The early C12 chancel arch is the oldest remaining part of a once cruciform church, begun around 1080.  Four bays of the nave of c1160-80 are the main survival, with work of a high order.  The tower is later C16.  A small C18 chancel was altered in the C19.

Steyning was a major town in early Sussex, though the rape of Bramber, of which it was effectively the head, was named after the adjacent castle.  It was an equally important ecclesiastical centre and the legend of St Cuthman, who was conceivably of royal blood and wheeled his mother there from Chidham or the nearby Bosham and founded a church, may show the direction in which Christianity spread in Sussex.  Cuthman probably lived in the late C7 or early C8, though the legend is not found before the late C9 and the earliest reference to a wheelbarrow only dates from c1100.  John Blair suggests from a description of Cuthman’s church that it was like a stave church in Norway (1 p179).  It enjoyed royal favour and was probably a minster, for Alfred the Great’s father Ethelwulf was buried here in 858.  In addition, the town was the seat of a mint from late pre-Conquest times.  The church is away from the present centre, but before the High Street developed, in the late C12 at the earliest (3 p143), the centre was probably immediately south of the church. 

About 1047 Edward the Confessor gave church and manor to the Norman abbey of Fécamp (VCH 2 p122), though it may not have gained possession until after the Conquest.  At all events, it is described as the holder of both in Domesday Book (5, 2), which also lists a second church.  Steyning was the centre of Fécamp’s English estates with a small college of secular canons.  This had gone by around 1260 (VCH 6(1) p241), though the abbey kept the advowson until the dispossession of the alien houses in 1414.  The advowson was then granted to the royal foundation of Syon (ibid p227), though it appears not to have taken possession of it until 1461 (10 p12).

Most of the nave and the western crossing arch survive from the large cruciform church, almost certainly built under the auspices of the abbot of Fécamp and consecrated in 1103, when little or nothing would have been built beyond the eastern parts.  Confirmation of the groundplan came with the discovery of the foundations of the south transept in 1851.  One oddity is that the church is built very close to the eastern edge of the churchyard, leading David Parsons to suggest that there might have been a second church to the west of the present one (8 p7), probably that mentioned in Domesday Book; this was a not uncommon arrangement.  Excavation could well provide the answer.

The picture at Steyning is complicated by the disappearance of everything east of the crossing arch, but as this is the earliest surviving feature of the present church, it is likely that building started at the east end.  The cushion capitals of the arch show it dates from c1100 and there is restrained chevron moulding on the inner order of the head.  The arch from the south aisle into the transept is of the same date.  Its triple-shaft responds also have shallow cushion capitals, carved with scallops and lions surrounded by foliage.  Both orders of the head are heavily roll-moulded and have been linked to those at Bosham and Clayton (8 ibid) though these are surely earlier in date (perhaps the 1070s).  The arch to the north is simpler, with single shafts and capitals with volutes and primitive foliage.  On its east side are more chevrons.  David Parsons postulates a complete crossing with tower (Ibid p6), though on the analogy of New Shoreham he suggests that the arches into the transepts may have been smaller.

Assuming building started at the east end, it is likely that the choir was under way by the 1080s at the latest, which would accord with the known date of consecration.  Its form is conjectural, though because of the fall of the land, it must have stood on a crypt, possibly to house the remains of St Cuthman (5 p26).  Johnston (6 p153) postulated a triple east end with side-chapels, presumably by analogy with elsewhere.  The east responds of the nave arcades were necessarily built with the crossing and have similar triple responds with scallop and big leaf capitals.  The aisle walls may also have been started - a shaft by a square-headed opening to the north inside may belong to the rere-arch of a window (10 p8).   Finally, there is what appears to be a head-corbel which has been set into the gable of the south porch above the date plaque of 1766 which records alterations.  The head is of older style than the corbel-tables of the nave (see below) and it has been suggested (www.crsbi.ac.uk retrieved on 22/4/2013) that it comes from the lost east parts.

There was then a pause until the mid-C12, when the nave was begun in earnest.  It probably had six bays (4 p212) and a break in the masonry after the third bay of the south clerestory from the east may mark a further pause.  On the south side a shallow pilaster with shafts and scallop capitals is certainly mid-C12. The clerestory windows differ externally each side.  The south ones have shafts and double roll-mouldings on the heads, connected by a thin string-course, but vary from east to west.  The east ones have scallop and volute capitals and one has billetwork on the string-course linking the heads, whereas the fourth and now final one has a hollow-chamfer and trumpet-scallop and waterleaf capitals, a late C12 form. The north windows are plainer, but it is more likely that less trouble was taken over the side away from the town than that they were altered later, as Nairn suggests (BE p339).  This is borne out by the corbel-table, which is also more elaborate to the south with heads and grotesques.  Many are decayed, but one with its hand in its mouth may have sexual connotations (9 p251).  A small C12 north aisle window above a blocked doorway has chevrons on the head.  The other windows are later but well pre-C19 (see below) and Sarah Leigh has found a drawing of 1807 by John Carter which shows three C12 windows in the north aisle.  She is almost certainly correct in concluding that Carter drew what was not there; possibly he did not produce the finished drawing until 1811 and his memory was at fault. 

The head of the south doorway has what can best be described as rounded chevrons and this is a harbinger of the extraordinary arcades, which show the breaking up of accepted Romanesque form.  Only four bays remain – the present west responds are complete piers set in the C16 west wall – but hardly any arches or capitals are the same, though the thick, plain round piers are more conventional.  Most arches have three-dimensional chevrons on their heads.  The south east arch and the second one from the east on the north side also have chevrons on the soffits, the north east one has three roll-mouldings and the second from the east on the south side has big zigzags.  The third arches on both sides are similar, with a plain inner order; to the south this is decorated with a kind of arrow motif.  Most extreme and built last, is the fourth arch on the south side with a scalloped soffit.  The plainer one opposite may be unfinished.  Such a lack of uniformity has baffled many later authorities, but Thurlby and Kusaba cite examples of contemporary approval of aesthetic variety (11 p163) (a rather later instance in Sussex is the choir of New Shoreham), and there are sufficient similarities of detail throughout to make it unlikely that there was any break in building, other perhaps than that indicated by the break in the clerestory already noted.  Though nothing is known of the form of the missing western bays or the west wall, it is likely that the whole project was probably finished by c1180 or soon after.

The capitals are decorated with variations on leaf and scallop motifs; some are profusely carved like lace.  Thurlby and Kusaba note similarities with those at the east end of St Cross, Winchester (ibid p169).  The arcades are pulled together by labels with rosettes and there are larger ones on two of the north spandrels.  The clerestory inside is built above string-courses with rounded embattled mouldings and is mostly uniform both sides; three deep vertical grooves separate each bay.  As outside, the fourth bay to the south shows some changes, with a plain string-course below the opening and a hollow-chamfer on that linking the heads.  The lower parts of the deep windows are blocked by the aisle roofs.  There are double shafts on the north side, as this was the first to be seen on entry.

In the C15, well after the church became parochial, a moulded north doorway (now blocked) and new aisle windows with depressed or segmental heads were inserted, two of the latter to the south and one to the north.  Above the doorway some voussoirs decorated with chevrons remain of its mid-C12 predecessor.  The big south porch with a moulded arch in a square frame is of the same date.  Though it has lost the internal floor, it was originally two-storeyed with a niche above the arch.   On the analogy of C15 two-storeyed porches elsewhere (e g Mayfield, East Sussex), the upper walls are likely to have been higher with an almost flat roof behind a parapet, rather than the present gable.

Alterations between the C16 and the C18 are well recorded, thanks to documentary references and dates on the walls.  By 1578 everything east of the western crossing arch was ruinous and could have been so before the Reformation, for the church was needlessly large for parochial use.  Soon afterwards the choir, transepts and two west bays of the nave were removed.  There is no evidence that anything in the present chancel predates the mid-C18, but there may have been one from this time, of which some walling could have survived.  It might have been linked to the rooms on the site of the transepts as these have C16 or C17 square windows, which may be reset; there is a similar one in the north wall of the aisle near its eastern end.  A west tower was built of flint and stone chequer, with plain details, a parapet and squat pyramid.  As built, the tower arch was plain and round-headed (6 p153) and above a round-headed opening in the west wall are some re-used C12 stones, carved with chevrons.  The opening now contains a C19 window in place of a three-light square-headed one shown by Quartermain ((W) p202).  A C15 one was reset in the new west wall of the north aisle.

Work appears to have been complete by 1636 (8 p6), so the date 1684 on the west side of the tower must refer to repairs. The next certain date was 1766, when as a date on the porch records, this was altered, probably to its present appearance and at the same time the south aisle was refaced.  Less certain is the date of the present chancel.  Steer provides the date of 1750 or 1760 for its construction without explanation (10 p12), whilst Butler gives only 1760 (see 2).  Curiously, Steer identifies the work with the 10th Duke, who only inherited in 1777 and, furthermore, it was only his successor who acquired the advowson (with its accompanying obligations in respect of the chancel) as late as 1794, along with other interests in the town.  It seems most likely that whichever Duke commissioned work on the chancel (most probably the 11th) the purpose was to remodel an existing low structure shown in the Burrell Collection drawing (1781). This had a square headed five-light east window with a transom and would be compatible with a mid-C18 dating.  Horsfield (II p338) mentions a three-light traceried east window, which is likely to be linked with the known building of a taller east gable.  The construction of such a window would make sense in conjunction with the gable, since its dimensions would have required a taller east wall and thus roof. The evidence in favour of the 11th Duke is convincing, for his interest in mediaeval architecture was well known and in addition to the east window, the side-arches were probably his work (My thanks to Sarah Leigh for suggestions about about the genesis of the chancel).  The Duke was remodelling Arundel castle at around the same time and it is known that J Teasdale (ICBS), one of the architects working there, worked on the church in 1831; at an earlier date the arcades at Steying had been a model for some of the work on the castle (B 6 p330).  Any remodelling of the chancel must have been considerably earlier if it was done by the 11th Duke, since he had died in 1815, but it is possible that Teasdale or his father of the same name had earlier done this work.

Successive C19 architects strove to adapt what was left.  In 1831 Teasdale's work comprised the insertion of galleries and new pews and the brick opening in the east wall of the porch may be linked with the former.  By 1864, structural problems included cracks in the west crossing arch and repairs by G M Hills were costed at nearly £2000 (B 22 p673).  These took until 1869 and with further work the cost rose to £3284 (PP 125).  Hills remodelled (Johnston believed rebuilt (6 p153)) the chancel (B 27 p911) with C13-style details including lancets with three tall east ones, profuse marble shafting and other carving inside and new roofs.   Hills may also have inserted the present west window, since the glass it contains (see below) dates from 1870.  This suggests it cannot have formed part of the restoration of the tower in 1885, when the arch was replaced (6 ibid); there was also work costing £200 to the roof (CDK 1886 pt 2 p143).  The galleries of 1831 lasted until C E Clayton removed them in 1907 (CDG 166 (1907) p158) and re-ordered the chancel. 

Fittings and monuments

Door:  (Inner south door, now mounted on the wall) Though altered, this retains its original boards and at least one of the hinges, both of which have been dated to the mid-C12, though the sanctuary knocker appears later.
Font: C12 square marble bowl with zigzag ornamentation truncated at top and bottom, with a base and shafts of 1907 (CDG ibid).
Glass:
1.  (West window) J Hardman and Co, 1870 (Hardman index).
2.  (North aisle, first window) A L Moore, c1902 (signed).
3.  (South aisle, first and west and north aisle, second and third windows) Jones and Willis, 1909 (BN 97 p138).
4.  (South aisle, second window) C Whall, c1918 St Cuthman) (www.stainedglassrecords.org retrieved on 28/3/2013).
5.  (South aisle, east window) A Goodman, 1982 (signed).
6.  (East window) J Hardman and Co, 1864 (B 22 ibid).
7. (South porch, east window) L Ginnett, 1948, made by Warham Guild (www.stainedglassrecords.org retrieved on 28/3/2013).
8. (North aisle, east window) M Angus, Millennium window, 2000 (Artist's website).
Monuments:
1.  (South porch) Broken stone slab, traditionally said to be King Ethelwulf’s tomb, but probably C11 (Tweddle (ed) p82).
2.  A further complete one of the same period, found in the churchyard in 1938.  Both show the schematic outline of what David Parsons has suggested (in his contribution to the SAS conference on early mediaeval churches in Sussex on 14 May 2011) is a house, with two-dimensional hipped gables at each end.  Such tombs may be 'little houses of the dead' (see also Stedham and Chithurst) and are probably the product of a single workshop. 
Both had been used in later foundations.
Paintings: (Second column of north arcade) Nothing is visible of the paintings illustrated by Johnston (6 fig.3 and p161), which he dated to the late C12 or early C13.
Reredos: G M Hills, c1869 with painted tiles by W B Simpson and Co (B 27 ibid).
Royal Arms: (West wall) Painted, 1703.

Sources

1.  J Blair: Saint Cuthman, Steyning and Bosham, SAC 135 (1997) pp173-92
2.  A M Butler: Steyning, Sussex, 700-1913, Croydon 1913
3.  M Gardiner and C Greatorex: Archaeological Excavations in Steyning 1992-95, SAC 135 (1997) pp143-71
4.  W H Godfrey: St Andrew, Steyning, SNQ 4 (Aug 1931) pp210-12
5.  T P Hudson: Church of St Andrew, Steyning, AJ 142 (1985) pp26-27
6.  P M Johnston: Steyning Church, (1) SAC 57 (1915) pp149-61;  (2) Modified version in JBAA NS 20 (1914) pp275-84
7.  T Medland: Notices of the Early History of Steyning and its Church, SAC 5 (1852) pp111-26
8.  D Parsons: St Andrew and St Cuthman, Steyning, NFSHCT 2011 pp5-8
9.  J Pennington: An ‘Image of Lust’ on Steyning Church?, SAC 129 (1991) pp251-52
10. F W Steer: Guide to the Church of St Andrew, Steyning (Sussex churches No 24), 1960
11. M Thurlby and Y Kusaba: The Nave of St Andrew at Steyning:  A Study of Variety in Design in Twelfth Century Architecture in Great Britain, Gesta 30/2 (1991) pp163-77
12. E Turner: Steyning and Westgrinstead Churches etc, SAC 22 (1870) pp1-21

Plan

Measured plan by W H Godfrey in 10 plate II

Acknowledgements

1. My thanks to Josie Campbell for the photograph of the south side and to Richard Standing for the other colour ones.
2. I am grateful to Sarah Leigh for much information about both the history and architecture of the church.  Once her forthcoming guide is available, it will be possible to give her work credit in full.  Meanwhile, I should record in particular information she has given me about the aisle windows, the rebuilding(s) of the chancel and about James Teasdale.