This is an excellent building, architecturally more important
for its mediaeval work than the adjacent cathedral and enclosing one of the largest internal spaces of all the churches
in England. It is also a church that can be close-dated in nearly all
its parts and where at least the architect of the nave and aisles appears to
be known, as well, perhaps, as the architect responsible for the chapels and
sanctuary.
A church was originally built on this site at least as early as the eleventh
century, only to be demolished c. 1110 and rebuilt in the time of Abbot
Anselm (1121 - 48). The chancel was rebuilt a
second time in the Decorated period and the tower, remodelled c. 1400, as
shown by local wills, when, as now, it lay outside the line of the N. aisle to the
north but
in line with it to the west. Still largely intact, it rises in
three short stages supported by angle buttresses, to three-light bell-openings with straightened octfoils in the heads,
and battlements above. The only other surviving feature of the
building that existed then, is the chancel arch, composed of two
flat-chamfered orders springing from semi-octagonal responds, for the church was
otherwise rebuilt again between c. 1424-33, as witnessed this time by a whole series of bequests.
This
was a major and comprehensive project that was probably
directed by William Layer (fl.
1419-44), a master mason who may have lived for a time in
Rougham, six miles to the east, where the
nave clerestory and original design for the tower may also be
by him (and perhaps also, due to its similarity, the tower at
Great Barton), and who is known to have worked on the rebuilding of the W. tower of
Bury St. Edmunds abbey. According to Birkin Haward (Suffolk Mediaeval
Church Arcades, Hitcham, Suffolk Institute of Archaeology and History, 1993,
pp. 149, 192-193 & 330-331),
William Layer came from one of the three Layer villages of Essex (i.e. Layer
Breton, Layer-de-la-Haye or Layer Marney)
and, as well as in Rougham, owned property in Bury St. Edmunds, Fornham All
Saints and Westley, suggesting he was highly regarded and
correspondingly well rewarded. Unfortunately, since so little of his work
either survives or is yet recognized, it is not possible to draw up a list
of features that can be regarded as characteristic of his style, but his
all-embattled aisled nave here is a most impressive structure that appears
to have influenced the later work, in turn, of Reginald Ely and John Melford, most notably perhaps, through the rhomboidal shape of its arcade
piers, with attached, narrow bowtells to north and south, separated by
casements from groups of three
bowtells with capitals towards the openings. (See the N. arcade, illustrated right.)
This is a section, as Birkin Haward pointed out, designed to combine the
necessary width across the thickness of the wall, with 'the least visual
bulk and the greatest clear span between piers' (ibid, p. 136) and as Haward also showed,
the section Layer employed is similar but not identical to, the form that
Ely and Melford would later adopt. As for Layer's three-light,
four-centred windows, these are almost identical to windows in the chancel
at St. Mary's, Adderbury, in Oxfordshire, which was constructed between
1408-18 and attributed by John Harvey (The Perpendicular Style,
London, Batsford,
1978, p. 122) to the master mason Richard Winchcombe (fl. 1398 - 1440), which might
suggest a wide cross-fertilization of ideas in the early fifteenth century
and that William Layer had come across this design elsewhere, perhaps during
the three or four years in which, in those days, 'it was customary
for masons to travel around... after the completion of their apprenticeships
before qualifying as a master' (Suffolk Mediaeval
Church Arcades, p. 146). This connection with Richard Winchcombe
must be qualified, however, by the fact that the window tracery in Adderbury
chancel is known to have been taken out and renewed in 1831-4, and it is not
known how faithfully this was done, but Winchcombe's
six-light windows in the Oxford Divinity School, which can be dated to
1424-39, are also very similar, considering they are also twice the
width. In any event, be this as it may, the aisle windows here at St.
Mary's, Bury St. Edmunds, are excellently proportioned, and consist of two,
two-light windows per bay in the clerestory, with split "Y"s and ogee
lights, and three-light windows in the N. and S. walls of the aisles, with
strong mullions, castellated transoms, subarcuated outer lights with little
quatrefoils in their heads, and two tiers of reticulation units above the
central lights, separated by latticed supertransoms. (See the glossary for
an explanation of these terms.) The W. windows are four-light
and the massive nave W. window is five-light, with the centre light wider
than the others and with three tiers of reticulation units. The
W. doorway has a square-headed niche on either side, and at the opposite
end of the nave, at the northeast and southeast angles, rood stair turrets
project above the roof to terminate in little crocketed spires.
Re-entering
the church to examine Layer's nave and aisles more fully, the arcades are
striking both for their height and length, for they are formed of an
exceptional ten bays, which extend the nave and aisles one bay west of the
tower, while the aisles are also wider than before the reconstruction, with
the result that the tower now protrudes into the second and third bays of
the N. aisle from the north. The single shafts attached to the arcade
piers to north and south, continue up between the spandrels of the arches to
meet the wall posts of the nave and aisle roofs, while further shafts
rise from the arch apices to separate the two clerestory windows in each
bay. This is
a noble, restrained and unified design, that may well have been the
prototype - either directly or indirectly - for Reginald Ely's nave at
Burwell in Cambridgeshire, and John Wastell's great naves at Great
St. Mary's Cambridge, Lavenham in this county, and Saffron
Walden in Essex, among other places. It is also a
design much enhanced by the single-hammerbeam nave roof
(illustrated left),
tentatively dated to 1444/5 by the figure on the westernmost
hammerbeam on either side, thought to represent King Henry VI, and by the penultimate figure,
believed to portray his queen, Margaret of Anjou, while the fact that she is holding
her crown rather than wearing it, is considered to be intended to show that
she was betrothed to Henry when the roof was constructed, but not yet
married to him. (Clive Paine, St. Mary's Bury St. Edmunds, Bury
St. Edmunds, Honey Hill Publishing, 2000, p.4.) The remaining
hammerbeams have attached angel figures, all of which, miraculously, appear
essentially original, and there are more angels set transversely in two
tiers on the cornice, carved figures on the wall posts (mostly depicting the apostles),
and dragons, birds and fish carved in the spandrels of the arched braces.
Pevsner considered this roof to be 'rightly famous' (Nikolaus Pevsner &
James Bettley, The Buildings of England: Suffolk West, New Haven &
London, Yale University Press, 2015, p. 138) and D.P. Mortlock
(The Popular Guide to Suffolk Churches, Cambridge, The Lutterworth Press, 1988,
p. 95),
'one of the finest fifteenth century roofs in England', which
is probably right, and it seems highly likely that it was designed by a
carpenter with whom
William Layer had worked at the abbey and/ or that the work was done under
Layer's supervision.
%20-%20bury%20st.%20edmunds,%20st.%20mary%203.jpg)
The N. porch (illustrated right) must be described
next as it was built with money left for it in 1440 by John Notyngham. It
communicates with the eighth bay of the N. aisle from the west, this very
easterly position having been determined partly by the position of the
northwest tower and partly by that of the church in relation to the abbey
precinct. It has three elaborate niches in the gable, a doorway with
an order of shafts and shields in encircled quatrefoils in the spandrels,
and two-light side windows featuring pairs of mouchettes and inverted
daggers inside Y-tracery, leading the church guide and D.P. Mortlock (but
not Pevsner) to assume they have been re-used from Decorated times.
That, however, is almost certainly a misinterpretation, based on an unwillingness to accept that such windows could
ever be constructed after c. 1350. The porch has a crocketed gable and
clasping polygonal buttresses that terminate in pinnacles in the form of
carved beasts, of which two more sit above the battlements at the back. It is possible that William Layer was the architect of this
also, but because he died in 1444, Simon
Clerk (fl. 1445 - d. 1489) has also been suggested as a
possibility, in spite of the fact that this excellent but rather florid work
does not fit easily with what is known of Clerk's apparent love of clean
lines and lack of fussiness elsewhere. (Cf.,
for example, the W. tower at St.
Peter & St. Paul's, Lavenham and see also the further
discussion of this important master mason under the entry for
St.
Nicholas's church, Denston.)
Simon Clerk is, however, the likely architect of the chapels
and
sanctuary (although John Forster, a pupil of Layer's, fl 1433-94, has
also been proposed), the latter being a one-bay
extension of the chancel to the
east. These parts of the church were
built with money left by Jankyn Smyth, who died in 1481. The chapel
and sanctuary windows to north and south (see
the N. chapel windows, right),
which are three-light like the aisle windows, are nevertheless narrower,
with two-centre lights and two
tiers of reticulation units above, with plain supertransoms between
the tiers and little sexfoils in the eyelets. The chapel E. windows in
the style of the nave aisles, appear to be the original aisle E. windows,
re-set. The chancel (sanctuary) E. window has four very wide lights
and supermullioned tracery. Internally, the four-bay chapel arcades
copy the nave arcades, albeit with suitably reduced dimensions, showing
Clerk's concern to preserve the unity of Layer's original scheme.
There is an arch across the chancel where it joins
the later sanctuary. The chancel roof is of wagon form, with fine
carvings on the bosses which include the chained swan of the House of Lancaster
and a fox preaching to chickens. It was restored in 1880 and again in
1968.
Roofs apart, the church contains little woodwork of real importance but
there are many monuments of note, including three mentioned by Rupert Gunnis
(Dictionary of British Sculptors: 1660-1851, London, The Abbey Library,
1951, pp. 125, 294-295 & 371), the first to to Lieutenant-Colonel Collier
(d. 1814) by Robert de Carle of Bury St. Edmunds (fl. 1788 - 1848), the
second to Thomas Bedingfield (d. 1764) by Thomas Paty of Bristol (1713-89), and the third to James Oakes (d. 1829) by William Steggles
(1767-1859). More important than these, however, are the tomb-chests
on either side of the chancel beneath the easternmost arcade
arches, that on the N. side featuring effigies of Sir William Carewe (d. 1501) and his wife,
Margaret (d. 1525), and that on the S. side with effigies of Sir Robert Drury
(d. 1536) and his wife, Anne. A brass in the S. chapel depicts Jankyn
Smyth and his wife.
Finally a note should be added about the restorations the church has
undergone, not least because the details are so well recorded. The
first was in 1844 by Lewis Cottingham
(1787-1847), who restored Rochester and Hereford Cathedrals and was
generally well regarded both in his lifetime and afterwards. His work
here included repairs to the nave roof and clerestory and the complete
external renewal of the W. front, at a total cost of £2,372.4s.0d.
Then came the restoration of 1867 by Sir Arthur
Blomfield (1829-99), who refitted
the building at a cost of £2,056.1s.6d and is thus responsible for the innocuous but indifferent nave
benches, characteristics which are evident in much of his work.
Finally, so far as the major work of the nineteenth century was concerned,
came the restoration of 1880, when the tracery in all the windows on the
south side of the church were renewed and the chancel roof was restored as
we have seen. The cost is unrecorded. Twentieth century work was
chiefly concerned with alterations to the woodwork, unavoidable masonry
repairs for structural reasons, and to cleaning, but the N. porch was
restored twice, in 1924 and 1993.