%20-%20theberton%201.jpg)
Round church towers were
almost invariably assumed by Pevsner to have a Saxon or Norman origin.
That is not necessarily the case, and the form is a function of geology rather
than age, for the lack of the ready availability of good building stone to serve
as quoins made this a cheap design option by avoiding the expense in the
pre-railway age of bringing, usually by horse and cart or at best along the
rivers by boat, heavy, bulk materials from afar. The definitive book on
this
subject is, and is long likely to remain, the late Stephen Hart's The Round
Church Towers of England (Ipswich, Lucas Books, 2003), to which the
notes on these buildings are inevitably, to a greater or lesser degree,
indebted.
|
This is an attractive church composed
of a nave and long chancel under a continuous thatched roof, a S. aisle and
S. porch, and a round W. tower with
an
octagonal bell-stage. The round tower should probably be discussed
first since so much that has been written about it is thoroughly misleading and in this case, D. P. Morton (in
The Guide to Suffolk Churches, Cambridge, The Lutterworth Press, 2009,
pp. 463-465),
The British Listed Buildings Web-site, and Pevsner in the original
'Suffolk' volume of The Buildings of England (though not James
Bettley in the revised version), all repeat the mantra that by virtue of its
shape, it can be presumedto be
Norman, leaving Stephen Hart (in The Round Church Towers of England,
Lucas Books, 2003, p. 129) to point out there is no
evidence of a break in construction between the round section and the early
fourteenth century bell-stage and no sign of earlier bell-openings at the top
of the round stage either. The bell-stage has cusped Y-traceried
openings in the cardinal sides and cusped
Y-traceried blank arches in flint flushwork in the ordinal sides,
commensurate with a date c. 1280-1310, and the tower arch, which is
commensurate, carries two hollow chamfers that die into the jambs.
However, the nave is Norman and retains its original N. doorway (or is it the S. doorway, re-set?), now enclosed
within the Victorian vestry (as shown in the photograph, left),
composed of three orders, the outer two bearing chevron moulding, supported
on shafts with cushion capitals,
and high up, further to the east, a blocked Norman window can also be seen,
with nook-shafts supporting a roll. The nave windows are
Perpendicular insertions.
The chancel is interesting because
externmally on the north side, there is a clear break in the masonry halfway along, and the western section,
in addition, has a round-arched corbel table beneath the eaves, showing this
is Norman also. Presumably this indicates the original length of the
chancel before its later extension. Inside, there is no chancel
arch but the doorway to the erstwhile rood stair survives in the N. wall.
The continuous nave and chancel roof is ceiled but the ashlar pieces are
exposed and very prominent on each side.
Finally,
what of the S. aisle and porch? The
arrangement here is of an aisle of lean-to construction beginning at the
chancel/nave junction and extending three bays to the west to butt up
against the porch, yet even the aisle and porch together fail to extend the
full length of the nave, leaving space further west again, for a two-light
S. window with Perpendicular drop tracery. Pevsner, however, considered the aisle to be
Decorated and thus earlier than the Perpendicular porch, in which
case, what a curious little aisle it was,
terminating at such an arbitrary position! Surely D. P. Morton is
right, therefore, when he describes the porch as
"late fifteenth century"
and ascribes the aisle to the benefaction of Sir William Jenny (d. 1483),
albeit he fails to follow his argument through
and credit him with the arcade also, the
salient point being that this would
allow the porch to have been built
first, even if
only by a decade or two. The porch could then have been
constructed in the usual position and the length of the aisle would later
have been constrained by it. Moreover, if further evidence in support
of this theory then needs to be sought, look at the porch east wall inside,
where a large blocked window extending the porch's full height must once
have looked outside. The porch (illustrated above right) is a rather grand structure with a flint
flushwork basal frieze, three tiers of blank flushwork arches entirely
covering the S. front,
and an elaborate canopied niche in the centre of the upper tier, above the
apex of the doorway. The aisle bays are separated by buttresses decorated
with flushwork motifs. Inside the church, the three-bay arcade from the nave to the aisle
is composed of arches carrying a hollow chamfer and a flat chamfer, but the
distinctly tight-drawn capitals are not typical of the Decorated style.
The paintwork is a rather silly addition of 1848 (Pevsner), when the aisle
was partially reconstructed using the old materials. The colourful
monument on the aisle W. wall dates from 1843 (ibid.) and commemorates
Frederica Doughty, whose family paid for the restoration.
[Other churches with round towers featured on
this web-site are Bartlow and Snailwell in Cambridgeshire, Quidenham, Roydon,
Rushall, Shimpling and Thorpe Abbotts in Norfolk, and Aldham, Brome, Hengrave, Higham,
Little Bradley, Little Saxham, Rickinghall Inferior, Risby, Stuston, Wissett and Wortham in Suffolk.]