St Mary’s serves the small village of Winchfield in NE Hampshire. Built of flint rubble with tiled roofs, it comprises a W tower, a nave with a S porch, a N aisle, and a chancel with a vestry on its N side. Two chancel windows, the chancel arch, N and S doorways, tower arch and font date from the 12thc. The authenticity of some of the carving is questionable because a neo-Norman style was adopted for restoration work in 1849-50, as well as for a new bell stage and chancel windows.

The manor of Winchfield (Winesflet) belonged to Chertsey Abbey in 1086, and continued in the same ownership into the 14thc. The advowson of the church, which was not mentioned in 1086, was also held by Chertsey.

The church was enlarged and ‘restored’ in 1849-50 to designs by Henry Woodyer (1816-96), a gentleman architect who had set up practice in Guildford in 1846. He appears to have been self-trained, save for a few months in the office of William Butterfield, and is chiefly known for undertaking ecclesiastical commissions in a Gothic style. As well as working on Winchfield church, Woodyer was commissioned by the rector, Rev. Charles Frederick Seymour, to design a new rectory house nearby (Hants & Berks Gazette, 6 February 1897, 8).

Work on the church was clearly well under way by July 1849, when tracings of newly discovered wall paintings – later partially destroyed by workmen – were presented to the British Archaeological Association (Hampshire Chronicle, 21 July 1849, 4; 10 August 1850, 6).

Woodyer rebuilt the bell stage of the W tower in the currently fashionable neo-Norman style, with a cement render finish. He also added a N aisle, incorporating a reworked doorway which had previously occupied the N wall of the nave. Further E, Woodyer added the vestry and replaced three of the chancel windows in a neo-Norman style, seemingly inspired by original 12thc work. In 1891 the rector noted that the E window was ‘modern trumpery work, unwisely put in the place of a good proportioned Early English window, removed to the new north aisle in 1849.’ (Hampshire Antiquary & Field Club, vol. 1, 1891, 4-5).

Hanging in the church are copies of two watercolours attributed to J. Whalley and dated 1852, purporting to show the church as it was before Woodyer’s restoration of 1849-50 but including several inaccuracies. First, an exterior view from the W shows the tower with its pre-1849 red brick bell stage, and the nave without Woodyer’s N aisle. Unaccountably, the tower has a W doorway carved with Romanesque sculpture. The second watercolour is an interior view from the W end of the church, looking through the tower arch towards the chancel. The tower arch is carved with chevron that does not exist.

The principal Romanesque sculpture of Winchfield, adorning the chancel arch and S doorway, has been variously dated between 1150 and the late 12thc.

The Hampshire Field Club in 1891, followed by the VCH in 1911, placed the sculpture around 1150 (Hampshire Antiquary & Field Club, vol. 1, 1891, 4; VCH 1911, 109-112). Due to the presence of keeled mouldings, however, Charles Keyser believed that the church was built by Chertsey Abbey ‘towards the end of the 12^th century’ (Keyser 1915, 11 and 17). It was dated ‘not earlier than 1170 or so’ by Pevsner & Lloyd, who described it as having ‘a singular ferocity’ (Pevsner & Lloyd 1967, 721). This dating was adjusted in the revised Buildings of England to 1150 (Bullen et al., 2010, 725), despite the presence of keel mouldings which, according to R. K. Morris, arrived in England from France in the 1160s (Morris 1992, 5). Another motif which might push the date into the second half of the 12thc (c.1175) is waterleaf.

The issue of dating is complicated by the far-reaching and poorly documented Early Victorian restoration (see History), and the absence of reliable pre-1849 depictions or descriptions.

Keyser remarked that Winchfield ‘with its very rich Norman details, inspires one with a certain amount of doubt, engendered by the freshness of the Norman work, as to what renovation may have been introduced during the restoration which was completed in 1850’ (Keyser 1915, 2). Specifically, he harboured doubts concerning details of the chancel arch (Keyser 1915, 11). For Bullen et al. the authenticity of this work was confirmed by Whalley’s view of the interior, but the watercolour in question cannot be relied upon. It is dated 1852 – two years after the completion of the restoration project – and is inaccurate in its depiction of the tower arch. Pevsner & Lloyd shared Keyser’s scepticism, remarking: ‘The chancel arch is all re-tooled. Few stones look untouched . . . ’ (Pevsner & Lloyd 1967, 722). Disturbingly, when Woodyer restored St Mary’s in Easton (Hants) in a neo-Norman style in c.1862-72 he used a very similar range of motifs, especially in the apse.

Much stronger evidence to support the authenticity of the chancel arch and S doorway is found in the S nave arcade of Steyning (W Sussex), where the sculpture is so stylistically similar to Winchfield that it is probably by the same hand or hands. This was noticed in 1914 by Philip Johnston and echoed by Keyser (Johnson 1914; Keyser 1915). Motifs which recur at both Winchfield and Steyning include beaded cable moulding, fluted and lobed foliage (sometimes with superimposed leaves), decorative drilling, foliated chevron, and angular foliage with a zigzag top. Most telling of all, however, are the transverse soffit rolls, a very unusual motif which suggests Moorish influence. This parallel with Steyning points to the conclusion that the Winchfield motifs can be trusted, despite the surface of the sculpture being retooled.

Thurlby has argued that the workshop active at Winchfield and Steyning also created the church of the Hospital of Saint Cross, Winchester (1129-71) (Thurlby 1991, 169). He points out that the three churches display a similar diversity of motifs.

Regarding the chancel windows of Winchfield, Pevser & Lloyd wrote: ‘Completely re-done, if they were ever original . . . ‘ (Pevsner & Lloyd 1967, 722). Bullen et al. modified this view, pointing out that two are original and were left unrestored (Bullen et al. 2010, 725). It is more likely, however, that just elements of the easternmost two are authentic, as stated by the Rev. Seymour in notes for the Hampshire Field Club in 1891 (Hampshire Antiquary & Field Club, vol. 1, 1891, 5).

The N doorway, like the chancel arch, may have been heavily reworked in 1849-50. In mid-20thc photographs the stonework appears very white, with contrasting dark pointing. This has mellowed. Nevertheless, aspects of the doorway arouse suspicion, notably the proportions of the capitals, with their high uncarved abaci, and the way the label is carved together with the impost block to form a continuous moulding. The capitals are not related to the other sculpture at Winchfield, suggesting that the entire doorway is slightly later in date, c.1180.

Whalley’s watercolour of 1852 may show the condition of the late 12thc font before 1849. It was reported in 1891 that leadwork had been added to the edge ‘which was much broken’ (Hampshire Antiquary & Field Club, vol. 1, 1891, 5). This was probably done in 1849-50.

One final puzzle at Winchfield concerns the second Whalley watercolour of 1852. This depicts the W tower with W doorway that is similar in form and decoration to the extant S doorway. Pevsner & Lloyd commented: ‘there is no evidence of this [doorway] ever having been there’ (Pevsner & Lloyd 1967, 722fn). Recent reports that this doorway was reset in the Old Rectory may have arisen because accoring to the church website the door to the porch of the house reportedly incorporates wrought ironwork from the S door of the church There is, however, no mention of any other 12thc work in the list description of the Old Rectory. It is unlikely that the watercolour depicts the present S doorway, since that occupies a 15thc porch and, from its rere arch, appears to be in situ. One can only conclude that, as with the tower arch, Whalley was exercising artistic licence.