Guest 696- Registered: 31 Mar 2010
- Posts: 8,115
#1
Today I came in temporary possession of a special book printed in 1864, about the Church at the Castle. The author carried out excavations prior to the renovation, and it seems a lot of his findings are unknown! I'll be carefully studying the book.
Guest 700- Registered: 11 Jun 2010
- Posts: 2,868
#2
Castle church ruin about 1860
Castle church between 1860 and 1880:
---------------------------------------------------
Lincolnshire Born and Bred
howard mcsweeney1- Location: Dover
- Registered: 12 Mar 2008
- Posts: 62,352
#3
wasn't that about the time that someone came in to renovate it?
it had been turned into a coal storehouse i believe.
Guest 700- Registered: 11 Jun 2010
- Posts: 2,868
#4
John Bavington-Jones says in his Dover book:
"This church fell into ruins about the close of the Stuart period, and was restored by Sir Gilbert Scott in 1860. The bells of this church were hung in the Pharos tower; but when it ceased to be used, they were given to a church at Portsmouth, from which originated the saying that the bells of Dover Castle could be heard at Portsmouth."
so yes, the Castle Church picture above, would be just before its restoration in 1860.
---------------------------------------------------
Lincolnshire Born and Bred
Guest 657- Registered: 13 Mar 2008
- Posts: 3,037
#5
Interesting, I love those old photos.
Guest 651- Registered: 12 Mar 2008
- Posts: 5,673
#6
You must be talking about The Church and Fortress of Dover Castle bu the Rev John Puckle ? Nice little book that one.
Here is another nice old pre-restoration one:
Been nice knowing you :)
Guest 653- Registered: 13 Mar 2008
- Posts: 10,540
#7
It's a beautiful Church inside too; interesting to see the ruins before restoration.
I thought that once a building is in such a ruinous state, no one would put it back together again - glad they did though.
There are many ruined churches and such-like around the country that would have been fantastic to be brought back to life, but I'm sure the cost would be prohibitive.
Glad this one was.
Roger
Guest 696- Registered: 31 Mar 2010
- Posts: 8,115
#8
So you read it, Paul! That's the one I am studying, got it for three weeks, it's a gold-mine of informatiom, and the real clue to it all is that the said Reverend was allowed by the Minister of War to carry out an examination of the foundations during and after their clearence from centuries of debris, and prior to restoration.
Thus he, and the group of archaeologists working with him, came to conclusions based on historic and archaeological knowledge, that would be hard to ascertain now without breaking the masonery. Having studied the Church's foundations, as well as the masonery standing on the foundations, he gives a light that is different to the semi-official version concerning this same Church.
This kind of study is that what I love doing, researching into Church foundations!
i also found that the author has the same ideas as I don in many aspects concerning Religion and the origins of the English Church, of which I wrote an article on Suite 101. He also writes about the British Church prior to the English, and exactly on this I had intended carrying out my next research, and so I doubly find his book interesting!
This Church, to all forumites interested, is unique in Britain!
Guest 696- Registered: 31 Mar 2010
- Posts: 8,115
#9
I meant to say I got it yesterday for a period of three weeks.
Guest 651- Registered: 12 Mar 2008
- Posts: 5,673
#10
I read it and I have it Alexander
Unfortunately they know a lot more now than they did about archaeology in the 1850s - they tended to remove stuff in it's entirity rather than leave it in situ for later developments
Another document you should get hold of is "English Heritage Historical Review, Volume 2, 2007" as that writes of various excavations including 1915 and 1929
Been nice knowing you :)
Guest 700- Registered: 11 Jun 2010
- Posts: 2,868
#11
On your photo Paul there appear to be several white (chalk?) mounds? near the church and pharos.
On our photo these mounds would appear to have 'grassed over' but are still there.
Could the mounds be some sort of excavation work, perhaps from tunnels, or maybe spoil from inside the ruin prior to rebuilding perhaps..
---------------------------------------------------
Lincolnshire Born and Bred
Guest 651- Registered: 12 Mar 2008
- Posts: 5,673
#12
No sure Kath, I have always assumed it is chalk from the early excavations. It is from an old glass slide
Been nice knowing you :)
Guest 700- Registered: 11 Jun 2010
- Posts: 2,868
#13
I think our scan was also taken from an old glass plate negative.
---------------------------------------------------
Lincolnshire Born and Bred
howard mcsweeney1- Location: Dover
- Registered: 12 Mar 2008
- Posts: 62,352
#14
good to see you star in the express today kath.
together with bob of course.
Guest 657- Registered: 13 Mar 2008
- Posts: 3,037
#15
Oooh I love those old glass photographs. I have a few Victorian ons in my collection.
Guest 653- Registered: 13 Mar 2008
- Posts: 10,540
#16
Which one are you Jeane ? - ouch !!
Roger
Guest 657- Registered: 13 Mar 2008
- Posts: 3,037
#17
Roger.
Guest 696- Registered: 31 Mar 2010
- Posts: 8,115
#18
Kath, I can give you the answer fresh from reading almost all of the book published in 1864. What you see is not chalk, but centuries of debris! This also answers Paul's post concerning excavations. The first-class archaeologists who inspected everything that was uncovered by the workmen could not leave much in situ, as the whole Church was almost completely covered in debris, the floor lying nine feet under it! All what they carried away had nothing to do with pertaining to the Church, and they thourougly (how does one spell it!) inspected every stone and content of the debris. They then inspected everything they could of the walls and the foundations which were so carefully uncovered.
Kath, if you compare the mound you mentioned to what we see now, you will realise that it covers the walls and an entrance door, so it must be debris, namely, that part of it which at the time the photo was taken had still not been cleared up.
Guest 696- Registered: 31 Mar 2010
- Posts: 8,115
#19
Debris, here, does not mean bits of material from the Church, but scrap and waste and probably earth flung there over the centuries from about 1690 onwards!
Guest 696- Registered: 31 Mar 2010
- Posts: 8,115
#20
Paul, had they left the debris in situ then in the 1850,s, the debris would still be standing there now, and the Church under it! They did first-class work in that century of building new and renovating old churches here inBritain.
---------------------------------------------------
Been nice knowing you :)
