri11,ceps Atiglonvm, in
the year 1036.t At the time of' the Domesday Survey
Hede was accounted a bwrgus appurtenant to the manor
of Saltwood, which was held of the archbishop by lrnight's
service by Rugh of Montfort. Two hundred a,nd ·twenty-five
burgesses in the borough of Hythe then belonged to the
manor of Saltwood, and six to the manor of Lymiuge, which
the archbishop held in demesne. Thereafter the liberty of
# See Round, Feudal England, 552, 568, et seq.
t IInsted, viii., 221; Dugdnlo, Mon., I., 21.
T 2
276 OllURCII OF ST. LEONA.RD, HYTHE.
the town and port of Hythe, which included part of West
Hythe, was governed by the archbishop's bailiff, assisted by
a body of twelve jurats. .A.nd so it continued, the townsfolk
from time to time obtaining some voice in the election of
the bailiff, until 1541, when the election passed with the
manor of Saltwood into the hands of the Crown. In 1575
the town received from the Crown a charter of incorporation,
and thenceforward it was governed by a Mayor elected
from the jurats by the commoners, who, to the number of
twenty-four, :formed the Council.*
The secular connection of Hythe with Saltwood influenced
its ecclesiastical status: from the first it must have been
accounted a chapelry of Saltwood .. In Domesday there is
mention of a "church" at Saltwood, and not so at Hythe ;
but it is not likely that Hythe remained long without
a church of its own to supply the spiritual needs · of its
large population, its fisherfolk and shipwrights, who in their
way and day were people of some account, to say nothing of
the needs of strange1·s whose business brought them to the ·
rising port. The building contains evidence of a church
existing on the site in the opening years of the twelfth
century or perhaps a little earlier. In the wall above the
arches of the arcade that separates the nave from its north
aisle one sees the Caen-stone voussoirs of the rere-arches of
two round-headed Norman windows now filled with masonry
Bush with the inner face of the wall. They point to the time
when a solid wall ran along the lines of the 1trca.de ti,nd
formed the external north wall of the nave of the first
Nor111an church. .According to the prevailing fashion
these windows were set as high as possible in the wall, the
top of which ran just above thek rere-ru:ches: the height,
therefore, of the first Norman nave was about 18 feet
from the present floor-level to the wall-plate : it is
indicated quite plainly by a difference in the colour of the
pla8ter, which makes a rough line along the top of the
blocked windows (see photo. of the north nave-arcade).
"' See llnsted1 under liythe; llurrQws, 'Oiiuiue PQ1't.,, 215,
Phofo, 'HYTHE CHURCH: [E. C. 1'011tn•
Ari·h. Cant. XXX. N. ARCADE OF NAVE.
OEIUROH OF ST. LEONptD, HYTHE. 27·7
In course of time this old wall underwent many altera.
tions : · in . the later:..Norman period, ·when· the· aisle:· was
· added, it was pierced. and in it · was inserted an· arca;de
of round:..headed arches supported probably on square piers;
· iu the ,thirteenth cen'tury it was raised in height for. the
· pm·pose of adding to it the clei·estory of three. windows; seen
, above; in. that and .the following ceiltuq the late-Norman
arches gave place, one by ·one in turn, to the three existing
arches; but through all these vicissitudes parts of the
:original wall, betwee.n a.nd above the present arches, remained
· and still remains. The iuference that this was the outside
wall of the first aisleless nave is confirmed by the slig·ht
.remains of its western quoin, seen outside at the west end.
When the aisle wa.s erected its erid-wall was built up to that
quoin, and most of the squared quoin,.stones were removed,
so that .the. new work might be ·botided into the old; but
three of th:e old squared stones· were left, two just above the
ground-level arid one higher up, and· rriay still easily be
distinguished: they are of Caen-stoue, like the voussoirs of
the old arches : the builders of the .first Norman church
·eviq,ently used Caen-stone for all theh quoins and arches;
and when their work was destroyed and replaced no doubt
their Caen-stone blocks were re-cut and used again. This
quoin gives us the line of the west wall of the'first church;
it seems to have been thickened all along the inner face and
-also on the outer face on the south side of the tower in
order to, give ·support to the tower built in the thirteenth
-century-,the predecessor of the present tower which we know
· to hav:e been. built about 17 50.· . The· original south wall
stood ou the lines 0£ · the three 11rches qf the present so-qth
arcade of the nave:* . No prt of it remains ·except two or
·three feet of its whole height .at the extreme west end of the
·araade, and also perhaps· its soutli-east angle· enibedded:in
the composite pie1· at the east· end of the· arcade, which wa:s
built in the thirteenth century. This wall, like its fellow, inust
.t eBn* hT-he south-wb angle shew the rmnlns of a bttress doubtles f thiroont
rY, date, and built when the tower was aqded. It is visible, both
outside a.nd ms1de, at the end of the aile. • ·
·278 CHURCH OF ST. LEONARD, R"tTBJll.
have been pierced in the late-Norman period in connection
with the addition of the aisle, the evidence of which exists
in the round-headed arch at the east end. The late-Norman
arcade was replaced in the thirteenth century by the present
one, but its character may be imagined from that roundheaded
arch at the east end of the aisle. That arch also
serves by its position to sbew the line of the east gable-wall,
i.e., the chancel-arch wall, of the :first Norman church, in
spite of its having been entirely removed: it ran across the
church, in line with the late-Nor man arch, northwards from
the blank bit of wall now seen between the two responds of
the composite pier:l:· The smaller composite pier on the
opposite side, the form of which we shall consider later on,
affords only slight indication ·of the exact trend of the wall
as it ran northwards, and the late-Norman arch which once ·
stood at the east end. of the aisle on that side, and if it·
remained would be a sure guide, has.been entirely removed;
but the lines of the transept-wall sufficiently shew the
position of the destroyed arch, and in the historical groundplan
I have drawn the wall accordingly. Its lines run much
out of parallel with the original west wall of the nave, but
there is no real objection in this, £or in early-Norman
churches such an irregularity is often seen : the early
builders made little effort, even if they knew how, to make
their buildings accurately rectangular.
Having plotted the nave of the :first church on the groundplan
of the existing church, iii only remains to add the
chancel on lines suggested by the chancels 0£ other earlyNorman
churches in the neighbourhood, such as West
Hythe and Postling. The early-Norman chancels of those
churches were square externally, while internally their
length was greater than their breadth by the thickness of
their walls, and their sidewalls ran well within the lines of
the lines 0£ the· side-walls of ihe nave if produced. These
conditions are suitably fulfilled in the case of Hythe Church
a11 This inference is based upon the assumption, which can scarcely be controverted,
that in addiug their aisle the later-Norman builders followed the
usual plan of making its .east end range with the east end1 the ohanoel-arch waU,
of the earlier nave. . .
OHlJRtlH OF S"r. LEO:t-7.A.R.D, HY1'HE. 279
· by placing the destroyed east wall in line with the east wa,lls
of the later-Norman transepts; and it is not unlikely that
the later-Norman builders, in planning theh- additions,
regulated the bi·eadth of their transepts by the size of the
old chancel, whereby the east wall of the old chancel would
serve as the chancel-arch wall of their new chancel.
With the exception of the two north windows and of the
chancel-arch, the exact span of which is of course uncertain,
no openings, for doors or windows, are shewn in the groundplan
of the first Norman church.· I believe that the ma.in
entrance, probably the only entrance previous to the
thirteenth century, was by a west door. The erection of a
west tower in the thirteenth centm-y must have rendered
that entrance inconvenient for ordinary purposes, a.nd a new
approach and door was then made on the south side of the
nave, where the ground always sloped away very sharply
from the church. There was no room for burials on the
south side : probably the existing wall marks the line of the
original boundary of the churchyard on this side. The
burial-ground lay to the west and north of the church.
The earliest bm·ials were probably made in the western
portion: certain it is that the old approach to the church
ran from Church Hill to the west door, the chief entrance
to the chUl'chyard being at the south-west corner, where a
gate still exists ; and of old the custom was for people to
bury their dead as near as possible to the path by. which
they went to chUl'ch. '' Church Hill," a continuation of
" Castle Road," represents the old road which ithin living
memory formed the principal way of entry into the town £or
travellers corning from Saltwood. It is very steep, and now
made impossible for wheeled traffic by numerous flights of
steps. In the Hospital maps it is called" Clyme Street."
.A.t the bottom stands the old Bartholomew's Hospital. The
approach to the church from the High Street would
naturally come from this old road, and when the south door
became the chief entrance, necessitating a new approach
therefrom, then (we may imagine) "Oak Walk," which is
called "Church Lane" and "Church Street" in the two
280 '()HtrRCR OF ST. LEONARD, 13:YTHE.
Hospital maps respectively, was made to give access to it:
it is noticeable that the broad Oak Walk becomes a mere
lane as it runs on £rom the south porch.
Tradition points to the existence, until about forty years
ago, of another approach to the west door coming· £rom the
north-west, and so serving people coming down Castle Road
and Church Hill. In 1870, Mr. Dale says, the churchyard
,vas enlarged to the west and north by the addition of
lands that lay between it and Church Rill and North Road
-the road that runs along the north side of the present.
churchyard. The line of the old boundary wall seems to be
preserved by a bank that runs with an easy curve from the
south-west corner round to the north. .A. bit of the wall
remains near the house which stands at the junction of
Church Street and Church Hill. This house was built
in 1860, but it occupies the site of one of three old
houses which are shewn in the Hospital map of· 1684*
as standing in a plot of land belonging to the Hospital
and marked "C "-" .A. small Tenument in the Market
Ward: 9½ perches." North of this plot a, smaller plot,
having no. fence between it and Church Hill but separated
from the chm·chyard by a wa.11, is marked "The Revens of
y0 S: house." In the map of 1685 this is bounded by a lane
running east from Church Hill, which Mr. Dale says was,
called "Lovers' Lane." Doubtless the north-west approach
to the church was connected in some way with that
lane. The addition to the churchyard absorbed the plots
above-mentioned and the ground that lay along the
north of Lovers' Lane, which of course has disappeare
. These few details, concerning matters of which
evidence is still visible, help one to imagine the early surrou.
ndings of the church. t · Like the builders of the chapels
of St. Michael and St. Nicholas, the builders of the first
* In the map of 1685 only one. house is delineated, t In the 1684 map (but not m that of 1685) two houses app.ear m the
extreme south-east corner of the churchyard, and three more, facrng Church
Lane, to the west of the south entrance, the first or eastern one being nearly
in line with ihe west wall of the tower. The masonry .of the ret:i,ining wall of
the churchyard shews signs of the entrance to one of the houses. ,,
tlHUltCH Oll' ST. LEON.A.RD, ll'YTllE. 281
chapel of St. Leonard seem to have selected a spot on the
hillside where there was a nal'l·ow terrace with a slope that
· was slight compal'ed with that of the ground immediately
nbove and below it. At the east end of the chul'ch, however,
this easement of the slope disappefl,rs, and the later
builders in making their eastward extensions of the building
had greater difficulties of level to contend with. We now
return to the story of the growth of +.he church.
The :first enla.rgement was carried out in the latter part
of the twelfth century, when the aisles already mentioned
were added to the nave and the plan of the church became
cruciform by the erection of transepts and a new chancel
round the old chancel, which was then demolished. This
was in accordance with the fashion that prevailed towards
the end of the century. A good example of such an enlargement,
at a slightly later date, may be seen at Stockbmy,
near Sittingboui-ne. At St. Lawrence, Thanet," a similar
tri1,nsformation was made about t.he same time as this was
being carried out here at Hythe, but in that cae a_ cen,tral
tower was erected over· the old chancel. Godalming and
Horton Kirkby '(early .thirteenth cenfawy) supply other
examples of cruciform enlargement with central tower.
Some people have thought that a centr-a.l tower was erected
at Hythe, bU:t there ai·e no signs of the existence of such a
tower: indeed, a careful study of the existing remains, and
especially of the composite pier at the east end of the
south nave-arcade, seems to me absolutely to exclude such a
possibility, so that I will not waste time by further discussion
of the matter.
All the new walls of this late-Norman work were based on
foundations of large rough blocks of Kep.tish rag, which are
plainly visible all round the south transept, the walls of
which wet·e rebuilt in the eighteenth century, and along the
na.ve aisle-wall adjoining that transept. Indications of the
sai.ne kind of foundation M'e also seen at the wst end of the
north aisle a.nd along the west side of the north transept, but
the only remains of late-Norman work existing above g·round
282 ClltrRCll OF srr. LilONA.Rb, R'YNrn.
are the lower pa,rt of the walls of the nave-aisles and of the
north transept and the round arch at the east end of the
south aisle. The character of the walling, best seen perhaps
on . the outside of the north aisle,. is £or the most part
obscured by repairs and patching. The late-Norman builders,
like their Early English successo1·s, strengthened their internal
angles with wrought stone : this may be seen in the
angle close to the south jamb of tbe aforesaid round arch,
and it shews the heig·ht (about 9 feet) of the original
height of the aisle walls, which were raised to their present
height in the fourteenth century. Fortune has preserved for
us, on the face of the remains of the first-Norman south wall
at the west encl of the arcade, about 16 feet from the ground, a
short stretch of the horizontal weather-course inserted in
.that wall by the later-Normans in connection with their
aisle-roof, from which, with the height of their aisle-wall, we
can gauge the position and slope of their aisle-roof (as indicated
by dotted line in the section I). This wea thei·-course
also gives us the limit of · 4eight of the arches of their
(destroyed) arcades.
Taking the round arch at the end of the aisle as a guide
to their character, I have worked out the plan and elevation
of those destroyed arcades, and have come to the conclusion
that they comprised three arches with flat soffits springing
from square piers, the level of the imposts being two or
three inches below that of the necking of the capitals of
the existing Early Englh:h south arcade. The angles of
the arches and piers would be either chamfered or, as is
more probable, cut into angle-shafts, commonly called an
edge-roll. Fragments of this moulding, suitable for both
quoins and a,rches, appear in the eighteenth-century walling
of the south tmnsept.* The insertion of those arcades cut
away the lower parts of the fhst-Norman wind,ows, len,ving
• .Among them are voussoirs, shewing the edge-roll, that would suit the
rere-aroh of a window or of a doorway of 4 feet spau, and voussoirs of an arch
of about 6 feet span shewing a plain face n.nd zigzag motllding on the soflit
(Pone of these might well be taken out of the wall for complete examin:i.tion).
'fhere are also some thirteenth-century filleted edge-rolls.
Plioto] [ F. J. l'ar,ons, Ltd.
SOUTH AISLE.
Arel,. Cant. XXX.
[ 1''. J, Parsons, Lid.
NORTH AISLS.
ST. LEONARD'S, HYTHE.
[E. C. To«e11.1·
N. TRANSEPT.
'O'.II'lJRO'.JI O.F S'T. LEONARD, BY'l''.IIE. · 283
their round heads above the line of the crown of the' arcadearches.
It is possible that new sills we1·e made and the
. heads of the windows left open, transforming the wallspace
above the arcades into a clerestory, but it is more
likely that these were blocked, and that the builders
depended for light upon small windows fu their aisle-walls
and larger windows at the end of the aisles, as at Icklesham
and St. Margaret-at-Cliffe. On the right-hand side of the
plate entitled " historical section" I have shewn the section
of the first-Norman wall with a conjectural. restoration of
its windows, The seoond-Norman architect retaine the
old nave-roof, ·which remained until the Early English
people built their clerestory and 1·aised the height of the
·oof;
The character of the second-Norman work and its
approx;imat date can now be . estimated only by a study of
the elaborate doorway in the west wall of the north transept
and the plainer work of the arch at the east end. of the
south aisle. Some people think that the arch should be
assigned to an earlier date than the doorway : but important
doorways-and tbfa doorway was important El the
entrance to the Chapel of St. . Edmund, a sain,t. ;w:h.ose
cult ranked high {n: the estimation of the parishioners of
Hythe-were always highly decorated, 1'· and the form of
foliage in the plainer capitals of the arch is characteristic
of late date.· Moreover, the bases of the two works, with
their emph;:1,sized necking, are late in character an.d identical
in section, and exhibit OJ.le slight feature which is uncommon.
I think they cannot possibly be the work of different
ma.sons, and that we cannot be going far astry _if yve assign
this late-Norman 'work to the latter part of the third quarter
of the twelfth century. The whole of the ashlar was ,faced
with the ax:e, not with the broad chisel introduce·d at
Canterbury· in 1174, and the angles of the transept are
;i Comr,o.re the elaborute soulpture of the Norman west door of ltooliester
Cathedral with the plain work whioh surrounds it, .. , . · . · , · ' . ·
,
284 . iJH'tJRCl:C Olr S".I.'. LlilONARl>, lIY1'1£E.
strengthened with clasping pilasters. On the other hand,
the use of shaft-bands points to a late date.*
It is in accordance with the method of enlargement
usually adopted elsewhere to imagine that, the new work
was built up as :far as possible round the old building
without interfe1·ing with the celebration of the services
therein. In this case I think it was possible to build the
whole of the new walls (with the exception of that containing
the new chancel-arch) in this way, which a glance at
the historical ground-plan. wi.11 make plain. t The greater
· parp if not the whole could likewise be roofed. The only
matter of doubt is whether the extension of the nave-roof
eastwards over the old chancel, and the junction therewith
of the new transept-roofs, could be carried out while the
old chancel.roof reiμained standing.t Iu order to carry
out the extension of the nave-roof it was necessary to build
new walls in line with the side-walls of the old nave, i.e.,
• In writing this paragraph the fl·agment of ornate Norman work preserved
· in the ambulatory escaped my memory-see the photograph whioh Mr. Hubert
Elgar took fo1· this Paper (inuluding in the group a shaft-band, here illustrated,
and a mutifa,ted base of Early English date). They /Jame doubtless from the
destroyed late-Norman choir, and include a voussoir of zigzag, two capitals, a
bit of foli:ige, and a portion of a label shewing four-leaved flowers worked on
a chamfer. All a.re characteristic of the late-Norman style of ornament .
.,1\
•f
I
35'/s''
I
I
'¥'
t In this plau I do not shew the later-Norman ohaucel-arh;as to do so
would obscure the nngles of the east end of the fit•st-Normun chaucel. One ha.s
to imagine there the responds of a fine arch like that at St. Margarot-atClitfe.
:t: Just as the present transept roofs are lower than that of the nave (all
probably the work of the thirteenth•ontury builders), so it i8 probable that the
original transept-roofs were made lower than the old nave-roof, upon an
extension of which they were made to abut. The roof of the new choir also
would be a little lower than that of the extended nave, abutting upon the gablewall
in the usual way.
Photo]
Photo]
FRAGMENTS PRESERVED IN AMBULATORY. L f;. C. J"u11e11a
AMBULATORY:
HYTHE CHURCH.
··
......
.......
••••••••
........
....... - ....
-',
,'.
>'Ill
.-1 I
F. .J. I',11•.w,,,.,. Ltd.
CHURCH OF S1'. LEONARD, HYTHE. 285-
from the east angles of the old nave up to the line 0£ the
east walls of the new transepts. These walls doubtless each
contained a round-headed arch 0£ communication (with
the adjoining transept), which the thirteenth-century builders
replaced by the wider and taller pointed arch now existing
on either side .
.All this new work (with the possible exception of the
roofs) having been completed, a tempora.ry hoarding· was
placed within• the chancel-arch of the old church, and the
altar was transferred to the old nave, where the services
were celebrated while the old chancel was being demolished
and the new chancel-arch inserted. Then the new chancelarch
and the small aisle-arch on either side of it were
hoarded and the altat was transferred to the new chancel,
where service was held while the remodelling of the old
nave was being completed·: this work comprised the insertion
of arcades in the old side-walls and the demolition of the
old chancel-arch and the gable-wall above it.
In the conjectural plan of this late-Norman church the
only parts that seem to be open to doubt are those east of
the chancel-a1·ch and transepts. The lines adopted and
sbewn in the historical ground-plan, after frial of seve1-a.l
other schemes, seem to me to give the probable solution of
the problem. They may be modified by slig·ht alterations in
the width of the chancel without affecting· the general
scheme, which is that of a short chancel with aisles or .sidechapels.
The walls separating· the chancel £rom the aisles
would be solid towards the east, and would contain towards
the west in each case a small arch of communication. It is
possible, though I do not think it probable, that the aisles
did not extend eastwards to the full length of the chancel,
but stopped. short about half-way. That alteration, again,
would not really affect the scheme, in which the chief
consideration is the length of the chancel. I have ruled it
by a consideration of the methods. likely to have been
adopted by the Early English architect of the succeeding
century in the planning and erection of his new work in
1·efa,t,ion t<> the old. !t seems to rne to be most likely that
286 CHURCH OF S'l'. LEONARD; RYTRE.
between the late-Norman east end and the roadway thei·e was
just sufficient 1·oom to allow him to build his ambulatory,
and the work to a certain height abqve it, without interfering
with the late-Norman work. The delightful way in
which, in m y plan, the design of the Early English work
fits on to the plan of the late-Norman work, enabling the
builders as they proceeded westwards to incorporate some
of the masonry of the old aisle-walls in their walls, and to
. use the lower parts of the side-walls of the old chancel as
foundation-work (of course needing additional foundatitms)
for their new arcades standing on a :floor-level several feet
about the level of the older chancel, may seem to some to
be too ingenious to be true; but it is in exact accord with
the procedure adopted elsewhere ii1 somewhat similar cases.
A good case in point is that of Rochester Cathedi-al, where
the Early English buildel's of the eastrn extension of the
choir regulated the lines of their design by those of the
Norman eastern arm which they replaced, incorporating as
much of the older work as they could.
We have now reached the last stage in the growth of St.
Leonard's Church, the stage of Gothic remodelling. One
<3annot think that the parishioners of Hythe in the Early
English period, ambitious though they were, and employing,
as they probably did, some eminent architect, raised their
chancel to its remarkable height of floor-level simply to
emulate the glories of Canterbury Cathedral. This feature
was simply the natural and necessary result of lack of space.
This is prosaic, but true. In the thirteenth century the ,port
of Hythe was at the height of its prosperity, and the people
wished to express their gratitude by beautifying the House
of God in which they were wont to worship. They would
naturally begin with the chancel : it must be enlarged and
by every means made more glorious. At the same time their
Sunday procession, conducted by priest and clerks, demanded
tbe preservation o a way right round the church without
stepping off the soil of the hallowed acre. There was only
one way of effecting this : to support the east end of their new
g;
---.-,,.-,.....--: J 2 'S Cl,
C
A0Co EOl
BOD OFO,J
H
. : : ' . '
D
,, --·r-i ·- - -'-u
L
{>-o
-r--........---";....,.,..-=--,..,
KEY T9 MOULDINGS. W.H,E .
HYTHE CHURCH.
'"tl
m' 10
tI't::
..
: _·
I I
I I I I
I I
I I t I
..-<
0 I I
I I
11
i:) 11
I' I
II
.A I•
/'.J,i;,, I I
(.\ I I
It
I 11 I I 1- - - - - - "•·,-,,.•,e.,I I le Ve.( 0 f 1 1 road
r'----::::'--- - -"_' .::."'<':f:.i_-LI J__q_/2_1/ _ _.jf./:{:i:;;:l I J6tf, .sfek ii "--A'?'- :Z f',.'.:1 I;;;:
- - --
R "(".E.
C - 7JJi'.i I 4'-<,D 1 --··" •• "" .,-.
-'•:<'-w! I h,j>,¥1: A
.Aria ond
rhce.ss,0 ·m,,,,,,,,,,,,..,"./'jf· ----- 11 fire« and $iei7s - - -f- :7s
',
Previous
Previous
Notes on Hythe Church
Next
Next