(field visits; photographs)
unknown < 1.55 metres wide > 1.55 metres wide medieval St Mary’s 1701 St Mary’s 1705-1811 Leighton, from 1853 old Ballaugh Llansantffraid before 1892 Bwlch-y-cibau, from1864 1540-1892/3
Kirk Malew new Ballaugh 1832-1893 1826 St Mary’s, after 1892 all dates
St Mark’s all dates Trelystan, from 1540 new Ballaugh, from 1892/3 1701 St Mary’s old Ballaugh, from 1892/3 Llansantffraid, from 1893 1811-1824
1826 St Mary’s until 1892
The removal of pulpits from central positions that hid chancels may have increased perceptions that chancels needed to be defined in other ways. At Leighton the narrow, high-ceilinged chancel was separated from the nave by a tall chancel arch that stretched from clerestory to ground level, perhaps illustrative of the considerable technical skills and related resources made available by its wealthy patron during its construction in the 1850s. The arrangements allowed full views of the grand architectural form and style of the chancel, nave, and contents that told more about Naylor’s power as an agent than of faithfulness to ecclesiological tenets.
Ecclesiological ideas were installed more faithfully in Bwlch-y-cibau, which was also constructed with a chancel arch between 1862 and 1864. However, no attempt was made in either of these Welsh buildings to replicate medieval forms by filling these arches with screens.
The new approach in the use of architects in these two builds was adopted in Man too, in the new Castletown chapel built in 1826, and the church built in
Ballaugh in 1832.
Despite the very different styles adopted, the initial internal arrangements between the chancels and naves in all these buildings did not evolve, but were planned. The austere Georgian arrangements perpetuated in the Castletown chapel in the context of the overly-enthusiastic ecclesiological style of the Leighton interior evidenced the very different actors involved, and the broad nature of Victorian Anglicanism.
Royal Arms
During Henry VIII’s reign the religious hierarchy attempted to change
congregational perceptions about Church governance by ordering that roods inside English churches be replaced by Royal Arms (Addleshaw and Etchells 1948: 35). Their activities were not always immediately successful. For instance, parishioners installed Arms into Holy Trinity in Dorchester considerably later, in 1616/17 (Underdown 1992: 40).
The Manx actively rejected centrally-prescribed edicts. Royal Arms were not installed into Manx parish churches until after the 1765 Revestment (Cubbon 1952: 231) when the Lordship of Man was transferred from the 3rd Duke of Atholl to the Crown. None were discovered in buildings that were not Crown livings. However,
the convention that Arms be displayed in parish churches rather than chapels-of-ease was challenged in the parish of Malew. The Castletown contingent of Malew
parishioners installed George III’s Arms into the Castletown chapel soon after 1765. That they were placed in 1701 St Mary’s Castletown to defer to the Crown as new Lord of Man, instead of into the parish church of Kirk Malew, suggested the chapel- of-ease was perceived as having precedence over its mother church. It may have been hoped that the new Lord of Man would be as active a patron as his forerunners in prioritizing the status of his chapel. The rapid deterioration of the building soon actively indicated that such hopes were in vain.
The dynamic response in Castletown to the change in Lordship of Man was not replicated elsewhere in the Island. The Arms displayed in St. Sanctain’s Parish Church in Santan near Castletown, and in new Ballaugh that both referred to William IV, reflected later parochial activity
.
Although Arms were sometimes modified to display monarchical succession, the apparently comparatively late installation of Arms in the rural parish churches, and the retention of early-nineteenth-century examples, reflected congregational inactivity in the context of changes in the Lordship of Man.Those who attended Kirk Malew did not challenge their fellow parishioners in Castletown. No evidence was found that Royal Arms were ever installed in Kirk Malew despite its status as parish church and Crown living. However, a surviving remnant of carved wood, clearly not in situ, depicting a small, simply-carved image of the Derby family’s insignia of an eagle’s claw, and another of the Island’s
symbolic three-legs-of-Man, noted by Feltham (1798: 263) ‘underneath the gallery’, and still displayed there, implied that civil authorities in Man had once actively tried to draw parishioners’ attention to the secular nature of changes in the governance of the Manx Church, possibly as part of the entrance into the chancel. The motifs were carved within a larger form implying part of a door-frame or opening. A similarly shaped, but closed-up door-head was discovered in St Astall’s Chapel in Chester Cathedral (field visit). Derby and Manx symbolism either side of a central entrance through the screen into the Kirk Malew chancel would have been visible to
parishioners occupying the west end of the building, despite the small size of the motifs, and edifyingly active. Religious authorities who allowed their installation must have realized that illiterate members of the congregation would recognize these
unwritten references to the Derbys. Their presence inside the church inferred ecclesiastical authorities recognized the authority of the Lordship of Man, supported by the absence of Royal Arms inside Manx churches until 1765. The Derbys were Lords of Man for most periods between 1521 and 1735 (Kniveton 1977: 177). Display of Derby symbolism within Kirk Malew fitted in with its status as parish church to Castletown, where the Lord of Man’s household was situated and the Insular government, Tynwald, met.
Even though there was always a post-Reformation chapel in Castletown with special relationships with Castle Rushen and Derby ruler-ship, officially each came under the care and governance of Kirk Malew, evidenced in related official
ecclesiastical paperwork which was produced at Kirk Malew, but not at the Castletown chapels until 1787/8 when the first visitation took place there (Ralfe 1926: 16). Relationships between the Castletown chapels and their parish church may have been more conventional until around 1701, when a new chapel was built. From 1704 its condition far outstripped that of Kirk Malew until after 1765 (Stott 2009, MNH VRs 1719, 1743, 1748, 1754, 1757, 1766). Prior to 1702 Derby
officials and the Castletown townspeople may have attended services at Kirk Malew sometimes. Many seventeenth century Castletown residents were baptised, married and buried there (MNH PR, Malew Mixed Registers).
The archway’s simple form and style suggested that woodcarving was not a thriving Manx pastime. It may have been shaped out of a piece of driftwood. The immediate post-Reformation period was one when wood was scarce in the Island, evidenced materially in the use of stones to support seating inside Kirk Malew in 1698 (MNH EPR), and by the paucity of early-modern wood within Manx churches. The age and source of the wood could not be discovered without resort to
dendrochronology studies which were beyond the resources available for this project. Anyway, results may have been inconclusive if the wood was from a Manx source, because of the lack of a complete dendrochonological record for the Island.
Roofs
Chancels were sometimes delineated at ceiling level. It is unknown what the roof at Trelystan was like in medieval times but there was ‘no cieling’ [sic] in 1792 (SA VR), so this was not an ecclesiological feature. The medieval beams and open roof
may never have been hidden from view, perhaps because its chapel-of-ease status was perceived of low priority, or because the building was remote, and resources to install a ceiling scarce. Transport of materials over ‘uneven ground’ (ibid.) would have been another difficulty. The building was a simple wooden structure until 1856 (Silvester and Frost 1999: 1). ‘No inhabitants of superior ranks’ attended services (SA VR 1792), which must have constrained access to funding. The absence of earlier visitation documentation implied hierarchical perceptions that this community was relatively insignificant. Only the nave furnishings and the east window were replaced in 1856, largely funded by incomer Naylor who focused instead on building a new church in Leighton. Although around 1800 the Trelystan congregation
numbered 320 (ibid.), they were never able to raise the funds necessary to renovate the chancel. The low status of their curate clergy surely contributed to continued use of more traditional arrangements in that locale. The curate’s and congregation’s lack of activity, confined by their shared low social and economic capital, was visible in the material culture inside this building (field visit).
The old Ballaugh roof that dated from 1849 (MNH DD, box 96) was likely to have been open since then. The eclectic style of furnishings and rope rail reflected lack of funding when this building was reopened for services in 1849. No nail marks were visible on the underside of the cross beams to denote the presence of an early ceiling. Although this seemed an unusually-modern feature inside a building where most arrangements were very traditional, as in Trelystan congregational activity was apparently limited by economic factors. By 1849 the Manx ecclesiastical hierarchy must have been aware of the new ecclesiological style. The roof in the new Ballaugh church built in 1832 was always open. Chancel was only defined from nave by colour at this height, implying that those involved did not consider form, or material delineation of chancel at roof level, as critical.
In contrast the over-enthusiastic exaggerated gothic-revivalist ideas expressed in Leighton where nave and chancel were clearly delineated were probably more about Naylor’s active display of his capital status than about ecclesiological paradigms that sought to differentiate those locales materially.
Llansantffraid-ym-Mechain’s roof was never opened up despite the more generally correct ecclesiological style of other arrangements that clearly-
differentiated chancel and nave. This division was also expressed in the ceiling. The suggestion was of a community that actively respected long passed-on memories.
This was also articulated in the retention of a number of old features like memorial plaques, and the names of early modern pew holders were retained and maintained. The activities of local agents with access to relevant resources were evident in the many high quality additions, renovations, and Llansantffraid-ym-Mechain’s large size. All probably mirrored a healthy local economy during the whole of the period studied.
A plaque in Kirk Malew recorded that the roof there was only opened-up in 1929 (field visit), long after limited ecclesiological changes were made. The late removal of the ceiling destroyed definition of chancel and nave at that level and implied a generally shared, and continued, conservative paradigm. The late date probably also reflected withdrawal of economic support from local businessmen once they purchased pews in the new chapel-of-ease that opened in Castletown in 1826.
Floors
Ecclesiatical authorities acted as agents in designating material activity by prescribing the condition, level and composition of floors, and delegating
responsibility for maintenance of the separate spaces suggested. The Cambridge Camden Society thought chancel and nave floor at the same level represented Puritan paradigms (Neale 1843a: 26).
Neither chancel nor nave floors of Kirk Malew were flagged in 1665 (MNH EPR), so the earth floors were probably at the same level. In the context of burials within both locales, it seemed more likely that this had long been the situation than that earlier floors had been removed and the floors levelled during the
Commonwealth. Prior to 1649 earth floors in chancels and naves probably reflected a combination of local economic circumstances, puritan ideas, and practicality for burials inside buildings. Bishop Barrow distinguished between the Kirk Malew chancel and nave when ordering the parson to flag the chancel floor (ibid.). Clearly he perceived responsibility for the two spaces as separate too. Either the allocated task was not carried out to a high standard or burials took place under the new floor. In 1758 it was still ‘ragged and uneven’ (MNH VR), so probably remained at the same level as the nave floor despite the continued focus by authorities on this feature, that indicated persistent hierarchical enthusiasm for the chancel floor to
reflect the sanctity and separateness of this locale. However, either successive incumbents did not have access to appropriate resources to fulfil hierarchical expectations, perhaps reflecting their reliance on the Lord of Man’s generosity, as impropriator, for their stipend, or actively avoided complying.
At the 1765 Revestment when the Island was sold to England, Castletown’s economy collapsed. The condition of the Castletown chapel deteriorated (MNH c.
1998) when the Lord of Man’s patronage of chancel and nave was withdrawn and transferred to the Crown, which remained inactive. Neither did the townspeople embrace more conventional congregational responsibility for the nave, probably reflecting collective lack of self-confidence, absence of strong lay ecclesiastical officials to direct activities and withdrawal of economic resources. Maintenance jobs many townspeople had enjoyed between 1705 and 1765 (Stott 2009) ceased abruptly.
Consequentially Kirk Malew regained its authority as parish church for a time. In 1780 parochial funding was redirected towards replacement of the old chancel (MNH EPR 1767; MNH VRs 1766, 1782), albeit at the same floor level as the nave (field visit). Apparently when ecclesiological changes were made at the end of the nineteenth century the Malew congregation successfully argued their case that this puritan value should prevail.
Other communities may have lacked the resources to make the recommended modifications (Table 23). For instance the Trelystan chancel floor was not raised when that interior was renovated in 1856. Definition of the chancel at floor level with inscribed gravestones that contrasted with the plain slabs in the nave did not reflect ecclesiological ideas faithfully but were probably all that lay within that congregation’s or its curate’s means at the time. Whether the new arrangements reflected shared witting puritan paradigms or the community’s relative isolation and lack of access to funding remained unclear. It seemed that in 1856 more emphasis was put on ensuring people had access to services locally than on replicating fashion statements from England and that this was acceptable to whoever granted the
prerequisite Faculty to renovate this chapel. Contemporary maintenance to the chapel’s structure (PR, Leighton 1856) implied that previously its condition had deteriorated markedly, probably because of lack of local patronage, as noted more than half a century earlier (SA VR 1792).
The Cambridge Camden Society wanted congregations to focus on altars. This implication of emphasizing altars rather than just the chancel as an especially sanctified place where the laity, including parish clerks, were to be discouraged from entering (Neale 1843b: 6) was evidenced in the continued presence of altar rails and that raised sanctuary floors were sometimes decorated differently from other chancel flooring.
This was visible in new Ballaugh, where a new tile pavement was laid in the sanctuary in 1892 (IOM Times 1893).
In Leighton the sanctuary floor was covered with ‘super-fine quality’ tiles donated by Minton (Anton-Stephens 1993: 10). The latter also implied the
gratefulness of the Minton management for the size of a commission that included enough tiles to cover the whole chancel and nave floors. However, both Leighton floors were so similarly tiled as to make any material activity that might have suggested a difference between locales too subtle for anyone except a tile expert to interpret.
The installation of encaustic floor tiles in chancels but not in naves encouraged by the Camden Society to emphasize the precedence of those locales
was only evident in new Ballaugh and Bwlch-y-cibau, so was not widely adopted in the churches and chapels studied (Table 24), although in Llansantffraid-ym-Mechain the chancel floor was covered in marble c. 1892 to replicate an earlier Wren London fashion. This floor actively relayed the same message, as well as reflecting the considerable economic resources available to this community.
In all the Manx buildings considered, the chancel floors remained level with those in their naves. In both Ballaugh churches pulpit and lectern lay well within each chancel from at least the end of the nineteenth century. When choir stalls were installed around 1920 into 1826 St Mary’s Castletown, they lay west of the pulpit. Most material activity in telling Manx congregations to consider a particular space as sacred was at the sanctuary arch in new Ballaugh and St Mark’s, and at the raised altar rails in old Ballaugh and 1832 St Mary’s Castletown.
In Kirk Malew, where the chancel was filled with box pews and the nave and north transept with long pews, definition of the chancel was clearer in the seating arrangements, which were surely more active in teaching those present of
perpetuated social differences than of a changed liturgical focus. Taken together, variations of arrangements noted reflected the broadness of Anglican governance in
Table 23:
Table 24: