This
church is notable above all for its picture postcard appearance,
situated as it is at a bend on the very bank of the River Great Ouse,
and surmounted by the stump of a former spire, which was crowned by a
ring of eight ball finials after most of it had blown down in a
hurricane in 1741. (See also the photograph at the bottom of the
page, on the left.) It is built
of sandstone and limestone rubble,... or is it sandy limestone.... or
calcareous sandstone?Yet however it is termed, it is mostly
mid-brown and it does certainly give the walls a warm glow that detracts
attention from the renewed and rather lifeless windows with their
nineteenth century geometric traceries. Among these, one original
lancet remains in the chancel N. wall to show that the basic masonry of
at least this part of the building dates back to the thirteenth century.
The W. tower has a three-light W. window with supermullioned tracery and
a supertransom above the central light, but the two-light bell-openings
have straightened reticulated tracery, suggesting the date of this work
is not later than c. 1400.
The apparent local fashion for retaining tracery such as this, so
closely allied to early fourteenth century reticulated, into the second
half of the century, has been a source of dating confusion in a number
of neighbouring churches. The restored chancel S. window with
tracery formed from the intersection of an ogee
with an inverted ogee (as shown in the photograph, bottom right),
is probably of genuine Decorated derivation. This is another
regional design, perhaps dating from c. 1340, which can be seen
at a number of Cambridgeshire churches, including St. Mary Magdalene’s,
Madingley.
Inside
the building one’s attention is immediately drawn to the three-bay nave
arcades in which each arch seems at first sight to take a different form
from its neighbours. Indeed, so rigidly do these arches cling to
the fashions of their respective dates, that the eastern pier of the N.
arcade actually displays a capital which is rectangular and scalloped to
the west (i.e. towards the central arch) and semicircular to the east (as
illustrated right).
These forms would fit the mid twelfth and mid thirteenth centuries
respectively. The western arch of this arcade is also thirteenth
century, but either earlier or later: its two flat-chamfered
orders die into the jamb on its western side. Both the central and
the western arches of the S. arcade are Norman, yet they are somewhat
later than the central arch opposite. All three are composed of two orders, of
which the outer is unmoulded and the inner, flat-chamfered, but the
chamfer is wider and more confident to the south, and the capitals below
are circular. Finally the eastern arch of the S. arcade copies the
N. arcade arch opposite. It seems likely that the church’s
original Norman nave was two bays long and that it was subsequently
lengthened, perhaps when a central tower was removed and the nave and
aisles had to be extended to meet the chancel. This would not, of
course, explain why the south arcade postdates the north.
The chancel arch is
probably thirteenth century work again. Here three flat chamfers
are borne on very thick, semi-octagonal
responds. In the chancel S. wall there is a nice two-bay
sedilia, formed of intersecting semicircles and supported by a group of
colonnettes between. A two-bay piscina based on this
design can be seen in the S. transept at St. Andrew’s, Histon
(where it is better executed) and in the piscina of Barnston church in
Essex (where the design is more florid). Opposite is a two-bay
aumbry, formed of the simplest round-headed arches. The tower arch
is Perpendicular and bears a hollow chamfer and a sunk quadrant, the
latter springing from semicircular shafts and the former continuing down
the jambs. There are no
furnishings or monuments in the church that need particularizing.
%20-%20hemingford%20grey%204.jpg)
%20-%20hemingford%20grey%202.jpg)