Chapter III: Description of the Church (1)

We come now to a description of the church, which consists of a rectangular _Nave_, 38 ft. long by 25 ft. wide; a _Chancel_ (in its present form) 40 ft. by 14 ft.; a tower built in the fourteenth century, and a modern organ chamber and vestry.

The chancel originally was not as large as it is now, and probably extended only 18 or 20 ft. from the present chancel arch. An external buttress on the south side marks its termination, beyond which it has been conjectured that there was an Eastern apse, as sketched in the annexed plan.

The first question that naturally suggests itself is with regard to the =Dedication=. Battely, followed by Hasted, was of opinion that the church was originally dedicated to the Blessed Virgin Mary, and afterwards re-dedicated to St. Martin by Bishop Liudhard. For this statement there is apparently no authority, yet we must remember that the earliest dedications of churches were either to the Saviour, the Blessed Virgin, or one of the twelve Apostles. That the Italian Mission followed generally this ancient practice is shown in their dedication of the cathedrals of Canterbury, Rochester, London, and York to Christ, St. Andrew, St. Paul, and St. Peter respectively--of St. Augustine's Abbey church to St. Peter and St. Paul, of another church in the same abbey to the "Holy Mother of God," and also of the early Saxon church in Lyminge to St. Mary; but it is unnecessary to multiply further instances, the very rare exceptions to the rule (such as St. Pancras) applying principally to churches which contained the relics of martyrs. This exception would not embrace St. Martin's--and Battely's statement, therefore, from whatever source he derived it, is not intrinsically impossible. We can say nothing more positive in its favour--but assuming it to be true, and that the original dedication was forgotten, nothing would be more natural than that the re-dedication of the church should be to the saintly Bishop of Tours, made either by Germanus in 429, or Bishop Liudhard, or even Augustine himself. It is marvellous how widespread was the influence of St. Martin's name. Nearly 4000 churches are dedicated to him in France alone, and the largest number of these (in a comparison of dioceses) is in the part of France nearest to English shores.

But, supposing we take literally the words of Bede, that the church "dedicated to the honour of St. Martin, was built of old, while the Romans still occupied Britain," we are met by this apparent difficulty. If (as is maintained) the church was built in the fourth century, how came it to be dedicated to St. Martin, who died about 397? Some colourable support to the possibility of this can be derived from the fact that the first stone church built in Scotland (at Whithern) by St. Ninian was certainly dedicated to the same saint. There are indeed, in that case, some special reasons, because St. Ninian, a personal friend of St. Martin, called on him at Tours, and received from him workmen accustomed to the Roman method of building, with whom he returned home. As the church was in course of erection, the news of St. Martin's death reached him, and the church was in consequence dedicated in 398 to his memory. There need be no difficulty on the doubtfulness of such an early _Canonization_. The first formal act of canonization by a Pope did not take place till the ninth or tenth century. Before this, it was done in a somewhat irregular manner by the bishop of the diocese, who recited the names of the departed martyrs, or holy men, in the _Canon_ of the mass, not for invocation, but in memory of those who had finished their course, and for an example to others. It has been asserted that St. Martin was the first person to be honoured as a confessor, that is, that he was the first who was treated as a saint without being a martyr. In the antiphon to the Magnificat on his festival we have, "sanctissima anima, quam etsi gladius persecutoris non abstulit, palman tamen martyrii non amisit." Though there were _other_ St. Martins, such as the Bishop of Vienne, a Bishop of Tongres at the end of the third century, and a Bishop of Trêves, yet there can be little doubt that the one alluded to by Bede was the Bishop of Tours, whose fame had completely overshadowed the rest.

Now there is one suggestion that deserves a passing notice, and that is, the possibility of St. Martin himself having been the founder of the church; even in a closer sense than by merely sending masons from his monastery, as he did to St. Ninian. In the constant interchange of communication between Britain and Gaul, not only for commercial but for military purposes, it may have happened that Christians had migrated, or been transferred, from Tours to Kent--and for the benefit of Christian soldiers, St. Martin, once a soldier himself, may have urged the erection of a church. It is unnatural to suppose that St. Martin, who travelled over a great part of Gaul, did not in some way associate himself with Britons, with whom he would have been brought into contact. We know this, at any rate, that during the latter year of his episcopate he exercised great influence over the Emperor Maximus and his Empress--and Maximus had resided for several years in Britain, was proclaimed emperor there in 383, had thence invaded Gaul with a fleet and army, which were long afterwards remembered as the "emigration of a considerable part of the British nation," and finally settled at Trêves, where he was more than once visited by St. Martin. Some of these British emigrants or soldiers would very naturally have returned to their native country and brought Christianity with them. There is no conclusive reason why St. Martin himself, either prompted thereto by Maximus, or yielding to the entreaties of Britons whom he met at Trêves or elsewhere in Gaul, should not have visited Canterbury in person, and there founded the church. It is remarked by Haddan and Stubbs that "it was a peculiarity of British Christians that churches were not dedicated to any saint already dead, after the fashion then beginning to be common, but were called by the name of their living founder." Or the original dedication made by St. Martin (acting either directly or indirectly) may have fallen into popular disuse, and been supplanted by his own name, as was the case with the church of St. Gregory on the Coelian Hill, which St. Gregory had dedicated to St. Andrew, but which soon after came to be called after himself, though he was not buried there. And attention may be directed to instances of a similar kind at Rome, where the names of founders lingered on in churches like the Basilica Constantiniana, Basilica Liberiana, and St. Lorenzo in Damaso. We may also note the fact, that a chapel in Canterbury Cathedral, originally dedicated to St. Peter and St. Paul, soon acquired the name of its founder, St. Anselm, and even the great Cathedral itself, the "Church of Christ," was popularly known in the Middle Ages as the Church of St. Thomas. These latter instances are not indeed exactly parallel, because the relics of the name-saints were actually buried in these places, but they may be quoted as showing how readily the original dedication may have been subsequently changed; and it would not be difficult to give additional examples.

Before proceeding to a minute description of the principal objects of interest outside the church, we may say a few words about the =walls=, which, however, have been so patched and repaired in successive ages, that they have lost all signs of uniformity. The thickness of the walls is, on an average, about 2 ft., and this dimension is noticeable, because we meet with it over and over again in Roman villas. The materials, too, are similar, and resemble what have been found in villas--a mass of rather rough walling, partly of brick, partly of stone, evidently intended to be plastered on both sides, and, to a great extent, built with hard "sea-shore" mortar. This mortar is composed of pebbles, small shells, etc., and is of such remarkable solidity and strength that, although the walls of the church are thin and lofty, they have sustained without any injury, and with comparatively low buttresses, the thrust of a high-pitched Gothic roof. It was not uncommon for churches to be erected on the site of, and using part of the structure of, Roman secular buildings, or temples. And we give for what it is worth the opinion of Mr Roach Smith, an experienced antiquary, who gave special attention to Roman work, and who states in a letter written on January 6, 1883: "There are many examples of churches being built upon the remains of Roman buildings, no doubt often _temples_, and not unfrequently of a small size. Some instances are very remarkable, as that of Britford, near Salisbury, at old Verulam, etc. I have ever had a belief that St. Martin's Church is founded upon, or built upon, or built into, a Roman temple."

The walls of the church form an interesting study, not only for their venerable aspect, but also for their irregularity. The brick courses in the =Nave= are pretty general throughout, sometimes at 9 inches apart, sometimes as much as 20 inches, or even more. A great deal of old plaster is found externally in the middle of the south wall of the _nave_, and there are masses of Roman bricks congregated at the east and west ends of the same wall (the angles of the walls in public buildings being often composed entirely of bricks); and we find also, in parts, large blocks of grey stone, as well as pieces of travertine, tertiary sandstone, Kentish rag, red sandstone, Purbeck marble, chalk, and many other geological specimens. Here and there, interspersed with Roman bricks, are patches of "chequy" masonry, the stones being placed at wide intervals, notably on the south-east corner, and on the north side.

The masonry of the early =chancel= is, however, entirely different, being composed of Roman bricks laid evenly upon one another with narrow joints, averaging four bricks to a foot. In many instances the arrises of these bricks are sharp and true, showing no sign of having been taken from any other building; in other cases they are more fragmentary, but we can have no hesitation in saying that the walling of the early chancel is well-built, satisfactory to a professional eye.

We have then these two distinct modes of building (1) Roman bricks laid evenly and closely upon one another, (2) stone-work with courses of Roman brick at various intervals. And we shall have to consider hereafter whether these are genuine Roman walls, or are merely composed of Roman materials used up for the second time, as at St. Albans and elsewhere.

We learn from competent authorities that there were five or six kinds of Roman wall-building--(_a_) The _quadrangular_, with masses of square or oblong stones laid alternately lengthwise and cross-wise, not cemented by mortar, but bound together by leaden clamps, such as is found in the so-called wall of Romulus on the Palatine; (_b_) _polygonal_ masonry, where the stones are irregular, and with small stone splinters wedged into the joints where necessary; (_c_) _concrete_--rude, without ornamentation, which has at a distance the appearance of being panelled, since beams of timber are let in to strengthen it, or sometimes thin layers of brick to prevent settlement in the concrete from the shrinking of the lime when it cools and dries; (_d_) _opus reticulatum_, which consists of stone net-work of diamond-shaped blocks, as in the "Muro Torto" at Rome; (_e_) _opus lateritium_, the ordinary construction of bricks laid evenly upon one another (_f_) _mixture_--_i.e._ stones bonded together with courses of bricks, sometimes at regular, often at irregular, intervals. Mr Parker, in his "Archæology of Rome," referring to the _mixture_ (_i.e._ the style of the building used in the nave) which is so constant in Roman wall-work, in England and Northern Europe generally, says that in itself it is no evidence of date as to the period of Roman work, since other things must be taken into account: but that it is found in the circus of Maxentius, and many other places. It is usually attributed to the beginning of the fourth century, but it occurs also at Pompeii, in parts of the substructure of the walls of Aurelian, in tombs of the second century at Ostia, and in some of the foundations of Hadrian's villa near Tivoli.

With regard to the comparative antiquity of the nave and chancel, no positive judgment has yet been arrived at. Hasted, indeed, ventured on the opinion that the latter was the more ancient, but he also believed that the chancel was built about the year 200 A.D., and had not the benefit of the recent explorations, so that his opinion is, in itself, of little value. But it has been adopted on scientific and architectural grounds by the Rev. G. M. Livett (who has paid careful attention to the architecture and masonry of the church) and by other distinguished antiquaries. Their arguments are very forcible, and there is much reason for believing that the theory will hereafter find general acceptance, although at present further investigation is necessary before it can be pronounced as incontrovertible.

We know indeed that some of the earliest Roman buildings were constructed of Roman bricks or tiles laid evenly upon one another (the _opus lateritium_), but the tiles of the first two centuries were remarkably thin, as contrasted with later specimens. They vary, at different periods, in length from 15 inches to 2 feet, and in thickness from ¾ inch to 3 inches. Unfortunately little credence is now given to the ingenious rough-and-ready rule, formulated by Mr Parker, that where (including mortar) there are ten bricks to one foot, the wall is of the _first_ century, as in the arches of Nero; where eight bricks, of the _second_ century, as in the villa of Hadrian; where six bricks, of the _third_ century, as in Aurelian's wall; where four bricks, of the _fourth_ century. We may lament the non-acceptance of this rule, for, were it true, we might confidently assign the early wall of the chancel (containing four bricks to a foot) to the _fourth_ century, which is the exact date that is claimed for it!

With regard to the =foundations=, those in the chancel are of flint-stones and mortar, with a footing of a single course of Roman bricks, while in the nave we find a mixture of sandy mortar and crushed flint, topped with courses of Kentish rag-stone, and one or sometimes two courses of brick.

Closely connected with the walls are the =buttresses=. Of flat pilaster buttresses there are at the present moment (_a_) one on the south side of the chancel; (_b_) two at the south-east corner of the nave, at right angles to each other; (_c_) one at the north-west corner of the nave, the corresponding buttress at this place having been cut away. In addition to these, there is an evidently later one on the north-east of the nave, and a semi-circular buttress in the middle of the south wall. They have all been repaired very frequently, especially at the top, and it is difficult to determine which stones are original, and which have been inserted afterwards. The sole remaining buttress in the chancel has been mutilated in a painful manner. Not so many years ago, before the modern quoins of Caen stone were added, it was largely composed of Roman bricks similar to the walling. The other flat buttresses on the south side project 6 inches from the wall, and, as we see them at present, consist of blocks of rough-hewn Caen stone to the height of 4 ft. 6 in., and, above that, of Roman brick, considerably patched.

In themselves flat pilaster buttresses furnish no evidence as to date, since they are found alike in Roman, Saxon, and Norman buildings. It is contended by Mr Livett that the buttresses in the nave are Norman, or (at any rate) insertions of a later date than the adjacent wall--but only those at the south-east angle have been explored, where the foundations seem to be of a whiter, harder mortar than those of the wall, containing large stones, but no small angular flints. It is too early as yet to pronounce any positive opinion on the point.

Special attention has often been called to the semi-circular buttress, because this shape is uncommon, though something like it is found at St. Peter's, Northampton, at the Church of St. Remi at Rheims, and elsewhere. The outstanding portion of it measures almost exactly three feet in circumference. It cannot have been made (as some have supposed) to contain a staircase, because there seems no reason whatever for a staircase at this particular place, the rood-loft being several feet eastwards. Others have conjectured that the old church might have ended somewhere near this point, and that then the buttress would have had something to do with the support of the western front, or have been a staircase up to the old belfry. But there is no foundation for this surmise, which is disproved by the fact that the external plaster extends on each side of the buttress, and the character of the south wall is absolutely unbroken. This external plaster, indeed, is probably not Roman, though it is composed to some extent of pounded brick. The buttress bears little or no resemblance to the lofty semi-circular projection occasionally found in Saxon towers. Its object must be left in a state of obscurity, and it may perhaps have been a mere freak of the builder.

At a distance of 10 ft. 6 in. from this circular buttress we come to a _nearly circular panel_, immediately behind the Norman piscina, which has always been a puzzle to antiquaries. The dimensions of it, as now seen, are roughly 4 ft. by 3 ft. 8 in. It is sunk 6 in. into the wall, is unevenly splayed, and in parts plastered. In Stukely's engraving of the church (1722 A.D.) it is represented as a round-headed doorway, but there are no voussoirs or arch stones. The result of excavations beneath the surface are doubtful. Generally speaking, there are courses of two Roman bricks running along this part of the nave wall, below which are Kentish rag stones, and a foundation of concrete. Singularly enough, the _top_ row of Roman bricks (just below the opening) has been interrupted for a space of 3 ft. 8 in., and it looks at first sight as if the _lower_ row were the sill of a doorway, from which a slight suspicion of a rough vertical joint goes upwards for a little distance. But against this theory we must state that the _one-brick_ course does not extend the whole width of the panel. The immediate back of the Norman piscina was discovered on investigation, not to be of stone, as we might have expected, but of coarse thin plaster, and it is not impossible that this back was taken out sometime in the Early English period, and that the opening thus made was used as a hagioscope. No plausible theory has been advanced as to the use of this _panel_. It was once suggested that it was a niche for a churchyard-light, which would shine on the south side of the church. This, sometimes consisting of a covered lamp, would be used to light at night the mortuary convoys that came from afar, and could not always arrive in the daytime. It was also a sort of homage rendered to the memory of the dead, a signal recalling to passers-by the presence of the departed, and inviting prayers for them. But this is entirely a fanciful idea.

The =doorways= are the next feature of interest. With them St. Martin's is extremely well supplied, as (counting both ancient and modern ones) there are no less than six, though they were doubtless not all used at the same period. It would seem as if the architects of one age found a positive pleasure in blocking up and replacing doorways of preceding ages! At the south-west corner of the nave, immediately outside the font, is an Early English doorway or porch, seven feet wide, probably built in the thirteenth century, and now closed up with blocks of chalk, in the middle of which is inserted part of a two-light window. This may have been substituted for the usual Saxon "south-door." On the north side of the nave there are also traces of an Early English porch, which was only taken down during the present century within the memory of persons still living. The peculiarity of this porch is that it was added on to what we believe to be an older Norman doorway, which will be spoken of when we describe the interior of the church.

Proceeding to the south side of the chancel and its adjacent portion of the east wall of the nave, we come upon three curious openings. Two of them are square-headed, (1) The one at the south-east corner of the nave is 6 ft. high, and splayed externally, being 2 ft. 8 in. wide inside, and 3 ft. wide outside the church. It has a lintel and threshold of Roman brick, and has been blocked up with masses of chalk and rubble. The plaster on the splays is still _in situ_, and was considered, at a meeting of the British Archæological Society, to be "most probably Roman." But it has been clearly demonstrated that it is a later insertion in the wall. Its position at the east angle of the nave is very peculiar, and its use has not yet been ascertained. At the beginning of the extensive explorations that have been lately carried out, when it was believed by some antiquaries that there was a _Western apse_ similar to that in the Christian church at Silchester, and that the arch (described hereafter) was the opening into this apse, this south-eastern doorway was supposed to have been one of the entrances either to the church, or the _Narthex_ (vestibule), there being some indications of a corresponding doorway in the north-eastern angle of the nave. This theory appears to be now generally abandoned, but it is quite possible that it may be revived when further excavations are made beneath the tower. (2) The other opening at the south-west of the chancel, 6 ft. high and 3 ft. 4 in. wide externally, has jambs of Roman bricks, with a lintel and sill formed of massive blocks of green sandstone, much worn by weather. Internally it seems 4 ft. 7 in. at the top, but this may be accounted for by the fact that in later times it was partially blocked up by a stone sarcophagus, and other material: and on one side of the upper portion of the doorway, and extending beyond it towards the west, there was opened a low side-window, the western splayed jamb of which is still remaining, with the original plaster. This may perhaps have been a "Lepers' window" commanding a view of the altar of St. Mary, occupying the site of the present pulpit. This square-headed doorway is certainly contemporaneous with the surrounding wall. When it was first exposed, we found in it the skeleton of a sparrow!

Near these square-headed doorways there were discovered underground the remains of two walls, running at right angles to the chancel, and forming two sides of an _adjunct_ or side chapel, the southern side of which has been destroyed in the process of digging graves. These walls are 4 ft. 9 in. apart, and are each of them 26 in. wide, built entirely of Roman bricks. The western wall runs eight inches beneath the eastern angle-wall of the nave. Between the walls there is still existing part of a flooring of _opus signinum_. There can be no doubt that this _adjunct_ is of the same workmanship, and the same date, as the early brick wall of the chancel. The foundations of both are precisely similar, and are constructively bonded together--the walls rest upon a footing-course of one brick, which forms the top of a shallow foundation of flints and stones. The brick-footing is continued along the chancel wall under the sill of the square-headed doorway, and is irregular in its projection. A careful examination of the existing face of the chancel wall above the remains (which was made by Mr Livett), shows that the eastern wall of the _adjunct_ above ground, now destroyed, was originally bonded into the chancel wall. Every alternate course shows a broken brick, and every intermediate course the clean edge of a brick. This bonding cannot be traced above a line on a level with the lower edge of the lintel of the square-headed doorway of the chancel.

What the purpose of this _adjunct_ was, we cannot positively determine. It was suggested by the late Archbishop of Canterbury (who took the warmest interest in the church, and also keenly watched the progress of the excavations) that it was used as a place for baking the holy bread employed at the celebration of the Mass. It is more probable, however, notwithstanding its diminutive size, that it was a side-chapel with its altar.

At a distance of 4 ft. 2 in. eastwards of the square-headed doorway is a _semi-circular_ one. It is 6 ft. high and 2 ft. 1 in. wide. The arch is mostly formed of converging blocks of Kentish rag, generally about one inch apart, though somewhat closer at the crown. The span at the springing is an inch or two wider than the span of the jambs. The imposts are formed of two Roman tiles, the upper one overhanging the lower, and the lower overhanging the jamb. The doorway is lined throughout with plaster. The jambs _internally_ are of Roman bricks with occasional pieces of Kentish rag. _Externally_, they are almost entirely of Roman bricks, though under the west impost, 3 ft. 10 in. above the sill, there has been inserted a fragment of freestone about 2-½ inches high, brought from elsewhere. On this are parts of an inscription, which has been supposed by many people to date from the ninth or tenth century, though this date cannot be accepted as proved. The letters HONORE.. STÆ.. ET OMN[=I][=V] S[=C][=O]R[=V] are still decipherable, and the whole may perhaps be read as "To the honour of Saint (Mary?) and All Saints." This may have been the dedication-stone of a church, or not impossibly the dedication-stone of an altar, as an order was issued in the ninth century by a Saxon archbishop, that a stone should be placed at the corner of each altar, specifying the name of the saint or saints to whom it was dedicated. A parallel to this has been found in the discovery of a stone from the Saxon Church of Deerhurst, the fragmentary inscription on which has been conjecturally read as "In honore Sanctæ Trinitatis hoc altare dedicatum est."

This round-headed doorway has been hitherto supposed to be of the same date as the wall, but closer investigation has clearly proved that it is a later insertion, probably made in the Saxon period, possibly as early as St. Augustine. While in the surrounding wall there are _four_ Roman bricks to the foot, there are in the jambs of the doorway _six_ bricks to the foot; and at the time of the insertion, nearly one foot of the surrounding wall was broken away, as will be noticed by any experienced observer.

At 4 ft. 8 in. eastward of this doorway, we come to the chancel-buttress which has been already described. A hole has been pierced in the wall immediately east of the buttress, and a clean face of Roman brick has been traced for 26 inches, in continuation of the east face of the buttress, running therefore at right angles to the outer wall, thus clearly showing that there was no buttress on the east side of the angle of the original wall.

The whole controversy as to the existence of an Eastern apse is so interesting and important, but at the same time so technical for the ordinary reader, that we have placed, in Appendix C, a contribution which Mr Livett has kindly sent to us, with the hope that it may be extensively read and pondered by all those, whether antiquaries or otherwise, who desire to weigh every point connected with the architecture and plan of the church.

While still examining the exterior of the church, we may notice on the east wall of the present chancel a nearly square insertion, measuring 14-½ by 13-½ inches. The matrix seems to represent traces of a brass, with a kneeling female figure, carrying a child in her arms, with an inscription underneath; and it may have been connected with a tomb in that portion of the churchyard. It is of the fifteenth century, but there is no evidence of its origin, though it has probably been in its present position for a considerable period. The date of 1662, and many subsequent dates and initials, have been cut into the stone, showing the continuous existence of that pernicious class of tourists who make a point of leaving their mark in places of interest!

Passing down the north side of the church, we may observe on the chancel wall a piece of masonry, composed of Roman bricks, which is a good imitation of Roman work; next the modern vestry which has no merit except that of utility, and the traces of the Early English porch, which has been described above--and then, rounding the north-west angle, we come to a curious Norman squint or hagioscope, partially hidden by the tower. The opening, sunk some three or four inches in the outer wall, is of an oblong character. The sides are formed of worked chalk and Kentish rag, with traces of a hinge and receptacle for a bolt, while the lintel is composed of a piece of oak greatly decayed by age. The squint is partially splayed on both sides, rather more on the right side than the left, extends 18 inches into the interior of the church, and commanded apparently a view of the high altar. Whether it was a lychnoscope, or leper's window, or used by penitents standing under cover of a porch, there are no grounds for determining. The actual opening does not measure more than 12 inches by 8, and was lined originally with Norman plaster. On the inside, where it is 15 inches across, it was till recently concealed by the woodwork of a pew, but this has happily been removed. The masonry inside is of a rugged character, and was evidently disturbed when the interior of the church was covered by thick coats of plaster. Among the fillings-up of the squint, we found three curious circular stones, each with an ornamental _volute_ at the end. They are of oolite, and probably formed parts of a scroll at the top of a Roman (heathen) altar, and one of the fragments had small pieces of salmon-coloured mortar adhering to it. We may refer to an opening in the church of St. Mary, in Dover Castle, as being in a somewhat similar position, but there it is generally supposed to be a lychnoscope for the use of soldiers in the guard-room, so that they might watch the light burning at the altar on the south-east of the nave, which was specially reserved for them.

There is a great difference of opinion as to the proper name of these openings, two of which are certainly, and another possibly, found in St. Martin's Church. We are told that the squint is not to be confounded with low side-windows or lychnoscopes, originally unglazed. Squints, as a rule, may be defined as inside the church, and the others outside, primarily for the purpose of enabling persons in the aisles to see the elevation of the Host at the high altar, though they are sometimes found connected with a side-chapel, a parvise, or a tower-chamber. Their usual height is about 4 ft. from the ground, extending upwards from 2 to 10 ft. Narrow at first, they were gradually enlarged and broadened, as at St. Clement's and St. Peter's churches in Sandwich. Sometimes when near a side-altar they were utilised as a credence, or had a _piscina_ sunk in them (_cf._ Crawley Church in Hampshire)--and it is not impossible that the only real squint or hagioscope in St. Martin's Church was through the back of the existing piscina. The other openings, as I have said, might have been used as lepers' windows, or for penitents.

The tower was added in the fourteenth century. It is somewhat squat, and crowned with a pyramidal top. It measures 16 ft. by 13 ft. 3 in. in length and width, with two large buttresses on the west side, each projecting 4 ft. 3 in. It is built principally of flint with a slight intermixture of thin mediæval tiles, and has three louvre windows, one of which, with the peculiar "long and short" features of Saxon stone work, may have been transferred there from some other portion of the church. The building of this tower has probably destroyed some interesting feature, that stood at the west end of the original church. This may have been a western apse (so common in early basilicas) or perhaps a baptistery, or a chamber with an arch on each of its four sides. Whatever it be, is at present a matter of conjecture, but further explorations may solve the mystery; and wise men will forbear to dogmatise, when their positive theories may at any moment be overthrown.

=Description of the interior.=--The gradual ascent to St. Martin's Church from the lych-gate is somewhat remarkable. After turning a sharp corner in the churchyard path, you walk up nine steps to the Western Door, and from this door there is an ascent of eleven steps to the altar. This much resembles what is so noticeable a feature in Canterbury Cathedral. On the south wall of the tower-porch there is inserted a monumental stone, about which there has been a good deal of discussion. It has been described as a piece of a Roman coffin, but this is clearly a mistake. Both the character of the inscription, and the chamfering of the upper part, not unlike the tomb of Stephen Langton in St. Michael's Chapel in the Cathedral, show that it may be attributed to the thirteenth century. The letters are fragmentary, and slightly indistinct. We can, however, make out [dagger] [iota] [reverse solidus], and on the other side [reverse epsilon] ARISCVS. It has been suggested that this word may have been "Mariscus," and then the stone might possibly have been the boundary-stone of a marsh; but I think there can be no doubt that it is an ordinary sepulchral slab.

Till two years ago, the first feeling of visitors to the church was one of profound disappointment. They had been informed that St. Martin's was the oldest church in England; but the proofs of antiquity were not obvious at a casual glance, and the Early English chancel arch presented itself most obtrusively to the view, the walls of the nave, too, being covered with a thick layer of modern-looking yellowish plaster. It is rather amusing, sometimes, to hear the comments and to observe the behaviour of casual visitors. Many of them are from the United States of America, where the church is placed on the "list of sights" to be seen during their European tour. A few of the more unintelligent put their heads inside the building for two or three minutes, say to one another "this is an interesting old church," and then walk away with a proud consciousness that they have _done_ St. Martin's. The present writer remembers lionising a party of Americans, and completely failing to engross their attention by any historical or antiquarian description. At last, in despair, he asked them to write their names in the visitors' book kept in the vestry, where it so happened that the last names written were those of the Duchess of Edinburgh and her children. Then their interest was at once aroused, and they went away in a state of perfect happiness because their autographs were inscribed in the same page as those of Royalty! At another time the writer was preaching a sermon, on the festival of St. Martin, bishop and confessor. He was surprised to notice an allusion to his sermon in one of the leading London newspapers on the following day, with a general tone of satisfaction that Protestant England still entertained such devotion and reverence for the great _Martin Luther_, to whom (in the correspondent's imagination) the church was dedicated! Happily such ignorance is scarcely now possible, and the stripping of the plaster from the nave, and also from the lower portion of the chancel, reveals at once the antiquity of the church, so that the attention of every one of the 10,000 tourists who annually visit it is arrested (whether they will or no) by the rough uncoated walls.

This manifest improvement has been carried out with the kind consent and cordial assistance of the Rev. L. J. White-Thomson, the present rector.

It is very difficult now to realise what the church must have looked like in the earliest times. Even its shape then has been a fierce subject of dispute. Whether the chancel was added to the nave, or the nave to the chancel, or whether there was only the present chancel extended for a considerable distance westward, we may perhaps assume, in the light of very recent investigation, that there was an original chancel arch built of Roman bricks, not unlike the arch in St. Mary's Church at Dover Castle--and in the small, possibly apsidal, chancel the high altar would have stood, about 18 to 20 feet eastward of the arch.

At a later period there was a _Rood-beam_ mentioned in the "Cross Light on the Rood-loft," and alluded to in the burial of John Hougham "before the High Cross in the Nave." The holes made for the insertion of this Rood-beam may still be seen in the north-east and south-east angles of the nave, about 6 ft. distant from the joints of the chancel arch, and 10 ft. above the ground. It at one time occurred to us as possible that the "High Cross in the Nave" might have had a parallel in the great stone cross found in front of the central arch between the nave and chancel at Reculver. "One of the fairest and most stately Crosses (says Leland) I ever saw--nine feet, as I guess, in height. It standeth like a fair column."

In mediæval times, we learn from the wills of parishioners that there were in the church images of St. Martin, St. Mary, St. Christopher, St. Nicholas and St. Erasmus; and each of them had a light burning before it. How these images were distributed we have no evidence to determine, but (perhaps) they were arranged in the following manner:--Image of St. Martin at the east end, of St. Mary and St. Nicholas in the nave on each side of the chancel arch, and the images of St. Christopher and St. Erasmus at the west end of the church.

The high altar, according to custom, was evidently dedicated to St. Martin, the altar on the north-east side of the nave to the Blessed Virgin, and that on the south-east side to St. Nicholas. We read that William Harry left money for a waxlight burning before the image of St. Nicholas, "where the priest was to sing the testator's daily mass"; and there was a "Brotherhood of St. Nicholas," at whose cost fifteen masses were to be said for the soul of Thomas Fayrhand (A.D. 1505).

Some astonishment may be caused, at first sight, by the mention of _St. Erasmus_, but we learn from other sources that he was a popular saint in England. Some glass, for instance, in the church of St. Botolph, Lullingstone, represents a legend of his martyrdom, his prostrate body lying beneath a windlass, by the winding of which the saint is being disembowelled. He is reported to have suffered death in the Diocletian persecution at Formiæ, where Gregory the Great testifies that his body was still remaining, though it was afterwards translated to Cajeta. Under the appellation of St. Elmo, he is still invoked by Mediterranean sailors.

Though by no means the earliest feature in point of date, yet the =Font= is the most conspicuous object to one entering the church. It stands now at the south-west corner, but, until fifty years ago, it stood in the middle of the nave. We know its exact position because Stephen Fokys or Falkes (1506) directed that he should be buried "before the font," and his gravestone, with a small brass inserted, is still remaining. This brass bears the following inscription:--"Pray for the souls of Stevyn Falkes and Alys his wife: the which deceased the 10th day of May the year of our Lord 1506. On whose souls Jesu have mercy."

The _Font_ is circular or tub-shaped, 2 ft. 5 in. high, excluding the base on which it stands: or 3 ft. 1 in. with the base, which looks like an old Norman mill-stone, and was probably added when the font was moved to its present position. On examining the inside of the font a few years ago, for the purpose of inserting a small leaden pipe to carry away the baptismal water, we found that this base-stone had a square opening in the centre, and bore Norman toolmarks, which it would probably not have done had it not been originally exposed to external view. The diameter of the inner basin of the font is 1 ft. 10 in., that of the outside 2 ft. 6-½ in., the circumference round the outside being 8 ft. 2 in. It consists of a rim and three tiers. The three tiers are made up of some twenty-two distinct stones, rounded externally, and fitted in their place. The _lower_ tier is embellished with a continuous pattern of scroll-work: the _second_ with groups of circles intertwining one another (what Hasted calls a hieroglyphical true-lover's knot), with the exception of one stone, which has six comparatively plain circles carved upon it: the _third_ tier is of a different character, exhibiting arches intersecting each other. At the top is a _rim_, the ornamentation of which corresponds with that of the two lower tiers, except one part in which there is a kind of dog-tooth work, like stars cut in half. It has been suggested that the upper portion of this rim was cut away for the purpose of forming a ledge on which a tall cover might firmly rest. There are still remains of the staple by which the cover was secured, and the font may have been locked up in the time of Cromwell, to prevent its desecration.

The font was for a long time covered with a thick coat of whitewash. It is lined with lead, extending downwards to a depth of 14 inches, and the space between the lead and the bottom of the font is now filled up with rough blocks of Caen stone and rubbish. It has probably been taken to pieces and moved more than once. An attempt was made, by drawing tracings of the several stones separately, to reorganise it (on paper) in a consistent and continuous pattern, but, unfortunately, there are two or three stones that will not fit in with the rest.

Now, as to the =date of the Font=, there is great diversity of opinion. The character of the carving naturally suggests that it is of the later Norman period, and is similar to that found in St. Clement's Church, Sandwich, in the cloisters of Canterbury Cathedral, and elsewhere. But this is by no means conclusive; for, if the font was an historical or unusually ancient one, some pious person might have been inclined to do honour to it by decoration. It may be pointed out that this decoration is not _carving_ at all, but has been done with a small chisel of not more than a quarter of an inch, and by no able hand. Instances have been adduced of "smartening up" of a similar character.

It is certain that the composition of the font is most unusual. The Norman fonts were, as a rule, scooped out of a single stone, as we see, _e.g._ at Lincoln Cathedral, Sapcote, Green's Norton, Belton, Aswarly, Darenth, and several other places. Moreover, if (which is somewhat uncertain) St. Martin's font is of Caen stone, which the Normans possessed abundantly, and which is easily worked, it appears improbable that they would have built it up in such a rude manner of twenty-two separate stones Is there any other existing font composed in the same manner? It was said that there is, or was, at Lewknor and at Woburn. But the vicar of Lewknor, examining his font at our request, writes that, so far as he can see, it is made of _one_ stone: while the church at Woburn has been rebuilt during the last thirty years, and no one knows what has become of the original font. A general statement that we have no Saxon fonts existing is valueless, and incapable of proof; and we are more inclined to agree with Mr F. A. Paley ("Introduction to Illustrations of Baptismal Fonts") that "we cannot doubt that a considerable number of fonts now exist in England, wherein the Saxon infant received the waters of baptism."

The most ancient form of fonts was octagonal, or tub-shaped, built like a tower, as described by St. Paulinus of Nola. Some Norman fonts are round; more often, perhaps, they are of square form, sometimes profusely decorated with grotesque imagery, and supported by a central massive circular stem. If we take away the sketchy chiselling, for which we have suggested a possible reason, no one would consider the St. Martin's font to be of Norman workmanship. Moreover, the sides of the font internally are extremely rough, and it is unlike the Normans to bestow so little in the way of finish.

We may conclude (as I have said) with some confidence that Ethelbert was baptised in St. Martin's Church. No traces have been discovered there of a baptistery--nor, indeed, of any in England before that erected (about 750) by Cuthbert, Archbishop of Canterbury, to the east of the Cathedral. But this does not militate against the theory that he was baptised by _affusion_, even though not from the present font notwithstanding traditional evidence to this effect in the seals before alluded to.

Reverence and probability alike protest against the idea, entertained by one or two distinguished antiquaries, that the font is nothing but the circular erection once surrounding the top of a well, or _puteus_, as depicted by Eadwin (1130-1174) in his plan of the herbarium of the cathedral.

Next to the font, we must direct attention to the "=West Wall of the Nave.=" Rugged and uneven as it now appears, there is still method in its building. Its general character is that of roughly-hewn Kentish rag-stones (with occasional blocks of chalk) bonded together by Roman bricks, arranged in sometimes a single, sometimes a double or even triple, course. Here and there a single course of stones lies between the courses of bricks, which are then 9 ins. apart. In other portions of the wall five or six courses of stone intervene between the courses of bricks, so that the courses of stones and bricks do not alternate regularly. The original face of the wall is much obscured by sundry patchings and repairs, and (on the north side) by the erection of a monumental tablet, lately removed to the tower-porch. In the centre, over the present doorway, is an _arch_ or opening, now filled up with courses of Roman bricks and rubble of chalk or flint. The arch reaches to a height of 17 or 18 ft. above the floor level, a few inches of the crown having been cut away, and is on an average 7 ft. 2 in. wide. Whether it reached originally down to the ground, or was merely an opening of the nature of a window, cannot be positively settled, as the fillings-up have not yet been removed. On either side of the arch, at a distance of 2 ft., are two _windows_ (the upper 18 ins. of which, as they now appear, are an extension made in Saxon or Norman times). The original windows (below this extension) have their jambs of chalk-blocks filled in with _white_ mortar, while the arches are turned in Roman bricks and rough voussoirs of Kentish rag-stone, with interstices of bright _pink_ mortar. These windows are certainly built _more Romano_, and no sufficient evidence has yet been brought forward to upset the opinion strongly held by many archæologists--that they are _Roman_. The variation of the mortar used in their construction from _white_ mortar in the jambs to _pink_ mortar in the voussoirs of the arch is a very noticeable feature, and can be exactly paralleled in the Roman Pharos at Dover. It is certainly _prima facie_, a strong evidence of Roman workmanship. The windows are 2 ft. 8 in. wide, and would have measured 4 ft. from sill to crown. Their jambs are splayed at an angle that would allow about 12 ins. for the actual opening on the outer face of the wall. Their sills are respectively 9 ft. 9 in. and 10 ft. above the ground level, and the lower portion of the south window is filled up with thin mediæval tiles, such as we find here and there in the fourteenth-century tower, during the building of which the _extended_ windows were undoubtedly blocked up. These _extended_ windows have no voussoirs, but were cut out of the original walling, and simply plastered. Near them are portions of pink plaster still adhering to the wall.

Excavations have been made below the northern portion of this western wall in hopes of finding some of the original flooring of the church, but could not be further prosecuted because vaults, and even detached skeletons, were met with at a distance of only one foot below the existing pews.

The style of the north and south walls of the nave is much the same as that of the western wall; and behind the wood-work are considerable pieces of pink plaster, remarkable both for its hardness and texture. About this plaster we must say a few words, as it is, in our opinion, an important piece of evidence. It is composed of carbonate of lime imperfectly burned, of silicious sand, and pounded Roman brick, in almost equal proportions. It is true that some examples of this plaster have been occasionally found in Saxon, Norman, and even Early English buildings, but they are feeble imitations, distinguishable by the greater preponderance of sand, neither so bright nor crisp in section, more soft and pliable, and of a dullish colour. Two pieces of plaster were put side by side, one from St. Martin's and another from a Roman villa at Wingham, and to an experienced eye the texture was identical, except that the latter was rather thinner. And on our sending to such an undoubted expert as Mr J. T. Irvine (who had previously expressed much scepticism as to the Roman claims of St. Martin's, though he candidly confessed that he had not seen our recent explorations) a specimen of this plaster, he wrote in reply that, "both as regards texture of tile and lime mixture, and the colour produced thereby in section, it certainly seem to accord with that of _good Roman date_."

About the middle of the north wall of the nave is a doorway, 4 ft. 2 in. wide, with jambs of Caen stones of irregular size, some of them showing marks of axe-tooling. The date of this doorway is uncertain. The head is destroyed and the rubble filling-up irregular, but the general appearance seems to favour the theory that it is Norman. On the east side of the doorway is a =stoup= for Holy Water, certainly of great antiquity. The shape is not regular, but it may be described roughly as measuring 20 by 17 inches.

At the south-east corner is the celebrated Norman =piscina=, said to be one of the earliest and most beautiful in England. The size of the actual opening is 13 by 7-½ inches with additional 4 inches to the top of the tympanum. Its jambs are of Caen stone, with the usual tool-marks. In it are three curious holes, two above and one below, penetrating about 2 inches into the stone. What these holes were intended for has been a great puzzle, but perhaps short poles were inserted in them which supported an ornamental canopy. It is not impossible that the piscina was originally placed somewhere nearer the east wall of the nave.