• Home
• News
• About
• Searching and Browsing
  • Find a Location
  • Find a Feature
  • Find a Word
  • Browse
  • Progress Status
• Resources
• Contact Us

I Location

II General Description

Nave with S aisle rebuilt in brick, rendered chancel and ashlar and flint W tower. Brick boiler house added to S nave aisle. The chancel was rebuilt in the early 17thc. after a fire, and again in 1777, and there was a restoration in 1870. Features described are the N nave doorway and the chancel arch.

III Exterior Features

1. Doorways

(i) N nave doorway

Pointed, two orders, reset in brick wall.

First order: plain, square jambs without capitals. Imposts with double roll below an upright, and plain chamfered arch with stop chamfers.

Second order: attached, coursed pseudo nook shafts on inverted cushion capital bases.

L capital: shallowly carved with a plain bell and simple volutes at the angles. Plain necking.

R capital: stiff leaf with plain necking.

The imposts continue from the first order, and the arch is plain and chamfered. There is a chamfered label.

Dimensions

IV Interior Features

1. Arches

a. Chancel arch/Apse arches

(i) Chancel arch

Single order to E and W. Round headed. The W face has coursed, attached nook shafts with tall bases, bulbous at the bottom with narrow rolls above, two on N, three on S. No capital on N, but S has remains of a spiral volute capital, repaired with mortar. Plain chamfered imposts with two grooves on the upright. The imposts have been cut back on their W faces. In the arch, a fat angle roll. E face, plain and square.

VII History

In 1086, the largest landholder was Hardwin de Scales, who held 2 hides and 1 virgate himself and half a virgate from the Abbot of Ely. Most of this was parcelled out. In addition the Church of Chatteris held 1 hide and 1½ virgates, Reginald held 1½ virgates from Count Alan, and Sigar held 1 hide from Geoffrey de Mandeville.

VIII Comments/Opinions

Pevsner suggests that the upper part of the N doorway is later than the jambs, but I see no reason why both should not be c.1200. The chancel arch looks earlier in style, in view of the tall bases, narrow proportions and fat roll moulding, but the fragmentary volute capital is identical to one on the doorway, and I am inclined to date both to c.1200.

IX Bibliography