St Nicholas, Longparish

Longparish certainly is long. The village runs parallel with the River Test and is effectively in three parts. To the south is Forton, a self contained lane with a number of enjoyable cottages. The church represents the southern end of Middleton, with the school, the Plough Inn, a former brick chapel, and a nice blend of old cottages and modern housing. Walking north, one passes an old well with seats and a timber cross, and eventually the main part of the village is reached, with a number of outstanding thatched cottages mostly of brick and timber. There are some flint and brick banded terraced cottages (also thatched), and a modern housing estate opposite the Cricketers Inn. Eventually a large wall appears, and the road starts to bend round the grounds of Longparish House, an attractive whitewashed house with rectangular windows and prominent straight headed hood moulds.

The church is set slightly away from the main road and is entered through a lych-gate with the village stocks beside it .  A drawing of the church and its environs by Owen Carter, believed to date from the 1830s but certainly no later than 1845 (1), shows a village scene with the school on the left and a cottage on the right, and appearing more open than it does now . Henry Moody, writing c.1846, called it a "fine old pile of the 'late Norman' style, with windows of the 'early decorated'" (2). The church is evidently restored, but is distinctive and full of character thanks to the odd aisle windows and chequer tower. The capitals of the nave arcades are also memorable.  It is a modest sized aisled building, but with significant northern additions, and consists of nave, chancel, west tower, south porch, north organ chamber and north chancel vestry. The churchyard is attractive and open to the south and east, but dark and shrouded by trees on the north and west. There are many gravestones to the south-east, including several enjoyable examples of the 18th century. To the south-west of the churchyard is a smaller gate leading on to fields and the River Test. Unfortunately the A303 is within earshot.

Chronology of the building

The current church appears to date from the late 12th century, although the nave and/or chancel may be older. The village appears as Middleton in the Domesday book, but there is no mention of a church.

Norman/Transitional: The priest's doorway, on the south side of the chancel, stylistically looks the oldest visible feature of the church . It is late Norman (c.1190-1200) and has chamfered jambs with stop chamfers at the top and bottom (the top ones are both different), simple grooved imposts and a round moulded arch.  Some stones have clearly been renewed, and most of the rest appears to be restored.

Pevsner suggests that the priest's doorway could date from the same time as the nave arcades. These are more transitional in style, and include Gothic elements not present in the doorway. If they do date from the same time, then it would represent an interesting mixture of styles which could also explain the similar mix at Wonston, as shown by the church's south doorway and chancel arch. They too are respectively late Norman and Transitional in style.

It is unclear whether the nave was built together with the aisles in the same campaign, or whether the aisles are a later addition. The four bay arcades have double-chamfered arches with hood moulds on the nave side, octagonal abaci, capitals which act as a transition from octagonal to circular, circular piers and moulded bases on square, two stage plinths. Many of these details have either been renewed or retooled, one of the main telltale signs being heavy vertical chiselled grooves which almost appear as fluting. Examples of this can be seen on the central piers of the north and south aisles, and both the chancel and tower arch responds. The capitals are trumpet scalloped, and consist of several varying designs, including one (pier D) with stiff leaf which is a clear nod to the Early English style . The organ chamber has an arch similar to the arcades, but apparently entirely modern apart from the capitals which look contemporary with the arcade capitals. Where were they reused from? It is possible that a transept or chamber existed on this side prior to the 19th century, as Owen Carter's illustration apparently shows such as structure exhibiting a thin lancet . However, this may not be medieval but may date from the pre-1846 restoration (see below). The capitals are all detailed below, and their positions are shown in the plan.

Description of the capitals to the arcades and organ chamber arch:
Respond A	Trumpet scallops decorated along their ends with a frilly, leafy frieze.
Pier B	Trumpet scallops which are more lean and veined, and decorated with scrolly leaves. This is similar to the south capital of the chancel arch at Wonston, but less heavy and obviously Romanesque in style.
Pier C	Same style as capital A . Three of the scallops end with plain fillets only .
Pier D	Stiff leaf in two rows. The bottom row has leaves bowing to the right, while the top row is more compact with leaves bowing forward.
Respond E	Same style as capital A, although the frilly frieze looks flatter and more like decorative fabric than leaves.
Respond F	Trumpet scallops which simply end smooth and look unfinished.
Pier G	Hollow scallops without decoration.
Pier H	Same style as capital E . Two of the scallops end with plain fillets only.
Pier I	Same style as capitals E and H.
Respond J	Like capitals E, H & I, but the two trumpet scallops facing west each have two joined leaves bowing down towards each other.
Respond K  (Organ Chamber)	The trumpet scallops are decorated with graceful scrolls which are similar to, but not the same as the less refined capital of B.
Respond L  (Organ Chamber)	Same style as capital K.

The bases are similarly not of the same style, although they all appear to be mostly renewed. These are summarised below.

Description of the bases to the arcades:
Respond A	Water holding, with two fillets.
Pier B	Same style as base A.
Pier C	Water holding, with one fillet.
Pier D	Water holding, with no fillets.
Respond E	Same style as base A.
Respond F	More classical style base (e.g. attic base), with a raised concave moulding. One fillet below, and a fillet and groove above.
Pier G	Same style as base F.
Pier H	Cross between a water holding and attic base, with a fillet below, and a groove above (in the older stonework only).
Pier I	Similar to the attic base, with a fillet below.
Respond J	Simplified attic base, with no fillets or grooves.

The arcades appear to have had clerestories, as one blocked clerestory window can be seen above pier B on the nave side .  However, it is difficult to identify a probable date for this feature as only part of the splay can be seen, so it may have been added later.

Finally, the west window in the north aisle has a renewed round headed window with a deep chamfer both inside and out, which may represent an original late Norman window in this position . If this is the case, then it provides more evidence that the priest's doorway and nave arcades date from the same campaign. Inside, the jambs of the rere-arch look original, but the chamfered arch looks later.

Early English: The chancel arch may be a little later than the arcades. It is in any case simpler in style, with two chamfered orders and simply moulded abaci . The north and south faces of the abaci have their central sections missing, which probably contained the rood beam or screen.

The nave south doorway is mature Early English, with no hint of the Romanesque . It has a continuous inner roll, attached shafts with bases and renewed moulded capitals, a deep roll in the arch, and a moulded label. It is mostly original.

The chancel south wall has two trefoiled lancets at its east and west ends,  the eastern one being both shorter and higher . The chancel north wall has two short lancets but with trefoiled ogee heads, which suggest either early 14th century alterations or more likely alterations of the 19th century . All of these lancets have been renewed, and probably altered in style during the 19th century. The eastern lancet is placed further west than its counterpart on the south wall, and indeed the south wall appears to have had a third lancet in this position which is now blocked . Either that or it represents the original position of the easternmost lancet. Some of the original stones survive. Was it blocked to hold the monument inside? In the north aisle is a simple piscina with a chamfered pointed arch and a deep bowl .

To the west of the organ chamber on the north wall of the north aisle is a renewed double lancet window which may or may not represent the previous window .

Decorated: The aisles were apparently remodelled in the early 14th century, although all the windows are renewed, and the style of the chancel lancets and aisle windows on the north and south walls mean that most windows ought to be treated with caution. The north and south aisle east windows are of three lights with reticulated tracery, and the two light west window (of the south aisle) is also reticulated. The north aisle east window is shown in Owen Carter's illustration with reticulated tracery so is likely to be faithful to the original design .

The east window and side windows of the aisles , all of which may have been remodelled in the 14th century, are all decorated in style (apart from the double lancet on the north side), but are Victorian and unlikely to represent the original design. The east window appears in Carter's illustration with what appears to be a decorated or early perpendicular three light window with simple tracery . This was replaced with the current design, probably in the restoration of 1851-2. However, the rere-arches of the aisle windows mostly appear to be original, although the rere-arch the south aisle west window is clearly renewed.

Perpendicular: The west tower is late perpendicular, probably early 16th century, and one of a group of such towers in this part of Hampshire (3). It is of three stages, and has diagonal buttresses up to the start of the third stage. The North-west buttress is broader to contain the stair turret, and becomes octagonal at the third stage where it continues above the height of the tower. The tower and turret are both battlemented, and the second and third stages of the tower, together with the first stage of the west wall, are constructed of an imprecise stone and flint chequer pattern. There is also some brick patching on the south side. The first stage has a moulded plinth. The west doorway and window are both 19th century and do not appear to represent the Perpendicular originals. The third stage has uncusped square headed belfry windows of two lights, which were filled at a later date with stone tracery. The west wall also has a similar window in the second stage.

Inside, the tower arch is tall and narrow, and of the same period . The responds have one big chamfer which become two orders and therefore double chamfered in the arch. This is flanked by two buttresses towards the nave which look new.

19th Century: The church appears to have been substantially restored throughout the 19th century, but particularly during the 1850s. These dramatically changed its appearance, thus creating an individual looking church which probably gained as much character as it lost. However, it is not always clear what each restoration entailed, and who was responsible. The suggested attributions detailed below may not therefore be accurate. Known or inferred alterations and restorations are as follows (4):

Pre-1846 Restoration:

If the nave clerestory had existed up to the 19th century it was apparently abandoned during the pre-1846 restoration and the aisle roofs consequently raised in pitch. This is shown in Owen Carter's illustration . The pitch of the nave and chancel roofs may also have been changed at this time. The authors of Henry Woodyer: Gentleman Architect also attribute the restoration of the nave arcades to this campaign, and if this was the case must also have included the tower and chancel arches since they both exhibit the distinctive vertical grooving. Henry Moody records in his book Antiquarian and Topographical Sketches of Hampshire, published in 1846, the following observations:

Unlike our village churches in general, the eye of the antiquarian is not shocked by witnessing the ravages of fanaticism and the incongruous alternations effected by men totally devoid of taste. On the contrary, the church at Longparish appears in its pristine beauty and simplicity, and bears evidence that its restorations have been effected under the directions of one who fully appreciated the elegant and chaste designs of our ancient church architects. Here every thing is in character, and done in a manner as substantial as it is judicious. Within the last few years the worthy vicar, the value of whose benefice does not exceed £226, has expended on the church and school near £3,000, and is still employed in the good work.(5)

This is interesting as not only does it suggest that significant work had taken place, but also that it was ongoing. However, this may be referring primarily to the school. White's Hampshire directory of 1859 gives 1833 and 1853 as the dates of restorations,  "at the cost of about £2200".

Restoration of 1851-2 by Henry Woodyer:

This was a comparatively early Woodyer restoration, and probably the church's most significant. It appears to have included much renewal, including the replacement of the windows, and was apparently concerned less with faithfully reproducing details than introducing new fanciful window designs and other new features. The most noticeable of these is the design of the three south aisle side windows and two north aisle side windows to the east of the organ chamber (6). They consist of three stepped lights with trefoiled ogee heads with a large ogee arch above. The chancel east window is also by Woodyer, and is of three ogee headed lights with a five sided star within a circle . In the nave east wall, above the chancel roof, is a cusped circle. This may again be by Woodyer. According to Carter's illustration this replaced a larger opening consisting of three cusped circles within a circle . Although the possibility exists that Carter exercised poetic license when illustrating this feature, it nevertheless suggests that Woodyer replaced a medieval feature with a simplified version.

The drain heads of the aisles are dated 1852, and those on the west walls of both the north and south aisles (which serve the chancel) are dated 1851. So the chancel was presumably restored first.

The tower also has renewed features which do not appear to have reproduced the original design. The doorway has thin wavy mouldings and a label on flower and leaf stops, and above is a plainly chamfered two light  window with similar stops to the doorway. The tracery is coarse, and has a six sided star in the head. The belfry window in the east wall was made circular and into a clock, and has a cusped sound hole within it. This, together with the aisle side windows, help produce a unique appearance.

As part of the chancel restoration a pretty piscina was added on the south side of the sanctuary, with a moulded trefoiled arch on shafts which have leaf capitals . It has a protruding bowl, which is itself on a shaft with a foliage capital. Opposite this on the north wall is a flamboyant credence table of about the same date with a deeply nodding and crocketed ogee arch . The ledge, which is decorated with fleurons, is held up by a carved angel. It is not certain whether these features date from Woodyer's restoration or not.

The church was also significantly enlarged on the north side, with an organ chamber to the north of the nave which looks more like a transept . This is attributed by the authors of Henry Woodyer: Gentleman Architect to the 1883 restoration while the chancel vestry is attributed to Woodyer. This may be a mix up, since the physical evidence suggests that the organ chamber belongs to Woodyer's restoration. The drainage piping for the organ chamber, although undated, is apparently of the same type as the chancel and aisles, suggesting that it to was added in the early 1850s. However, to further complicate matters, Carter's illustration shows what appears to be a chamber to the north of the nave, aligned north-south, which exhibits a long lancet . So was the organ chamber built prior to Woodyer's restoration, or did Woodyer rebuild an existing structure? Or was it built after Woodyer's campaign reusing his rain water heads? There is no mention of such a structure in Moody's description to assist with this question. It is in any case built in a style which conforms with the rest of the church, with none of the fanciful tracery of the aisle side windows or chancel east window. There are two trefoiled lancets on the east wall with ogee heads, therefore repeating the details of the chancel north lancets which may have been renewed at about the same time. The west wall has a simple chamfered doorway flanked by two lancets of the same design as the east wall. In the north wall is a two light reticulated window which repeats the design of the south aisle west window. Either the organ chamber window is based on this design, or they were both inserted at the same time. However, the fact that these are typical 14th century designs, whereas the aisle side windows are not, suggests that the design of the aisle west window is medieval and genuine. It must also be added that this possible conformity with the original design is a strong argument against the transept being the work of Woodyer.

The wooden south porch is also by Woodyer (7). The lower parts of the side walls are of large flints, the upper parts are of timber with late 13th century style window designs. The south face is entirely of wood with a trefoil ogee headed entrance arch.

The flint walling, which is generally of a pleasant texture, doesn't look too cleaned up on the south side, which has a mixture of whole and cut flints . The buttresses are new, and the moulded plinth and all the quoins are renewed. Windows were renewed in yellow stone, which contrasts with the grey stone of the priest's doorway. The north wall, both to the east and west of the organ chamber, has closer flint work with greater use of knapped flints , and the west wall incorporates modern stone squares in a feeble attempt at a chequer pattern. The nave and chancel floors are of stone, with Victorian tile in the sanctuary. Of the roofs, the nave roof is a handsome modern queen post in black timber, and the aisle roofs are lean to, also of black timber. The chancel roof is arched braced, and is coved above the sanctuary with gold ribs on a blue background which also includes tiny stars.

Additions of 1866 by William White:

According to the authors of Henry Woodyer: Gentleman Architect, this work included the erection of a metal cross over the screen, and the lych-gate .

Additions of 1883:

No architect is apparently known for this work, but the authors of Henry Woodyer: Gentleman Architect attribute the nave organ chamber to this campaign. As suggested above, this may be a confusion with the north chancel vestry, but in any case the vestry is clearly in a different style from the rest of the church . This is apparent not only from the architectural details, but also from the flint walling. It is aligned north-south like the organ chamber, and has a high plinth moulding on all three sides. The east wall has two small trefoiled lancets in the same stone, and the north wall has a small two light  Decorated-style window. The west wall has a chamfered west doorway with fancy details including what look like sections from a roll moulding which act as imposts . Are these typical of Woodyer's style?

Furnishings

18th century stone font, which is elegant and quite substantial . It must have been reinstated after the Victorian font was removed in the late 1950s (see below). Oval bowl with swags and fluting on the bowl, and a heavily moulded square base.

The authors of Henry Woodyer: Gentleman Architect report that the church "was 'purified' in 1956-8, when painted decoration, screen, reredos, font and cover vanished". The whole interior of the church had been highly decorated during the 19th century, with "modern painted ornament and texts in red, blue, green and gold" (8), Such decoration was often removed during the 20th century when it fell out of favour. Faint remains of this decoration still survives in places, such as on the western respond of the organ chamber . The tall gothic font cover appears to have survived, and now lives on the south aisle floor. It has gables and pinnacles in three tiers and is apparently by Woodyer who also provided the new font, reredos and pulpit. The pulpit also survived the 1950s removals, and is of stone (painted cream) with cusped panels . The rest is 19th-20th century, including the pews, organ, eagle lectern, medieval style chancel choir stalls, and altar rail. 

Moody refers to the existence of an "oak screen of a perpendicular character" between nave and chancel. However, this screen must have been modern, or replaced during the 19th century restorations, since the Victoria County History makes no reference to it, and the removals of the 1950s were presumably concerned with the Victorian work.

Monuments

The most prominent and interesting monument is also the most mysterious. On the the south wall of the chancel is what looks like a monument which the Victoria County History calls "a modern reminiscence of an Easter Sepulchre" . Pevsner makes no mention of it, but the church guide says that it was "once thought to form part an an Easter Sepulchre for the the deposit of offerings. But it is on the wrong side of the Church for this." It has no date, but is 16th century is style with a moulded top, columns, and panels which have both renaissance and gothic elements. There are three cusped panels above and below, each holding a shield containing a symbol of the passion, with two panels in the centre with religious text in 19th century lettering. When was it made, and what was its purpose?

Otherwise a number of very minor stone and brass tablets throughout the church. The western end of the south aisle has two stone tablets with elegant lettering, †1757 and †1799. Further east, eight tablets †1751-57 to †1969.  The north aisle has nine tablets, †1790 to †1983, and the chancel has three tablets, †1906, †1910 and †1933.

Stained Glass

All but one of the windows within the church contains stained glass, which contributes to the dark interior. There is a good mix of styles from a number of well known firms, although none is of outstanding quality. Many of the attributions and dates are from Pevsner.

Notes

1. A lithograph of the illustration by J G Bourne appeared in the publication Quarterly Papers between 1843-5. The illustration is held by Winchester City Museums, WCM A/NO 1025. Back to "St Nicholas, Longparish"

2. Moody, H. Antiquarian and Topographical Sketches of Hampshire, 1846, p.175. Back to "St Nicholas, Longparish"

3. The others are Micheldever and Barton Stacey. Wonston also has a late Perpendicular tower. Back to "Chronology of the building- Perpendicular"

4. This information is based on an entry for the church in Henry Woodyer: Gentleman Architect edited by J Elliot and J Pritchard. Back to "Chronology of the building- 19th Century"

5. Moody, H. Antiquarian and Topographical Sketches of Hampshire, 1846, pp.175-6. Back to "Chronology of  the building- 19th century"

6. The aisle windows are not mentioned in Henry Woodyer: Gentleman Architect. Back to "Chronology of the building- 19th Century"

7. According to Henry Woodyer: Gentleman Architect. Back to "Chronology of the building- 19th Century"

8. A History of the County of Hampshire [Victoria County History], volume 4, page 408. Back to"Chronology of the building

9. According to the church guide. Back to "Stained glass"

10. Laban also said, "This pile of rocks means that the LORD will watch us both while we are apart from each other." So the place was also named Mizpah. [From the Contemporary English Version of the Bible]. Back to "Stained glass"

Sources used

- [Anon]. St Nicholas, Longparish [church guide], c.1990.

- Bond, D. & Dear, G. The stained glass windows or William Morris and his circle in Hampshire and the Isle of Wight. Hampshire County Council, 1998. No.13 in the "Hampshire Papers" series.

- Elliott, J. & Pritchard, J. (Eds). Henry Woodyer: Gentleman Architect. University of Reading, 2002

- Freeman, R. The Art and Architecture of Owen Browne Carter (1806-1859). Hampshire County Council, 1991. No.1 in the "Hampshire Papers" series.

- Moody, H. Antiquarian and Topographical Sketches of Hampshire, 1846

- Page, W. (ed). The Victoria History of Hampshire and the Isle of Wight: Vol.4. Constable, 1911

- Pevsner, N & Lloyd, D. Hampshire and the Isle of Wight. Penguin, 1967

- White, W. History, Gazetteer, and Directory of Hampshire and the Isle of Wight, 1859

Web links

- www.longparish.org.uk/history/church.htm. Disappointingly this page is little more than a reproduction from the Victoria County History.

Questions for further research

1. Where did the capitals of the arch to the organ chamber come from?

2. Are the side aisle windows from Woodyer's restoration? Are they of the same stone as the chancel east window? An analysis of the renewed window stone may assist in establishing this.

3. What are the dates of the organ chamber and vestry, and who were their architects? Do the roof tiles and other features give any clues?

4. What is the date of the large chancel monument, and what was its purpose?

5. What are the dates of the Clayton and Bell windows?

6. What are the dates of the Wailes windows?

Location

 

Borough/City/District	Test Valley District
Hundred	Wherwell
OS Landranger map	185
Grid Reference	SU4243
Online map (direct link)	streetmap.co.uk
Online 6 inch map (1876)	www.old-maps.co.uk

► Gallery      ▲ Back to Hampshire churches 

Churches | Music | Basingstoke | Links | Email

© Copyright 2004, Barry Meehan