times. The town, having been attacked and taken several times previously, and having suffered more particularly in 1378, 2 of K. Richard II, was sacked and burned by the French, A.D. 1448, when, according to Stow, the church was destroyed. (Ut sup. 293 to 297.) Mr. Holloway considers, that Stow's account refers to the event of A.D. 1378, more probably than to that of the later date, 1448. So far as I can comprehend his opinion, Mr. Holloway here seems to think, that the destruction of the church was, as Stow's words would imply, total, and that the present building was a subsequent erection on a different site, the original church having stood on a spot now called "The Gun Garden," near Ypres tower, but which Jeake, in 1678, described as still named "The old Churchyard." That a church might once exist here is rendered probable by the discovery, early in the present century, of several human skeletons beneath the jailor's house; but that the present church was in being in 1448, and consequently was not utterly consumed, though it might be seriously damaged, may be proved, I conceive, without much difficulty. Mr. Holloway, now appearing not to coincide with the above accounts, observes, (473,) that at this period parts of the church exhibit specimens of the styles of architecture prevalent in the twelfth and thirteenth centuries, afterwards describing "lancet" windows, and portions of E.E. character; though he supposes (486) the lancets to have been introduced in the restoration after the fire of A.D. 1448. This surely is quite incredible. Now indeed we are content with imitating the productions of our ancestors in church architecture, but this, so far as can be judged, was never done formerly, but, in constructing a new, or restoring an old church, the distinctive features were those generally adopted at the period. If therefore the present edifice displays remains of Norm., of E.E., and of Dec. date, for even the latter is spoken of, it is manifest, that the injury, above alluded to, could have been only of partial extent. (Ut sup. 470 to 488.) The church is large, and well deserving attention, but part of it is (or was) applied to secular purposes.—Tanner says a house of Augustin Friars was established here temp. K. Edward III, if not earlier. (Monast. VI, 1602.) There was also a house of Carmelite Friars in Rye, which is supposed to have been situated on the south side of the churchyard. (Holloway ut sup. 539.) Horsfield, (Suss. I, 495, 496, 497,) mentions farther the chapel of St. Clare, and the chantry of St. Nicholas; but these seem to have been under the
Page:Notes on the churches in the counties of Kent, Sussex, and Surrey.djvu/341
This page has been validated.
NOTES TO SUSSEX.