Grims-Ditch type) starts from this South-Western side and can be traced for some distance over the hill towards Pimperne.

4. Knowlton-It is doubtful whether Knowlton was within the ancient outbounds of Cranborne Chase. The place names of the Perambulation are dubious here. But we may take the benefit of the doubt, for benefit it is, as it enables us to consider a most remarkable site. Nowhere else on Cranborne Chase, excepting in barrows, and specially in the disc barrows near Woodyates, do we find any earthwork expression of what is supposed to be prehistoric formular religion. Circles, either marked by stones or wrought in earth, are signs of the unknown reverence of our forefathers. Here, et Knowlton, we have four circular earthworks, only one of which, however, is still fairly perfect the others have been destroyed by cultivation. From the remnant that remains we cannot suppose that purposes of defence or of habitation, or of cattle enclosure, were the motives of the makers of these rings. The two apparently original entrances of the one perfect remaining circle are opposite each other. The wide ditch is on the inside. The bank is unusually broad and precise in its circle. There are no other earthworks of similar construction on Cranborne Chase, but in certain particulars they compare with the Rings at Thornborough Moor, near Ripon, and with Figsbury Ring near Salisbury (see "Earthwork of England," by Hadrian Allcroft). Within the area of this earthen circle stands the ivy-clad ruin of a little stone church. Without, these Knowlton circles are surrounded by barrows; but this site does not now appear as the barrow centre of the district, as Stonehenge is the barrow centre of Salisbury Plain. That distinction belongs to Oakley Down, below Pentridge, near Worbarrow, that was excavated by General Pitt Rivers.

A Reminiscence of

The late Rev. C. W. H. Dicker, R.D.,

(WITH PLATES),

And some Observations on Bloxworth

Church.

By the Rev. O. PICKARD-CAMBRIDGE, M.A., F.R.S.

I

CANNOT suppose that the following few lines

will be otherwise than acceptable to the members of our Field Club, the more especially as they relate to, probably, the last that our lamented member, the Rev. C. W. H. Dicker, ever did or wrote in connection with any work on our behalf. In order to make this intelligible to you, I must premise that Mr. Dicker (in his paper on The Normans of Dorset," Dors. Field Club Proceedings, Vol. XXXI., 1910, p. 125) mentions that Norman Porches are very rare; I only know of three in Dorset-Sherborne, Bloxworth, and Belchalwell." I wrote at once to Mr. Dicker that this was evidently a mistake so far as Bloxworth was concerned, where the church porch certainly was not Norman. In the short

66

correspondence that ensued Mr. Dicker acknowledged that he had not himself visited the church, and had been misinformed; but that he would shortly pay me a visit and inspect the church himself.*

Time went on, one thing and another delayed Mr. Dicker's kind intention, until in the afternoon of Thursday, August 22nd last, he paid me his long-promised visit (in company with the Rev. A. L. Helps, Vicar of Puddletown). I was unable to accompany him to my church, but he made a close and thorough inspection of it under the guidance of one of my sons. He had no time to give me a report on it at the moment; but on the following morning (Friday, August 23rd) wrote to me the result of his examination of several points of interest, including the Norman doorway. Saturday and Sunday, August 24th and 25th, intervened; and then early on Monday, August 26th, the sudden and lamentable catastrophe occurred in which we have to mourn his irreparable loss.

I feel sure that no one of us will under the circumstances object to enter into a little detail of what thus occupied Mr. Dicker's last scientific consideration. I therefore make no apology for quoting, almost verbatim, his letter to me, dated August 23rd, 1912. "Dear Mr. Pickard-Cambridge,— I was much interested in your church, and am very glad to "have seen it. The porch is particularly a good bit of Jacobean building; the architect has adopted a nice 14th "Century moulding in the outer arch-probably a copy of work in the older building. I am not sure that the lower stones of the jambs are not part of the original. The doorway is much more like a Norman Chancel Arch than a

66

* Mr. Dicker appears to have been unaware that the Field Club paid me a visit on Aug. 19th, 1886, when I pointed out that the only remaining portion of an original Norman Church was the Doorway.” See report of F. Club Proc., Vol. VII., p xxiv., 1886; also that in a paper on Bloxworth Church read at the meeting above mentioned and published Vol. VII., p. 99, this doorway is again remarked upon.