Architecture of Solitude: Cistercian Abbeys in Twelfth-Century England 0691040249, 9780691040240

Table of contents :
List of Figures ix
List of Plates xi
Abbreviations xv
Acknowledgments xvii
Preface xxi
1. A Way of Life in Search of an Architecture 3
2. The Earliest Architecture 23
3. The Colonization of the North 30
4. The Advent of Early Gothic 54
5. The Cistercian Church Transformed 69
6. Cistercian Architecture in the West Country 91
7. Conclusion 101
Catalog of Individual Houses 111
Appendixes
A. The Dissolution and After 157
B. The Builders of Cistercian Monasteries in England 165
C. Temporary Foundations: Twelfth-Century Cistercian Houses in England 173
Select Bibliography 175
Index 181
Plates 191

Citation preview

ARCHITECTURE OF SOLITUDE

ARCHITECTURE OF SOLITUDE Cistercian Abbeys

in Twelfth-Century England

PETER FERGUSSON

Copyright © 1984 by Princeton University Press Published by Princeton University Press, 41 William Street, Princeton, New Jersey 08540 In the United Kingdom: Princeton University Press, Guildford, Surrey All Rights Reserved Library of Congress Cataloging in Publication Data will be found on the last printed page of this book

ISBN 0-691-04024-9 This book has been composed in Linotron Garamond Clothbound editions of Princeton University Press books are printed on acid-free paper, and binding materials are chosen for strength and durability. Paperbacks, while satisfactory

for personal collections, are not usually suitable for library rebinding. , Printed in the United States of America by Princeton University Press Princeton, New Jersey

EPISCOPAL co WNIT SCHOOL Hepat CAMBRIDGE, MA 02138

FOR MY MOTHER,

| URSULA MABEL FERGUSSON AND IN MEMORY OF MY FATHER

ALFRED MILNTHORPE FERGUSSON

CONTENTS

LIST OF FIGURES 1X LIST OF PLATES x1 ABBREVIATIONS XV ACKNOWLEDGMENTS XVI

PREFACE : XX1

1. A Way of Life in Search of an Architecture 3 2. The Earliest Architecture 23 3. The Colonization of the North 30

4. The Advent of Early Gothic 54 5. The Cistercian Church Transformed 69

7. Conclusion 101

6. Cistercian Architecture in the West Country 91

CATALOG OF INDIVIDUAL HOUSES 111

A. The Dissolution and After 157 B. The Builders of Cistercian Monasteries in England 165 | Cistercian Houses in England 173 SELECT BIBLIOGRAPHY | 175 Appendixes

INDEX 181 PLATES 193 C. Temporary Foundations: Twelfth-Century

MAPS 11. Val Chrétien, nave (from LefévreCistercian monasteries in England in the Pontalis, L’Architecture religreuse

twelfth century. 2 {Paris, 1894}, pl. 91). 59

Northeastern France: Cistercian monasteries 12. Byland, plan. 74

FIGURES29). 75

and related twelfth-century standing 13. York Minster, plan of choir (from

churches 4 Clapham, English Romanesque, fig.

1. Charts of growth for twelfth-century T4. Morimond, plan of the church (from.

Cistercian houses in England. 17 Eydoux, “L’Abbatiale de Moreruela,

2. Filiations of twelfth-century Citeaux in de Nederlanden 5 {1954)). 77

: Cistercian monasteries in England. 21 15. Villard de soe Album, MS 3. Waverley, plan (based on Brakspear, 5 “Mlonhea, Ke 2 , aris, Waverley Abbey {London, 1905], 9). 26 ibuotheque Nationale. 79

4. Cistercian abbeys in the north of 16. Byland, reconstruction of south | England in relation to land over five transept (drawing by A. Glass). 80 hundred feet in elevation. 31 17. Dundrennan, reconstruction of north

5. Rievaulx, plan of twelfth-century transept (drawing by S. Bird). 83 church (from Clapham, English 18. Jervaulx, plan of east end (after Hope

Romanesque Architecture after the and B takspear » Jerv aulx Abbey, | Conquest {Oxford, 1934], fig. 26). 34 Yorkshire Archaeological Journal 21 |

6. Rievaulx, reconstruction of nave [191 r}). 85 (drawing by S. Bird). 39 19. Buildwas, plan (based on Department

+. Fountains, plan showing first and of the Environment plan in Buildwas

second church (courtesy of Dr. Abbey {London, 1937)). 92 G. Coppack). ye 20. Abbey Dore, plan of first church. 95

8. Fountains, schematic divisions in ar. Abpey Dore: plan of church as

church (based on Hope, “Fountains Coe oh IL. plan (from Roval a7

Abbey,” Yorkshire Archaeological 22.0 W0sgesnal’, pian (from aya

Journal 15 {1898-1899)). 4s Commission on Historical Monuments: 9. Furness, plan of remains (Department Essex 3 {London, 1922}, 166). | 121

of the Environment). 57 23. Sawley, plan of church and later choir to. Furness, reconstruction of north extension (from Harland, 1853). 145

transept. 59

PLATES |

Photographs are the author’s unless otherwise indicated.

1. Rievaulx, from south. 34. Fountains, capital, south aisle, c. 1152-

2. Rievaulx, nave looking east. II55. 3. Rievaulx, south aisle. 35. Byland, capital, lay brothers’ range, c. 4. Pontigny, south transept. 1155-1160. 5. Clermont, nave. 36. Jervaulx, capital, lay brothers’ range, c.

6. Fountains, from west. 1160.

7. Fountains, south transept. 37. Fountains, capital, parlor, c. 1160. 8. Clermont, south transept. 38. Fontenay, capital, chapter house, ¢. 1155. 9. Ourscamp, south transept (courtesy of 39. Fountains, galilee porch, ¢. 1160.

C. Bruzelius). 40. Kirkstall, nave, west doorway into

ro. Fountains, nave. cloister, ¢. 1160-1165.

11. Fountains, south aisle looking east. 41. Kirkstall, capital, lay brothers’ range, c.

12. Fountains, exterior south transept from 1160.

east. 42. Fountains, capital, chapter house interior,

13. Fountains, west doorway moldings. c. 1160s.

14. Fontenay, chapter house doorway. 43. Fountains, capital, chapter house

15. Trois Fontaines, west facade. doorway, ¢. 1160s.

16. Fontenay, nave looking east (courtesy of 44. Kirkstall, capital, from cloister, c. 1165

the Fogg Museum, Harvard). (illustrated by Bilson, “The Architecture 17. Clairvaux, engraving by Israel Sylvestre. of Kirkstall Abbey Church,” Publications of

18. Brinkburn, from southeast. the Thoresby Society 16 [1907], 132). 19. Kirkstall, from south. 45. Newminster, capital from cloister arcade 20. Kirkstall, south transept and choir. (reerected), ¢. 1170. 21. Kirkstall, choir vaults from crossing. 46. Stoneleigh, capital, chapter house, c.

22. Kirkstall, nave pier, base molding. 1165.

23. Kirkstall, southeast crossing pier. 47. Furness, nave looking east. 24. Kirkstall, north transept (courtesy of 48. Furness, south aisle, east bays.

K. Galbraith). 49. Furness, north transept.

25. Kirkstall, nave looking west. 50. Furness, northeast crossing pier.

26. Kirkstall, north aisle. 51. Furness, corbel northeast crossing pier. 27. Berteaucourt-les-Dames, nave looking 52. Furness, north transept chapel from east.

east. 53. Lillers, Collegiale St. Omer, nave.

28. Fontenay, chapter house (courtesy of the 54. Nouvion-le-Vineux, nave looking west.

Courtauld Institute of Art). 55. Durham, doorway of Bishop of Pudsey’s

29. Fountains, east guest house, drawing by Chapel (courtesy of Maurice H. Ridgway

George Cuitt. F.S.A.).

30. Kirkstall, west facade. 56. Furness, north transept doorway (courtesy 31. Lillers, Collegiale St. Omer, west facade. Department of the Environment Crown

32. Sawley, north transept. Copyright).

33. Clairvaux III, St. Bernard holding model 57. Calder, from northwest. of church (courtesy of the Musée des 58. Calder, west doorway.

Beaux Arts, Dijon). 59. Holmcultram, west doorway.

Xil _ PLATES 60. Holmcultram, nave looking west (courtesy 92. Rievaulx, refectory, inner wall, cloister

of Maurice H. Ridgway F.S.A.). end. 61. Roche, transepts. 93. Fountains, parlor, vaulting respond, 62. Roche, choir from east. 1160s. 63. Preuilly, choir. 94. Byland, south transept, arch respond, c.

64. Clermont, north transept, west wall. , II7O. 65. Preuilly, south transept. 95. Berzé-le-Sec, capital, nave, c. 1160. 66. Mortemer, north transept. 96. Dommartin, capital (from Enlart,

67. Acey, north transept and choir. Monuments religieux de l’architecture romane 68. Creil, St. Evremond, nave (destroyed) {Paris, 1895], pl. 82), c. 1165.

(courtesy of W. Clark). 97. Vaucelles, capital, chapter house, c. 1165.

looking west. 1165.

69. Gournay-en-Bray, Ste. Hildervert, nave 98. Fountains, capital, chapter house, c.

70. Bellefontaine, choir entrance. 99. Byland, capital, chapter house, c. 1170. 71. Kirkstead, south transept. 100. Byland, capital from nave pier (abbey

72. Kirkstead, south transept (from _museum), ¢. LI70s.

W. Stukeley, Itzmerarium curiosum {London, ro1. Dommartin, capital (from Enlart,

1724}, pl. 28). Monuments religieux de l’architecture romane,

73. Dundrennan, south transept. pl. 80), ¢. 1165.

74. Laon, St. Martin, nave looking west. 102. Furness, south aisle, west bay, vaulting

75. Roche, capital, north transept, 1170s. respond, ¢. II75. 76. Roche, capital, presbytery, 1180s. 103. Old Malton Priory, capital, south 77. Kirkstead, capital, south transept, vault transept, ¢. L175.

springer, I170s. 104. Jedburgh, pier capital, nave, c. 1175-

78. Byland, south transept, southeast angle. 1180.

79. Byland, south transept, southeast angle, 105. Byland, capital, west end of nave, c.

detail of clerestory. IIQO.

80. Byland, drawing attributed to Paul 106. Buildwas, view to east. Munn, view from northwest (courtesy of 107. Buildwas, south transept, east wall.

E. Friedman). 108. Buildwas, chapter house.

81. Byland, drawing after John Sell Cotman, 109. Forde, chapter house. view of south transept (courtesy of the 110. Bindon, chapter house, respond, north

Yale Center for British Art, Paul Mellon side.

Collection). 111. Buildwas, northwest crossing pier. 83. Pogny, nave. 113. Abbey Dore, exterior from southeast. 82. Ste. Marguerite-sur-Mer, nave. 112. Buildwas, nave looking west.

84. Byland, west end of nave. 114. Abbey Dore, north transept.

85. Byland, west facade. 115. Abbey Dore, south transept.

86. Tynemouth Priory, choir (courtesy of 116. Le Bourg-Dun, nave looking west.

K. Galbraith). 117. Abbey Dore, nave arch, east bay (courtesy

87. Jervaulx, nave, south door, west bay. of Dr. C. Wilson).

88. Jervaulx, south aisle, west bay. 118. Abbey Dore, nave, view from west. 89. Old Malton Priory, nave looking east. 119. Abbey Dore, nave elevation, east bay,

90. Ripon Cathedral, choir, north side view north side. to west (courtesy of K. Galbraith). 120. Abbey Dore, chevet exterior. 91. Ripon Cathedral, north transept, north 121. Abbey Dore, choir, north side, west bay. and east walls (courtesy of K. Galbraith). 122. Abbey Dore, choir view looking east.

PLATES X1il 123. Abbey Dore, chevet, south aisle looking of south transept arcade, ¢. 1170s

west. , (courtesy of N. Stratford).

north. 1180. east. ¢. L190.

124. Abbey Dore, ambulatory chapels looking 134. Abbey Dore, capital, nave pier, c. 1175125. Hereford Cathedral, lady chapel looking 135. Abbey Dore, capital, chevet, north aisle, 126. Buildwas, capital, chapter house, c. 1160. 136. Le Bourg-Dun, capital, nave, c. 1180s. 127. Buildwas, capital, southwest crossing 137. Mortemer, capital, west facade, center

pier, c. 11Gos. doorway, c. 1180.

128. Abbey Dore, nave, east bay, south side, c. 138. Combe, capital, chapter house, c. 1185-

1170s (courtesy of Dr. C. Wilson). L190.

129. Stoneleigh, former south transept chapel 139. Bindon, nave, north arcade as standing in

respond, ¢. 1160s. 1733 (from Buck and Buck, Antiquities of

130. Buildwas, crocket capital, west facade, England and Wales, vol. 2, no. 10

exterior, ¢. 1185. {London, 1735]).

131. Buildwas, vault departure capital, choir, 140. Meaux, buried remains as of 1970, view

¢. I1gO. from northeast (courtesy of the University

pier, c. 1170s. Collection).

132. Abbey Dore, capital, southeast crossing of Cambridge Aerial Photography 133. Abbey Dore, capital of soffit of east arch

ABBREVIATIONS AASRP Associated Architectural Societies Chart. S. J. McNulty, ed., The Chartulary

Reports and Papers of the Cistercian Abbey of St. Mary

AB Art Bulletin of Sallay in Craven, in Yorkshire AC Analecta Cisterciensia (formerly, Archaeological Soctety Record Sertes until 1965, Analecta sacri Ordinis 88 (1933); 90 (1934).

Cisterciensis) Chart. T. H. F. Salter, ed., The Thame

Ann. F. T. A. Beck, Annales Furnesienses Cartulary, in Oxfordshire Record

(London, 1844). Soctety 25 (1947); 26 (1948).

Ann. W. H. R. Luard, ed., Annales Chart. W. E. H. Fowler, ed., “Cartulary of monastic, Rolls Series 36, part 2 the Abbey of Old Warden,”

(London, 1865). Bedfordshive Historical Record Arch. Archaeologia Chron. LP. E. Venables, ed., Chronicon Ant. Jnl. The Antiquaries Journal Society Publications 13, (1930).

Arch. Ael. Archaeologia Aeliana abbatie de Parco Lude, Lincolnshire Arch. Camb. Archaeologia Cambrensis Record Society 1 (1891). Arch, Cant. Archaeologia Cantiana Chron. M. E. A. Bond, ed., Chronica , Arch, Jnl. Archaeological Journal monasterit de Melsa, Rolls Series ASOC Analecta sacri Ordinis Cisterciensis 43, parts 1-3 (London, 1866-

(changed in 1966, to Analecta 1868). Cisterctensia) Col. C. Collectanea Cisterciensia (formally, B. Mon. Bulletin Monumental until 1964, Collectanea Ordinis BoE Buildings of England Cisterciensium reformatorum) Cam. Soc. Camden Society CN Citeaux in de Nederlanden CCC Citeaux—commentarit cistercienses (changed in 1959 to Citeaux— (formerly, until 1958, Citeaux in commentarit cistercienses)

de Nederlanden) COCR Collectanea Ordinis cistercensium Chart. F. A. W. Crawley-Boevey, The reformatorum (changed in 1964 to Cartulary and Historical Notes of Collectanea Cisterciensia)

the Cistercian Abbey of Flaxley CR Calendar of Close Rolls Preserved in

(Exeter, 1887). the Public Record Offwe (London,

Chart. N. J. T. Fowler, ed., Chartularium 1902, and forward).

abbathiae de novo monasterio, The DoE Department of the Environment Publications of the Surtees Society Fund. K. E. J. Clark, ed., Fundacio

66 (Durham, 1876). abbathie de Kyrestall, Publications

Chart. R. J. C. Atkinson, ed., Cartularium of the Thoresby Society 4 (1895). abbathie de Rievalle, The L. and P. Letters and Papers, foreign and Publications of the Surtees Society Henry VIII — domestic, of the reign of Henry

83 (1887). VIII: Preserved in the Public Record

Chart. Ruf. C. J. Holdsworth, ed., Rufford Offwe, 32 vols. (London, 1862-

Charters, in Thoroton Society 1932). (1974); 32 (1980). Archaeological Association

Record Series 29 (1972); 30 Jnl. BAA Journal of the British

xvi ABBREVIATIONS Jnl. SAH Journal of the Society of Cisterciensis ab anno 1116 ad Architectural Historians annum 1786, 9 vols., Bibliothéque Jnl. WCI Journal of the Warburg and de la Revue d’histotve éccléstastique

Courtauld Institutes (Louvain, 1933-1941).

Med. Arch. Medieval Archaeology Trans. BGAS Transactions of the Bristol and

Mem. F. J. R. Walbran, ed., Memorials of Gloucester Archaeological Society

the Abbey of St. Mary of Trans.

Fountains, The Publications of the CWAAS Transactions of the Cumberland and

Surtees Society, 42 (1862); 67 Westmorland Antiquarian and

(1876). Archaeological Society

Mon. Angl. Sir William Dugdale, Monasticon Trans. ERAS Transactions of the East Riding

Anglicanum, 6 vols. (London, Antiquarian Soctety 1846 ed.). Trans. LCAS — Transactions of the Lancashire and Mon. Ebor. J. Burton, ed., Monasticon Cheshive Antiquarian Society Eboracense (York, 1758). Trans. RIBA — Transactions of the Royal Institute

PL J.-P. Migne, Patrologiae cursus of British Architects

completus, series latina, 221 vols. Trans. WNFC_ Transactions of the Woolhope

(Paris, 1844-1864). Naturalists Field Club

Proc. SAS Proceedings of the Somerset T. Soc. The Publications of the Thoresby

Archaeological and Natural History Society

Soctety VCH Victoria County History RCHM Royal Commission on Historical WANHM Wiltshire Archaeological and Monuments Natural History Magazine

S, Soc. Publications of the Surtees Society YA] Yorkshire Archaeological Journal

Statuta J. M. Canivez, ed., Statuta YASRS Yorkshire Archaeological Society

Capitulorum Generalium Ordinis Record Series

ACKNOWLEDGMENTS HE WRITING of this book was made possible of Exeter University; Mr. J. Hopkins of the Society

by a grant in 1978-1979 from the Howard of Antiquaries, London; Professor Walter Horn of Foundation and from the faculty research fund Berkeley; Mr. John James of Wyong; Dr. Peter of Wellesley College. I also gratefully acknowledge Kidson of the Courtauld Institute; Dr. T. Kinder additional financial support from Wellesley College of Scottsville; Professor Arnold Klukas of Oberlin for travel, the drawing of maps, and the preparing College; Professor B. Layman of Wellesley College;

of an index. Dr. Kevin Leddy of London; Lord Leigh of My first introduction to Cistercian architecture Stoneleigh Abbey; Professor Meredith Lillich of ,

came in Professor Eduard Sekler’s classes in the Syracuse University; Professor Carolyn Malone of School of Design at Harvard, and much of the vivid the University of Southern California; Mr. Robert interest generated by his teaching remains alive for C. Moeller III of Wayland, Mass.; Dr. Kenworth me. I am also deeply grateful to Professors James Moffett of Cambridge, Mass.; Sir Nikolaus Pevsner Ackerman and John Coolidge of the Fogg Museum, of London; Professor Colin Platt of the University Harvard, for their painstaking efforts to make an of Southampton; the late Mr. E.V.C. Plumptre; architectural historian of me. In putting together the late Mr. Stuart Rigold; Professor J.R.S. St.

the material for this book, I have been helped by Joseph of the University of Cambridge; Mr. A. D. | many people; some listened to my ideas (and often Saunders, Chief Inspector of Ancient Monuments corrected them), others gave me specific informa- and Historic Buildings of England; Mr. Gyde Sheption or kindly answered letters, a few slogged through herd of Ottawa; Dr. Roger Stalley of Trinity Colmurky drafts of chapters. I wish to thank Professors lege, Dublin; Professors Raymond Starr and Ann Maurice Beresford of the University of Leeds; Fran- Stehney of Wellesley College; Mr. Neil Stratford cois Bucher of the University of Florida; and Ma- of the British Museum; Father Chrysogonus Waddeline Caviness of Tufts; Mrs. Bridget Cherry of dell, O.C.S.O. of Gethsemani Abbey; Mr. F. B. The Buildings of England; Mr. John Cherry of the Watkins of Flaxley Abbey; Dr. Christopher Wilson British Museum; Professor William Clark of Queens of the University of Hull; Miss Joan Woodward of University, New York; Mrs. Nicola Coldstream of Oxford. My dog, Wyatt, would also like a mention; the University of Reading; Professor Michael Davis taking him for walks through the landscape of

of Mount Holyoke College; Mr. Peter Draper of Wellesley College has allowed me the time and Birkbeck College, University of London, and par- space to sort out scholarly issues that would have ticularly, for many helpful conversations and visits; otherwise remained compacted. Vice President Frances Fergusson of Bucknell Uni- I am particularly indebted to three colleagues in versity; for hospitality and much kindness, Miss Cistercian studies, though in acknowledging their Ruth Fergusson of Leeds; Dr. Eric Gee, formerly help I do not wish to implicate them in the book’s of the Royal Commission on Historical Monu- shortcomings. Professor David Walsh of the Uniments, York; Mr. R. Gilyard-Beer, formerly As- versity of Rochester spent many hours explaining sistant Chief Inspector of Ancient Monuments; Mr. the Bordesley excavations to me and kindly showed Alasdair Glass of London; Professor D. Greenway me through them (in the pouring rain). Dr. Glyn

of the Institute of Historical Research, the Uni- Coppack, Inspector of Ancient Monuments for versity of London; Miss Barbara Harbottle of the Southeast England most generously kept me fully University of Newcastle; Professor M. F. Hearn of informed on his recent excavations at Fountains. the University of Pittsburgh; Father S. F. Hockey He made three site visits in the north with me and of Quarr Abbey; Professor Christopher Holdsworth was ever willing to discuss scholarly issues. Pro-

XVI ACKNOWLEDGMENTS fessor Caroline Bruzelius of Duke University gave to have been part of its distinguished tradition. In me particular help at many stages of writing. She particular, I wish to thank the late Professor John improved a large number of my ideas, shared her McAndrew whose teaching and conversations helped unrivaled knowledge of the French Cistercian ab- me to learn a great deal about architecture; Probeys, and provided timely and gracious encourage- fessor Eugenia Janis for her interest and helpful

ment. criticism in a field of specialization far distant from At Princeton University Press Christine Ivusic her own; and Professor Lilian Armstrong for nuand Anna Mitchell made the production and design merous constant and long-standing kindnesses and of the book a graceful and learning experience. support. Through the various stages that transform a man- My greatest thanks go to Miss Katherine Galuscript into a book, I was most fortunate to have braith of Birkbeck College, University of London. as editor Miss Tam Curry. Her alert reading elim- Over nearly two decades I have learned much about inated many errors, and she made numerous 1m- medieval art in the north of England from her and provements to the text and other invaluable sug- have benefited greatly from her rigorous scholarly

gestions. standards. Not only has she shared ideas, read and My deep and abiding thanks go to the Depart- criticized drafts of certain chapters, sent me in search ment of Art at Wellesley College. During my as- of books and sources, but her unselfish interest in sociation with it I have received what can only be the project encouraged me to finish it.

described as a paid education—and I feel privileged WELLESLEY, 1981

“What is the reason,” at length Miss Wardour asked the Antiquary,

“why tradition has preserved to us such meagre accounts . . . of these stately edifices, raised with such expence of labor and taste, and whose owners were in their times personages of such awful power and importance? The meanest tower of a freebooting baron or squire who lived by his lance and broadsword is consecrated by its appropriate legend, and the shepherd will tell you with accuracy the names and feats of its inhabitants; but ask a countryman concerning these beautiful and extensive remains—these towers, these arches and buttresses and shafted windows, reared at such cost three words fill up his answer—“they were made by the monks lang syne.” —Sir Walter Scott, The Antiquary

PREFACE N THE LATE SUMMER of 1535 Thomas Crom- numbered communities of several hundred men.

It well’s commissioners rode out through the Eng- Nothing on this scale had ever before been atlish countryside to begin their examination of tempted. Giving form and expression to this exthe monasteries. Five years later more than eight pansion was the work of the Cistercians as builders. hundred religious institutions had been dissolved, Isolated and sometimes untamed sites rapidly betheir assets and goods appropriated by the king, came thriving building complexes, some extending Henry VII. The process of closure was erratic, over more than ten acres and dominated by churches crude, sometimes brutal, with visitations that in- of cathedral scale. Throughout the twelfth century cluded bullying and humiliating interrogations of the sounds of the masons working echoed across the communities. For the Cistercian order these the secluded valleys chosen by the order for its years saw more than four centuries of unbroken settlements. Although only a small proportion of monastic practice come to an end. As the monks this prodigious enterprise survives, the haunting were dispersed, the rhythms of work and worship beauty and superb craftsmanship of the remains that had shaped their buildings disappeared forever. document the great energies and high ideals that Where recently had stood church or cloister, warm- marked one of the most extraordinary phases of ing room or workshop, barns or guest house, there medieval history. now lay deserted and shattered ruins. It is these The simplicity and power of the early Cistercian skeletal remains, despoiled by man and weathered abbeys appeal greatly to modern tastes. Leading by time, that form the basis for this study of the architects of the twentieth century such as Le Cor-

order’s architecture in England. busier have drawn inspiration from them, and they Though less dramatic than their departure, the are visited yearly by tens of thousands.‘ Popular arrival of the Cistercians in England was marked interest has been matched by scholarly attention, by events unprecedented in that country’s religious and in recent years studies have appeared on the life. In little more than twenty years, between the abbeys in Denmark (1941), France (1947, 1979), early 1130s and 1150s, the Cistercians established Switzerland (1947, 1957), Spain (1954), Ireland or brought under their control forty-five monas- (1955-1960), Italy (1956, 1958, 1981), Germany teries, including Rievaulx and Fountains in York- (1957, 1973), Poland (1958), Sweden (1967), Belshire and Furness in Lancashire, which quickly gium (1971, 1975) and Greece (1979).? Conspic* Most notable was Le Corbusier’s interest in the twelfth- “L’Abbatiale de Moreruela et l’architecture des églises cistercentury abbey Le Thoronet (Var), which he studied in the ciennes d’Espagne,”” CN 5 (1954): 173-207. For Ireland, see course of forming the design for the Dominican house of Ste. H. G. Leask, Irish Churches and Monastic Buildings, 3 vols. Marie de la Tourette near Lyons. See M. Purdy, “Le Corbusier (Dundalk, 1955-1960). For Italy, see R. Wagner-Rieger, Die and the Theological Program,” in R. Walden, ed., The Open italienische Baukunst zu Beginn der Gotik, 2 vols. (Graz-Koln, Hand: Essays on Le Corbuster (Cambridge, MA, 1977), 286- 1956-1957); L. Fraccaro de Longhi, L’Architettura delle chiese

321. cistercienst italiane con particolare riferimento ad un gruppo omogeneo 2 See V. Lorenzen, De danske cistercienserklosters bygninghistorie dell’Italia settentrionale (Milan, 1958); and D. Negri, Adbazie

(Copenhagen, 1941). For France, see M. Aubert, L’Architecture cistercensi in Italia (Pistoia, 1981). For Germany, see H. Hahn, cistercienne en France, 2 vols. (Paris, 1947); and C. A. Bruzelius, Die friihe Kirchenbaukunst der Zisterzienser (Berlin, 1957); and “Cistercian High Gothic: The Abbey Church of Longpont and W. Kronig, Al/tenberg und die Baukunst der Zisterzienser (Bergisch the Architecture of the Cistercians in the Early Thirteenth Gladbach, 1973). For Poland, see Z. Swiechowski and J. ZachCentury,” AC 35 (1979): 1-204. For Switzerland, see J. Gant- watowicz, ‘“L’Architecture cistercienne en Pologne et ses liens ner, Kunstgeschichte der Schweiz, 2 vols. (Frauenfeld, 1947); and avec la France,” Nadbitka z biuletnyu historii stuki 20 (1958): F. Bucher, Notre Dame de Bonmont und die ersten Zisterzienser 139-73. For Sweden, see I. Swartling, “Cistercian Abbey Abteien der Schweiz (Bern, 1957). For Spain, see H. P. Eydoux, Churches in Sweden and the ‘Bernardine Plan,’” Nordisk

XXIi PREFACE uous by its absence is an up-to-date treatment of Edmund Sharpe departed from this monograph the English houses. In fact, more than a century approach. In handsome folio volumes like Archzhas passed since the publication of the sole book tectural Parallels he published comparative details, on them, Edmund Sharpe’s The Architecture of the of base moldings, for instance, from groups of CisCistercians.2 To some extent the lacuna is mislead- tercian and non-Cistercian buildings. This greatly

ing, however. Much has been written about the aided classification and dating and gave a broad history of individual houses in England, going all overview of the order’s architectural development, the way back to accounts by the monks themselves but the details were severed from their context in

long before the Dissolution. What is lacking is a the history of the building and, a more serious book that collects this scattered material and studies weakness, their manner of presentation rigidified it in the light of recent scholarship on architecture the architectural process. Arrayed like botanical and related historical matters like patronage, eco- specimens, the drawings form morphological senomics, and the complex growth of the order’s quences, and it is hard to resist seeing a determin-

legislation. ism as the progress of a plinth molding or string To define the goals of this study, three principal course is followed across the page.> Although no stages of scholarship on the architecture of the Cis- one knew Cistercian architecture better than Sharpe, tercians in England may be outlined. The first orig- his book on the subject, written late in his career, inated in the early nineteenth century in response is disappointing. Organized by building type, it to the curiosity of antiquarians and travelers about provides elliptical definitions of each monastic individual sites. It included descriptive guides, col- structure: the church, refectory, dormitory, kitchen. lections of measured drawings, reports of amateur Its thirty-seven brief pages do little justice either clearances, and scholarly monographs. Among the to the Cistercians or to Sharpe’s knowledge of their last were important books by Beck on Furness (1844), buildings.

Potter on Buildwas (1846), Guillaume on Netley The major change in Cistercian studies occurred (1848), Woodward on Bordesley (1866), Aveling around 1900, first in the work of William St. John on Roche (1870), and the superb work of Reeve on Hope (1854-1919), secretary of the Society of AnFountains (1892).+ These incorporated selections of tiquaries of London, and Sir Harold Brakspear (1870documents, broad narrative histories, lists of ab- 1934), an architect. Under their direction a series bots, catalogs of finds, and fine line engravings of of rapid excavations—eight sites were cleared and the remains. Analysis of the architecture was omit- findings published in just over a decade—greatly ted, however; what remained was presented and expanded the base on which knowledge of the or-

left to speak for itself. der’s buildings had previously rested.° Much of this Medeltid: Konsthistorska Studier Tilldgnade Armin Tuulse (Stock- 2 in 1876. The year following the publication of part 2 a fifty-

holm, 1967). For Belgium, see S. Brigode, “L’Abbaye de seven-page supplement was issued to be inserted between parts. Villers et V’'architecture cistercienne,” Revue des archéologues et In this, Sharpe gives brief descriptions of twenty-one abbeys

historiens d'art de Louvain 4 (1971): 117-40; and S. Brigode, in France, England, Germany, and Spain. ‘T’Architecture cistercienne en Belgique,” Azreavallis: Mé- 4 See catalog entries for full citations. langes historiques remis a l'occasion du neuvieme centenaive de l'abbaye 5 Sharpe’s work was preceded by Paley’s by two years, the

d'Orval (Liége, 1975), 237-45. For Greece, see B. K. Pana- latter including examples of Cistercian moldings (F. A. Paley, gopoulos, Cistercian and Mendicant Monasteries in Medieval Greece A Manual of Gothic Mouldings {London, 1844: new ed., 1845)).

(Chicago, 1979). Paley, a versatile and prolific author, makes convincing the The early body of this literature is reviewed by J. A. Schmoll, analogy between architectural history and natural history. He “Zisterzienser-Romanik: Kritische Gedanken zur jiingsten Lit- was also a classifier of wild flowering plants and published an

eratur,” Formositas Romanica (Basel, 1958), 153-80. Treat- important volume on the subject in 1860. For the English ments other than by national boundary have been far rarer. (and Continental) precursors of the study of architecture through Notable is the work of Hahn on the early churches, of Krénig detail, particularly Thomas Rickman, see P. Frankl, The Gothic: on the Romanesque and Gothic phases, and of Schneider on Literary Sources and Interpretations through Eight Centurtes (Prince-

subject topics: see above for Hahn and Kronig; A. Schneider ton, 1960), 506ff. et al., Die Cistercienser: Geschichte, Geist, Kunst (Cologne, 1974). 6 The sites, in order, were: Fountains (1898-1899), Furness 3 The book appeared in two parts: part 1 in 1874 and part (1899-1900), Stanley (1905), Waverley (1905), Beaulieu (1906),

PREFACE XXill work involved the simple clearance and exposure such as the Vuctorta County History and the Royal of walls rather than archaeology as it is understood Commission on Historical Monuments. There was as today. Hope and Brakspear established new stand- well the daunting authority of Bilson’s work; all ards of observation and accuracy, and their discov- the important questions seemed answered. But most eries provided a wealth of fresh, reliable informa- damaging, perhaps, was the halt of archaeological

tion. investigation, which under Hope and Brakspear The work of John Bilson, more important his- had opened up so much new material. A shift in torically, remedied the lack of synthesis in these ownership largely accounts for this. Whereas from separate studies of individual monuments. In two the Dissolution through the nineteenth century pioneering articles (1907, 1909) he transformed the monastic remains were privately owned, after World insular focus of the earlier scholarship.” An architect War I sites began passing into government hands: like Sharpe and Brakspear, Bilson brought an acute Rievaulx in 1918, Byland in 1921, Roche in 1921,

eye for detail and a rigorous knowledge of design Furness in 1923, Buildwas in 1925, Croxden in to bear on Cistercian architecture, but he also rec- 1936, Sawley in 1947, Kingswood in 1950, Cleeve ognized the international character of the order and in 1951, Rufford in 1959, Fountains in 1966, and the need to examine the early buildings in England Waverley in 1967. With three-quarters of the imin a European context. Bilson also established a portant sites guarded by the government Directorcomprehensive methodology disciplined by a pow- ate (now the Department of the Environment), reerful visual and intellectual control of the material. sponsibilities of maintenance and public presentation In one sense his publications brought to a close two preempted those of archaeology. Where work was decades of intensive scholarship on Cistercian ar- done, such as that by Sir Charles Peers, it took the chitecture in England, which by the outbreak of form of clearance and consolidation rather than full World War I was better studied than that of any investigation of the site.® Only in the past decade

other country. has the inactivity of the preceding fifty years given Thereafter, scholarly output declined. An entire way to promising new work.° generation was lost in the war, and in the postwar In the meantime, new initiative came from the years chauvinism in England and Europe discour- universities. Archaeologists based in universities aged broader investigation. In addition, available began work on five sites not owned by the Direcmanpower was directed toward large serial studies torate: Kirkstall (in 1950-1954, 1960-1964, 1980 Kirkstall (1907), Pipewell (1909), and Jervaulx (1911). Work itation of both studies is a leveling of distinctions between on a ninth, Coggeshall, was interrupted by the outbreak of buildings, a result of the stress on architectural detail in which war in 1914. Hope also contributed notes resulting from study parts of a building can be shown in a formal relationship to visits to Louth Park (1891), Byland (1896), and Rievaulx parts from other buildings, regardless of their relation to other

(1914); Brakspear to Hailes (1901) and Forde (1913). detailing and regardless of larger architectural qualities such 7 The first and less well known is “The Architecture of as massing, articulation, or the handling of space. Kirkstall Abbey Church, with Some General Remarks on the Bilson’s work bears comparison only with that of Rev. RobArchitecture of the Cistercians,” T. Soc. 16 (1907): 73-141. ert Willis (1800-1878), and the two men rank as England’s This issue of the journal was entirely devoted to Kirkstall, and greatest medieval architectural historians. For a bibliography Hope contributed the first seventy pages. With Bilson and of Bilson’s scholarly work, see A. H. Thompson, “John Bilson,” Hope both discussing the same building, their contrasting YAJ 36 (1944-1947): 253-59. methods emerge clearly. The second article, “The Architecture 8 Peers cleared Rievaulx and Byland and wrote the handof the Cistercians, with Special Reference to Some of their books on both abbeys. His influence on the appearance of sites Earlier Churches in England,” Arch. Jnl. 66 (1909): 185-280, in England under the care of the Directorate was far-reaching, reused much of the material in the first but adapted it for a a fact noted in his obituary, see Ant. Jnl. 33 (1953): 149-50.

wider audience (see 185 n. I). ° Concerning the study of the twelfth-century foundations, Like Sharpe and Brakspear, Bilson was also a practicing mention should be made of the work of Gilyard-Beer at Rufford architect. In one sense his approach is close to Sharpe’s, and in the mid-1950s and of the excavations of Coppack at Founmore than a third of each study is devoted to architectural tains from 1978 to 1981. See catalog entries for Rufford and

details arranged under categories. The intellectual range of Fountains. Bilson’s work puts it in a different class, however. One lim-

XXIV PREFACE and continuing), Newminster (1961-1963), Bor- introduction of Early Gothic particularly in the desley (1969 and continuing), Garendon (1969), north, and the impact on older and very different and Boxley (197 1-1972).'° With better techniques architectural traditions within the country. and far wider interests they have produced a mass Two difficulties face the historian of Cistercian of new material, as shown for instance by the four- architecture and condition the present approach. teen seasons at Bordesley under the direction of Long before the late 1530s many of the twelfthPhilip Rahtz of York University. In addition, ar- century buildings had been altered or replaced, and chitectural historians, again in universities, have following the traumatic events of the Dissolution reassessed the remains of the order’s buildings against destruction of the former monasteries was wide-

developments elsewhere in England and on the spread and thorough. Thus, basic to any study is

Continent. the reconstruction of the original form of the buildBroadly, then, three phases may be discerned in ings. Dating the buildings is equally difficult. None the scholarly literature, each of which has left of the churches can be dated by documents, and in impressions on attitudes and methodology. The first only one instance, at Fountains, has the sequence was dominated by architects such as Sharpe, Brak- of construction been satisfactorily worked out. Yet spear, and Bilson; the next, by the Directorate un- a clear, or at least a clearer, understanding of dates der men like Peers; the third and most recent, by must underlie attempts to discern the architectural archaeologists based in or trained by the universi- development and its relation to the order’s Contities, such as Rahtz, Lawrence Butler, and Glyn nental traditions. Coppack. For each phase the history of the Cister- Countering these difficulties are sizable advancians’ buildings means something different, both tages. Work on individual sites is greatly facilitated in what is singled out for discussion and in how it by past scholarship. Plentiful comparative material

is treated. comes from recent studies in Europe, crucial in The present study seeks to build on this sub- distinguishing local from international trends. And

stantial body of work. It begins by pulling together in England the material aspects of Cistercian culture for the first time the dispersed information from that bear on the architecture have been greatly elu-

all of the sites, a collection that in itself reveals cidated; for instance, farming and economics have more about the order’s architecture than might be been studied by Donkin and Waites; patronage and anticipated; evidence survives, in fact, for over half its effects on settlement, by Hill; monastic charters of the fifty twelfth-century foundations. But no of individual houses, by Holdsworth, Baker, Hockey,

investigation could be justified without addressing Denning, and others." broader matters like the overall pattern of devel- The chronological boundaries imposed on this opment of Cistercian architecture in England in the study can be justified on several grounds. Histortwelfth century, the relations between the groups ically, the twelfth century was the period of the of buildings in different parts of the country, the order’s greatest flowering. Fifty of the sixty-four sources from which new ideas came, the connections abbeys that it established in England in its fourto the houses in France, the part played in the hundred-year history were founded between 1128 tc For bibliographies, see catalog entries under individual east Yorkshire,” YAJ 40 (1959-1962): 627-56; B. Hill, Engsites. One should also mention the work of L.A.S. Butler of lish Cistercian Monasteries and their Patrons in the Twelfth Century

Leeds University on the Welsh houses (‘The Cistercians in (Urbana, 1968); C. J. Holdsworth, ed., Rafford Charters. ThoEngland and Wales: A Survey of Recent Archaeological Work, roton Society Record Series 29 (1972); 30 (1974); and 32 (1980); 1960-1980,” Studies in Cistercian Art and Architecture 1 {1982}: D. Baker, “The Genesis of Cistercian Chronicles in England:

88-101) and of R. A. Stalley of Trinity College Dublin on the The Foundation History of Fountains Abbey,” AC 25 (1969): Irish houses (Architecture and Sculpture in Ireland, 1150-1350 14-41; and pt. 2 in AC 31 (1975): 179-212; S. F. Hockey,

{Dublin, 1971)}). The Beaulieu Cartulary. Southampton Record Series 17 (Southampt« See R. A. Donkin, The Cistercians: Studies in the Geography ton, 1974); S. F. Hockey, Quarr Abbey and its Lands, 1132-

of Medieval England and Wales (Toronto, 1978); B. Waites, 1631 (Edinburgh, 1970); A. H. Denning, ed., The Sibton “The Monastic Grange as a factor in the Settlement of North- Estates, Suffolk Record Society 2 (1960).

PREFACE XXV and 1200. And although only one of a number of with lavish marble shafting and a spectacular hanreform movements to originate during the century dling of space and light that transformed the tight, and often outnumbered in their foundations by other dark east end of the Romanesque church. orders, the Cistercians eclipsed their rivals in the Because architecture embodies ideas, reflects size of their monasteries, in their rapid assembly identity, and gives physical form and expressive of estates, and in the immediate influence they meaning to values, a study devoted to Cistercian exercised on English ecclesiastical and political life. architecture during the order’s greatest historical As might be expected of an order led by Saint and spiritual period is self-justifying. Sensitivity to Bernard, the direction of their spiritual and secular architecture’s expressive power surfaces in Cisteraffairs throughout these years lay in the hands of cian writing and legislation in the twelfth century, great if decidedly strong personalities. They in- and it can also be inferred from the passionate atcluded two archbishops—Murdac of York (1147- tention given to planning and design in the order’s 1153) and Baldwin of Canterbury (1184-1190}— buildings. No other monastic movement showed and four saints—Wailliam of Rievaulx (died 1145), as great a preoccupation with architecture or imRobert of Newminster (died 1159), Waltheof of plicitly acknowledged the powerful nature of its Melrose (died 1159), and Ailred of Rievaulx (died art.

1167). The most important single building of the mon-

Decisive changes discernible around 1200 define astery, the church, becomes the focus of this study, the termination of this study. For the first fifty although adjacent buildings will be considered when years that the Cistercians were in England, their their histories shed light on dates, interpretation, architecture was marked by developments inde- or construction sequence. For the monks the church pendent of others in England; local influences were carried a profound significance; day after day modest. But in the last decades of the century and throughout their lives it formed the backdrop for particularly after 1200 much of this insularity was their most arduous and fulfilling work, the opus modified, and increasingly the order’s architecture Dez. Shaped by the monks, the church in turn fell under the influence of English High Gothic. helped define their own character and lives. More Style partly explains this, although often the changes than any other monastic structure, then, the church went beyond style and involved the character of stands as a witness to the order’s spiritual and temarchitecture. Another factor involved a shift in the poral ideals. pattern of patronage. Formerly, the local barons To believe that these ideals remained fixed after served as the monks’ patrons, but they were now their initial formulation, however, is to fail to grasp replaced in a number of important cases by the the living quality of twelfth-century monastic life,

king. At Beaulieu in Hampshire, established in its Openness to growth. As will be seen in the 1204, King John served as patron and an imme- following pages, the physical history of the English diate alteration in the scale, ambition, and the sources abbeys in these years, far from being lock step in of architecture can be discerned. Elsewhere, in older, its development, was one of frequent revision and existing foundations, architecture also assumed a adjustment. Seen in context, these fabric changes different character. In the south at Waverley, the register the passage of maturing concepts and new order’s first abbey in England, the smail early church needs; as such they parallel the continual augmenwas superseded by a vastly larger building begun tation that recent research has shown to characterize in 1203; and in the north at Fountains work started the documents of Cistercian government. in 1205 ona huge new choir and east chapel range,

ARCHITECTURE OF SOLITUDE

=a ia

‘

~ 7

LY

t

af &

«Zt Ful a?

7

roa

J! ® (NEWMINSTER

Vays Fitouncurrny ; DUNDRENNAN Durham CALDER e

JERVAULX U e RIEVAULX

FURNESS e

e@

*BYLAND

RUSHEN ev ork e ; SAWLEY FOUNTAINS

e

e MEAUX

KIRKSTALL S

‘, ROCHE, LOUTH PARK . 2. QSRUFFORD TANLAW Lincoln ® %

-) e “wo” e (74 . e KIRKSTEAD

COMBERMERE e © eREVESBY . ° CROXDEN

‘sy SWINESHEAD e ‘oseVAUDEYe s.

7 eeBE ‘4 e SIBTON Hereford e e TILTY ABBEY DORE e WOBURN 4 T . THAME ?

BUILDWASe@ a

/ MEREVALE® PIPEWELL SAWTRY

L" BORDESLEY Com e STONELEIGH a ¢ BIDDLESDEN WARDEN BRUERN e ® COGGESHALL

eo “ °oY Canterbury FLAXLEY & Gloucester °

INTERN*: 7 STRATFORD-LANGTHORNE ee e

mg] KINGSWOOD London

oft STANLEY BOXLEY, e

CLEEVE .,@ e e A ul, Exeter e, BINDON COP vrs e

e WAVERLEY

Salisbury ROBERTSBRIDGE

FORDE

BUCKFAST e

\

, Oo I0 20 100 Statute Miles SS ee a ce || 01020 100 150 Kilometers

Cistercian monasteries in England in the twelfth century.

A Way of Life In Search of an Architecture SITUATED IN secluded valleys whose wooded slopes only one of a number of such movements, which rise to form an enclosure of nature that echoes the sought a renewal of monastic life. Abandoning Mo-

man-made walls within them, the abbeys of the lesme, the twenty-one monks led by Abbot Robert Cistercians rest in a compelling harmony with their settled a site on swampy land at Citeaux, fourteen surroundings. Basic to this harmony and a defining miles south of Dijon.? They called their new comfeature of their buildings is a pervasive simplicity munity simply the monasterium novum and, followof shape, placement, scale, and materials. Sim- ing the tradition observed at Molesme, raised for plicity was the visible expression of much of what their use buildings of wood.? In the following year, lay behind the order’s reforming ideals, although 1099, complaints from the benefactors of Molesme concealed by it were the tough-minded and so- persuaded the pope to order the return of Abbot phisticated attitudes, hard won and hard main- Robert, and with him went about half of the origtained, that led to its achievement. How did such inal monks. The controversy surrounding this epideals originate? And what governed their devel- isode threatened the new community’s existence, opment and their wide-ranging consequences for but an indication of stability emerges in the early

architecture? years of the new century from the fact that work The early history of the Cistercians was consid- began on a stone church and cloister to replace the ered straightforward until recent years. Since then earlier wooden ones. These lay just to the north of research has turned up a number of complications. the original settlement and were consecrated in 1106 Some of the early documentary accounts and even by the bishop of Chalons. Even then there was basic facts have been shown to have been tampered probably little idea of founding a new monastic with, many in the late twelfth century by partisans order as such; the monks still thought of themselves of Saint Bernard who sought to enhance his role in as Benedictines attempting to live more in accordthe order’s history.t The events that led to the ance with the letter of the Rule than was possible foundation of the order occurred in 1098, when a at Molesme. group of dissenting monks left the Cluniac abbey In 1109 leadership of the community passed to of Molesme in southern Burgundy, frustrated in an Englishman, Stephen Harding, abbot for the their attempts to effect a more exact observance of next twenty-four years. Born to noble Anglo-Saxon the Rule of Saint Benedict. These men represented parents in Sherborne in the west country around t The classic treatment is D. Knowles, The Monastic Order native is that it originated from the abbey’s position on the

: in England, 2d ed. (Cambridge, 1963), esp. 208-66. See also old Roman road that ran between Langres and Chalons-surR. W. Southern, Western Society and the Church in the Middle Sadne, where the monastery stood on “this side of the third Ages (London, 1970); A. Schneider et al., Die Cistercienser: milestone” (cis tertium lapidem miliarium). Geschichte, Geist, Kunst (Cologne, 1974); L. J. Lekai, The Czs- 3 The phrase used was monasterium ligneum. For this and for

tercians: Ideals and Reality (Kent, OH, 1977). the account of Molesme, see V. Mortet, Recuesl de textes relatifs 2 The etymology of ‘‘Citeaux” has been variously explained. a l’histotre de l’architecture en France au moyen age, XI°-XII° siécles

The traditional derivation is from the site—namely, from czs- (Paris, 1911), 1:296. ternae, the Latin word for cistels or boggy ground. An alter-

4 CHAPTER 1

. . CLAIRMARAIS

; s Les DUNES

Calais Cappellebrouck

. ‘\ ¢ Licques e * St. Omer *” "5

Thérouanne e Jillers ‘

Heuchin 0%e ‘

Dommartin vale dena a* e nec1en.

| Tucheux Arras Cambrai A is Ae VAUCELLES k ! r

y isne * : Gournay “1am VAUCLAIR “er Vt n en, Dieppe Berteaucoiit-les-Dames, 5 Tamera os

Ste. Marguerite-sur-Mer *Amiens j Seay Noyon e 2 @raon y “+ any

MorTEMERe ° eBeauvais Soissons %e 8 ‘Gleenn es ‘.‘ Creile “~~ |BercyBéthisy-St.-Pierre S Arcy-Ste.-Restitute . Cheux e @ Caen © Bellefontajne eee P

¢e ROIS-FONTAINES ae Paris We= “~~

@oAVIGNY LEs eee Se Nie C2, e BOQUEN PREUVILLY

ee °CLERMONT Sens a MORIMOND

%% ee CITEAUX ACEY * CLAIRVAUX

* PONTIGNY

® FONTENAY |

aa|

fe) 50 100 Kilometers

Northeastern France: Cistercian monasteries and related twelfth-century standing churches.

the time of the Conquest, Stephen had been pledged and work was so severe that disease and death seto the monastery there as a child. But he did not riously reduced the number of monks (although to follow the normal pattern of a monastic vocation. picture Stephen in exclusively ascetic terms 1s misHe apparently abandoned monastic life altogether leading, for there is evidence, literary as well as at one stage, deserted Sherborne, and moved first artistic, of warmth of personality and humor).* Ci-

to Scotland, then to France, where he may have teaux’s reputation for discipline and total withcompleted his education in Paris. After a pilgrim- drawal from the world, however, attracted attenage to Rome he traveled to Burgundy and around tion and admiration and new recruits. By 1113 1085 found his way to Molesme. By the time of their number strained the physical resources of Cithe secession he had risen to the rank of subprior. teaux, and a colony was founded at La Ferté. Later According to William of Malmesbury in the Gesta that year the young Burgundian aristocrat, Bernard regum Anglorum, written in 1122-1123 and the ear- des Fontaines, and a group of his male relatives liest source on the matter, it was Stephen who joined Citeaux, though later falsifying of the order's

provoked the upheaval within Molesme. documents moved the date of their arrival forward Under Stephen’s leadership the new community a year to imply that it had saved the struggling at first almost perished; his interpretation of poverty community from extinction. 4 See Knowles, Monastic Order, 199-200; P. H. Talbot, “An In 1114 a second expansion became necessary, Unpublished Letter of St. Stephen,” COCR 3 (1936): 66-69. and Citeaux sent out a colony to Pontigny. The

A WAY OF LIFE 5 following year the process was repeated, first with An uncompromising insistence on poverty was the establishment of the abbey at Morimond and basic to the new movement. Identifying the ecothen the abbey at Clairvaux (with the twenty-five- nomic forms upon which the monasteries rested as year-old Bernard as abbot). Together with Citeaux the root cause of the unsatisfactory state of monastic these abbeys formed the so-called mother houses, practice, the Cistercians enunciated a new socio-

although Citeaux retained primacy, with its abbot economic system. They renounced all cash revenues | bearing the title Pater universalis ordinis; all sub- common to established monasteries—from seisequent foundations were filiated, as daughter houses, gnorial and ecclesiastical sources, for instance— to one of them. By 1119 five more houses had been because these transactions brought the monks into established, and Stephen in that year turned to Pope contact with the world outside the monastery. InCalixtus II, who as former bishop of Vienne had stead, theirs was to be a land economy. To ensure known Citeaux well, to constitute all ten abbeys seclusion, monasteries were to be located on isolated as a new order. The Cistercians’ ensuing growth ts land, ‘far from the concourse of men” in the Exwithout parallel in western monasticism; forty years ordium’s words, and to make this feasible, the abafter the foundation of the first colony Cistercian bey’s lands were to be worked solely by and for the

monasteries numbered 339, and by the end of the community.

century the number had risen to 525.° Self-sufficiency without resort to feudal labor was Although overshadowed by Bernard, Stephen to be achieved through the acceptance of lay brothHarding’s impact on the Cistercians was funda- ers, or conversi. First fully integrated into monastic mental. In particular, he possessed the rare ability life by the Cistercians, the lay brothers were bound to give legislative shape to the new community's by a simpler discipline and undertook a greater

spiritual ideals. Two of the order’s seminal consti- share of manual work and a correspondingly smaller | tutional documents, the Exordium cisterciensis cenobti part in the opus Dei. One consequence of their in-

(also referred to as the Exordium parvum) and the tegration into the monastery was a fundamental Carta Caritatis, are largely by his hand, both writ- modification of the traditional monastic plan.® For ten around 1119.° That they could well have been centuries the cloister and church had been the exbased on earlier legislative documents, however, is clusive realm of the monks; now they were shared suggested by mention of the existence of well-or- to some degree with the lay brothers, who were dered legislation in the pope’s bull of authorization. assigned the west ranges of the cloister and the west Common to the documents and an essential feature bays of the nave. Inevitably, the process of reapof the Cistercians’ reform was a single-minded re- portioning took time to work out architecturally. turn to the original sources of western monasticism, The idealism that led to the integration of the not only to the Rule of Saint Benedict but also, as largely illiterate lay brothers with the monks partly modern scholarship has shown, to the ideals of pre- accounts for the appeal of the Cistercian order: it

Benedictine monasticism as exemplified in the offered a new vocation and a new status to men teaching of Saint Basil (d. 379) and John Cassian who were formerly accorded laborer or servant

(d. 435).’ standing.°

5 Eventually, in the seventeenth century, a total of 740 to sources marks Harding’s revision of the Bible in 1109, for houses was reached. For the numbers and filiations of Cistercian which he obtained the help of Jewish rabbis, and of the chant abbeys, see L. Janauschek, Originum Cisterciensium, vol. 1 (Vi- for which visits were made to Milan to seek pure texts and

enna, 1877). melodies of the Ambrosian hymns and to Metz in search of 6 The Carta caritatis exists in two versions—the Summa cartae the authentic liturgical chant.

Caritatis and the Carta caritatis prior—both of which are prob- 8 As shown by C. Malone in W. Horn and E. Born, The ably amplifications of an earlier text (see J. de la Croix Bouton Plan of St. Gall, Berkeley, 1981, vol. 2, 315-56. and J.-B. Van Damme, Les Plus Anciens Textes de Citeaux {Achel, 9° Knowles, Monastic Order, app. D, 754-55; J. Dubois,

1974]). For the influence of Stephen’s views on art, see “L'Institution des convers au XII* siécle, forme de vie moA. Dimier, “Saint Etienne Harding et ses idées sur l’art,” nastique propre aux laics,” I Laici nella “‘societa christiana” de

COCR 4 (1937): 178-93. secoli XI e XII (Milan, 1968); Schneider, Die Cistercienser, 46ff.; 7 See Lekai, The Cistercians, 22. The same rigor to return C. J. Holdsworth, “The Blessings of Work: The Cistercian

6 CHAPTER 1 Cistercian reform effected far-reaching changes To facilitate these reforms, the Carta Caritatis in the details and character of the life of a monk, provided a model for centralized government that many of which bore consequences for their archi- ranks as one of the masterpieces of medieval plantecture. The Rule of Saint Benedict divided the ning. In an age complicated by labyrinthine sysmonastic day between the offices (opus Dez), spiritual tems of authority, the Cistercians created a single, reading (lectio divina), and manual work (opus ma- clear line of command. One body of written legnuum). But by the eleventh century this tripartite islation was made binding on all houses. Relations division had virtually disappeared; Ulrich’s descrip- between houses were organized by a simple artion of life at Cluny around 1090 shows that the rangement of affiliation. To ensure uniformity in monks had no time for manual work and only min- all areas from art and architecture to farming and imal time for reading.'° Much of their day was finances, each abbey was subject to a yearly visitdevoted to a liturgy that had become progressively ation by the abbot of the founding house (Citeaux richer and more elaborate. Two examples from Cluny was to be visited by the abbot of one of the other illustrate the extent of these accretions: before greater four mother houses). To preserve identity, wide feasts the Night Office had to be started the pre- freedom from local authority was insisted upon, ceding evening in order to conclude it before day- underwritten by papal fiat. Finally, to maintain the break; and as many as 210 Psalms could be said order’s centralized character, all the abbots were daily, in contrast to their once weekly recital as required to assemble once a year at Citeaux to endirected by Saint Benedict.’ Faced with this dense force discipline and enact new legislation. So sucgrowth, the Cistercians ruthlessly pruned the mo- cessful was this system of government in practice nastic timetable. Beginning with the opus Dez, they that a century later, in 1215, the Lateran Council cut all additions with the sole exception of the ordered that it be used as the model for the reform morning conventual Mass, leaving the offices in the of other monastic orders. skeletal form ordained by Saint Benedict. At the It is difficult to grasp today how thoroughly the same time ceremonial was reduced and musical chant Cistercian reform changed established monastic simplified. With large parts of the monastic day practice. Whereas the habits worn by Cluniac monks now freed, manual work and reading could be re- were black, those of the Cistercians were undyed stored. The routine of Cistercian monks differed or white (hence the title, “White Monks’); unfrom that of the older orders in one other important dershirts and woolen breeches were forbidden, an respect as well; from the beginning, following the unheard of austerity in northern climates; diet was Rule of Saint Benedict, the founders provided the strictly vegetarian; silence was enforced.'3 Nothing opportunity for private prayer.'? Even during pe- better illustrates how different the Cistercians were riods set aside for reading, a Cistercian monk was from other orders than the criticisms directed at

permitted to enter the church for prayer. the practices of the new movement. Around 1127, View,” Sanctity and Secularity, Studies in Church History 10 "3 Specified in the Summa cartae Caritatis, article 11, and a

(1973): 59-76. It should be pointed out that despite this detail mentioned in 1135 by Orderic Vitalis: “. . . all dispense democratic character the Cistercians were fundamentally con- with breeches and lambskins, abstain from eating fat and flesh-

servative. Bernard himself came from the Burgundian aristoc- meat ... maintain silence at all times and wear no dyed racy and spent much time attracting to the order others from garments .. . they toil with their hands and produce their

this same class. own food and clothing” (see M. Chibnall, ed., The Ecclesiastical *© On the details of life at Cluny, see D. Knowles, “Cis- History of Orderic Vitalis, Vol. IV, Books VU and VII {Oxford, tercians and Cluniacs: The Controversy between St. Bernard 1973}, 325). The Cistercians were not the first to use undyed and Peter the Venerable,” The Historian and Character (Cam- or white habits (see G. Constable, The Letters of Peter the Ven-

bridge, 1963), 50-75, esp. 52. erable 2 {Cambridge, MA, 1967}: 115-16; and J. Leclerg, *t See Knowles, Monastic Order, 211, and app. 18, 714-15; Bernard of Clairvaux and the Cistercian Spirit {Kalamazoo, 1977],

also L. J. Lekai, The White Monks (Okauchee, 1953), 171ff.; 13-14). The symbolism of white, signifying glory, can hardly and A. A. King, Liturgies of the Monastic Orders (London, 1955), have endeared the Cistercians to the older orders who adhered

66-72. to the traditional black habits signifying repentance. At first, - 2 See P. Guignard, Les Monuments primitifs de la régle cister- Cistercian habits were apparently a grey-brown, but white was

cienne (Dijon, 1878), 172. established by circa 1115.

A WAY OF LIFE 7 for instance, the abbot of Cluny, Peter the Ven- with “rustic labors” such as land clearance, water erable, asked how it was possible “for monks fed control, sheep and cattle farming was that they on poor vegetable diet when even that scanty fare quickly questioned established methods and revois cut off by fasts to work like common laborers in lutionized agricultural techniques. Giraldus Camthe burning heat and showers of rain and snow and brensis could write with little exaggeration in the in the bitter cold? Besides, it is unbecoming that late twelfth century: “Give the Cistercian a wilmonks which are the fine linen of the sanctuary derness or forest, and in a few years you will find should be begrimed with dirt and bent down with a dignified abbey in the midst of smiling plenty.”*7

rustic labors.’’'4 In addition to the Exordium and Carta Caritatts, A few years later Ailred of Rievaulx described a third body of documents, the Statuta, defined

the characteristics of Cistercian monastic life. He Cistercian life. These were the assembled decisions has one of his novices in Yorkshire say: “Our food taken at the annual General Chapters at Citeaux. is scanty, Our garments rough; our drink is from Like the other early documents, they developed

the stream and our sleep often upon our book. with the order’s progressive experience and were

Under our tired limbs there is but a hard mat; subject to continual augmentation. The various verwhen sleep is sweetest, we must rise at bell’s bid- sions of the statutes, with the different dates of ding. . . . Self-will has no place; there is no mo- enactment and the variation in text, pose historical ment for idleness or dissipation. . . . Everywhere problems that are still unsolved.*® A collection of peace, everywhere serenity, and a marvelous free- twenty capitula appeared in 1119, but the first coddom from the tumult of the world.”!5 These words ification did not occur until 1152.'9 They cover a reveal one condition of the monk’s life: the sub- wide range of issues and are inevitably proscriptive mission to a routine that both inhibited personal in character. Yet they need to be seen less as reexpression and was in many respects anti-intellec- pressive measures than as attempts to give workaday

tual. Around 1130, Bernard wrote to Henry Mur- form to Cistercian asceticism. They were not indac, then a distinguished teacher in the school of tended to be interlocking pieces of an integrated York: “Believe us who have experience, you will legislative program but ad hoc judgments respondfind much more laboring amongst woods than ever ing to problems as they arose. you will amongst books. Woods and stones will Among the first statutes are those concerned with teach you what you can never hear from any mas- the expansion of the order. Before a new monastery ter.”?° Such statements reveal the conviction that could be established, they ruled the population of — the monk’s quest for spiritual fulfillment and mys- the founding house had to reach sixty monks. The tical enlightenment was the highest to which man process of establishment then began with a general could aspire. Of course, other outlets for expression invitation from the patron for the monks to settle existed. One uncalculated benefit of the withdrawal on land he provided; only isolated land was acof educated men from secular life and occupation ceptable, and a minimum distance of twelve Bur*4 Constable, Letters of Peter the Venerable 1:52ff.; and on the de la Revue ecclésiastique, 9 vols. (Louvain, 1933-1941). Despite

date, 2:270-74. On the dispute between the two men, see its recent date, subsequent research, particularly on the early A. H. Bredero, “The Controversy between Peter the Venerable legislation, has called into question the dates and wording of and St. Bernard,” in G. Constable and J. Kritzeck, eds., Petrus a number of the twelfth-century statutes. The literature is Venerabilis, 1150-1956 (Rome, 1956), 53-71; and Knowles, extensive. See particularly, J. A. Lefévre, “Pour une nouvelle

“Cistercians and Cluniacs,’’ 50-75. datation des Instituta Generalis Capituli apud Cistercium,” '§ PL 195:562-63; the translation is Knowles’, from Mo- COCR 16 (1954): 241-66; J. A. Lefévre, “Les Codifications

nastic Order, 258. cisterciennes aux XIJ* et XIII° siécles d’aprés la tradition man6 B. S. James, The Letters of St. Bernard of Clairvaux (Lon- uscrites,” ASOC 15 (1959): 3-22; J.-B. van Damme, ‘“‘Genése

don, 1953), letters 107 and 156. des Instituta Generalis Capituli,” CCC 12 (1961): 28-Go. For

1861): 45. 21-32, 407.

17 J. S. Brewer, ed., Itin. Camb., Rolls Series 21 (London, a resumé of the more recent position, see Lekai, The Cistercians,

18 The statutes were published in nine volumes by the order’s "9 Critical evaluation of the different versions of the early appointed editor, J.-M. Canivez, Statuta capitulorum Generalium legislation now shows that the widely cited codification of Ordinis Cisterciensis ab anno 1116 ad annum 1786. Bibliotheque 1134, published by Canivez, is suspect and probably false.

8 CHAPTER 1 gundian leagues had to separate a new house from had to make at least one move.?5> Kingswood had a neighboring one.?° The approval of the local bishop four false starts; Byland, five. Where accounts surwas then sought, with great stress placed on cordial vive, the abbot’s role in site selection was usually relations with him, and application for establish- central. At Meaux Abbot Adam single-handedly

: ment was made to the General Chapter.?‘ Pro- determined the monastery’s location. At Kirkstall, spective sites were next examined, and temporary after one failed attempt, it was Abbot Alexander buildings of wood or wattle and daub raised on the who went out in 1152 in search of new land. Comsite chosen.?? Site clearance and the construction ing to the valley of the Aire, so the abbey’s chronof the wooden buildings were usually the respon- icler relates, “he began to ponder in his mind consibility of the founder and took place before the cerning the site of the place and its conditions, the arrival of the founding community, which consisted pleasant character of the valley and the river flowing of an abbot and twelve monks, an apostolic nucleus, past, and the woods adjacent as being suitable for and a party of lay brothers.?3 Abbeys were dedicated the erection of workshops. . . . And it seemed to

to the Virgin Mary; and because of their required him this place was fair enough and fit for building remoteness, their names were usually drawn from an abbey upon.’’?° This account may, of course, be a characteristic of the physical site: in the case of a truncated version of a more elaborate foundation the English foundations, for instance, Forde, Foun- procedure, and it may have been inserted to protains, Rievaulx (Rze vallis), and Roche (meaning mote the abbot’s role. But it provides a clue to the “rocks’). Other names express the beauty of the persistent failure of early settlements. A single man’s place: Beaulieu, Byland (Bella landa), Strata Florida judgment could easily err in the assessment of prac(Valley of Flowers). Sometimes the names witness tical difficulties. On occasion a lay brother was the Cistercian view that the monastery was a fore- charged with site selection. In 1171 land was oftaste of paradise: Vaudey (Va//zs Dez), Glenluce (Va//zs fered to Buildwas for a new foundation at Dunbrody

lucis), and Dieulacres (God’s Fields); or in France, (Co. Wexford) in Ireland, and Abbot Ranulf disClairvaux (Clara vallis) and Morimond (Moriri patched Alan, a trusted lay brother, to assess it.

mondo) .?4 Alan received a poor welcome, however; he was The picture of a well-ordered, thoughtful prep- forced to take refuge in a hollow tree and surveyed aration that emerges undoubtedly represents an ideal. the lands as quickly as possible. On his return he In reality, of course, new foundations frequently reported the property barren and the inhabitants suffered from a lack of foresight. In England, for barbarous, and the proposed gift was turned down.?7 instance, half of the twelfth-century foundations Examples like these make it easier to see why the 2° Statuta 1 (1135:6): 32-33; repeated in 1152 ({1152:1], 23 Only the monks are mentioned in the Exordium, but the 45). On the general matter of site selection, see R. A. Donkin, lay brothers can be assumed and are mentioned on occasion.

“The Growth and Distribution of the Cistercian Order in At Sawley in Yorkshire, for instance, William de Percy, the Medieval Europe,” Stadia Monastica 9 (1967): 257-86. The abbey’s patron, is credited by the Chronicle with building the composite account of the foundation process given in the text first wooden architecture. He then summoned the founding is not arranged chronologically, nor does it consider the sub- community, from the mother house of Newminster, which sequent repetitions or augmentations of the statutes on foun- consisted of the abbot, twelve monks, and ten lay brothers

dation. (see catalog).

2t The Exordium emphasized the need for close cooperation 24 J. Laurent, “Les Noms des monastéres cisterciens,” As-

with the diocesan. The abbot of Revesby was censured in 1199 sociation Bourguignonne des sociétés savantes 1 (1928): 168-204; for failing to secure episcopal permission for establishment of A. Dimier, Les Beaux Noms des monastéres de Citeaux en France a new house at Cleeve (Statuta 1 [1199:17]: 235). By the early (Lyon, 1944); M. Aubert, L’Architecture cistercienne en France

thirteenth century there are cases where the General Chapter (Paris, 1947), 1:92-93. For the expansion of the 1119 statute decreed that prospective sites should be examined by two ab- on church dedications in 1151, see Lefévre, “Pour une nouvelle

bots who were then to report back to the next chapter; for datation,”’ 260.

instance, see Statuta 2 (1226:33): 54. 25 R. A. Donkin, ‘“The Site Changes of Medieval Cistercian 22 See P. J. Fergusson, “The First Architecture of the Cis- Monasteries,” Geography 44 (1959): 251-58. tercians in England and the Work of Abbot Adam of Meaux,”’ 26 Fund. K., 176-78. Jul. BAA 136 (1983), 74-86.

A WAY OF LIFE 9 General Chapter mandated progressively more elab- village of the same name; around 1150 in the Mid-

orate procedures for site selection. lands, Combe destroyed Upper Smite, and GarSingle-handed decisions aside, haste in estab- endon wiped out Dishley. And in the north around lishing new abbeys in the order’s early years may 1175, Fountains ousted the inhabitants of Thorpe also account for difficulties being overlooked. Ig- Underwood; Kirkstall, the residents of Accrington; norant of local climatic conditions, for instance, and Rievaulx and Byland conducted similar evicthe order accepted some sites that proved unsuitable tions.3? As might be imagined, such dispersals en_ for growing arable crops, a necessity for the veg- gendered fierce resistance; Coggeshall’s depopulaetarian communities. At Sawley wet and cloudy tion of Rumilly involved the Essex abbey in an weather resulted in the harvest repeatedly rotting eight-year lawsuit (1152-1160) that reached the on the stalk.?8 A similar problem caused the failure papal court in Rome.33 Walter Map’s attack on the of Kirkstall’s first settlement, as the Fundacio ex- Cistercians, for all its prejudice, contains an eleplains: “We remained there [at Barnoldswick] sev- ment of truth: “How gratefully do they enter on eral years, suffering many discomforts of cold and the lands that have been given to them. . . caring hunger, partly because of the inclemency of the air not so much how they get them as how they keep and the ceaseless trouble of rain; partly because, them. And because their Rule does not allow them the kingdom being in turmoil, many a time our to govern parishioners, they proceed to raze villages possessions were wasted by brigands. The site of and churches, turn out parishioners, destroy the our habitations therefore displeased us . . . and altars of God, not scrupling to sow crops or cast through the advice of our patrons we migrated to down and level everything before the ploughanother place.”?9 Questions of subsistence that might share.”34 The heartlessness of such removals was be assumed basic were not infrequently overlooked, moderated to some extent: at Old Byland the evicted perhaps as Donkin suggested, out of an excess of were assigned new land, and a hamlet was built for

asceticism and initial zeal.3° them; at Rufford the dispossessed were compen- :

In any event, seclusion was easier to legislate sated with cash and alternative land.35 than it was to find. Land completely empty of in- A second category of statutes refers to liturgical habitants was rare, despite the sparse population of objects and furnishings in the church. Some, such twelfth-century England. But where such condi- as those specifying what a church could possess, tions did not exist, the Cistercians were not above date from the early period and are first embodied creating them. Deliberate depopulation, or reset- in the Summa cartae Caritatis, then repeated in the tlement, became a Cistercian commonplace, a prac- statutes. Sculptures were prohibited (1119); painttice succinctly summarized by Walter Map in 1182: ings were permitted only on crosses, which in turn, “they make a solitude that they may be solitaries.’’3! could be made of no other material than wood As early as 1142 Revesby reduced three small vil- (1119); altars could not be decorated (1134).3° In lages to clear a space; in 1145 Woburn evicted the the sanctuary a single candle in an iron candlestick 27 See M. Chibnall, “Buildwas Abbey,” VCH: Shropshire 2 true in France (see C. A. Bruzelius, ‘Cistercian High Gothic:

(London, 1973): 51. The Abbey Church of Longpont and the Architecture of the 28 Chart. S., 1. Cistercians in the Early Thirteenth Century,” AC 35 [1979]:

29 Fund, K., 176. 22).

3° R. A. Donkin, “The Cistercian Order and the Settlement 32, B. Waites, “The Monastic Grange as a Factor in the of Northern England,” Geographical Review 59 (1969): 403- Settlement of Northeast Yorkshire,” YAJ 40 (1959-1962):

16, esp. 406. 627-56, esp. 652.

3« For Map, see E. S. Hartland, ed., Walter Map: De Nugis 33 For the dispute see B. Hill, English Cistercian Monasteries Curialium, Cymmrodorion Record Series 9 (1923): 50. On Cis- and their Patrons in the Twelfth Century (Urbana, 1968), 112.

tercian depopulation, see R. A. Donkin, ‘Settlement and De- 34 Hartland, ed., Walter Map, 49. population on Cistercian Estates during the 12th and 13th 35 M. W. Barley, “Cistercian Land Clearances in NottingCenturies,” Bulletin of the Institute of Historical Research 33, (1960): hamshire,” Nottingham Medieval Studies 1 (1957): 75-89.

141-65; also, C. Platt, The Monastic Grange in Medieval Eng- 36 PL 166, Exordium, cap. 17, col. 1509; and in Statuta 1 land: A Reassessment (New York, 1969), 91-93. The same was (113.4:xx): 17; and (1134:x): 15. For a recent survey of the

10 CHAPTER 1 was permitted (1119), except on special festivals opted to join the Cistercians. The split was evenwhen three were allowed (1195).37 Relics could be tually avoided, and Kirkham remained Augustinplaced on the altar, but it was forbidden to light ian, but matters had gone far enough for an agreecandles before them (1185).3® On the feast day of ment to be drawn up dividing the house’s goods a saint, however, a lamp (not candles) might burn and chattels. The Augustinians were to move out, during the night before his altar (1189); in the to a new location at Linton, and were to take with church a lamp could burn continuously (1152).39 them all movables: crosses, chalices, books, vestBurial within the church was allowed only for kings ments, and all domestic utensils. The stained-glass and queens, for bishops and archbishops (1152), windows were to be removed and replaced by winand for lay founders (1157).4° Stained-glass win- dows of clear glass, and the departing monks were dows of more than two colors were prohibited, as to leave at Kirkham one bell, whichever they were painted images on them (1134, 1159, 1182); pleased. +4 and the doors of the churches had to be painted Surprisingly few statutes refer directly to archiwhite.4 For the Mass, chalices could be of silver, tecture. As already seen, the Summa cartae Caritatis or silver gilt, but not of gold (1119); censors had (c. L119) specifies the earliest wooden buildings to be of iron or copper only (1119); vestments were that were to be provided before the site was oclimited in type and had to avoid rich decoration cupied by the founding monks. But the statutes (1119).4? Liturgical and other manuscripts were to are mute about architectural practice after colonibe written in ink of one color and without histo- zation, although tangentially they mention buildriated initials (1151).43 Such proscriptions confined ing labor. This was provided by a mixed work force choice in the area of decoration, not architectural from the early years forward. On the one hand, the | style, but they defined the internal appearance of monks and lay brothers worked on construction, a

the building and limited its embellishment. feature singled out for praise by the Norman hisThe effective manner in which the statutes con- torian, Ordericus Vitalis, in the mid-1130s;45 transfer trolled the possessions of a monastic house is re- of such work crews within the monasteries of the

vealed by a curious episode at Kirkham in York- order was permitted. But outside labor was also shire. A foundation of Augustinian canons established hired in. The needs of these workers are mentioned in the mid-1120s, Kirkham underwent a crisis some several times in the Summa cartae Caritatis and the

years later when a faction within the community Exordium Parvum, and later statutes in the 1130s problems relating to the artistic statutes, see P. Policarpo 358). Zakar, ‘“‘La Legislazione Cistercense e le sue fonti dalle origini 4" Ibid. 1 (1134:lxxx): 31; (1159:9), 70; (1182:11), 91. For fino al 1265,” in I Cistercensi e il Lazio: Atti delle giornate di the doors, ibid. (1157:12), 61. studio dell’'Universita di Roma, 17-21 Maggio 1977 (Rome, 42 PL 166, Exordium, cap. 17, col. 1509. On rare occasions,

1978), 127-34. compromises resulted from the insistence of a donor and the 37 PL. 166, Exordium, cap. 17, col. 1509; and Statuta 1 fear of offense in the refusal of a gift. At Mellifont in Ireland

(1195:25): 186. The Consuetudines speak of two candles, one in 1157, for instance, Devorgilla, wife of Tighernan O'Rourke,

on either side of the altar (see A.R.P.H. Séjalon, ed., No- gave a chalice of gold for the high altar, together with costly masticon Cisterciense {Solesmes, 1892}, 125). According to King, furniture for nine other altars (see M. Archdall, Monasticon Liturgies of the Monastic Orders, 120, the candle was not per- Hibernicum {London, 1786], 479). For the censors and vest-

mitted to be placed on the altar in Cistercian churches until ments see PL 166, Exordium, cap. 17, col. 1509. the thirteenth century and remained beside the altar in an 1ron 43 Statuta 1 (1134:]xxx): 31. Neil Stratford has recently shown

candleholder. It was only in the sixteenth century that the the date to be 1151 (see N. Stratford, “A Romanesque Marble custom of placing candles on the altar became universal. Altar-Frontal in Beaune and some Citeaux Manuscripts,” in

38 Statuta 1 (1185:4): 98. A. Borg and A. Martindale, eds., The Vanishing Past: Studies 39 Ibid. (1189:12), 112; and (1152:5), 46. for Christopher Hobler {Oxford, 1981], 223-39, esp. 227). 4° Ibid. (1152:10), 47; and (1157:63), 68. The statute was 44 Chart. R., 108. repeated in 1180 (1180:5), 87, at the same time assigning the 45 “They have built monasteries with their own hands in chapter house as the appropriate burial ground for abbots. The lonely, wooded places . . .” (Chibnall, ed., Ecclestastical His-

lay founder provision was extended in 1322 to anyone who tory, 327). contibuted to the construction of the church, ibid. 3 (1322:3):

A WAY OF LIFE 11 and 1150s regulate their diet, apparel, and attend- the church: “In the House of God, in which by

ance at certain offices.4° day and by night they desired to offer devout service The only statute addressed directly to architec- to God, nothing should be left that savored of pride ture was enacted in 1157 and forbade the construc- or the superfluous, or such as could at any time tion of towers.47 Why towers alone among all the corrupt the poverty, guardian of virtues, that they elements of architecture were singled out for pro- had voluntarily chosen for themselves.”5' The key hibition will be discussed in chapter 3; but the phrase (“quod superbiam aut superfluitatem redouniqueness of this statute does not signify the or- leret”) is general, but its recurrence in Cistercian der’s indifference to architecture. The prohibition writing of the period suggests that it carried an suggests only that towers became a specific issue of explicit meaning that, although it may not have disagreement in the late 1150s and so required taken an extended critical or analytical form, was discussion in the General Chapter. A related statute nevertheless widely understood. passed in the same year limited an abbey to two As architectural concepts, the absence of pride bells, directed that their weight not exceed five and the avoidance of the superfluous require elabhundred pounds so that one person might ring oration. On the simplest level they reveal the orthem and ordered that they be rung only sepa- der’s insistence on poverty in their building. But

rately.48 they also speak to the Cistercians’ obsession with

But if statutes were not the means of formulating disengagement from the world of the senses as the ideas on architecture, what was? No other written primary way of reaching spiritual enlightenment. sources are known, although the similarities among Divine contemplation could be achieved only through Cistercian buildings strongly suggests their exist- an environment with minimal sensory stimulus. ence at one time. Lacking them, certain general, William of St. Thierry wrote: “For what is within and some more well-defined ideas can be gleaned us is benefited in no slight degree by what is around from sermons and other treatises.49 Because the us, when it is arranged to accord with our minds Cistercian reform was based largely on a return to and in its Own way to correspond with the ideas the Rule of Saint Benedict, the Rule’s references to we have set before us . . . a spirit that is intent on building, brief as they are, exerted a profound in- interior things is better served by an absence of fluence. In chapter 52 Benedict says of the church: decoration and trimming in the things around it.’’5? “Let the Oratory be what its name implies, and let Similarly, the sermons and letters of Saint Bernard nothing else be done or kept there’; and in chapter make frequent reference to the need for a neutral 4 he describes the monastery as a “workshop for ambiance to aid in sensory disengagement. >3 the art of holiness.’’5° Both images are utilitarian, As has been often remarked, Bernard himself had and both underlie the section in the Exordium on a highly sensitive eye and wrote with a passionate 46 Statuta 1 (1134:xxiv): 18; and (1157:56), 67; and (1157:47), dépouillement architectural des Cisterciens,’’ L’Architecture

66. monastique, Numéro spécial du Bulletin des relations artistiques France47 Ibid. (1157:16), 61. Allemagne (1951), no page numbers.

48 Ibid. (1157:21), 62. st “Ne quid in domo Dei in qua die ac nocte Deo servire 49 The most convincing attempts to define the spiritual ide- devote cupiebant remaneret quod superbiam aut superfluitatem

als embodied in Cistercian architecture are F. Bucher, ‘Le redoleret, aut pauperatem virtutum custodem, quam sponte Fonctionalisme de Saint Bernard et les églises cisterciennes elegerant, aliqundo corrumperet” (PL 166, Exordium, cap. 17, Suisses,” Actes du XIX* congrés international d'histoire de l'art col. 1509). The condemnation quickly spawned a wider lit(1958), 49-56; and F. Bucher, “Cistercian Architectural Pur- erature (see V. Mortet, “Hugue de Fouilloi, Pierre Le Chantre, ism,” Comparative Studies in Art and Literature 3 (1960): 98- Alexandre Neckam, et les critiques dirigées au douziéme siécle

105. contre le luxe des constructions,” Mélanges Bémont {Paris, 1913}, 5° “Oratorium hoc sit quod dicitur, nec ibi quiquam aliud 105-37).

geratur aut condatur” (J. McCann, ed., The Rule of Saint Bene- 52 The Golden Epistle of William of St. Thierry, Cistercian Fadict {London, 1952}, 118). The connections with the Rule of thers Series 12 (Kalamazoo, 1971): 61.

Saint Benedict are discussed by A. Dimier in “Architecture et 53 For instance, his address to postulants at Clairvaux (see spiritualité cisterciennes,” Revue du Moyen Age Latin 3 (1947): PL 185, col. 238). 255-74; see also A. Dimier, “La Régle de Saint Benoit et le

12 CHAPTER 1 intensity. These qualities inform much of his Apo- a direct programmatic content. It is significant that logia, written in the mid-1120s. Its importance as before they were written, the Exordivm condemned a primary source on a wide range of Cistercian the superfluous in architecture,°° and that following attitudes and practices make the circumstances that their appearance, other Cistercian writers began to led to the document’s appearance important to con- voice similar views. For instance, Ailred exhorts sider. Around 1124 the supporters of Saint Bernard his novices at Rievaulx to avoid an architecture that had attacked monastic practices at Cluny, drawing is large or extravagantly vaulted and urges them to a dignified rebuke from its newly elected abbot, be happy “‘to say their prayers in a little chapel of Peter the Venerable, who had come to office fol- rough unpolished stone where there is nothing carved lowing the damaging rule of Abbot Pons de Mel- or painted to distract the eye.’5” Bernard’s words gueil (1109-1122). It was to this rebuke that the on architecture in the Apo/ogia may thus be seen as Apologia was directed, although shrewdly, Bernard representative of attitudes widely held within the

sent it not to Cluny, where it risked suppression, order. but to his friend William, then abbot of St. Thierry, It is easy to forget that when Bernard formulated a Benedictine house in the diocese of Reims. Com- the Apologia’s sections on architecture, the Cisterplicating the document’s interpretation is the sa- cians had no large-scale architecture of their own.

tiric literary form in which Bernard composed it In fact, it would be nearly a decade before they and its partly composite character.5+ The brief sec- embarked on their own great building programs tions that deal with architecture clearly: refer to (around 1135 in the case of Clairvaux). Thus Bermonastic churches; although Bernard names no spe- nard’s strictures were made in the context of what cific abbey, his criticism was most likely directed the order’s architecture was in the mid-1120s, to the large third church at Cluny, completed a namely, deliberately small-scale and austere, rather decade earlier, and to other Cluniac churches. He than what it would become in the mid-1130s. writes ‘‘of the immense height of the churches, their The artistic sections of the Apologza were written immoderate length, their superfluous breadth, costly by a monk for fellow monks and clearly imply the polishing and strange designs that, while they at- notion of a monastic style. Bernard concedes that tract the eye of the worshiper, hinder his atten- in nonmonastic churches like cathedrals it is nection,’55 and attacks the interiors in which he says essary to cater to the needs of the laity, to rouse are suspended “not coronae but wheels studded with their devotion through ornamentation, scale, and gems and surrounded by lights . . . and instead of the like; for monks, however, such devices would candlesticks. . . great trees of brass, fashioned with be incompatible with the ideals of humility, with wonderful skill and glittering as much through their spiritual education, as Bernard defined it. What their jewels as their lights.” Whether these passages had to be avoided was distraction, the curtositas that should be viewed as “‘straight” criticism or satire Bernard identified as leading to pride, “the restless is open to question; if the former, it would be intrusion of sensible-images’’ mentioned in a numplausible to read them as implicitly advocating cer- ber of his sermons. An ideal architecture for monks, tain architectural values and, consequently, having then, would be an architecture in which these qual54 For the Apologia and Leclercq’s introduction, see M. Casey, curiosas depictiones: quae dum orantium in se retorquent astrans., The Works of Bernard of Clairvaux, Treatises I, Cistercian pectum, impediunt et affectum .. .” (PL 172, cap. 17, no. Fathers Series 1 (Spencer, MA, 1970). For the date I depend 28, col. 914). Many of the widely used English translations on Constable, Letters of Peter the Venerable 2:272-73. For the of the art sections of the Apologia are flawed, including that circumstances of the Apologia, see A. H. Bredero, “Cluny et in the Cistercian Fathers Series.

Citeaux au XII siécle: les origines de la controverse,”’ 56 On the other legislation relating to art, and dating from Studi Medievale 12, 3rd ser. (1971), 135-75; and H.-B. de 1119, see van Damme, “Genése des Instituta Generalis CapWarren, “Bernard et les premiers Cisterciens face au probléme ituli,” 36-41. de l’art,” in Bernard de Clairvaux, Commission a’histotre de l’ordre 57 PL 195, cols. 572-74. The translation of the Speculum

de Citeaux 3 (Paris, 1953): 487-534. caritatis is from G. Webb and A. Walker, The Mirror of Charity 55 “Omitto oratoriorum immensas altitudines, immoderatas (London, 1962), 75. longitudines supervacuas latitudines, sumptuosas depolitiones,

. A WAY OF LIFE 13 ities had been expunged, an architecture that was With this decision began the second generation of neutral and simple. Unlike the interior of secular the order’s architecture. The change did not occur churches, therefore, the Cistercian interior was to lightly, however. At Clairvaux, for instance, while be devoid of color—in glass, on wall surfaces, as Bernard was away in Rome in 1135, Prior Godehighlights on sculpture, or as part of the sumptuary froid worked out a more spacious plan for the mon-

arts. astery on a nearby site; when Bernard returned, so From the perspective of such Cistercian ideals, the Vita Prima relates, he objected to the change, it is easy to see why the architecture, wall painting, and it was only after long discussion that he was and sculpture of the older orders was viewed as reluctantly won around to the idea (appendix B). confusing, intrusive, or “superfluous.” The absence The increase in the size of the communities and of color for the Cistercian, or more accurately the the scale of the buildings was accompanied by more predominance of white, evident in the habits worn rigorous control of architectural design. In place of by the monks, in the clear window glass, in the the loosely defined and often quite idiosyncratic color of doors, suggests a distinct iconography of form of the early buildings, standardization emerged light. The relationship of light to architecture, spe- in the 1130s, at least in the most influential and cifically the way it conditioned a new luminous and dominant filiation, that of Clairvaux. Esser in the spatial quality in the buildings, became in fact one early 1950s coined the term “Bernardine” to deof the most prominent features of the Cistercians’ scribe this new style in Cistercian architecture. Alchurches. Clear, white light complemented the though some aspects of this new organizing concept simple forms and fine proportions of the buildings need qualification—such as the degree to which to produce interiors of coolness, quiet, and serenity. practice was uniform, the precise role of Clairvaux Ideals of peacefulness occur frequently in Cistercian in the development of the type, and the suitability writing, suggesting the ambiance toward which art of using Bernard’s name to describe it in the light and architecture should aim. The English-born Isaac, of his grudging support for the changes—there can abbot of L’Etoile (Vienne), for instance, wrote: “How be no question that the ideas were influential. With

ever many we are, brought together in the one, at or without Bernard’s direct backing, the formation one in the one, made simple by that which is sim- of this new, impressive architecture coincided with

ple, let us, whenever we may, be still with that the height of the saint’s ambitions to build the which is still, sleeping in stillness and resting in order into a position of authority in European af-

it, resting in peace.’>® fairs; and it undoubtedly reflected this vision. Like

Translating purist ideals into physical form was the Franciscans a century later, however, the cora complicated matter, however. As the years passed, porate ambitions and sense of identity of the Ciscriticism of inappropriate forms turned out to be tercians may have surpassed the personal views of easier than the creation of appropriate ones. What its most powerful single figure.

little is known about the earliest churches, like Not surprisingly, the decision to expand severely Citeaux and Clairvaux, indicates that a wide variety strained the architectural ideals of the order. How of buildings was used, though they all appear to was one to form an architecture that was both largehave been small and severely plain.>5° Such an ar- scale and at the same time devoid of strong exchitecture was possible, however, only while com- pressive qualities? The Cistercians solved this probmunities remained small, perhaps a maximum of lem by radically simplifying large-scale contemfifty or so men. But around 1130 the pressure of porary architecture, and because it was in Burgundy increasing numbers wishing to join the order be- that the order originated, it was Burgundian Ro-

came so great that an alternative to the endless manesque that was simplified. In many ways the establishment of small communities had to be found. process paralleled that employed earlier to free the So the size of existing houses was expanded instead. liturgy from its accretions. Beginning with the typ58 For sermon 21, see A. Hoste, G. Raciti, and G. Salet, 59 See J. O. Schaefer, ‘“The Earliest Churches of the CisterIsaac de l’Etoile, Sermons, in Sources chrétiennes, vol. 130 (Paris, cian Order,” Studies in Cistercian Art and Architecture 1 (1982):

1967); and vol. 207 (Paris, 1974). I-12.

14 CHAPTER 1 ical Romanesque plan, the order eliminated as su- religieux qui n’a rien que de simple, mais c’est un perfluous features that failed to reflect its simplified simplicité qui a quelque chose de grand.’’© But if liturgy. Accordingly, the most radical changes oc- individualism cannot be overlooked, neither should

curred in the east end of the church. Cistercian it be overemphasized. These churches, particularly planners, freed from the need to incorporate proces- the “Bernardine” group, bore distinguishable qualsional paths, relic space or the architectural ico- ities of plan, structure, and effects that appeared nography associated with them, clustered chapels in buildings over a vast region of Europe where around the transepts rather than the chevet as in architecture was marked by tenacious local traditraditional monastic architecture. The extent of tions. Conformity to a Cistercian form was of course Cistercian reductionism is indicated by the contrast present from the order’s early years, though then between a developed Cluniac east end—multilev- it was primarily a matter of small scale and humble eled, richly articulated, elaborately lighted, many materials. Now, as part of an important shift in towered—and a Cistercian one—rectangular, con- identity, the dictates became more elaborate. fined, small, plain. The Cistercian elevation shows This architecture was not static, however, any a similar reduction to the simplest components of more than was the identity that it reflected. A new arcade and vault. Sparely lit from clear, unpainted architectural style appeared in the years following windows in the terminal walls and aisles, with the Bernard’s death in 1153, with Early Gothic rewalls and piers left clean and bare, the church stood placing Romanesque. Monasteries located in the in stark opposition to Cluniac interiors with their most advanced architectural centers of France were architectonic sculpture, figural decoration, mural the first affected.

painting, stained glass, rich fittings and furnish- The decades of the 1150s and 1160s are among ings—the “resplendence” denounced by Bernard. the most critical in the Cistercians’ history. All But particularly in these early buildings there periods of transition invariably give rise to factions existed the roots of a conflict, which like the one either championing innovation or defending trasurrounding material possessions, was ultimately dition, and for the Cistercians the spate of statutes to resist resolution. Decoration could be purged, addressed to decoration and architecture in these furnishings minimized, figured sculpture and painted years seem witness to such conflict and debate, glass forbidden; but the problem remained of find- despite the dry language of their formulation. In ing a suitably neutral, nonobtrusive architecture. 1152 the establishment of new foundations was Even an architecture employing minimal elements checked by a temporary moratorium; in the same was still an architecture of wide range; it could year statutes on furnishings were repeated, but in essay to an elegance of proportion, a dignity in the a fuller and more augmented form, as if it were

shaping of space, a strength and lucidity in the necessary to justify them; in 1157 the General manipulation of mass, all of which produced pow- Chapter regulated towers, doors, and bells; and in erfully expressive effects and endowed a building 1159 decrees were issued on stained glass.° with distinct individuality. The dilemma was sensed The transformation of Cistercian architecture after by Marténe, the eighteenth-century antiquary, on mid-century can be accounted for by factors aside a visit to Clairvaux, when he wrote of the church: from style, however, among them, changes in litur“Elle est grande, spacieuse et belle, mais simple et gical practice and the composition of the monk

sans beaucoup d’ornaments. . . . La nef est suivie population. In the early communities the pro, du choeur des infirmes, et celui-ci du choeur des portion of monk priests was smaller than it became 60 E. Marténe and U. Durand, Voyage Jittéraire de deux re- dinations chez les cisterciens,””» ASOC 10 (1954): 268-301. The ligieux bénédictins de la Congregation de Saint-Maur, vol. 1, pt. situation is unclear, however. At Fountains, of the thirteenth

1 (Paris, 1717): 99. original monks, twelve were priests and one a subdeacon.

6: For the moratorium, see Statuta 1 (1152:1): 45; for the Moreover, the year following the foundation, the community other statutes, see text above. For the augmentation, see J. A. was joined by seven more clerics. At Pontigny in 1157, fifty

Lefévre, “Pour une nouvelle datation,” 241-66. of the one hundred monks recorded there were priests (see 62 For the increase in priest monks, see B. Lucet, “Les Or- Aubert, L’Architecture cistercienne en France 1:54).

A WAY OF LIFE 15 later when their growing needs for altars led to the from buying land or erecting new buildings, except gradual redesign of the east parts of the church.% where necessity obliged and then only with the A firm correlation of monk priests to the number consent of the mother house; the statute was reof altars is not yet possible for the statutes are vague affirmed in 1188, and in 1190, and again in 1191. on the point; late in the twelfth century choir monks Opposition to this statute can be detected, howwere to receive Holy Communion on Sunday if they ever, in attempts to weaken it in decrees of 1191 had not said Mass during the week or on feast and 1192.°8 In 1199 the statute condemning altar days.°+ Daily Masses for monk priests do not seem decoration and elaborate liturgical vestments was to have been customary, though this was the prac- repeated.° Statutes against sumptuous decoration tice of Bernard until his last illness. In 1202 the were reaffirmed in the early years of the thirteenth General Chapter reprimanded the abbots of Aber- century. And later in 1263 the abbot and prior at conway, Valle Crucis, and Llantarnam for very sel- Royaumont were punished for allowing in the church dom celebrating Mass, which probably meant less “‘picturas, imagines, et sculpturas, cortinas, columoften than once weekly; the Chronicon of Louth Park nas cum angelis circa maius altare” and were or-

records the granting of a license in 1209 to all dered to return the interior to the “humilitatem et conventual clergy in England to celebrate once a simplicitatem antiquam ordinis.”’7° week.°5 Yet the shortage of altars was acute, and _ By the early 1190s then, violations of accepted it is specified as one of the reasons for the construc- building practice were increasing. In 1192 the Gention of the new choir at Fountains beginning in eral Chapter ordered modification of the dormitory

1204. at Longpont within three years because it violated The reiteration of earlier proscriptive statutes and “the form” of the order.7' The same year no less a

the enactment of new ones during the last third of figure than the abbot of Clairvaux, Garnier de the twelfth century suggests a persistent unease Rochefort, was called to task for neglecting his reconcerning architecture as the Cistercians at- sponsibility as the visitor to Vaucelles (Nord), and tempted to reconcile the founders’ intentions with allowing, in the words of the General Chapter, the developments coincident with Early Gothic. In “certain extravagancies there he did not correct, in 1182 a statute directed that painted windows had particular the building of a church that is too costly to be removed within two years.°° In the same year and superfluous and shocked many.”’? For this abbeys with debts over fifty marks were prohibited omission Rochfort was punished and ordered to 63 Statuta 1 (1134:12): 33. It is not clear what sources Mar- they could settle the debt and by which means it would be téne used when he recorded the tradition at Clairvaux that an possible to raise for one the funds required to build all, and altar could be used only once a day (Marténe and Durand, so build without disregarding the opinion expressed in favor

Voyage littéraire, vol. 1, pt. I, p. 86). of not building. In the same way abbots to whom the freehold 64 Vita Prima, lib. 5, cap. 1. In the order’s early years there of any piece of land is adjudged by law to belong, may without was apparently no rule that a priest monk must celebrate Mass penalty collect the revenues of the property in respect of nondaily (see Consuetudines, cap. 66, J.-M. Canivez, “Le Rite cis- purchase.”

tercien,” Ephermerides Liturgicae 63 [1949]: 276-311). 69 Statuta I (1199:5): 233. 65 Statuta I (1202:35): 281. For Louth Park see Chron. LP, 7° For Royaumont, see ibid. 3 (1263:9): 11. An earlier

379. 93).

10-11. Later in the fourteenth century a statute required priests statute, dated 1231, talks of infringements, “. . . quae deto celebrate once a week as a minimum, Statuta 3 (1328:9): formant antiquam Ordinis honestatem. . .” (ibid. 2 [1231:8]:

6° Statuta 1 (1182:11): 91. 7 Ibid. 1 (1192:23): 150.

67 Ibid. (1182:9): 90-91; (1188:10), 109; (I1190:1), I17- 72 Ibid. (1192:31), 151-52: ‘“. . . quosdam excessus ibi non 18; (1192:4), 147. On the General Chapter’s activities in the correxit et praecipue aedificium ecclesiae quod sumptuosum late twelfth century, see Knowles, Monastic Order, 654-61. nimis est et superfluum, et multos scandalizavit. . . .” Little 68 A. Dimier, Recueil de plans d’églises cisterciennes, 2 vols. is known about Vaucelles, but as the church had only been

(Paris, 1949), 40. For the statutes, see Statuta 1 (1191:90): started two years earlier, objection probably centered on its 14; (1192:4), 147. The latter is worth quoting: “The opinion size; at 132 meters it was the order’s largest twelfth-century that it should be built in this style was qualified by the evidence church (see F. Baron, ‘Histoire architecturale de l’abbaye de of their officials and of the father abbot or visitor as to how Vaucelles,’’ CN 9 [1958]: 276-88).

16 CHAPTER 1 return to Vaucelles accompanied by the abbots of to consult a famous female mystic, possibly HildeFoigny and Ourscamp to suppress all “that did not garde of Bingen, to learn what in the order was conform to the simplicity of the order.” Similar most opposed to the purity of religious life. After abuses occurred in England. An 1197 statute sug- much delay and prayer, she replied that three things gests certain architectural irregularities in three particularly offended God: the immense extent of English houses: “Concerning the abbey that the the order’s estates, the vanity of their buildings, abbot of Revesby wants to build, on account of the and the mannered chant.7° That it was necessary trouble with the abbeys of Netley and Forde, it is to go outside the order to have this pointed out entrusted to the abbots from Rufford and Byland, would have shaken the Cistercians’ founders. But so that they can go to the place and learn if it can by the late twelfth century, under the pressure of and ought to stand according to what they hear adjusting to new forms and styles, confusion and from either side.” Somewhat earlier another abuse uncertainty existed at the top levels of the order. can be assumed, although it did not reach the Gen- What had been for Stephen Harding, or Bernard, eral Chapter; at Meaux the first stone church, built or Ailred the ready object of attack and ridicule, circa 1165-1185, was torn down by abbot Thomas now became the anxious subject of introspective (1182-1197), the reason given in the Chronicle being questioning and statutory assertion.

that “it had been arranged and constructed less

appropriately than was proper.’’74 While the Cistercian monks in England adhered Cases like these raise issues about the actual proc- to the legislative changes and shared the general ess of monitoring, about how violations came to shifts of attitude within the order, they were nonethe notice of the General Chapter, and about the theless exposed to a number of distinctive historical role of the abbot of the house vis-a-vis that of the conditions that exercised an important influence on abbot charged with visitation. Presumably, denun- their architecture. A survey of these conditions throws

ciation at the General Chapter occurred when an light on the sequence of foundation, the location abbot other than the regular visitor heard about of houses, patronage, and ties of filiation. - architectural violations or witnessed them in the Cistercian colonization in England followed a course of a visit. It is unclear, however, why at chronology unlike that in other countries. Of the Vaucelles it was the visitor who was held respon- fifty twelfth-century monasteries (out of an eventual sible for the violations and at Longpont, the resi- sixty-four established in England), all but five were

dent abbot. founded by 1154 (fig. 1).77 From the first settleBecause architecture makes such a public dec- ment at Waverley in 1128 until the death of Henry ,

laration of institutional identity it is not difficult Tin 1135, only five houses were established. Then to grasp why the Cistercians were anxious about a dramatic expansion in the nineteen years of Stetheir buildings as the twelfth century drew to a phen’s reign (1135-1154) brought the number of close. Some, such as Pierre le Chantre in 1191, saw Cistercian abbeys from five to thirty-two, or fortya solution in a return to Bernard’s views on archi- five when the monasteries belonging to the Contecture.7> Others resorted to the occult for answers. gregation of Savigny, which joined the Cistercians In one bizarre episode the abbot of Citeaux traveled in 1147/1148, are included. By contrast, in the 73 “De abbatia quam aedificare vult abbas de Revesbi, in theologian and cantor at Notre Dame. In 1197 he joined the gravamen abbatiarum de Net et de Fordis, committitur ab- Cistercians at Longpont. batibus de Ruffort, et de Bealanda, ut ad locum accedant et 76 Quoted by Dimier, Recuei/, 40 and n. 59, on the identity cognoscant si stare possit et debeat secundum quod audierint of the saint. ex utraque parte” (Statuta 1 {1197:35}: 217). The inclusion of 77 On the details of the foundations, see Knowles and HadNetley is puzzling since the date of foundation is usually given cock, Medieval Religious Houses. Seen in the context of the as 1239 (see D. Knowles and R. N. Hadcock, Medieval Religious order’s total development, the English houses accounted for Houses: England and Wales, 2d ed. {London, 1971}, 122). 9.4 percent of the twelfth-century foundations (fifty of 525),

74 See catalog under Meaux. but 13 percent of the expansion to Bernard’s death in 1153 75 Mortet, Recuez/ de textes 2:157. Pierre was an important (forty-five of 345).

11 : 10 3 i?) Zz. s: Zz. ; > 6 H mK 9 je) H jad r) 2 4 a23r)‘;

i, Z

25 ‘e) jody

24 20 onl

‘e)

bE 15

| 10 5

1128 1130 1135 1140 1145 1150 1155 1160 1165 1170 1175 1180 1185 1190 1195 1200

&y& INCREMENTAL GROWTH

1. Charts of growth for twelfth-century Cistercian houses in England.

18 CHAPTER 1 next thirty-five years, those of Henry II’s reign growth. Viewed in retrospect, there were relatively (1154-1189), only four new foundations were es- few geographical areas of England where the Cistablished, and under Richard I (1189-1199), only tercians could not have settled, but without patrons one. Estimates of the order’s manpower in this pe-- to sponsor them, they were unable to do so. Southriod suggest an expansion from around four hundred west England, for instance, was well suited to the monks and lay brothers in 1135 to around six thou- order’s needs as thirteenth-century foundations show,

sand ,by the century’s end.”® but patrons here in the twelfth century were lackThe spectacular growth of the Cistercians under ing, for reasons that are still unclear, and except Stephen had little to do with support from the king for Buckfast and Cleeve, the area remained closed himself, who patronized the Norman-based Savi- to the White Monks. gniacs, but much to do with the political and social Patrons were motivated to establish monastic chaos of his reign. To strengthen his erratic au- communities in part by piety, of course, although thority, Stephen was forced to devolve power through as already mentioned, other factors played their

the creation of new earldoms, the number growing part. Politically, the relationship established be- : from six at the start of his reign to twenty-two at tween the feudal earls and the monks resulted in its end.79 In a sequence characteristic of the loss of alliances that owed nothing to the king. As an order central authority, these earls set about increasing with an overtly international character, the Cistertheir personal power at the expense of the crown’s: cians provided patrons with a direct line to the in military matters they embarked on the construc- center of European power, at Rome or Clairvaux. tion of private castles; in religious ones, for reasons The monks, for their part, when they needed supthat were only partly spiritual, they patronized the port or more rarely defense in local disputes, nat-

new reform orders. urally turned to their patron or his family. This

The new earls were connected by family ties that interdependent character can still be grasped in its often meant a tradition of support for certain orders architectural guise at Rievaulx. The first Cistercian over others. B. Hill has shown how two families outpost in the north, Rievaulx had been established

played the major role in the establishment of the by a prominent border baron, Walter Espec. SeCistercians’ largest geographical group in England, cluded in its deep valley, the abbey nevertheless the abbeys in the Midlands. Dominating the first lay only two miles from the protection of Espec’s of these families was Ranulf de Gernons, earl of great stone castle at Helmsley. Similarly, at NewChester, who controlled more land than anyone in minster the new abbey was built close to the castle England except the king. Ranulf was the Cister- of the monks’ patron, Ranulph de Merlay; at Vaucians’ most prolific patron, founding five monas- dey, near Bytham Castle; and at Sawley, near Clithteries and helping endow six others. With his eroe Castle. For a baron, then, a local foundation brother’s two foundations and four endowments, brought prestige and good connections, for the the family had a hand in promoting seventeen Cis- monastery, a strong patron assured protection against tercian monasteries. Bordering their lands were those local disturbances.

of the second great family to patronize the White Other benefits to the patron in having the White Monks, the de Beaumonts, whose sons, the earl of Monks as neighbors were more constant and more

Leicester and the earl of Worcester, promoted an- tangible. With the superior agricultural skills, other eight houses. These two families thus played knowledge of sheep and cattle rearing, experience a direct role in the patronage of twenty-five of the in land clearance and drainage, the Cistercians of-

thirty-two Cistercian houses founded by 1154. fered patrons the chance to learn new techniques It was patronage rather than the availability of at little or no cost. Underscoring these advantages land that determined the settlement of monasteries, was the cheapness of establishing a Cistercian founalthough the latter controlled a new monastery’s dation, at least compared with other orders.®° Since 78 See J. C. Russell, “The Clerical Population of Medieval heavily on Hills’ English Cistercian Monasteries.

England,” Traditio 2 (1944): 177-212, esp. 194-96. 8° Knowles, Monastic Order, 246-47. 79 For the sections that follow on patronage I have drawn

A WAY OF LIFE 19 the General Chapter statutes required that houses Chronicle as ‘“‘well planted with woods and orchards, be located in secluded areas, a patron rarely had to surrounded with rivers and waters and favored with part with rich, developed estates. Moreover, the rich soil.”’ This hardly matched the Exordium’s site

monks were forbidden to accept endowments of requirements that a new house be established in manors, tithes, and the like, and they were bound “locus horroris,’’ but Adam struck his staff into the to a life of self-sufficiency, both of which absolved ground and declared: ‘‘Let this place be called a a patron from providing income-producing assets. palace of the eternal king, a vineyard of heaven, Compared with a founder’s responsibilities for a and a gate of life.” The count on learning of Adam’s Benedictine or Cluniac house, which included land choice became greatly agitated, for only a few days near populated centers, a running economy with earlier he had acquired the land at large expense as endowed properties, and a physical establishment a hunting park for himself and had already begun complete with buildings, the Cistercians’ needs were to enclose its west side with a bank and ditch. extraordinarily modest. Yet even so, founders of Despite pressures and pleadings to find another lothe order’s monasteries in England more often than cation, Adam remained unmoved, and the count, not disposed of land parsimoniously; the monks got realizing he had been outwitted, handed over the

, only the least productive or least valuable land, and land.

in tightfisted amounts. In the years after the mid-twelfth century a sigOn occasion it is possible to follow this process nificant shift in the patronage of the Cistercian in some detail. The most colorful example concerns houses occurred, with important implications for

Meaux in southeast Yorkshire, although there, the architectural scale of new foundations. With ironically, the patron’s grudging intention was turned Henry II’s accession, the authority of the crown was

against him.®! The benefactor of Meaux was Wil- forcibly reasserted. To weaken the power of the liam “le Gros,” count of Aumale and earl of York. earls, Henry formed a bureaucracy from the knight As a young man he had vowed to go on pilgrimage class that was loyal to him, and it was from this to the Holy Land, but as the years passed and he class that the new patrons came.®? Less wealthy than grew increasingly fat, he sought release from his the earls and possessed of smaller landholdings, the vow. Earlier he had founded St. Martin near Au- knights could not afford outright gifts and required male (Cluniac), Thornton on the Humber (Augus- financial compensation for land donations. Sometinian), and Vaudey in Lincolnshire (Cistercian). times this took the form of a straight cash payment;

William established Vaudey with a modest gift that in other cases, rents were charged or service de- , soon left the community in straightened circum- manded. A specific example is recorded at Vaudey. stances. To construct its buildings, the count em- As already mentioned, its founder, the count of ployed Adam, a monk at Fountains, who already Aumale, provided the first monks with land at had experience in the layout and design of Cister- Bytham, but it was insufficient to sustain the house; cian abbeys at Kirkstead and Woburn. On a visit and it fell toa knight of the earl of Lincoln, Geoffrey to his new foundation in 1149 the count’s unease de Brachecourt, to rescue the community. He proabout the unfulfilled vow was detected by Adam, vided a new site at Vaudey. Yet Geoffrey’s resources who shrewdly suggested a new Cistercian monas- were limited, as the agreement drawn up between tery as a means of securing its release. Bernard’s him and the monks makes clear. In return for the aid at Clairvaux was sought, and through him the gift of his whole residence with garden, the monks

pope, Eugenius III, who had started his religious undertook to provide him and his wife with food life at Clairvaux, agreed to the dispensation. The and clothing (both linen and woolen) and to supply count was delighted by the news and invited Adam their two servants with food, all for so long as they to select a site from his holdings for the new abbey. lived. Geoffrey and his wife were to receive the Coming to land a few miles east of Beverley, Adam same food as the monks, their servants the same as noticed a location described later in the Meaux the lay brothers.°3 Arrangements such as these not 8: The account is contained in Chron. M. 1:76-77. 83 Mon. Angl. 5:490. 82 See Hills, English Cistercian Monasteries, Off.

20 CHAPTER 1 only violated the spirit of the order’s statutes and enterprises, or to extend estates (and thereby in-

, dragged the monks into the world of law and fi- come) through the purchase of additional land, led nance but they meant smaller endowments and the monks into such dubious schemes as selling

, smaller-scale monasteries. their wool on forward contracts (a practice outlawed Mote serious compromises accompanied the ab- by the General Chapter in 1181), or simply to sorption in 1147/1148 of the thirteen English houses borrowing money outright. In 1189 ten Cistercian of the Congregation of Savigny. Although this union monasteries in the north, including Rievaulx, re-

brought to the Cistercians a number of large and ceived permission from the king, Richard I, to wealthy foundations, such as Furness and Byland, compound with a creditor named Aaron of Lincoln it quickly proved problematic. Raised under a dif- for debts of 6,500 marks upon payment of a thouferent discipline with different attitudes to wealth, sand marks down.®*> In all likelihood it was their economy, and even to the concept of monasticism, difficulty that determined passage of the statute in the Savigniac houses insisted on and won for them- the General Chapter the following year forbidding selves a number of concessions, which established indebtedness and specifying building as one of its a double standard. Their engagement in business, causes.

the failure of their abbots to attend regularly the A further aspect of patronage was the network General Chapters at Citeaux (thereby avoiding cen- of filiation that resulted from it. Figure 2 reveals sure), and their holding of income-producing prop- the tight-knit nature of the Cistercians’ expansion erty, accelerated a movement away from the ideal- in England. Excepting the Savigniac houses, viristic simplicity and poverty insisted upon by the tually the entire White Monk establishment was Cistercians. Men were not blind to the problems. controlled up to 1154 by three houses: Waverley, In 1169 the pope, Alexander III, addressed a cir- Rievaulx, and Fountains. Because Rievaulx and cular letter to the English Cistercians ordering them Fountains had Clairvaux as a common mother house,

to adhere to their constitutions and warning: “the Bernard’s abbey controlled the large majority of entire way of life has undergone injury and change, English Cistercian foundations in this period— a decline from established customs, a leaving be- eighteen out of thirty-two abbeys. Moreover, it was hind of the original manner of life of the institu- to Clairvaux that the Congregation of Savigny was tion. ’®4 Clearly the situation was worse in England submitted in 1147, adding thirteen more houses than elsewhere, and it is not without interest that in England to the Clairvaux family.®° Clairvaux’s the major innovations in architecture occurred in dominance over the English houses inevitably left houses that were formerly Savigniac, such as Fur- its mark on their architecture, for filiation, al-

ness, Byland, Jervaulx. though only one of several factors influencing ar-

The degree to which involvement with the out- chitecture, provided, due to the order’s centralized side world affected other Cistercian houses in Eng- government and its custom of visitation, an im-

land is illustrated by the transition of monastic portant means of transmitting ideas as well as economies from land to monetary ones, and from checking abuses or punishing violations. self-sufficiency to profit making. At first this prob- Changes in patronage and filiation in the thirably stimulated building, because in accordance teenth century set into clearer focus conditions in with the custom mentioned in the Exordium, one- the twelfth. The principal patron of the new founquarter of all income could be used for building; dations was now no longer the knight class but the but the temptation to raise money to continue such crown. The first monastery of the new century, at 84 The letter was probably written between 1162 and 1175 nard, XXIV° congrés de l'association bourguignonne des sociétés sa-

(see J. Leclercq, ““Epitres d’Alexandre III sur les cisterciens,” vantes (Dijon, 1953), 248-53. By the time of Saint Bernard’s

Revue Bénédictine 64 [1954]: 68-82). death the Clairvaux family numbered 167 (sixty-nine direct 85 J. Jacobs, “Aaron of Lincoln,” Jewish Quarterly Review 10 foundations, ninety-six more founded by them) out of total of

(1898): 629-48, esp. 635. 345; by the century’s end Clairvaux counted 263 dependencies 86 On Clairvaux’s dependencies, see A. Dimier, “Le Monde out of 525. Claravallien a la mort de Saint Bernard,” Mélanges Saint Ber-

_ . i fe) :2I| = =, .: I 5 . ; | 2 z .z;> | > < = " : : ; o

_ : to o< Ag as e) ! 4 3 “s Z a ° =< 8!1!ii!I| -5x:~Q |ma.4::;fsrr)Mf;5=a= : : 3 ; : < ra A < 5 = is 5 ¥ a : ; ot on: 2 < ° : 2 ~ € 1 Q ta . P .. ep ~Tp) Vay > a RB | :PyOo.wQ UO 4 : : 72) m = am M — oar: gz “ = = 3 Z 3 0 io] ee as = ~ s eee: : GS 3 5 5 : 2 ss 2 : S ° Oo = = a : c , ; o i ae ;& ; “ Z nd ~ fe e , a : i ©} 2 : = 3 m la) z z : : : > a) S aS 8 5 » | oF + a jaa) = S 2 Bs : 5 !QO= a 2 F :3:5ox :z2~1+|°1=& yi fam a — ° = 1+ am Z < @ > “ : a Bi az25 = z™S3 =— Em fo) Re

-~-o~

5

>:: : a TO rrr nn a nm re meme em om i %
4 Cistercian phenomenon, something localized among The chevet at Jervaulx (fig. 18) terminated at the order’s churches and other monastic buildings? full-height at the east end, the east chapels being A wider impact may be claimed among a group of within the elevation rather than outside it as at buildings that lay in varying degrees outside the Byland. The full-height termination was the same orbit of the Cistercians. The most compelling case as that used at Rochester (1115-1125), Holy Cross, is Old Malton Priory, founded in 1150, a house

Winchester (circa 1160-1175), probably York belonging to the Gilbertines who were strongly Minster (circa 1165), Bardney (cérca 1175), Ripon influenced by the Cistercians. Work on a new church (circa 11708), St. Frideswide, Oxford (czvea 1175), began around 1175 to judge by fragmentary reWaltham (circa 1170-1190), and Brinkburn (circa mains of the south transept.5° The west bays of the I190-1200).55 Thus the plan at Jervaulx relates to nave of the 1190s survive in large part (plate 89),

a different tradition than that at Byland, one that and there the influence of Byland emerges in the

is explicitly English. pier design, the composition of the middle story,

54 See W. H. St. John Hope and H. Brakspear, ‘“‘Jervaulx partment of Environment, 1967); for Waltham, see RCHM: Abbey,” YAJ 21 (1911): 303-44. The publication on Jervaulx Essex 5 (London, 1966): 172. This solution probably derives is uncharacteristically general, and the remains have never been from France, as Hearn has argued in “The Rectangular Amsystematically examined. The west responds have bases with bulatory in English Medieval Architecture,” 202. earlier profiles than those of the west door, which are water- 56 At Old Malton the present church preserves only part of holding. Likewise, the piers change as work on the nave moved the former nave. In the eighteenth century the aisles were eastward. The south door and the exterior buttresses do not removed, the arcades blocked, and the clerestory dismantled. course through; they look like later work of about 1185-1190. For the building’s former appearance, see S. Buck, Buck’s An| 55 For Rochester and Winchester, see n. 28 above; for St. tiquities; Venerable Remains of Castles, Monasteries, Palaces in Eng-

: Frideswide, see RCHM: Oxford (London, 1939), 35-46; for land and Wales (London, 1774), plate 332. The plate, made Bardney, see H. Brakspear, “Bardney Abbey,” Arch. Jnl. 79 in 1728, shows a single clerestory window over each bay. For (1922): 1-92; for Brinkburn, Brinkburn Priory (London: De- the priory’s history, see VCH: Yorkshire 3 (London, 1913):

. wwi— _| | =e fi ee - Lee |

| CISTERCIAN CHURCH TRANSFORMED 85

ie < [1

} mn + 5 3) ey ey ial op wroseeee eG =.) |S

| |_Pd |‘ 2 7 ‘ “i " “‘ oSP‘sai!a *ayi Ht i! can )==is |“wen. “ ‘, a sy . _— eh ? ‘ _ (oes ~ o

a © © «4 ___ OD Oe

Kc BEra....A a i aa} ) a_|

|_ ies Ao ce © ao. ee | a ras

—! / . melt” * ARR cen ae ees ;

“ “Y ' ’ oe ‘

; \. a 3 |*ma A[oo *rg #; ‘,“AE a | i.

a|| of * At Byland—can be discerned at Arbroath, as Webb the east end, which was raised first, the surviving has shown.® On the other hand, buildings in the 58 See E. Cambridge, “The Early Building History of St. 6: For Jedburgh, see RCHM Scotland: Roxburghshire (EdinAndrews Cathedral, Fife, and its Context in Northern Tran- burgh, 1956); 194-204. The main similarities to Byland are sitional Architecture,” Ant. Jnl. 57 (1977): 277-88; and R. G. the eight-shaft fasciculated piers (with keeled principals and Cant, “The Building of St. Andrews Cathedral,” Innes Review rounded minors, the same pattern as Byland), the waterleaf

25 (1974): 77-94. capitals (plate 104), and the arcade moldings with gorged

59 D. MacGibbon and T. Ross, The Ecclesiastical Architecture crowns. Connections with Byland are limited to the arcade

of Scotland (Edinburgh, 1896-1897), vol. 2, fig. 444. story, however. 6 Cambridge, “Early Building History of St. Andrews,” 62 Webb, Architecture in Britain: the Middle Ages, 85-86. 284.

88 CHAPTER 5 early thirteenth century like Hexham, Whitby, and vided resources to sustain the ambitious building Rievaulx show a richness of effect and pursue an campaigns, and it is significant that Byland was openness in the walls that differ from Byland; they not listed for accumulated building debts as were belong more clearly to a line of descent from St. most other Cistercian houses in the north in 1189. Andrews. For these earlier buildings outside the Commerce in wool from the abbey’s extensive sheep order, then, the importance of Byland lay not so farming undoubtedly linked Byland to northeastern much in the development of its system as in re- France and French Flanders during these years.° garding it as a showcase of new components. Se- But these ties do not explain the architecture, for lections could be made, and when combined with other Cistercian abbeys were similarly connected to components from other traditions, an architecture this region without those connections leading to was formed that constituted a north of England new or even similar architectural influence.

version of Gothic architecture. The distinctive characteristics of Byland’s architecture need to be seen first in the context of deFinally, it is necessary to consider the architec- velopments in France. Modifications of the order’s ture at Byland in the broader context of the chang- simpler architecture there can be documented in ing ideals of Cistercian architecture. It is clear that the last quarter of the twelfth century, though none the Yorkshire abbey goes well beyond what might of the known instances predates Byland. One imbe called modernization. Byland represents instead portant example is Vaucelles (Nord) built between

a fundamental shift in the appearance and values about 1175 and 1192 and thus exactly contemof Cistercian architecture. Given the order’s sen- porary with the Yorkshire abbey. The church has sitivity On artistic matters and its control of art and been destroyed, but the remains of the chapter house

architecture, the new qualities of the church at and cloister furnish analogous architectural detail-

Byland are intriguing. ing to Byland’s; and whatever form the church took, As already stated, Byland was one of the richest it elicited condemnation in the General Chapter of and most powerful abbeys in the north. The size I192 as being “too costly, and superfluous,” and of its community is difficult to fix with precision, was described as ‘‘shocking many.’°° Vaucelles in- — but the thirty-five monks and one hundred lay dicates a broader geographic context, then, for the brothers proposed by Knowles and Hadcock almost architectural innovation at Byland that ran counter certainly represent too small a number.° With this to the order’s earlier traditions. manpower Byland would have been smaller than What explains this shift in the architectural charWaverley, which does not seem in keeping with acter of the church at Byland? The notion of its the scale of the abbey’s buildings and the cathedral being an isolated aberration can be dismissed since size of its church. More plausible are the numbers more than one building was involved. Feelings about mentioned in the 1231 visitation conducted by Ab- the change ran high, as the fierce language used to bot Stephen of Lexington, which resulted in the condemn Vaucelles indicates, yet the effect on other issuance of a series of statutes regulating discipline buildings within a generation or so indicates a not and administration. He ruled that the community inconsiderable acceptance and enthusiasm for the

not exceed 80 monks and 160 lay brothers and point of view that the new architecture embodied. prohibited the reception of new lay brothers until Unfortunately, the deeper motivations underlying their numbers had been reduced to 160.°4 Funding the change still remain obscure, although their refor the work during the active decades of construc- covery may well result from renewed research into tion—from about 1155 to 1185—appears, from this critical moment of crisis in the identity and the small amount known, to have caused no dif- aims of the order. ficulties. Expanded landholdings would have pro- Another question is how Byland managed to get 63 D. Knowles and R. N. Hadcock, Medieval Religious Houses: 65 See Fergusson,, “South Transept Elevation of Byland Ab-

England and Wales, 2d ed. (London, 1971), I17. bey,” 174 n. I. 64 See B. Griesser, “Registrum Epistolarum Stephani de 66 Statuta 1 (1192:31): 151-52. Lexinton,” ASOC 8 (1952): 181-378, esp. 205, no. 15.

CISTERCIAN CHURCH TRANSFORMED 89 away with these fundamental changes in architec- nearly all the buildings at Byland. By the late twelfth ture, given the order’s system of annual inspection century Byland rivaled Fountains and Rievaulx as and its passion for standardization. How did a church the richest in the land. All this indicates a man of like Vaucelles elicit censure when the one at Byland exceptional ability, force, and leadership—the kind, did not?®7 Adding to the mystery is the case of indeed, who would know how to get what he wanted Revesby in Lincolnshire, where the architecture was and who by about 1170 (after more than a quarterapparently related to that at Byland and where the century in office as abbot) had the seniority and, General Chapter ordered it checked in 1197, thereby doubtless, the astuteness to steer such matters as implying specific violations of some kind.® If Re- architectural preference past the critical eyes of the vesby attracted attention, or other abbeys in the order’s visitors to Byland. One of these visitors, for

| 1190s where the statutes reveal that architecture at least the first decade of construction (though the was deemed out of line, how did Byland escape monks remained a mile away at Stocking), was none

notice? other than Saint Ailred, and it is hard to imagine An important clue to these questions may lie in his assenting to the building whose remains we ,

the particular situation at Byland and, specifically, now see. By Ailred’s death in 1167, however, and the role of its leader, Abbot Roger. By any stand- still ten years before the community’s removal to ard, his career was extraordinary. It had begun the new site, only the first campaign of building around 1130 at Furness, where he professed as a was accomplished, and the work then in hand, as monk of the Congregation of Savigny. In 1135 he far as can be judged, was entirely in keeping with went as one of the founding monks to Calder, where the order’s orthodox early style.7° In fact, the work he held the office of subcellarer, and he was present was remarkably similar to that of Rievaulx in de-

during the troubled days when the monks separated tailing, probably in plan, and in masonry construc- , themselves from Furness and trekked across the tion. But in the years following Ailred’s death the Pennines to Yorkshire in search of a home and tastes of Abbot Roger underwent a dramatic libpatron. By the early 1140s, and now Cistercian at eration. Just as important, he seems to have found Hood in Yorkshire, Roger had risen to master of in Ailred’s successor, Sylvanus, not just a sympathe novices, and it was there in 1142 that he was thetic visitor to his house but an enthusiastic supelected abbot. For the next fifty-four years, until porter for his new architecture.7* As much can be his retirement in 1196, Roger guided Byland’s af- assumed from two observations: at Sylvanus’ former fairs. During this vast tenure, he settled three sites, abbey of Dundrennan, the influence of Byland surwon the abbey’s independence by legal means, as- faces in the reworked north transept; and much sembled its estates by the acquisition of massive closer, at Rievaulx, the ambitious refectory (plate landholdings, both local and farther afield, and built 92), the most notable architectural undertaking of 67 There is a hint it may not have. In 1190 the General 69 See chapter 1 of this study, 15-16. Chapter reprimanded the abbey, disciplining Abbot Roger and 7° Roger’s friendship with Ailred is attested to, and it was also the abbot of Jervaulx. The pretext is unknown, and it he who anointed Ailred on his deathbed (see C. H. Talbot, may have had no connection with architecture. It reads: ‘““The “A Letter of Roger, Abbot of Byland,” ASOC 7 {1951}: 218-

abbot of Byland with John the former abbot of Jervaulx taken 31). with him, let him come to Savigny at Christmas, and there 7* Another example of a visitor who colluded in “un-Cislet them both obey the ruling of the head abbot of Savigny tercian” building without encountering trouble was Abbot and his co-abbots. The head abbot of Savigny will announce Guido of Clairvaux (1195-1214). Before his appointment there

it to them.” (Ibid. [1190:72}, 131.) and while abbot of Ourscamp (1170-1195), Guido had over68 Ibid. (1197:35), 217. The abbots of Byland and Rufford looked the construction of an un-Cistercian chevet at one of are named as visitors. The visitation occurred after Roger’s his daughter houses, Mortemer. Then, while abbot of Clairretirement, in the first year of Philip’s rule. One wonders vaux, he countenanced the construction at Longpont of a largewhether the similarity of the plan of Revesby to that of Byland scale Gothic church. (See C. A. Bruzelius, “Cistercian High results from this monitoring visit or precedes it. There was, Gothic: The Abbey Church of Longpont and the Architecture of course, no question of the plan’s being unorthodox; it had of the Cistercians in the Early Thirteenth Century,” Az. Czst. already appeared at Citeaux consecrated three years earlier. 35 [1979]: 58-59.)

90 CHAPTER 5 Sylvanus’ abbacy, shows striking similarities of style tling characterization of his monumental building to the west parts of Byland.’? Firm evidence for as ‘“‘pulchram et magnam” appears on first reading Sylvanus’ attachment to Byland comes from his last to be out of character for a Cistercian, affirming years, when after resigning as abbot of Rievaulx, the “concupiscence of the eyes” explicitly con-

| he moved to Byland to place himself under the demned by Saint Ailred, the half-century that sepguidance of Abbot Roger. And it was at Byland arates Ailred in his prime from Abbot Roger in his

that he died in 1189.73 retirement saw a transformation across the whole

Throughout the years of their association then— spectrum of Cistercian affairs. Seen in the light of 1167 through 1189—Roger as abbot of Byland and the order’s established status, Abbot Roger’s church patron of its new church and Sylvanus as the senior and his prideful description of it exemplify a new

, visitor to the house would have watched the new identity as accurately as they define a new archichurch rise from the ground and pass through all tecture. phases of its construction. Although Roger’s star72 Sir Charles Peers dates the refectory to 1200 (Rievaulx pie memorie Siluanus quondam abbas Rievallis, vij idus OcAbbey, 15; see plan legend). Comparison of the capitals and tobris apud Belelande, ibique honorifice supultus est” (J. Stemoldings with those from the west parts of the church at venson, ed., “Chronica de Mailros,” Bannatyne Club 49 {1835}: Byland, however, show that a date from about 1180 forward 81 and 149; see also, D. Knowles and C.N.L. Brooke, The

is likely, at least for the parts nearest the cloister. Heads of Religious Houses: England and Wales, 940-1216 {Cam73 His obit appears in the Melrose Chronicle: “. . . obiit bridge, 1972}, 129).

Cistercian Architecture

in the West Country ALTHOUGH the most dramatic expansion of the Combe, and Buildwas, and parts of chapter houses Cistercians took place in the north of England, their at Bindon, Warden, and Stoneleigh. Furthermore, presence south of the Humber was nonetheless im- the plans of a number of vanished churches are pressive. The larger number of smaller houses here known. In the south and southwest, for instance, may be explained in part by the scarcity of land archaeology has retrieved the plans of Quarr (founded and the greater population, which made amassing 1132), Forde (1141), Rufford (1146), Buckfast extensive estates considerably more complicated than (1148), Flaxley (1151), Bindon (1172), and Cleeve it was in the north.' In addition, many regions, (1198). Except at Forde, where a thirteenth-century particularly in the west country and midlands, had extension is likely, these show the traditional early already been settled by earlier monastic movements; forms, suggesting both a relative conservatism and thus the Cistercians had to compete for patrons, small size compared with abbeys in the north of

recruits, and benefactors. These circumstances England. inevitably affected the architecture of the order; it Losses in the east, southeast, and midlands are is no coincidence that building programs in general particularly acute; minimal remains at Sibton, Box-

- assumed a more modest scale. ley, Flaxley, and Rufford hint at the extent of CisOur understanding of the order’s architecture in tercian building activity. Much new information this large area of England is hindered by the almost has come, however, from the thirteen seasons (and complete destruction of most of the monuments. continuing) of excavation at Bordesley in WorcesThere are substantial above-ground remains of only tershire, which is the most complete to have been two of the thirty-eight twelfth-century churches— undertaken at any Cistercian site. Evidence again Buildwas and Abbey Dore—and some scanty parts suggests an architecture that was less pioneering

of five others—Bindon, Cleeve, Kirkstead, Louth than that in the north. Park, Stoneleigh. But the situation is not as hope- The oldest certain remains are at Buildwas in less as these figures imply. A surprising number of Shropshire (plate 106).? Settled in 1135 as a daugh-

sites have fragments that provide useful compara- ter house to Furness, Buildwas belonged to the tive material; and some notable claustral buildings Congregation of Savigny for its first thirteen years. still stand, such as the entire monks’ dormitory at The abbey never grew to a large size, even after Cleeve, large parts of the east range at Stoneleigh, union with the Cistercians in 1148; it sent out no portions of the monks’ undercroft and abbot’s lodg- colonies, and its revenues remained modest. Docing at Coggeshall, the lay brothers’ range at Rufford umentary records are silent about the buildings, and Flaxley, nearly complete chapter houses at Forde, most of which were raised during the long and * Sibton in Suffolk and Buckfast in Devon managed to as- don, n.d. [1846]}); M. E. Walcott, The Four Minsters Round the semble sizable holdings, however; for Sibton, see A. H. Den- Wrekin (London, 1877), 334-44; Sir Nikolaus Pevsner, BoE: ning, ed., The Sibton Estates, Suffolk Record Society 2 (1960); for Shropshire (London, 1958), 88-90. The plates in Potter’s pubBuckfast, see J. Stephan, A History of Buckfast Abbey (Bristol, lication are the earliest measured drawings of a Cistercian house

1970). published in England. 2 See J. Potter, Remains of Ancient Monastic Architecture (Lon-

92 CHAPTER 6 distinguished of Abbot Ranulf (1155-1187), I ZV~L TNee ING but a generalrule confirmation obtained in 1192 from Bishop Hugh de Novant and signed in the company - _—_ | aor Be

of a gathering of abbots may well have coincided { «| a rr ‘a A

with the completion of work on the church.? ba xy eos . | x The sequence of construction at Buildwas is rel- an a ae

atively straightforward, although work took an un- mit —— -_ —_usually long time by the standards of the order. Four main campaigns may be discerned, extending

over a forty-year period. Work began only after

tains. J

Buildwas became Cistercian in 1148, and a plan —_ G ———-J bg

characteristic of the order’s early churches was a fs ‘ adopted, with a two-bay rectangular presbytery and af ; two straight-ended chapels in each transept (fig. { ry 19).4 Compared with the big abbey churches in the | i north, the building’s size was modest: 163 feet east c 5 to west, which was eighty feet shorter than Foun- == | = The first building campaign (circa 1150-1160) L : saw the completion of transepts and presbytery. The | B transept chapels were entered through low, narrow C ) unarticulated arches with three rectangular setbacks a devoid of either capitals or bases (plate 107). This [ 7 gave the openings the effect of being cut back through a pS

a solid mass. A string course separated the chapel 5 entrances from the plain clerestory, but otherwise the walls were completely bare. Unbroken lateral | i walls small chapels, which were vaulted a en] with ribseparated rather thanthe barrel vaults. The vaults sprang Ree ae OT ee ens | from angled corbels, and the ribs had chamfered

profiles similar to those in the warming house at a 1135-1200

; ; ; ; oS 12 CENTURY ALTERATIONS

Fountains from about 1160.> Similarly, the crossing was rectangular in plan with piers at this stage

of work of simple rectangular form; both features 0 10 20 FEET

suggest the absence of a crossing tower. The ar- —— chitecture of this first program, then, was one of 19. Buildwas, plan. uncompromising formal austerity and mural bare-

ness with parallels to the contemporary Yorkshire to Early Gothic tendencies, just as occurred in the abbeys, most particularly with Rievaulx and the north. At Buildwas these appeared first in the chap-

transepts at Fountains (plate 7). ter house (plate 108), and the new style contrasted Around 1160, however, this severity gave way with the old one used in the church. Whereas the

3 Mon. Angl. 5:359. ing in the lower walls; the ashlar consists of nearly square 4 There is some question as to whether any parts of the shaped stones with wide mortar joints containing stone inchurch date from the Savigniac years. Almost certainly the filling. crypt under the north transept does, crypts otherwise being 5 Nearly all the ribs of the vaults are gone except for some unknown in Cistercian architecture. But the relation of the fragments in the south chapel of the south transept. In apCrypt masonry to the first work is unclear. An early phase of pearance, then, the vaults give the appearance of groins and work on the presbytery may be recognized by distinctive cours- are so mistaken by Pevsner in BoE: Shropshire, 89.

CISTERCIAN ARCHITECTURE IN WEST COUNTRY 93 transepts were massive, squat, and articulated by to those in the chapter house (plate 127). At the rectangular setbacks—Romanesque in style—the same time, the first two bays of the nave were begun chapter house was defined by forms notable for their with alternating supports, and the piers were proslimness and by detailing distinguished by a crisp, vided with waterholding bases and angle spurs.°®

precise linearism. As a conseqence, space ap- These motifs continued the French vocabulary alpeared enlarged and a sense of lightness dominated, ready seen in the chapter house. But the new scheme both Early Gothic qualities. The interior was fully was abruptly rejected between the second and third vaulted, and the vaults were carried on alternating bay, and the architecture reverted to a conservative octagonal and rounded shafts and supported on the mode. Alternation in the piers was dropped, arcade walls by semioctagonal responds. Capitals included moldings became plain, proportions once again were artichoke leaf designs typical of the 1150s and 1160s low. In the detailing, too, older motifs were pre(plate 126). The transverse arches of the rib vaults ferred, such as the scalloped capitals, many of trumwere pointed and the diagonals semicircular, just pet shape with ribbon and beading motifs, features as in the aisles at Kirkstall, in the slype at Foun- popular in the west country in the 1170s and 1180s,

tains, and in the west country, in the chapter house which occurred again in other Cistercian houses at Forde (plate 109).° Compared with the rib vaults such as Stoneleigh (plate 129). at Forde, those at Buildwas were characteristic of Work on the nave progressed slowly, however, Early Gothic; even the vault construction showed implying difficulties with funding. By the time the differences, the vault webs being of cut ashlar rather clerestory was reached, the disposition once again than rubble fill, namely, in the French rather than had become more elaborate; shafts with capitals of

the English manner.’ crocket type were employed, and these in turn car-

This new stylistic impulse was permitted only ried moldings. At the west facade, the windows partial expression in the church at Buildwas, how- had dogtooth moldings, shafts were belted, and ever. Around 1165 a second campaign was started capitals acquired windblown foliate volutes in douthat saw the addition of a tower over the crossing ble tiers (plate 130) like those at Wells, Glaston(as in the northern abbeys in the late 1150s and bury, and St. Mary’s Shrewsbury of about 1190.9

1160s) and the articulation of the supporting cross- In a last campaign, dating to about 1190, the ing piers, formerly plain, with attached shafts (plate presbytery was modestly updated. The walls were 111). The shafts carried capitals of similar design raised by some eight to ten ashlar courses and rib ° This was the standard form used by the Cistercians for 8 The bases are similar to those on the center door of the their early rib vaults. Its use in the nave aisles at Malmesbury west facade at Roche, circa 1175-1180. The bases in the chapter in the 1160s led Bony to suggest Cistercian influence there house at Buildwas are attic (as are those on the crossing shafts),

(“French Influences on the Origin of English Architecture,” but waterholding bases were used in the Fountains chapter

JWCI 12 [1949]: 3). house before 1170, and in the transepts at Abbey Dore, circa

In the chapter house at Forde, dating from about 1160, the 1175. vault spans the entire space, a bolder solution than at Buildwas. As can be seen in plate 111, the arches of the two bays are Profiling, though, is purely Romanesque. The chapter house lower by eighteen inches than those to the west. The first pier at Bindon (plate 110), may have been similar to that at Forde, on both the north and south is octagonal to the aisles but

for the responds are clearly related. rounded to the nave, an unusual form. Alternation of octagonal 7 Bilson noted that the profiles of the ribs (two rolls separated and rounded piers must derive from the chapter house. An by a fillet) were the same as those in the north aisle at Glouces- earlier Cistercian example may be found in the infirmary clois-

ter and the choir aisles at Peterborough, but he also related ter at Rievaulx, circa 1160, and outside the order on a mon-

them to similar profiles in the north of France—for instance, umental scale in the choir at Canterbury, 1175-1179. | at St. Denis and at St. Martin-des-Champs (“The Architecture ° For Wells, see L. Stone, Sculpture in Britain: The Middle of the Cistercians, with Special Reference to Some of their Ages (Harmondsworth, 1955), plate 75.A; for Glastonbury, see Earlier Churches in England,” Arch. Jnl. 66 [1909]: 264). G. Webb, Architecture in Britain: The Middle Ages (HarmondsIn addition, L. Serbat pointed out the French technique in worth, 1956), 87-90; for Shrewsbury, see Pevsner, BoE: Shrop-

the cutting of the ribs at Buildwas and contrasted this with shire, plate 11. that at Kirkstall (see “L’ Architecture des cisterciens dans leurs

plus anciennes églises en Angleterre,” B. Mon. 74 [1910]: 442).

94 CHAPTER 6 vaults, probably replacing an earlier barrel vault, More important, in contrast to Fountains and Kirkwere added, rising from springers flanked by thin, stall where the naves were tall and compactly massed, tapering corbels (plate 131), similar to those in the at Buildwas the proportions were broader and the transepts at Abbey Dore (plate 114).'° At the same arcade spacing was slow and easy. The interior thus time, the window on the south wall was length- combined a certain intimacy with an overall retiened, and the two tiers of round-headed windows cence in the formal vocabulary. There is, in fact, in the east wall were modified into single, narrow an unaffectedness about the Shropshire abbey that lancets. A sedilia was inserted with nailhead in the stands in subtle contrast to the calculated authority arches and molded capitals and abaci. Work was and intensity of the Yorkshire houses. probably finished by 1192 when the convocation

of abbots mentioned in the confirmation of that A second monastery in the west country that

year assembled at Buildwas. : dates from about the same years is Abbey Dore in These four campaigns thus extended from around Herefordshire (plate 113).'' The similarities end L150 to 1190. The first two may be compared with there, however, and the architecture of Abbey Dore contemporary work at Kirkstall, Furness, and Roche, underscores the conservative nature of Buildwas. A

though by their standards, there is little question major monument, not only in its scale and the that Buildwas was old-fashioned. As mentioned developed character of its architecture but also in above, the decisive moment occurred around 1160 its relation to Early Gothic in the west of England, when Early Gothic was used in the chapter house. Abbey Dore, like Byland in the north, served as But it stimulated relatively few changes in the church one of the centers for the spread of the new style. apart from the crossing. The subsequent reversion Its role in the movement, however, has been given

to older models and the adoption of detailing that slight attention. '? carried local accents is particularly distinctive. This What survives at Abbey Dore is nothing less rejection of the up-to-date may be seen as a con- than the entire chevet and transepts—and they con-

servative reflex in the order’s architecture. stitute the most complete remains of a twelfthIn the modern literature it is usual to regard century Cistercian church in Britain. At the DisBuildwas as something of a poor relation to the big solution the church was adapted for the parish and Yorkshire abbeys like Fountains and Kirkstall. Yet thus was spared from destruction. Some time later, the obvious similarities that spring from a common use lapsed and the condition of the fabric deteri-

architectural tradition within the order should not orated to the point where cattle sheltered in the be allowed to obscure the individual qualities of building. "3 In 1633, however, restoration was started

, the Shropshire house. In the nave at Buildwas (plate by Viscount Scudamore, whose ancestors had been 112) the walls took on a noticeable play of depth the original patrons. The intention was to save the with the inset and shafted clerestory, a feature re- east parts and to return them to parochial use, a flected in the capitals with their indented angles. purpose that, happily, they still serve. *4 to The top six ashlar courses look as though they are of a of England. For the history of the abbey, see D. H. Williams, later date. The tremendous thickness of the north and south White Monks in Gwent and the Border (Pontypool, 1976), 1-58. walls, which measure over five and a half feet across, is unusual. '2 For instance, Abbey Dore is ignored in the basic account The relative narrowness of the presbytery makes them clearly of Early Gothic in the west country: H. Brakspear, “A West excessive and raises the possibility that a barrel vault was Country School of Masons,” Arch. 81 (1931): 1-18. Jean Bony

originally built. was the first to realize the importance of the abbey as a source

tt See R. W. Paul, “The Church and Monastery of Abbey for Early Gothic in the west, “French Influences on the Origin Dore, Herefordshire,” Trans. BGAS 27 (1904): 117-26; of English Architecture,” 11. For a survey of Early Gothic in E. Sledmere, Abbey Dore: Herefordshire (1914); RCHM: Here- the west country see Webb, Architecture in Britain: The Middle fordshire, South-West (London, 1931), 1-9; Sir Nikolaus Pevs- Ages, 87-95. ner, BoE: Herefordshire (London, 1963), 57-62. The most thor- «3 Williams, White Monks in Gwent, 5. ough and perceptive analysis is C. Malone, “West Country Gothic 4 The restoration took two years and was carried out by the Architecture, 1175-1250” (Ph.D. diss., University of California famous west country carpenter, John Abel (see RCHM.: Hereat Berkeley), chap. 2. Dr. Malone kindly allowed me to read fordshire, South-West 1:1-6). this chapter on the genesis of Gothic architecture in the west

CISTERCIAN ARCHITECTURE IN WEST COUNTRY 95 The abbey was founded in 1147 by monks from Morimond, the sole daughter house established by this monastery across the channel. This filiation may account for the large scale of Abbey Dore in

comparison with Buildwas; conceivably, it was thought of as a colonizing outpost in the border

areas—the hilly site is only three miles from the |

Welsh border—analogous to Rievaulx in the north. ,

Nothing is known of the early decades of the :

abbey’s history, unfortunately. The first document _ | dates only to circa 1170 and records a gift of land

from Baldwin Sitsylt. Around 1173 Abbey Dore | c] ’ appropriated the nearby temporary Cistercian foun-

tions.'5 Increased revenues from these sources dation of Trawscoed with all its resources and dona- ] g ‘eo doubtless provided money for building.

Three distinct building programs were carried “

out at Abbley Dore in the last thirty years of the

10 20 FEET twelfth century. The first extended from about 01170 a to 1180 and comprised the transepts and eastern 20. Abbey Dore, plan of first church.

parts of the church. A second, dating to the early 1180s, saw work begun in the nave but in a very

different style from that of the first. A third pro- broken through to form the first bay of the amgram, dating from around 1186 to around 1210, bulatory of the new scheme and the piercing of the included a big eastern extension that necessitated lateral walls of the old presbytery to provide for an the destruction of much of the presbytery from the arch and clerestory of the new chevet (plate 121).

first program. In its late twelfth century form the The transepts (plates 114 and 115) provide an church measured 250 feet east to west, making it exceptional record of Cistercian architecture at the a little longer than Fountains and Kirkstall. The moment of its greatest influence in the twelfth cenprograms reveal three fundamentally different ap- tury. The elevation was two-storied, with the bays proaches to architecture and must be considered framed by groups of five boldly projecting shafts

separately. coursed through with the wall. As at Roche and

Byland, the architecture at Abbey Dore affirmed As originally laid out, the plan at Abbey Dore the principle of bay division and rejected the tend(fig. 20) followed a standard early Cistercian form ency toward unarticulated volumes that distinsimilar to that at Furness and Roche, which were guished the order’s earlier buildings (Rievaulx, for erected in the same years.‘° The transepts and the instance). The transepts were originally vaulted with

west bay of the presbytery survive from this church four-part rib vaults with wall ribs.'7 The wall ribs | and can be recognized in part in the present build- received shafts that rose from the floor but were ing. This is because the changes involved in the not given capitals, in contrast to the shafts carrying eastern extension (that constitute the third program the transverse arch and rib diagonals. All five shafts of work) saw the ends of the inner transept chapels rose from a common plinth and individual bases.

15 Williams, White Monks in Gwent, 9. evidence for this. *6 This came to light in Roland Paul’s late nineteenth cen- ‘7 Just when the actual vaults over the transepts were built tury excavation (see R. W. Paul, Abbey Dore {Hereford, 1898}). is uncertain. Although the springers and shafts are contemA scheme probably preceding Abbey Dore I may be discerned porary, Paul’s excavation revealed fragments of rib with thirin the north transept, which adjoined the cloister. A changed teenth-century profiles. roof line and a blocked oculus in the outer chapel are the

96 CHAPTER 6 Taken together, the system of shafts in relation to with dogtooth fleurons. Difficulties in setting out, the vaults resembled the classic French clarification such as in the centering of the arch openings, and

, of the vault system, which neither Roche nor By- a lack of coordination in the vault springers point land adopted. With the present timber roof, the to a certain unfamiliarity with the full system.?° interior volume has a tall and cubic effect; but the These early parts of Abbey Dore are characterized original vaulting would have given the space a lower, by a distinctly Cistercian variant of Early Gothic.

more rounded effect. Restraint in the decoration and an affirmed murality The lighting in the transepts was generous, en- pervade, yet detailing is crisp, with thin, linear tering from a single lancet in each bay of the east profiling, and the system of supports set out from and west walls. In the south terminal wall (the the wall states a new structural clarity for the space. cloister was on the opposite arm at Dore), two large Such qualities are accentuated by window openings lancets were topped by a small ovoid window (plate that create a luminous interior.

115).*® Since the original glass was grisaille, the Nothing in the west of England prior to the light would have been similar to the constant but transepts at Abbey Dore can be unambiguously not brilliant light that animates the interior today. identified as Early Gothic. The abbey of MalmesCompared with the light in the later twelfth cen- bury, dating from the 1160s, although vaulted, tury chevet, the light in the transepts was more was Romanesque in its forms and expression. Sources diffused and clearer; it strongly resembled that of in France underlay the design of the Dore master, the transepts and nave of the French abbey of Pon- though it did not originate in the area around Mori-

, tigny of a decade earlier. mond, which supplied the founding monks, or in The chronology of construction at Abbey Dore the Aisne, whence models for Furness and Roche is complex. Construction on one part of the abbey had come, or in French Flanders, the source for would continue to a certain height, and then at- Byland. Instead the transepts were inspired by the tention would switch to another. The crossing piers architecture in areas of eastern Normandy and the were begun first, followed by the south transept, Vexin. There, as Jean Bony has shown, Abbey where the chapels are divided by solid walls, and Dore’s most pronounced characteristics—prominent then by the north where the chapels are undi- bay articulation established by projecting piers with vided.'? This progression can be followed also in five shafts and the vaulted, two-story elevation covthe changes in rib, base, and arcade profiles. Cap- ered by four-part rib vaults over each bay—could itals in the early parts were waterleaf, artichoke, be found in the mid-1160s through 1170s—for and rich acanthus types (plate 132), but these were example, at Mortemer (Eure), Chars (Val d’Oise), soon supplemented by trumpet scallop and thin, and Le Bourg-Dun (Seine Maritime) (plate 116).?! crossed-stemmed stiff-leaf (plate 133). Such a range Parallels between Abbey Dore and Le Bourg-Dun of capitals is unusual for a Cistercian building. Arch are striking, and although the shafting is more moldings (less elaborate on the north) consisted of vigorous and the articulating system more broken soffits with angle rolls, an outer molding that was down into component parts at the latter, the effects chamfered and continuous, and a hood molding are close; indeed, even the detailings in the two 8 The origins of long lancet windows are obscure. Certainly appear in the north transept, then in the south, and then in Dore was early in this use of them, although it was preceded the nave piers. by Romsey (south transept) and by Malmesbury. By the late 0 The setting out of the openings in the north and in the I170s examples are numerous, notably at Canterbury. The south transepts are puzzling; in brief, on the south the arches Dore lancets are heavily splayed and framed by a continuous are too narrow, leaving an awkward gap between the outer roll molding. The splay has the effect of doubling the size of molding and the projecting shafts that divide the bays, whereas the actual opening and gives the illusion of increased scale as on the north the outer molding is flush with these shafts while

well as permitting greater amounts of light to enter the in- the molding next to the crossing is not. The vaults spring

terior. from different heights at the crossing, between the chapels,

"9 The crossing shows one important change. All the bases and against the end walls. have attic profiles and spurs except for the northeast pier where 2t See Bony, “French Influences on the Origin of English

the latter are omitted. Waterholding bases with spurs first Architecture,” 11.

CISTERCIAN ARCHITECTURE IN WEST COUNTRY 97

churches is similar (cf. plates 135 and 136). Further — — m— French qualities appear in the use of congés for the Poe fo do [oe aaron

springers of the soffits or the semioctagonal re- y een ee ee oe Oe 7

sponds that frame the chapel entrances.?? } Pa ara Pret | The new program, which saw the construction | ye Tt Tote T aa | of the nave, was identifiable at once by a change hr a > ) Ths a. .

in style. The marked French qualities of the tran- | ae : a Om.

septs were replaced by English, and the first bay | er eee a

of the nine-bay nave was developed in a completely — ; oy eo a _ = different idiom.?3 The change at Abbey Dore was ‘Blea pes ees Sree eee much more insistent than that at Buildwas where oe on 7: ao a ! oe : ae

man. rr , an \

acumstances similar shift inthat styleoccasioned occurred. Although the cir- erat nome ah -2-re 2-7" + ---i:* eee eee this change Abbey a ees

Dore are lost, it is clear that the master mason Nb Ne res 7 oe aN : formerly in charge of work was replaced by another we moat a 7 ae . § To analyze the nave, it is necessary to reconstruct oN foe eee! - a

it from the blocked and ruined parts of the east a *

bay dating from Viscount Scudamore’s restoration es I oe Sot an (plates 117 and 118). The elevation was carried on © fe “ - oe. : ig: -

round piers of squat proportions similar in form te ge

and with similar waterholding bases to those at oN toe ~~ eo! Ce Buildwas. A string course separated the stories and eK - Tee 1ethe vertical framing of bays used in the transepts os | } See ro was dropped. The piers receive triple-corbeled sup- ge: wee eee “e-- _.-

ports to the aisles, attached to the capitals that ae ee served as springers for the rib vaults. The capitals pe te Mee

were trumpet scallop, separated above by a flattened : Be oO one.) aame

leaf motif, and early stiff-leaf with crossed stems Me ' ee ve

of more organic form than those in the transepts fags: wee eee “g@)---:

(plate 134). Unfortunately, the upper parts of the en cee elevation are uncertain. On the basis of the remains OO aT 2 og” ; (plate 119), it is plausible to posit a false gallery, - iil oo, gi which in turn would have been “absorbed” into the Bob Saat) a an clerestory, a single-arched opening enclosing both. --++ [Qe wa +eee- “je)-----

The elevation would thus have looked two-storied oes : ote, vel - a even though it comprised three. This unusual com- ge a ~ | al -

position occurs elsewhere in the west country and on = a oe springer immediately above the capital that is zot cut to the ~ [email protected] . a —{@l- shape of the molding. PopularribinorBurgundy in the mid-twelfth cas ~ 4ern 22 Congés, arch moldings, refer first to therib |aot Ho, wee century, it iswith usedrespect there to by the Cistercians in their a Cae ~~ vaults, e.g., at Fontenay (plate 28). 23 The Royal Commission plan and the plans in Roland Paul’s 1898 and 1904 publications (see catalog) show the nave

with nine bays. Paul later discovered a tenth bay, however, 0 ts 20 FEET which had been added in the thirteenth century (see “Abbey

Dore Church, Herefordshire,” Arch. Camb. 82 {1927}: 270). 21. Abbey Dore, plan of church as finished.

98 CHAPTER 6 is a marked regional feature of Early Gothic there. with bays whose width and length differed from For instance, it survives at St. David’s Cathedral those of the rest of the chevet, but he resolved the (circa 1180), where it is richly decorated and ro- difficulties skillfully. Work moved from west to bustly treated, and also at Llanthony Priory (circa east; a temporary screen at the east crossing piers II90), a house of Austin canons only five miles was probably erected and the monks’ choir transaway from Abbey Dore, where the handling is much ferred temporarily to the nave. The master was more austere. Llanthony seems later than Abbey clearly unwilling to risk the axial misalignment Dore, however, and most likely reflects its design.?+4 that could result when a new chevet was constructed

The changed vocabulary between Llanthony and as an envelope around an old choir with demolition Abbey Dore, and St. David’s is difficult to interpret of the earlier choir delayed until the last possible in terms of a development. In all probability it had moment.*5 less to do with chronology or style than with dif- The differences between Abbey Dore and Byland ferent modes for a monastic church and a cathedral. were the result of refinements in the rectangular The decision to rebuild the presbytery of the first ambulatory plan. At Abbey Dore clearer architecchurch within five to ten years of its completion tural definition was given to the separate functions and to replace it with a large-scale chevet was prob- of the eastern parts: ambulatory, chapels, and choir. ably determined by the need for more altars. One At the Cistercian mother house, Citeaux, begun may also suppose that as at Fountains the monks only a few years earlier and constructed in 1193, desired something more glorious than the dark, the east aisle was also outside the elevation, a sosmall, humble form of the early choir. A new lution that thereafter became standard;?° and this grandiose scheme was begun, therefore, which was idea at Dore was probably borrowed from the Burmost likely inspired by the recently completed rec- gundian abbey, whose architecture would have been tangular choir with ambulatory and chapels at familiar as a result of repeated visits by the abbot Byland. This immensely costly work was probably of Dore to the General Chapter. At Citeaux, howinitiated by Abbot Adam (1186-circa 1216) in the ever, chapels were added to both the north and the early years of his tenure. An aggressive and dynamic south aisles, forming a continuous rectangular chapel man, Adam shrewdly expanded Abbey Dore’s prop- range, and these in turn were roofed separately from

erties, thereby providing additional resources out the ambulatory. At Abbey Dore, such flanking of which the new work could well have been funded. chapels were omitted, just as they had been at The plan of the new chevet at Abbey Dore (fig. Byland, perhaps also out of respect for the tradition 21) was generally based on that of the chevet at in England for precise eastern orientation. As can Byland. As in the Yorkshire house, the choir was be seen from the exterior, each aisle bay was origthree bays deep with a flanking aisle on the north inally covered with its own gabled roof, but in the and south and was closed at the east by three arches, restoration under Lord Scudamore these were releaving an arch opening rather than a pier as the placed with a continuous sloping roof (plate 120). axial element. The high altar was in the third bay Features are used in the elevation that derive and thus the east aisle was placed outside the east from the regional architecture of the west country. gable in a lower one-story space the same height As mentioned earlier, the first bay east of the crossas the five chapels that formed the end wall (at ing was adapted from the early 4rrangement and Byland the east aisle lay within the elevation of the represents an initial phase of work, or possibly an choir). To provide lateral aisles, the ends of the attempt to ease the transition from the simpler style inner transept chapels of Abbey Dore I were opened, of the transepts to the new richness of the choir.

, reducing the number of chapels to one in each A comparison between this bay and the adjacent transept. This decision saddled the master mason bay to the east (plate 121) sets off the marked 24 Malone, “West Country Gothic,” suggest Llanthony as R. Gilyard-Beer, ‘“Rufford Abbey, Nottinghamshire,” Med.

a source for Abbey Dore, however. Arch. 9 (1965): 161-63.

25 There are, of course, numerous examples of this difficulty; 26 For Citeaux, see M. Aubert, L’Architecture cistercienne en

for an analogous sighting difficulty in a Cistercian case, see France (Paris, 1947), I:109. %

CISTERCIAN ARCHITECTURE IN WEST COUNTRY 99 differences that distinguish the mature statement in the late 1180s. The early parts of this scheme of this master’s aims. The two-story elevation of have many parallels with the work at Abbey Dore.?7 the transepts was retained in the choir (and equally In the retrochoir, for instance, shafts in groups of the height of the vaults), but it was handled in a three carry the vaults, and the capitals resemble profoundly different manner. Proportions became those at Abbey Dore. In the later lady chapel, opensquat, with a delight in compact massing (plate ings were given multiple framings using continu122), openings were decorated with continuous rolls, ous rolls and chamfers. As already discussed, the

and flat wall surface was avoided—in the lower nave design at Abbey Dore derived from local restory by elaborately splayed and molded arcades gional architecture of the west country; now we see carried by sixteen-shaft piers, and in the upper story this tradition continued, with the architecture by extending the window splays the full height of moving closer to that of nonmonastic structures. | the story though the windows themselves remained For Abbey Dore’s twelfth-century church, then, relatively small. Rib vaults covered the space, but three separate styles defined the architecture. Whereas

although wall ribs were used, they were not pro- the last two—those seen in the nave and in the vided with supporting shafts. Thus the bays were extended chevet—reflected an unequivocal assimdivided by shafts in groups of threes, leaving the ilation of local west country influences, the first— wall ribs to be carried by corbels flanking the cap- seen in the transepts—was remarkable for the puitals at the springing of the vaults. It is clear, then, rity of the Early Gothic ideas imported directly that whereas restraint, murality, slender profiling, from France. Only the transepts, therefore, influand the clear expression of supports predominated enced the spread of Early Gothic in this area of in the transepts, preference was given in the new England. Although no other building copied Ab-

| choir to a ponderous richness, to openings with bey Dore’s system completely, its architecture inrepeated framings, and to an interest in an overall fluenced the master at Worcester Cathedral worklinearism at the expense of logical articulation. ing around 1180.?% There, in the west bays of the Most of this work may be dated between the nave, the vaults and their supports employ the dislate-1180s and the first decade of the thirteenth tinctive system of framing the bays with five shafts century. Bases were waterholding, moldings be- running the full height of the elevation, a feature came thin and tense with applied fillets, and cap- that suggests knowledge of the Cistercian master’s itals mixed trumpet, scallop, acanthus, and molded work. Other influences also affected the Worcester types. The work concluded in the somewhat com- design, however, indicating the Worcester master’s pressed ambulatory chapels at the east end (plate wide awareness of contemporary architecture. Yet 124), where the piers were given a mannered slim- ultimately the future of Early Gothic in this area ness, arch and rib moldings were keeled, and abaci of England lay in directions emphatically different molded. Detailing on the north is the latest in date. from those enunciated in the first work at Abbey As a whole, the chapel range conveys a sense of Dore. Even by about 1180-1185, the soberness and lightness that contrasts with the oppressively heavy restraint at the abbey itself were firmly set aside in effects of the choir, and it is more fastidious in its favor of robust, decorative interests that sprang from

proportions. the workshops of the west country. Regional influThe sources for the chevet at Abbey Dore lie in ences surface also in the monastic buildings; the developed west country architecture of around 1190. —_— chapter house, for instance, was raised on a polyg-

One important influence was Hereford Cathedral, onal plan, rather than the traditional rectangular eleven miles to the east (plate 125), where a new one, that derives from the chapter house at Worcesrectangular retrochoir and lady chapel were begun ter Cathedral. 27 As Pevsner recognized (see BoE: Shropshire, 29). See also ~ in the two buildings (“The Sources of the Late Twelfth Century

G. Marshall, Hereford Cathedral, its Evolution and Growth Work at Worcester Cathedral,’ Medieval Art and Architecture

(Worcester, 1951), 52-66. at Worcester Cathedral, Trans. BAA 1 {1978}: 80-90, esp. n. 28 C. Wilson dismisses Abbey Dore as a source for Worces- 40). ter, although he acknowledges the similarity of the vault shafts

100 CHAPTER 6 Completion of the entire church at Abbey Dore, he referred to it as “‘sumptuous.”3° Most likely, the including the west bays of the nave, was delayed reference applied only to the east end, and the nave another sixty years. Despite the gift of additional lay unfinished. Excavations by Roland Paul revealed

land from King John in 1216,?9 the death in the a rebuilt south aisle, lengthened nave, and new same year of Abbot Adam marked the start of a west facade from these years, as well as rib vaults. 3? decline in the abbey’s affairs, By 1260 the bishop Acquablanca’s indulgences proved effective, howof Hereford, Peter Acquablanca, was offering in- ever, and the church was finally consecrated during dulgences to anyone contributing to the completion the episcopate of Thomas Cantelupe (1275-1282). of the church, even though in the same document

29 Mon. Angl. 5:553-54. 3t Paul, ““Abbey Dore Church, Herefordshire,” 271. 30 See T. Blashill, “The Architectural History of Dore Ab- 32 RCHM: Herefordshire, South-West 1:1. bey,” Jnl. BAA 41 (1885): 367.

Conclusion A STUDY OF the twelfth-century architecture of the beginning in the 1150s, the modification of tranCistercians in England reveals two distinct tend- sept chapels in the 1160s and 1170s, and the farencies. The first was a conscious withdrawal from reaching reorganization of east ends in the 1170s, existing traditions. On occasion this produced old- 1180s, and 1190s. Such changes need to be seen fashioned and even archaizing solutions; more fre- in the context of shifting historical circumstances quently, it resulted in a persistent simplification of as well as new stylistic trends. They were the physRomanesque architecture. All areas of Cistercian ical manifestations of institutional developments architecture, from the churches to the workshops within the order as its customs and liturgy grew; and grange structures, responded to this tendency and they reflected a receptivity to the developing in greater or lesser degree. In adopting an archi- Early Gothic style. The new style in particular posed tecture of such calculated simplicity, the Cister- problems for the Cistercians. Whereas it offered

cians transformed twelfth-century notions about easier and quicker construction techniques with monastic architecture and developed what can be lighter, less massive walls and larger openings, its plausibly called a monastic style. The concept of expressive and aesthetic qualities challenged the such a style was defined by the early leaders of the order’s earlier views about the character of archi- . order like Saint Bernard and Saint Ailred and was tecture. Not surprisingly, the version of Early Gothic to have a long history in the architecture of the chosen by the Cistercians was a singularly restrained reform movements that extended through the great one. Rarely did this return to contemporary movebuildings of the mendicants. Whereas the new ar- ments involve outright modernization or overt exchitecture was witness to the order’s commitment perimentation, as it did later, by contrast, in the to poverty, it also gave expression to deep convic- order’s ambitious buildings of the first quarter of

, tions about a purified monasticism distinct from the thirteenth century. that of the older orders. William of St. Thierry In the long term these tendencies were succeswriting in the early 1140s aptly summed up this sive, although at certain periods in the order’s hisview: “Let those whose care for what is within. . . tory they moved toward each other and ran as par-

erect for their own use buildings conceived accord- allel and simultaneous. Under the latter ing to the form of poverty, taking holy simplicity circumstance, such as in the last third of the twelfth as a model, and following the lines laid down by century, it is easy to mistake convergence for con-

the restraint of their fathers.””? tradiction. In the case of a single region, such as The second tendency saw a cautious return to the west country, two architectures might be purcontemporary movements. The expansions, re- sued at the same time; for instance, Cleeve or Buildbuildings, and alterations that formed much of the was followed simplified traditional forms, while at history of the English houses after the mid-twelfth Abbey Dore the architecture reflected several difcentury reflected this new influence. They included ferent but always contemporary styles. Above all the adoption of segregated crossings and low towers else the emergence of both tendencies bears witness ' The Golden Epistle of William of St. Thierry, Cistercian Fathers until 1140 when he joined the Cistercians at Signy. A close

Series 12 (Kalamazoo, 1971), 60. William, to whom Saint friend of Bernard’s, he wrote the first chapters of the saint’s Bernard had sent his famous Apologia, remained a Benedictine Vita.

102 CHAPTER 7 , to tensions, whether toward a retreat from current have had less to do with an entrenched conservatism trends, or toward the maintenance of a position in than with veneration for the first buildings raised

the face of a rapidly changing world. during the heroic early years of settlement.? SenPart of the answer to the emergence of one tend- timent and maybe also a sense of tradition held ency over another has to do with the particular change in check, whether or not the abbot viewed conditions at each monastery. The attitude of the the buildings as inadequate or old-fashioned. abbot was without doubt critical. As the formulator One emphasis of this study has been to highlight of the program, as the presiding on-site authority the separate nature of the architecture of the Ciswatching all developments, and as the most widely tercians from that of the rest of England during traveled and thus most knowledgeable person about the twelfth century. When stylistic developments developments elsewhere, the abbot exercised de- occurred they did so, with one or two exceptions, cisive control over the work. The rich documentary in a series of largely contained movements that had

account of the buildings at Meaux (see catalog) only minimal reference to what was happening in where four churches were begun in the monastery’s the rest of England. This hermetic character affirst sixty years makes it clear that three of them firmed the strongly supranational nature of the Cisinvolved the destruction of earlier work, which in tercians who imposed a pattern of life with little each case had proceeded some way, and resulted regard to national boundaries, and it reflected as from different schemes instituted by new abbots. well their studied aloofness and sense of superiority. Of importance also was the attitude of the official In this context it is useful to distinguish, then, visitor to the house; his strongly held views could between English Cistercian architecture and Cischeck a too rapid acceptance of new ideas. Equally, tercian architecture in England, the former implygrandiose building programs could be furthered by ing a national variant of the order’s forms, the latter his uninvolvement, or overt collusion, in the work, an imported architecture located in, but not essen-

as is suspect in at least the case of Byland. tially influenced by, trends in England. This view

, Change and expansion were not inevitable, how- of the architecture of the Cistercians contradicts ever. In fact, active resistance to change over lengthy that of some scholars, including Bilson and Clap-

| periods is an interesting characteristic in its own ham, who stressed the Norman or Anglo-Norman right. And when it involves two of the order’s character of the order’s early architecture, and Hahn, greatest houses— Waverley and Rievaulx—it poses who interpreted it as a simplified version of regional serious questions. Both communities had a clear schools.3 What is remarkable is the absence of these need for additional space, for instance, and ample influences for the most part, and the closeness of funds at hand for building operations. Practical and the order’s architecture to the mainstream of Eueconomic factors must therefore have been second- ropean architecture during at least two critical phases ary to more elusive factors like the attitude toward of Cistercian development in England. the old buildings. Resistance to change may well Rather than seeing Cistercian architecture in terms _ 2 Attachment to the early buildings extended to the first 1 {1982}: 1-12). timber churches. For instance, Serlo refers to the earliest church 3 See J. Bilson, “The Architecture of the Cistercians, with

. at Fountains as ‘“‘that sacred building” (Mem. F. 1:101), and Special Reference to Some of their Earlier Churches in Engat Bordesley the excavation by Rahtz has found evidence that land,” Arch. Jnl. 66 (1909): 277. Bilson qualified his statethe timbers from the first church were used to bury the found- ment, however, and made it clear that it was based only on ing monks. In France the Chronicle of Signy (Ardennes) records Fountains and Kirkstall; see also A. W. Clapham, English that materials from the early buildings that were not reused Romanesque Architecture After the Conquest (Oxford, 1934), 2:74in the new were buried within the precincts of the monastery 83. For the proposal about regional schools, see H. Hahn, Dze by Abbot Alard (1156-1174) (see M. Aubert, L’Architecture friihe Kirkchenbaukunst der Zisterzienser (Berlin, 1957), 203. In cistercienne en France {Paris, 1947], 1:102). In addition, many more general terms the same argument is made by A. Dimier, monasteries preserved their earliest structures long after others Les Moines bdtisseurs (Paris, 1964), 106-108; and by M. Aubert, had rendered them redundant. The fullest information comes “Existe-t-il une architecture cistercienne?” Cahiers de civilisation from Clairvaux (see J. O. Schaefer, “The Earliest Churches of médiévale < (1958): 153-58. the Cistercian Order,” Studies in Cistercian Art and Architecture

CONCLUSION 103 of an undeviating linear movement, I have argued like Bordesley and Boxley remained relatively unfor a series of phases that reveal variable interests affected, a discernible shift marked the architecture and influences. These phases may best be grasped of the larger houses in the north: at Fountains (secnot by reference to what was happening in England, ond church), Kirkstall, and the chapter house at but by measuring the reactions in the abbeys to Rievaulx. These buildings show the emergence of the stimulus of new ideas emanating from north- English influences. The resulting mixture of French , eastern France. Such a method shows that four dis- and English forms produced an architecture sharply

tinct phases may be distinguished. , different from that of the first generation buildings. The first of these phases extended from the Cis- The facts of the change are clearer than the reasons tercians’ initial foundation in England in 1128 to for it, however. External forces such as the widearound mid-century. It was marked by the nearly spread political and social turmoil of these years of complete dependence on the architecture of France the so-called Great Anarchy probably played a miand specifically that of Burgundy. Quite simply nor role in this lessened influence from France. At this was what those who traveled across the Channel any rate, proof is lacking that the order’s contact to colonize the houses were familiar with. The phe- with the English houses was seriously weakened, nomenon of the order and its architecture were and the late 1140s and 1150s far from seeing retreat

imports to England. Such an architecture con- saw the most self-confident expansion in the Cistrasted vividly with existing traditions and thus tercians’ entire history. Possibly the architectural matched the Cistercians’ sense of themselves as set changes at Fountains and Kirkstall resulted from apart, the vanguard of a new monasticism. Early the assertion of an independent architectural idenbuildings at Waverley, Tintern, and Fountains bear tity, or perhaps they reflected a clear-minded and the unmistakable impress of Burgundy in their plans deliberate effort to fuse English and French forms and elevations. Similarly, the first monumental ar- that paralleled attitudes and hopes in the years im-

chitecture, at Rievaulx, and somewhat later at mediately following the accession of Henry II in

Fountains (in the second church), Sawley, Bordes- 1154. : ley, and Boxley, borrowed forms from the order’s These anglicizing trends were firmly set aside, homeland in Burgundy. Although Rievaulx, with however, in the third phase of the Cistercians’ deits clerestory and timber roof, might seem to have velopment, which extends from about 1160 to 1180 departed dramatically from the now more widely and ranks as the most remarkable in the architecknown Bernardine church, with its single-story el- tural history of the order in England. It coincides vation and pointed barrel vault, it probably be- with Henry II’s reign and is marked by the strong longs to a family of buildings that predates the renewal of French contacts. In style and technique design of Clairvaux in 1135. Most plausibly it de- the architecture is Early Gothic, and the new style rived from the second church at Citeaux, whose had penetrated the north of England nearly two appearance may be traced in a group of abbeys now decades before the rebuilding of the Canterbury

best represented by Clermont (Mayenne). choir by William of Sens. Once again the CisterThe second phase in the development of the Cis- cians asserted in their architecture a powerful contercians’ architecture in England can be discerned trast with late Anglo-Norman Romanesque.

in the early 1150s. Interestingly, there 1s little The source of this influence lay in the region evidence that the English houses had been subject where the Early Gothic style had developed first: to the same architectural standardization claimed northeastern France. The broad valleys descending for the filiation of Bernard’s abbey during the years to the Oise, Aisne, and Seine rivers, which were from about 1135/1140 to 1155. This may be due among the richest farming areas of medieval France to the lack of secure examples to demonstrate the and were traversed by the great trade routes, were argument one way or the other, or it may be due also heavily settled by the Cistercians, particularly simply to the cycle of growth and expansion that the houses of Clairvaux.4 From its earliest years, was part of the English houses during these years. 4R. A. Donkin, The Cistercians: Studies in the Geography of By the 1150s, however, while smaller foundations Medieval England and Wales (Toronto, 1978), 29.

104 CHAPTER 7 Bernard’s abbey had received support from the counts local Romanesque, Early Gothic appeared in the of Champagne in whose territory the monastery lay. buildings of the order as early as the 1150s.7 In Historically, Clairvaux’s filiation and influence was England Early Gothic was used first in conventual

centered not in Burgundy but in the Champenois structures, where it seems a greater openness to and extended northeastward again from there. As- modern ideas was permitted than in the church, similation of architectural traditions and innova- and it was only a decade or so later, in the 1160s, tions from this area of France was critical in the that the new style was accepted for the church. No ' 1150s and 1160s. It appears in the new chevet at single source or region supplied the models for the Clairvaux, begun in the years following Bernard’s Early Gothic of the Cistercians in England. Difdeath, which was a highly visible and influential ferent versions of the new style, which had develstructure both on account of the abbey’s prominence oped in the first decades of its use, were drawn on. as the head of a vast empire of affiliated houses and At Furness and Roche, and in the chapter house for its focus as the goal of constant pilgrimage to and east range at Fountains, it was the architecture the venerated body of Saint Bernard. The disap- of the Aisne valley which served as the prototype; pearance of Clairvaux and the destruction through at Abbey Dore (transepts) it was the more northern wars of the abbeys in the Aisne and Oise belonging axis of Early Gothic the area around Seine-Marito the filiation of Clairvaux make it difficult to trace time; at Kirkstall (west parts) and at Byland it was the exact steps by which Early Gothic was absorbed Picardy and French Flanders, whence the new style in the third quarter of the twelfth century. Only had spread only a few years after its establishment at Ourscamp (Oise) does enough remain to permit further south. These major buildings were not a a reconstruction and to glimpse the importance of provincial reflection of this architecture, or an inthe development that occurred there.» Yet in these ternally generated architecture. Rather, they mirror and other buildings there is sufficient evidence to the contemporaneous phases of Early Gothic in France suggest that the Clairvaux filiation, as distinct from and show that the order’s buildings in England were the others, served as a pacesetter in the adoption closely associated with it. of Early Gothic in the second half of the twelfth The nature and identification of Cistercian qualcentury. Documentary proof of the filiation’s sup- ities in Early Gothic remain valid concerns for the port of a more ambitious architecture comes in abbeys in both France and England.® The central statutes directed against its abbeys’ claustral build- question is deciding whether or not the Cistercians ings in the 1180s and in the punishment of the succeeded in establishing an architecture with its _ abbot of Clairvaux, Garnier de Rochefort, in the own style, apart from the essentially cosmetic difearly 1190s for failing to stop construction of the ferences imposed by the general restraint in decochurch at Vaucelles whose architecture “shocked ration or by the mandated use of colors like white and scandalized many” in the words of the General for doors and windows.

Chapter.° _ Nowhere 1s the question more germane than in

In more general terms, the dissemination of the the most fertile area of the new architecture, northnew style throughout the entire order served as one eastern France. In addition to style, however, a of the great forces for change within twelfth-century further distinction needs to be made in any study architecture. In countries with strong traditions of of these buildings. It has to do with different modes 5 C. A. Bruzelius, “The Twelfth-Century Church at Ours- Carolingian and Romanesque Architecture, 800-1200 (Harmonds-

camp,” Speculum 55 (1981): 28-40. worth, 1959), 130.

© Statuta 1 (1192:31): 151-52. 8 For specific interpretations of Cistercian qualities, see

7 Disputes over the definitions of Romanesque and Early P. Frankl, Gothic Architecture (Harmondsworth, 1960), 62-69; Gothic in the mid-twelfth century are a conspicuous feature W. Kronig, Altenberg und die Baukunst der Zisterzienser (Ber-

of the literature. For instance, Cistercian architecture during gisch Gladbach, 1973); C. A. Bruzelius, “Cistercian High this period should be classified as ‘“‘rib vaulted Romanesque” Gothic: The Abbey Church of Longpont and the Architecture according to R. Branner, Burgundian Gothic Architecture (Lon- of the Cistercians in the Early Thirteenth Century,” An. Cust.

don, 1960), 14, and “half Gothic” according to K. J. Conant, 35 (1979): esp. 10ff.

CONCLUSION 105 in the handling of style, and two can be discerned. at Cistercian Ourscamp, which are only four miles

The better known is that used in the pioneering apart. ** cathedral designs at Laon, Noyon, and elsewhere, The actual process of assimilation of Early Gothic which employed tall, diaphanous elevations with by the Cistercians was complex, however, and may multiple openings.? Very different, however, was perhaps be understood in terms of an analogy bethe architecture of the Cistercians as seen in build- tween vocabulary and syntax. Whereas all the eleings like Preuilly, Acey, and Mortemer, or like ments of Cistercian architecture were drawn from Roche and Abbey Dore in England, or at smaller the architectural vocabulary of northeastern France, scale in churches outside the order like Le Bourg- the process of assembly, its syntax, differed. Several Dun or Nouvion-le-Vineux. In these buildings Early essential features separate Cistercian from non-CisGothic was a style predicated on the maintenance tercian. One involved more restraint in the amount

of the wall, although treating it with a new lan- and prominence of architectural detailing used in guage of sharpened linear articulation, opening relation to the scale of the building. Articulating windows through its mass that were filled with elements became contracted, with the result that grisaille glass to produce a new luminousness, and Cistercian buildings look barer and trimmer. Anunifying and thinning down components of the other, as has been seen, was a commitment to mural elevation like the piers.*° On occasion these two continuity with the consequent sense of closed modes of Early Gothic may still be seen together boundaries, the counterpart of the order’s effort to in abrupt juxtaposition. At Laon, for instance, which create an ambiance conducive to inward spiritual lay at the center of Early Gothic experiments, the focus. A third was the formal simplification of the architecture of the cathedral at one end of the city elements of architecture, both structural and dec-

epitomizes the penetrated walls and logically ar- orative. And a fourth had to do with the use of ticulated interests of Early Gothic. At the western distinctive proportions. Just as Cistercian plans freend of the city, however, the mural, monastic ver- quently employed a two-to-one ratio of nave width sion of the same style is exemplified at the church to aisle width, the elevations often show the nave of St. Martin, the headquarters of the reform order with a height twice its breadth, or equally, since

of Premonstratensian canons. Grasping the coex- each aisle was half the width of the nave, of a height | istence of these two architectural modes of Early equal to the total width of nave plus aisles.‘? CorGothic is essential to an understanding of this phase respondences such as these were extolled by conof the architecture of the Cistercians. Such a con- temporaries. For instance, Baldwin, abbot of Forde, trast was, of course, as much a matter of typology and later archbishop of Canterbury wrote: “Unity as style. Beginning with Bernard, monastic archi- of dimension established on the principle of equal-

tecture was intended for the first time to be rec- ity, appropriate arrangement, adaptation, and the : ognizably separate and distinct from cathedral ar- commensurate concordance of parts is not the smallchitecture. This concept of a monastic style is most est factor of beauty. What falls short of proper clearly seen in cases where the same patron spon- measure, or exceeds it, does not possess the grace sored two contemporary but very different archi- of beauty.” %3 tectures, as occurred, for instance, with Bishop Si- Qualities like these ensured an identifiable simmon de Vermandois at the Cathedral of Noyon and ilarity of form among the order’s buildings. When 9 On this phase of Early Gothic, see E. Gall, Die Gotische being extensions of the upper wall and the arches as having Baukunst in Frankreich und Deutschland: Die Vorstufen in Nord- been cut through it. The impression is strengthened by the frankreich von der Mitte des elften bis gegen Ende des zwolften Jahr- articulation of the bays with square sectioned responds.

hunderts (Leipzig, 1925); J. Bony, “French Influences on the See Bruzelius, “Cistercian High Gothic,” 13ff.

Origin of English Architecture,” JWCI 12 (1949): I-15; '2OQn the proportions favored by the Cistercians, see R. Branner, “Gothic Architecture 1160-1180 and its Roman- F. Bucher, “Cistercian Architectural Purism,” Comparative Studies esque Sources,” Acts of the XX International Congress of the History in Art and Literature 3 (1960): 89-105; also O. von Simson,

of Art 1 (Princeton, 1963): 92-104. The Gothic Cathedral (Princeton, 1962), 54-55. :0 In this sense it is plausible to see a building like Pontigny *3 See W. Tatarkierwicz, Hzstory of Aesthetics (The Hague, . as transitional. The piers, for instance, give the appearance of 1970), 2:89.

106 | CHAPTER 7 | combined, they underlie the “cool reticence’’ noted filiation, as in the case of Pontigny, for instance, so frequently of the interiors, which can still be where the middle story was assiduously avoided.*> sensed at Pontigny or Clermont, or in the transepts In England the way the middle story was used at Abbey Dore. For all its reserve, such an archi- reveals a range of problems. In early cases like Furtecture is extremely expressive, a dualism noted by ness it appears as a series of openings cut into a Marténe in the eighteenth century when he re- wall, which was in every other way regarded by corded that Clairvaux had a “simplicité qui a quelque the master mason as continuous. This was changed

chose de grand.”’*4 at Roche, a fully vaulted building, where the mid-

Although churches like those at Roche, Furness, dle story was both part of a defined bay system and

Kirkstead, and Abbey Dore show the typical ar- also served a structural purpose, with the blind chitecture of the order’s Early Gothic period, they arcades most likely representing a Cistercian atalso provide a measure to assess the most remarkable tempt with important parallels in France to deal of all the Cistercians’ buildings in the twelfth cen- with structural demands of high vaults. The same tury, Byland Abbey. Abbot Roger’s great and in- thinking underlay the open, paired, but otherwise fluential undertaking changed the whole scale of unadorned arches used at Kirkstead and perhaps in the Cistercian church in England, substituting a the south transept at Dundrennan and was reflected building of cathedral size and splendor for the smaller across Europe at the abbey of Aulps (Haute-Savoie).

earlier buildings and initiating a new chevet plan. At Furness, by contrast, and at Byland, the middle Just as important, Byland enunciated a new tra- story played no structural role, and decorative readition of roof cover in the use of lighter timber sons determined its employment. A weakening of ceilings. That this occurred at the same time that this interest can be discerned in the north transept vaulting was being used at Roche needs emphasiz- at Dundrennan where the middle story was treated ing; problems of complex wall abutment basic to more soberly. In France a similar range of interests any vaulted architecture were thus side-stepped and also characterizes the handling of the middle story. *®

attention directed to the development of lighter After about 1180, in what can be identified as and more elaborated wall systems. It was this in- the fourth phase in Cistercian architecture, a perterest rather than that of vaulting that dominated ceptible loss of interest in French models can be

: Early Gothic in the north of England for the next discerned and a turn toward English ones. The most

three decades. © striking example is Abbey Dore, where the un-

These new mural values coincided with the ap- mistakable French influence apparent in the tranpearance of a middle story between the arcade and septs was suddenly displaced first in the nave and

, clerestory. As a comparison of Byland with the then in the choir by features that were purely west transepts at Abbey Dore shows, it led to changes English in origin. But the same occurred in the to the interior. Since the middle story was never north: at Jervaulx the choir owed more to the used as a gallery, the usual explanation for its ap- model of York and Ripon than to any known expearance is that it provided access from the nave ample in France, and at Dundrennan the presbytery for inspection of the rib vaults over the aisles. Plau- and transept terminals also indicate a greater dissible as this is, it is not wholly convincing for the tancing from French prototypes. Furthermore, the obvious reason that there are other churches with notable undertakings of the early thirteenth cenrib vaulted aisles that lack a middle story. The use tury, such as the enlarged chevet at Fountains or or omission of the middle story may result from the new church at Waverley, fit unequivocably into regional practice, or the tradition of a particular the context of English Gothic architecture. *7 ‘4 E. Marténe and U. Durand, Voyage littéraire de deux re- 6 See Aubert, L’Architecture cistercienne en France 1:287-90. ligieux bénédictins de la Congregation de Saint-Maur, vol. 1, pt. 7 Although English influences are important for these ab-

1 (Paris, 1717), 99. beys, they were not constant throughout the thirteenth cen-

"8 C. A. Bruzelius, “The Transept of the Abbey Church of tury, and the order’s architecture was marked by periods of Chaalis and the Filiation of Pontigny,” in B. Chauvin, ed., closeness to France. For instance, at Beaulieu, Croxden, Hayles, Meélanges a la mémoive du Pére Anselme Dimier (Arbois, 1982), and Vale Royal, the churches have plans with ambulatory and

3:447-54. radiating chapel schemes that are related to abbeys like Long-

CONCLUSION 107 This reaction to Early Gothic on the part of the A second factor behind this change in influence English abbeys marks a watershed in the architec- may have had to do with the role of the abbot, who ture and decisively separates developments in Eng- was the principal figure behind any architectural land from those in France. From the beginning undertaking. In the early years abbots had moved there existed the inescapable difference that Early frequently back and forth between England and Gothic was created in France as an indigenous style. France. Men such as Saint William of Rievaulx, The order had only to simplify it to match its reform Henry Murdac and Richard both of Fountains, Thoideals. In England, by contrast, the whole milieu rold of Trois-Fontaines, Raoul of Vaucelles, Gildiffered. Early Gothic was an import. Once intro- bert of Citeaux, Robert of Newminster, Isaac of duced, therefore, the major factors in its develop- L’Etoile, Gilbert of Hoyland (at Swineshead), Alexment turned around the interaction and assimila- ander, Adam, and William all of Mortemer, and tion with quite different older traditions. The Thomas of Boxley-had spent lengthy periods of their resulting process saw Early Gothic in the 1180s in monastic lives in both countries.'® But abbots asEngland take on a strongly accented regional char- suming office in the last decades of the twelfth

acter quite different from that in France. century lack this wider experience. At the same time, to explain the rejection of A third factor concerns the character of the CisFrench influences and the turn toward English ones tercian movement in England. There is unmistakin terms of the inner workings of style alone is able evidence that the General Chapter of the order implausible. The change was too emphatic for that. tolerated, or more accurately, was powerless to External factors must also account for the switch, change, a less rigorous observance of Cistercian and three may be suggested. One involved the proc- practice in its Cistercian colleagues. A decline in ess of building. In the mid-1130s Ordericus Vitalis rigor can be documented as early as about 1170 in explicitly praised the Cistercians for their self-suf- the stern letter of remonstrance sent from Pope ficiency in building, and the work of men such as Alexander III to the English houses; a decade later Abbot Adam of Meaux, Abbot Robert of New- it was explicitly remarked on by Walter Map; and minster, later canonized, and Abbot Alexander of in the late 1180s and 1190s it can be inferred from Kirkstall support his claim (see appendix B). Yet the statutes of the General Chapter.’? Particularly even before mid-century there is evidence that the injurious was the absorption of the former Savigniac monks were turning to outside labor, and by the houses. Efforts to ‘“Cistercianize’ them are doculast third of the century fairly extensive examples mented at Furness and Stoneleigh and probably also

of this practice can be cited. The increasing size occurred at Coggeshall, but a stronger degree of and complexity of their buildings was doubtless independence continued even so. Innovations in encouraging this. It was one thing for Abbot Adam architecture at Furness, Byland, and Jervaulx—all to raise a two-story structure of mud and wattle at Savigniac houses—could be related to this. By the Meaux in the 1150s, quite another for Abbot Roger late twelfth century it is clear that slippage from to use double-wall construction, high timber barrel the standards of the order included architecture (as vaulting, and intricate detailing at Byland. Every- was also the case in France). Violations of accepted thing, from overall design to exacting stereotomy, norms were explicitly recorded at Meaux, Revesby, called for professionalism and demanding training, Netley, and Forde, and in 1189 they were hinted

of a kind, in fact, much greater than might be at in ten other abbeys that were listed as heavily expected within the monastic community. in debt for ambitious building operations.?° To find pont and Ourscamp (see Bruzelius, “Cistercian High Gothic,” exandre III sur les cistercerciens,” Revue Bénédictine 64 (1954):

136); for Vale Royal, see F. H. Thompson, “Excavations at 68-82. For Walter Map’s observation, see D. Knowles, The the Cistercian Abbey of Vale Royal,” Azt. Jnl. 42 (1962): Monastic Order in England, 2d ed. (Cambridge, 1963), 656.

183-207. For the statutes relating to the specific problems with the

18 See D. Knowles and C.N.L. Brooke, The Heads of Religious houses in England, see chapter 1 of this study. Houses: England and Wales, 940-1216 (Cambridge, 1972), 126- 20 J. Jacobs, ‘Aaron of Lincoln,” Jewish Quarterly Review 10

48. (1898): 629-48, esp. 635. '9 For Pope Alexander’s letter, see J. Leclercq, “Epitres d’Al-

108 CHAPTER 7 a lessening of contact with France under these cir- played an important role in the administration of cumstances is not surprising, nor is its consequence, the province.?? The canons’ influence and their base an assertion of a more distinctly English idiom in of operation was broader than these examples sug-

the architecture of the order. gest, however. Since their revenues came from

churches granted to them that they then had the By the end of the century the Cistercians could obligation to serve either directly or by providing look back on more than seventy-five years of re- for the support of a priest, the canons had within markable activity. Although the self-contained their hands or under their direct influence scores of quality of Cistercian architecture throughout this churches in the York province. The Cistercian Diaperiod has been emphasized in this study, the logus duorum monachorum (circa 1155) speaks, for inbuildings of the White Monks nonetheless had a stance, of the Premonstratensians as those who “deny significant impact on England in the twelfth cen- that they are monks because they wish to be called tury. What was their mark on the complex devel- preachers and rulers of churches.’’?3

opment of Gothic architecture in England? Far from being in conflict or competition with Much as the Cistercians craved isolation and stood the Cistercians, the canons’ life was viewed as comaloof from contemporary life, their reform attracted plementary in a number of ways. Their goals were

attention and was widely admired. Within months similar, though their paths to them differed. While of their arrival in the north of England, for instance, the Cistercians withdrew from the world, the canclamor for reform along Cistercian lines is docu- Ons were to some degree involved in it, as teachers mented in Benedictine communities at Durham, and as brethren to their rural and urban neighbors, York, and Whitby: in Augustinian houses at Kirk- in a manner not far removed from the mendicants ham and Hexham; and even in the chapter of the in the thirteenth century. Close friendships beMinster church of York.?! Not surprisingly, Cis- tween the Cistercians and canons affirm these comtercian architectural influence surfaces first in those plementary roles; among the Augustinians, for inreform movements that modeled their constitutions stance, Waltheof of Kirkham was a friend of Ailred’s and spirtual ideals most closely on the Cistercians. of Rievaulx, and Robert the Scribe of Bridlington, Particularly prominent were the regular canons— of Gervase’s of Fountains.*4 And like the Cisternotably the Premonstratensians, Augustinians, and cians, the canons rose high in the church hierarchy Gilbertines—whose foundations in England in the of the twelfth century; the Augustinian canon Aetwelfth century well outnumbered those of the Cis- thelwold, for example, became bishop of Carlisle,

tercians. the major diocese in the northwest.

Like the Cistercians, the canons enjoyed their The impact of the Cistercians on the architecture greatest success in the north. Successive archbishops of the canons first becomes evident around midof York, beginning with Thurstan (1114-1140), century. The most prominent of the independent deliberately fostered their foundations. Thurstan congregations of canons, the Premonstratensians, saw the canons as effecting the reform and reset- employed plans for their churches very similar to tlement of the northern province still recovering those of the Cistercians, both of the first generation from the harrowing of William the Conqueror. A without aisles to the nave and of the second with typical example of his policy was the creation of them, as for instance, at Torre (Devon), Bayham prebends served by the canons, some of whom, such (Sussex), Easby (Yorkshire), Talley (Carmarthenas the Augustinian canons at Nostell and Hexham, shire), and elsewhere.*> The layout of Augustinian were granted stalls in the Minster church; they churches was similarly influenced—for instance, at assisted in singing Divine service, but they also Kirkham (Yorkshire), Lannercost (Cumberland), and

21 Knowles, Monastic Order, 231ff. 24 Nicholl, Thurstan, 240. 22 D. Nicholl, Thurstan, Archbishop of York, 1114-1140 (York, 25 See A. W. Clapham, “The Architecture of the Premon-

1964), II7. stratensians, with Special Reference to their Buildings in Eng23 J. C. Dickinson, The Origins of the Austin Canons and their land,” Arch. 73 (1923): 117-46. Introduction into England (London, 1950), 199.

CONCLUSION 109 Bolton (Yorkshire). Most easily documented was rative tendencies of late Anglo-Norman Romanthe influence of the Cistercians on the Gilbertines, esque. particularly in the late 1130s and 1140s. Under To imply that influence went one way only— their founder, Gilbert of Sempringham, the Gil- from the Cistercians to the canons—oversimplifies bertine canons fell heavily under the spell of the the situation, of course. A good case in point is Cistercians. Cistercian practices were adopted and offered by the Premonstratensians: in 1142 they at one stage a merger was even discussed. Not entrusted the Cistercians with the official visitation surprisingly Cistercian architectural influence can of their houses, and the statute De construendis ab-

be detected at Watton and Old Malton. batiis laid down rules identical to the Cistercians In addition to plans, the actual designs of ele- about the number and type of buildings required vations also reflect Cistercian architecture, although prior to settlement.2° Yet it is clear the Premonthe massive destruction of most of the canons’ stratensians gave as well as took. A prominent source buildings makes it difficult to document. At Kirk- for Clairvaux III, for instance, was the now ruined

ham, for instance, the peculiar early Cistercian Premonstratensian abbey of Dommartin (Pas-depractice of closing off the west sides of transept Calais); and in England the new church at Furness chapels was followed. The influence of Byland on drew on a building very similar to the White Can- _ the church of Old Malton is more substantial, with ons’ priory at Val-Chrétien (Aisne); likewise, Bythe latter adopting a similar three-story elevation land drew on Dommartin. This process of exchange

with wooden roof in the late 1180s. was nowhere more important than around Laon,

In most cases, however, the major surviving evi- the headquarters of the Premonstratensians and the dence of Cistercian influence is architectural de- most dynamic center of Early Gothic. Patrons like tailing, usually in fragmentary condition and torn Bishop Barthélemy of Laon and his neighbor, Bishfrom its context in the fabric of the building. Firm op Joscelin of Soissons, gave prodigious support to attributions on this basis to Cistercian rather than both the Cistercians and Premonstratensians, setto French influence from other sources are hazard- tling more than twenty of their foundations in the ous. In some instances, nevertheless, a strong ar- two dioceses. The mother church of the Premongument can be made. After mid-century, to take stratensians, St. Martin at Laon, provides ample one example, a new type of pier using fasciculated testament to Cistercian influence in both its plan shafts different in geometry and form from Ro- and simplified elevation. As already mentioned, the manesque compound piers appears in church build- building offers the starkest contrast to contempoing in the north. Its use in Cistercian conventual rary work at the cathedral, perfectly exemplifying structures, like the east guest house at Fountains Saint Bernard’s distinction of forty years earlier beof about 1150-1155, occurs a good decade before tween an architecture appropriate to the monastic it appears in the upper choir of York Minster (cerca church and that appropriate to a cathedral. In gen1165-1170), and its widespread dissemination in eral, Premonstratensian abbeys like Dommartin used the architecture of the monastic orders—for in- a less conservative architecture, however, and they stance, at the Benedictine abbey of Bardney (Lin- suggest that the canons sanctioned a relatively greater colnshire) around 1165—probably derives from variety of solutions. This may well have permitted Cistercian rather than secular church sources. Like- the Cistercians to consider a wider range of models wise, the penchant for keeling the shafts of these in the course of their visitations of Premonstraten-

piers (and of other architectural members), al- sian churches. , though not original to the Cistercians, was widely Most of the Premonstratensians’ houses in Engused by them and partly spread through their agency. land were part of the filiation of Licques (Pas-deMore broadly, the commitment of the Cistercians Calais), itself one of the three mother houses of the to asimpler, barer architecture offered a compelling congregation. The interchange of ideas between the alternative to the rich relief and exuberant deco- Premonstratensians and Cistercians during the pe26 H. Colvin, The White Canons in England (Oxford, 1951), 50.

110 CHAPTER 7 riod from around 1160 through 1190 in the arc On the other hand, what survives of the archiextending from Laon and Soissons through the Pas- tecture of the Cistercians shows their extraordinary de-Calais and into England, was both an important achievements as builders in the first seventy-five of

factor in the development of Early Gothic and a their four-hundred-year life in England that terpowerful agent in the transmission of ideas into minated with the Dissolution. From the smallest areas like the north of England. An understanding scale and most inauspicious beginnings on wild and of this best explains the appearance of Early Gothic uncleared sites, the expansion of the order proat Byland and separates its forms from those em- ceeded with astonishing speed. Forty years after ployed by Archbishop Roger Pont L’Evéque in his their arrival at Waverley in 1128, the Cistercians

new choir at York and a little later at Ripon. were a force to be reckoned with in almost every It was through the architecture of the canons, region of the country, and the greatest houses— then, that the Cistercians exerted their widest in- Rievaulx, Fountains, and Byland—-were commufluence on English architecture, and particularly in nities of truly formidable size, backed by huge rethe north, in the last third of the twelfth century. sources first of land alone and then of money, and There is an irony that in the very years when the influencing the spiritual, economic and political life Cistercians were struggling to define their own of England. The physical remains of these achieveidentity in architecture, the perception of that iden- ments survive for us, eight centuries later, in a few tity by others served as one of the main propagating imposing ruins, set off by clipped lawns and disinfluences extending over a wide range of buildings played in picturesque landscapes. Yet, plundered from priory churches to the parish level. Conclu- and shattered as they are, the remains bear powerful sions about the exact nature of Cistercian influence witness to the great energies and infectious ideals remain tentative, however. So much has been de- that motivated the Cistercians throughout these stroyed in both England and northeastern France years, as well as with their passion for giving them

that our knowledge of the exact steps by which tangible form in building. ideas were transmitted is irremediably curtailed.

| CATALOG | N THE catalog entries that follow I have tried carried out by the famous west country architect | to provide three kinds of information for each and carpenter, John Abel (Morgan, 155ff.) abbey: the principal documentary references to Between 1896 and 1907 Roland Paul sympathe buildings, their history from the Dissolution thetically renovated the fabric and carried out a to the present, and the record of clearance and series of excavations on the church and adjoining excavation where it has been carried out. In the buildings. The transepts and chevet of the former bibliography at the end of each entry I cite only monks’ church are still in use as the parish church

those references that I consider to be pertinent of St. Mary. scholarly contributions.

The old names of counties have been used rather T. Blashill, “The Architectural History of Dore than the new ones resulting from the reorganization Abbey,” Jn/. BAA 41 (1885): 363-71. of local government in 1974. Since most of the R. W. Paul, Dore Abbey: Herefordshire (Hereford,

scholarly material is organized under the old names, 1898).

use of the new county groupings would have been T. Blashill, “The Seventeenth-Century Restoration

unnecessarily complicating. of Dore Abbey,” Trans. WNFC 17 (1901); Unless otherwise stated, the dates of foundation 184-89. are those given in D. Knowles and R. N. Hadcock, R. W. Paul, “The Church and Monastery of Abbey Medieval Religious Houses England and Wales (2nd Dore, Herefordshire,” Trans. BGAS 27 (1904),

ed. London, 1971). 117-26.

, I9I4).

E. Sledmere, Abbey Dore: Herefordshire (Hereford,

R. W. Paul, “Abbey Dore Church, Herefordshire,”

ABBEY DORE (Shropshire) Arch. Camb. 82 (1927): 269-75. Robert Fitz Harold of Ewyas established Abbey nails South West t London, 1931): Dore in 1147, with the monks coming from Mori- H. M. Colvin, “Abbey Dore,” Trans. WNFC 32

mond in the Champagne, one of the five original mother houses of the Cistercian order. Dore re- (1948): 235-37, 6 ;

, F. C. Morgan, ed., “The Steward’s Accounts of

mained Morimond's only daughter house in Eng- John, First Viscount Scudamore of Sligo (1601-

For the architecture, see chapter 6 of this study, ee Year 1632," Trans. WNEC (1949PP. 24-100. Little is known about the history of Sir Nikolaus Pevsner, BoE: Herefordshire (London,

the buildings between the thirteenth century and 1963). |

the Dissolution. A report in 1540 mentions that D. H. Williams, “Abbey Dore,” Monmouthshire Anthe present bell tower was constructed over the tiquary 2 (1966): 65-144. inner chapel of the south transept around 1500 (L. D. H. Williams, White Monks in Gwent and the Bor-

and P. Henry VIII 15: 179, no. 89). The abbey was der (Pontypool, 1976), 1-58

dissolved in 1536, and some of the monastic quar- ° , ters and parts of the church fell into ruin. Enough

of the east end of the church remained for it to be BIDDLESDEN (Buckinghamshire)

restored to use as the parish church of the village by Viscount Scudamore in 1633. Only a year was Biddlesden was founded by Ernald de Bosco, stew-

needed to complete the work, which was largely ard of Robert de Beaumont, earl of Leicester, in

112 CATALOG 1147 with monks sent out from Garendon. The RCHM: Buckinghamshire 2 (London, 1913): 20. founding gift was disputed, however, and the monks Sir Nikolaus Pevsner, BoE: Buckinghamshire (Lon-

were forced to engage in lengthy litigation before don, 1960), 64. obtaining confirmation of their lands. Little is known about the history of the abbey’s

| buildings. Between 1157 and 1167 William de BINDON (Dorset)

Dadford and his wife directed that their bodies be : buried at the abbey (Roundell, 282). At some date Bindon was founded by William de Glastonia and in the late twelfth century Ralph Harenge and Wal- his wife on a site at West Lulworth in 1149. Monks ter de Westbury gave the monks leave, on com- from Forde provided the first community. For some pletion of the monastic buildings, to cut timber in reason, possibly shortage of water, West Lulworth

Westbury (ibid., 287, no. 11). Henry III granted proved unsuitable, and in 1172 the community the abbot wood for choir stalls in 1237 (CR: Henry moved northwest to new land at Bindon near the III, 1234-1237, 470). In 1255 Mathew Paris rec- village of Wool. Unusually, new patrons are menords that Hernaldus de Bosco was buried in the tioned—Roger Newburgh and his wife, Maud— conventual church before the high altar (Chronica and they are credited with the construction of the

majora 5:487). church.

The abbey was dissolved in 1538 and purchased Details of Roger’s twelfth-century building are by Sir Robert Peckham, who began dismantling not known. Some rebuilding occurred in the thirthe church. Parts of the claustral buildings were teenth century, however. In 1213 King John stayed incorporated into a sixteenth-century mansion. When at the abbey and gave fifty oaks and thirty cart Browne Willis visited the site in 1712, he found loads of lead for roofing the monastery (VCH: Dorset ruins of the church and the abbey house in good 2:83). Twenty years later another royal visitor, Henry part standing. In addition, there were then to be III, gave another sixty oaks ad fabricam eccleste sue seen the walls of the east side of the cloister and a (CR: Henry III 1231-1234, 195) and the following part of the tower, together with a small chapel and year issued a charter of confirmation (Mon. Angi. the chapter house, which was a handsome room, 5:657-58). forty feet square, supported on four pillars (Willis, Today only the lower courses of the church and 152). Ona return visit in 1735 he records that the chapter house survive on the overgrown, privately proprietor, Henry Sayer, had “totally demolished owned site. The four west bays of the north nave everything” and leveled the ground (ibid., 155). arcade still stood in 1733 when Buck engraved Today, the site of the former abbey is partly them (plate 139), and they were mentioned in 1770 covered by Biddlesden Park, an eighteenth-century (Hutchins, 352). At the beginning of the ninemansion with heavily wooded grounds. There is no teenth century, however, the then owner, a Mr. record of any excavation, and no above-ground re- Weld, carried out excavations and subsequently

mains are recognizable. leveled much of the site (ibid., 352). No report of this work was printed. B. Willis, The History and Antiquities of the Town The first plan of the monastery was published in and Deanery of Buckingham (London, 1755), 1872 (Hills, plate 20) and shows a standard early

150-64. Cistercian form for the church, with two chapels

W. H. Kelke, “The Destroyed and Desecrated without dividing walls in each transept. The overall Churches of Buckinghamshire,” Records of length of the building (about 190 feet) suggests

Buckinghamshire 4 (1858): 81-84. that there were more bays in the nave than the five H. Roundell, “Biddlesden Abbey and its Lands,” shown (cf. Buildwas, which was 163 feet long and

Records of Buckinghamshire 1 (1858): 275-87; had seven bays). )

2 (1863): 33-38. The few remains of the church, principally the

VCH: Buckinghamshire 1 (London, 1905): 365-69; outer walls to a few courses in height and fragments

and 4 (London, 1927): 153-57: of the west end, are difficult to date precisely. The

CATALOG 113 two-story nave shown in Buck’s print was supported The site chosen by the monks for building their

on round piers with undecorated capitals. It was church was low and subject to flooding, thus it also vaulted, and the springers are visible in the seems that before work could start, draining opengraving. Was the original church, then, simply erations were required, including some rerouting vaulted in the thirteenth century, or was it built of the River Arrow. In the original endowment the anew? The latter explanation seems more likely, at monks were granted wood and material for building least to judge from the few correspondences be- from Feckenham Forest. A gift of quarries at Combe, tween the ashlar from the remaining courses of the the source in all likelihood of Bordesley’s oolitic

wall from the church and that from the chapter limestone, was confirmed between 1147 and 1153, house (plate 110), which may be dated in the 1170s. and a consecration (undated) is recorded as having been performed during the rule of Bishop Simon J. Hutchins, The History and Antiquities of Dorset 1 of Worcester (1125-1150) (Woodward, 18). What-

(London, 1861). ever the bishop consecrated, it seems unlikely from

G. Hills, “Proceedings of the Weymouth Con- the archaeological evidence that it included more gress,” Jnl. BAA 28 (1872): 298-301. than the eastern parts of the church. Construction H. J. Moule, “On Bindon Abbey and Wool- on the claustral buildings can be assumed in the bridge,” Proceedings of the Dorset Natural His- third quarter of the twelfth century. Additions to tory and Antiquarian Field Club 7 (1886): 54- these in the early thirteenth century were made

65. with stone from quarries that the monks acquired

VCH: Dorset 2 (London, 1908): 82-86. at Hewell and Tardebigge (Rahtz and Hirst, 68ff.). J. M. Bohs, Bindon Abbey (Dorchester, 1949). The monastery was dissolved in 1538, with surJ. Newman and Sir Nikolaus Pevsner, BoE: Dorset render taking place on July 17. But disposal was

(London, 1972), 93-94. not orderly and two months later in a letter to © Cromwell it was noted that the buildings had been “defacid and plucked downe, and the substance

BORDESLEY (Worcestershire) therof solde to dyverse persons without proffitt or lucre paide or aunswerid to the kinges majestes use

Bordesley was founded in 1138 by Waleran de for the same” (T. Wright, Letters Relating to the Beaumont, count of Meulan and earl of Worcester. Suppression of Monasteries, Camden Society, ist ser. The monks came from Garendon, a foundation of 26, no. 134 {1843}: 279-80; see also appendix A Waleran’s brother, which in turn had been estab- to this study). The remaining walls and foundations

lished by Waverley. were soon buried; Nash’s view of 1782, though

Bordesley attracted gifts of land rapidly and purportedly showing the church, in fact confuses eventually included twenty granges among its it with the capella extra portas. properties. Within thirteen years of its own foun- The site was partly cleared by Woodward in dation it had established three daughter houses: 1864. Then in the early 1960s a series of excavaStoneleigh (1141), Merevale (1148), and Flaxley tions was begun by Pretty, Webb, and Rowley. In (1151). By the early fourteenth century, however, 1968 Rahtz and Hirst undertook their systematic the abbey’s popularity had begun to wane; a vis- excavation of the church, which continuing through itation in 1332 recorded a community of thirty- fourteen seasons with exemplary rigor and patience, four monks, one novice, eight lay brothers, and has recovered a greater body of reliable information seventeen serving men (VCH: Worcestershire 2:153). than have excavations at any other Cistercian site. Fifty years later these numbers had fallen to fifteen Many periods of work on the church have been (fourteen monks and one lay brother), the “‘pesti- identified by Rahtz and Hirst (58ff.). Construction lence” being cited as partly responsible. Bordesley’s of the first permanent building was started in the wealth revived, however, and in 1535 it was listed 1150s, with the plan showing a two-bay, squarein the Valor Ecclestasticus as ninth wealthiest among ended, aisleless presbytery, three chapels in each

the Cistercian houses (3 [1817]: 271-73). transept separated by unbroken walls, and a nave ,

114 CATALOG of eight bays. The proportions of the church were VCH: Worcestershire 2 (London, 1906): 151-543 3

similar to those of the churches at Boxley and Kirk- (London, 1913): 223-26. stall, and all three buildings were distinct from the Sir Nikolaus Pevsner, BoE: Worcestershire (London,

earlier churches at Rievaulx and Fountains (see chapter 1968), 248.

3 of this study, p. 46). R. T. Rowley, “Survey of Bordesley Abbey EarthThe crossing piers at Bordesley were composed works—1967,” Trans. Worcestershire Archaeoon the inner faces of a flat rectangular respond flanked logical Society 3rd ser. 1 (1968): 62-64. by an attached shaft. Base moldings were bell shaped, M. Aston, “The Earthworks of Bordesley Abbey, close in profile to those at Kirkstall. The crossing Redditch,” Medieval Archaeology 16 (1972): 133-

carried arches and, doubtless a low tower, an in- 36. novation of the 1150s comparable to that at Foun- P. Rahtz and S. Hirst, Bordesley Abbey, Redditch,

tains, Kirkstall, and Louth Park. The first pair of British Archaeological Reports, no. 23 (Oxnave piers has a rectangular face to the east, echoing ford, 1976). the crossing piers, but a semicircular one to the D. Walsh, “A Rebuilt Cloister at Bordesley Abwest (cf. Buildwas). The next pair of piers is oc- bey,” Jnl. BAA 132 (1979): 42-49.

tagonal, and the one beyond, circular. D. Walsh, “Measurement and Proportion at In a second program begun around 1200, the Bordesley Abbey,” Gesta 19 (1980): 109-13. south side of the crossing was strengthened by D. Walsh, “The Changing Form of the Choir of building up the southwest pier, suggesting possible the Cistercian Abbey of St. Mary, Bordesley,” subsidence in that direction. New buttresses were Studies in Cistercian Art and Architecture 1 (1981),

also added to the eastern corners of the presbytery. [O2-I1. The marshy ground on which the abbey was built S. M. Hirst, D. Walsh, and S. M. Wright, Borseems to have caused the problems. At the same desley Abbey II. Second Report on Excavations at time, the east parts of the church were tiled, and Bordesley Abbey, Redditch, British Archaeologa new set of choir stalls was constructed with the ical Reports (Oxford, 1983). backs set against partially blocked arcades in the nave.

In the second half of the thirteenth century work BOXLEY (Kent)

was undertaken on both sides of the crossing for William of Ypres, son of the count of Flanders, , structural reasons. The choir stalls were also rede- founded Boxley in 1143, with the monks coming signed, most likely with two tiers of seats. Around from Clairvaux; Boxley thus became only the second 1330 orf 1340 more radical work occurred at the abbey in England to be filiated directly to the great

crossing, this time possibly to restore it after a Burgundian house (Rievaulx was the first). Boxley _ collapse. The responds for the western crossing arch was situated near the main London-to-Canterbury were taken to the floor, which had the effect of road, and its abbots, due in part to this location, making the crossing more distinct. In the fifteenth — played a prominent role in English political affairs

and sixteenth centuries the consequences of the in the late twelfth century. It was Abbot Walter, shrinking monastic population are registered with in fact, away on business with Thomas a Becket in the disuse of some of the south transept chapels, Canterbury, who buried the murdered archbishop the entrances of which were blocked, and the re- in 1170. duction in the number of the choir stalls and their No documents on the construction of the buildremoval from the area west of the crossing, though ings at the abbey are known. around 1400 a new cloister was built and much of Dissolved in 1538, Boxley passed into private

the nave reconstructed. hands. The few fragments visible today are part of

a garden scheme of the country house built over T. R. Nash, Collections for the History of Worcestershire the southwest side of the former claustral buildings.

2 (London, 1782): 405-16. Excavations were carried out in 1897-1898 by J. M. Woodward, The History of Bordesley Abbey George Payne and the then owner, Major Best, but

(London, 1866). no results were published. New investigations were

CATALOG 115 then undertaken in 1953, 1959, and 1966, the last _ BRUERN (Oxfordshire)

in the south transept. Tester’s excavations of 1971- .

1972 retrieved the plan of the monastery. The church, Bruern was founded in 1147 by Nicolas Basset with

which was medium-sized (194 feet from east to monks from Waverley. oa west, ninety-four feet across the transepts), shows Very little is known about the abbey’s buildings. a characteristic early Cistercian plan with a slightly The twelfth-century church was altered in the early deeper presbytery than usual (by a half bay), three thirteenth century; in 1232 Henry III gave the chapels in each transept arm with unbroken sepa- monks wood from the forest of Wuchewud: ad tating walls, and a nave of eight bays. The length- rogum quendam faciendum ad operacionem ecclesie

ened presbytery occurs at Bordesley and New- sue (CR: Henry Il, 123 11234, 73 ). That the minster, and also at Fountains III, although there work involved an eastern extension 18 suggested by with extended inner transept chapels. Compared to the consecration 1M 1250 of altars to the Virgin the aisles at the Yorkshire houses, those at Boxley Mary and Saint Edmund the Confessor (VCH: Oxwere broader in proportion to the nave, and to- fordshire 2:80). The only other reference occurs in gether approximate its width; a different setting 1366 when Abbot John de Dunster p etitioned for out procedure was therefore used, one closer to the an indulgence for those who had contributed to the mature Bernardine plan (see chapter 3 of this study, repair of the monastery.

p. 35). , The size and extent of the buildings at Bruern The unbroken walls of the transept chapels sug- remain unknown. No clearance or excavation is gest that barrel vaults covered them originally; but recorded, and nothing survives above ground. An vaulting ribs with thirteenth-century profiles found eighteenth-century country house covers the site. in the north transept during excavations (Tester, figs. 4 and 6) may point to a later change. The VCH: Oxfordshire 2 (London, 1907): 79-81; 10 nave was probably carried on cylindrical piers with (London, 1972): 238-39. scalloped capitals (one such, found in the south J. Sherwood and Sir Nikolaus Pevsner. BoE: Oxtransept, is now in the Maidstone Museum). Frag- fordshire (London, 1974), 499-500. ments of architectural detailing unearthed in 1971-

1972 are extremely simple. The only standing por- ,

tion of the church is a plain round-headed doorway BUCKEAST (Devon)

at the west end of the south aisle. All the evidence

suggests a building campaign in the 1150s and Ethelward de Pomeroy founded Buckfast in 1136 1160s. The sole addition to the church occurred in on the site of an earlier Saxon monastery that had the fourteenth or fifteenth century when a tower been depopulated in the eleventh century. At the was raised outside the church and abutting the west time of foundation Buckfast belonged to the Condoorway; Tester discovered its foundations. gregation of Savigny, but it joined the Cistercian The cloister had an unusual rectangular form, order in 1148. For more than two centuries Buckwith the west range set one bay east of the usual fast enjoyed considerable wealth deriving from large position. In addition, the refectory retained its east- landholdings that made it the dominant monastic west orientation rather than adopting the more usual establishment in the southwest.

north-south axis. Little is known about the buildings. According to Stephens, the first Savigniac community built a

F. C. Elliston-Erwood, ‘Plans of, and Brief Ar- church that was enlarged when the monks became chitectural Notes on, Kent Churches,” Ar- Cistercian (Stephens, 20). Confirmations of the abchaeologia Cantiana 66 (1953): 45-51. bey’s charters were obtained from Henry II in 1161

VCH: Kent 2 (London, 1962): 153-55. and Richard I in 1189 (Rowe, 58, 60-61). An J. Newman, BoE: North East and East Kent (London, eastern extension of the church in the late four-

1969), 149. teenth century can be inferred from the mention

P. J. Tester, “Excavations at Boxley Abbey,’ Ar- that the arms of James and Thomas Audelay were chaeologia Cantiana 88 (1973): 129-58. placed in the window “of the west end of the Con-

| 116 CATALOG ventual Church and in the window of the gable end around the crossing (Rowe, 593). Clear evidence in the Lady Chapel there” (ibid., 95). Under the of patching and restoration in the fifteenth century abbacy of William Slade (1413-1415) important was also unearthed. additions were made to the claustral buildings (ibid..,

96). J. B. Rowe, Contributions to a History of the Cistercian

The abbey was dissolved in 1539, and the site Houses of Devon (Plymouth, 1878), 52-138. passed into the hands of Sir Thomas Dennis. A J. B. Rowe, “On Recent Excavations at Buckfast brief inventory dating from 1555 mentions the lead Abbey,” Trans. Devonshire Association 16 (1884):

from the roof and five bells in the tower of the 590-94. church (ibid., 111). When Samuel Buck visited J. Stephens, “Buckfast Abbey,” Chimes 2 (1922):

Buckfast in 1734, he depicted only parts of the 8-22. claustral buildings as still standing (Antzqutties 2, C. Norris and D. Nicholl, Buckfast Abbey (London,

plate 15), but a report in Gentleman’s Magazine (66, 1939). {1796}: 194-96) indicates more extensive remains: Sir Nikolaus Pevsner, BoE: South Devon (London,

“on the north side appear the walls and foundations 1952), 68-69. , of this once splendid seat of superstition, the abbey J. Stéphan, Buckfast Abbey (Buckfastleigh, 1962). church and remains of its tower all lying around in such massy fragments that it is scarcely to be conceived by what power so vast a fabrick could be

joined.” The ruins were estimated by the writer as BUILDWAS (Shropshire) being 250 feet in length with the tower situated on the south. In 1806 Westcote and Risdon spoke Buildwas was founded in 1135 by Roger de Clinof “the skeleton of a huge body whereby may be ton, bishop of Chester, as part of the Congregation conceived what bigness once it bore” (152). Shortly of Savigny. The monks came from Furness. In 1148, thereafter, however, the owner, S. Berry, leveled along with the Congregation’s other houses, Build-

the site. was became Cistercian. The major figure in the Cistercian monks returned to Buckfast in 1882, abbey’s early history and the man responsible for and a new church was built over the site of the establishing the house and constructing its build-

medieval one (1907-1937). | ings was Abbot Ranulf (1155-1187). Possessed of The foundation walls of the twelfth-century church remarkable energy and intellect, Ranulf may have

were exposed in 1882 and again in 1907 at the been appointed initially to effect the change from start of work on the new building. According to Savigniac to Cistercian ways. The same occurred Rowe (591), the church measured 220 feet from earlier at Furness, Stoneleigh, and Coggeshall. east to west, the nave was thirty-one feet in width, In 1152 Buildwas was entrusted with the care with aisles of twelve feet, and the transepts were of Basingwerk, and in 1166, with St. Mary’s Dubthirty feet square. Dimier published the first plan lin. A general confirmation of the abbey’s posses(Recueil, plate 54), which shows a deep, square- sions was obtained from Richard I in 1189 (Mon.

, ended choir surrounded by aisles. That this was Angl. 5:359), and two years later another was oba late twelfth- or early thirteenth-century extension tained from Bishop Hugh de Novant at the abbey of an earlier church is suggested by the single chapel itself in the presence of a gathering of abbots (Eyton,

_ in each transept; most likely an inner pair existed 329-30). The latter may well have coincided with that were sacrificed to form the aisles for the ex- the completion of the church, including the modtension, as occurred at Abbey Dore and Coggeshall. ifications to the choir (see chapter 6 of this study, The square chapel to the east is probably an addition pp. 93-94). In 1220 Philip de Broseley gave the

dating from the fourteenth century. monks permission to quarry stone, although for In the same clearance fragments of purbeck mar- what purpose is unknown. A visitation to Buildwas ble shafts and ‘‘a small three-quarter base of a Nor- in 1231 by Stephen of Lexington limited the numman pillar with a bead ornament” were discovered ber of monks at the house to eighty and the number

CATALOG 117 of lay brothers to 160 (B. Griesser, “Registrum Shropshive Archaeological Society Transactions 11 Epistolarum Stephani de Lexinton,” ASOC 8 {1952}: (1887-1888): 101-30. 181-378, esp. 205), but it is not certain that this A. H. Thompson, Buwildwas Abbey (London: De-

number was ever reached. In 1232 Henry III gave partment of Environment, 1937). thirty oaks from Shirlot forest ad reparationem ecclesie Sit Nikolaus Pevsner, BoE: Shropshire London, 1958),

sue. (CR: Henry III, 1231-1234, 66), and in 1255 88-90. , more oaks for the work (CR: Henry III, 1254-1256, M. Chibnall, “Buildwas Abbey,” VCH: Shropshire

TO9). 2 (London, 1973): 50-59. Buildwas’ tradition of custodianship continued ,

into the fourteenth century; in 1328 Edward III

placed Strata Marcella under its care, referring to BYLAND (Yorkshire) Buildwas as a place where “wholesome observance

and regular institution flourishes” (CR: Edward III, For the early history and architecture of Byland, 1327-1330, 410). Later the monastery was increas- see chapter 5 of this study. ingly troubled by Welsh raids; after one such attack The abbey was dissolved in 1539, and the site in 1406 Hugh Burnell added property to the ab- was granted to Sir William Pickering. Considerable bey’s holdings as compensation for losses when parts dismantling occurred between then and 1721, when

of the church were burned. Buck depicted the remains from the south (AntigFor the architecture, see chapter 6 of this study, uittes 1, sec. 1, plate 1). Subsequently, the principal

QI-94. loss has been the south wall of the south transept.

Buildwas was classed as one of the smaller houses This still remained in 1821 when it was described at the Dissolution and was surrendered to the com- in an anonymous guide, but shortly thereafter it

missioners in 1536. Subsequently, the site passed collapsed. An excavation is mentioned in 1855 through several changes of private hands, until 1925 (W. Grainge, The Castles and Abbeys of Yorkshire when the church and claustral buildings came into {York, 1855], 255), and a partial clearance was

the guardianship of the government; the abbot’s made by Fowler in 1886. The church remained house and part of the infirmary court are still pri- under heavy debris, however, until 1921 when the

: vately owned. From the plate made in 1731 by ruin was gifted to the nation. An excavation by Sir Buck (Antiquities 1, sec. 7, plate 3), it is clear that Charles Peers cleared the site between 1922 and

the abbey has sustained relatively few losses in the 1924, but apart from a brief guide no record has |

past 250 years. Apart-from the clearance and con- been published. , solidation of the remains by the Department of the Environment, no program of excavation has been J. Burton, Monasticon Eboracense (York, 1785), 328-

undertaken. 4O. |

Anonymous, A Description of Duncombe Park, Rivalx

J. Potter, Remains of Ancient Monastic Architecture Abbey and Helmsley Castle with notices of Byland

(London, 1846). Abbey, Kirkdale Church, etc. (Kirby Moorside,

R. W. Eyton, “The Monasteries of Shropshire: Their 1821). Origin and Founders, Buildwas Abbey,” Arch. J. R. Walbran, “Some Observations on the History

Jul. 15 (1858): 318-33. and Structure of the Abbey of the Blessed R. W. Eyton, “Buildwas Abbey,” Antiquities of Mary of Byland,” AASRP 7 (1863): 219-34. , Shropshire 6 (London, 1858): 317-35. E. Sharpe, “Byland Abbey,” YAJ 33 (1876): 1-8. J. L. Petit, “Architectural Notices of the Conven- C. H. Fowler, “Byland Abbey,” YAJ 43 (1886):

tual Church of Buildwas Abbey, Shropshire,” 395-96. Arch, Jnl. 15 (1858): 334-44. W. H. St. John Hope, “Byland Abbey,” The Builder G. M. Hills, “Buildwas Abbey,” Collectanea Ar- 71 (1896): 270-71. chaeologica 1 (1862): 99-112. J. W. Bloe, “Byland Abbey,” VCH: Yorkshire, North R. W. Eyton, “The Monasteries of Shropshire,” Riding 2 (London, 1923): 10-13.

| 118 CATALOG Sir Charles Peers, Byland Abbey (London: Depart- _ plate 2) shows some of the south aisle still in place, ,

ment of Environment, 1934). but apart from loss of this section, the abbey’s Sir Nikolaus Pevsner, BoE: Yorkshire, North Riding condition is little changed. Clearance of the ruins

(London, 1966), 94-101. and some general excavations were conducted in P. Svendgaard, “Byland Abbey: The Builders and 1880-1881 by A. G. Loftie. No trace of this work their Marks,” Ryedale Historian 3, (1967): 26- is visible.

29. Substantial portions of the church survive, though

P. Fergusson, “The South Transept Elevation of mostly from the thirteenth- and fourteenth-century Byland Abbey,” Jz/. BAA, 3rd ser. 38 (1975): rebuildings, and only the aisles of the nave and the

155-76. south arcade cannot be traced. The plan published

P. Fergusson, “Notes on Two Cistercian Engraved by Loftie (1892) shows the standard early Cistercian

Designs,” Speculum 54 (1979): I-17. form. This was followed in the later rebuildings except for a deepening of the choir. The building was always small, measuring only 147 feet from

CALDER (Cumberland) east to west.

The only major part of the church to survive Superbly situated in a low, wooded valley close to from the twelfth century is the doorway at the west

the sea, Calder was first settled by monks from end (plate Go in this study). It has three orders in Furness in 113.4. A Scottish invasion four years later the jambs, supported by shafts that carry waterleaf

forced its abandonment, however, and the com- capitals and intricate moldings. The latter are simmunity eventually settled at Byland. A new colony ilar to those at Furness, with the exception of the from Furness was sent out to reoccupy the site outer molding, which carries a fringe of cusping, around 1143. Ranulph de Meschin, earl of Chester, a motif quite common in the north. Stretches of was the patron, as he had been for the first settle- wall in the north and south transept are original, ment. Until 1148 the monks were under the ju- and there are some details in the chapels (waterleaf

risdiction of the Congregation of Savigny. capitals in the windows, for instance) that suggest The first permanent church was built by William reuse. Loftie published drawings of responds found FitzDuncan of Egrement Castle (Loftie [1886], 475). in his clearance; these included scalloped and crossMost of this church has disappeared, and the re- stemmed foliate designs, all dating from the twelfth mains that one sees today date from about 1225. century, and presumably coming from the aisles. What led to the rebuilding is unknown. A general Since the west doorway dates to circa 1180, and confirmation of the abbey’s rights was obtained from assuming that construction went from east to west Henry II in 1231 (Mon. Angt. 5:340-41), perhaps (which the generally earlier date of the other details to mark completion of the church since it agrees supports), the program of work at Calder may be with Denton’s statement (History of Cumberland, 1610) placed in the 1160s and 1170s. that Thomas de Multon of Egremont Castle (d.

1240) “finished the works, and established a greater ,

convent of monks at Cauder, or Caldre’’ (Denton’s A. G. Loftie, “Exploration at Calder Abbey,” Trans.

source is unfortunately lost). An invasion by the CWAAS 6 (1883): 368-72. Scots in 1322 severely damaged the church and A. G. Loftie, “Calder Abbey,” Trans. CWAAS 8 monastery, and extensive repairs were needed before (1886): 467-504.

the buildings could be used again. A. G. Loftie “Calder Abbey,” Trans. CWAAS 9 The monastery was dissolved in 1536, and the (1888): 206-39. site fell into the hands of Thomas Leigh, the most A. G. Loftie, Calder Abbey, its ruins and history

notorious of the Dissolution commissioners in the (London, 1892). north. From him it passed to a series of private VCH: Cumberland 2 (London, 1905): 174-78.

owners down to the present day. Sit Nikolaus Pevsner, BoE: Cumberland and WestBuck’s view of Calder in 1739 (Antiquities 2, movland (London, 1967), 84-86.

CATALOG 119 CLEEVE (Somerset) and southwest were using more up-to-date models. At Abbey Dore, for instance, work on an enlarged Cleeve was founded between 1186 and r191, though choir with a rectangular ambulatory and east chapel

the exact date is lost (Gilyard-Beer, 1). Coloniza- range was begun around 1185; and very shortly tion of the site, however, is given as 1198. The after Cleeve was started, ambitious eastern schemes founder was William de Roumare, third earl of were employed at Beaulieu, Waverley, and probLincoln, the grandson of one of the Cistercians’ ably Forde. most consistent early patrons. His grandfather’s The two-story elevation in the transepts, shown foundation at Revesby supplied the monks. Cleeve in the Bonner sketch, was also conservative, as was was always one of the smaller houses of the order; surviving detailing such as the remaining respond in 1297 ata period when Cleeve was PFOspcrous against the south wall in the south transept. The

twenty-six monks are mentioned. latter originally formed the opening into the east Building is specified as being underway in 1198, chapel and has chamfered setbacks; it rests on a but no details are given. In 1232 Henry III granted chamfered plinth without a base molding. The the abbey oak for choir stalls (CR: Henry II, 1231- doorway into the cloister from the south aisle was 1234, 77). Since no indication of any enlargement also chamfered. Similarly austere is the wall of the can be distinguished in the eastern remains, the south aisle, which lacks any articulation and is built

gift indicates the slow completion of a single pro- of irregularly coursed masonry. , gram of. work. In 1535 a valuation listed eleven | A campaign break in the first bay of the nave bells; a tower existed, therefore, probably over the suggests that only the east end of the church was

CrOssInS - finished by the time Henry III granted the abbey Cleeve was dissolved in 1537, and parts of the wood for stalls. Little remains of the nave; the piers claustral buildings were converted into residential were cylindrical like those at Buildwas, and one

quarters, with the cloister becoming a courtyard surviving base at the west end shows a typical for the house. After several changes of ownership, waterholding form. Eeles reported that the arches the site came under the guardianship of the De- had two-order chamfered moldings. partment of the Environment in 1951. T. Bonner The plan, masonry, elevation, and few surviving drew the claustral buildings from the west in 1790 details are notable, then, for their extreme conser(Gilyard-Beer, 13), showing parts of the south tran- vatism. So distinctive is this quality that it suggests sept still standing, including the arch into the south a deliberate archaism. Cleeve was not alone in this; transept chapel, which is surmounted by a tall area the same occurred at Buildwas, though somewhat of bare wall and topped by a clerestory window. earlier, and somewhat less forcefully. All this has since vanished, but apart from this,

few losses have been sustained subsequently. T. Hugo, “The Charters and Other Archives of Excavations were carried out by MacKenzie- Cleeve Abbey,” Proc. SAS 6 (1855): 17-73. Walcott and Samson in 1875 and again by Eeles F. Warre, “Old Cleeve Abbey,” Proc. SAS 6 (1855):

in 1930. The Department of the Environment has 74-97. | exposed the foundation walls of the church and to E. C. MacKenzie-Walcott, “Old Cleeve Abbey,”

the south the earlier refectory with its splendid Trans. RIBA (1876), 103-27.

tiles. F. W. Weaver, “Cleeve Abbey,” Proc. SAS 52 (1906): The plan of the church is the typical early Cis- I-41.

tercian one, and the two chapels in each transept VCH: Somerset 2 (London, 1911): 115-18. are even separated by solid walls. Although a plan F. C. Eeles, “Cleeve Abbey; Recent Discoveries,” with this feature and a square-ended, aisleless pres- Proc. SAS 77 (1931): 37-47. bytery would be expected around the mid-twelfth R. S. Simms, “Cleeve Abbey,” Arch. Jnl. 107 (1950):

century, by the standards of Cistercian architecture 118-19. of 1200 it was noticeably conservative. Even ex- Sit Nikolaus Pevsner, BoE: South and West Somerset

cluding the north of England, abbeys in the south (London, 1958): 126-28.

120 CATALOG R. Gilyard-Beer, Cleeve Abbey (London: Department and belongs to about 1220. Subsequently, the ab-

of Environment, 1960). bey’s history is obscure. The cloister was rebuilt in the mid-fifteenth century (Gardner, 21), and by 1518 a mansion belonging to Sir John Sharpe ex-

COGGESHALL (Essex) isted adjacent to the abbey buildings. The monastery was dissolved in 1538, and the Coggeshall lay on the banks of the Blackwater River. site was sold to Sir Thomas Seymour, who resold

It was founded in 1140 by King Stephen and his it to the crown three years later. At that time a wife Mathilda as the thirteenth and last of the houses survey noted that the church “is clene prostrate and of the Congregation of Savigny. Included with the defaced but the cloyster and lodgings doe yet re-

land was the manor of Coggeshall, both the prop- mayne untouched” (Beaumont, 61). By the late erty of the queen. The abbey became Cistercian in sixteenth century these too had disappeared, and a 1148 when the Congregation was merged with that mansion belonging to the Paycocke family was raised

order. on the site. Coggeshall remains in private ownerWork on a permanent church must have begun ship. shortly after the merger. A consecration of the high An excavation of the church was started by St. altar by the bishop of London, Gilbert Foliot, in John Hope in 1914, but the Great War cut it short, 1167 is recorded in the history of the house written and it was not resumed. Some remains were in the early thirteenth century by Abbot Ralph unearthed, however, including brick bases of the (1207-1218). Perhaps the other essential buildings west nave piers and fragments of a screen wall runwere also completed by this date since Ralph men- ning between them. No further work has been un-

tions that the next year (1168) the second abbot, dertaken. Simon de Toni, “returned to his own house of Mel- Although nothing of the church is visible above rose” (Chron. Angl., 16). Although it is not known ground, in dry summers the outlines of the walls when Simon took up his appointment, it may well can be discerned. These have revealed the plan (fig. have been when Coggeshall became Cistercian and 22) of a five-bay, square-ended chevet with north

he was sent to establish it on orthodox lines. and south aisles, transepts with one chapel each, Ralph next mentions the abbey’s buildings dur- and a nave of eight bays. The overall length was ing the rule of Abbot Peter (1176-1194), recount- 210 feet, with the chevet measuring seventy-three

ing an unusual episode. One day the assistant hos- feet, the nave 112 feet, and the transepts eighty | teler, Robert, found in the guest house several persons feet from north to south and twenty-five feet in

dressed as Templars. Realizing they were men of width. importance, he hastened to arrange for them to dine It is likely that the aisled chevet was a late twelfth-

with the abbot in his private quarters. When he or early thirteenth-century addition, the presbytery returned, however, the Templars had vanished, and of the 1167 church being almost certainly aisleless. the porters reported that no such persons had passed Originally each transept probably contained two

through the gates (ibid., 134). The story reveals chapels, but the inner ones would have been sacthat the abbot had already separated himself from rificed to provide aisles in the extension. In the the community and was living in his own accom- nave the piers were cylindrical and measured four

modations at this early date. feet in diameter; unusually, they are made of brick | Although the principal buildings belong to the and are among the earliest of this material known 1160s, it is clear from the existing remains that (Gardner, 31). At the Cistercian abbey of Ter Duin work continued through the late twelfth and into (Belgium), however, brick piers were used, and it the early thirteenth century; the guest house and could be that it was from this part of Flanders that abbot’s lodging date to about 1190, as do parts of the idea spread to Coggeshall. the monks’ dormitory undercroft and an open cor- Surviving fragments from the cloister show a ridor to the east with three bays of rib vaults. The scalloped capital and early waterholding base (ibid.., capella extra portas stands complete, though restored, plate 6, no. 2). These details date to circa 1170

CATALOG 121 B. Dale, Annals of Coggeshall (London 1863). VCH: Essex 2 (London, 1907): 125-29. G. F. Beaumont, “The Remains of Coggeshall Ab-

bey,” Trans. EAS, new ser. 15 (1921): 5976. RCHM: Essex 3 (London, 1922): 165-67.

J. S. Gardner, “Coggeshall Abbey and its Early Brickwork,” Jnv/. BAA, 3rd ser., 18 (1955): 19-32. Sir Nikolaus Pevsner, BoE: Essex (London, 1954), 251-52.

, | COMBE (Warwickshire) Combe was founded by Richard de Camvill in 1150 as a daughter house to Waverley. It was the wealth-

, . | | iest of the Cistercians’ three foundations in War-

| | wickshire.

Little has emerged about the history of the build-

| i , ings at Combe. One late document only records | : the gift of £30 in 1509 from Sir Edward | i to build the south side of the cloister and to glaze it (Dugdale, 530). i i Dissolved in 1539, the abbey was converted before the turn of the century into a country house

| by Lord Harington. He used three sides of the cloister to form the nucleus of the building, lev-

i eling the fourth side occupied by the church and

taking its stone for construction. By the early seventeenth century the estate was in the hands of the Craven family, and it was from them in the 1950s that the estate was purchased by the city of Coventry for use as a public park.

0 10 20 FEET The abbey was illustrated in Dugdale’s first edition of the Monasticon (1655-1673), and many of

22. Coggeshall plan. the claustral buildings can be recognized. Although a new house was begun for the Cravens around 1680, the medieval parts were retained and are and suggest that the consecration of 1167 may have visible in Buck’s 1729 engraving (Antiquities 1, sec.

marked the completion of the claustral buildings 5, plate 9). This house was replaced by a large

as well as the church. Victorian mansion designed by Eden Nesfield in the 1860s. Most of this Victorian building has since

J. Stevenson, ed., Radulphi de Coggeshall, Chronicon been demolished. _ Anglicanum, Rolls Series 66 (1875). The present courtyard was originally the cloister E. L. Cutts, “An Architectural Account of the Re- of the abbey, with the church lying to the south mains of Coggeshall Abbey,” Trans. EAS 1 in the area now occupied by the moat. When the

(1858): 166-85. moat was being dug in 1864, local newspapers

Raleigh

122 CATALOG reported that the foundations of the church had No documents have come to light on the history been unearthed but gave no details. Parts of the of building at Combermere. fifteenth-century cloister remain on the north and Dissolved in 1539, the abbey was sold to Sir west sides of the courtyard, while its east side is George Cotton, who incorporated some of the moformed by the fronts of the original twelfth-century nastic buildings into a country house that he built

range. This includes the handsome round-headed over the site. When Buck visited the abbey in doorway to the chapter house with deep twin win- 1727, some parts of the claustral buildings were dows on either side; and on the north and south, recognizable immured into the house (Antiquities respectively, remain the passage and slype en- I, sec. 3, plate 11). The house has since been trances, the latter with a pointed profile. The stone demolished, however, and nothing is visible on the is a warm red sandstone; detailing includes water- site. leaf, volute (plate 138), and unusual twisted-incised capitals, and roll moldings, some with chev- J. P. Earwaker, East Cheshire: Past and Present 2

ron applied to the outer rolls. In the wall of the (London, 1880): 432-33. passage is a small door with chamfered angles that G. Ormerod, History of Chester 3 (London, 1882):

once led into the day room and just beyond, in 402-19. what is now the gentlemen’s lavatory, is a fragment J. Hall, ed., “The Book of the Abbot of Comof arch respond with a reset arch with a gorged bermere,” Record Society for Lancashire and

outer roll. Behind these facades are parts of Nes- Cheshire 31 (1896): I-74. field’s Victorian building, which employed profiles Sir Nikolaus Pevsner, BoE: Cheshire (London, 1971),

identical to the twelfth-century ones. 181-82. From the evidence of the east range, a date around

1180-1190 is suggested for the twelfth-century building. CROXDEN (Staffordshire) W. Dugdale, The Antiquities of Warwickshire 1 (Lon-

don, 1730): 222-26. The monastery at Croxden had one false start; first VCH: Warwickshire 2 (London, 1908): 73-75; and settled at Cotton in 1176, the monks left after two

6 (London, 1951): 72-73. years and moved to Croxden. The original comSir Nikolaus Pevsner and A. Wedgewood, BoE: munity had come from Aulnay-sur-Odon in NorWarwickshire (London, 1966), 236-38. mandy under the patronage of Bertram de Verdun whose family earlier had founded Aulnay. Croxden remained Aulnay’s sole foundation in England. According to William de Shepished, the author

COMBERMERE (Cheshire) of the abbey’s late thirteenth century Chronicle, building began under Abbot Thomas of Woodstock

Randle Blundeville, earl of Chester, founded Com- (1178-1229) (Lawrence, 30). A consecration was bermere in 1133 as part of the Congregation of recorded in 1181, but this was a dedicatio loct (Mon. Savigny. He endowed the abbey with property and Angl. 5:661). Another consecration is noted in 1232.

revenues that included income from salt houses, Under the fifth abbot, Walter of London (1242from a quarter of the town of Nantwich, and from 1268), described as strenutssimus, the monastery was rectorial rights to the church there. These sources enlarged by ‘the half of the church,” presumably seem to have continued to supply Combermere after meaning the west nave bays and west end (Hills, it became Cistercian in 1148. Men were apparently 298). A third consecration by Bishop Roger Wese-

, attracted to the monastic life at Combermere, and ham of Coventry and Litchfield took place in 1254. patrons supported the community, for in 1153 a Extensive work on the monastic buildings was also colony was established at Poulton, in 1172, another carried out by Abbot Walter; he finished the chap-

at Whalley, and in 1219, a third at Hulton. ter house and refectory and was entirely responsible

CATALOG . 123 for building and equipping the kitchen, the whole the disappearance of the west wall of the cloister of the infirmary with its great hall, chapel, and (Antiquities 1, sec. 7, plate 14). At some time afkitchen, and the novitiate (Lawrence, 30-31). In terwards a country road was allowed to run diaghis “latter days” he began the enclosure wall around onally through the church, and this now awkwardly the monastic precincts, and before he died he had separates the chevet and north transept from the completed half its length and erected the great gates remains of the claustral buildings. In 1936 Croxden

at the main entrances of the monastery. _ was placed under the guardianship of the DepartUnder Walter’s successor, William of Howton ment of the Environment, which has cleared the (1268-1274), work continued. William is credited site. No excavation has been undertaken. with the two-storied abbot’s house that faced south From the Chronicle it is clear that a permanent (ibid., 31). In 1313 the great bell of the monastery church was built in the twelfth century. The only was accidentally broken on Holy Saturday, and in traces of this are some masonry courses in the south 1332 a great wind blew off the roofs of the con- transept (exterior wall) and the exposed pier base

ventual buildings (ibid., 43). Repair on the latter in the north transept with its setting out design began at once, and the abbot, Richard de Shepished clearly visible (P. Fergusson, “Notes on Two Cis(1329-1335), retiled all four roofs of the cloister tercian Engraved Designs,” Speculum 54 [1979], (the accounts specify that this took 25,550 tiles), plate 3). The rebuilding in the thirteenth century the roofs of the refectory and belfry (19,000 tiles), occurred over the plan of the original transepts, as and finally the monks’ dormitory and abbot’s house may be deduced from the unusual relation of the (30,000 tiles). He also extended the monks’ dor- transepts to the impressive ambulatory and radiatmitory and began rebuilding the abbot’s house (ibid. , ing chapel scheme. It is possible that the twelfth43-44). In 1369 some of the buildings adjoining century east end was of the rectangular ambulatory the church collapsed and were rebuilt the next year. type used at Byland.

In 1374 the cloisters were repaired (ibid., 63). Almost all the extensive remains on the site, By 1377 Croxden’s fortunes had suffered a sharp then, date from the thirteenth century. What is reverse for reasons unknown; that year the popu- mysterious is the thoroughness of the replacement lation of the abbey included only the abbot and six of the twelfth-century work. monks, and the same number are mentioned in 1381 (VCH: Staffordshire 3:228). Recovery took place G. Hills, “Croxden Abbey and its Chronicle,” Jnl.

slowly; in the fifteenth century under the register BAA 21 (1865): 294-315. of the twenty-second abbot, Dom John de Check- C. Lyman, ““Croxden Abbey,” in R. Plant, ed., A ley-Walton (circa 1460-1506), it was noted that History of Cheadale (London, 1881): 259-76.

“the good abbot . .. roofed the monastery, the W.H.G. Flood, History of Croxden Abbey (London, |

great barn and the bakehouse, and many other 1893). ,

buildings about the monastery, in particular the C. Lyman, The Abbey of St. Mary, Croxden, Stafcloister and the room which is called the parlour’ fordshire (London, 1911). (Lawrence, 16). Finally, in the early sixteenth cen- P. K. Baillie Reynolds, Croxden Abbey (London: tury it was remarked of Abbot Walton that he was Department of Environment, 1946).

engaged in building. M. Lawrence, “Notes on the Chronicle and other The monastery was dissolved in 1538, and the Documents relating to St. Mary’s Abbey, contents inventoried for sale. Among the lots was Croxden,” Trans. of the North Staffordshire Field

one for the “roffe of the churche,” another for the Club 85-87 (1951-1953): I-27, 27-50, 5I-

“loft under the organs,” and a third for “all the 74. old tymber in the cloister” (T. Wright, ed., ‘““Three P. K. Baillie Reynolds, “Croxden Abbey,” Arch.

Chapters Relating to the Suppression of the Mon- Jnl. 120 (1964): 278. asteries,”’ Camden Society, ist. ser., 26 {1843}: 164- VCH: Staffordshire 3 (London, 1970): 226-30. 65). In 1731 when Buck visited the site, the re- Sir Nikolaus Pevsner, BoE: Staffordshire (London,

mains looked much as they do today, except for 1974): III-13.

124 CATALOG FLAXLEY (Gloucestershire) had melted down the bells and sold the metal. The

a abbey was granted to Sir William Kingston, Convalley seal wine aeatt of i see on vag stable of the Tower of London, who earlier in 1536 founded in 1151 by Roger, son of the earl of Here- nad Supenintended the execution of Anne Boleyn;

ford, reputedly on the site where his father had vad “lone with ocher ronen ies (L © out P. Hom

~ been killed in a hunting accident on Christmas Eve VIII 12, pt. 1, no. 795, p. 42). ) ) eight years earlier. The monks came from Bordes- Today the country house that keeps the mon-

ley. astery’S name covers two sides of the former cloister

The abbey’s charters were confirmed between 1151 and incorporates part of the conversi’s quarters in and 1154 by Henry, duke of Normandy, and were its west wing. All that survives of the church is a confirmed again in 1158 by Henry as king. On the stretch of the north aisle at the west end (about ten latter occasion he gave the monks the right to take feet) now forming one side of a back courtyard, and

wood and other | materials ad domos suas et ad part of the south aisle (about sixty feet), the latter aedificia sua facienda,” but without committing immured into the eighteenth-century orangery. The waste in the forest (Mon. Angi. 5:590). According masonry consists of roughly shaped stones laid with to Leland (1545), whose source 18 lost, the abbey heavy mortar infilling, and there is no articulation

hich Breatly helPec mealy in Its rng . a on either the inner or outer faces. At the east end

ishop of Hereford; this was most likely Gilbert of the orangery the doorway that went from the Foliot before his transfer to London in 1163 (Chart. cloister into the south aisle ‘s visible in its lower

>ope so Celestine I 2 a maIIIrena rane’ “ parts. It is made of well-cut soft red sandstone; the in 1192 (ibid., 178-80, no. 77). bases are not yet waterholding, but the shafts hav Before 1200 various gifts of candles and hosts were fillets. The upper parts of on doorway have hoon

ee ies I .. ‘ , me * wens wih one by walled up and plastered over, but according to

bert Monmouth and his wile, berta, who gave Crawley-Boevey, the arch moldings were roundfive shillings from the mill at Hope (two miles from headed ( 1921, nn In the same nel e he mentions Flaxley) for the purchase of wine for Mass but stp - that the south and west walls of the south transept

ulate me inoney of : © achapter, had beenbefound could, wiHt e consent of ttthehol whole a: but gives no details; these are not spent for the repair of books (ibid., 13 5 no. 6). ‘8 5 ane oe oversee , of ub oldine fan Taken together these gifts suggest completion of ments, ptobably from the church, have been col-

, , 2g result of landscaping changes;

the church before the turn of the century. Under lected i the garden asa result of | 4 no ch .

weny and to, Wed ote teen he king they are of two kinds, a chamfered form and a single allowed the abbot two oaks for the roof of the aisle ror ane by hollows. Both would fit a date around

(CR: Henry III, 1227-1231, 354), and more wood BETTE TS: | . .

was granted the next year (ibid., 565). In 1232 Of the claustral buildings, impressive parts of the.king gave the abbey ten more oaks “‘ad ecclesiam the original west range remain, with five spacious

, r» rib-vaulted and a fine(CR. late twelfth suam et domos abbatie suebays reparandus” Henry century .|. Il, 1231-1234, 98), but the abbot could obtain doorway with re-worked capitals that led into the only four, and later the same year six more were cloister. A clearance in 1788 reported that the chapallowed for the repair of the church. Two years later ter house was polygonal with a central column whose

more oaks were given for the repair of the abbot’s base remained (Chart. F., 60).

houses (ibid., 397). A plan of the abbey was published by Middleton When the Dissolution commissioners came to in £881. Only the surviving claustral parts are drawn Flaxley in 1536, they found the house in ruins and to scale, and the remainder is schematic. The church the church damaged by fire. They reported that to is shown as large measuring 274 feet from east to raise money for the repair of the church, the monks west and 112 feet across the transepts. The length

CATALOG 125 suggests an extension to the choir, perhaps in the records a burial “in australi parte presbiterii sepe-

thirteenth century. liter” (Mon. Angl. 5:378). In 1239 a consecration is documented (Ann. W, 323), possibly for an east-

J. H. Middleton, “Flaxley Abbey: The Existing ern extension. Remains,” Trans. BGAS 6 (1881-1882): 280- By the rule of Abbot John Chidley (1330-1354)

83. the abbey buildings and church were in ruins (Rowe, A. W. Crawley-Boevey, The Cartulary and Histor- 357, no. 271), and Abbot John’s successor, Adam ical Notes of the Cistercian Abbey of Flaxley (Ex- (1354-1373), rep orted that the church still re-

eter, 1887). quired rebuilding (ibid. , 359, No. 273). On the

VCH: Gloucestershire 2 (London, 1907): 93-96. eve of the Dissolution Forde's distinguished Jase Sir Francis Crawley-Boevey, “Some Recent Discov- abbot, Chard (1521-1539), initiated an ambitious

eries at Flaxley Abbey,” Trans. BGAS 43 new building program on the monastic quarters. ,

(1921): 57-62. Parts of the cloister survive from this work, incor-

D. Verey, BoE: Gloucestershire 2 (London, 1970): porated into the mansion built by Inigo Jones from

185-87. 1647 forwards. When Buck visited the site in 1734, he found it looking much as it does today (Antiquities 2, plate 14). Nothing survives of the church at Forde. Because

FORDE (Dorset) of the slope of the ground towards the River Axe, ,

the cloister lay on the north, and the remains of Richard Fitzbaldwin founded Forde in 1136 with the church lie, therefore, under the lawn fronting monks from Waverley. The site lay at Brightley in the present impressive country house. Aerial pho-

Devon, but after five years the monks abandoned tographs reveal no outlines of the building it and set out to return to their mother house in (D. Knowles and J.K.S. St. Joseph, Monastic Sites Surrey. They had only gone as far as Thorncombe from the Air {Cambridge, 1952], 144). when they encountered Adelicia, the sister of Rich- There is no record of an excavation or clearance,

atd the viscount, and their appearance so moved but in.1913 Brakspear published a plan of the her that she gave them her manor there. The gift monastery that includes a schematic outline of the included a house called Westford, which the monks church. How this was obtained is unclear, although used while they worked on their buildings. Soon one method Brakspear used elsewhere was to probe the abbey became known just as Forde because it for foundations with steel rods. The church is shown

allowed a passage across the River Axe. as measuring 224 feet in length and ninety-nine The abbey quickly attracted patrons and in- feet across the transept, with a presbytery surcreased in wealth. In 1171 a colony was sent out rounded by a rectangular ambulatory, similar to _ to found Bindon, and in 1201, another to Dunkes- those at Abbey Dore and Byland. well. Unusually for the Cistercians, Forde enjoyed

a reputation for learning in the twelfth century. Its J. B. Rowe, “Cistercian Houses in Devon: Forde,” most famous abbot, Baldwin (1168-1181), went Trans. of the Devonshive Association 10 (1878): on to become bishop of Worcester and then in 1184 349-70. This was published again in Contri-

was anointed archbishop of Canterbury. butions to a History of the Cistercian Houses of Little is known about the history of building at Devon (Plymouth, 1878): 171-92. Forde. The main program was carried out under H. Brakspear, “Forde Abbey,” Arch. Jnl. 70 (1913): Abbot Robert de Penynton (1137-1168). Much of 498-99. the fine chapter house survives from this period, as A. Clapham and A. R. Duffy, “Forde Abbey,” do parts of the lay brothers’ range. Forde’s patron, Arch. Jnl. 107 (1950): 119-20. Adelicia, died in 1142 and was buried before the RCHM: Dorset, West 1 (London, 1952): 240. high altar (Rowe, 350, no. 261), but the building J. Newman and Sir Nikolaus Pevsner, BoE: Dorset

could hardly have risen far by then. An obit in 1209 (London, 1972), 208-11. ,

126 CATALOG FOUNTAINS (Yorkshire) A. W. Oxford, The Ruins of Fountains Abbey (LonFor the history and architecture of Fountains, see VCH. Yorkin, (1913): 134-38. _ chapter 3 of this study, pp. 38-48. For its later W. T. Lancaster, ed., Adstracts of the Charters and building history in the fifteenth and sixteenth cen- Other Documents Contained in the Chartulary of

mueres see Reeve, disco a a; ag the Cistercian Abbey of Fountains, 2 vols. (Leeds, ountains was dissolved in 1539. After some 1915).

years of debate over whether to turn the abbey into Sir Nikobes Pevsner, BoE: Yorkshire, West Riding

a cathedral for a new see of Richmond, the site was (London, 1959), 203-13. sold to Sir Richard Gresham. At the end of the A. Phillips, Fountains Abbey (London: Department sixteenth century a new owner, Sir Stephen Proctor, of Environment, 1967). used stone from the monastic buildings and outer R. Gilyard-Beer, Fountains Abbey (London: Decourt to construct Fountains Hall, which lies two partment of Environment, 1978). hundred yards to the west of the abbey gate. In 1768 William Aislabie incorporated the ruins into

the magnificent landscape scheme of Studley Royal FURNESS (Lancashire)

conceived by his father in the early eighteenth cen- .

tury (see appendix A). From the Aislabies, the site Monks from the Congregation of Savigny first set passed into the hands of the Vyners, whose heir tled at Tulketh near modern-day Preston in 1124,

: sold it in 1966 to the Yorkshire West Riding County under th e patronage of Stephen, count of Boulogne, Council. They have placed the ruins under the pro- = °°0 king of Engl and. For reasons that are unre-

tection of the Department of the Environment. corded, the community moved north to Furness Clearances are recorded in the eighteenth cen- four years later, and Tulketh was reduced to a detury, but the first extensive work on the ruins was pendent grange. Along with all oth er Savigniac undertaken between 1840 and 1854 by John Wal- houses, Furness became Cistercian in 1148. | bran. Further work, between 1887 and 1888, was The abbey quick] y amassed large landholdings carried out by Hope. Since being placed in the with the help of its royal patron. These were conhands of the government in 1966, the ruins have firmed by Henry II in 1158 and by Richard I bebeen extensively examined by Gilyard-Beer. Some tween T 189 and 194 (W. Farrer, The Lancashire new excavations were carried out by Roger Mercer Pipe Rolls [Liverp ool, 1902}, 209-10, 315-16). In in 1968 and 1969 and by Glyn Coppack from 1977 1310 a Scottish raid devastated the abbey, but no

to 1982 on the brew house, south transept and details of damage survive.

parts of the cloister. For the architecture, see chapter 4 of this study, Pp. 54-61.

J. R. Walbran, “On the Excavation now in Progress Purne ~— dissolved in 1538; anc! the site passed

2 ' into private hands. Dismantling began at once. By

2; an 1854-1 : 54-66. ; ; nt

at nd . Apeey er 6 (1850): 263- the early eighteenth century topographical prints

J. R. Walbran, Memorial ofthe Abley of St. Mary oe ene ae ine auch a chey a of Fountains, Surtees Society, 3 vols. (Leeds, 1862- today. Clearance of the church and some of the

F. Me Wail “Fountains Abbey, Yorkshire,” Co/- m nastic buildings “ begun by Beck in 1840, , , with further work carried out between 1880 and

A ans aoe eologta A we7 ny ) eM 1882. St. John Hope excavated the presbytery and J. A. Reeve, onograph on the ey of St. Mary transepts between 1896 and 1898. In 1923 the Ww o For Robert, see B. L., Add. Ms. 37779, fol. 116v, and Simon, no. 826. For Roger, see Harvey, English Medieval ArUniv. Coll., Ms. 170, fol. 43r; for Ivo, B. L., Add. Ms. 37770, chitects, 227.

fols. 12v and 13r, and Univ. Coll. Ms. 170, fol. 471; for } For Waryn, see R. P. Littledale, ed., Pudsay Deeds, YorkJordan, see Rylands Ms. 224, fol. 118v, and Oxford, Bodelian, shire Archaeological Society Record Series 56 (1916), no. 44, pp.

MS. Rawlinson B. 449, fol. 1341; for Gregory, B. L., Cotton 122-23; for Hugh, see Chart. S. nos. 123 and 127. Tib. Ms. 112, fol. 204v; for Adam, B. L., Add. Ms. 40009, * See R. A. Brown, “Early Charters of Sibton Abbey, Suffol. 289v; for Ucted, B. L., Cotton Tib., MS. 112, fols. 286v- folk,” Pzpe Roll Society Publications 36 (1960): 65-76, esp. 73,

287r. I would like to thank Miss Joan Woodward of Oxford 75.

for drawing my attention to these mentions. | Chart. T., 100.

© Chron. M. 1:76. ™ Chron. M. 1:76.

¢ Fund. K., 178. " E. H. Fowler, ed., “The Cartulary of the Abbey of Old

© Chron. M. 1:107. Warden,” Bedfordshire Historical Record Publications 12 (1930),

' Mem. F. 1:58-59. nN. 52.

8 W. H. Long, ed., The Oglander Memoirs (London, 1888), ° Ann. W., 91b, and 113.

198. P For the first mention, see Mon. Angl. 5:479, but compare "D. M. Owen, “Some Revesby Charters of the Soke of Mem. F. 1:86; for the second mention, see Chron. M. 1:76. Bolingbroke,” Pzpe Roll Society Publications, new ser., 36 (1960),

232.

BUILDERS OF CISTERCIAN MONASTERIES 169 There are three recorded cases of abbots who growth for the house in the years ahead. Subseengaged in the design and construction process. quently, it is documented that all three men ‘“‘set Two of them—Robert of Newminster, later can- out” monasteries—Newminster in Robert’s case, onized, and Adam of Meaux—had similar back- Kirkstall in Alexander's, Woburn in Adam’s—“after grounds. They had begun their monastic lives at our manner,” a phrase that may be taken to mean the Benedictine abbey of Whitby before moving after the Cistercian manner or, perhaps, more exsouth within the Benedictine family to St. Mary’s plicitly after the manner of the Clairvaux filiation York in the late 1120s or early 1130s. Together to which the three houses belonged. About Robert with Dan Alexander of Kirkstall, they were monks and Alexander’s further building activity nothing at St. Mary’s in 1132 during the turmoil that led more is known, but for Adam the picture is much to the establishment of Foundatins.'? Robert and fuller. Adam built four monasteries and seems, in Alexander are named in the Narratio as among the fact, to have duplicated Geoffroi’s role as an itinoriginal founding monks, and according to the Meaux erant monastic master mason. The Meaux Chronicle

Chronicle Adam left St. Mary’s shortly afterwards says he was occupied in constructing the buildings , to join the new community. These details are im- (occuparetur et esset sollicitus . . .) at Kirkstead (founded portant because they establish all three men as being 1139), Woburn (1145), and Vaudey (1147).'> He at Fountains in the spring of 1133 during Geoffroi is mentioned specifically as being at work at Vaudey of Ainai’s visit. Geoffroi had been sent to Fountains in 1149 when he had his famous encounter with from Clairvaux by Saint Bernard because the new William, count of Aumale and earl of York, which community had not been established in the tradi- led to the foundation of Meaux with Adam as first

tional manner and needed instruction in the cus- abbot.'° During the period from 1133 to 1150

toms of the Cistercians.. Architecture can be as- Adam was a monk at Fountains, but after his ap- | sumed to have been among the subjects of instruction; pointment as abbot of Meaux his building activity Geoffroi was skilled and experienced in building, continued for the ten years of his rule. One of his and the Narratio states that he taught the monks buildings is described in the Chronicle; it was a twosinging and chanting and that they “built houses story timber structure of larger size than an earlier and set out workshops” during his stay.‘3 Other one on which it was modeled, with the lower story sources establish Geoffroi’s role as similar to that serving as a dormitory for the monks, and the upper of a master mason and show that he was one of the as their oratory. About this building the text exprincipal figures in the architecture of the order. plicitly states that both “Adam et monachi aediHe is named (with Archardus) as the master of the ficaverunt magnam illam domum.’’”’ It should be second church at Clairvaux, begun two years after noted, however, that the building in question was he was in Yorkshire; he is credited with building wooden, that is, it belonged to the first family of Clairmarais in French Flanders in 1140; and he buildings rather than to the stone and thus more probably worked at other sites that were founded constructionally complex permanent buildings. in parallel circumstances to Fountains if the men- Several monks who were not abbots, are known tion that “he set in order and established many to have engaged in building from the order’s early

monasteries’ is taken to include building." years in a capacity similar to that of Robert and Geoffroi most likely trained other monks in ar- Adam. Within the family of monasteries affiliated chitecture, and specifically Robert, Alexander, and to Clairvaux, in addition to Geoffroi of Ainai, ArAdam during the time he spent at Fountains. This chardus is documented as being the master in charge is not surprising given the new community’s ig- of the building at Himmerod in 1138 and a Robert norance of Cistercian life and the expectation of is mentioned as being sent from Mellifont in Ireland '2 For the accounts, see Mem. F. 1:9 and Chron. M. 1:74. 1:97; for Serlo’s mention of Geoffroi’s other work, see Mem.

'3 The two memories are combined into one sentence by F. 1:47.

Serlo (see Mem. F. 1:47). ts Chron, M. 1:76. '4 For Geoffroi’s work at Clairvaux and Clairmarais, see 6 See p. 19 of this study. M. Aubert, L’Architecture cistercienne en France (Paris, 1947), 7 Chron. M. 1:107.

170 APPENDIX B in 1142 to oversee work there. '® Later, and outside a powerful family in the north of England who were England, two monks, Jordan and Berthold, laid the patrons of the Byland monks. It was presumably out the plan and supervised construction of the new through the pious support of the Mowbrays that

abbey church at Walkenreid in Germany, begun Bugge came in contact with the community and in 1207, and used twenty-one lay brothers who decided to join them. His status as a knight inworked as masons, wallers, and carpenters. *° dicates capacity for responsibility and command. Monks also filled other building roles, such as A second mention of a lay brother’s association with those of supervisor or administrator of building the construction process also concerns a Yorkshire operations (see below), which would have required house, Sawley in the West Riding. At some time some literacy and the ability to supervise men. In before 1189 Brother Waryn is described as “Keeper

, fact, Saint Bernard’s own brother, Gérard, the first of the works of the church at Sallay.”” Whether cellarer at Clairvaux, was, we are told, “skilled in both Bugge and Waryn engaged in building is directing the work of masons, smiths, farmers, gar- debatable, however. John Harvey believes the term deners, shoemakers, and weavers.”?° Additional custos meant warden and signified a resident subreferences show the monks’ involvement in build- stitute for the master mason.?* A famous example ing in more direct terms and even, touchingly, of of this position’s being used occurs at Canterbury, this activity as sometimes outrunning their skill. where Gervase, in his account of the rebuilding of For instance, it is recorded that the monks at Oba- the cathedral between 1178 and 1185, mentions zine (Corréze) began work under Abbot Stephen the monk qui cementarius praefuit.23 Subordinate to around 1150 to enlarge the monastery.*’ But they the master mason, William of Sens, he was “‘overwere not competent to do the work, and the abbot, seer of the masons” and was clearly appointed on who took an active role in supervision, was obliged a temporary basis as William’s deputy for giving to engage a number of lay masons to complete it. directions during a period of major work pressure. The texts are less revealing than might be sup- Gervase adds that the appointment excited much posed concerning the work of the lay brothers. Lay envy and malice on the part of persons in a position brothers outnumbered the monks in all twelfth- to criticize, probably the other senior masons.

century foundations and, bound by a lighter rule, On the other hand, Knoop and Jones point to undertook a larger degree of the manual labor. One the use of the title custos in the later Middle Ages would imagine their playing a central role in con- and in nonmonastic contexts to mean the sacrist, struction of the monasteries. Yet few texts mention i.e., the treasurer of the fabric fund.?4 Such a pothem. One rare early reference comes from Byland sition was largely supervisory, with responsibility around 1140. This abbey’s troubled early history for making payments for materials and labor. If the included settlement on four sites before its eventual titles used for Bugge and Waryn represent this establishment at Byland. Among these settlements latter function, they furnish further proof of the was one at Hood where the community lived for presence of outside labor, which would have rethe four years between 1139 and 1143. During this quired payment for piece work and firm on-thestay Philip, whose account of the abbey’s history spot regulation of work crews. dates to about fifty years later (c¢rca 1197), records Despite the relative scarcity of references to the that Henry Bugge was custos operis abbaciae. For- lay brothers, their role in building was doubtless tunately, a little is known about Bugge. He was a considerable. Only a small percentage would have knight attached to the household of the Mowbrays, specialized in the various building roles, perhaps 8 See H. Hahn, Die friihe Kirchenbaukunst der Zisterzienser 21 Swartwout, The Monastic Craftsman, 80. (Berlin, 1957), 80, 253; for Robert, see A. Schneider et al., 22 Harvey, English Medieval Architects, x1. Die Cistercienser: Geschichte, Geist, Kunst (Cologne, 1974), 58. 23 R. Willis, The Architectural History of Canterbury Cathedral 19 R. Dohme, Die Kirchen des Cistercienserordens in Deutschland (London, 1845), 51.

wahrend des Mittelalters (Leipzig, 1869), 34-35. 24 Knoop and Jones, The Medieval Mason, 27-31; see also 0 M. H. D’Arbois de Jubainville, Etudes sur l'état intérieur R. Branner, “Fabrica, Opus, and the Dating of Medieval Mon-

: des abbayes cisterciennes (Paris, 1858), 229. uments,” Gesta 15 (1976): 27-30.

BUILDERS OF CISTERCIAN MONASTERIES 171 ten to fifteen percent, and the vast majority would plausibly be connected with their work as master have been occupied on the abbey’s granges, farms, masons. Certainly the increasing complexity and and in other tasks within the monastery proper. A scale of the new buildings of the Cistercians from text from the French houses at this period throws about 1170 forward implies the employment of light on the matter. At Clairmarais (Pas-de-Calais) specialists; design and setting out called for high during a period of active building around 1150, standards of what has been called “constructive geAbbot William is recorded as employing lay broth- ometry” and would have required a degree of profesers for the work and also as ‘‘collecting from the sionalism, in fact, unlikely to have been found within various monasteries of our order all those who were a monastic community. Clear proof that secular skilled in the art of building.’?5 The same practice masters were used comes from the early thirteenth can be illustrated at Viktring in Carinthia. Among century. At Waverley the first church was replaced the first community were five lay brothers from in 1203 by a vastly larger and more elaborate buildClairvaux who came from Villers in Lorraine in ing, and the abbey’s Azmales record that the foun1147 and are referred to as “‘conversi barbati diversis dations were laid in that year by Dan William of artibus periti.”?° So widespread was the practice Broadwater, who is described as “rector ecclesiae that the General Chapter moved to regulate it in de Bradewatere.”’ Mention of his death in 1222 and 1158. A statute legislated that the monks and lay subsequent burial at the abbey suggests a period of brothers could only work at their own monasteries, eighteen years in which he had charge of the work

and in others of the order, but might not engage there.?8

in outside work.?7 More difficult to interpret are the documents that For the employment of hired labor within the refer to the last category of men—the cementarit,

community, the documents may be analyzed by the masons, and carpenters whose names surface every rank of the individual in the building trade: master now and then in the charters of individual houses. masons, masons, and carpenters. The earliest in- Mostly they occur as witnesses to deeds of land or

stance of the name of a master mason occurs at other gifts to the house. Whether their association Quarr on the Isle of Wight, a foundation of the with building at the abbeys can be assumed on this Congregation of Savigny established in 1132 by basis is difficult to establish, however. At Sibton, Baldwin de Redvers. The source records that Bald- Walter and Radulfus, both referred to as cementawin “employed for the building of the monastery” rius, were men of substance to whom the abbey Johe le ffleminge, who is described as a “good Free granted land, the gifts suggesting their connection Mason.” Unfortunately, it is not clear if Johe was with work on its buildings.” Similarly, the willat Quarr during its Savigniac years (1139-1147) or ingness of Sawley to oversee the legalities relating ! after 1148 when the house became Cistercian. to a grant of land to Hugh the carpenter implies In two other cases the names of master masons his work at the abbey. occur as witnesses to monastic documents. At Rev- Elsewhere the situation is more ambiguous. At esby a charter dated between 1170 and 1198 was Fountains the names of six masons and carpenters witnessed by Willelmo, who is described as “ma- recorded in the last quarter of the twelfth century gister novi operis,” and at Byland a deed of land may or may not belong to men actually working was witnessed by ““magister Godwyno cementarius” at the abbey. Arguing for their association with at some time between 1170 and 1192. Both names building is the practice at Fountains going back to appear in years when active construction was un- 1134 of employing outside labor to help with work, derway at the house, and their use as witnesses may and the fact that the period in which their names 25 H. de Laplane, “Les Abbés de Clairmarais,” Mem. de la examples are known of Cistercians taking charge of building

Soc. des ant. de la Morinie 12 (1868). for lay patrons (see Harvey, English Medieval Architects, 288). 26 V. Mortet and P. Deschamps, Recueil de textes relatifs a 28 Ann. W., 113, under 1222. © Vhistotre de l’architecture et a la condition des architects en France 29 ‘The suggestion is made by R. A. Brown, “Early Charters

au Moyen Age XII-XIIF siécles, 2 (Paris, 1929): 21. of Sibton Abbey, Suffolk,” Pipe Roll Society Publications 36 27 Statuta 1 (1157:47): 66; in the early thirteenth century (1960): 68.

172 APPENDIX B occur was one of major activity and expansion, in- large number of masons’ marks still visible on the volving the construction of large structures like the sites, which were necessary for the calculation of refectory and west claustral ranges. On the other wages. Building was not, of course, constant; when hand, construction itself might have attracted in- funds were in hand, work would be actively pushed creased benefactions as people seeing a successful forward with a combination of help from both inenterprise underway were prompted by the very side and outside the abbey. Even then, to imagine activity to make additional gifts; in turn, witnesses monastic and secular craftsmen working side by side would have been needed to validate them. Thus it on the same scaffolding raising walling or turning could be argued that the names are merely those vaults is inherently unlikely. Such a situation would of free men brought to the abbey as legal witnesses render chaotic the mundane but necessary aspects of the gifts. If complications arose subsequently, of building contracting as the calculation of task such men could be easily found and could be ap- work, or the meeting of specifications, and would

pealed to in a court of law.2° Their presence as lead inevitably to friction and disputes. But any witnesses was not, therefore, anything more than monastery was a complex of buildings and when a legal matter and does not necessarily imply any work was contracted out, it is only sensible that it professional activity. This interpretation would mean would be for a specific project or parts of one re- | that in a case like Rufford, where the names of ten quiring particular skills. masons and carpenters are recorded from the late That most of the names of secular master masons twelfth century, all that can be deduced is that an and of individual craftsmen occur in the last quarter

ample supply of such free men existed in close of the twelfth century may best be explained by proximity to the abbey. A thriving town and big the rise of a new professionalism. A similar trend collegiate church at Southwell seven miles away, has been noted in the production of manuscript whence Simon and his son are mentioned as com- painting and metal work. For architecture Early ing, would have provided livelihood for a number Gothic was marked by a sharp rise in technological of masons and carpenters who might then have been complexity and by an increased sophistication in summoned to the abbey to witness a gift as occasion design, both features that fostered specialization.

arose. | Yet to infer that building became the exclusive The above material tells us much about the wider preserve of secular master masons and masons by debate of who conducted monastic building in the the thirteenth century simplifies the situation. In twelfth century. At least in Cistercian monasteries, England, for instance, it is likely that at Waverley both monks and lay brothers took an active part in the secular master who had begun the large new construction, to a degree far greater than the mere church, Dan William of Broadwater, was replaced “amateur cooperation” that Swartwout was pre- at his death by a member of the monastic compared to concede to them.3' But they also worked munity, a lay brother, John of Waverley.3? And in from the start with hired labor from outside the Germany throughout the thirteenth century there community. Apart from the documentary evidence, are a number of references to both monks and lay the presence of outsiders could be inferred from the brothers serving as masters of the works.33 30 | am indebted to Professor Christopher Holdsworth for 32 For John of Waverley’s career in royal service as well as

pointing this out to me. at Waverley, see Harvey, English Medieval Architects, 288. 31 Swartwout, The Monastic Craftsman, 80. 33 See Aubert, L’Architecture cistercienne 1:98-99.

APPENDIX C

Temporary Foundations: Twelfth-Century Cistercian Houses in England

Original Site Date Founded Date Dissolved New Location

Barnoldswick 19/5/1147 I152 Kirkstall

(Yorkshire) (Yorkshire) Brightley 3/5/1136 IIAI Forde

(Devon) (Dorset) Bytham 23/5/1147 1147-1148 Vaudey (Lincolnshire) (Lincolnshire)

Calder | 10/1/1135 (Yorkshire) 1138 Hood , Cotton (Cumberland) 1176 1178 Croxden ,

(Staffordshire) (Staffordshire)

Cryfield ILI54-1155 1154-1155 Stoneleigh

(Warwickshire) (Warwickshire) Fors 1145; 10/3/1150 1156 Jervaulx (Yorkshire) : (Yorkshire)

Garendon I (?) 1133 Garendon II (Leicestershire) (Leicestershire)

Haverholme 1137; 1139 1139 Louth Park (Lincolnshire) (Lincolnshire) Hazelton 1139-1141 1147-1148 Tetbury (Gloucestershire) (Gloucestershire)

Hood 1138 II43(Yorkshire) Old Byland (Yorkshire)

Kingswood I 7/9/1139(Gloucestershire) 1139 Hazelton (Gloucestershire)

Kingswood II I147 (Gloucestershire) 1148 Tetbury (Gloucestershire) Kirkstead I 2/2/1139 1187 (?) Kirkstead II

(Lincolnshire) (Lincolnshire) Loxwell II51 1154 Stanley (W iltshire) (Wiltshire)

Old Byland 1143 (Yorkshire) IIA7 Stocking (Yorkshire)

Otley 22/7/1137 (Oxfordshire) II4O Thame (Oxfordshire)

Poulton 12/5/1153 I2I4 Dieulacres (Cheshire) (Staffordshire)

174 APPENDIX C

ee eS 000—SGaBOH*O*OoO9NWSNe’—va(wS=—_ ws0 ste a+ 7*Ronen s aye ;Feeney §Te de ‘, 5ee;Rs LaySree “ ]ie all ‘‘iRAT ~~? : BB 81) bagi GRE a a = EO eS “ar ee BeiN i 7; fet) GS) Fy eae ago aS e ad Poe ak ll ge a i — “yet ae ae. sowie Og eS = et v PERNT ha i ae OE OOM Sige see eck ae ik ee PR apie RET IS Bi ” gaat teageweaeBREE 5k 0ieSe Aig f tRik a ie ya / iim * . ‘; tsikheCoe Ps nia * .; ‘ 5gee ! “*, i*} oo a ”¥“s a

aweak a e Aa ok ne ee Phe 2 ye + iin Pkt. le gies site han . e~ 2 j . ke ’ ~ Wats. ; >a € . gf oes sabe 9; 455 ste. ae ilies re Cae he ee F geass * fe Pe rages

Sti &&9 ee > AR pee “iweeee Nee ‘= eerie, a ef Kap atSy’ ye Ae Ee Ng oe;Serre 4% cea4 ata bioee eeswe, ied af be > part -> we 3 nw a a* at eraees % ihe ie 3 , aoe' ‘oe Soy ¥ | fA aes i. :45price ae ee —— a a *SP be SERS se ara °3% a Tan. tse)0 na, hake ir sa. ‘ete are shes eile+ ee bid area's Men,oehenl -- E . ag yee =i : we ; ara? ra ¥a yp : ay~*ached . on x ea ae hee te Peeea Sa * ra*23 bags *ieee es | Tae Sas A } y pets Ree pai a Pe oe - a3oeaeAS s 4ee Ss

silts SSR Re nis na CS Beas aie Sipe eso ck ‘epppiaipedey:.- eee i ee ly aT RU a

G3 oe an ig isalswea} Abend fst,Oe, a r xt sf %ba ‘Fs ‘? esé be ae ae aay *eees fifoe ;Pefogs: . xe+xae ‘aut oR oooe es* ~oe aesaa oi ae oeSES = ES eeAS aodx :3ss ‘ek ot : ;% ax3ae ete ye pill Ee * ls Une Bo oe Fc eiwcts re | oe Bee atm gg ~ Nees Fe i y : ‘ ane ag Sy ’ Sct = ed Pcs Pra > inal ie ieneeerueert & ME = ee + i we % a od ~% » om ; a é. = “ a 4Re ae 4Ae ti, , ”——. .Re a ee aae -Se. ; Uy :PS ’ae.* iago o=a*ot :zee an %* .— 53:Sete Pa i.ae ers bap. . *. *a -:a.eS fis Rect = a; |ya ae .oe —>p A z.= at ¢i>se es gait a oe. * = ee ‘ Py OL, | ag i S, 3 — Ro oe ' a | * 1s -_—~ eh cee 4 ages be, la a = wu i; ta ete ~ © ante ort ee oS ‘ i aioCat hteeae

ae beseee « 4sot oh. ys, *34 ‘Not Pad i. a SK, P eg : ie Ks :q%ns er ra aot Ee bas £t°hae yBsah ttsey aere ry oe oeor,7a.oeeee ig N! fo 7Se, tee.te > bd aba bolic Seige * a: titv;PER ‘s geaS4

e 4 ne oa E #4. 3 ps i bis SKS “gh are bee at caer sep: : Pes : Ss

. ' SE Sao Pe vee Ky ‘

> Bs end ‘t— ~ Tl,: wow ‘ . ee , .«* Ane a ; 2hMe iy rhofy, > ‘ ‘ oraed? —_~s SH % Sy onthe tater ‘DS7ahe 23dLs ae ie %en . Pik ob eS ee i. : : : 3. Rievaulx, south aisle.

we ee eee ee oS fee eee tin a Gee cc eee ss EG aes Bei Ae ee Se AS: 3e ae rains “CERES oehs aad Meee Seats ;*' iis"’™ =: Sis ee See, = AS :oh ae a & ay Ssee oo a i ie ea i faeces && Pe 2 4. ae Bee Be Bae Fe ee ee. a Re: SY TS a aP Be ey¥®“?: ~hoe : eee: es % : i,aeen ewé ~ce eeeeae £3 * a OF Sul as

it:

Acad Pi = a

BS des lp b Beige, AM»ici imy ts "aa . ; iSnes . ag i Soe , ae ”te.ee ,Pye aig < :%Bo 2 +e teSe PEO EO via 5aeis Se ee Seae ‘so izSead rr a F . a ie ff 2 ae a < olbig «ae ts ~*~ a% os “ee Big ae . A so —tee Wem te Te SE tage a ta es > ye rete ei ae ‘ ae es ten. oom . Me oe 4 of” — ; am, a {a \e ae a Diet. aad hai es a ea ee cu a era iesha|j;Pe es ieee PTY eo Pna eee 3a Hidy. a.&% .‘2‘"“at aaeens, a ws *Mae :aDa 2Paes ~~ . -ie ‘: 3ane A*— $3% te =hsa-‘ee Sebee m

PS oo ee 2% Fae _>ff aon ee >*4 ? ai‘.=J% pe ET: ameee 3i-aths ys wi: .aaahe Lwre ena a.ali “Sites aaBin ; tus

' 4 . “=a “Shen, EE, se ; ; wh a ee ee ag at Sa, Sade ae = AR ‘ f . ar AE ented 24) ";iies 7 : * a ae. — ‘ z a re ies MOSS rr an ik a as ‘ “s ¢ fsa wee ee ae . : : lies oe : ¥ $ . ‘ a 3 os ies Pi thec’ P ee. 4 ; cite J ‘ 5. Ry a az * ae 4 > ae ak sy ~ = ee = Be ; , ea Fae. a: > Bq miy. . — 4 aie ‘ rN a ee i m * . img gs Ag * na % * _ y r 3 t 5 & eo — . tee ' .* Fae f é fe “ye es ~ gst, 8 ee Te eS " + : * Page # a ~ “ me ‘ ? _ X i” Xe 7 a ing ed ba | ‘fa ee. ake: AA seteoeATTY 38S .WAS , pa ~atsinone “earns a *“"* = ee ‘aici . i eg Ree aBias. Kim , et“ oo we£4 :\ nd 43 4a. $1 re r rs ey — ‘gl -3eat tae Powe ‘- (gee e : “” >~x *% ®2¥J *Ry *¥F et 2..& b*j‘42 Bien ;ee ad Fe sa '.Pe es 4>. ‘wre ame ti fs = » . ‘ ed fog Ph Oo ‘ uae * , ® % ae roe ¥ 3 kage at °

afaesc':} “dt: * cf & ai é —:-3’me & hE : * oe . 5 f i ES iy : 4 . ra miig \ & ‘ ae Fe : ne ar a, & fas i Pe} ‘4 bell Pee , ay — r rf Yer hand ‘2 * d 4 id i RS ‘ sits ye eee i * nae $ i a bg la pe Pera ates,Pa ee :. “» i*2,Oi Oeeeneetdi eeNemeth

ath t i. i 4 ‘ . 3° ee ‘age USE pemoet *Fie? ae Mga eS. Oe |a} Sah. Als sees if ee eS a2Pee ne Hg tak RtRae Per. ae *wy rs

isSe bargin ESS gas ~'yPee ateetee ee ke . se, neae ee ‘rrBe asle ae Pe ee ESS cs Wer Goae des8 cee Wee oe oeSee TEs ‘ ee nites ne|eta-Pod he

Ph ia r’ a Sal nae SS a he Cte Leg RT ire o SRS ee sis ee es ree ee ie. :

Se: Se a aenee ig % ‘grey * eo SC hoe ; OM eeILSei te ieBIO: actea(Ghimehe RES oe ee: ss : :sa: me SR :¥ 4 Sag :ogee sete i Reece eeoN ox Peri eh ar green ee OE GsoSeetee RES Gishees .= “ lg ‘ NOAe ete eye FAAS aon Cabins Aaa eeeee ge ae On NS Oe heh eat ;ef;

s x Ae saiey, Bates ahaa é fg FitRN taeWE neeORS Gog oe PO i Peei: OES ee«Ee eee teae Reence Ronen Een, onOR pe oe aes A ‘: is ‘ ; re: eit ie . eisae ge OO Rego cea Ce eg TY ee ages ae a : 4 ages acd, ston Saw tae ves eh ee oor et oe . Soe ec Be See to se, es : bag ae es 5ihcceeSn trin: as ie ee OE Ss oe Me ie .si gee = eae St ee;fae Ssag 6ee aaa :es? -oeMer eimai tek aa a.| er EB Mica Rigo, ail Va ieTeena 3se:xdi” “3 Be ed SO wi oes ee iae" Ug iarot, le ah aa cat OMe tea ¥aS tenes :ean ‘ayRe iene Od tes aaa N,N cal ce aee::3BT — ee . . -~RR a ’ty ‘ta, oy: Se re Lal, SeaoBee Baan oe EAE oa 3aPe eee SYiHaga A ‘na a:; ; a i ae ” : " : ; oN EO ge Ss aR IE yc. Bee desk Sg Sp Rc sae MEceee* gee = ., ,: Pe 5 lilt. Wneines eo came i egeCa ee a Ne ios “Re eedSiegal ‘ rem pts eg ee Me 7 he ges te Rig neeTree C75 ee =] Si “es se essSin ah NE See Ss ee ee ooata Sty$2PL: oaBE bs :geeno CIEE” ERhegre De ARO SS PI A RRs SD 3ee ta ‘vey ett AOR ¥ Pe ORRage is SaSo tgai aa ad xagbas ac,RES Me Meet Sake ee a REN e: eres ‘ See ae he cs ee ae i Riad Soe a signs ign i SED Re Oe RE OIE STS OC a OES Ba ig ee -

* ve Be re ie gee te brie 3 ce Cae

shins SP hd Om BeeM age ee ”MR 3SC iPS 5eeim Be ieallon eee 2 rae iy ‘Me ee atte Se Sakae oeMee 2 it eae lgMie te Re ata. asaWP ee eee “ ante Msg CF st iySe ih: SSBe re rsyh ES etceteris CF Payton apy, ing aagee ae Se reer : Bin, vie Sates en cobain ar”ee nce eee eehoe ea ae de agi ee Py Rei ees. tie oem if Ming ee Neer eke eeedaSy ee tees PE Sn ae ee wis hn ge gaSe arg es aRMS xo ct! SOR pies Se : red OT Sag aah ae ogee Wastin BE Tn a eC Paes oh he Le i snl RE ee Rae vee ee $ . inte Soa Ss Siig: eS Se mb Kg ; tts ae ae ‘ Po as Pe RCO ne, cn Rte as ace eee ea ee ie ed ca ee % is . pit A ee Misti he a x ge. I ein ¥ Lets Stoe Sei BS REO. eS sagen yy eters tips are EM a fais a Se ea I Oe oY fa: 4 he, see a Big oo i ea ae eee ah A Rash cep ee seat oe oe Sate. tie es . , sds OB Oe Tih a SA pM ge oy Be NE A, Rm

: eee ey EC aekam ee uf ; me) eeeaFe, ES OS —- ‘5PP SeeiceSEY ae ae mehr Riot Pate oes an jo RO x: aes eS . . a. hnee reMe ee tg biezmene i ig(ew RAF aestie ; an , ’ ‘Pe Fe 2a*dee re ~ apes oO oe Me a6,Oe Bes eraeke Ogee: Roo a agae ti en sss. Ree ee a oe oe ce ng Ss ae Re, eS - “ee 2iis fom . BEF ox a z ie wh : s ts ge ae aides Roepe ee ees Pig Soe the ee - ‘ail Sut eG 6 ees RMS OR ee cn Pe ad 5 eta eer ae? ace 1B ~~ *Ii So ag ;capil :ibs eT gi Se PRG tenet es gee! a, oe ay ia gk: San meme ate eo em ‘oi Siee hisae geet ee ow? We ~ é baa edie tan ee a eee VRS ce ea 2 : S86 ae is OS ts ac ot ae as ee ee aia”

™ ik. ee Pig Oe , arte an he a eget rings Bea,,8Fn neA ee. aont ; :* Piss Sb pie by % ie geSe ite RSs OES i}a Chi SV Lic. Od a wie ENE Oe gree (sia 5 Pe Se % re BO ¥ es ‘ pe. % ey ns . a ae ees. é¢be MRE ee oe ee fi br ¥ TES ee, = ick i ay ee . ae ex ere eee No ag ee : Soe a S iecetite = Sie ‘ al ‘ Sex a aa EE ies eee Wg 3 aE Clee Be. iti ad se a © 2 Py } < , bs oy ¢ ee es eZ phe oh ooaéSe om :eet Secs tines Wer PS Pe gee es ¥BY tee: etped -hah Figs 4Psa. aSie % : ee. oe nsoeRene ae ~~,oe Bee eee on aT Loe oo, $4eo ses BK OY, wees) Ce eae ere | eae he, x. :, Bh: eS oeSe ~ fig A Hitats {is Rt ae — To.Mn ol‘

= aa oe a ' “= se ve : ~ pes A So Eee ~~ = = : past 3 q jeg

—~ _ —~. .": ,~ i ae3wa ~~, bas aRea or: ‘ :SS me - sees —, e rs, era & Kg, cae3 “& cS a a oe % ey KG le : : A i & & a :a¥=~rm RE 5 * c roby RSS " bi se om = : F 3 e] ba “ : ~t Be ei G2 ee m &. | 2. oe Ry: see & *.ace: 2a = fi riggs ~~, “rad Nig: aN Coon ee a S| Sen. ice Le ae eta mee ; i ae ae $ee| Be E68ieee ee °oe yyaSsa‘ :ia -3 hy..gh ro. Nig —~ee3 oe eee. .:yell SS 35 etre)

3 . a . ieee ‘ i wnsey ~ Nas I aeoo—— : .eeotaS8 *FePore BeSg ce"di. ae |ae MAGS Ss _ i eeNe Mees ae i eG ~ eh oe TaeJ

o

: ee a. 2... . Be ha “>i‘oe ~ 2Be ayeee ee Nad: %& os ay Gen mes Se oh. ae a See eeue Xin mee SS .Mea REN, Laek ee 4ee ‘ee ;ae. nt oe SS me eee Bae cerRess ;‘ —— Sea : ; oe Wee ae eae Sc N. 3 Une’ Pie Se . eee ee ae eo as a pee ~~ aLe sad a re ~ *aeSen, es i— < ‘tp ~~.esigee, x Se sot“aBe a ee Sea BReeyf. ‘ 4% “_on*oe ne}.*SE Bn oboe e“gitar x3 Be ha =} Se >eg;«he range 4 Be. iy a. : bs. a . cs Pe * ey te b& & 5 al “ae ™ Pe os : ee oi .ie we BS > Se; ab * 4 ie 4 en IP otk ‘Gan Si ~heee eeReeen ee a OY ekaOR Ses a| ERS ‘ : Ser Se tar aSs£2 eae E wee : Skee bee on — —_ = wes e. eey“as ee] ; eat oh ee. f. ¥‘t ‘ws2; no o> meote ak ee ~via .% > S.ei. 4 oe gee CRE. eda om ee aana eethe ae a2+ Se eeoo§:“ae Pa: “ee “SSaA.‘ake ee ae P ee itm, fen. uo fTeh 4 os Xe Ltee ae eee~ PsaE Te ee = oe. siaS ee ok~ene ee Sa }age oi eyeae ette

*aey x oe “4 é atae Skaged Wes 4 +SSap Wemeeiin. ‘ 4 ae ea ee se ke) ae at, acta b8 aeaes etee el% hea ; wee, ; . 5woke 5, Teens we,” a aS

Se S% z ¥ ee ~ Sat . ’ . . & ee a ; Se ee -— 4 Re ent aes. ae : 4! 2 i 4 - ogee 6ae ee aan a\ae i )y —Sa: ‘ pe , vt yee ‘ ~y ie ; ne fees % aos = ; lt a en i ee ' are Ee i Th, rs oe > seit OX ‘ Rie & . pr RR o ae 626 Oe

Pa :° Meg Mn on «Cas Poke : na: me, — ESs Be ees 4oeRe ok See i7AK 4ee wees ~s ie ea ~~ 7et Se“‘Boao oe cig Ateas eSi ‘.i:a.fi:#;Be ~."9 »etee e ‘ie" oe aecae aE‘-ian capt Pt bi $ es —~ ; ja OF Bi ‘‘ i*en —_. a- ati, ;: ee he 2k, eaetainn cc io -segs — we 2é>bai % BsAS aS Son Sa ~~ &~ eee &.. ‘Pe Fé : rd tyBaa % iSeedpiay ee :4 ato » +e ¥it. ~AS 3*aepre ‘. i

. ee ee >. ae. #3, a a i ,. 7% i . ie wt Bs % es a Pe ~ ~ ai ae ,“i%>... lee eee % Ped a | aoy ¥ ‘ #2 ‘ x x 3 pas my a ae _ : % 7: Di oe EB : ee . =< -—aaaen : aa ~e% ESseeesieSit ,st = ae 8 isi a Bx 4 yo ad eo he 4 e: § °F [s* i ti. me eos f 7 ae . di. | & Rs edie Be SS sae 1c: Rs 2S. ‘ me ee “ten 2 a

gn See MeO Pes %=:‘Se peed aees aeFa Nigh das me aS Pa bs catty ame 4 a ‘an a ag oe .. Pag saiPex. eS JBe ? =‘ew soe ae)ns toed 4ie: See rks 3Oe pee

> . ; Gt ; nTF F ;edee 2, s we ag. s>4eens es a= 4 i. pe ‘ ESa yi : Fe > + : % ore Pee yste €.q:-sa eeaoe kee.afoy SOF -=BPR ;PAS 3 Hoke a é 3 mae aS Re “t a ae inf oe a eae SI

7. Fountains, south transept.

* a eh te /. io ~~ a

' +Cee ee,aoBE ag ; ae¥t% .a Reheens % |oe fae) a. an NT eemeeee boeeRg OG fe |fe re Se See > ee.| = ge % ae 3 M. he ee : *,aS= et Oe 3gee 4S Ree ; 4* s* wh :CERN PeeeOe oe= Fee :ras Bai daaa

es f) oan of *..,ee. heo See Get GS ee Fee Baia a. we . i. :;Se Pvi ;aeS ie)e: es & etetr- oo SEs‘* ES ie a ee ; : : Pe es te x as “@eeia wey FMS » eee Ta s ‘ j 3 Se Sinker } Ps ; as % A eae: ee oe: , “ =. “ 28 : oe | alae 1 a ~_Meds + ¢ , ee oe 4 ie F See ee “ 3 iy od ; 4 gem rae i¥19 — a“ae PR .i iiams “*ig :ra #ae. : fog esSs esaa i* it41 *"7q& ;.‘‘-ee oll a4;i :rie, or .ah eee aSMe +: pe ze

: Be f‘ ¥:esas €3 aeei a ead: a + «‘°:% Phe Be x3 a3?ee aes. Fe Sage

egy WE‘ —e Ey sae eee gs eeeee ee OM b's alee ees Ter ee i

“ i Ps ‘2 := A 4 ‘ 5 Sa ie Se os a i “4 : Re Se: a oe an 3»;4ia;Me) eet RS, tea wise eee ee ae, re ¥ a 4 54 ted “seal ( ‘one - s ta +d ; ae

; ae eT eee;| ;ee f4 : .:a? . Ell 3)ee3% ait, aPhe ee, lttOER” FnSee a3| A a ; ‘ RR ee tet =r a= Pe ee +c ‘ug a 3 5 < eA ti EP eae 4 ae ae ie is & ss ee ee ee, Sa§ag au : VE ee o® = :*bg tesoe fyjeee ,*#*5 : he a;hae ec ogcd 3 “ey Rede 28 cg A| ;:; ee. lt ‘ acs. moe ; 5 3 és

ei 2: ed ae : Ry. . se ** ee 3 Sapte. att 4 re ¢ Ys ra ee : “a OF a Ps 7 2 : ; wee . a3 ‘ : _—_ LN ; ;:; en ~~ on. LaF 4 3 ae Pig, ; - pee. # a. a a ~ nn ¢ 4 ‘ L

Ng fagetIs®a(pe eee fe ae eeeeie = ors, ;*=:_i** Fo ieee aSA Ts‘ :aeF ieame Re AME REoa°ee ek. ‘ ;3: =_— a—ae i ;*B\find aea3|¥ Pt ae A teae Ode” dgte r}ob ‘fKit .; 1 f3Aa. we *:H i} }ee ce Beea ait ws RSENS, Cee ae ges ePisa sik 3 Wty. ee P ;4 « = Mig

~ ae Be ES ett ; OR ae es ? ee BS ee ae agit ee : ae a .=oFoe ¢ ; ai eek. bt , ee(Ee ; Rowiag™ : a 2 OR aa ant eh . 8a ge ee eees. re OP Vege aes ie e eae Lissea we Be ae.) ag ¢x # ai oHgy Hs f ; = ' ee Ne Tee Cs os ne dee iv: | : a F +H s 4 me & >> a Uae ee | ae s 8 Rs Chk SR aes Car ae PES, (Og ee SSS bat / 5 O20 ae

= \ Bia. |. #8 eR a ate ee Oat Aer Se ee i & iPi7 4 : e 4 : 1, GAB aie 4 MR a 8 et a ee a FS ee ae yee ee ee E: i ; j mo i Bie wm eed oe % Ea pt tes a + “vs aiid RK E é : ee oh Ue “24 = Cee s. hiker ee 4} 'Y: it~ a. Pr e5Pigs ‘See aeBo Beate ee ee rs.ke. eS ety | KS it A eee. ee ee . ps Sekfete Paid gs 44ae ii :ifs . ieee Cy 1G ee Tee ee Fe, ae. rg ene Bat k-.ae . 6am | 4=~ © R &s Se ee A. Fhe ee ee TAGS cc alee Tyee ns Fe mF és i 3 ; i;a4isee ai reg 2,woe ; oe,38 MGenye Pea,i So eassa x osBA a ae er. Seer 33 Takeira«i. 2ee. go, ate ee Sees te ge ro ar 5 aaee & = a: aES.74RS eeoeRe & *te, ::Vig ome. edSe _ . @oee f i Pe Ee ty ouRO Bh aS ae eea Pe a:*% eo - po) Bs ghee Hs o.% i acRee Ee 5% Leean SOSes Pein ae es i.ae. =| ee Sm OaaOF oe‘ee 4es ee "4:. ie ‘eros ; ce het ee aeee et eae eae ce ee2 iiee SS pe em RP a4éd “Bs a¥ :,». ‘toPe tae RP ae Vor he esan ty: pels G stint ae iret. ig : 1 de pee Sih ee ae eon Re Poe 4 ee eae —Se ee EE iS eee ae ae a ae RES Bie i eS ae oS ae Pe Ge ag hy ie ieee ot ates See 5: ae eee eee " mae KS See nk fo MAS ao Fe : ee a ce ae fo a ae eS ~&* Wee ot ee Pare: * fe, +. ae—Pap ii : eg,Nee es eetole + He, nig ‘ Piktesec cm(ia epeea €2% Ey % iV/s Sf aeSee 3 eee, > Ate.ee wea aeek x. ¥ es Ne 7% aoe Ceae ateak Se ee oy *Ee:a% tee 8‘bie alan cee Ap ie ome eee mtlage ahr St eeBe be call “3 ~ —— asie Se meAty » 3ee Fae a Pee be esTae PS . “ges ©Wit &ee Ce OO SDaaAe oan RAS ¥. ; ‘—— #' 3 a3%el~~ & :;iarule aan igas ef, oe bee ae, reg ee 4eeeReeee heh aeetea nk

— -_ 7%, ioe = Cte a Oe eae kt RRS | eee

+t :ia- i.¢,as3 .es ; See a iessto Soeiw ees5 ee eaeies “eeeeSar, oe Paes re aS ip whtie es Ber caeeeine ORSoe oe| ag le aeSas mems Sees Oaefee

eeewes | -_{i ee 4 a: Beg oe i. ete Batee: saeRS i ai2 ea ce Se ¢ aBe os >Pgs ay a cp aes cae atePoPed >. >: cas, 2 PaWee Rae“ee a2 ietorr ke ; :ye eeFpee eeMS ee ee Ne ae ee ae ae Beiogk ekPP OE o> SR ee¥ BF feoe * aee si .ce mae ea RO NA gil we Owe xae ;ie4|2*:$‘Ve het ‘ :-1*ili xi 22Reee Sih esSaee ae Lee: ae pie 3 “page 8as seos. Soa> . Se, ni,RES ga §i oF , are p4Se eo ‘ Wa f Sh, MRD ee Mee Se eee “el So, HENS Ag & bi > | ime he ge” t ee ee pe ee & ao es on BS, wee fg & he hag -ie|itee 4 4ie PONEot hy gL, Boil, SS SARI opeae | SRaBhs ‘i aoe eo Bs z geeae: Mats SERS«o*we % 4RS ie deee gt A te fs Soo? Tae |ae fhe Milas 4 : -ae Lika aoe .:oe: ijaie 4; Stiga, a Ce ere ri ae yk heoes te us he Bette: 2, -ome NG a. Lhe, SS: $ : i} | eg i See Pare gsalsa at ee - yoe, wth Ah we

d e = y ee + F Fee TY ae * “aka eh aS oy oe Ogee vom 6. te s ie hee - ee wef Ss eee. 4 “in * eh a , ae -ome ge| 3a a ae so62pean Re Se ig ON gilts gg Fa; bee: a On eePe 4 & & a a eee OS Loa : Oy ok oe * ae SSeS E $ 2 oe ‘ ‘ ca a e ee ORES Sa es pt we =e cone : 8 Ie *g rs ae Page, hs Lee £ . Sey a Ngee i a ae af ee Sn ae / ee ae Ee 3 . ome ai se vege ge 8 pre ie ape FS ‘a ; ne «RS Wee Sa a aa ee a2 ‘oo , wie a 5 ae ¢ ae ae ee Se ae ae, a es é a it « aiaee ONE SA Bart Ae mas fae i a a can. aS 2k, Ne ka RS ig Ps lms = > : ? o a a5 Ded wae iid Se er : ee: ee es * ae ee Pras $2 oe, . ’ a whe ae rs XE . rok < s é ae < ee 5 ES ee aS oo v eae ToL £ | at ‘& ° '‘@= Be 4 feet > le Se a ae Bae as a. oe : time “s "i — 5.3 a. ite Bis: yeo sates aeoe Ue ee cee ake it.A. mee ths? ee a: es .2% Bia “=I i = i ] NJ y. x ae Fo bate ge as, : baa te ee mame “ie > a ce pie ont ; —— ¥ a Bey ts : . i s ee SO Bee ee cee g ee E , £ i :os -ae. ;=ar : ad ae ae , oe em I ee a ae ae pre © ae e 3 ' ghee: 4 a 4 aS a eo 4 ‘ oe : = : oa ee es ae i a a ae ms ra §|“3 ; 7 Ss = ae ay ~— —§ area a® 8 . ome ~ 7 fe See Ee bes Re Ee ee. ee shia te? ted, BR oe : P Pea 2 : ’ Ce ee ee ae a, psp: Ee Sette” = ia3 et é Vip ge | ES Cae. a : = * - : F . } ° ee a ee i * ere "oe ‘ 7 me

ee. ee :Ce Cea :ck aEeSeee. .. lb&ifee by 9 oe pe peerie ksh Wy3 aSas |Seheaeeearat L 4=: i :} BO CR ae Ne Shas ioeNis. of we SC ‘age FRee a. & : * + ‘¢ 3#ae, mint aee eeie 3 3Perse 2 Hee Hy:$> 6Rabe. RE 8 : .PARE, me creee (5 =e . acage ‘ wae See eaBee te!oa xoe%>ee. :amas Oe 3ae ax: oea Sc |PA oogeRS

Pe 7 a ae i «aa Bs SS : ¥ Fi * ae xi bs z 4 r] oe = hae R . : 4 ie ge. — ae = .* 2 ; ps ee : 2 7 ‘ car wk 4 eat 7i oe ae oe lie ; he oe > i ae * a AS = . & Fe ee ae SSeS A We es Lee ai ‘ha’ a iS vee ei ok : or es s LF iene ee = alte oon i ‘Ys g ee. +

Ed va:xees are OS aae.gepata 4.xa,Neng ee aBe io oe — 7 Sat . r + ae ™ . " ¥.« an eee P ; - ‘ - Aig

gE alll J |— “~, eo zeram..”AAG tS& se:a,bot +=> =4 -. =~; ‘’ ceo 7ee 4 sh ig te D oo ie: t ae ents 3 3 = $ “= Se ay 4 Zate as ia ciimammiimmeaantati. ae See ery a a Se a * * r ee . & %

: : . * § pS se m Gd Se et yes [ae Re nee = ben. . = iv, eee 7 . 2 x |

OMe oi es —— om =‘¥% —— “haa Ssei % o3 i :ce ¥4ie ce tcl eav2 “Peps, eee pore P :—— 4 = + “Gers ies + £2 og *:t ox : .;;.:ee q 5 i. 2 ah 3 wal . 3 : at 2 i-*» -_ 4 -“sites mong ae : Fee

Jsee. Pees laa$Oe F :a_— < ‘et’ % Sgc ee ee 93’ Be J.| *re . i aot deaPree aim

y7“died *. se WePee Gee 2 : cis pg Ro Ty : ae a ak , ) Se Ss. “ 7 we - . +. wid ‘i Se = ’ : “ oe footie = Bsn tte ‘, a ge a 4 “uci vit=

2asLeute, ee ee 3g =4Se a Eagan ty aoait Sia |< ee Phno ec ae poner st mae ¢eeeAke Bee. Sk i bo th Se bee, EE ? ee ae: ia ‘e< ee re, yy “ee 2: eeii Fg ht -fad ea. Foe f° :ots 5ae en ae,

ye ee — Sspre ffeee ecGe ee. at= to Fege ~ Se :ho. ae i.Se.

== ae aPm Se eee, ess? aie* t,t. . :al Lo, eae ifat qrtee 4Sime ——" 4.Pe “»= 4aaeadenne ,al ee icag '— peor. ‘ & 3 tae ‘ ae. ne : as, Sut ; 7 ee ‘ae ae fe Rig a. at «wes £ ‘Sie ae ede . ye —. ars Satle y . De eed an = le ee See . ot Og — eg Oea: : aOB 8 zig ;' = ‘Sa teae 3ee. ie se a ¥E ss —aoa ‘2 ™RY . a. ‘~- k;See aieee —ee pS ee oe os me F » ie — ESS - : met a a =. . 3 > ;;

ese i Ay sepia, a ae 3idSees —,. ; ie‘ wy me ~fo:

EyaSie arsseeS : Sy nq : ;' ’.' :; oe ‘in a{Pe sail ~ ae hs , F 3, 3 , ae i & Se - & ce ;

ee: :en * ,y aa :ssie: 43 _* 3 . Og s He sep pemen e_ ‘=:¢7é}¢4i : oe ee a Siew Nite eo a Se # a - ashee Eo n-¥Pe 4. 3LF 4 a emer F * . Cm a %4ise. a ea

PY

;OR . igattinneehs oefell Pe ere ce ae agi ee Eid a py eee te ae ree a re SAO ek Eee nemes *eeji P 4 é tees Fo 3s = ae LF 4 © hea nee’ ti. “Sed me oh ar 4 ake io es oe age : -ee wee -— 2:;,2at et . :iae ee” woe ~ Me eR 2 gh i Tf Benes “eet i" | a : oS D ime, oe~~“eegroit=29 3 ; if, -ae £;

oot : SS #: “~~ < a ae + Ey * is . Sick Bare: % - SO wee me tar “ Soe , i lenge Me a b *. at | OE I cae oS at ‘s“f— h* — eerexee eee aecone ‘Sone - BY ek ‘FR 2nyieone aeeeies 4Saea etoeetee ftw = audi : ‘om ws eS fe ® eetie soe * dae %*4 rear oe ee Se Ps «eee bee se a s|=> mpos ee a¢" aoey Fs. Est oe PaBeis) —~~ ews¥j ig }ene bebed7Pee heoOee . GER OC = ‘iSgeam meter . i ~ a=ama oe’ae-age :*egret ame er ieee as k aSS — ahs aeee ee aoo “he Ioe pike fs. 53 Wagers gee x a-.ni — *4 ial Fine: ee ss Steer ie. eee .“Rey are.Atefig ack oe eS ee a ‘ Sie ’ $ ON ee: 2% 7 _ adi a ek ae Se on ag ay Fi Seateenayt “id Se ee Soe ee CP ye > eet * os Q 3 ee er | Pe] ey gs ed we LE ee ee saddens = one = oe ‘ > 2 eee Ste ‘ si rte j «. | * bo "ty “eg e. ad if £88 Feat ae Be . apne mm rg Mas a . ei, 2 op . * 2 oe oO ¥ ; % ’ | Sain . a we nr —_* ; pers,

x= alt ak Ea wid we‘ .me. - 9; “ee¢ ::: >— niaaip, =ele Se i t =e~sy9 .+f.2 atce a :5° a te % pensag eisaeee ‘Seeton An| Pp"

eS Peo e oe : 7 , : , a pe< °_-ae 2 2ll -— % ¥. el ofae .7 Lm, ge 43% 4set _oe ai F, ":.e's 3; & Se ; , 2 r. : . : 4 eee. ‘han. SS ar: ‘ a 7 : ce #1 tong % « ‘ Psa = wees de a — ai % ee 4 t “ 3 . /4 t ee 4 ‘ , — 2 Or . Y we . et ’ eS { os my F f, ’ 2 at

ms i “ty he eas. i” : o 2 eS - i . &«TS : oe wtQe Fe egee x ~ es : j 3 Seas: 7 Fg ia & wl 4 os ee em ——.” Fs, SP Se Se ee ee Be eg. od ae

SS 2 cee i:eras : A a gm3BePe “: ~~Oe — Samm c=poe Rea eget mea moa * 3Va ees Ae be cee oe ee See i en eo “¢ agg a eee) ee ai en, ee ae tet of -“ a?;¥.os ; pena ec. a£m Ae * rane ~ et 2 f¥) “=,al (7,ee. ¥ bx, > eewe ov.ee A lla .eet he: oey a ; ; ete tat, oes te a = > meee * soy ey oy Cat york Ft OD .«~ SF, % € “ aay 2g — " % 44 : - oe eee a Es ~~ t > iy :

i ese oF » r = Pe Aor 4 ia = , se . Ae _ 7 som ~ ZB bas Tage 7 a. ee

Ais Mire: ~ee J ym 4 nose ae SAaed - Ree, ot s~lappa be “4a ;!Ae ae Bees Sah ——. Oy .ee $~‘‘ee. P 4*eepm ‘ ra she 24 te oa =2— £4ce abe = Ee &ier. 2%me ew > 2 —_—— 4 as a”S35, ie i Bg oe

a i be : y E > oo an ea Ad | * as o. =o Sg A ea mt 3 n fj ee j oe , 40 3

f3—Gets z 6} Pts f° e Ba - eER “4 %oe ee “ge =ee x3- ww ’4; aed ia bide mat RSS eeSe. | 2he ae3a oe“9 #3 meme * ee . ied P& oe | -Siena Se a Se i — “S.— “. Gua, oe SO “2 3D ber oe €“ GES : ula -° gy a eS.Ey cele i eeee Aeek;*.Bef " CfSar :

) ee ee ek a tigar cf og ee Le ee ea oe ee , - y etait PS) Be a ob eee es as

Pet. Leo aps > ede A Py . ee ;oad ‘ m4 ee~,!4olSe »* .mn werBeen, a ‘Sea a- Pilea EP eee ee ih(8h acoal ee OSS eee eoee _ ‘thee. & eeae *

ee

Te oe i:i “‘Bylaem es es < a - => en 5 ie CS ee Reeerr es Oe BS eS@ii | fe ; frome IE ETE Li LEE OOD a eeae£8 :=ye™s :tae am ompueunaaaemmeall rie ws~ ~~ noe —ern or;TR, OTPCsoPOOR =m ies ¢ Ss be .beg ae*ad 4—— =) . ee Ses r o ra a .ati ..hee: “aieroeeae. Teoie . etn Caps s 7 EMS ES 2. Ga ome at eilelea)kd Sea"ex - Baoie LODE OOOO OO‘ A gicaloa (tae Se ‘CE ee f "Tt Baw (a tee ‘ re a TF Re tome = Oe ee ae 3 a, | i 4 eS 4 Be ae : P ar’ ti eg PS ae . RES ee ote aie mee? ss * re ine ee i, legal a et pe is = pe ae ae ee ee Ae Pascal aneens ne B55 er Rae? | yiaeteeee SES OEeee faeSeeeioncetea:peanohee a é ze 3: ele. pei.re

“tii,” a) -_)_ SBE a eet a Se

eatee o2 4pry . a 2eer ee Si ale |whi) Si CaF kas eee —rc‘ ge a oea”eS; Fete EeSe gc)Oe “paling hade : 3eS See ROE eaob eget Sera Iecde OR age) bone Rees Sh ns | ee Sid Fre , sii i oh Me eg . ee. i east et, g Li eee ae ie ed ES : om ~ ees es ee ae * Pes ‘ ~ cs ae 4 > ei 8 oS eens wey Si $: *- a3 cite? & sRia - ° $e ss Se fkane 3 ee Sees So. ee satit ‘ feRS aw9ga eattie ee ce “4 ¥ - me - . i- eur Xemswes, at Saeco Sosa aeme . 2 ee oSanf ae oe

eae Ses ee Ope a “ry ‘ ~s “ . ep -ke Ss Se PAS Tye hed hee —. + weg +e -* oo =rd“ -$s ‘.-:” ¥ ‘ : : ae. dt . oS . Ser eee. ee eS me a a) ae bee osA Seige Btie akaaa. tan eeror iy Oeoe es ee eal ee Le ‘ eeoe: ‘ Coete Of}. oe Fen Se oe a™, a z _:

dk Sct ey 2ihnaes ae egSrp mete Oa ipstrion2. Se Neh ee aeaiage. eeisoa RRS Coen : ee te Avs, oe Ss aes gsi : bgt >~~ pS ppesdee 1eg Per Okwba, a Vi artSp ap be F; eee oo.ae — mie eta ah itSans Meee hla Weict aien re 2SAe 8Sess PEE re ts, c. yon ss a* pe Ai) ON ; es a Cs ry:te8 ree cm se 6 as at BENE ayDiag ak ieEe kg aR gas oe tae Stans! eS See: : ae GS ee ee‘dll Lied enaeaswe eeseG oe os aei Mag = cg te Ne ke : 3RE bien ee SO, Se as : Bas 5teeatigs Sera

se 3 Be 8iee ¢\es Mote ce ead i :r‘a:ne Seats tee3a. : 4 io8 : Fes ee RS a ze : gi SS s Fe teeunRe Se ae oe x 4 oe ‘ oy “N 2 ie : : “ aS : al Ses PS ee fou *go ‘Ritiny ‘a : — co i.Se ee ae :eee a es :: “ey ;ee oe Oe eo SS a < > q ; eC es. . Sa 3. ‘ 22 % ae : } ae bec ee ff mY & oo ls al oe ee : € : * eo 4 ‘ oe es. 3 Ee 8 & Oe ‘ : Se ,ia o ° 0. tae ; 2c el Nie be. bs : ae 4onON NS Pes i F ad ; ... . . i‘ ‘ ee. {

18 ee 4 3 | fa Ps

* a. bers ok — ae sKA ae oe = " a ;" ieS 4:ee‘Beet .a£& : Fx. ueee +-& =k 3FeSee é: : .ii a,eS es ae 3 3 wees a$3 oa op. ‘ air |e ;ae r ay : iy *; 3 on f &. 5 % aie SAS a 2 3 Ba f e ae;

a =. eee . 2= eee a BS ‘" aieySe"a oe 3 Fa ae : $ Ora: $2 Se be pres ae . 8s pie a Ny ee By te Pe Sg a = ;coh ‘ a pos

¥é ;§Fy ed ;4™” &iS 3esaR* 8tees =Be es3J‘aia izpk er 7aeEe $; ee. ; ae = oe tS Re te ne eg Oe et CO. z

|“J“ee “thee ge a a NS Ta + a 3s Fee * 4

; i4i. bePFTs s ae - .i:%‘a -* oS ee. oe sg ee :ee i ee oN Be ‘;ioolPe »oe Pigt -ey Ja2oe ae — : im, § < Se fae :;ee Ez .:wes eS raa te PS ee. Se *iy “a, 4. 3 ee .‘eyg2. he — = % : ‘ . ‘ *" lh eS Gn tee a A : 4 . pee his, 7 & se Seg : sg : ‘ or i «oe & ji : te a Meng et See = ¢ pd Me é . 3. = ae = . x. .. ae r r «2 Se

-:« ‘ ig te ze 2s jae ae es: ae. are #. “ae

ar — t. #aaee4 eee Be j hace ae: *,. ak, SeeAR eee bbe Roe be av re ee 3 ee ae oe Ra “3 $ uae 5 3 rs we gt}3Pe he Sa . Pe hae 2, eee Nae Bae. « . wee i tewe Leg eewt i dag er eR OSeegee ” we Weeeoe Wee pea” aie. ghey - ‘ iim aes ce.hl cok We tt eee ore Wg ome ees ; ee ort eee , CET ee Go heme 4 eo, eee Y ee #aes ssse. . B—o* ra a i Pp By aae eo aRea E8 = wd - =—ie* *, o. RSea: 4 =vedSc: sey, es Pn

op ee | —

a wea-¥ us bs * * eee ¥& % ’ j td na pe ~ * Santee = ae “ -

= i a % ‘. ie: sae 4 — sa x ¥ eas ° sc aie tee a

.ea ss3nnedb i: ”4 .Z Fae. sd‘

be acs ee is . oe. ae .-q: 4% seas SEP sey * , 4. j , BR : ~ ol sala i ¢ ——— . . a pa Ss .Brisas ;je e Gat Lie ee 4 . , i on 6s er‘ a. srl ~ ,>lo2ss * CMe ee a Ree :

=

a a GO tare Oe pe Le ae :..

2 ge SEN Ries ae ee oe ERSTE AS ek Caan ae ha. Gate ae ey is = i A

pret CGRe ence ne teen LEO ER Pee ECON Sh ee ee ey : j fee : RR et Re aaeaeIoei as teaepeg OE pee! Re SS ekEo, SRSEE A ee es GS YRaaBe a ee ee MORO Se eta RR aana eee ikl ee On es — ioesEE :SScar oSent oesSree aia gla iets ae ss mere Ce Sey forage een geet OME Cem Et eg ieOGRE LAG NE, ORI Th LETS, es ONE Re etOe ee es aameORE ee oes Se SeDa RBC, Sata cge MORE race Grae tyse ee Sa CAS PRES a,eee ARS OP RARER, as AAEM OU SO AG Se EeSAE te Die SR RE UNE OO Nee. a ees I peornrer ARS Reeee OPT SAE SECA. j pRtSee eres eoER hieecok ackred Re Des HE Oe ER aes Reek ees. Sa mee, eeemer Wi LSUeRG eeBaerAR. a |CS AE et ERE aS SEBO ORG ie odShae pie BOE ONE ETeee SERS tat) Me ROKER oh newee aK ew as Ba he SRE ee Seateae cat tae teRe et ER RO ORS AR Aa conn e be cn Pe MMEdae PURER ARE Oat SERRE gaye MME goOES eet See eee are a BRC OS TR Utne SRSsk MORN Ge SOS SR SMR eee ee Soe ce ee eyas5PaaS MEAS : eeORPeAeES “BR Se REE PES Ce etncy oewate a Scr ee CurPie eee ope eS PeeeEeOR SO SUE a ENS: PUSERED hs ee ee Nen eat NE PEA Src ACN RC SARS ey Cea Ge. SON SIR PR Ce Ctea:SONNE

; SR RE las eete, OR cas UR Cee, UMMM ata dee Nee “eR Rn CoN gt) We e Sa eeRC a OR LeSS eatant eee mR ee gee Ree Ce oeBuca: ORG, eecae oe RRS COC eeBs BOAR ns © RY Sees CAE RRC gee ah eroSOS RRR eee ORon cepee Be ae EO pe ha ee: Os oe Oe Ra ; : Pe OeGa hc ee ae a ae SPR SRR AS = Fas Cee RS Le RS EERE OEances RCEorate GG8oe ORS See sak acy Be CSG FER onreCet oeOTS RGRi PER

ee munee Rr wr ee Rteto akona NE ee Na PORN tei) BaanSea Theares ee eeSa eeSs Sage, ;¢ce . i*y 5 ate |aa- :.Fao s Ra x Fe 4ANS ‘hed. Pek 4] e oe}‘ we eet ifri=e wes worry 2é 3 IPs, 4 ~——. i &¥ ifaa Be aBe ‘ Eee ae yi” é pee ay has ‘4a afteeo oe Magy ; oe ; , ty.yey ‘Sc *y Es, eroialiand = aS&S oe eae treSe F«ly “og onDA £5 me ‘Sh as 3AAes. Pe Peay Pi = = Ps ’ : “=$a Loe Ge 4ay ; . 4“§Bae ea ayi teat ail f B., ei ath ia 2 gli 7 aebeh my /«~\: ee , ATES & iafa Ment, y SS ; be© ..aN el mies hy =meee *' rs a. a:Pi Abe. ijf Tt aran SE .wer $ ‘;> o.er. ¥ee J yee a= ss i £ a ag. ees comeNae 8 er re ~.~ & *,®"ae ye > Pas °’&? © 4¢ *i» ax ‘ttn. in Takis ha, Sag a ti. | Zé oid Pe Fi }é. ‘ # \ eo ira’ . ee =+s:Ris B aera: ier wal 3 sims ' ps ie UN cf j * he | fia a Magee 5 * m4 ail me & * ¥ — wide SPs. an ry x ber ae + E es ; ‘ i. ta Oey ie Oe ee ee ~~ s ai ea (aoe Pi Note ee od aes ae .s

coe a eee a aS Ley peel Ales oh RA I

=.: oes ae. Fa Ee F ; 3 *‘ Pi. ‘ ee eeaSe : j: ;iom so, Oe + Ss‘i 2S ~ eeLen :i3g 4a as Bes bag‘gp : "Wg 4;es. : eree\ae :4“Ss P\\ AG * ee m2 es -—palhee ae. 3§ ee OS Soa | uh. * . ’: Sa g an oe fees ‘ eeaaa ee -* %

yl :§a‘.= : wh inal : :Ant %ae = YY 4.wad * '¢ ¥ ee a > fs;eaM Ao ee 4s ahs ‘ Cae on :- :i :;is%, | ye i es ; Z¥oBe: feeoso tm,> | es yAee re=see

heoy ‘AA OF eaeEe oo We PP ctA, Jf y\ -a: Ppra P pe \- =. t fi) pts i pte SS ] ee he i t Aiea Ly 3 fs i 5 be i ~ 8 . ; ae ' Be 2 &: ed’ ‘A x. Z ay ge. ‘2 ry ‘ ve fk ZB ee

tee) fa ae waYuk é a. eee le... Sie ia a ii. ee me a. if a ¢ TP Sie. ey; he s

ig T: er a! [rt are a. ae

aT * — ot f ; ee f F at. ig he” . > $i | = :

re EYa3 - ~opiel saadme ¥ ra:ke v 4 i v}ihai&3 $* a, gat pe A ; -“ ag! %2 1Be aee =‘ ‘eis ~ a es*osaes ‘ «See te ify.é cea ms #4 >Pe y 1“-f} a- ..yex+r‘assba? ie

™< aig‘%©: i CF ee mee —_a bhe - -a re ae efaz |, 5 om em . aa3 oe Re ie— 1! "fi-4art et G/coe, or a¢ .ae =-" oat aid ws Fd eT ; kee etoa> Pe Oia aE3: |4° ae€ ww hae: ae | 7, 3Aas tS SS : +L l= ¥ ' ie See os ah: ¢ r ca é .T Gmc et T . OF gee ee aad, ae ee ste ap ite | 4 ok 6 : a ta i > f i Be a is I my" egress ane " Ne ae i see’ ees Bee ge: 20 ay # 4 . geen q ; 2 Ks af 2 ae 7

Seo wees . i7-_ ia 2 aeTete ue ve23PT : :& St : Soa T| |.\ Gee S8 * fofhe a:oO| e..(3 ae ee oe ne Y es. a fe: ee . -— Ric ia 9coieae ab... i cuzksteioa eT 5 3te: : P~~ ” ee ~~- -t aEm —3}—— + ae .i ate a ee et _ Wis i asl a a —= oie . «i a. 4 e | pe pak |Vo ee se ene eS satis ost ht .: e bot: Oy ; ore a a ee ee pear" iebe

a See pe ey “i ig a 3s . 3 ORES ; ° &. # r ont . , eee 3& ‘ Ree

ia . “ Se i 2 Bs q i « bias, « Si P 4 Beem —_Ceii *: &

: a » pant ere ae > ae > *:Se eeiei 24. Kirkstall, north transept.

ss see te. ties _— . oe 3a EEE Bee)Be 3 So : be iaS tioe %ee Ee =PRS ae ¢2 es a.‘4= .\eaaN KR Ke : oom ¢3 : ee ay. ig : oe, ‘. ' Cee es os. Bs POS eee aeeee 3 Rs oe 4oO —+ ae a ae :*ee Bae , P3 aWie Co Eo Bt coe eeGaon & SiegfflO: 4ae, éeres ¥3 rslh geCT . ae 5No ,Pe Se Mite bot wo TA ie isaa. e> aes se ee Oe Ree . Se 1A ee es oe i :*']tean , eh Se ee ' Beer ea en Rg i es ee ¥ : gE we Ce . Pg ee ae a ‘ es 3 Pre tae Coke oe ye : : Re — o. af eS caine ac We oes

2.:2ba ™~ ‘a Pi. :F% |ae:wh eret +.Bae oTee aeae»bfSe 1sate e *Pd Bo Lt eesss eerete gee ;bd *& ie ef Re as eg EA eetCaer name gfi igait bie a &a gees: 4eee IEee eee xees Elee Ebi *. *oe . =Oo a*5, See ’‘Ge ‘ =eee Gee nee iy;ie9% We bo lea eseee as es oe cpl i. ae es 4 : ey as i i ’ Ve Sie a ree ae ; 5 . > ¥ a 4 z . ~ eke : Fie, es %. eo. . “ee oye 3. : ’ ¥ { ee Fas . ff ey aa » Ss a : = >2 Se .ny . a , PS >. j aa es F iy a a ae. ‘

esbee fee 34 ss : ; i‘ ip \VMie,” ey ; : #*: ee

x’ _— ae Ae >ees >Bok awe a‘LE ssa.% i,*ce . 4e;te: =Re ' aie 4 .eYx i.ae ;® i. ah za4 j-io4 ney ee oe4Ng ee a7i# vir 2ite, f,3Gd ;ih fosial ihe *§,,* oh|Ba Ak oo; © +& Peete ee a‘¢7/oe = Ti |.

ae Rae P's Py Z > 2 oe ie 4 yay ; % a. ry j A 4 ‘ MA ee er at & ¢ 4 om : “% a $ { : a 4 a.

Ha ae * yf oes Be * ;iae : bas aematt =, .¥: 'oy i“} 3mo) iseo ‘eal ip. t a+ - poe pa ee -hes Xe ee. ee Bis. :i Q- :Sees aE-$s4 %

y a.teke 3 iy ; m toeee. | Beet 4 | 4 Pe eee ah eoe %iwe f eta he ee ’ 4=? : mesa ta aes ‘aess : aebig | oe Tee Ba| iBa ie; ik Aa -ee ay ee qLume’ .Yi;xae wid be . Le ae3RS‘,a? ¥% PRA, toe je“Fi.. ec :.”3vena » ;a5‘? “i ‘w;# : m44 | Lees iil 2. 3a|;ait) Rae ‘2 ie : ee Seg MA phere ar: 2 ks he? ae .4cond a . 4 a : { ya , nage | ; . $ ay P i} ib y cte ‘ ; : Te ote : a Se 4 es “ P| Ea& :ee . fs 3s sa | x ‘ee “ :¥ Se. i 'G ae j Te :yf ee) °*}waters ‘ #> . = foo} :