|

|
Thoroton Society excursion, Spring 1902: Costock
The small north window in the chancel, with its singular trefoiled head,
deserves attention. Somewhat similar windows are to be seen at S. Michael's,
Sutton Bonington. It is much to be regretted that the workmen in 1862,
contrary to orders, put a new surface to the masonry of this window,
and of the piscina. They also made a mistake in glazing the low side
window, which till 1862, had a glazed casement in the place of the old
wooden shutter, and hanging on the original hooks, which still remain.
The clamps at the corners of this low side window are more modern, and
held this casement in its place. The present glass ought to have been
placed in the same position. This particular low side window is mentioned
in Bloxham's book as having the original iron transoms. They have been
retained. The socket for the bolt of the shutter also remains. What these
low side windows were used for is, I think, still a mystery. Dr. Cox
won't hear of their being leper windows or confessionals, but thinks
they were used for ringing the sanctus bell through. They are generally
found in the same position as this one, but at Ludlow, I am told, there
is a singular passage at the back of the altar with a low side window,
and the present Rector of Sanford, when Curate there, was told by an
aged parishioner that "they used to ring a bell through that window." If
this is an ancient tradition in the parish it would confirm Dr. Cox's
story.1
During the restoration in 1862 a very perfect Nuremberg token was found.
These tokens, I believe, were not actually coins, but cheques given to
the workmen to show that they were entitled to so much money. A silver
coin was found in the churchyard in the late Rector's time, which was
pronounced by the Curator of the Coin Department of the British Museum,
to be Indian, and of the 16th century. How did it get there? Was it buried
with some corpse? These coins, together with the ancient key of the church
are in my possession.
With regard to the outside of the church, the west wall was blank, with
no west window. It had evidently been built at a comparatively recent
date, of old materials, some old flooring tiles, still visible, being
used where the stones are not so thick as others in the same course.
There is reason to believe that the whole of this west wall, or at least
the part above the plinth, was built some time in the 17th century, possibly
in 1656.
Godfrey states, that "on the 8 of May, 1553, the Church Goods Commissioners
placed in the custody of Nycolas Walker, Parson, and the Churchwardens
of Curtelyngstok on Challes and a patent Parcell gylte for the Admynystration
of the holye Comunio', as also two Bellys off on accorde the one thereoff
beyng broken hangyng in the stepull." Does the word "stepull" here
mean a tower, or a bell gable similar to those so common in the neighbouring
county of Rutland? Examples were to be found in this immediate neighbourhood
at Sutton S. Ann's, West Leake, and on the old church at Kingston. Such
a bell gable would seem more appropriate to so small a church, but Scott
thought there might have been a small tower, similar to that at Hoton.
The greater part of this wall was taken down by him, and two or three
stones, apparently parts of battlements, were found. This favours the
idea that there was once a tower, but we searched for foundations in
vain.
The present west window was inserted by Scott. The south window is new,
but a facsimile of the old one.
The roofing is of Swithland slabs, so suitable for a church roof. When
these were stripped off in 1862 among the red ridge-tiles were found
two or three that were glazed, and had evidently had slight crockets.
They were perhaps as old as any part of the church.
I would next speak of the south wall of the chancel. Sir Gilbert Scott
greatly admired the beautiful proportions of this part of the church,
and I think I may be excused for calling special attention to its many
beauties and interesting features. Its low side window, its string course
rising from one level to another, its very fine square-headed decorated
windows with their unusually thick tracery, its founder's tomb (if it
is right to call it a founder's tomb), so rarely found in the external
wall. Indeed, I think I am right in saying that so many interesting features
are rarely found in so few yards of masonry.
 |
|
Costock.
|
The effigy under the canopy is evidently that of an ecclesiastic ; the
chasuble, stole and other vestments being visible. It is dreadfully mutilated
and worn away. A public footpath formerly passed in front of it, and
it seems to have been used as a play place for children. There is a trace
of what might at first sight be taken for a pastoral staff, but it is
hardly in the right position. Can it have formed part of a canopy over
the head of the effigy? Godfrey suggests that the tomb is that of John
de Langton, who left directions in his will, dated Christmas, 1345, that
he should be buried "in the churchyard." Would this
account for its being in the external wall? If, however, the present
church was not built till 1360 it can scarcely be the tomb of John de
Langton.
Attention should be given to the two very singular crosses on one of
the coigns of the nave wall. Bloxham, who visited this church before
he wrote his book, and again in 1868, could give no satisfactory account
of these crosses, but thought they might have formed part of a sepulchral
monument. Scott thought they might have formed part of a churchyard cross.
The late Mr. Manning, of Diss, thought that they dated from the 9th or
10th century, and suggests that if the stone were removed another cross
might be found on the other side of it. He published an account of them
in the Illustrated Church News and in the Antiquary. He says the pattern "is
of decided Irish design, and much resembles one engraved on the tomb
of Daniel in the early cemetery of Irish Christians, at Clonmacnois." He
thought that these crosses, and other similar carved stones in different
parts of England, serve to prove that the English Church was derived
from Ireland rather than from Rome. A great puzzle with regard to the
date of these crosses is that there is a small and faint copy of them
on the stone below; but the design (see illustration) seems to have been
cut on both these stones before they were placed in their present position.
In the masonry of the south wall the stones of the chancel are not of
the same size as those in the nave, as if they were not built at the
same date; and yet the whole of the ancient part appears to belong to
the second half of the Decorated period. Unlike most of our churches,
no addition seems to have been made in the 15th century. All through
the turbulent times of the Wars of the Roses the work of church building
and enlarging was carried on. The peaceful clink of the builder's trowel,
and the stroke of the mason's mallet were to be heard throughout the
length and breadth of England. But in this little church the work was
considered complete, and no addition was made till the building of the
present aisle in 1848. The porch, I believe, was added in 1849.
I would add that Richard Barnard lies buried in the chancel. He was
Rector here from 1768 to 1783. He was one of the founders and the first
secretary of the Nottingham Clergy Widows and Orphans Charity—one of
the oldest charities in the county.
A few months ago a singular discovery was made in the churchyard. In
digging a grave a mass of burnt earth, about the size of a man's head,
was found at a depth of about three feet. It contained flint stones of
considerable size, so thoroughly burnt that they crumbled at a touch.
I would suggest that they were buried in a basket or other receptacle
that had disappeared through decay. But why were they so buried?
The two old manor houses in the village are well worth a visit, and
Mr. Bagnall-Wild wishes me to say that he will be glad to show them to
any members who may wish to see them. During the Civil War the Leaks,
mentioned by Mrs. Hutchinson as among "the leper gentry," lived
in the one to the east of the church, and could have seen from their
upper windows the defeat of their party in the skirmish mentioned in
Bailey's Annals of Nottinghamshire.
<Previous | Next>
|