The Mason and His Mark: Masons' Marks in the Medieval Irish Archbishoprics of Cashel and Dublin 9781841711324, 9781407319278

Table of contents :
Front Cover
Copyright
Table of Contents
Acknowledgements
List of Figures
Chapter 1 Masons' Marks in Medieval Ireland
Chapter 2 Craft Organization
Chapter 3 Types of Marks
Chapter 4 Regional Schools of Masons
Chapter 5 Mobility of Masons in Medieval Ireland
Chapter 6 Summary and Conclusions
Catalogue
Bibliography
Illustrations

Citation preview

The Mason and His Mark Masons' Marks in the Medieval Irish Archbishoprics of Cashel and Dublin

Colum Hourihane

BAR British Series 294

2000

BAR

PUBLISHING

Contents Acknowledgements List

of

Chapter

V

F igures 1

Vi Masons ' Marks I ntroduction

i n Medieval

P revious R esearch and Elsewhere Chapter

2

Craft Organization P ayment S tone

Chapter

3

Types

4

on Masons ' Marks

1 i n

I reland

5

of Marks

I rish Mason 's D istribution Chapter

I reland

2 0

Marks

Regional S chools of Masons 2 7 Group I : The Cashel S chool ( Thirteenth C entury) Group I I: The H olycross S chool ( Fifteenth Century) Group

I II:

The

L imerick S chool

( Fifteenth Century)

Chapter

5

Mobility o f Masons in M edieval I reland Geographic Mobility f rom Outside o f I reland Geographic Mobility within I reland Career Mobility

4 1

Chapter

6

Summary and Conclusions

4 5

I ntroduction Catalogue

4 8

Catalogue

B ibliography

7 5

I llustrations

8 4

i ii

Acknowledgements The

i nitial

work

f or

this

s tudy w as

undertaken

a s

part

of

a

master 's degree in a rchaeology, u nder P rofessor M ichael J . O 'Kelly a t University College Cork i n 1 977. T hanks must go to the late P rofessor

O 'Kelly

f or

h is

c ontinuous

h elp

and encouragement.

D r. E lizabeth Twohig, Archaeology D epartment, University College Cork, n ot only generously g ave o f h er h elp and advice twenty years a go but has c ontinued to d o s o i n the i ntervening period, and h as r ead and made valuable s uggestions f or t his r evised text. I am g rateful to h er f or f riendship a nd advice. Thanks must D ublin, who ago.

a lso go to P rofessor R oger S talley, T rinity College, g enerously g ave of h is advice and c ounsel many years

P rofessor George Z arnecki, Courtauld I nstitute of London, a lso shared h is wealth o f k nowledge countless ways a continuation o f t his s tudy on s culpture of the l ate medieval p eriod.

o f Art, University a nd encouraged i n a rchitectural

My brothers, D esmond, Kevin, and J ames who not only gave of their time a nd energy, but a lso a ssisted i n many practical ways and enabled me to complete the s tudy. B arbara and D avid Brooker who a lso h elped i n tracing many of t he marks. My mother, who has a lways encouraged h er s atisfaction i n research and k nowledge.

s ons

to

s ee

the

List

of

Figures

I would l ike to a cknowledge the f act that t he g round-plans which i llustrate the c atalogue s ection of this manuscript have a ll been previously published by a number of authors. All o ther f igures, except f or those on Holy Trinity P riory, F ethard, Co. Tipperary, were prepared by the author. The F ethard i llustrations h ave been previously published by D enise Maher. 1 . Map f ound

s howing d istribution

2 . Duiske Abbey, marks

o f

s ites

Graiguenamanagh,

where masons ' marks

Co.

K ilkenny,

are

ground-plan

3 .

Holycross Abbey,

Co.

T ipperary,

ground-plan

4 .

Holycross Abbey,

Co.

T ipperary,

marks

5 .

Holycross Abbey,

Co.

T ipperary,

marks

6 .

Hore Abbey,

Cashel,

Co.

Tipperary,

g round-plan

7 .

Hore Abbey,

Cashel,

C o.

T ipperary,

marks

8 .

K ilcooly Abbey,

Co.

T ipperary,

ground-plan and marks

9 .

Kilcooly Abbey,

Co.

T ipperary,

marks

and

and marks

and marks

1 0. S t. D ominic 's P riory, Cashel, Co. Tipperary; Holy Cross P riory, G lanworth, Co. Cork; Holy Trinity priory, K ilkenny, marks 1 1. S t. S aviour 's P riory, Waterford, ground-plan and marks; Holy Cross P riory, Y oughal, Co. Cork, marks; Church o f S t. Michael Archangel, Adare, Co. L imerick, ground-plan a nd marks 1 2. S t. F rancis ' F riary, Ardfert, Co. Kerry; Askeaton Friary, Co. Limerick, marks; Ennis F riary, Co. Clare, ground-plan and marks 1 3.

Ennis

F riary,

Co.

1 4.

Muckross

1 5.

Cashel

Cathedral,

Co.

T ipperary,

ground-plan

1 6.

Cashel

Cathedral,

Co.

T ipperary,

marks

F riary,

C lare, Co.

marks

K erry;

Quin

v i

F riary,

Co.

Clare,

marks

and marks

1 7.

C ashel

Co. C ork, and marks

C athedral,

marks;

S t.

Co.

T ipperary,

C anice 's

marks;

Cathedral,

1 8. S t. C anice 's Cathedral, K ilkenny, P riory, F ethard, Co. T ipperary, marks

C loyne

K ilkenny,

marks;

C athedral,

ground-plan

Holy

Trinity

1 9. P riory o f S t. Edmund, Athassel, C o. T ipperary, g round-plan and marks; P riory of S t. Mary, Caher, C o. T ipperary, marks 2 0. K illagh marks

P riory,

C o.

K erry;

Holycross Abbey,

2 1.

Thirteenth-century marks

2 2.

Map

2 3.

F ifteenth-century marks

2 4.

Map

2 5.

F orms

2 6.

H olycross Abbey,

Co.

T ipperary,

2 7. H olycross Abbey, Tipperary, marks

Co.

T iperary,

s howing movement

o f masons

s howing movement u sed

i n

o f masons

Co.

T ipperary,

i n t he

thirteenth c entury

i n t he

f ifteenth

c entury

I rish masons ' marks marks K ilcooly Abbey,

C o.

2 8. P riory o f Co. T ipperary, marks

S t. Mary, C aher, Holycross Abbey,

Co. Co.

T ipperary, T ipperary,

K ilcooly Abbey, Ennis F riary,

2 9.

S t.

Co.

T ipperary,

marks

P riory o f

Mary,

Caher,

3 0. K ilcooly Abbey, Co. T ipperary, doorway off eastern c loister and carved head on arch moulding; Holy Trinity F ethard, Co. Tipperary, carved head on a rch moulding 3 1. C ashel Cathedral, Co. wall o f northern transept

T ipperary,

n orthern window

i n

range of Priory,

northern

3 2. C ashel Cathedral, Co. T ipperary, western window i n northern transept, d etail of c arved head; S t. Marys P riory, Caher, Co. T ipperary, c apital on northern windows o f choir 3 3.

C loyne Cathedral,

Co.

Cork,

crucifixion plaque

3 4. H ore Abbey, Cashel, Co. Tipperary, a rch moulding under crossing; Athassel priory, Co. Tipperary, door f rom c hoir to s outhern transept vii

3 5. K ilcooly Abbey, Co. Tipperary, s outhern s tall under crossing; Hore Abbey, Cashel, Co. T ipperary, p iscina i n choir 3 6.

K ilcooly Abbey,

Co.

Tipperary,

corbel

3 7.

K ilcooly Abbey,

Co.

Tipperary,

door

3 8.

Holycross Abbey,

Co.

Tipperary,

chapter house

3 9.

Holycross Abbey, r ange.

Co.

Tipperary,

door

viii

i n northern

f rom c loister

transept t o

n ave

doorway

f rom c loister

to d orter

Chapter Masons ' Marks

1

i n Medieval

I reland

IN TRODUCTION NU MEROUS S TUDIES h ave d ealt w ith t he architecture o f t he l ate medieval p eriod i n I reland, but c omparatively l ittle a ttention h as been g iven a s y et to t he p eople r esponsible o r t o t he t echnical a spects o f the b uilding trade i n t he G othic p eriod. F rom e arly C hristian t imes to t he arrival o f t he Normans i n 1 169, t he r ole o f t he mason was s ignificant, a s w as t he t echnical s kill a nd k nowledge r equired f or c onstruction. When t he Anglo-Normans a rrived i n 1 169 t hey brought w ith them a ll o f t he c ustoms a nd t raditions which h ave, t hroughout history, b een s een a s h eralding t he end o f t he G olden Age o f I rish a rt. Typical o f t his belief i s the s tatement by the h istorian of e arly I rish a rt F rançoise H enry that ' In many ways t he Norman i nvasion m arks i n I reland t he e nd of a w orld, a nd c ertainly t he death o f o riginal a rtistic e ndeavour. F or c enturies a fter t hat, a rt i n I reland w as a lmost c ompletely d ominated by f oreign models a nd t he o ld f ire o f i nvention w as n early a lways l acking, t hough t he g reat s ense of proportion a nd the d ecorative f eeling o f t he o ld s tyle s urvived f or

a l ong t ime '

( Henry

1 967,

2 05).

T he Anglo-Normans were c ertainly r esponsible f or adding t o the wholehearted adoption o f t he n ew s tyle o f Gothic a rchitecture. Even though i t i s w idely c laimed that t he G othic s tyle was one of t he most s ignificant f eatures b rought b y t he Anglo-Normans, i t i s a lso c lear t hat i t was f irst brought i nto I reland by t he twelfthc entury c hurch r eform movement, prior t o t he a rrival o f t he c onquering f orce. Even t hough G othic a rchitecture h ad a lready b een i ntroduced i nto I reland t hrough t his means, i t was the building c ampaigns undertaken by the A nglo-Normans t hat e nabled t he s pread o f t his n ew s tyle. L ittle b uilding was undertaken immediately a fter t he c onquest, a nd what was c onstructed must h ave been o f a t emporary n ature, with t he principal a im being t o g ive the i mpression that a c onquering f orce w as n ow present i n t he country. I n t he early phases of t he c onquest, a rchitecture must have b een u sed a s a n e xpression o f p ower, a nd impressive buildings w ould h ave been n eeded to r einforce t his c oncept, but t he l ong p eriods o f t ime a nd e ffort n eeded t o c onstruct t hem c ould n ot h ave been g iven t owards this a spect o f t he i nvasion. T he f irst c ompletely Gothic building i n I reland i s g enerally b elieved t o b e I nch Abbey, Co. D own ( founded 1 188 o r 1 180), but i t was n ot u ntil t he mid-thirteenth c entury t hat t he s tyle was 1

Mason's marks

i n Medieval

I reland

more w idely u sed.

T his a rchitecture r equired t he i mportation o f a w orkforce of which, u nfortunately, l ittle d ocumentary evidence s urvives. What d oes s urvive i ndicates t hat i ts o rganization may h ave been s imilar to that i n E ngland. Amongst t he f eatures i mported with t his c raft was t he u se o f masons ' marks, which a re n ot f ound i n I reland prior t o t he c onquest. T hese marks r epresent t he p ersonal s ignatures o f t he i ndividual masons r esponsible f or t he c utting o f the s tone f ound t hroughout medieval buildings and a s s uch a re the c losest w e c an c ome, i n many c ases, t o i dentifying i ndividual workers. H unt ( 1974) a s w ell a s R ae ( 1970, 1 971) h ave n oted that i n t he l ate medieval p eriod i n I reland t here a re o ccasional i nstances o f t he s culptor i nscribing h is n ame o n the f unerary monument which a llows u s t o a ctually n ame t he i ndividuals r esponsible. I nscriptions a re a lso o ccasionally f ound o n o ther architectural a nd s culptural c ontexts s uch a s the name ' Johannes' which i s f ound i n f alse r elief on the s outh-western r espond of the r ood-screen a t C lontuskert P riory , C o. G alway. This i nscription may r efer t o t he s ame s culptor w hose n ames i s r ecorded on t he t ransept w indow a t t he P riory o f t he B lessed Mary a nd S S. P eter a nd P aul, P ortumna, Co. G alway. M arks h owever, c an add s ignificantly t o o ur k nowledge o f the whole b uilding process d uring the l ate medieval period i n I reland. The s tudy o f I rish medieval architecture i s c omplicated by i ts r egional n ature, which i s f requently d ifficult t o d isentangle. I t h as been possible, however, u sing t he e vidence o f the marks, t o r elate a n umber o f important b uildings i nto c oherent g roups a nd t o propose a d ating f ramework f or buildings which h ad not p reviously been s tudied.

PR EVIOUS RE SEARCH O N MA SONS ' MA RKS I N IR ELAND A ND EL SEWHERE T he s tudy of m asons ' marks i n I reland i s s imilar t o t hat i n E ngland, where t heir v alue h as f requently been v iewed w ith s cepticism , t hanks i n p art t o t he approach o f n ineteenth-century s cholars who m ore o ften t han n ot s imply r ecorded t heir presence a s a n i nteresting a side a nd made n o e ffort t o e valuate their s ignificance i n t erms o f t he building process. T his approach v iewed masons ' m arks w ith s uspicion a nd a s h aving a s ecrecy that w as impenetrable except t o members o f t he c raft. T he e arliest r eference i n I reland t o masons ' marks i s g iven by W akeman ( 1851), who n otes their presence a t L eighlin C athedral, C o. C arlow. The f irst s tudy t o c atalogue marks a nd t o examine t heir f orm was by F itzgerald ( 1858-59), who l ists many o f the s ites where t hey a re k nown t o have e xisted a nd d eals i n particular w ith t hose f ound a t 2

M ason's marks

i n Medieval

I reland

S t. M ary 's P arish C hurch, Y oughal, C o. Cork. D espite the f act t hat this i s a f anciful t reatment o f the s ubject, i t n evertheless d etails s ites where t he marks h ave n ow d isappeared. M ore r ecently, L eask ( 1967, 1 16) made l imited u se of marks a s a means of d ating a nd a ttempted a broad y et v aluable c lassification o f t heir s tructure based o n t he t echniques o f c arving employed. I ndividual s tudies o f marks f ound a t particular s ites i nclude t hose undertaken by B igger ( 1901) f or K ilconnel F riary, Co. G alway, H ewson ( 1938) f or B lack Abbey, Adare, C o. L imerick, a nd J ope ( 1966), who r ecorded t he marks a t I nch Abbey a nd Grey Abbey, C o. D own, p rior t o r eplastering. McGarry ( 1980) r ecorded a mark o n t he c arved f ont a t Thomastown, C o. K ilkenny, a nd expressed the h ope that f urther s tudy would add t o a better d ating s tructure f or a number o f r elated f onts i n t he Ossory a rea. S talley ( 1980, 1 987) has r ecorded s ome e ighteen d ifferent marks a t Mellifont Abbey, Co. L outh, a nd l ists s ome o f the o ther C istercian f oundations where marks a re f ound ( Stalley 1 987, 4 2-43). Ö h Eailidhe ( 1988) d ocumented t he marks f ound o n t he c loister a rcade f rom C ook S treet, D ublin, a nd Maher ( 1990) s tudied t hose a t t he Augustinian F riary a t F ethard, Co. T ipperary. C ontemporary w ith t his l atter s tudy, Rynne ( 1990) has r elated the s ymbol of t he s wastika a t E nnis F riary to masons ' marks a t B allintubber Abbey, C o. Mayo. One o f the most r ecent s tudies,

by

H odkinson ( 1999), r ecords t he masons ' marks a nd p lacement marks o n t he g atehouse o f N enagh C astle, a nd i s o ne o f t he f irst s tudies t o e xtend t his r esearch i nto the s ecular area. P ostmedieval m ason 's marks h ave b een d ealt with by R yan ( 1989) i n h is publication o f a ll t he marks a t t he Custom H ouse i n D ublin. Numerous s tudies o n t he s ubject o f masons ' marks which can e ither e xamine t he marks a t s pecific s ites or deal w ith t he g eneral s ubject, h ave been published o utside of I reland a nd i nclude those by G odwin ( 1884), F ort ( 1885), F reshfield ( 1887), Rylands ( 1891), H arrison Myers ( 1906), B loe ( 1923), Coulton ( 1928), D avies ( 1938, 1 954), Cunnington ( 1946), Overfield ( 1947-48), B eaumont S legge ( 1950), S alzman ( 1952), K noop a nd J ones ( 1967), H arvey ( 1975). Wright ( 1970) s tudied t he marks a t Wells C athedral, S pring ( 1974) h as r ecorded those a t S alisbury C athedral, Emery ( 1975) has u sed t he marks a t R aglan C astle a s a n a id to d ating a nd Allen ( 1983) a s w ell a s G aimster ( 1989) h ave d etailed t he marks a t Exeter C athedral. R odwell ( 1989) h as published t he marks a t Lichfield C athedral a nd Marner ( forthcoming) h as s tudied t he marks a t Norwich C athedral. E lsewhere masons ' marks f ound i n E ngland h ave b een published i n t he r eports o f t he Royal C ommission on the H istorical M onuments o f E ngland. The most r ecent a nd c omprehensive overview o f t he s ubject f or E nglish medieval building h as been undertaken by Alexander ( 1996). Comparable s tudies h ave a lso been undertaken o n mainland E urope, i ncluding t hose on B elgium by Smidt ( 1974); G ermany by K oopelt ( 1977), 3

Mason's marks Nestle

( 1977),

E llermeier

in Medieval

( 1980),

W erling

I reland ( 1986),

a nd R ziha

( 1989); Holland by H oornaert ( 1997) and J anse and d e Vries ( 1991); I taly by D ionigi ( 1996); S pain by Tous i S anabra ( 1975); P ortugal by Teixeira ( 1995); F rance by Crosby ( 1966).

4

Chapter Craft

2

Organization

TH E M ASON i n I reland h as u sually b een a ssociated, n ot w ith t he c larity with w hich C oldstream ( 1991, 5 ) v iews h is r ole i n E ngland, but w ith a s ecrecy a nd a nonymity t hat i s c loser t o t he p rivacy of t he modern F reemason. T he mason, o r g obän s aor , h as t raditionally b een i mbued i n I rish h istory a nd l iterature w ith t he s uperhuman p owers o f a totally a nonymous b eing c apable o f c onstructing monuments r anging f rom t he r ound t owers a nd R omanesque c hurches t o t he l ate medieval c athedrals. I t i s o nly w ithin the l ast t wenty o r s o y ears t hat any a ttempt h as b een made t o l ook a t the i dentity, position w ithin s ociety, a nd practices o f t hese individuals o r g roups i n I reland. M odern s cholarship h as s hifted s lightly f rom v iewing t his a rchitecture a s a n i ndependent e ntity w ithout any i nterest being s hown i n t hose who w ere r esponsible f or i ts c reation, a nd h as s tarted t o l ook a t the a rchitects and t heir r oles i n t he building, a lbeit o n a l imited b asis. Such s tudies h ave broken down many o f t he myths a nd l egends a ssociated w ith t he c raft, r anging f rom t he belief t hat a ll masons were m embers o f the r eligious c ommunity t o t he v iew t hat a ll of t he l ate medieval b uildings i n I reland w ere built by a f oreign workforce. I t i s unusual, c onsidering t he s ignificant presence of G othic a rchitecture i n t he I rish l andscape, t hat s o l ittle a ttention h as b een g iven t o t he masons r esponsible f or the n umerous r eligious a nd s ecular b uildings c onstructed f rom t he t hirteenth t o t he l ate f ifteenth c enturies. T he f irst great phase o f G othic building i n I reland t ook p lace i n t he mid- to l ate t hirteenth c entury, which i s p recisely t he period a t which t he mason's c raft a ppears t o h ave b een f ormulating i ts o wn s tructures i n E ngland. I t was a t t his t ime, f or e xample, t hat t he practice o f i ndentured a pprenticeship f or masons i s f irst e ncountered ( Coldstream 1 991, 1 1). R econstructions o f t he o rganization o f the c raft i n E ngland h as a lways been b ased o n a c ombination o f administrative r ecords, s uch a s f abric r olls and a ccount books, and t he evidence f rom the buildings themselves. I n the a bsence o f c omparable d ocumentary evidence f or I reland, a ny parallel a ttempt t o s ee h ow t he c raft w as o rganised h as t o b e based a lmost e ntirely o n t he evidence f rom the buildings t hemselves. S tylistic e vidence i s o f the g reatest importance, but o f c onsiderable s ignificance i s what c an b e d erived f rom t he masons ' marks. T hese marks a llow u s t o i dentify the work o f i ndividuals a nd p rovide e vidence o f the 5

C raft O rganization

s cale o f t he workforce a nd t heir a llocation t o i ndividual t asks, enabling u s t o r econstruct t he building process not o nly f or i ndividual buildings b ut f or s chools o f a rchitecture. U sed i n c ombination w ith s tylistic e vidence, mason 's marks make i t possible t o s ee how i deas a nd s tyles w ere d eveloped a nd d isseminated. The i ntroduction w ith a period of

o f G othic a rchitecture i nto I reland c oincides c ultural c hange a nd t ransition which must h ave

impacted on t he s tructure o f t he masons ' c raft and working methods a s f ound i n E ngland a nd w hich h ave been described i n numerous publications ( Salzman 1 952, K noop a nd J ones 1 967, C lifton-Taylor 1 983, C oldstream 1 991, R adding and C lark 1 992, Coldstream 1 994, C ourtenay 1 997, Andrews 1 999, S talley 1 999, Erlande-Brandenburg, n d.). I t i s probable t hat the r ules and practices o f the c raft i n E ngland may h ave b een l ess w ell developed a nd c ertainly l ess u niformly a pplied i n I reland. The entire building t rade i n medieval I reland a ppears to h ave been uneven and more s poradic t han i n E ngland, a nd there i s n o c ertainty t hat the s ame o rganization a nd s tructure that i s evident a t l arger s ites, s uch a s C ashel C athedral, Co. T ipperary, were practiced a t s ome o f t he more r emote a nd smaller l ocations. F rom t he s urviving e vidence i t i s c lear, h owever, that a c ertain overlap i s t o be f ound between E nglish a nd I rish practices. We k now, f or e xample, t hat t he r ole o f magister operum which i s well documented i n England a lso e xisted i n I reland, where r eference i s made t o i t i n a l egal d ispute i n C lonmel i n 1 318, which s tates that F riar J ohn d e N asse h ad s uch a r ole ( Mooney 1 956, 8 6). S talley

( 1987,

4 1)

h as

d etailed t his

r ole,

which was

t he ' keeper

of the works ', whose m ain d uty w as t o o versee the actual organization o f the b uildings. T his w as a n a dministrative and s upervisory position amongst whose t asks w as t he r esponsibility of e nsuring t hat n o i rregularities i n o rganization o r f inance o ccurred. Whereas t he c ustos open s w as a lmost c ertainly one o f the monks, t he magister operum was d efinitely not. I ndeed, the overriding r ole o f t he monk i n t he c raft o f t he mason a ppears t o h ave b een t hat of a n a dministrator w ith n o d irect i nvolvement i n the a ctual c onstruction. T here i s n o e vidence whatsoever t o believe that the monks a ctually l aboured o n the building o f their monasteries. On t he c ontrary, a ll t he evidence f rom t he masons ' marks i ndicates that t he o pposite w as t rue, a nd that t he g reater part o f the a ctual w ork w as u ndertaken by i tinerant c raftsmen o r l ay brothers. L ike a ll o f t he o ther p osts a t t he workshop o r l odge, t hese r oles were s econd t o the m agister , o r master mason, which was t he h ighest r ole that c ould b e a ttained i n t he c raft. The p recise i nput o f the master m ason i nto t he d ay-to-day c onstruction o f a medieval building i s n ot e ntirely c lear. H e was c ertainly 6

C raft O rganization

r esponsible f or t he p lanning, d esign, a nd actual c onstruction o f t he building a nd a lso h ad a n e lement o f t he administration. T his was t he equivalent t o t he modern r oles of a rchitect, e ngineer, a nd a dministrator. T he r elationship o f t he m aster mason t o t he monastic c ommunity o r patron i s n ot k nown, but i t i s c lear t hat they must h ave worked i n c lose cooperation w ith e ach o ther. T he monastic c ommunity must h ave h ad expressed w ishes i n t he a reas o f d esign a nd c onstruction which would h ave h ad t o be c atered f or and m ay h ave i nvolved d irect i nput. F ew of t he master masons who w orked i n I reland i n t he m edieval p eriod c an be i dentified. S talley ( 1987, 4 3) h as l isted the n ames o f s everal masons who c an b e i dentified but h as a lso s tressed t hat s uch n ames c annot b e a ssociated w ith a n i ndividual building. S tylistic p arallels b etween s ites may i ndicate t he presence o f the s ame p erson, but t his i s t entative, a nd they may b e d ue n ot to t he presence o f t he s ame master mason but t o the workmanship of t he s ame r ank a nd f ile masons who w ould h ave worked u nder s uch a p erson. U nlike t he master mason, h owever, i t i s e asier t o t race t hese o ther masons, e ach of whom h ad their own i ndividual and d istinctive mark. N ormally the d esign o f the building was the r esponsibility o f the master mason but how f ar t his extended i s n ot c lear. I t i s possible that i ndividual masons may have b een a ble t o w ork t o t heir own d esigns f or s ome o f t he smaller a nd more d istinctive a rchitectural e lements s uch a s w indow o r d oor mouldings. T he r ole o f the m aster mason d eveloped i n England i n t he s econd h alf o f t he e leventh c entury a nd r ose i n s tature t hroughout the e ntire medieval p eriod. H e w as t he o nly person who w ould have been under c ontract f or t he e ntire c onstruction o f t he building. C ontracts f or t he master mason b ecame more c ommon i n t he t hirteenth c entury, a s i s f ound i n t he d ocumentary r ecords f or building c ampaigns ( Mortet 1 911). T here must h ave b een s uch a person i n c harge o f t he building c ampaigns f or medieval monasteries i n I reland, a lthough a ll r eferences t o t heir i dentities have d isappeared. C athedrals s uch a s C hristchurch, D ublin, S t. t hat matter Augustinian

P atrick 's, C ashel o r S t. C anice 's, K ilkenny, o r f or any o f t he s maller F ranciscan, Dominican, o r f oundations would h ave r equired an overall p lan.

S uch p lans, working models, d rawings, o r d esigns t hat t his master mason would have c reated h ave a ll but d isappeared f or I reland. S talley ( 1987, 5 0) h as n oted t he p reparatory drawings o n plaster which s urvive o n t wo w alls w ithin C orcomroe Abbey, C o. G alway, which d etail w indow d esigns. I n t he f ifteenth a nd s ixteenth c enturies e lements o f a rchitectural d esigns a re i ncorporated into s uch f eatures a s w ater f onts a t K ilcooly Abbey, C o. T ipperary ( Stalley 1 994, 2 04), a nd T homastown, C o. K ilkenny ( McGarry 1 980), 7

C raft O rganization

where v aulting patterns a re u sed f or decorative purposes. O therwise t he plans, d esigns, o r s ketches f or I rish medieval buildings a re s adly absent f or t he entire medieval period. The l ong h eld beliefs t hat most o f these b uildings were e ither built by members o f the r eligious c ommunity o r e lse by a workforce t hat travelled f rom a broad has c ome u nder e xamination. Apart f rom s ome well-known monks, s uch a s R obert, who w as s ent t o Mellifont, t he f irst C istercian f oundation i n I reland ( founded 1 142) by S t. Bernard w ith t he e xpressed p urpose o f h elping i n the building, t here a re f ew o ther n ames which appear i n t he e arly y ears o f the monastic movement t hat were d rawn f rom t he r eligious c ommunity o r i ndeed who c an, w ith t otal c ertainty, be d escribed a s e ither I rish or f oreign, a nd who were i nvolved in t he building o f t hese a bbeys. Working d irectly under t he master mason w ere the r ank a nd f ile masons who c ould be c alled by a v ariety o f n ames s uch a s c(a)ementarii, l athomi, a nd m aso(u)ns. I ndividual s trengths i n working i n particular media a nd t echniques l argely d etermined t he r ole o f t hese i ndividuals. E ach mason w as i n t urn s erved by a t l east o ne a pprentice. I n I reland these w ere t o be ' free o f t he English n ation, o f good c onversation and t o be b ound t o t he c raft f or

s even

y ears '

( Berry

1 905,

3 21).

Even though

i t

was d ecreed

i n 1 192 by L ord J ohn t hat t he p eople of D ublin ' shall h ave t heir r ightful g uilds a s f ully a s t he burgesses o f B ristol h ave o r a re a ccustomed t o have", i t w as s ome t ime before t he building t rade managed t o o rganise i tself. I rish masons were n ot unique i n this r espect, a s i t was not u ntil t he f ourteenth c entury t hat a g uild o f masons d eveloped i n L ondon. Unlike t he majority o f c raftsmen, who t ended t o b e more permanently based in l arge u rban c entres, t he mason l ed a peripatetic existence which i nvolved considerable travel i n s earch o f work. I t i s c lear t hat the urban c entres o ffered c onsiderable employment i n t he building o f houses, f ortifications, bridges, a nd s o f orth, but i t must a lso b e r ealised that prior to s ettlements developing i n r elation t o monastic c ommunities s uch l ocations were f requently c hosen because o f their r emote, i naccessible, a nd t ranquil s urroundings away f rom l arge urban a reas. P rior to t he masons e stablishing their o wn g uild, one mason i s l isted i n t he D ublin Guild r ecords a s a f reeman of the c ity f or t he p eriod 1 225-50. I n 1 469 o nly one o ther mason, J ohn R egane, i s l isted i n t he A ssembly R oles o f Admissions f or the craft ( Berry 1 905, 3 21). The l ist o f t hirtys ix m embers i n the guild i n 1 521 i ncludes o nly f our masons. S uch r ecords must not account f or t he l arge n umbers o f f ully q ualified traveling c raftsmen who a re e videnced by t heir marks a nd may i nstead i ndicate the presence o f t he l odge s tructure o perating 8

C raft

O rganization

l ong a fter t he guild s ystem h ad become popular e lsewhere. T he D ublin Guild of C arpenters, M illers, Masons, and H eliers h ad t he B lessed Virgin Mary o f t he H ouse o f S t. Thomas a s i ts p atron, a nd w e k now f rom an entry o f 1 523 i n the g uild r ecords t hat i t met i n S t. T homascourt Abbey, D ublin ( Clark a nd R efauss 1 993). Whereas t he g uild s ystem o perated o n a n urban l evel i n f ifteenth-century I reland, i t i s l ikely t hat t he c raft w as o rganised o n a l odge o r w orkshop l evel i n t he e arlier p eriod, a nd t hat t his practice may h ave l ingered i n t he more r emote areas t o t he end o f t he M iddle Ages. P hysically r esembling a modern s hed, t he l odge o r t emporary s tructure which would have b een f ound a t most building s ites was t he centre f rom which every a spect of t he building w as r egulated, a nd a s s uch w as a l oosely o rganised l abour p ool. T he Anglo-Norman c onquest o f I reland w as n ever f ully a ccomplished f or a variety of r easons, n ot l east o f which was t he r esistance by t he native I rish c hieftain t o the o ccupation o f h is l ands. T he h istorian F . X . Martin ( 1995, 1 42-43) h as s tated t hat t he t ragedy of I reland was n ot t he a ctual c onquest but t he h alf c onquest. This l ed t o a c omplicated political, s ocial, a nd e conomic s tructure which c hanged over t ime a nd c ould v ary f rom a rea t o area depending o n who h ad c ontrol. G eographic a nd p olitical boundaries c hanged f requently a nd must c onsequently h ave a ffected the s tructure o f o r t he r ules a pplying t o c rafts, s uch a s that of the mason, a nd the p atronage and d evelopment o f i ndividual buildings. I n t he e arly t hirteenth c entury i t i s l ikely, a s S talley ( 1994, 1 95) h as p roposed, that t he majority o f m asons who worked i n I reland c ame f rom E ngland. T he d esigns t hey i ntroduced were c ontemporary w ith s tyles c urrent i n E ngland. S talley has traced t he s tylistic parallels, a nd i ndeed t he p ossible t raining g rounds i n E ngland, f or a n umber o f t he i ndividuals i nvolved, s uch a s t he masons r esponsible f or C hristchurch Cathedral, D ublin. The i ntroduction i nto I reland i n t he e arly thirteenth c entury o f this n ew s tyle o f G othic a rchitecture must h ave n eeded a skilled workforce t o undertake w hat was an unknown c raft i nvolving t echniques that were not w idely available. T his f oreign workforce must have t rained t he n ative masons and e stablished t he c raft. B y the s tart o f the f ifteenth c entury, h owever, t here i s n o r eason t o b elieve t hat i t w as a nyone but the n ative I rish who made u p t he g reater part o f t he workforce. I ndeed, a number o f t he marks u sed by t he masons a t t his period, w ith t heir d istinctive u se o f o lder a nd p articularly native i nterlace d esigns, s upport this belief. T he t hirteenth-century m arks f ound i n I reland d iffer l ittle f rom E nglish parallels a nd may i n a ll probability have b elonged t o E nglish craftsmen. While t his s tudy d eals e xclusively w ith r eligious buildings, i t i s a lso important t o r emember t hat a l arge number of s ecular b uildings were being c onstructed i n I reland a t this t ime. T he a rchitecture i n b oth E ngland a nd 9

C raft O rganization

I reland in t he thirteenth a nd e arly f ourteenth c enturies a s w ell a s t he historical b ackground i ndicates a n e xchange i n masons between the t wo c ountries a nd n ot j ust f rom E ngland t o I reland. There i s l imited e vidence t hat a n umber o f I rish masons s uch a s W illiam de H ibernia, imaginator , w ho w as r esponsible f or c arving t he Northampton C ross, worked i n E ngland, b ut the bulk o f t he evidence points t o a greater i nflux o f English masons i nto I reland r ather than v ice v ersa. T his movement o f masons b etween c ountries i s d iscussed below ( chapter 5 ). Throughout t he e ntire medieval p eriod, t he s trongest i nfluences f rom E ngland were t o be f ound i n a nd a round D ublin, and s tyles and motifs s pread f rom t here t hroughout I reland, s ometimes w ith l ocal aberrations. S talley ( 1994, 1 18), f or e xample, has s hown how i n the t hirteenth c entury t he h ead c apital, f irstly f ound i n I reland in C hristchurch C athedral, was eventually to s pread , w ith l ocal adaptations a long i ts r oute, t o a reas o utside o f the P ale. I t i s f ound i n c onsiderable n umbers a t C ashel C athedral ( on t he c rossing under the t ower a nd i n t he n ave), a nd f rom here i t s eems t o h ave spread to t he s urrounding a bbeys s uch a s Athassel P riory, Co. T ipperary, where i ts f orm i s s lightly a ltered and g iven more o f a l ocalised h andling. I n t he more r emote a reas, s uch a s Monaincha P riory, C o. T ipperary, h owever, t he c apitals with h eads which were u sed t o d ecorate t he n ew e ast w indow a nd the t wo l arge w indows inserted i nto the s outh w all o f t he s imple c hurch a re d issimilar t o o ther examples a nd r eflect a n even more l ocalised h andling of t he motif. As the thirteenth c entury p rogressed, I rish d esign t ended t o s tagnate, and by t he s tart o f t he f ourteenth c entury r eached a s tylistic watershed that w as t he r esult o f a c ombination o f political and economic f actors. L ittle building was undertaken i n the l ater part o f the f ourteenth c entury, a nd i t was n ot u ntil t he s tart of t he f ifteenth c entury that t he building trade o nce again s tarted i n e arnest. W hat d eveloped i n t he 1 400s, h owever, w as not a dependency on E nglish d esigns e xecuted by imported masons, but a c ontinuation o f what was s tylistically current before the h iatus, n ow u sing a n ative workforce ( Stalley 1 994, 1 91-219). T his was a workforce t hat u sed a d ifferent s tone t ype t han what had been c urrent i n t he t hirteenth c entury and p laced their l arge a nd d etailed marks i n c onspicuous positions o n t he s tone a s a proclamation o f i dentity. T hose marks which a re b ased o n C eltic designs w ere a c onscious symbol o f n ational identity. No English masons a re r ecorded a s working i n I reland in t he f ifteenth c entury, a nd the m arks, a s w ill b e s een l ater i n t his s tudy, a ssume a c ompletely d ifferent c haracter. Lydon ( 1973) h as s hown that t here was an u pturn i n t he e conomy i n this period which was manifest i n the c onstruction i ndustry. What i s i nteresting i s that the c raft w as n o l onger r eliant on outside 1 0

C raft

O rganization

masons t o bring i n c urrent d esigns, b ut i nstead took u p w ith r enewed v igour f rom w here i t w as i n t he t hirteenth c entury. The a rchitectural d esigns a re a ntiquated w hen c ompared t o t hose i n England, but s mall e lements, s uch a s w indows o r doorways, w ithin i ndividual buildings a re c ontemporary w ith E nglish d esigns o f t he f ifteenth c entury. T here i s a c onfidence a nd t echnical s kill i n the workmanship of t hese l ater medieval buildings which i s missing i n those o f t he e arlier p eriod. The dependency o n o lder models a nd f orms i s, h owever, n ot t otally apparent i n t he i conography o f t he a rchitectural s culpture o f this period. T he s ame masons who w ere r esponsible f or t he f abric o f the buildings were a lso t he s culptors o f much of t he a rchitectural s culpture which w as u sed f or d ecorative a nd d idactic purposes and w hich w ill b e e xamined t hroughout t his s tudy t o s how h ow i deas were t ransmitted f rom one building t o another. Whereas t he m asons c hose t o u se e arlier models f or the buildings, t hey opted f or n early c ontemporary s ubject matter i n their s culptural designs. A t s ites s uch a s H olycross o r K ilcooly Abbeys t he q uality o f w orkmanship may v ary a nd the programmes may be l ess ambitious than c ontinental c omparanda, but the i conography i s c ontemporary w ith a ny E nglish building o f t he s ame period. P aralleling t his c ontemporary i conography there w as a lso a minor r enaissance o f e arlier d esigns which was l argely b ased o n native o r Celtic models. U nlike t he f ields o f metalwork o r manuscripts, where t his r enaissance w as s tronger, i t i s a lso f ound i n architectural s culpture o n a l ess s ignificant s cale ( discussed below ). S talley ( 1994, 2 18) h as queried t he d isregard o f current E nglish d esigns by t his f ifteenth-century w orkforce a nd acknowledged the possibility t hat a s t he power o f t he C rown d ecreased s o t oo d id the need t o r espect i ts s tylistic models. Whatever t he r easons, there a ppears t o have b een a minor r evival o f the arts i n f ifteenth-century I reland w hich w as c oncurrent with t he r eturn o f power a nd l and t o the n ative I rish c hieftain. I conographical f orms s uch a s s tylised a nimal motifs a nd i nterlaced patterns a re r esurrected i n o ther m edia i n t his p eriod a fter an absence o f s everal hundred y ears ( Rae 1 987, H ourihane 2 000). This p artial r evival i s l ess obvious i n s ome o f t he o ther media but i s e specially o bvious i n m etalworking a nd manuscripts, t he t wo a rt f orms which w ere a lways c onsidered by t he I rish a s particularly s ignificant i n t erms w hat w as v iewed a s n ative. I n a rchitectural s culpture there i s a s imilar small-scale r evival, with a n umber of obviously I rish motifs b eing i ntroduced f or the f irst t ime. Small C eltic i nterlace p anels which a re p art o f this n ative r evival a re f ound a t s ites s uch a s K ilnanare, Co. K erry, Bonamargy, Co. Antrim , B ective Abbey, C o. Meath, Mellifont Abbey, Co. Louth, Abbeyknockmoy , C o. G alway, C aher Abbey, Co. T ipperary, or Carlingford M int, C o. L outh. P art o f t he workforce, h owever, 1 1

Craft

Organization

s eems t o h ave been e specially p roud o f t heir n ative a ncestry a nd r everted t o i nsular motifs o f t he t welfth c entury a s t he basis o f t heir masons ' marks. T hese C eltic i nterlace p atterns a re o bviously p laced i n prominent p ositions o n the c ut s tone a s i f t o d eclare t he work o f a n ative h and. I n many i nstances the f orms, which a re small i n s cale and worked i n h igh r elief, a re the m ost o rnate d esigns i n t he building ( Fig. 2 6). R anging f rom t he s imple t riquetra t o d ouble-stranded f igure-ofe ight d esigns t o e laborate c risscross p atterns, t hey d isplay a r emarkable s imilarity t o many o f t he d esigns f ound o n t rial p ieces i n I reland ( 0 'Meadhra 1 979). Over 1 60 o f t hese trial p ieces h ave b een d iscovered, a nd t he r ange o f motifs u sed i ncludes a h igh proportion o f t he G aelic d esigns a lso f ound a s masons ' marks. These s mall portable p ieces o f s crap material, u sually bone o r s tone, would h ave b een a n ideal means o f transmitting d esigns f rom one p lace a nd period t o a nother. T he f act t hat s ome o f t he p ieces were i n s tone would h ave added weight t o t he l ate medieval mason 's belief t hat h e w as perpetuating a t radition i n d esign f rom a n e arlier I nsular c ontext. Even a llowing f or a l imited r epertoire o f motifs i n t he two media, t he u se o f t echnical d etails l ike a d eeply c ut l ine f ollowing t he c ontours o f the motif points t o a c lose r elationship between t he pieces a nd marks ( O 'Neadhra 1 979, 1 4). While i t i s n ot s uggested that t hese trial pieces provided t he s ole i nspiration f or a ll of the G aelic i nspired f ifteenth-century marks, i t i s c lear t hat a number o f them r eplicate s ome of t he more e laborate a nd l ess c ommon d esigns. These t rial p ieces a lso s how that t he i nspiration f or t he masons was i n the pre-invasions period i n what w as c onsidered t o b e n ative i n i nspiration. I f t he masons ' marks c ould a t the o utset be s een a s s ignatures, i t i s possible t o s ee t his s ubset a s b eing written i n t he I rish l anguage, while t he o thers a re i n E nglish. Whereas t hese motifs may h ave been s ymbolic i n the pre-invasion period their u se i n the f ifteenth c entury may have b een l argely d ecorative but w ith the e xpressed f unction o f proclaiming a n ational i dentity. T his n ative r esurgence a ppears t o h ave g one s ide by s ide w ith the i ntroduction o f n ew i conographical motifs i n t he various media. The E nglish i nfluence n ever f ully d isappeared, a nd the two t raditions a ppear t o h ave c o-existed f rom the e arly f ifteenth c entury onwards. T he i nterlace d esigns u sed by the masons a s t heir marks i n this period a re p art o f t his r evival. Even i f t he masons were c ontent t o c ontinue w ith a rchitectural f orms f rom t he preceding c entury i n t heir buildings c ampaigns, a number o f t hem c hose t o d iscarded t he e arlier f orms i n f avour o f a more native, v isible,

and personally

identifying

1 2

I rish " signature"

( Fig.

2 6).

C raft

Organization

PA YMENT Until 1 348-49 t he u sual r ate o f p ay i n E ngland f or a t rained mason was f our p ennies p er d ay. T he l imited evidence available f rom the C ity o f D ublin r ecords ( Berry 1 905) i ndicates that wages may not h ave been s o h igh. P arity w ith E ngland w as o rdained by the S tatutes o f S ervants a nd L abourers e nacted i n E ngland i n 1 349 by w rit o f K ing E dward I II. H owever, i n 1 366 t he D ublin C ity Assembly ( Chain B ook o f C orporation, f olio 1 56) o rdained t hat every mason being a master w as e ntitled t o two p ennies per d ay w ith d inner only . The r ates f or a n a pprentice a nd l abourer was ' as much a s their w ork w as w orth '. The s ame r ates w ere i n operation i n 1 388. T he g reat d isparity between w ages w ith a nd w ithout f ood a nd d rink i s a gain i ndicated i n 1 535. T he D ublin C ity Assembly r uled t hat every m ason s hould be p aid f ifteen pence per day, and a pprentices t en p ennies per d ay, e xcluding f ood and drink. With f ood a nd d rink s upplied, t he wages w ere t o b e s ix pennies per day f or t he mason, f our pennies per d ay f or the j ourneyman, and t hree p ennies p er d ay f or the a pprentice. Every l abourer was t o g et s even a nd a h alf pennies per d ay w ithout f ood. I t i s probable t hat c onditions o utside D ublin w ere s imilar to t hose d escribed a bove. P ayment c ould b e made o n a p roductivity basis ( taskwork ) o r on a t ime basis ( discussed b elow ). S uch a n a rrangement w ould h ave impacted g reatly o n t he f inal building, a nd i t i s c lear t hat the wealthier the f oundation, t he g reater t he possibility t hat t he c arving would b e o f a h igher q uality a nd f inish.

ST ONE The i ntroduction a nd w idespread u se o f c ut s tone o r f reestone a s a b uilding material i n I reland h as been d iscussed e lsewhere ( Waterman 1 970, H arbison 1 975, S talley 1 987, D e P aor 1 997). The date a t which s tone r eplaced t imber a s t he most w idely u sed building material i s d isputed. B y the t ime o f t he Anglo-Norman i nvasion, however, s tone w as t he most w idely u sed, a lthough not the exclusive b uilding material t o be f ound i n I reland. Unlike England, where l imestone w as a lso employed, s andstone was u sed a lmost exclusively i n I reland, a nd i t i s c lear t hat t he mason had r eached a h igh l evel o f c ompetence i n working w ith t his material. T o a c ertain e xtent, t he p reference f or s andstone r eflects i ts more widespread a vailability throughout t he country a nd the ease with which i t c an b e w orked. F or e xample, the s andstone which was u sed a t Mellifont w as probably q uarried s omewhere i n County Meath ( Barry 1 987, 1 47). I n the C ashel/Kilkenny a rea, s andstone was a lso the o nly type o f s tone u sed a s a f reestone u p to c irca 1 280. The e arliest p arts o f H ore Abbey ( founded c . 1 272) a nd 1 3

C raft O rganization

A thassel

P riory

( founded c .

1 200)

w ere

built

i n

s andstone.

S t.

D ominic 's P riory C ashel ( founded 1 243), w as a lso built i n t his s oft s tone. The t hirteenth-century f ragments t hat s urvive f rom H olycross Abbey, Co. T ipperary ( founded 1 169?) a nd S t. J ohn 's P riory, K ilkenny ( founded c . 1 202) were a lso o f s andstone. T he o ldest parts of C ashel C athedral, t he c hoir, d ated to c . 1 230, a re o f s andstone which i s s imilar t o the t hirteenth-century f ragments o f S t. C anice 's C athedral, K ilkenny. T he s tandard o f workmanship a t t his l atter s ite i s exceptionally h igh. I n both t he j ointing on t he piers u nder t he c rossing, which i s p recise a nd f inely e xecuted, and i n t he s culptural d ecoration, w hich s urvives i n c onsiderable q uantities a t t his s ite, the w orkmanship i s o f a h igh s tandard. These p references h ave a lso been n oted by O ' Keeffe ( 1999, 5 3) i n r elation t o B ridgetown P riory, C o. C ork. W ith t he a rrival o f the Anglo-Normans, s andstone c ontinued t o b e t he p referred building material u p t o the mid-thirteenth c entury, r eflecting a c ontinuous p attern f rom the p re-invasion p eriod. After t he i nvasion and a f oreign workforce, s tone was a lso imported. The r easons u nderlying t he importation of f oreign s tone a s a building material i n t he thirteenth c entury m ay h ave been manifold, n ot l east o f w hich was the f act t hat t he f oreign workforce would h ave been u sed t o working w ith s tone f rom t he q uarries a t D undry, Caen, P urbeck, and e lsewhere, a s h as b een d ocumented by Waterman ( 1970). W aterman ( 1970), O 'Neill ( 1987) a nd S talley ( 1995, 1 997) h ave a ll s tressed the s ignificance o f w ater a s a means o f transporting t his s tone t o medieval b uildings a long t he s outh a nd east c oasts o f I reland. The s ituation was s imilar i n England where a c onsiderable q uantity of l imestone f rom C aen i n Normandy was i mported and u sed i n t he building o f C anterbury, Westminster a nd W inchester C athedrals amongst o ther s ites. Even though masons w orked c ompetently i n the n ative s andstone, i t i s c lear f rom i ts u se that c onsiderable v alue w as p laced o n t his imported s tone. I n the p ost-medieval p eriod , bricks w ere f requently i mported i nto England a s ballast o n s hips r eturning f rom t he continent, e specially f rom H olland. C onsiderable value was put o n t hese bricks i n a s ituation s imilar t o what must h ave happened i n medieval I reland w ith t he i mported s tone. The s tones that w ere i mported i nto I reland i n t he medieval period h ave the d istinctive c haracteristic o f b eing s tronger i n c olouration t han t he n ative material, with l ess o f a t endency t o c rack when b eing c ut. This i mported s tone w as n ever u sed i n a primary c ontext a s w all r ubble, but w as a lways g iven a d ressed f inish a nd u sed f or mouldings i n p rominent positions. I t i s u nusual that equally p recious n ative material, s uch a s marbles f rom C onnemara, K ilkenny, o r G alway, were available a nd must h ave been k nown t o the medieval c raftsman but w ere n ot widely u sed i n I reland u ntil the f ifteenth c entury. B rick does not a ppear t o h ave b een u sed i n I reland, u nlike i n England, where C oldstream 1 4

C raft

( 1991, 1 0) r equired.

h as

Organization

noted h ow i t w as

u sed w here

a l ight m aterial

w as

T he p rovision of s tone w as a n important f actor i n t he c onstruction o f any monastic h ouse. T here a re no l arge s cale, f ull t ime medieval q uarries i n I reland c omparable t o t hose a t P urbeck o r D undry i n B ritain. C onsequently, l ocal s tone h ad t o b e u sed wherever possible. This was most l ikely q uarried a s c lose t o t he buildings a s w as possible t o r educe t ransportation c osts, and s uch quarries w ere probably s hort-term p rojects r elating o nly to the b uilding i n h and. I t i s believed t hat t he l imestone u sed in t he c onstruction o f H olycross Abbey, C o. T ipperary, was quarried f rom two a reas, one a pproximately two m iles f rom t he abbey a nd t he o ther l ess than half a m ile ( Carville 1 973). The g ranite u sed i n t he P riory o f S S. P eter a nd P aul o f S elskerk i n Wexford was q uarried a pproximately o ne mile f rom t he building. B y t he l ate thirteenth c entury ( c. 1 280) s andstone w as o ccasionally d iscarded a s a f reestone a nd r eplaced by t he n ative h ard, g rey, c arboniferous l imestone q uarried l ocally, a nd t his w as w idely u sed until t he e nd o f the f ifteenth c entury. T he s outhern t ransept a t C ashel C athedral ( c. 1 268), w hich i s a m ixture of s andstone a nd l imestone, r eflects this t ransition f rom t he u se of o ne s tone t ype t o t he o ther. The nave o f C ashel C athedral i s built a lmost e ntirely o f l imestone. A t H ore Abbey , A thassel P riory, K ilcooly Abbey, and H olycross Abbey a ll t he f ifteenth-century work i s i n l imestone. I n t he more r emote a reas where s andstone was t he o nly material a vailable, i t c ontinued i n u se a s the only building material until the end o f t he f ifteenth c entury. T his l imestone i s f ar more r esistant t o w eathering a nd a lthough i t i s more d ifficult t o c arve, the r esults a re u nsurpassed. The n aturalistic f oliage c arvings o f C orcomroe Abbey, Co. G alway, a re f requently c ited a s b eing amongst t he b est e xamples o f this type o f w ork, but i t i s a lso possible t o s ee t he s ame l evel o f skill a t n umerous o ther s ites, s uch a s H olycross, K ilcooly Abbey, or C aher P riory, Co. T ipperary. T he c onfidence o f w orking i n this n ative l imestone r eached a peak i n t he f ifteenth c entury, when i t w as more w idely, i f s till s paringly u sed f or mouldings, s hafts, a nd o ther m icro-architectural f eatures s uch a s s edeliae, p iscinae, e tc. A s a material f or a rchitectural s culpture t his n ative l imestone i s more d ifficult t o c ut and h as a g reater t endency t o c rack. I t d oes n ot l end i tself t o u ndercutting, u nlike s andstone, which i s r elatively e asy t o work i n r elief. T he l imestone c an b e more d elicately w orked than s andstone, h owever, and p reserves details f ar b etter t han t he s ofter material, w here d efinition i s f requently l ost, e specially i n external c ontexts. I n t he

areas

c entering a round Wicklow a nd e xtending a s 1 5

f ar

s outh

C raft O rganization

a s C astledermot, C o. K ildare, g ranite w as t he only s tone u sed f or t he d uration o f t he entire m edieval p eriod. T his i gneous r ock r equires a g reat amount o f w orking, a nd t he l arge particle s ize prevents a smooth s urface f rom b eing o btained. O ld r ed s andstone w as a lso used a s a f reestone t hroughout Moor Abbey, Co. T ipperary, a nd i n parts o f Adare F riary, C o. L imerick, i n t he f ifteenth c entury. T he c hange f rom s andstone t o l imestone a s a f reestone i s a lso p aralleled i n i ts u se f or s culptural c arving. There does n ot s eems t o have been a ny marked p reference f or u sing a s ofter s tone i n t he interior o f buildings o ver a h arder s tone f or the e xterior work. T hroughout t he entire medieval p eriod c ut s tone was used s paringly i n medieval I rish c onstruction. I t was o ne of t he most e xpensive and l abour-intensive e lements i n a ny building a nd w as t hus u sed s paringly. There a re t wo broad d ivisions in t he u se o f f reestone i n medieval I rish b uildings. T he f irst o f these i s t he c ut s tone u sed i n g eneral a shlar w alling. I t i s u sed i n s uch a c ontext only i n a reas of s trategic importance. Cut s tone by i ts n ature i s more durable a nd s olid when p laced i n an a shlar a rrangement t han r ubble c onstructed w alling a nd i s c apable o f w ithstanding more pressure i n l ocations where s tress i s a k ey f actor. Locations s uch a s t he w alls i mmediately s urrounding w indows or d oor o penings, u nder c rossing t owers, or a t g ables a re s ome o f the most c ommon l ocations i n I rish buildings where c ut s tone was u sed i n g eneral w alling. The s ize o f the s tones u sed d ecreases i n the medieval p eriod f rom t he massive b locks o f t he R omanesque p eriod. Cut s tone w as a lso u sed o utside of g eneral w alling f or a rchitectural d etails s uch a s w indow mullions, h ood mouldings, c apitals, piers, a nd s culpture. After the suppression o f the monasteries, when a n umber o f t he buildings were o pen t o p lunder, cut s tone was one o f t he most f requently s ought-after parts o f these r uins and w as f requently p lundered. I t i s impossible, t herefore, t o a pply a ny h ard a nd f ast r ules a s t o t he amount of c ut s tone f ound a t a ny o ne s ite, a s s o much i s missing. Where i t does s urvive r elatively i ntact, a t buildings s uch a s C ashel Cathedral, C o. Tipperary, a nd S herkin F riary, Co. C ork, i t a ppears that i ts u se was r elative t o t he s ize and importance o f t he s ite. T he l arger and m ore i mportant t he f oundation, t he g reater the amount o f cut s tone u sed, while smaller cells u sed l ittle, if a ny. F ar more common t han the a shlar w alls i n I reland a re those which w ere r ubble c onstructed o f e ither s andstone o r l imestone b edded i n mortar. T hese a re u sually r oughly c oursed, and a s a r ule t he w alling i s a mixture of s andstone/limestone r ubble, with l ittle d ifference f rom o ne period t o a nother. I t i s c lear that e fforts w ere made t o l evel t hese r ough c ourses e specially where t his was 1 6

C raft

n eeded. i s

O rganization

A number o f medieval buildings

n ormally e ncased w ith a n o uter

h ave

c oating o f

a r ubble ' strong

c ore w hich l ime

a nd

s and mortar ' ( Hurley a nd P ower 1 981). T he s tones are r oughly s quared a nd dressed o n t he o uter f aces a nd a re n early a lways s et a s s tretchers. Most s ites, s uch a s Tyone a nd Athassel P riories, C o. T ipperary, h ave a c ombination o f a shlar a nd r ubble c onstruction i n t heir w alls, w ith t he l atter predominating. Where f inance p ermitted , t he s tone w alls w ere c overed w ith p laster o r l ime a s a f inal d ressing, a nd t his may i n t urn h ave b een decorated, i f f unds p ermitted, w ith mural paintings. O nce t his f inal s tep h ad b een u ndertaken i t would f requently b e impossible t o d istinguish a w all built e ntirely of a shlar f rom o ne c onstructed o f a c ombination o f r ubble a nd a shlar. T he dressing o f t his c ut s tone c an v ery e normously. A v ariety o f f inishes d iffering l ittle f rom t hose u sed by c ontemporary masons a re f ound i n medieval I rish buildings. S everal f orms o f t ooling w ere u sed throughout t he p eriod. I t i s i mpossible t o g eneralise a bout any o ne t echnique, a s t hey may a ll b e f ound a t a ny o ne s ite i n c lose proximity t o o ne a nother a nd d ating f rom the s ame p eriod. S ome t echniques c learly r equired more l abour a nd t ime i n a chieving a f ine s urface f inish, a nd i f p ayment was d one o n a t ime basis r ather than a p iecemeal b asis, s uch work would h ave been more expensive t han t he r oughly h ewn s tone which i s a lso f requently f ound. What d istinguishes t he eventual f inish i s n ot t he overall t echnique, b ut t he t ime, q uality o f workmanship, a nd t ools u sed. T here i s l imited e vidence i n I reland, a t s ites s uch a s C ashel Cathedral o f l arge f ish-belly s aws b eing u sed t o s hape t he s tone i nitially. S uch s aws w ere o perated by two people a nd u sed to c ut l arge blocks i nto r equired s hapes. I n the f irst i nstance, the s tone, n owdays c alled a s cant, was worked a ll over w ith a h ammer a nd pitcher, p roducing a r oughly s haped a nd d ressed s urface. At t his s tage i t w as p ossible t o improve the d ressing w ith a c hisel a nd mallet t o p roduce t he c haracteristic punch d ressing, i n which t he s tone i s p ockmarked i n a n i rregular a llover dressing. This p ick o r h ammer d ressing w as one o f t he l east e xpensive techniques o f s tone d ressing, r equiring l ittle t ime o r e ffort. The t extured s urface p roduced a g ood k ey f or t he s ubsequent plastering, a s i s s till f ound a t Muckross Abbey, C o. K erry, f rom the mid-fifteenth c entury. A r efinement o f t his t echnique was where a s maller p ick o r punch was u sed t o p roduce a f inely d ressed s urface. T his t echnique i s f ound, f or e xample, o n t he c orbels i n t he n orthern t ransept a t K ilcooly Abbey, C o. T ipperary, and a t Quin F riary, C o. C lare. I t was a t echnique o f working which, a lthough f irst f ound i n e arly C hristian c hurches i n I reland, was r efined w ith i mproved t ools a t the a rrival o f the Anglo-Normans.

1 7

Craft

O rganization

A s econd a nd more r ecent type o f d ressing, which f irst a ppears i n I reland a t t he s tart o f the t welfth c entury i s w here t he s tone i s c ut i n a s eries o f d iagonal b ands w hich a re l ightly s truck i nto t he s tone i n a r egular pattern. T he c uts are a f ew c entimetres l ong a nd a re u sually i n a d iagonal d irection i n r elation t o t he b edding o f t he s tone. According t o D e P aor ( 1997, 1 93), this i s t he o nly type o f d ressing f ound i n I rish R omanesque buildings. I t w as a t echnique which became p articularly c ommon i n the t hirteenth c entury, a nd, l ike t he p unch d ressing, the d egree o f f inish w as d ependant o n t he s ize o f t he c hisel u sed a nd the s kill employed. T he d ressing of c ut s tone a ppears t o h ave b een p articularly important and c onsiderable e ffort w as put i nto a chieving a s f ine a f inish a s w as p ossible i n c ertain a reas. D ifferent t echniques were u sed o n i ndividual p ieces f or a esthetic a nd d ecorative r easons. The d ressing a t c ertain s ites, s uch a s H olycross Abbey, C o. T ipperary, K ilcooly Abbey, C o. T ipperary, a nd Q uin F riary, C o. C lare, a pproaches a f ine p olish a nd, i ndeed, w ater may w ell h ave been u sed i n t he dressing a nd polishing o f s ome o f t he c arvings a t these s ites ( Fig. 3 6). L ittle f ree-standing o r monumental s culpture h as s urvived f rom medieval I reland, a lthough i t must h ave o nce e xisted i n c onsiderable quantities. The n iches o n t he exterior o f the s outhern t ransept a t C ashel C athedral, C o. T ipperary, f or e xample, would c ertainly have h eld l ife s ize s tatues, a ll t races o f which h ave g one. The architectural s culpture that d oes s urvive s uch a s t he l ife-size h eads which are f ound i n c onsiderable numbers a s l abel-stops o n h ood mouldings a nd i n a n umber o f o ther p ositions are u sually cut i n r elatively l ow r elief. Although a ttached a t t he b ack, t hese c arvings a re c haracteristic o f t he l ack of u ndercutting i n I rish medieval s culpture a s a whole. I n this r espect, s ome o f t he h ighest q uality architectural s culpture t hat does s urvive d ates t o t he t hirteenth c entury, a nd a s a g eneral r ule what s urvives f rom t his e arly p eriod i s o f a c onsistently h igher q uality than t he s culpture o f the l ater period. D oorways s uch a s that a t Athassel P riory, C o. T ipperary, a re perfectly balanced d esigns w ith e xcellently cut d etails s uch a s d og t ooth d ecoration. The s ame d etail i s s adly missing i n the f ifteenth c entury, with s ome n otable exceptions. Of a ll the r eligious orders i n I reland, t he C istercians employed the highest q uality workmanship i n the s tone c arving i n t heir a bbeys. This p articular order a ppears to h ave h ad s ufficient f unds t o employ l arge g roups o f s killed l abourers who u sed d esigns o f the h ighest q uality. The C istercian abbeys a re f ollowed by t he c athedrals, w here t he workmanship i s again p articularly s killed, w ith no r estrictions placed on t he numbers employed.

1 8

Craft O rganization

D e P aor ( 1997, 1 94) believes t hat t he masons ' axe was f irst i ntroduced i nto I reland a long w ith t he c arving o f Romanesque o rnament. T his w as c losely f ollowed by the c hisel, which a ppears t o h ave b een f irst u sed i n I reland o n a l arge s cale i n t he t hirteenth c entury, h aving b een i ntroduced i nto England i n t he t welfth c entury. Whereas B arry ( 1987, 1 13) h as r ecorded t he f inding o f c arpentry tools, s uch a s a xes, s aws, c hisels, e tc., f rom medieval I reland, no t ools u sed by the mason h ave s o f ar b een d iscovered. I n a ll p robability t hey w ere s imilar t o t he e qually f ew masons' t ools t hat s urvive f rom medieval England, s uch a s t he h ammer o r chisel p resently i n t he Museum o f L ondon ( Alexander a nd B inski 1 987). T hese t ools p robably d iffer l ittle f rom t hose o f the post-medieval p eriod a s d escribed by C liftonT aylor ( 1983, 8 6-91) or Alexander ( 1996, 2 29-230). F rom m easurements t aken f rom c ut s tone, t he blade o f t he c utting c hisel i n I reland a ppears t o h ave been 5 -7 mm w ide. A p ossible i llustration o f a n I rish a xe i s f ound on t he c loister a t E nnis F riary

i n t he

f orm o f

a mason 's mark

1 9

( Westropp

1 895,

1 35-54).

Chapter Types TH ERE HAS BEEN much d iscussion but

3

o f Marks l ittle

a greement

o n t he

importance o r purpose o f t he mason 's mark whose h istory o utside o f I reland c an be t raced b ack t o b uildings a s e arly a s t he Bronze Age ( Evans 1 930). There a re t hree types o f marks, t he position o r a ssembly mark, t he q uarry mark a nd t he b ench mark. The f irst type i s f ound only on pre-fabricated p ieces o f c ut s tone which were most l ikely c ut a t t he quarry i tself. S uch a practice r educed the c ost o f transport, s ince t he v olume w ould h ave been l ess a fter c utting. The c olumns o f P urbeck marble a t Christchurch Cathedral, D ublin, f or e xample, a re i n s tandard l engths of s ixteen a nd o ne quarter i nches a nd w ere most l ikely imported i n a f inished s tate ( Stalley 1 971, 2 4). S imilarly, a t Buttevant F riary, C o. C ork, three t omb n iches o f e xactly t he s ame proportions a re f ound i n t he n ave a nd w ere most l ikely brought i nto t he church i n that s tate. T his p ractice o f u sing ' factory ' s tyle p ieces i s not unusual; t he p osition mark d oes not r epresent s o much the s ignature o f t he mason but i s a g uideline f or the mason o r masons who would h ave r econstructed t he s tones a t the f inal s ite. S uch marks r epresent t he c onstruction k it f or r ea ssembly a t the s ite a nd h ave n o e lement o f i dentity, c ontrol of payment, or r egistration. These a re o utside t he r ange o f this s tudy b ut h ave been dealt w ith b y A lexander ( 1996, 2 21). The s econd type of mark, the q uarry m ark, which a re u sually i ncised on t he s urface of t he s tone are u sed t o i ndicate t he q uarry f rom which t he s tone c ame a nd a re a lso o utside o f t he s cope o f this s tudy but have a lso been d ealt w ith by Alecxander ( 1996, 2 21-2). The t hird type of mark i s the b anker o r b ench mark, which r epresents the s ignature o f the m ason who c ut t he s tone a t the bench. Up t o c irca 1 600 t hese m arks w ere p laced i n g reat numbers a nd u sually i n a prominent position o n t he c ut s tone. They were n ever s een a s defacing t he s tone s ince t hey w ould h ave been eventually c oncealed under plaster. T hey a re n ot f ound o n a ll s tones, and there i s n o s tandard p osition f or t hem on t he a shlars. The marks are u sually s imilar i n s ize, a lthough they c an v ary f rom being small and l ightly i ncised t o h igh-relief c arvings w ith considerable detail ( Figs. 2 6-28). When t he s ame mark i s f ound a t a number o f s ites i t i s n early a lways t he s ame s ize, but the angle a t w hich i t i s c arved i s n ot c onsistent. I t i s u nfortunate that neither documentary r ecords o r r egisters e xist f or masons i n e ither England o r I reland. T he o nly d ocumentary r eference t o t he u se o f t he masons' marks i n medieval England has been d escribed by K noop a nd J ones ( 1949, 2 60). We do not k now how marks were f irst a ssigned o r by whom but i t i s c lear 2 0

T ypes

o f M arks

t hat g reat c are was t aken t o e nsure t hat n o t wo w ere a like. On a v ery b asic l evel the b ench m arks c an b e v iewed a s a n i ndication o f t he n umber o f professional a nd q ualified m asons employed i n b uildings who w ere n ot members o f t he r eligious o rder. They a re t hus a r ough i ndicator of t he n umber o f workers i nvolved i n medieval c onstruction a nd c an p rovide i nteresting i nsights i nto t heir a llocation to p articular t asks. I t i s p ossible to s ee t he n umber o f masons employed i n p articular p arts o f t he church and h ow t hey proceeded t o build t hese monasteries. H owever, a s t hese marks were r estricted t o q ualified m asons, t here i s no i ndication o f t he n umber o f apprentices i nvolved o r t he r ole t hey had. T he marks g ive no i ndication o f a h ierarchial s tructure, i f one e xisted, i n the c raft o f t he m ason. I t i s n ot possible, f or e xample, to d istinguish the m ark o f t he h ead mason, i f i ndeed t here was one. I n t he post-medieval p eriod s uch marks t ended t o b e c oncealed a nd were p laced o n t he b ed o f t he s tone to prevent d isfiguration o f the d ressing.

IR ISH MA SONS ' MA RKS T he professional i s i ndicated n ot

r ole o f t he m ason i n t hirteenth-century I reland only by t he h igh s tandard o f w orkmanship, but

a lso by the u se o f mason 's marks. T hese f irst a ppear i n I rish b uildings that c an b e d ated t o s hortly a fter t he Anglo-Norman i nvasion i n 1 167. A t Mellifont Abbey, f or e xample, S talley ( 1980, 3 29-31) h as r ecorded t he presence o f e ighteen s uch marks w hich a re placed c onspicuously t hroughout t he monastery during i ts r ebuilding. I n I reland t here i s a c lear d ivision between t hirteenth- and f ifteenth-century m arks. T hose o f t he thirteenth c entury a re l ightly i ncised, u sually o n s andstone, a nd are f ound i n g reat numbers, l iberally d ispersed throughout t he buildings. T he a lignment o f these marks d oes n ot a ppear t o h ave been i mportant, and t his i s one o f t he m ajor problems i n t rying to d isentangle the e xact d istribution o f workers a t v arious s ites. T hey a re n ever f ound i n a c onsistent position o n t he s tone o r l ocation w ithin t he b uilding, a nd e ven when t hey o ccur, f or e xample, o n a w all o f a shlars which w ere c ut by t he s ame mason, t hey may be p laced o ne on t op o f t he o ther a t v arying angles. Very f ew marks f rom t he f ourteenth c entury a re r ecorded. The motifs u sed f or masons ' marks i n t he t hirteenth c entury a re a lways a ngular a nd g eometric, a nd i n a ll probability belonged t o E nglish masons w ho w ere working i n I reland. T hey v ary f rom X f orms t o a rrowheads, l etters, c rosses, s quares, r ectangles, a nd l inear c ompositions. A lexander ( 1996, 2 19) h as n oted the f act t hat most English masons' marks f rom t he t hirteenth c entury a re b ased o n ' intersecting s traight l ines w ith c onsiderable variety i n both the number o f l ines u sed a nd t he c omplexity o f the f orms' which i s s imilar to t he s ituation i n I reland. I n t he f ifteenth 2 1

Types

of M arks

c entury t he marks a re more n aturalistic a nd a re based o n l eaves, i nterlace, c ross f orms, L a nd f igure e ight f orms, a s w ell a s curves. M any o f t he l ater g roup a re r ecognisable and identifiable motifs, u nlike the e arlier s et ( Fig. 2 5). The f ifteenth-century marks a re more d eeply a nd f inely worked i n l imestone, which w as t he most widely u sed building material a t that t ime. I n a n umber o f r eligious f oundations the m arks are not a s w idely d ispersed o n t he s tones a s t hey a re i n t hirteenthcentury buildings, a nd t hey are l ikely t o b e r estricted to parts of i ndividual buildings. I t i s a t t his s tage t hat a t l east s ome of t he marks become s ymbols o f Gaelic i dentity a nd a ssume cultural o r n ationalistic importance. T his q uality c annot be s een i n a ll o f t he marks but only i n a n umber which a re based o n o lder C eltic f orms a nd which were u sed a s a d efinite s tatement o f cultural i dentity. T hese d esigns a re b ased o n pre-invasion motifs, a nd i t i s c lear t hat they a re s till u sed a s t he personal s ignatures o f t he w orkforce. The w ork o n which these n ative marks are f ound, h owever, i s v irtually i ndistinguishable f rom the work d one by t he o ther masons, and t here i s n othing u niquely native i n t he a rchitectural f orms, s tyles o r workmanship employed. I t h as t o b e borne i n mind t hat not a ll o f t he workforce i nvolved i s r ecorded w ith marks. A s marks w ere a lways u sed o nly by qualified masons, t he n umber of masons w ho w ere entitled t o u se them a ppears t o h ave d ecreased i n t he f ifteenth c entury i n v iew of t he amount o f c ut s tone which i s f ound i n t he buildings o f that p eriod which d oes n ot h ave marks. I t may be that more apprenticed masons w ere employed a t s ome o f the l ess i mportant and s maller r eligious buildings. At s ome s ites where o nly o ne mark i s f ound but w here t here i s a l arge a mount of c ut s tone present, i t may b e t hat t he mark o f t he q ualified mason was the only o ne t hat c ould j ustifiably be r ecorded, a nd that o ther, unrecorded l abour w as d one a t the a pprentice l evel o r by a permanent mason a ttached t o the s ite. S uch i s the s ituation a t S t. F rancis ' F riary, Ardfert, Co. K erry, a nd Muckross F riary, Co. Kerry. At t he l atter s ite, the entire c laustral r ange c annot have b een built by o ne mason; nevertheless, o nly one mark i s f ound. I t i s l ikely that t his s ite, d ue t o the l arge-scale presence o f c ut s tone, may h ave had a s emi-permanent w orkforce a ttached, a nd t hat t here w as no need f or t heir marks t o be r ecorded. O n t he o ther h and, s ome o f t he l arger and w ealthier f oundations, s uch a s Holycross Abbey, C o. T ipperary, h ad l arge bodies of masons a ttached, a nd a t t hese s ites marks a re f ound on most o f t he c ut s tone i n c onsiderable n umbers ( Fig. 3 ). The p urpose o f t he mark h as n ever b een s atisfactorily explained. I t i s c lear t hat e ach mark was u sed by t he mason a s a means of 2 2

Types

o f M arks

s igning o r r egistering h is c ompleted w ork but t he r eason f or d oing t his i s u nclear. T his w as t he p ersonal s ignature of e ach m ason a nd w as u sed a s a means o f s igning o r r egistering h is c ompleted work. I t was o nly o nce t he c arving was f inished that t he mason w as e ntitled t o " sign" h is w ork a nd i ncomplete or u nfinished c arvings do n ot have m arks. Marks a re f ound only o n ' cut s tone ' a nd n ever o n s tone t hat h as not been f ully worked o r c ompletely s haped. This would h ave b een n ecessary e specially w here a mobile w orkforce was employed. The r eason f or r egistering t he work o f a n i ndividual w ith a mark may h ave b een t o d etermine payment, which i s k nown t o h ave been made o n a p iecemeal o r t ask-work b asis. M asons were paid o nly f or c ompleted work, a nd t he r ates v aried f or d ifferent types of c ut s tone. I t would b e v irtually impossible, w ith a l arge a nd mobile w orkforce, to e stablish who was r esponsible f or w hat p iece o f w ork w ithout s ome f orm o f identifying mark or c ontrol. The p resence o f marks o n s ome s tones a nd t heir absence on o thers m ay r eflect these t wo methods of d etermining payment. Alternatively , m arks may h ave b een u sed a s a means o f q uality c ontrol. Whatever t heir purpose, i t i s c lear that marks were u sed by masons a s a m eans o f i dentification, and a s s uch c an add s ignificantly t o o ur u nderstanding o f t he building p rocess. M asons ' marks h ave been u sed by t he a rchitectural h istorian f or a n umber o f r easons ( Davies 1 954). T he principal u se i s f or d ating. Where marks a re k nown i n a ccurately dated buildings, i t i s possible t o d ate o ther buildings which have s imilar marks a nd a rchitectural s tyles. M arks e nable t he building process of many f oundations t o b e r econstructed a nd t he s ize o f t he workforce t o b e g auged. F or e xample, i n the s tudy a rea particularly s ignificant numbers o f masons ' marks a re f ound o n c rossing piers a nd i n the c hancel a rea, a s a t H olycross Abbey, C o. T ipperary , w hich would i ndicate t hat this a rea w as c onsidered important ( Fig. 2 ). S ince marks a re material e vidence of t he presence o f i ndividual masons, by t racing t heir d istribution i t i s possible t o r econstruct r egional a nd l ocal g roups o f masons. M arks a re l ikely t o be f ound i n medieval I rish buildings i n o ne o f two ways. T hey c an f irstly b e f ound i n i solated a rchitectural e lements o r s pecific parts of buildings, a nd i n t hat c ase may i ndicate a n i tinerant workforce b rought i n s pecifically to u ndertake projects which may h ave n eeded to be f inished i n a s hort p eriod o f t ime. T he s econd w ay i n which marks o ccur, w hich i s r estricted t o a f ew s ites s uch a s C ashel Cathedral a nd H olycross Abbey , i s d istributed e venly and i n c onsiderable n umbers throughout the b uilding. E ven where this d istribution p attern occurs, i t i s p ossible t o s ee a reas o f s pecialization i n w hich s ignificantly more masons w orked o n s pecific a reas that w ould n ot o rdinarily r equire s o i ntense a n i nput o f l abour. An 2 3

Types

example o f t his i s to Abbey o r t he n orthern

o f Marks

be f ound o n t he c rossings a t Holycross transept a t C ashel C athedral. DI STRIBUTION

I n the medieval a rchbishoprics o f C ashel a nd D ublin, masons ' marks a re f ound a t twenty-two r eligious s ites, a nd are k nown t o h ave e xisted a t f our o thers ( Fig. 1 ). T his p robably r epresents a small proportion o f what o riginally e xisted , a s many o f t he s ites have now b een plundered o f much o f t heir c ut s tone. I n addition, even t hough c are w as taken t o r ecord m arks w hich w ere o ut of v iew i n the h igher r egions o f t hese monasteries, i t i s l ikely that there a dditional marks t hat may h ave e scaped e xamination. I t i s hoped t hat s uch marks were a lso r epresented o n the l ower and more accessible a reas. Outside o f t he a rea s tudied i n this r eport, masons ' marks a re k nown t o exist a t B oyle Abbey, C o. R oscommon, Abbeyknockmoy, C o. G alway, I nch a nd G rey Abbeys, C o. D own, Graiguenemanagh, Abbey, C o. K ilkenny, C lontuskert P riory, Co. Galway, a nd B ective Abbey, C o. Meath. P arish c hurches a s well a s c astles a re a lso l ikely t o y ield profitable r esults a s r egards marks, but t hey h ave not b een i ncluded h ere. I t i s a lso unlikely that t he marks r ecorded r epresent a ll o f t hose o riginally u sed. F itzgerald ( 1859), f or e xample, r ecords t he g reat number o f marks on the i nterior o f the n orth w all of t he n ave a t H olycross Abbey, Co. T ipperary ( Fig. 3 ). S ome o f t hese m arks h ave now d isappeared, due f irstly t o w eathering a nd s econdly because of plastering c arried out i n r ecent r estoration work. Masons ' marks were not r estricted to t he i nteriors o f b uildings. Unfortunately, t he majority o f s uch marks o n t he e xterior walls have not s urvived t he r igours o f the I rish c limate. O ne exception i s a t C ashel C athedral, where a s eries o f marks on the exterior o f t he n orthern n ave d oor ( Area G ) h as s urvived because of i ts s heltered p osition. Another f actor w hich prevents a ll o f masons ' marks f rom b eing r ecorded i s t he p resence i n many c ases of the o riginal p laster o n the c ut s tone. I t i s important to r emember t hat, where f unds permitted , t he c ut s tone would have been plastered. I n a number o f c ases, s uch a s H olycross Abbey, Co. T ipperary, f rescos w ere t hen applied. O ther buildings where marks were l ikely t o be f ound h ave c ompletely d isappeared. The buildings where marks are f ound d ate f rom the e arliest C istercian f oundations o f the t welfth c entury t o t he g reat number of r eligious houses built, r ebuilt, a nd e xtended i n the f ifteenth c entury. I n t erms o f d ate they f all i nto t wo d istinct g roups: Group, I , t hirteenth- and e arly f ourteenth-century buildings, a nd Group I I, f ifteenth-century buildings ( Group I I. As building activity was not w idespread i n t he f ourteenth c entury, t he absence o f marks f rom that period i s n ot u nusual. The B lack D eath o f 1 348/49 a nd, more importantly, t he s ubsequent s eries o f 2 4

T ypes

o f M arks

p lagues, were r esponsible f or a d ecrease i n t he n umber o f h ouses f ounded a nd a lso f or the c ollapse o f t he l arger c entres o f p opulation f rom which the masons c ame. E nglish s tudies h ave s tressed t he u rban o rigin o f the m edieval mason ( Knoop a nd J ones 1 967, S alzman 1 952, G impel 1 983, R echt 1 989, C oldstream 1 991), a nd i t i s probable t hat t he s ituation w as s imilar i n I reland. I t i s t herefore t o be e xpected that t his w as o ne o f t he c rafts a dversely a ffected by the p lague, a nd i t i s n ot unique i n t his r espect, a s l ittle s urvives i n t he o ther media f rom t his period. T here

i s

no

s ignificant

g eographical p attern u nderlying the

d istribution o f s ites where masons ' marks h ave been f ound. They a re c onfined n either t o d iocesan n or p rovincial boundaries i n the t hirteenth a nd f ifteenth c enturies a nd a re l ocated i n houses b elonging t o a number o f o rders i n u rban a s w ell a s r ural a reas. S imilarly, t hey are n ot r estricted t o s ites f ounded by patrons d rawn e ither f rom t he native I rish o r f rom t he Anglo-Norman, but a ppear t o be equally d istributed; i n a ll probability t heir d istribution r eflects the s ites w here t he w orkforce c ould a ctually be employed. E ven though c ertain g roups o r i ndividual masons a ppear t o have been based i n r elatively c onfined g eographical a reas f or c omparatively l ong p eriods o f t ime, they w ere a mobile workforce a nd c ould f reely move f rom s ite t o s ite where work was available a nd were n ot b ound o r c ontractually a ttached t o e ither i ndividual s ites, o rders, o r p atrons. I solated examples o ccur, s uch a s C ashel C athedral, C o. T ipperary, a nd H ore Abbey, Co. T ipperary, b oth o f w hich h ad Archbishop D avid MacCarwill a s f ounder and p atron, a nd w here t he s ame masons can be s een w orking at b oth s ites. T he i dentifiable masons, however, r epresent a small proportion of t he e ntire workforce a nd i n all probability were a ttached t o the g eneral a rea r ather than working s pecifically f or the f ounder. T his i s u nlike the public works, where masons a ppear t o h ave been e mployed o n a more f ormalised b asis a nd to h ave b een r estricted t o p articular t ypes o f buildings. D ocumentary r ecords i n B ritain r epeatedly s tate the a ssociation o f specific masons, e specially when i ndividuals are i dentified, w ith a p articular building t ype, s uch a s c astles, h ouses, o r c hurches ( Harvey 1 984). C ertain marks a re f ound o nly once, w hile o thers o ccur a t many s ites. I t i s by tracing t he d istribution o f t he l atter marks, a nd i n p articular t he more d istinctive e xamples, t hat s chools o f masons a nd the working p atterns o f i ndividuals c an be t raced. T hree s uch g roups o r s chools of m asons, a s i ndicated by the presence o f t he same marks/masons, a re f ound i n t he s tudy a rea. T he f irst o f t hese d ates f rom t he t hirteenth t o e arly f ourteenth c entury, a nd t he o ther t wo t o t he f ifteenth c entury. The break i n t he c onstruction t rade i n the f ourteenth c entury, a s d iscussed a bove, a lso provides a c learly d efined d ivision i n t he g eographic 2 5

Types

o f Marks

o rigins o f t he w orkforce a nd a s ubsequent c hange i n t he a rchitectural s tyles a nd type o f marks u sed. B ecause of t he r elatively s hort p eriod o f t ime c overed, w hich i s c ertainly w ithin t he l ife s pan o f a n i ndividual, a nd t he r elatively c onfined g eographic l ocation o f t hese three g roups, t he t erm ' school ' h as been a pplied. This s hould be u nderstood a s a g roup o f masons w orking f rom what w as p ossibly a c entral a rea o r work pool, but n ot n ecessarily o perating a s a s ingle unit, and u sing a n arrow r epertoire o f f orms, s tyles, and motifs which a re s hared amongst a s imilarly c ohesive g roup of buildings. By tracing the d istribution o f t hese marks t hroughout the b uildings i t i s possible t o s ee t he i nfluence o f t he workforce i n t he design and c onstruction o f t he buildings, which have h itherto s tood i solated a nd i n many c ases l acked a ccurate d ates. The concept o f s chools i n I rish medieval a rchitecture i s o ne i s r apidly b eing d eveloped. L eask ( 1967, 7 3) w as the f irst a rchitectural h istorian t o p ropose s uch a n a pproach when h e d escribed a number o f buildings i n the west o f I reland which s hared a l imited r epertoire o f motifs and d esigns which h e

that

d efined a s ' the S chool o f t he West '. This h as n ow been extended by more r ecent r esearch ( Stalley 1 994, 3 9). I n h is e arlier s tudy, S talley ( 1971, 6 7, 7 5) l ooked a t i ndividual masons, s uch a s ' the C hristchurch M aster ' o r ' the Gowran M aster ', i n an a ttempt s ee f urther r elationships t hat c ould explain t he number o f s imilarities amongst medieval buildings i n I reland. I t i s h oped t hat the p resent s tudy w ill add y et another b rick t owards building a n understanding o f medieval architecture i n I reland. D etails o f a ll t he marks d iscussed i n the f ollowing a nalysis, t ogether w ith s tudies o f t he i ndividual buildings, a re f ound in a c atalogue a t the e nd o f t his s ection.

2 6

Chapter Regional

Schools

4 of Masons

This s tudy l ooks a t the e vidence o f masons ' marks i n medieval I reland i n t he a rchbishoprics o f C ashel a nd D ublin f rom the thirteenth t o t he f ifteenth c enturies. T he purpose of t he s tudy i s n ot t o p ropose y et a nother t heory a s t o t he r ole o f t he mason or h is i nfluence o n t he d esign o f medieval a rchitecture. I nstead , i t s ets o ut t o e xamine the e vidence o f masons ' marks that l ink g roups o f buildings where t he s ame mason or g roups o f masons a re k nown t o h ave worked and t o s ee a rchitectural a ssociations among t hem . I t a ttempts t o i dentify s chools o f architecture, whereby k nown buildings c an b e u sed to d ate o ther s ites w here t he s ame mason may h ave w orked. I n u ndertaking t his s tudy, every monastic s ite where r emains w ere k nown t o e xist i n t he medieval a rchbishoprics o f C ashel and D ublin w ere v isited a nd e xamined f or t he p resence of c ut s tone. This s tone w as i n t urn e xamined, a nd w here marks were f ound t heir presence w as r ecorded, a s well a s t he t echnique o f working a nd type o f s tone. S cale was n ot r ecorded a s i t was o bviously n ot s ignificant a nd v aries even where the s ame mark i s f ound on adjacent s tones. S ome o f t he marks a ppear t o be r emarkably s imilar, a s i n t he c ase o f L -shape motifs, where i n s ome i nstances t he b lock l etter i s f ully o utlined a nd i n o ther c ases the e nds a re l eft o pen, o r the X-shape, w hich i n s ome i nstances has b een f lattened and i n o thers i s p erfectly vertical. All s uch groups o f marks h ave b een s eparated, a nd e very e ffort h as been made t o r ecord t hem a s t hey a re f ound o n t he s tone. P lacement marks, s uch a s t hose a t H ore Abbey a nd q uarry marks have been excluded f rom t he s urvey. The c ut s tone r emaining f rom monastic f oundations w as e xamined f or t he presence o f marks. A number o f small c arvings a t s ites s uch a s Holycross Abbey, C o. T ipperary, F ethard P riory, C o. T ipperary, o r Caher P riory, C o. T ipperary, were i ncluded, even t hough they may s trictly n ot be masons ' marks ( Fig. 2 9). S uch c arvings a re s imilar t o marks a nd are l ocated i n i nconspicuous positions a round the buildings a nd, appear to b e s ignature-like marks o f t he c reators, b ut may a lso be s imply small d ecorative motifs. P arish churches, c onvents, a nd s ecular buildings a re n ot i ncluded i n t he s tudy. O f the original 2 34 buildings i n t he t wo a rchbishoprics ( Gwynn a nd H adcock 1 970), r emains a re t o b e f ound a t 1 31 s ites. A n umber o f these buildings w ere e xcluded, a s they are R omanesque i n s tyle and d ate to t he p re-Anglo-Norman i nvasion.

2 7

R egional

S chools

GR OUP I: TH E CA SHEL SC HOOL

o f Masons

( TH IRTEENTH CE NTURY )

TH E M ASONS ' m P iRKs f ound i n a group o f f ive buildings i n t he C ashel a rea and dating t o t he m id-thirteenth c entury r epresent t he f irst s uch s chool o f masons t hat c an be i dentified ( Figs. 2 1, 2 2). A c onsiderable n umber o f marks s urvive f rom t he buildings i n t his g roup, and t hey a re s imilar i n f orm a nd t echnique. T he majority o f I rish thirteenth-century buildings that s urvive d o n ot h ave marks or c annot b e l inked s tylistically i n a s c lose a manner a s t his group, s o t he j ustification f or l abeling t hese buildings a s chool of architecture i s even s tronger when c ompared t o t he s ituation e lsewhere. T hroughout h istory i t w as u sual f or t he mason to gravitate t owards the l arger ecclesiastical c entres s uch a s Canterbury o r G lastonbury i n Britain o r C lonmacnois, G lendalough, o r C ashel i n I reland, w here t here w ould h ave b een a c ontinuous h istory o f building t radition a nd where t he o ngoing work would h ave e nsured a greater c hance o f e mployment t han a t a smaller, r elatively impoverished s ite. S uch l arge c entres w ould, over t ime, most l ikely h ave d eveloped their o wn s chools o f masons. Even t oday , c athedrals s uch a s Westminster Abbey a nd Wells Cathedral o perate their o wn g roups o r s chools o f masons f or t he r epair o f t he building f abric. T hese s chools o f c raftsmen, though primarily a ttached to t hese m ain c entres, w ould h ave b een f orced to travel w hen building a ctivities s lackened t here. I t i s c lear that s uch a s chool was c entered on t his important e cclesiastical a rea, w ith the l ogical f ocus b eing t he c athedral on top of the R ock o f C ashel, but a lso extending t o t he n earby important ecclesiastical c entre of S t. Canice 's C athedral i n K ilkenny, which must a lso have been o ne o f t he most important s ites i n thirteenth-century I reland. Buildings w here marks a re f ound f rom this p eriod a nd which are i ncluded i n t his g roup i nclude ( 1) C ashel C athedral, C o. T ipperary , ( 2) H ore Abbey, C ashel, Co. T ipperary, ( 3) S t. D ominic 's P riory, C ashel, C o. T ipperary, ( 4) A thassel P riory, Athassel, C o. T ipperary, a nd

( 5)

S t. Canice 's C athedral, K ilkenny. A ll of t hese a re l ess t han f ifty miles f rom e ach o ther. T he f act that t he l argest Augustinian C anons priory in I reland was t o b e b uilt i n this area, together w ith the c onstruction o f t he l ast C istercian abbey and the erection o f a n ew c athedral o n top o f o ne o f the o ldest Christian s ites i n the c ountry, would not h ave g one unnoticed by masons in s earch o f work. C ashel a nd the s urrounding a rea must have been one o f t he most active a nd prosperous c entres f or the building trade i n e arly t o mid-thirteenth c entury I reland a nd a s s uch would h ave p rovided a l ogical l ocus o perandi f or a s chool o f masons. I n

l ooking

a t

t he work o f

a s ingle m ason 2 8

f rom t his

s chool,

i t

i s

R egional

S chools

o f Masons

p ossible t o s ee h ow h e moved t hroughout t he mid-thirteenth c entury t o s ome o f t he most important r eligious s ites i n I reland a nd h ow h is w ork i s s imilar i n a n umber o f buildings. U nusually , t he e arliest d ated s ite where h is m ark i s f ound i n t his g roup i s t he P riory o f S t. E dmund, Athassel, a nd not C ashel C athedral. F ounded by W illiam D e B urgh f or t he Augustinian C anons R egular c irca 1 200, much o f t he s ite r emains, e ven t hough a l ot o f the c ut s tone h as d isappeared. The p riory d ates f rom t he t hirteenth t o t he f ifteenth c enturies and i s o ne o f t he l argest f oundations f rom medieval I reland. L eask ( 1967, 9 6) h as outlined f our phases i n t he c onstruction o f t he s ite, w hich h e admits a re d ifficult t o d istinguish a nd which r ange f rom 1 230 t o t he f ifteenth c entury. H e b elieves t hat t he e astern a rm o f t he c hurch was the e arliest a nd d ates the work t o the f ourth d ecade o f the thirteenth c entury ( c.

1 230-40).

H e

h as

n oted the

s imilarity o f

the w indows

in

t he

c hoir ( north a nd s outh walls) t o t hose o f S t. D ominic 's P riory, C ashel, a nd a llows f or the f act t hat o ne s ite may h ave i nfluenced t he o ther. T he f act that both s ites s hared the s ame workforce, a s i s i ndicated by t heir marks, may a ccount f or s ome o f t hese s imilarities. Some o f t he f inest s tonework a t Athassel, s uch a s t he impressive doorway l eading f rom t he n ave to t he c hoir, does n ot h ave any marks, and t he cut s tone t here i s not d istinguished f rom t he g eneral work i n t he s ite. T his i s one o f the l argest m edieval s ites i n I reland, and, f rom t he available evidence o f w hat i s n ow missing, i t may have h ad a c onsiderable amount of c ut s tone. I t i s thus l ikely t o have h ad a r elatively s table group o f masons a ttached t o i t on a s emi-permanent basis i n t he early t hirteenth c entury, which may e xplain t he g eneral a bsence of m arks. T he s mall n umber o f marks f ound a t t his s ite c annot r eflect t he e ntire workforce which must h ave been employed on s o l arge a c onstruction. I t i s c lear, h owever, that t he marks which a re f ound a t t he p riory d ate t o t he e arliest phase, possibly c irca

1 250-60.

T hree o f the marks f ound a t this s ite a re a lso f ound a t n earby C ashel C athedral, where the masons r esponsible f or them worked m ainly i n t he northern t ransept ( window, w alling, a nd a n archway i n t he n orthern wall of t he nave, a ll o f which d ate t o c irca 1 280). Twelve masons i n t otal a re r ecorded by their marks a s w orking o n t he northern t ransept w indows and on t he g eneral w alling i n t he northern t ransept ( Fig. 3 1). The w indows i n the n orthern wall of t he northern t ransept a t C ashel C athedral l ack t he s ame s ense of b alance and proportion f ound i n the overall d esign a t Athassel P riory. The t riple opening h as a d isproportionately l ower r ear a rch c ompared to t he outer two a nd m ust h ave been s hortened t o make w ay f or t he c ircular o pening w hich i s over i t. The d ifficulties w hich t he masons h ad i n j udging t heir proportions i n this w indow a re not o bvious i n the s imilar t riple opening o f the e ast w indow a t S t. D ominic 's P riory, C ashel. D espite t he s ize a nd i mportance o f this c athedral, v ery l ittle work has b een u ndertaken o n i ts h istory o r 2 9

Regional

S chools

o f M asons

d ating. A r e-evaluation o f L eas s t entative d ates f or t his building i s proposed in t he c atalogue b elow, w hich s uggests a d ate, b ased o n t he s culptural p rogramme o f t he c athedral a nd t he evidence o f t he marks, o f c irca 1 280-1300 f or t he n orthern t ransept. I n t he past, s tudies s uch a s t hose by L eask ( 1967) h ave t ended t o f ocus on t he d istinct b reak i n t he building program o f t his c athedral, whereas i t w ould a ppear t o h ave b een a r elatively s hort period o f c onstruction i n which s ome o f t he s ame workforce w as employed t hroughout the e ntire b uilding. I t i s c learly a n important s ite and t ook a r elatively s hort p eriod o f t ime t o build, a s the s tyle, e specially i n t he s culptural programme, d oes not widely d iffer between t he c rossing a nd n ave. I t i s t empting t o s peculate o n t he r ole o f Archbishop MacKelly i n the s election o f the w ork f orce f or t his c athedral a nd S t. D ominic 's P riory, C ashel, which w as where t he s ame mark i s f ound.

a lso f ounded by h im ,

a nd

The northern t ransept o f C ashel C athedral, which w as built mainly i n l imestone ( although s andstone i s a lso f ound t here), was probably s tarted by his s uccessor, Archbishop D avid MacCarwill, who a lso f ounded t he nearby H ore Abbey , w hich l ies w ithin t he s hadow o f t he R ock of C ashel. W ork b egan o n t his C istercian f oundation s oon a fter i ts f oundation d ate o f 1 272. T he f inal work o f t his mason ( who i s a lso f ound a t Athassel, C ashel Cathedral, a nd S t. D ominic 's P riory ) f or w hich we h ave evidence was a t H ore Abbey. Building a ctivity i n a nd a round t he C ashel area, when f unds permitted, was p articularly a ctive i n t he midthirteenth c entury. B etween h is e arliest work a t A thassel a nd t he l ast work a t H ore Abbey, h owever, this mason t raveled t o o ther s ites o utside t his f ocal a rea. H is mark i s a lso f ound a t t he P riory o f t he H oly Cross, Y oughal, Co. Cork. The a rrival o f t he mendicant f riars i n the e arly thirteenth c entury proved t o b e a n ew s ource o f employment f or the medieval mason. A lthough t heir e arly c hurches were small a nd had l ittle adornment, t hey n evertheless u sed professional masons in t heir c onstruction. T hree o f t he s ites where this e arly thirteenth-century s chool i s d ocumented belonged t o the D ominican o rder, w hereas o nly o ne i s ' Cistercian a nd o ne belongs t o t he Augustinian Canons. T he w ork a t t his D ominican f oundation must have been undertaken s oon a fter t he w ork a t Athassel, a nd d ates to t he f oundation o f e ither c irca 1 268 o r 1 271 ( Gwynn a nd H adcock 1 970). O nly o ne mark i s f ound a t t his s ite, a nd i t i s o n the g eneral w alling o f t he c entre a isle a t the c rossing. The

s ame mason

i s

a lso

r ecorded by h is m ark a s

h aving w orked a t

the nearby S t. Mary 's P arish Church, Y oughal, which a lso d ates t o this period. L ike Cashel, i t w ould a ppear t hat Y oughal, w ith i ts important s easide l ocation and r esultant t rade, must h ave been an important c entre i n the m edieval period a nd w ould l ogically have 3 0

R egional

S chools o f M asons

provided work. T he c ruciform church h as b een d ated by B reffny and Mott ( 1976, 7 9) to t he middle of t he t hirteenth c entury. Construction must h ave s tarted a round t his t ime a t what i s s till o ne o f t he f inest parish c hurches i n I reland. T he w indow arrangement o f pointed triple and p aired o penings i n t he transept w ith l abel-stops, o f h uman h eads, t o t he h ood mouldings c learly r eflects t he i nfluence o f s imilar w ork i n t he s outhern a nd northern t ransepts a t C ashel Cathedral ( Fig. 3 1). S tylistically, the s ix-pointed a rches r esting o n l arge s quare p illars on the northern a nd s outhern s ides o f t he n ave a re s imilar i n d esign t o the s ole s urviving p illar a t the n earby P riory o f t he H oly Cross, Youghal. This s ingle a nd anonymous mason c an t hus b e t raced by h is mark a s working i n a r elatively c onfined g eographical a rea i n s ome of the most i mportant buildings o f t hirteenth-century I reland. I t i s a lso p ossible t o r einforce t he s tylistic a nd c hronological l inks between s ome o f these s ites by e xamining s ome o f t he o ther marks s hared by these buildings. Athassel P riory a nd C ashel Cathedral s hared a t l east two o ther masons, w ho a re r ecorded a s working i n the s ame parts o f the building a s t he mason a lready d iscussed. These t wo o ther masons worked on w hat a re n ow l oose f ragments a t Athassel P riory, a s w ell a s i n t he n orthern t ransept i n C ashel Cathedral ( Fig. 3 1). The marks a t S t. D ominic 's P riory, C ashel, a lso i ndicate t hat a t l east one m ason r esponsible f or t his building worked on t he c onstruction o f t he n orthern t ransept and the n ave a t C ashel C athedral. The c onstruction of H ore Abbey was u ndertaken by t he s ame three masons w ho built the l ater parts o f C ashel C athedral. Hore was the l ast C istercian a bbey i n I reland a nd w as f ounded i n 1 272 ( Gwynn a nd Hadcock 1 988, 1 28). A lthough s ome o f t he work d ates to t he f ifteenth century, t here a re marks f rom b oth t hat phase and t he t hirteenth c entury phase o f i ts c onstruction. S talley ( 1978, 2 46) h as identified t he c hurch a nd s ections o f the e ast r ange a s belonging t o the l ater p art o f t he t hirteenth c entury and h as c ommented o n t he " conservative n ature o f t he s tyle", which w ould n ot be o ut of p lace s ome s eventy y ears e arlier. The s ame s tatement could a lso b e applied t o p arts o f C ashel Cathedral, which, a lthough built o ver much o f t he s econd half o f the t hirteenth c entury w ith t he c onscious i ntention o f a c reating a u niform s tyle, could a lso h ave b een s tarted i n t he e arly part o f t he c entury. Unlike t he n earby C ashel C athedral a nd Athassel P riory, the work a t H ore i s austere, w ith l ittle o rnamentation. Of a ll t he C istercian f oundations i n I reland, H ore Abbey i s one o f t he p lainest a s r egards a rchitectural s culpture, a nd l ittle r emains a part f rom a s ingle c arved h ead, s ome i ncised a rmorial s hields, a nd o ne or t wo i ncised p anels. A c loser e xamination a nd c omparison o f t he mouldings f rom b oth o f t hese s ites may f urther r einforce the l inks b etween the t wo buildings. T he micro-details 3 1

R egional

S chools

of Masons

o f t hese t wo buildings i n p articular may y ield c loser t han those w ith o ther C istercian f oundations.

r elations

The mason 's marks a t H ore Abbey r eflect o ne p eriod o f workmanship, which e xtends f rom t he walling i n t he n ave to t he t riple l ancet a rrangement o f t he e ast window. S talley ( 1978, 1 10) has n oted t he u niform d esign o f the n ave, a nd t his observation i s r einforced by t he masons ' marks, which extend i n an u nbroken d istribution f rom o ne end t o t he o ther, i ndicating a s ingle, r elatively s hort b uilding c ampaign. S ix masons are r ecorded a s working o n t his part o f the building, a nd this w ould s eem to h ave been a r ealistic workforce, w ith t he a ssistance of apprentices. T he e ast w indows a re s imilar t o t he t riple a rrangement i n t he n orthern t ransept a t C ashel C athedral ( Fig. 3 1). P arts o f t he c lerestory a t Hore s urvive, w ith q uatrefoil openings w hich a re s imilar t o t hose a t C ashel C athedral and S t. Canice 's C athedral, a nd unlike t he more headed opening f ound e lsewhere.

u sual

s ingle-light,

o gee-

One f urther e xcursion by a t l east one of t he m asons f rom t his s chool was t o t he c onstruction o f Holy T rinity P riory, K ilkenny, i n t he

l ate t hirteenth c entury,

c irca

1 270.

K nown a s

' Black

Abbey ', this f riary w as f ounded by William M arshall t he Younger, Earl of P embroke, i n 1 225. T he f riary r eceived additional g rants i n 1 244, 1 251, 1 274, a nd a t v arious dates i n t he f ourteenth c entury. T he building i s o f various dates, r anging f rom the thirteenth t o t he s ixteenth c entury. The most p rominent f eature i s t he s outh t ransept, which may h ave been t he l ast w ork undertaken i n medieval I reland b efore the B lack D eath. The s ingle mark f ound o n t he a rcading of the n ave a nd a isle dates f rom the p eriod when t he n ave was built, s oon a fter t he midthirteenth c entury, c irca 1 270-80. Much o f t he s tonework i s presently c overed by p laster which prevents a c omprehensive c atalogue o f marks b eing g athered. The t ower, which d ates t o the f ifteenth c entury , h as marks o f a d ifferent s tyle which l ink this s ite, l ike a number o f o ther examples f rom t he t hirteenth c entury s chool, t o t he s econd s chool o f masons d efined b elow. I t i s surprising t hat o nly t hree masons f rom w hat must have been a s ignificantly l arger n umber who worked a t C ashel C athedral in the mid-thirteenth c entury c an be s hown by t heir marks to h ave worked on t he c hoir i n S t. C anice 's C athedral, K ilkenny. T he l ater r estoration o f much o f t he c athedral m ay e xplain the absence o f marks f rom t his s ite. This building w as s tarted by Hugh de R ous, b ishop o f O ssory i n 1 202-18, a nd w as c ompleted s oon after the m iddle o f t he t hirteenth c entury. T welve masons a re r ecorded by t heir marks a s h aving worked a t t his s ite. These are f ound on t he n orth-eastern p ier s upporting t he t ower, the a umbry 3 2

R egional

S chools

o f M asons

i n t he n orthern t ransept, a nd o n w indow j ambs i n the c hoir. S talley ( 1971, 7 4) h as s uggested, o n s tylistic g rounds, t hat t he masons r esponsible f or t he t hree e ast w indows i n t he c hoir may a lso h ave b een r esponsible f or t hose i n t he C istercian a bbey o f G raiguenemanagh. H e p roposes a d ate o f c irca 1 207 f or t he e ast w indow. T he marks f ound i n t hese t hree a reas a re c losely l inked t o o ther e xamples o f t hese masons ' work d ated t o t he mid- r ather t han t he e arly t hirteenth c entury. An i ndirect l ink between S t. C anice 's C athedral a nd D uiske Abbey i s t he p resence o f t he s ame mark a t b oth D uiske, C ashel C athedral, a nd H ore Abbey. B oth S t. C anice 's C athedral a nd C ashel C athedral i n t urn s hared a t l east f our m asons. The l ong p eriod o f t ime b etween t he construction o f C ashel C athedral ( c. 1 270) a nd B lack Abbey, Adare ( circa 1 317), s uggests t hat i t was n ot t he s ame mason w ho w orked a t b oth s ites. Two o f the marks r ecorded by H ewson ( 1938) a t t his Augustinian P riory a nd d ated by h im t o c irca 1 317 a re p aralleled o n t he s outhern t ransept w indows a nd t he north-eastern p ier under t he t ower a t C ashel C athedral. T his may w ell b e a n i nstance where t he s ame mark was u sed by t wo masons, b ut n ormally this practice w as p revented by a c entral r egister, a nd a mark w as only t ransferred t o a nother mason upon the d eath o f t he more e lderly h older. T he s culptural d etails a t t hese s ites , w here i t s urvives, i s a lso l imited t o a c losely d efined r epertoire o f t hirteenthc entury motifs which w ere i nfluenced d irectly f rom England, where both t hese motifs a nd s tyles w ere i n f ashion. T his was t he p eriod i n which c lose i nteraction between t he t wo countries t ook p lace, a nd i t a ppears t hat l ittle t ime e lapsed b etween t he i ntroduction o f n ew s tyles i n E ngland a nd t heir a ppearance i n I reland. S talley ( 1994, 1 90-219) has n oted h ow c losely t he a rchitecture i n thirteenth-century I reland r eflects that o f E ngland i n t he s ame p eriod. I f the s culpture o f o ne s ite c an b e s eparated a bove a ll o thers, i t h as t o b e t hat o f C ashel C athedral, where evidence s till s urvives o f what c ould b e c alled t he o nly l arge-scale s culptural programme f rom t hirteenth-century I reland. F rom the s imple d ecorative h eads i n t he nave t o the unique a nd d istinctive g roups o f heads o n t he c apitals a t the c rossing and t he i ndividual c arvings f ound a s f ree-standing p anels t hroughout t he building, i t i s c lear t hat this s ite must h ave p rovided i nspiration f or t he s urrounding a reas and t he masons w ho worked t here. I t i s a lso o bvious t hat the w orkmanship a t C ashel i s n ot n ative, a nd t hat i t r eflects c ontemporary d esigns f rom E ngland i n i ts r eliance o n s ources s uch a s t he bestiary, which were n ot w idely u sed e lsewhere i n I reland until t he f ifteenth c entury ( Hourihane, f orthcoming). F rom d etails s uch a s t he c haracteristic u se o f the h uman h ead a s a l abel-stop a t C ashel C athedral, where i t i s f ound i n g reat n umbers a nd w ith c onsiderable v ariety, i t i s c lear t hat C ashel must have provided the i nspiration f or o ther s ites. I t a lso o ccurs, a lbeit w ith 3 3

R egional minor variations,

S chools

a t Athassel

o f Masons

P riory,

S t.

C anice 's

C athedral,

H oly T rinity P riory, K ilkenny, a nd S t. Mary 's P arish C hurch, Y oughal. S imilarly, t he u se o f miniature h uman h eads, c losely s et a nd i nterspersed w ith f oliage, i s r estricted i n I reland t o a g roup of thirteenth-century s ites i n t he K ilkenny/Cashel a rea. T he motif i s f ound a t C ashel C athedral, Athassel P riory, S t. C anice 's Cathedral, a nd H oly T rinity P riory, K ilkenny. T he h eads a t C ashel Cathedral r epresent t he h igh point o f t his motif a nd s how g reat v ariation, w ith details s uch a s musical i nstruments, h eaddresses, a nd c lothing introduced i nto t he s mall c arvings. I t i s a lso possible t o s ee t he i nfluence that t his s ite must h ave h ad o n the a rchitectural s culpture o f the l ocal a bbeys. The c apitals a t n earby Athassel P riory w ere c arved by t he s ame s culptors, but e lsewhere v ariations i n the motif, s uch a s t he d esign of the f oliage o r the n umber a nd s ize o f the h eads, a re i ntroduced. I n t his r espect, i t i s a s i f t he m asons who a ppear t o h ave been based a t t he c athedral a lso worked i n t he s urrounding a rea, a nd the f arther the d istance f rom t he c entral s ite, the greater t he d ifferences.

GR OUP I I : TH E HO LYCROSS SC HOOL

(FI FTEENTH CE NTURY )

The g eographical l ocation of t his g roup d iffers v ery l ittle f rom t hat o f the C ashel S chool i n t he t hirteenth c entury, but i t appears to h ave b een c entered o n the important C istercian f oundation of H olycross Abbey, C o. T ipperary, w hich s tands j ust n ine miles north o f C ashel and s o provides a c ontinuity b etween both periods a nd s chools ( Figs. 2 3, 2 4). S ome o f t he buildings i ncluded in the t hirteenth-century s chool a re f ound a gain i n t his l ater group. R ebuildings, additions, and a lterations t o t he o riginal s tructures over t ime a re a d ominant f eature o f m edieval a rchitecture i n I reland. The f ifteenth-century work i s v astly d ifferent, however, not o nly i n t he type o f s tone u sed a nd t he workforce employed, but a lso i n t he q uality o f t he w orkmanship a nd t he range o f a rchitectural f orms. L imestone r eplaced t he s andstone that w as more w idely u sed i n the e arlier p eriod, a nd a g reater variety o f dressing t echniques i s f ound , r anging f rom w ater polishing t o c hiseling w ith c hisels o f d ifferent w idths f or d ecorative e ffect ( Fig. 3 6). As a g eneral r ule, the workmanship o f this s chool i s o f a n exceptionally h igh s tandard and was e xecuted i n c onsiderable d etail. The marks a re more l ikely t o be f ound i n more prominent positions on a rchitectural f eatures w ithin t he buildings a nd not s imply on a shlars i n the g eneral walling. T he marks a lso d iffer i n t he r ange o f motifs u sed, a nd a n umber a re c learly more G aelic i n i nspiration. T hey a re no l onger d iscreetly i ncised motifs, but a re now miniature p ieces o f s culpture t hat s tand o ut i n h igh r elief and h ave c onsiderable d etail ( Fig. 2 6). The o ther marks a lso d iffer f rom t hose o f the e arlier period i n t hat a f ar 3 4

R egional

S chools

o f M asons

g reater v ariety o f f orms i s f ound , i ncluding f loral a nd f oliage p atterns a s w ell a s t he more a ngular d esigns s uch a s t hose based o n c ross a nd a rrow f orms. They a re a lso w orked i n a v ariety o f t echniques n ot f ound i n t he e arlier period, s uch a s f alse r elief, h igh r elief, a nd c ombinations o f b oth, a s w ell a s t he more p opular t echnique o f i ncising t he d esigns d eeply i nto t he s tone. This s chool h as been divided i nto two p hases, both o f which c entre o n H olycross Abbey, C o. T ipperary , w ith c ontemporary e xtensions i n d ifferent d irections. P hase / : T he e arliest building i n t his g rouping i s t he C istercian f oundation o f H olycross Abbey, C o. T ipperary. S talley ( 1987, 2 45)

has

c alled this building " the most

d istinguished monument

o f

f ifteenth-century I reland ". I t w as f ounded a s e arly a s t he 1 180s a nd may o riginally h ave been a B enedictine f oundation, possibly c olonised f rom Monasternenagh i n 1 180 ( Gwynn a nd H adcock 1 988, 1 34), a lthough l ittle r emains f rom that p eriod. The present c hurch was p robably s tarted a s e arly a s 1 432, a nd work w as c learly s till u nderway a s l ate a s 1 484 ( Stalley 1 987, 1 15). I t i s a s ite which by modern s tandards i s w ealthy i n t erms o f i ts medieval r emains s uch a s mural p aintings, r eliquaries, a nd i ntricate p ieces o f a rchitectural s culpture, a nd i t must a lso h ave been v iewed a s wealthy i n t he f ifteenth c entury. The s tandard o f w orkmanship a t t his s ite r eached a p eak f or t he medieval p eriod i n I reland. I n t his r espect i t i s s imilar t o C ashel C athedral ( which i s s ome n ine miles a way ) i n t he thirteenth c entury a nd must h ave a cted a s a t raining c entre f or many of t he masons who worked o n l ater f oundations i n the immediate v icinity. F orty-nine d ifferent masons a re r ecorded by their marks a s h aving worked a t H olycross i n t he f ifteenth c entury, a nd i t must have b een o ne o f t he b iggest c entres f or t he t rade. I ts r ange o f i nfluence w as s ignificant, n ot o nly i n t erms o f the number o f masons employed h ere who a lso w orked e lsewhere, but a lso i n t he a rchitectural f orms a nd s culptural motifs u sed a t the s ite which were r eplicated e lsewhere a t a l ater p eriod. I ts impact i n t he l atter a rea c an b e s een, f or e xample, a t E nnis F riary, C o. C lare, where a p anel under t he c rossing t ower s howing two birds w ith beaks and b reasts c onjoined r epeats a motif f ound e arlier a t H olycross Abbey ( on t he s hrine i n t he s outhern t ransept). The r am 's head, another i nfrequent motif i n I rish medieval s culpture, i s a lso f ound a t both o f t hese s ites. C lose parallels i n a rchitectural s culpture a re a lso f ound a t t he n earby C istercian f oundation of K ilcooly Abbey, w here d etails s uch a s t he pelican a nd Crucifixion a re c losely modeled o n t he H olycross e xamples ( Hourihane 2 000). Masons who w orked a t this a bbey a re r ecorded by t heir marks a s a lso working a t H ore Abbey, Quin F riary, C o. C lare, E nnis F riary, Co. Clare, F ethard P riory, C o. T ipperary , K ilcooly Abbey, Co. T ipperary, a nd C ashel Cathedral. The l ater p arts o f t he building c ontrast w ith t he thirteenth-century portions o f t he s tructure, 3 5

R egional

S chools

o f Masons

where no marks a re f ound a nd which a re presently i ncorporated i n the l ater building. I t i s n ot p ossible t o g auge t he n umber of masons working a t t he s ite a t a ny o ne t ime, and t his n umber thus r epresents the w orkforce over t he e ntire building c ampaign, which f rom s tylistic d etails a ppears t o h ave b een r elatively s hort. The workmanship i s o f a c onsistently h igh s tandard t hroughout, a nd there does n ot a ppear t o b e a ny major d ivisions i n t he building programme. T he s tone u sed throughout i s t he l ocally quarried b lue-grey l imestone, a h ard s tone that h as r etained the s harpness of a ngles i n t he c onsiderable undercutting. I t i s a particularly d ifficult s tone t o c ut, w ith an ever-present t endency t o crack while b eing c hiseled, but no s uch f aults c an be f ound a t t his s ite. A n umber o f marks a t this s ite a re presently c overed by plaster a nd a f ull evaluation o f the e ntire workforce i s t hus n ot possible. B ecause t he s ite was a c entre o f pilgrimage, with i ts o wn r elic o f t he t rue cross ( presently i n the abbey treasury ), i t w ould h ave been important a nd n ecessary to h ave t he building c ompleted a nd r eady t o r eceive v isitors in a s s hort a period o f t ime a s possible. The F ranciscan f riary a t Quin, C o. C lare, f ounded i n 1 433 by Macon MacNamara, w as a lso under c onstruction a t t he s ame t ime a s Holycross. The f riary i ncorporates part o f the e arlier c astle o n the s ite, and a lthough t he l imestone walling i s e xtensive, masons ' marks a re f ound o nly o n t he c loister. The c loister i s one o f the most e xtensive t o s urvive i n I reland, w ith paired arcades o f pointed o penings s eparated by buttresses. The northern a rcade i s t he o nly s ide n ot t o h ave marks, a lthough s tylistically i t i s o f t he s ame p eriod a nd was probably built s ome t ime around 1 440. T he building i s unusually p lain by f ifteenth-century s tandards, a nd even t hough there a re s ome f ine f unerary monuments, n o a rchitectural s culpture i s f ound there, which i s unusual f or a F ranciscan f oundation. Of t he three marks f ound a t t his s ite, o ne c an a lso b e traced to the c loisters a t H olycross Abbey ( Area D ), which d iffer vastly i n d esign f rom those a t Q uin. T he s ame mark a lso a ppears on t he s upporting arches under t he t ower a t H ore Abbey ( Areas A and B ) ( Fig. 3 4). The d ating o f H olycross and Quin makes i t d ifficult to d etermine t he o rder i n which t his mason may h ave w orked on these two s ites. T he t wo buildings s hare a number o f architectural e lements, s uch a s t he e arliest u se i n I reland of the s pirally f luted c olumn, which i s f irst f ound a t H olycross Abbey. At Holycross t his c olumn i s on t he monument w hich d ivides the two c hapels i n t he s outhern t ransept and which i s k nown by a variety o f names,

s uch a s

' the monk 's

waking place ' o r ' the

t omb

o f

the r elic '. The t omb-like b ase, r ichly d ecorated o n t he n orthern and s outhern s ides w ith a s eries o f f ourteen ogee-headed n iches h aving f oliage a nd a nimal c arvings, was u sed f or d isplaying the r elics o f the a bbey, a nd i s more a ccurately described a s o ne of the two s hrines w hich w ere o riginally i n the abbey ( Stalley 1 987, 3 6

R egional

S chools

o f Masons

1 15-17). O n t op o f t he b ase o n t he n orthern a nd s outhern s ides i s a t riple a rcade o f a rches r ising f rom s pirally f luted columns. T he e arliest a ppearance o f t his f eature o utside o f H olycross Abbey i s a t Q uin F riary, where f our o f the p iers o n the northern a nd s outhern c loister w alls h ave t he s ame s lender, s pirally f luted c olumns s upporting a rches. G eographically , Quin F riary b elongs to w hat i s c alled ' the S chool o f the West ' ( Leask 1 967, 5 3); n evertheless, many f eatures a re peculiar t o e astern g roupings. T he j amb-stops a t t he e ntrance t o t he s outhern t ransept a t Q uin a re o f a n d istinctly ' eastern ' f orm f ound a t s ites s uch a s K ilcooly Abbey a nd H olycross Abbey, u nlike the more w estern f orms f ound a t L imerick C athedral a nd Adare F riary. T he f ifteenth-century work a t H ore Abbey, C o. T ipperary, i s r estricted t o a tower i nserted a t t he c rossing ( Fig. 3 4). Although l acking a ny d istinctively i dentifying d etails, i t i s c lear that a t l east o ne mason who worked o n t he t ower was a lso employed a t b oth H olycross Abbey a nd Quin F riary. The marks a t H ore Abbey d ate t o t he m id-fifteenth c entury, a nd l ink t he s ite t o H olycross b ut n ot t o K ilcooly, which i s s lightly l ater i n t he c entury. T he f irst phase o f t his H olycross S chool i s f ound i n t he m id-fifteenth c entury; i ts r elatively c onfined a nd i nnovative u se o f architectural d etails a nd c onsistently h ighly s killed h andling o f t he n ative material l ink a number o f t he masons t o both Quin F riary a nd Hore Abbey. T his i nitial p hase i s not w idely r epresented i n o ther buildings, a nd t his c an probably b e e xplained b y t he f act that t he work a t H olycross w as ongoing, a nd t hat t here m ay have b een n o n eed f or t he masons t o t ravel. P hase 2 : Another s chool, a lso c entered on H olycross Abbey, c an be i dentified w ith a d ifferent s et o f buildings o f a s lightly l ater p eriod. T he e arliest buildings i n t his s chool a re a lso in a w esterly d irection, where a t l east o ne mason i s r ecorded by h is mark a s working a t H olycross Abbey, C ashel C athedral, K ilcooly Abbey and E nnis F riary. L ittle building was u ndertaken i n C ashel C athedral i n t he f ifteenth c entury. I ndeed, a fter t he i nitial w ork o f the mid- t o l ate t hirteenth c entury, t here a ppear t o h ave b een f ew a lterations t o the o verall s tructure, and what s urvives i s o f o ne p eriod. M inor a rchitectural d etails were i nserted i nto the f abric s ometime i n t he 1 460s, a nd t hese i nclude t he s outhern d oorway i n t he c hoir a nd a n umber o f mouldings i n t he western a nd n orthern w alls o f t he n ave. S ome o f t hese i nsertions c an be t raced to t he masons r esponsible f or the c loister a t J erpoint Abbey, Co. K ilkenny ( Hourihane 1 984). F or e xample, t he capital i n t he s outhern w all o f t he n ave a t C ashel C athedral, which s hows a d ragon e ating a h uman h and, w as c arved by t he s culptor r esponsible f or t he s ame motif i n t he c loister a t J erpoint Abbey, C o.

K ilkenny

( Rae

1 966,

5 9-91).

Another mason w ho worked 3 7

a t

R egional

S chools

o f Masons

C ashel i n t he f ifteenth c entury, a s i ndicated by h is mark o n t he s outhern d oor to the c hancel, a lso w orked a t n earby K ilcooly Abbey , where he worked o n t he d oor mouldings o f t he o pening i n t he s outhern wall o f t he n ave. L inking b oth of t hese s ites, however, i s Holycross Abbey, where t he s ame mark i s f ound ( Areas A , B , a nd H ) and which S talley h as r ecognised a s b eing t he i nspiration f or K ilcooly Abbey ( Stalley 1 987, 1 27). At l east one mason w ho w orked a t both H olycross a nd K ilcooly Abbeys c an a lso be t raced by h is mark t o E nnis F riary. After working a t Holycross Abbey i n t he d rive t o c omplete t he c rossing a rches under the tower ( the s ingle l argest g roup o f f ifteenthc entury marks in I reland ), h e a lso w orked o n s imilar d oor a nd a rch mouldings at K ilcooly Abbey. A t E nnis F riary , h owever, h is mark i s on a s culptural p laque s howing t he V irgin a nd C hild. T his p laque, which i s presently i n t he n ave, has t hree d ifferent marks on i t, which may i ndicate a s haring o f the w orkload f or i ndividual parts of t he s culpture. I t was n ot uncommon f or medieval artists to s hare t heir i ndividual s kills w hen i t c ame t o painting one panel, a nd t he s ame may h ave been t rue h ere: i ndividuals ' particular e xpertise o r s killls i n c utting d rapery o r f igures may have r esulted i n a pooling o f r esources i n t he c ompletion of a s ingle w ork. S ignificantly, the u se o f t he G aelic motif a s a m asons ' mark i s a ssociated with this p articular s chool. W ithin t he a rea o f s tudy , they occur a t H olycross Abbey, Hore Abbey, K ilcooly Abbey, Quin F riary, and F ethard P riory. This small group o f b uildings i s a lso l inked by t erms o f masons ' marks, w ith one g roup o f marks f ound a t Ennis F riary a nd H olycross Abbey, a nother g roup a t F ethard P riory and H olycross Abbey, a nd a t hird l inking E nnis F riary and Askeaton F riary. There i s no o ne group, h owever, t hat a ppears a t a ll f our s ites. Of a ll t hese s ites, F ethard P riory i s o ne o f the most interesting. An Augustinian f oundation, Holy T rinity P riory may h ave b een f ounded s ometime around 1 305 by Walter Mulcote ( Gwynne a nd H adcock 1 988, 2 95). T he present r emains consist of t wo f ourteenth-century w indows ( Leask 1 966, 1 29) a s well a s a s eries o f t hree f ifteenth-century a rches. These a re a t the e astern e nd o f the c hurch a nd presently j oin the c hancel to the southern c hapel ( Maher 1 990, 3 6). T wo o f t he masons who worked a t t his s ite a re a lso s hown by t heir m arks t o h ave b een employed a t t he n earby Holycross Abbey , w hich i s s ome e ight t o n ine miles d istant. The small c arved h ead o n t he western j amb of the n orthern f ace o f t he a rch a t F ethard i s s imilar to a c arving a t K ilcooly Abbey ( in t he s acristy w all i n the s outhern transept, s mall male h ead o n t he l eft s ide) a nd t o a third e xample at H ore Abbey, a nd a ll t hree may w ell be t he work of t he s ame s culptor ( Fig. 3 0). These t hree heads a re u nusual i n t hat t hey a re randomly p laced o n the s tone, small i n s ize, a re not r elated to any a rchitectural f eature, a nd s erve n o f unction o ther than decoration. I t i s u nfortunate t hat t he h eads a t 3 8

R egional K ilcooly a nd H ore d o n ot

S chools

h ave

o f M asons

any a ssociated m arks.

H olycross and K ilcooly Abbeys a lso s hared a t l east f our masons i n t he l ate f ifteenth c entury. The w orkmanship a t H olycross i s o f t he h ighest quality t o be f ound i n medieval I reland, a nd, i ndeed, t here a re parts o f K ilcooly Abbey which r ival i t i n t erms o f f inish, but a s a g eneral o bservation t he s tandard i s l ess c onsistent a t K ilcooly. I n h is e fforts t o d efine t he o bvious r elationship between t hese two s ites, L eask ( 1971, 7 0) h as noted t hat d etails s uch a s t he j ambs a nd a rch o f t he d oorway t o t he s acristy a t K ilcooly a re multi-mullioned s plays which a re t he s ame a s those o f t he d oorway i n t he s ame position a t H olycross Abbey. The multi-ribbed v aulting under t he c rossing, t he f orms o f t he c orbels, a nd t he f oliage d ecoration employed a t both s ites i s a lso s imilar. S talley ( 1987, 1 27) h as n oted t hat t he d esigns a nd w orkmanship a t K ilcooly are more i ntrospective a nd l ocal than t hose a t H olycross, which h e a lso a cknowledges a s i ts i nspiration, but w ithin the mainstream o f G othic d esign. The w orkmanship a t H olycross i s more o rnate, w ith c arvings s uch a s t he s hrine i n t he s outhern transept s howing h ow d ifficult material c ould be f inished to a h igh o r u niform s tandard a s tandard. D espite t he f act that s ome o f t he work a t K ilcooly i s more c losely r elated t o f olk a rt, there a re a lso s ome v ery f ine s culptural d etails, i ncluding the s talls i n t he northern a nd s outhern p iers under t he c rossing and the c orbels i n the n orthern transept. Although n o marks a re f ound o n t he s hrine a t H olycross Abbey ( southern t ransept), i t i s t empting t o s ee t he s ame h and a s b eing r esponsible f or t he s outhern s tall a t K ilcooly Abbey. The c arving a t K ilcooly Abbey h as only a s ingle mark , which i s p rominently displayed a s i f to i ndicate a work t hat w as s een a s b eing o f major i mportance e ven i n t he medieval p eriod ( Fig. 3 5). T his s ame mason i s a lso s hown by h is mark t o h ave worked a t a n e arlier period a t H olycross Abbey , o n t he c rossing a rches under t he t ower.

GR OUP I II : TH E LI MERICK SC HOOL

(FI FTEENTH CE NTURY )

A c onsiderable n umber o f r eligious f oundations w ere a lso built i n t he L imerick a rea i n t he f ifteenth c entury. U nlike t he C ashel a nd H olycross S chools, h owever, i t i s i mpossible t o s pecify a ny o ne f ocal point f rom which t he masons o f this m ore w esterly s chool worked. I t h as been c alled t he L imerick S chool, due t o t he g eographical l ocation o f that c ounty between t he t wo n eighbouring c ounties o f K erry a nd C lare. U nlike t he o ther s chools, which w ere b ased a t o r a ttached t o l arge e cclesiastical s ites, i t s eems p robable t hat the masons a ttached t o t he L imerick S chool may have b een a band of i tinerant c raftsmen c ontent t o work wherever t hey c ould. S ites b elonging t o t his s chool i nclude 3 9

R egional Adare

F riary,

C o.

L imerick,

S chools E nnis

o f M asons

F riary,

Muckross

F riary,

C o.

K erry, a nd Askeaton F riary, C o. L imerick, a ll o f which a re F ranciscan f oundations. Although n o m arks l ink Quin F riary with t his g roup, t here a re c ertain s tylistic d etails which may j ustify i ts i nclusion. Calling t his g roup a s chool may be a m isnomer, a nd i n t his i t c ertainly d iffers f rom t he t wo previous g roups, but the f act t hat o ther marks a re f ound a t t hese buildings, which h ave not y et b een r ecorded a t o ther s ites, m ay mean t hat additional l inks may b e made i n t he f uture. As a g eneral r ule, however, masons ' marks r emote a reas.

a re

l ess

f requently

f ound

in

t hese more

At present, o nly a s ingle mark l inks t hese f our s ites, b ut t hey f all i nto a c ohesive u nit when t he a rchitectural details a re e xamined. All o f the w orkmanship d ates t o t he mid-fifteenth c entury, a nd t he s tone u sed w as l ocally q uarried hard g rey l imestone, w ith one e xception, Adare F riary , where s andstone was u sed. The dressing a t a ll f our s ites i s poorly executed, w ith l ittle a ttention g iven t o f inish. This mason worked o n t he c loisters a t Muckross a nd Adare F riaries, a s w ell a s o n w indow mouldings a t Askeaton a nd E nnis F riaries. T he c loister i s s imilar a t the f our s ites. A t E nnis, Q uin, Askeaton, a nd Muckross F riaries, i t c onsists o f a rcades o f d ouble- o r t riplepointed o penings, dumb-bell i n s ection, a nd i n the l ast t hree examples i t i s a n i ntegral p art o f the building and n ot a s eparate s tructure. S talley ( 1994, 1 95) h as previously n oted the s imilarities i n design b etween t he c loisters a t Askeaton, Q uin, Moyne, C o. Mayo, and R osserilly, C o. G alway, a s well a s a t Muckross. I t i s a lso c lear t hat t he building a t these s ites progressed a t a s low r ate. T he s ame d egree o f homogeneity i n architectural f orms f ound i n t he o ther s chools i s not f ound i n this group. At Askeaton F riary, f or e xample, there a re s ix d ifferent window f orms w ithin t he main body o f the Church. Local topography a ppears t o h ave e xerted quite a n i nfluence o n t he positioning o f c ertain f eatures w ithin t hese buildings, a nd the ground-plans d iffer c onsiderably a s a r esult. Another mason f rom t his s chool worked a t both Adare a nd E nnis F riaries. The s ame m ark i s f ound o n t he V irgin and Child p laque a t Ennis and o n the c loister a rches a t Adare. The architectural s culpture f rom t hese s ites a lso d isplays g reat variety , a long w ith c ertain minor s imilarities. The e ffigies of S t. F rancis f ound a t Ennis, Adare, a nd A skeaton F riaries a re s imilar, a nd those a t Askeaton and E nnis may e ven h ave b een carved by t he s ame mason. L eask ( 1971, 1 01) a lso n otes t he uniquely carved t omb n iches l inking s ome o f t hese building. Even small e lements s uch a s the s undials i ncised o n t he c loister s ills ( northern w alls) a t both Muckross a nd Askeaton F riaries a re i ndicative o f a c lose r elationship.

4 0

Chapter Mobility o f Masons

5

i n Medieval

I reland

T wo T YPES o f mobility c an b e d iscussed i n r elation t o t he medieval mason: ( 1) g eographic mobility, movement f rom one p lace o r a rea of employment to a nother; a nd ( 2) c areer mobility, movement f rom one g rade o r type o f w ork t o a nother.

GE OGRAPHIC MO BILITY F ROM OU TSIDE O F IR ELAND D istance d oes not a ppear t o h ave b een a major barrier f or the mason i n medieval I reland. G iven t hat, i n t he f irst i nstance, the b uilding material c ould b e imported f rom a s f ar a way a s C aen i n N ormandy o r D undry a nd P urbeck i n S omersetshire ( Waterman 1 970), the t ransportation o f a workforce would n ot b e d ifficult. Our k nowledge of t he o rigins a nd w orking patterns o f t he medieval mason have b een c onsiderably e xtended w ithin the l ast t wenty y ears. The n ecessary s kills a nd t radition o f working i n s tone was n ot present i n I reland a fter t he i nvasion, a nd i n t he wake of the c onquest i t w as o f c onsiderable importance that t he i nvading f orces s tamp their i dentity o n t he l andscape i n t he f orm of n ew constructions. T he masons who a ccompanied the Anglo-Norman invaders brought w ith t hem t he t raditions and skills o f t heir craft f rom medieval E ngland, amongst which was the p ractice o f u sing marks. I reland w as n o d ifferent f rom E ngland i n t his r espect, where f or e xample, a c onsiderable number o f m asons whose names a re k nown, w ere F rench i n o rigin a nd were brought i n by the Normans not only t o build but a lso t o t rain the n ative i n t he New s tyle. Masons, even to t he present d ay, a re c onsidered t o b e o ne o f the most mobile of a ll g roups o f t radesmen a nd c raftsmen. E ven though the t rade w as l argely b ased i n u rban c entres i n t he medieval period, o r e lse a ttached o n a s emi-permanent b asis t o l arge building s ites, i t w as n ecessary f or the mason t o t ravel in s earch of c ontinuous employment. I t was a t rade which w as dependent o n f inances b eing a vailable, a nd i t i s c lear f rom the i ntermittent nature o f m edieval building t hat this w as n ot a lways the s ituation. T he provision o f l abour and materials must h ave been t wo o f the most i mportant a nd e xpensive e lements i n planning any m edieval building. T he w hole c oncept o f geographic mobility i n t his c raft i s e vident when t he w orking l ocations i n E ngland are c ompared with t he b irth a nd d eath l ocations o f many o f the identifiable masons f or w hom w ritten r ecords s urvive ( Harvey 1 984).

I n G ilbert%

H istoric a nd Municipal 4 1

Records of D ublin,

M ason's Mobility

N icholas o f C oventry, who i s d escribed a s a ' caementarius ', i s r ecorded a s working in D ublin i n t he e arly t hirteenth c entury ( Berry, 1 905, 3 21). He w as c learly n ot a lone, but the i dentity o r c ultural o rigins of h is c olleagues has t o be c onjectural. T he f act t hat t hey w ere English i s l ogical c onsidering the preferences o f t he Anglo-Normans ' f or employing a workforce w ith a k nowledge o f c urrent s tyles i n E ngland, a nd t hat a n umber o f c lose parallels s how that s ame masons worked o n e ither s ide o f t he I rish S ea. S talley ( 1971, 6 0) h as c onvincingly s hown t hat E nglish masons were employed a t C hristchurch a nd S t. P atrick 's C athedrals, D ublin, in t he t hirteenth c entury. E lsewhere, a nd a t a l ater d ate, English masons m ay a lso have w orked a t D uiske Abbey, G raiguenemanagh, C o. K ilkenny , T intern Abbey, C o. W exford, B oyle Abbey, Co. R oscommon, S t. C anice 's C athedral, K ilkenny, a nd C ashel C athedral, Co. T ipperary. Most of t he master masons who c ame t o I reland w ith or s oon a fter t he i nvasion must h ave employed l ocals a s apprentices a nd t hereby t ransferred t he t rade i nto l ocal h ands. I t i s n ot s urprising that t he r ecords that s urvive l argely r elate t o t he masons who were employed i n public w orks, not i n t he s ervice o f t he c hurch. Amongst t he masons who c an be i dentified a s working i n I reland a re R obert L eygynour I I ( imageniator ) who, i t i s c laimed, r epaired t he C astle o f Arklow i n 1 333 a nd d id w ork o n o ther c astles i n I reland i n t he mid-fourteenth c entury ( Harvey 1 984, 1 80); J ohn Mason ( active 1 386- ) , who i s d escribed a s a mason a nd who, t ogether w ith N icholas Mason, was o rdered t o t ake masons t o r epair t he Great B ridge o f D ublin ( Harvey 1 984, 2 07); U lricus, t he engineer ( active 1 184-, d ied c . 1 216), who m ay h ave b een r esponsible f or building t he s tone d omestic buildings a t F arnham C astle, S urrey, but w ho i s a lso r ecorded a s a ccompanying K ing J ohn t o I reland i n 1 210 ( Harvey 1 984, 3 05); Thomas B olaz ( active o f t he ( active

1 309), K ing 's

mason,

houses

1 334-36),

i n

was

a lso a ssigned t o

D ublin

( Harvey

a mason w ho i s

1 984,

s upervise 2 8);

d escribed a s

t he

t he works

J ohn d e C orfe chief

k eeper,

p urveyor, a nd o rdainer o f a ll t he k ing 's works i n I reland r elated t o masonry i n 1 334 ( Harvey 1 984, 7 0); Nicholas d e Aundely ( active 1 207, d ied 1 245), who may h ave b een born a t L es Andelys i n F rance but who i s r ecorded a s h aving w orked a t C arlingford a nd e lsewhere i n I reland i n 1 210 ( Harvey 1 984, 1 0). T his movement o f masons t o I reland w as not a ll o ne-way , e ven i n t he post-conquest period. F or a s lightly e arlier period , H arbison ( 1975) h as shown t hat a small-scale r everse movement may h ave e xisted, w ith I rish masons working a s f ar d istant a s B avaria. I n the Gothic period, h owever, t he number o f I rish masons who worked i n England d oes n ot appear t o h ave b een s ignificant; r esearch i s h indered by a l ack o f d ocumentary 4 2

M ason's Mobility

evidence,

a nd

i t

i s

o nly p ossible

t o

l ist

t hose

f or w hom r ecords

e xist. I ncluded are ' Willelmus d e D roghda ', w ho was p robably employed on t he c astle w orks o f C aernarvon i n 1 298 ( Taylor 1 974); W illiam d e H ibernia ( active 1 291-94), w ho i s d escribed a s b oth c ementarius a nd i maginator , a nd w ho c arved t he s tatues o n t he H ardingstone E leanor C ross, N orthamptonshire b etween 1 291 a nd 1 294 ( Harvey 1 984, 1 58).

GE OGRAPHIC MO BILITY W ITHIN IR ELAND The s ituation that h as b een d escribed a bove a s existing f or masons who t raveled b etween c ountries i s r eflected i n m icrocosm w ithin t he s tudy a rea. B ecause w ork w as n ot c ontinuous a nd c ould not b e g uaranteed i n t he l arger u rban c entres, the w orkforce was mobile a nd n eeded t o t ravel when building projects w ere s tarted. The l arger s chools, s uch a s t hose a t C ashel o r Holycross, must h ave g iven s ome s tability , but n ot a ll t he masons w ere permanently a ttached t o t hese c entres. The d istances t hat n eeded t o b e t raveled were s hort, a nd t he maximum d istance t hat a ny o ne mason c an be s hown t o h ave t raveled i s s ome s ixty miles, t he d istance between K ilcooly a nd E nnis ( Fig. 2 4). This m ay b e a n unrealistic p icture, h owever, a s t he s ecular buildings h ave n ot been e xamined f or marks, a nd i t i s c lear that the workforce would have b een employed i n t he p ublic s ector a s w ell. T he c onstruction o f c astles, b ridges a nd o ther public w orks must h ave provided a more constant a nd r eliable s ource o f income f or t his workforce, c onsidering t hat f unding was u sually i n p lace. T he period a fter the Anglo-Norman i nvasion must h ave been a particularly busy t ime, i n which public r ather than c hurch w orks were b eing built. T he m ajority o f identifiable masons who a re k nown t o have traveled t o I reland i n t his p eriod c ame i n t he employment o f the k ing, a nd t hus may h ave b een bound t o c ertain projects and w ere not a vailable f or c hurch b uilding. T his s tudy h as r evealed a s light t endency f or masons t o move r elatively s hort d istances and t o b e more l ocalised than would b e e xpected.

CA REER MO BILITY The r ole of i ndividual masons was d ictated by their p articular qualifications. As a g eneral r ule, when i t i s possible t o t race the s ame worker moving f rom building t o building, h e i s u sually r esponsible f or s imilar w ork. S ome masons a ppear t o h ave s pecialized i n working o n w indow o r door mouldings, o r, a lternatively, cutting a shlars f or c rossing s upports. Most o f the workmanship i s a nonymous, a nd i t i s impossible t o i dentify any i ndividual master o r w ork which c an be a ttributed t o a ny i dentified i ndividual. T he majority o f masons whose w orking 4 3

Mason's

M obility

p atterns can b e t raced by t heir m arks a ppear t o h ave worked o n t he r outine t asks o f g eneral w alling a nd w indow o r door mouldings. The o nly e xception t o t his g eneral pattern i s to b e f ound f irstly a t H olycross A bbey, C o. T ipperary. One of the m asons who worked a long w ith a g roup o f o ther masons on the n orth-western p ier under t he t ower ( c. 1 440) h as a d istinctive mark which i s a lso f ound, t ogether w ith s everal o ther marks, a t t he nearby C istercian a bbey o f K ilcooly s ometime l ater i n the f ifteenth century ( c. 1 460- ) . T he mark a t K ilcooly, however, a ppears on one o f t he f inest p ieces o f G othic c arving of this s chool, the s outhern s tall i n t he s outh-eastern p ier under t he c rossing ( Fig. 3 5). T he d esign a nd d ecoration o f this s tall, w hich probably s erved a s t he a bbot 's s eat, r ivals s imilar work a t H olycross Abbey which, unfortunately, d oes n ot h ave marks, a nd s hows t he personal d evelopment o f t his a nonymous c arver.

4 4

Chapter 6 S ummary and Conclusions TH IS I S T HE F IRST

l arge-scale

s tudy o f the mason

i n m edieval

I reland

a nd the f irst t o s how t hat a s ignificant c orpus o f masons ' marks e xist i n the c ountry. I t a ttempts t o b uild o n p revious r esearch u ndertaken by s cholars s uch a s S tokes, C hampneys, L eask , a nd S talley, t o name a f ew, a nd h as u sed much of t heir r esearch t o i nterpret the whole n ature o f medieval I rish a rchitecture a nd i ts r elationship to t he r ole o f t he m ason a nd h is mark. T his s tudy h as not i dentified a ny i ndividual masons, but h as moved a long t he p ath o f g iving more c redit a nd r ecognition to t he important r ole o f t he builder i n G othic I reland. The n umerous m asons who w ere r esponsible f or s ome o f the f inest a rchitecture s till s urviving i n I reland have b een s adly n eglected. T hey h ave b een s een, l argely because o f t he d earth of d ocumentary material, a s a nonymous i ndividuals. And y et t hey s igned t heir work f or a ll p osterity to s ee i n a s tatement t hat w as l iterally written i n s tone. W hen the s tudy began, i t was not k nown h ow many m arks w ould be f ound; i t ended by c ataloguing over two hundred , d ating f rom t he m id-thirteenth t o t he l ate f ifteenth c entury. M any o f t hese h ave d isappeared s ince t his s tudy was f irst s tarted o ver f ifteen y ears a go. R ecent examination h as determined t hat, d espite t he f act t hat they s urvived f or s everal hundred y ears, t hose a t s ites s uch a s C ashel Cathedral, w here t hey w ere l ightly i ncised i n t he l ate t hirteenth c entury, h ave weathered badly and i n s ome i nstances t o h ave a ll but d isappeared. I t i s c lear t hat a n e ven more s ignificant c orpus must have existed a t one t ime. What d oes s urvive s hows that t he t rade was o rganised and s tructured, a nd d oes not c onform t o t he h istoric c oncept o f t ravellers a nd monks u ndertaking the work t hemselves. The c lear d istinction between t hirteenth- and f ifteenth-century marks a lso i ndicates t hat the w orkforce d iffered c onsiderably i n the t wo periods, a nd adds t o t he previous s cholarship d emonstrating t hat the h istorical e volution of medieval I rish a rchitecture f alls i nto t wo s ignificant periods. T he masons ' marks d o n ot s imply evolve i n terms o f t he motifs u sed, t he techniques i n which they were c ut, o r t he l ocations i n w hich t hey were p laced. The d ifferences r elate t o t he whole n ature o f medieval I rish a rchitecture a nd must b e s een a s b elonging to two d ifferent workforces, o ne of w hich c ame f rom E ngland and the s econd o f which s hould b e viewed a s b eing c omposed o f native o r I rish masons who w ere r esponsible f or t he t rade i n the f ifteenth c entury. T he u se o f t he m arks f rom t he 4 5

S ummary

& C onclusions

s tart o f t he f ifteenth c entury by a n ative workforce i s e vidence o f t heir a ssimilation a nd a doption of s tructures and t raditions which w ere once c onsidered f oreign but w hich by this s tage w ere accepted a s part of t he r egulations o f t he trade. Centuries of u se l ed t he f ifteenth-century m ason t o s ee n othing a lien i n t he u se of t hese marks. The r egional n ature o f I rish medieval a rchitecture h as b een k nown f or s ome t ime, and f rom t he o utset i t w as e xpected that t his s tudy would add t o t his o verall p icture i f a s ignificant n umber of t hese buildings c ould b e r elated t hrough the a ctivities o f one workforce. The r ecognition o f t hree n ew s chools of a rchitecture, based o n the presence o f t he s ame masons, i s a s ignificant d evelopment. Whereas b uildings s uch a s H olycross Abbey a nd C ashel C athedral were p reviously v iewed i ndependently o r i n r elation t o o ther buildings o n a o ne-to-one basis, this s tudy has placed t hem a t t he c entre o f i mportant r egional s chools. T he r econstruction o f these s chools a nd their organization h as b een based o n the material e vidence o f the marks, not only o n s imilarities i n architectural a nd s culptural d esigns. M any r easons may l ie behind t he r egional n ature of I rish medieval buildings, but i t i s c lear t hat o ne c ontributing f actor w as the presence o f the s ame m asons o r g roups o f masons a t d ifferent s ites a nd their r ole i n t ransferring d esigns a nd s tyles f rom one building t o another. I t i s p erfectly l ogical that important buildings such a s Holycross Abbey, w ith t he h igh s tandard o f i ts s urviving cut s tone, w ould n ot o nly h ave a ttracted a g roup o f h ighly q ualified masons i n s earch o f work, but would a lso h ave acted a s a t raining a nd d ispersal g round f or o ther masons w ho worked o n s ites i n the i mmediate v icinity. This

s tudy has,

s adly,

n ot b een a ble

t o p rovide

any

c onclusive

t ime f ramework f or these masons ' o verall working patterns i n t erms o f a s chool s tructure o ther t han t o d iscern that a n umber of t hese masons worked t ogether i n r elatively small g roups. All that c ould be a ttempted w as t he c reation o f a r elative f ramework, where o ne s ite was k nown t o b e e arlier o r l ater than a nother, and the s ubsequent l inking o f t he r elated buildings by means o f this evidence. P articularly u seful r esults w ere d erived f rom t he s tudy o f the a rchitectural s culpture s urviving a t these buildings. This showed h ow i ndividual motifs were a lso t ransferred f rom one b uilding t o a nother. What h as been particularly u seful i n t his s tudy, however, h as been t he a bility to propose r elative f rameworks f or t he building process w ithin i ndividual s ites. I t h as b een p ossible, f or example, t o s ee that the crossing piers a t H olycross Abbey employed a considerable number o f masons, a ll o f w hom l eft their marks, i n a r elatively s hort period o f t ime, d ocumenting what must have been a c oncerted effort t o complete this p art o f t he s tructure i n a s s hort a t ime 4 6

S ummary

& C onclusions

s pan a s was possible. A lternative d ating s equences f or i ndividual buildings o r g roups o f b uildings, e specially where a documented d ate e xists f or o ne o f t he buildings, h ave a lso been s uggested. Whereas c onsiderable a ttention h ad previously been g iven t o t he area c entering o n t he P ale, a nd Dublin i n particular, this s tudy h as f ocused a ttention on t he c entral l owlands i n the t hirteenth a nd f ifteenth c enturies a nd a ttempted t o s how t he important r ole t hat t his a rea p layed i n m edieval I rish a rchitectural h istory. Additional s tudy o f t he i nfluence o f p atronage and t he p olitical background o f many o f t hese buildings w ill y ield s ignificant r esults i n f uture a ttempts t o d evelop a c omprehensive p icture o f the mason i n medieval I reland.

4 7

C atalogue IN TRODUCTION TH E F OLLOWING i s an i nventory o f masons ' marks i n r eligious h ouses o f the medieval period i n t he e cclesiastical provinces o f C ashel a nd D ublin. The buildings belonging to any one r eligious house a re g rouped a s a s ite, each o f which i s numbered. The s ites a re g rouped by their r espective r eligious orders. I n each c ase a brief description i s given o f t he number, l ocation, and d ate o f the marks r ecorded, together w ith the type o f s tone used. Where possible, this s ection a lso i ncludes a brief analysis of t he i nternal dating s equence, a s i ndicated by t he evidence o f masons ' marks. A brief bibliography i s g iven of e ach s ite where k nown. F or c omparative purposes, a l ist i s a lso i ncluded, of the s ites where marks are k nown to h ave e xisted but which h ave now d isappeared. The s ites provinces f ollows:

where masons ' marks a re f ound in t he ecclesiastical of Cashel and D ublin ( Fig. 1 ) are catalogued a s

C istercian 1 . Cashel, Co. T ipperary, H ore Abbey 2 . Graiguenemanagh, Co. K ilkenny, D uiske Abbey 2 . Holycross Abbey, Co. T ipperary 4 . K ilcooly Abbey, Co. T ipperary Dominican 5 . 6 . 7 .

Cashel, Co. Tipperary, S t. D ominic 's Priory G lanworth, Co. Cork, P riory o f the Holy Cross K ilkenny, Holy Trinity P riory

8 . 9 .

Waterford, S t. Saviour 's P riory Youghal, Co. Cork, Holy Cross P riory

Franciscan 1 0. Adare, Co. 1 1. 1 2. 1 3. 1 4. 1 5.

Limerick,

S t.

Ardfert, Co. Kerry, S t. F rancis ' Askeaton Friary, Co. L imerick Ennis F riary, Co. Clare Muckross Friary, Co. K erry Quin F riary, Co. Clare

C athedrals 1 6. Cashel Cathedral, 1 7. C loyne Cathedral, 1 8.

Church o f

K ilkenny,

S t.

Co. Co.

Canice 's

T ipperary C ork C athedral 4 8

Michael

F riary

Archangel

C atalogue

Augustinian Friars 1 9. F ethard, Co. T ipperary ,

H oly T rinity

Augustinian C anons Regular 2 0. Athassel, Co. T ipperary , P riory 2 1. C aher, C o. T ipperary , P riory o f 2 2. K illagh P riory, C o. K erry

P riory

o f S t. E dmund S t. Mary

T he s ites a re l isted a lphabetically i n e ach s ection. d escriptive e ntry on e ach s ite i s f ollowed by a l ist

A s hort o f t he

masons ' marks and their l ocation w ithin t he building. An a ttempt i s made t o r elate the marks w ithin each s ite a nd to s uggest d ates. E ach entry c oncludes w ith a s elective bibliography. T he marks a re t hen r elated t o a g round-plan o f each s ite, where o ne e xists, a nd their l ocations a re i dentified with l etters. Where p ossible, each s ite h as b een approached c onsistently, moving a round the cut s tone o n t he exterior f irstly a nd t hen e xamining t he i nterior. I n o ne o r two i nstances, t his s equence h as n ot been f ollowed. E ach mark i s r eproduced. T he d rawings a re n ot to s cale, a s the s ize o f t he s ame mark c an v ary f rom s ite t o s ite and e ven w ithin a ny o ne building i t i s p ossible t o f ind t he s ame mark v arying c onsiderably i n s cale. T he t echnique o f working i s a lways t he f irst e lement ( upper) i n t he l ower r ight h and c orner o f e ach box. The f ollowing a bbreviations h ave been u sed: I = I ncised

F r = F alse

r elief

R = R elief

I mmediately below this t he f requency o f e ach mark i s g iven. When t he mark i s f ound a t more t han o ne l ocation w ithin t he building, t his i nformation i s r ecorded i n t he l ower l eft hand c orner, f or e xample, A6, B 2, C 4.

CA TALOGUE Site No .

1 .

HORE ABBEY , C ashel,

C o.

T ipperary

D iocese: C ashel Grid r eference: S 069 4 -06 Order: C istercian Founder: Archbishop D avid M acCarwill F oundation d ate: 1 272, d issolved 1 540 Marks: There a re twenty-five d ifferent m arks f ound d ifferent a reas: ( A ) w estern a rch under t he t ower, 4 9

i n s even ( B ) e astern

C atalogue

a rch under the t ower, ( C) v aulting u nder t he t ower, ( D ) s outhern t ransept walling, ( E) walling i n t he n ave, ( F ) w alling under t he e astern window of t he choir, ( G ) p iscina i n t he s outhern wall o f c hoir ( Figs. 6 , 7 , 3 5). D iscussion: The masons ' marks i n t his building d ate f rom t he t hirteenth to t he f ifteenth c entury, r anging f rom t he d ate o f i ts f oundation to t he l ater i nsertion o f t he t ower i n t he f ifteenth c entury. The e arly marks ( Areas D , E , a nd F ) a re d ated t o c irca 1 272 a nd are c ut i n s andstone, while t he l ater marks ( Areas A , B , a nd C ) date t o t he m id-fifteenth c entury a nd a re i n l imestone. T he r elationship between t his s ite a nd C ashel C athedral ( site n o. 8 ), which towers above i t, h as b een k nown f or s ome t ime. Work b egan a t Hore Abbey s oon a fter t he f oundation d ate o f 1 272, a nd a t l east s even members of t he s ame workforce w ere employed a t b oth s ites. The a llocation o f s o h igh a number o f masons to t his f oundation f rom the c athedral, w hich would a lso h ave needed t hem , may h ave been due t o t he i nfluence o f Archbishop D avid M acCarwill. Although c olonised f rom M ellifont, i t was the l ast C istercian f oundation i n I reland, a nd i ts f ounder, D avid M cCarwill, archbishop of C ashel, w as o ne o f t he t hree b ishops c redited with t he building o f C ashel C athedral. I t i s tempting t o s ee the s ame workforce e mployed a t b oth s ites a s being the d irect r esult of the s ame p atronage, but no d irect evidence s upports this b elief. D espite t he r elatively small s ize of H ore Abbey, i ts architecture i s, a s S talley ( 1987, 2 46) h as noted, a lso s lightly c onservative a nd employs s ome t welfth-century f eatures f rom Burgundy. I t i s c lose t o C ashel C athedral i n a reas s uch a s w indow d esign, and i n p articular i n t he u se o f twin- o r s ingle-light l ancets which, a lthough a s tandard thirteenthc entury f eature i n I reland, a re a lso f ound i n t he s outhern t ransept a t Hore a s w ell a s t hroughout t he c athedral. Cashel C athedral must h ave b een u nder c onstruction f or a period of s ome f orty t o f ifty y ears, while t he c ampaign a t t his a ustere and s imple C istercian a bbey a ppears t o h ave been r elatively quick. T he masons r esponsible f or t he c rossing a t C ashel C athedral w ere a lso r esponsible f or t he s outhern t ransept a t H ore Abbey. The d ifference in s tyles c ould n ot b e more marked: t he a ustere a nd p lain a shlar c onstruction o f H ore Abbey, w ith n o d ecoration a part f rom one i solated h ead and s ome i ncised monograms, c ontrasts w ith t he profusion o f thirteenth-century a rchitectural s culpture o n c apitals and l abel-stops a t t he c athedral. T he s econd group o f marks i s c onfined t o t he m id-fifteenth c entury i nsertion o f t he t ower a t H ore Abbey. F rom the number

o f

masons ' marks f ound o n the e astern a nd w estern a rches s upporting t he t ower, i t i s evident t hat a t l east s eventeen masons were employed i n the c onstruction ( Fig. 3 4). S talley ( 1987, 2 46) h as n oted that no provision was m ade i n t he thirteenth c entury f or a 5 0

C atalogue

t ower, ' fine

and t hat

t he mid-fifteenth c entury

l imestone d ressings a nd l erne v ault

i nsertion with i s

a typical

i ts

e xample

o f Ormond a rchitecture o f i ts t ime '. T he w orkmanship i s a gain s imple, and while the s tone i s c ompetently c ut, i t does n ot h ave t he f ine f inish s een a t H olycross o r K ilcooly Abbey. A n umber o f masons who worked a t t his s ite i n t he f ifteenth c entury w ere a lso employed a t Holycross Abbey, w hich i s s ome n ine miles away. F our marks f ound on t he underside o f t he c rossing a rches a t H ore Abbey a re p aralleled o n the c loister p iers a t H olycross. Whereas H olycross i n turn s hared s ome i ts w orkforce w ith K ilcooly Abbey, n o d irect l ink c an be m ade between H ore Abbey a nd K ilcooly Abbey. On s tylistic evidence, t he work a t H ore Abbey must be c ontemporary w ith the c loister o f H olycross Abbey, which w as s tarted s ometime a round 1 450-60. L ike t he l atter, i t h as a number of t he c oats o f a rms o f t he B utler f amily, i n whose l ands both monasteries a re f ound. O f a ll t he f ifteenth-century marks a re f ound i n I reland, t hose a t H ore Abbey s eem t o have been c onsciously placed them i n t he l east o bvious positions. H ere t hey are f ound o n the u nderside o f t he c rossing a rches, but n ot o n the s ides f acing the b ody o f t he c hurch, where they would h ave b een e asily v iewed. S imilarly, t his i s o ne o f t he f ew s ites where marks are f ound o n a p iece o f l iturgical f urniture, t he p iscina i n t he s outhern w all o f t he c hoir, which h as two marks ( Fig. 3 5). The position o f t hese marks i n a n o bvious l ocation i s a t odds with t he p lacement o f t hose o n t he c rossing a rches. B ibliography: Mott

1 976,

L eask

4 8;

S ite No. 2 . S alvatoris),

1 967,

1 15-16;

S talley 1 987,

L eask

2 46;

GRAIGUENEMANAGH ABBEY Co. K ilkenny

D iocese: L eighlin Grid reference: S 708 4 38 Order: C istercian F ounder: W illiam Marshall, F oundation d ate:

1 204-7,

C ollins

E arl

4 5-46;

1 998,

( Duiske,

t he e lder,

d issolved

1 971,

2 34-39.

Vallis

o f

B reffny a nd

S .

P embroke

1 536

Marks: F ive d ifferent m arks a re r ecorded, c onfined to t hree a reas: ( A ) s outhern d oorway o f t he n ave, ( B) w alling o f t he n ave, a nd ( C) l oose f ragments. All t he marks a re c ut i n D undry s tone ( Fig. 2 ). D iscussion: This a bbey w as built s oon a fter t he f oundation d ate o f 1 204 ( its charter i s d ated t o 1 207), a nd c onstruction may possibly h ave e xtended t o t he f ourth d ecade o f the thirteenth 5 1

C atalogue

c entury. T he E nglish c haracter o f t his building a nd i ts c lose p arallel i n t he a bbey c hurch o f S tratas F lorida i n C ardiganshire, f ounded i n 1 201, h as a lready b een n oted by Leask ( 1967, 8 6) a nd S talley ( 1987, 2 45). I t i s n early i dentical to i ts E nglish p arallel n ot o nly i n p lan, but a lso i n s cale. I t was t he l argest C istercian f oundation i n I reland , b ut h as s uffered badly in r estoration, a nd much o f the o riginal f abric i s p resently not v isible. I t i s a lso o ne of t he f ew m edieval buildings i n I reland w here D undry s tone w as u sed o n a l arge s cale ( Waterman 1 970, 6 8), a nd a s s uch i t i s l ikely that t he m asons may a lso h ave been E nglish i n o rigin. Although t he i nfluence of Christchurch C athedral, D ublin, o n t his building h as been noted, L eask 's b elief ( Leask 1 967, 8 7) that t he s ame masons worked a t both s ites i s n ot s upported by the evidence. A lthough both c hurches were b eing built a t t he s ame t ime a nd i n t he n ew Gothic s tyle the p resence o f the s ame workforce o r a rchitect c annot be c onfirmed b y t he masons ' marks. The i nfluence o f Christchurch C athedral i s m ost n oticeable i n the processional d oorway i n t he s outhern w all o f t he n ave a t G raiguenemanagh w ith i ts r oll-and-fillet mouldings a nd j ambs w ith c olumns; t he l atter i s a f eature t hat i s f irst f ound i n I reland i n the D ublin C athedral. Two o f the marks f ound o n t his d oorway a re unusual i n t hat t hey a re based on f loral m otifs a nd h ave not been f ound e lsewhere i n the s tudy a rea. G raiguenemenagh

i s

i n t urn

c redited w ith

i nfluencing

t he

nearby

S t. C anice 's C athedral i n the s imilar d esign of t he e ast w indow. W ith t he e xception o f o ne mark f rom t his s ite, n one of the o thers a re f ound e lsewhere i n t hirteenth-century I reland, s uggesting t hat t he workforce w as brought i n t o build this a bbey a nd then l eft w ithout undertaking any f urther c onstruction. The one mark t hat c an be f ound e lsewhere c omes f rom the nearby Cashel C athedral, where i t i s f ound o n t he n orthern transept w indow j ambs ( Fig. 3 1). T his may have b een, t ogether w ith the nave, t he l ast p art o f t he c athedral t o h ave b een built ( see s ite n o. 1 6 b elow ) a nd d ates t o c irca 1 280. I f t his i s the c ase, t hen the w alls i n t he n ave o f D uiske Abbey t hat a lso have t his mark may b e l ater t han h itherto believed, a nd t his would extend the date o f t he b uilding c ampaign t o the e nd o f t he t hirteenth c entury a nd n ot, a s previously believed, t o t he e nd o f the f ourth d ecade. M uch o f t he c hurch i s o riginal a nd i s c losely modeled o n an e arly E nglish s tyle. The mouldings a t t he t erminals o f the s tring c ourse, f or example, a re unusual f or medieval I reland a nd are n ot f ound e lsewhere. T intern Abbey, C o. Wexford, which was a lso f ounded by t he E arl o f P embroke, a gain s hows i nfluences f rom t he w est o f E ngland, e specially i n t he s tring mouldings o f animal a nd h uman h eads. D uiske Abbey has b een e xtensively r econstructed a nd r eplastered, a nd i t i s unlikely t hat t he marks r ecorded here r epresent a ll o f t hose o riginally u sed. I t would be i nteresting t o c ompare t hese marks w ith t hose o f t he masons f rom C hristchurch 5 2

C atalogue

C athedral, D ublin, o f t he building.

h ad they a lso

s urvived the ' Victorianization "

B ibliography: C ochrane 1 892, 2 37; L eask 1 967, 8 6-89; Leask 1 971, 4 3; B reffny a nd Mott 1 976, 4 8, 5 4, 6 3, 8 0, 1 23; C arville 1 973; B radley a nd Manning

S ite No.

3 .

1 981,

3 97-426;

Holycross Abbey

S talley

1 987,

( Sancta Crux),

D iocese: C ashel Grid r eference: S 087 5 41 O rder: C istercian F ounder: D onal Mor 0 Brien F oundation d ate: 1 169(?), d issolved

Co.

2 45.

Tipperary

1 540

M arks: There a re f orty-nine d ifferent marks c onfined to t en a reas: ( A ) s outh-western p ier u nder t he tower, ( B) north-western p ier under t he t ower, ( C) s outh-eastern pier u nder the t ower, ( D ) c loister p iers, ( E) walling i n t he s outhern t ransept, ( F ) d oors t o d orter r ange ( Figs. 3 8, 3 9), ( G ) c hancel a rch s offits, ( H) n orthern wall o f t he nave, ( I) n orth-eastern p ier u nder the t ower,

( J )

s hrine

i n

the

s outhern t ransept

( Figs.

3 -5).

D ate: Notwithstanding the a ttention which the r estored abbey h as r eceived over t he l ast twenty f ive y ears, the number of masons employed a t t his s ite f rom t he m id- t o the l ate f ifteenth c entury, a s i ndicated by t he n umber o f marks, t ogether with t he e xtremely h igh q uality o f t heir w orkmanship, i ndicates that t his w as o ne o f t he most important s ites i n the medieval period a nd may h ave been t he nucleus o f a g roup o f masons who t raveled t o t he s urrounding a reas. Two d ifferent phases i n t he c onstruction o f t he abbey c an b e d iscerned. T he f irst o f t hese i ncludes p ortions o f t he present n ave, i n w hich s andstone i s u sed, a nd d oes n ot h ave marks. The s econd phase, which c onsists o f a ll o f t he v isible c ut s tone e lsewhere i n t he abbey, was built o f t he l ocally quarried b lue-grey l imestone and has s ome o f the f inest c utting i n medieval I reland. T he a shlars a re f inely j ointed a nd w ell wrought, a nd t he dressed s tone, a s i n t he s hrine and c loister a reas, u ses d ifferent t echniques o f s tone-working f or d ecorative purposes. The precise d ating o f t his s econd phase p oses problems. O n t he basis o f a s hield c arved o n the e astern f ace o f t he s outh-eastern c loister p ier which h as a n i nscription r eferring t o Abbot D ennis, L eask ( 1967, 6 0) h as d ated the w ork t o 1 450-75. S talley ( 1987, 2 45) h as s uggested a n e arlier d ate, o f c irca 1 431. An e xisting d eed o f 1 431/2 grants protection t o t he a bbot

a nd c onvent

f or

a foresaid Monastery '

c lergy b egging a lms

( White

1 936, 5 3

2 3-24).

' for the works This

would

o f t he

s eem t o

C atalogue

i ndicate that work w as a lready u nderway by , o r b egan s oon a fter 1 431/2. The f act t hat t he s ame w orkforce s eems t o h ave moved a round t o d ifferent p arts o f the b uilding d uring c onstruction may i ndicate a r elatively s hort building c ampaign. I t i s one o f the l argest groups o f marks f ound a t a ny s ite, a nd t he p resent number a lmost c ertainly d oes not i nclude e very o ne, a s p lastering h as c oncealed many. The densest c oncentration o f marks i n the building i s a t t he c rossing, on t he f our p iers s upporting the t ower. The r elative absence of m arks o n t he n orth-eastern p ier under t he c rossing may b e e xplained by t he r esident masons a t the abbey h aving undertaken t he c utting o f t his p articular part of the c rossing a nd hence n ot h aving u sed m arks. S eventeen d ifferent masons a re r ecorded by t heir marks a s h aving worked on the s outh-western p ier u nder the c rossing: f ourteen o n the s outh e astern pier, twelve on t he north-western p ier, a nd only s even o n the n orth-eastern p ier. I n t erms o f overlap, f ive o f the s ame masons a re s hown t o h ave w orked o n b oth t he s outh-western and s outh-eastern p iers, while o nly t wo worked o n both t he s outhwestern and n orth-western. The b uilding c ampaign proceeded f rom e ast t o west, a nd t here w as o bviously a d rive t o c omplete this part o f the s tructure, w ith s o many masons w orking a t the s ame t ime. D espite t he i ntense c ampaign t o c omplete t his part, i t i s a lso d ecorated with a number of d etailed c arvings, s uch a s the owl o n t he north-western p ier, t he r am o n t he s outh-western pier, a nd n umerous h eads which a re p laced o n t he a rch mouldings, a ll o f which would h ave would h ave imposed additional c osts. Although only o ne-quarter o f the c loister r emains, a nd that has been r econstructed, f ive d ifferent marks a re f ound o n the piers. The c loister and main body o f t he c hurch a re c ontemporary or a t l east w ere built w ithin t he l ife s pan o f t he s ame g roup o f masons, whose marks a re f ound i n b oth a reas. T he d orter r ange was a gain c onstructed a t t he s ame p eriod ( Figs. 3 8-39). As this was a p ilgrimage s ite with a r elic o f t he t rue c ross, i t i s l ikely t hat i t was a r elatively w ealthy f oundation w ith a s ource o f i ncome which c ould not be d isrupted w ith prolonged building c ampaigns, and a s s uch may h ave b een built i n a r elatively s hort period o f t ime. The doorways t hat s urround t he c loister a nd which h ave marks ( eastern r ange) p resent a v ariety o f designs f rom t he l ate f ifteenth c entury, i ncluding o ne w ith a blockdecorated ogee-headed opening ( Fig. 3 8). Once t he body o f the c hurch h ad b een built, i t i s l ikely t hat the masons would h ave s tarted o n the e xterior buildings s uch a s the c loister. Allowing f or a period o f s ome t wenty y ears f or the c hurch proper t o be c onstructed ( a r elatively s hort period), a date o f c irca 1 450-60 i s s uggested f or t he k eeping with t he s tylistic evidence. 5 4

c loister,

which

i s

i n

C atalogue

An u nusual f eature a t t his s ite i s t he presence o f mark-like c arvings n ear s ome o f t he a rchitectural s culpture. These marks a re n ot o n the a ctual c arvings b ut a re l ocated c lose t o them , a s o n t he s hrine i n the s outhern t ransept, where a c ross w ith e xtended f leur-de-lys t erminals i s f ound t o t he l eft o f the two a ngels o n the c anopy ( Fig. 2 7). S uch marks a re not f ound i n g reat numbers e lsewhere but a re i ncluded i n t his c atalogue. W here t he c ut s tone i s s till v isible o n t he n ave walling, a n umber o f marks c an s till b e s een, a nd t hese a re i ncluded i n t he c atalogue, but e lsewhere they h ave b een o ccluded by the plaster. A ll o f the work d ates t o t he m id-fifteenth c entury, a nd even t hough t he s ame w orkforce c an b e s hown by t heir d istinctive marks t o h ave worked a t the n earby C istercian f oundations o f Hore and K ilcooly Abbeys, t he w orkmanship i s n ot s ufficiently d istinctive t o t race e xact p arallels a t a ll t hree f oundations. Even though i t i s t o be expected t hat most i f n ot a ll o f t he masons employed a t t his building were I rish, e leven o f t he marks are d istinctively G aelic i n i nspiration ( Fig. 2 6) a nd a re amongst s ome o f the best c arvings t o s urvive f rom t he whole s ite. B ibliography: 1 967,

5 9-69,

S talley

S ite No.

1 987,

4 .

Champneys 1 42-43;

1 910,

C arville

1 72-77; 1 973;

P ower

1 938,

1 -6;

B reffny a nd Mott

Leask

1 976,

9 3-94;

2 45-46.

Kilcooly Abbey

D iocese: C ashel Grid r eference: S 293 5 77 O rder: C istercian F ounder: D onal Mor 0 B rien F oundation d ate: C irca 1 182,

( Arvicampus),

d issolved

Co.

Tipperary

1 540

M arks: There are twenty-eight d ifferent marks, c onfined to e ight a reas: ( A ) s outhern s tall ( Fig. 3 5), ( B) n orthern s tall ( C) s outhern d oor i n the n ave ( Fig. 3 7), ( D ) e ntrance a rch to the n orthern t ransept, ( E ) western a rch u nder t he t ower, ( F ) s outhern t ransept a rch, ( G ) vaulting i n t he s outhern t ransept, ( H) n orthern t ransept a rch ( Figs. 8 , 9 ). D iscussion: Little i s k nown o f t he e arly h istory of t he abbey, a nd i t was possibly a B enedictine f oundation u ntil 1 184. At t hat d ate i t became a d aughter h ouse o f J erpoint, e stablished by D onal Nor 0 Brien, k ing o f Thomond. T he a bbey w as n early d estroyed a fter r epeated a ttacks by ' armed men ' c irca 1 444 ( Gwynn and H adcock 1 970, 1 37). T he present r emains d ate mainly t o the 5 5

C atalogue

r ebuilding a fter i ts n ear d estruction a nd w ere probably undertaken u nder t he r ule of Abbot P hilip, w ho may be c ommemorated i n a c arving o n t he s acristy w all. The b uilding material i s a well-wrought h ard-polished l imestone, a nd the workmanship a t t his s ite i s s econd o nly t o t hat a t Holycross Abbey. F ull u se i s made i n t he abbey o f c ontemporary, i f unusual, w indow d esigns, s uch a s that o f t he e ast window. A s imilarly u nusual i f l ocalised u se i s m ade o f c ontemporary I rish i conography i n a rchitectural s culpture. D espite the postmedieval o ccupation o f t his a bbey, there i s l ittle plasterwork preventing t he marks f rom being s een: n early every s tone on t he western a rch under t he t ower, f or e xample, h as marks. I t i s, a long w ith H olycross Abbey, o ne o f t he f ew s ites i n t he s tudy area t o h ave a c onsiderable number o f m arks s till visible, a ll of which d ate t o the m id- t o l ate f ifteenth c entury, c irca 1 463- . At l east twenty-eight masons were employed i n the r econstruction of t he Abbey c irca 1 463, which i s l ightly l ess than a t t he n earby Holycross Abbey a nd r eflects the smaller s ize of this b uilding. Within t he c hurch i tself t he marks a re r elatively r estricted and are c oncentrated i n the a rea o f the c rossing and transepts, w ith none f ound i n t he c hancel, which may b e f rom a s lightly d ifferent period. L ike Holycross, where building p rogressed r elatively quickly t he d ense c oncentration of marks i n the area o f the crossing evidence may p oint t o a s hort b uilding c ampaign and an urgent n eed t o f inish t his a rea, which w e k now h ad been damaged. D espite the l arge ammount o f c ut s tone s till s urviving a t t his s ite n o marks a re f ound o utside of t he c hurch proper. T he t wo s talls w hich a re built i nto t he piers o f t he c rossing t owers have marks. Only o ne mark i s prominently d isplayed o n the s outhern s tall, i ndicating t he work o f a s ingle m ason, whereas t wo marks are f ound o n t he l ess o rnate northern s tall ( Fig. 3 5). Considering t he work r equired t o c ut a nd d ecorate this s tructure, i t i s n ot s urprising t o f ind that this m ark i s not f ound e lsewhere a t K ilcooly. E lsewhere throughout the s ite, t he w ork appears t o h ave b een u nevenly d istributed. S ix d ifferent masons worked o n t he s outhern d oor t o the n ave ( Fig. 3 7), f our on t he northern t ransept a rch t o the c rossing, a nd f ive on t he s outhern transept arch t o t he c rossing. Ten masons worked on t he western arch u nder t he c rossing, while no mark i s f ound o n the e astern arch. At l east f our o f t he masons who worked a t t his s ite c an be t raced to s imilar work a t H olycross Abbey. H ere t hey a lso worked o n the piers u nder t he c rossing a s w ell a s o n t he walling of t he n ave. There a re a number o f small mark-like c arvings o n architectural f eatures throughout this building, s uch a s o n the r ib v aulting in the n orthern t ransept, which a re s imilar t o those a t H olycross Abbey. No p arallels f or the a rchitectural c arvings a t this a bbey 5 6

Catalogue

c an b e f ound i n t he s tudy a rea, a lthough a n umber o f motifs a s t he p elican a nd mermaid a re f ound a t H olycross Abbey a nd C ashel C athedral. B ibliography:

H ealy

1 891,

2 16-27;

M oloney

1 944,

2 19-23;

L eask

1 967, 6 ; L eask 1 971, 6 9-72; Breffny a nd Mott 1 976, 8 8-89, 1 04; C olumbkille 1 984; S talley 1 987, 2 47; H ourihane 2 000.

S ite No.

5 .

S T.DOMINIC'S PRIORY,

Cashel,

Co.

such

9 3-94,

Tipperary

D iocese: C ashel G rid r eference: S 073 4 08 O rder: D ominican F ounder: Archbishop D avid Mac K elly F oundation d ate: 1 243, d issolved 1 540 M arks: F our d ifferent marks have b een r ecorded on t his, t he f irst D ominican f riary i n I reland: ( A ) v oussoirs over the e astern w indow i n t he s outhern a isle, a nd ( B ) f ragment of t he arcading d ividing t he n ave a nd a isle, both o f w hich a re i n s andstone ( Fig. 1 0). D iscussion: Lying d irectly under t he R ock o f Cashel, this i s o ne o f t he most n eglected medieval buildings i n I reland, and l ittle h as been d one t o d isentangle i ts c omplicated architectural h istory. The r emains o f t he original b uilding i ndicate t hat i t w as a l ong r ectangular s tructure w ith n o d ivision b etween n ave a nd c hoir, a nd was c onstructed s oon a fter t he f oundation d ate o f 1 243. A s outhern e xtension to the n ave w as added s ometime i n t he t hirteenth c entury. A c entral r ectangular t ower a t t he j unction o f n ave a nd c hoir i s a l ater addition a nd may be p art o f t he r econstruction i n t he 1 480s after much o f t he s tructure was d estroyed by a n a ccidental f ire. T he e arlier parts o f t his b uilding a re c lose i n d esign to C ashel C athedral; i n particular, t he g roups o f l ancet w indows which c an b e s een on b oth t he n orthern a nd s outhern walls of t he c hoir a re r eminiscent o f those a t t he c athedral. T he o riginal e ast w indow o f three r ound-topped l ights i n s andstone w as r eplaced i n t he l ate f ifteenth c entury b y a l imestone g roup o f three widely s played s ingle l ights o f u nequal l ength. T he s ame t ransition f rom s andstone t o l imestone a s a building material which i s s o e vident i n Cashel Cathedral i s a lso f ound i n t his building. At l east o ne mason who worked at t his s ite i s r ecorded by h is mark a s a lso working o n the n orthern t ransept a t C ashel C athedral, which may b e l ater a nd date t o • c irca 1 270-80. L eask ( 1967, 9 3), u sing t he a rchitectural r emains, h as s uggested a d ate o f c irca 1 270 f or the s outhern e xtension t o t he n ave, which i s c onsistent w ith the s ame masons w orking a t C ashel C athedral. 5 7

C atalogue

B ibliography: L eask Mott 1 976, 7 0.

S ite No.

6 .

1 967,

9 3;

L eask

1 971,

PRIORY OF THE HOLY CROSS,

5 4,

1 23;

G lanworth,

B reffny a nd

Co.

Cork

D iocese: C loyne Grid reference: R 045 7 58 Order: D ominican Founder: T he R oche f amily Foundation d ate:

1 227-1475,

d issolved c .

1 578

Marks: One mark i s f ound o n the s offit m oulding o f t he w estern a rch under t he t ower ( A ). The s tone u sed t hroughout i s s andstone. The f eatures a re p lain, y et t he d ressing i s o f an exceptionally h igh q uality ( Fig. 1 0). D iscussion: T here i s a c ertain d issension o ver t he f oundation d ate of t his f riary, with s uggestions r anging f rom 1 227 t o 1 475 ( Gwynne a nd H adcock 1 988, 2 25). What r emains i s typical o f D ominican a rchitecture a nd c onsists o f a l ong r ectangular c hurch with crossing t ower s upported by c ross w alls w ith n arrow a rchways. T his i s s imilar t o t he f irst D ominican f oundation i n I reland a t C ashel, C o. T ipperary. The r elatively r emote l ocation o f this c hurch, t he small s ize o f the b uilding, a nd a g eneral l ack of f inances may have meant t hat o nly o ne master mason would h ave worked a t the s ite, a nd h e w ould i n t urn h ave been a ssisted by apprentices. T he l ate u sage o f s andstone a s a building material i s q uite c ommon i n i solated a reas s uch a s G lanworth. Although n o o ther a rea i s marked, the w ork t hroughout i s u niform and dates t o t he l ate f ifteenth c entury. B ibliography:

S ite No.

7 .

Byrne

1 912,

1 66-74;

HOLY TRINITY PRIORY,

Leask 1 971,

1 82.

Kilkenny

D iocese: O ssory Grid reference: S 508 5 61 Order: D ominican Founder: W illiam M arshall, t he y ounger, Foundation d ate: 1 225, d issolved 1 540

E arl

o f

P embroke

Marks: One mark i s f ound o n the a rcading d ividing t he n ave and a isle. The s tone u sed i s s andstone. I t i s i mpossible t o d istinguish a ny o ther marks a t t his s ite d ue t o r estoration and the survival o f much of t he o riginal p laster ( Fig. 1 0). 5 8

C atalogue

D iscussion: K nown a s ' Black Abbey ', t his D ominican c hurch was extended c onsiderably a fter i ts f oundation i n 1 225. T he h eavy a rcading i s o riginal t o the t hirteenth-century c hurch a nd must h ave b een built s oon a fter 1 225. E ven t hough t he mark u sed h ere must h ave been o ne o f t he most c ommon motifs t o be u sed a s a masons ' m ark, t here i s n o evidence t hat t he w ork a scribed t o this i ndividual a t a number o f s ites was d one by a nyone o ther t han one mason. T he s ame mark i s f ound a t a n umber o f s ites c lose t o K ilkenny, i ncluding C ashel C athedral, A thassel P riory, S t. C anice% C athedral, K ilkenny, a nd S t. D ominic% P riory, C ashel, a ll o f which d ate to t he mid- t o l ate t hirteenth c entury. At Cashel C athedral, f or e xample, this m ason w orked o n t he n orthern transept w indows and w alling, a s w ell a s o n a n a rch i n t he n ave. At S t. C anice 's Cathedral h e i s r ecorded a s working o n the north-eastern p ier under t he t ower, w hile a t Athassel h is mark c an b e s een o n s ome l oose f ragments o f c ut s tone presently i n the chapter h ouse. H e i s a lso r ecorded t owards t he e nd o f h is c areer, which may have e xtended f rom c irca 1 230 t o 1 270, a s working a t

S t.

B ibliography:

Site No.

8 .

D ominic% L eask

ST.

P riory,

1 967,

1 28;

C ashel. Craig

SAVIOUR ' S PRIORY,

Diocese: Waterford Grid r eference: S 601 1 23 Order: D ominican Founder: Unknown Foundation d ate: 1 226, d issolved

1 982,

8 2-83.

Waterford

1 540

Marks: T here a re three d ifferent marks o n t he northern p iers under t he t ower ( A ). T he s tone u sed i s l imestone ( Fig. 1 1). D iscussion: L eask ( 1971, 5 4) h as n oted h ow ' heavy ' t he t ower a t this D ominican priory i s i n r elation t o t he s ize o f t he c hurch. I t i s c learly l ater t han the c hurch p roper a nd was i nserted s ometime a t the s tart o f the f ourteenth c entury, c irca 1 300. Bibliography:

Site No.

9 .

L eask

1 967,

5 4.

HOLY CROSS PRIORY,

Diocese: C ork Grid r eference: X 095 Order: D ominican

Youghal,

7 90 5 9

Co.

Cork

C atalogue

Founder: T homas F itzmaurice Foundation d ate: 1 268, d issolved c .

1 543

Marks: One m ark i s r ecorded o n t he r emains o f t he walling o f t he c entre a isle a t t he c rossing ( A ). T he s tone u sed i s s andstone ( Fig. 1 1). D iscussion: Y oughal w as a p articularly active c entre o f the building t rade t owards t he e nd of t he thirteenth c entury, w ith both the D ominican P riory a nd t he n earby S t. M ary 's P arish Church, the s econd l argest s uch s tructure i n I reland, under c onstruction. I t i s n ot s urprising, therefore, t o f ind that a t l east one m ason w ho h ad worked a t H ore Abbey , C ashel C athedral, a nd Athassel P riory c an a lso be i dentified by h is mark a s t raveling t o work o n t he t wo s ites i n Youghal. T his f oundation i s k nown a s t he N orth Abbey a nd was a wealthy c entre o f p ilgrimage i n the l ate medieval period thanks t o a n i vory d epicting t he Virgin a nd C hild, o f unknown d ate a nd possibly of I talian origin, which w as h eld by t he D ominicans i n t his c hurch. T he l ong b uilding, l ike s o many o ther D ominican f oundations, c onsisted o f a s imple n ave a nd c hancel with s outhern a isle, o nly f ragments o f which n ow s urvive. T he c apitals w ith f oliage decoration o n t he p ier which s urvives f rom t he a isle i s typical of mid-thirteenth-century w ork, a s i s the w estern g able with i ts three l ight w indow.. F rom t he l ittle that r emains, this building a ppears to d ate t o c irca 1 268, or s oon after i ts f oundation. The s ingle mark f rom t his p riory i s Church, Youghal ( a s ite o utside work dates

t o c irca

1 270

( Hayman

B ibliography:

H ayman

Site No. Limerick

CHURCH OF ST.

1 0.

a lso f ound a t S t. Mary 's P arish t he r ange o f s tudy ), where t he

1 854;

1 854,

9 6-118).

B reffny a nd Mott

1 976,

MICHAEL ARCHANGEL,

D iocese L imerick Grid reference: R 474 4 67 Order: F ranciscan F ounder: Thomas ( Fitzgerald ), E arl o f K ildare, J ohanna Foundation d ate: 1 464, d issolved 1 539/40

1 05.

Adare,

a nd h is

Co.

wife

Marks: There a re n ine d ifferent marks f ound o n t he northern, s outhern, a nd e astern w alks o f the c loister. T he s tone u sed i s r oughly dressed s andstone ( Fig. 1 1). D iscussion: L eask ( 1971, 1 48) t he c loister a t t his s ite w as

believes that a t l east o ne part of built between 1 464 a nd 1 483, t he 6 0

a

C atalogue

p eriod when the c hurch proper w as c onstructed. This w as the o riginal f oundation which probably i ncluded t he w estern s ide, t he o nly s ide t o differ s ignificantly f rom t he r emaining t hree s ides o f t he c laustral r ange. The t riple o penings a re buttress-like w ith r ound-headed openings. I t i s i nteresting, h owever, that t his i s a lso the o nly s ide n ot t o h ave masons ' marks. The three o ther s ides are s imilar i n d esign a nd w ere c onstructed s ometime a fter t his western r ange and b y t he s ame masons. As t he b enefactors of t he c laustral r anges a t t his f riary were dead by 1 500, i t s eems probable that t he buildings w ere c onstructed c irca 1 464-90. One of t hese masons i s a lso r ecorded a s working on t he c loister a t Muckross F riary, C o. K erry, a nd o n w indow mouldings a t A skeaton and E nnis F riaries ( see b elow ). B ibliography:

Leask

S ite No.

ST.

1 1.

1 967,

1 47;

FRANCIS'

B reffny a nd Mott

FRIARY,

Ardfert,

Co.

1 976,

8 9,

9 6-97.

Kerry

D iocese: Ardfert Grid r eference: Q 792 2 12 O rder: F ranciscan F ounder: Thos. F itzmaurice F itzraymond, l ord o f K erry F oundation d ate: C irca 1 253, d issolved 1 517 M arks: One mark i s c loister ( A ) ( Fig.

f ound on 1 2).

t he e astern

a nd

s outhern w alls

o f

t he

D iscussion: H ickson ( 1895, 3 0) h as d ated t he c loister t o c irca 1 455 o n the basis of a n ow l ost i nscription. L eask ( 1971, 1 48), h owever, u sing s tylistic evidence, b elieves i t t o be l ater, c lose t o c irca 1 470. L eask ( 1967, 1 14) f urther b elieves that the n earby c athedral a cted a s a model f or t he f riary, but n o s upporting evidence s uch a s marks c an b e u sed t o prove that the s ame masons worked a t b oth s ites. T he l ong r ectangular church i s u ndivided i nternally a nd has a g raded f ive-light e ast w indow a nd a r ow o f n ine l ancets i n the s outhern w all o f t he c hoir, a ll o f which d ate t o the l ate t hirteenth c entury. The s outhern transept a nd c loister, however, a re even l ater a nd d ate t o the f ifteenth c entury. The c loister a rcade c onsists o f t riple openings which a re j oined by a d eep embrasure. ' The p iers s upport f lat s egmental pointed arches of t he r ecess i n which p illared triple a rcades a re deeply s et ' ( Leask 1 971, 1 48). L eask ( 1971, 1 48) h as a lso n oted the u niqueness of t his f orm i n I reland a nd how common i t w as i n E ngland a t this t ime. H e f urther believes t hat the missing i nscription may h ave r eferred o nly t o t he dorter r ange a nd n ot t o t he e ntire s tructure. T he marks, h owever, a t l east s how t hat both t he e astern a nd s outhern r anges a re c ontemporary 6 1

C atalogue

and w as built by the s ame w orkforce. The s outhern transept, which h as previously b een s een a s c ontemporary w ith the c loister, does n ot h ave a ny marks. B ibliography: Leask

1 971,

Site No.

H ickson

4 7,

1 2.

1 48;

1 895,

3 0-40,

3 29-37;

B reffny a nd Mott

ASKEATON FRIARY,

D iocese: L imerick Grid r eference: R 342 5 08 Order: F ranciscan F riars Founder: J ames ( Fitzgerald ), Foundation d ate: 1 400

Co.

E arl

L eask

1 976,

1 967,

6 9-70,

1 13-14;

1 00.

Limerick

o f

D esmond(?)

Marks: O ne mark i s r ecorded o n t he e astern w indow ( jamb ) i n t he s outhern wall o f the c hoir ( A ). The s tone u sed i s s andstone ( Fig. 1 2). D iscussion: L eask ( 1967, 1 01) h as noted s everal d esign f eatures i n t his f riary, s uch a s the l ocation o f t he c loister t o t he s outh of t he c hurch a nd t he r efectory lying o n a n orth-south a xis, which d istinguish i t f rom o ther monasteries o f t his period. The church i tself may h ave b een built i n a r elatively s hort period of t ime a t the s tart o f t he f ifteenth c entury, s oon after t he f oundation d ate. The c hurch i s a l ong, p lain, u ndivided r ectangular s tructure which w as not l avishly decorated. Westropp ( 1903, 2 41) h as noted t he c ontemporary n ature o f the overall design o f t his building, s uch a s the e ast e nd o f the c hancel, which w as l it by a l arge f our-light w indow w ith s imple i nterlocking t racery. The n orthwards e xtension o f the c hurch was undertaken t owards the middle of the f ifteenth c entury. L ike a number o f o ther f oundations which were b eing built a t t his t ime, the c hurch h as w indow f orms t hat are s imilar to c ontemporary English s tyles. The w indow o n which the m arks a re f ound i s a triple o pening w ith s witch l ine tracery a nd f inely cut mullions. I t i s t ypical o f t he p eriod a nd dates t o c irca 1 420-40. The gable a nd s ide wall t o the s outh o f the c hoir a re decorated w ith three-stepped battlements. D espite the h igh quality o f t he s tonework a t t he f riary, n o o ther marks h ave been f ound. The one mason w ho i s r ecorded by h is mark c an be t raced to o ther buildings i n t his a rea, s uch a s Ennis a nd Adare f riaries. Bibliography:

Westropp

1 903;

L eask

6 2

1 971,

1 00,

1 37,

1 56.

C atalogue

S ite No.

1 3.

ENNIS FRIARY,

Co.

C lare

D iocese: K illaloe Grid reference: R 340 7 77 O rder: F ranciscan F riars F ounder: D onates F oundation d ate:

C arbrac O 'Brien 1 240/47, d issolved c .

1 617

Marks: T here a re t welve d ifferent m arks f ound i n s even d ifferent a reas: ( A ) s outhern w indow o f the s outhern t ransept, ( B) a rch t o t he s outhern t ransept, ( C) e astern w indow o f t he s outhern t ransept, ( D ) Virgin a nd C hild p laque a t present under the t ower, ( E ) l oose f ragments, ( F ) s acristy p iers. The work t hroughout i s a m ixture o f s andstone a nd l imestone. T he f ormer i s u sed t hroughout t he e arly p arts o f the b uilding; t he l atter i s r estricted t o l ater i nsertions. T he s tone t hroughout i s r oughly d ressed ( Figs. 1 2, 1 3). D iscussion: f oundations

This w as o ne o f the l argest a nd w ealthiest F ranciscan i n medieval I reland, w hich may i n part h ave been due

t o t he r oyal patronage o f D onnchad C airbreach O 'Brien, k ing o f T homond. L ittle w ork h as b een undertaken t o d isentangle t he c omplicated a rchitectural h istory o f t he s ite, which d ates f rom d ifferent p eriods. Amongst the e arliest p arts to s urvive i s the c hurch p roper, which d id n ot have t he s outhern transept i n i ts o riginal d esign. T he c hoir, with i ts f ive-light o gee-headed e ast w indow, d ates t o t he o riginal f oundation. D ocumentary evidence i ndicates t hat t he c hurch was enlarged a nd r epaired i n 1 287 and a gain i n 1 506 ( Gwynn a nd H adcock 1 988, 2 49). The s acristy and r efectory h ad been r ebuilt by 1 314, a nd i t i s to t his period that most o f t he r ecorded marks belong. T he e arliest marks a re those i ncised o n the s acristy p iers ( F ), while t he l ater marks a re f ound i n t he s outhern t ransept, which w as a dded i n t he midf ifteenth c entury. T his s ite h as o ne o f o nly two p ieces o f a rchitectural s culpture i n I reland t o h ave masons ' marks. The p laque d epicting t he Madonna and C hild h as been dated on s tylistic evidence by H unt ( 1974, 1 27) t o t he mid-fifteenth c entury. I t i s u nfortunate that t he o ther c arvings which Hunt h as s een a s being s tylistically r elated t o t his plaque are p resently i ncorporated i n walling a nd n o marks are v isible. Of t he t en masons employed i n the building o f t he s outhern t ransept, e ight w ere r esponsible f or the pair o f t hree-light w indows i n t he s outhern w all. W estropp ( 1895, 1 35-54) n otes the p resence of a s ingle mark on t he c loister; i t h as n ow d isappeared. This mark d oes n ot a ppear e lsewhere a nd dates t o i ts c onstruction c irca 1 400. A lthough o ver s ixty miles f rom t he H olycross s chool o f masons, t his building s hared a workforce w ith s everal o ther s ites i n t he g roup. Masons who worked a t H ore, K ilcooly, a nd H olycross 6 3

C atalogue

c an a lso b e t raced a s working i n t he f ifteenth-century r ebuilding a t Ennis F riary. Of a ll t hese s ites, H olycross Abbey i s most c losely r elated t o Ennis F riary, e specially i n s haring a mutual i conography. T he c lose parallel i n t he c arving o f t he b irds w ith c onjoined b eaks and breasts h as a lready b een n oted, but o ther u nique motifs, s uch a s the r ams h ead a nd h uman h ead f lanked by a ngels, which a re not f ound e lsewhere i n m edieval I reland, a re i ndicative o f a c lose i nterchange. B ibliography:

Westropp

1 967,

L eask

1 18-20;

B reffny a nd M ott 1 990,

1 889,

1 971,

1 976,

7 0,

4 4-48;

1 58, 8 2,

1 70, 8 9;

Westropp 1 73;

1 895,

H unt

H arbison

1 975,

1 977a,

1 35-54;

L eask

3 5-41; 3 9-83;

Rynne

3 -17.

S ite No.

1 4.

MUCKROSS FRIARY

( Irrelagh ),

C o.

Kerry

D iocese: Ardfert Grid reference: V972 8 70 Order: F ranciscan F ounder: D onal McCarthy F oundation d ate:

1 440-48,

d issolved

1 609

Marks: Two d ifferent marks a re f ound o n t he n orthern a nd s outhern c loister w alls o f this f riary ( A ). The s tone u sed w as l imestone ( Fig. 1 4). D iscussion: T his i s one o f t he b est-preserved medieval f oundations i n I reland. D espite the f act t hat t here i s d issension over the actual f oundation d ate, t he r emains belong t o t he f ifteenth c entury. B oth B reffny a nd Mott

c ertainly ( 1976,

9 8) and S talley ( 1994, 1 91-202) h ave a nalysed t he c omplex building h istory o f this f riary, which m ay h ave l asted i nto the l ater part o f t he f ifteenth c entury. T he c loister i s typical o f o ther r anges i n that i t i s buttressed w ith l arge r ound t oppeda rches s upported by dumb-bell p iers which a re o ctagonal i n profile. S talley ( 1994, 2 85-96) h as s hown t hat the c loister was l aid out a s a p erfect square u sing a s ystem o f precise measurements which were c omplicated only by t he u se o f r ubble walling that may have s lightly d isrupted t he p roportions. D ocumentary e vidence i ndicates t hat the b uilding d ates t o c irca 1 468 ( Gwynn a nd Hadcock 1 988, 2 56). The c loister i s c learly o f t he s ame p eriod a s the church proper. T he e vidence o f t he marks i ndicates t hat a lthough the northern a nd e astern r anges a re s imilar i n d esign, and the s outhern and w estern r anges s imilar, the northern a nd s outhern r anges were built by t he s ame masons, i ndicating a s horter period o f t ime than h itherto e xpected. 6 4

C atalogue

B ibliography:

L eask

Site No.

QUIN FRIARY,

1 5.

1 971,

5 1,

9 7,

Co.

1 40-42;

S talley

1 994,

1 91-202.

Clare

D iocese: K illaloe Grid r eference: R 422 7 48 Order: F ranciscan Founder: M accon MacNamara Foundation d ate: 1 433, d issolved c .

1 540

Marks: T here a re three d ifferent marks f ound on t he e astern, western, a nd s outhern c loister a rcades. T he s tone u sed throughout i s a well-dressed l imestone ( Fig. 1 5). D iscussion: This f riary w as built s ometime a round 1 433 on t op of the d e C lare c astle w ith i ts massive c urtain w all a nd t owered s tructure w hich was i ncorporated i nto t he l ater r eligious f oundation. The e arly c omplete c loister i s p erfectly s quare with pointed a rches opening i n pairs o f l ights a nd d ivided by intervening buttresses. There a re a rcades o f s ix bays on t he north a nd s outh, with s even o n t he e ast a nd w est. L eask ( 1971, 1 40) h as n oted t he l ow b ase w all o r p linth, which i s w rought i n two c ourses a nd r everse c urved on t he f ace. The p illars are s lender, w ith octagonal edge-shafts a nd t hin webs, w ith f our being t wist-carved. L eask believes t hat t he s tylistic evidence i ndicates a d ate i n t he mid-fifteenth c entury, c irca 1 440. The s ame mason i s a lso r ecorded a s working a t b oth H olycross and Hore Abbeys, w hich are approximately c ontemporary w ith t his c loister. Bibliography:

Westropp

Breffny a nd Mott

Site No.

1 6.

1 900,

1 976,

8 9,

1 18-36;

9 7-98,

CASHEL CATHEDRAL,

Province: C ashel Grid r eference: S 073 4 08 Founders: T he c athedral was successive

a rchbishops:

Archbishop

D avid Mac

Carwill ( 1252-89). Foundation d ate: 1 111 Marks: T here a re different a reas:

1 02,

T ipperary

u nder t he d irection o f

Archbishop M arianus 0 B rien

K elly

( 1238-52),

( medieval

1 39;

1 23.

Co.

built

L eask 1 971,

a nd A rchbishop

three

( 1224-38), D avid Mae

d iocese)

f orty-five d ifferent marks c onfined t o twelve ( A ) n orth-western p ier u nder t he t ower, ( B) 6 5

C atalogue

north-eastern p ier u nder t he t ower, ( C) s outh-eastern p ier u nder t he t ower, ( D ) s outh-western p ier u nder t he t ower, ( E) northern transept w indow j ambs ( Fig. 3 1), ( F ) northern t ransept walling, ( G ) a rchway i n the n orthern w all o f n ave, ( 11) d oorway i n the c hoir, ( J ) s outhern t ransept w indow j ambs, ( K ) d oor j ambs i n northern t ransept, ( L) d oor j ambs i n choir, ( M ) mouldings i n t he nave. The s tone u sed v aries f rom s andstone t o l imestone ( Figs. 1 5-17). D iscussion: S tanding a top o f t he R ock of C ashel a nd n eglected a s r egards architectural s tudy, i s o ne o f the f oremost buildings f rom medieval I reland, k nown p opularly a s S t. P atrick 's Cathedral. A c athedral must h ave been built o n t his s ite

a s

e arly a s 1 101 o r 1 111, t o which Cormac 's Chapel w as added i n 1 134. The c athedral w as r ebuilt i n 1 169 by D omhnall Nor 0 B rien, and t his i n t urn w as r eplaced by the present r emains a t the s tart of t he thirteenth c entury. L eask ( 1967, 9 0) h as d ated the building t o t hree d ifferent phases. P hase 1 includes t he c hoir a nd i s t he e arliest p art o f the s tructure c irca 1 230. P hase 2 i ncludes t he s outhern t ransept d ates to c irca 1 252. P hase 3 i ncludes the n ave, northern transept, c rossing, a nd t ower, a nd was the l ast p art o f the

and

building t o b e built, c irca 1 252-89. Minor a dditions a nd r enovations w ere u ndertaken i n t he f ifteenth c entury, a nd these i nclude the d oorway i n t he c hoir a nd the mouldings i n t he nave. By a ny s tandard i t must h ave b een o ne of t he l argest u ndertakings i n t he building t rade i n t he e ntire medieval p eriod i n I reland, t aking somewhere i n t he r egion o f f orty t o f ifty y ears to f inish. The evidence o f t he marks i ndicates a r elative c ontinuity between the v arious p arts o f t he building w ith most o f the c ut s tone in t he g eneral f abric h aving marks. A s lightly r evised chronology f or the c athedral i s proposed o n t he b asis o f an analysis o f t he a rchitectural s culpture a t t he s ite a s well a s the h istory o f the o ther s ites i n this s chool w here t he s ame masons are k nown t o h ave worked. T he absence o f marks i n the choir i s not u nusual, a nd what r emains there i s b adly e roded except f or t he doorway i nserted i n t he s outhern w all i n the f ifteenth c entury, which s till h as i ts marks. T he c hoir i tself i s t he earliest part o f t he b uilding and must d ate t o t he midthirteenth c entury ( c. 1 240-50). The crossing u nder t he tower i s of c entral i mportance t o t he d irection i n which t he building developed a fter t he c hoir. T he marks on t he s outh-eastern a nd s outh-western p iers s how t hat t he s ame workforce w as n ot employed on b oth piers ( only o ne mark i s c ommon to both). There are i nsertions a nd additions i nto t he s outh-western p ier which would appear to i ndicate t hat t his i s the l ater o f t he two a nd may h ave been a ltered t o make i t f it i nto the general d esign o f the n ave. On t he o ther h and, t he s ame masons were employed on b oth piers 6 6

C atalogue

o n t he n orthern s ide o f t he c rossing, a s w ell a s i n the n ave. F urthermore, t here i s a s light overlap o f t he w orkforce b etween t he northern p iers a nd t hat o n t he s outh-western s ide o f t he c rossing. The s outhern t ransept s tands a part i n t he building p rogramme. T he f our p iers u nder t he c rossing a re d ifferent i n t erms o f mouldings a nd a bove a ll i n their u se o f l abel-stops a nd c apitals. The a rchitectural s culpture i n t he c hoir i s c haracterised by a s trong u sage o f human f aces a nd h eads, which r ange f rom t he g rotesque t o t he r otund. I n t he s outhern t ransept t he s culpture i s e ntirely d ifferent. The h eads a re c haracterised by a n arrow p rofile a nd t riangular s hape, w ith c onsiderable u ndercutting a round t he a rea o f t he mouth. C urrent dress i s d epicted i n c onsiderable d etail, a nd a c apital w ith human h eads i s f irst u sed i n t his l ocation. I t would s eem t hat the builders, a fter c ompleting t he c hoir, moved i nto t he s outhern transept i n a l ogical p rogression. T he n orthern transept i s n ot a s d ecorated a nd i s c loser i n d esign t o t he n ave, with f ewer c arved h eads ( Fig. 3 1). H aving c ompleted t he s outhern t ransept, the builders t hen t ackled t he c ompanion e xtension t o t he n orth a nd moved f rom t here i nto t he n ave, a dding t he s outhern d oorway a s a grandiose e ntrance, w ith f ine e xamples o f t he human h ead a nd c apital with s maller h eads. T he n orthern t ransept i s o ne o f t he most d ensely m arked a reas i n t he e ntire c athedral, a nd, l ike o ther buildings w here t his c haracteristic i s f ound, s uch a s H olycross and K ilcooly, t his may i ndicate a n i ntense i nput o f l abour t o f inish a particular part o f t he c ampaign i n a s s hort a p eriod o f t ime a s p ossible. T he s tyles o f h eaddress and c lothing, a s well a s the e vidence o f t he marks, s how t hat t he building may be dated s lightly l ater t han p reviously b elieved. T he s outhern t ransept a nd c rossing d ates

t o c irca

1 260-80,

while t he n orthern

t ransept

a nd nave w ere built s ometime a round 1 280-1300. The s outhern d oorway t o t he n ave i s a lso n ot part o f t he g eneral programme, a nd none o f t he marks t here a re f ound e lsewhere, whereas t he o ther d oorway, o n t he n orthern s ide, i s p art o f t he overall p rogramme. I t i s i mpossible t o e stimate t he s ize o f the e ntire w orkforce employed o n t he b uilding of this c athedral, a s much o f t he original p laster s till s urvives i ntact a nd w eathering h as n o d oubt r emoved many o f t he more l ightly i ncised marks. The s tone u sed i n t he c hoir w as e ntirely s andstone, while e lsewhere the c hange t o l imestone i s c learly i ndicated. N one o f the marks o n t he exterior h ave s urvived. The f ifteenth-century marks a re r estricted t o t he d oor i n t he c hoir and s ome u nattached mouldings i n the c hoir a nd n ave. T hese may h ave s upported c orbels a nd match t he s ame masons work a t H olycross, H ore, a nd K ilcooly Abbeys. B ibliography: Mott

1 976,

L eask 1 967,

7 6-77,

8 9-93;

L eask

8 4. 6 7

1 971,

1 57;

B reffny a nd

C atalogue

S ite No.

1 7.

CLOYNE CATHEDRAL,

Province: Cashel Grid reference: W 916 6 80 F ounder: Unknown Foundation d ate: 1 148 ( medieval

C o.

Cork

d iocese)

Marks: One mark i s r ecorded on a p laque d epicting t he C rucifixion ( A ), a t present i n t he northern t ransept o f t he c athedral. The c arving i s in l ow r elief i n l imestone ( Figs. 1 7, 3 3). D iscussion:

This

i s t he

s econd c arving

i n

the

s tudy a rea

t o h ave

a masons ' mark, t he o ther b eing a t E nnis F riary ( discussed a bove, s ite no. 1 3). T he o riginal c ontext o f t he panel, which d ates t o t he l ate f ifteenth-early s ixteenth c entury, i s u nknown. T he f igure of Christ s tands v ertically w ith w idely s played a rms and i s n ot accompanied by any o ther f igures. All t he f acial f eatures o f h is haloed h ead h ave now been d estroyed, a nd t he l oin c loth which trails w idely t owards the r ight-hand s ide i s o ne of the f igure 's most d istinctive f eatures. I nstruments o f t he P assion a re f ound to the l eft of t he cross, a nd t he i nscription I NRI i s i nscribed on t he s haft o f t he c ross a bove the h ead o f C hrist. The mark i s positioned towards t he l ower l eft-hand s ide a nd i s an o bvious S ite No.

" signature" o f 1 8.

ST.

the mason r esponsible.

CANICE'S CATHEDRAL,

Kilkenny,

Co.

Kilkenny

Province: Dublin Grid r eference: S 508 5 61 Founders: Unknown. The c athedral w as probably c onstructed under the g uidance o f B ishops Hugh de M apilton and G eoffrey S t. L edger Foundation d ate: 1 111 ( medieval d ioceses) Marks: There a re f our d ifferent marks o n the n orth-eastern p ier u nder the tower ( A ), one mark o n t he a umbry i n t he s outhern wall o f t he northern t ransept ( B), a nd e ight d ifferent marks o n t he c hoir windows ( C ) ( Figs. 1 7, 1 8). n this c athedral a s e arly D iscussion: Building may h ave s tarted o t h a t t h e i n itia l p h ase may a s 1 210. S talley ( 1971, 7 3) believes T he presence o f marks i n h ave been completed s oon a fter 1 256. s ome a reas of the c athedral and t heir a bsence i n o thers i s unusual and i s more typical of t he workmanship o f t he l ater period, when s elected areas where t he r esponsibility o f i ndividual masons. I n the thirteenth c entury , w hen l arge numbers o f masons were employed, i t i s more u sual to f ind marks i n g reater numbers. T he choir a t K ilkenny i s r ectangular i n s hape, 6 8

C atalogue

w ith a s eries o f f ine t riple o penings i n t he n orth, e ast, a nd s outh walls. T hese a re d ecorated o n the i nside w ith s hafts o f what must be l ocally q uarried b lack marble. The marks o n t hese w indows are p aralleled a t C ashel C athedral, w hich w as a lso b eing built a t this t ime. Two o f t he f ive marks w hich a re f ound a t b oth s ites a re o n w indow j ambs i n t he northern a nd s outhern t ransepts, where t he w orkmanship i s s imilar. E ven t hough marks a re f ound a t both D uiske Abbey, Graiguenemanagh, C o. K ilkenny, a nd S t.

Canice 's

C athedral,

t here

i s

n o

t o s upport S talley 's ( 1971, 7 4) belief r esponsible f or both buildings.

overlap b etween t he that t he

s ites

s ame masons w ere

T he marks o n t he n orth-eastern p ier u nder t he t ower a re a lso c losely paralleled a t C ashel C athedral, where t hey a re a gain f ound on s upporting p iers u nder t he c rossing. I t i s c lear t hat a n a ctive g roup o f i tinerant m asons must h ave worked o n t he c onstruction o f t hese two i mportant c athedrals i n t he midt hirteenth c entury, but unfortunately only t hose who a re c ommemorated by t heir marks a t C ashel are n ow t raceable. O ther masons a t C athedral D ominic 's f rom the

both S t. C anice 's C athedral i n K ilkenny a nd C ashel a re r ecorded a s w orking a t Athassel P riory a nd S t. P riory i n C ashel. s ame p eriod,

B ibliography:

L eask

A ll

c irca 1 967,

o f t he marks

a t

t his

s ite

d ate

1 250-60. 1 03-8;

L eask

1 971,

1 74;

S talley

1 971,

7 1-80.

S ite No.

19.

HOLY TRINITY PRIORY,

D iocese: C ashel Grid reference: S 210 3 49 Order: Augustinian F ounder: Walter Mulcote F oundation d ate: C irca 1 306,

Fethard ,

d issolved

Marks: There a re e leven d ifferent marks ( A ) a t present i ncorporated i n the n ave The s tone i s a f inely dressed l imestone

Co.

T ipperary

1 540 f ound o n a d ouble a rch o f t he modern priory. ( Fig. 1 8).

D iscussion: T hese t hree a rches a re p resently i ncorporated i nto t he modern a bbey c hurch i n F ethard a nd a re a t t he e astern e nd o f t he building l inking the c hancel t o t he s outh c hapel. Their o riginal c ontext w ithin the m edieval church i s u nknown, a nd they a re c learly f ifteenth c entury i n d ate. T he a rches h ave b een d escribed by Maher ( 1990, 3 6) a s being s upported by a c entral p ier, with t he e astern a rch h aving a heavy r ectangular moulding o n i ts underside. This chamfered a nd ends o n e ither s ide i n a n 6 9

C atalogue

e laborate c orbel. A small h uman h ead i s c arved u nder t his c orbel ( Fig. 3 0). The n orthern f ace o f t he a rch h as a h ood m oulding which ends o n the w estern s ide w ith a nother human h ead. The central p ier i s r ectangular i n p lan. T he marks a re f ound only on the e astern and c entral a rch. T wo o f t he marks a re f ound a t Holycross Abbey ( Maher, 1 990, n os. 8 a nd 9 ). F ar more interesting, however, i s t he s imilarity i n s culptural d etails between t he human h ead a t F ethard a nd s imilar c arvings a t Hore and K ilcooly Abbeys, which u nfortunately d o not h ave m arks. The rectangular and h eavy s et o f t he h ead a t F ethard i s c losely paralleled a t K ilcooly Abbey i n a c arving o n a d oorway i n the eastern wall off t he c loister, a nd both a re c learly t he w ork of the s ame s culptor ( Fig. 3 0). T he d oorway a t K ilcooly i s a s imple ogee-headed opening w ith a n i nteresting r ange of d ecorative a nd symbolic motifs, s uch a s c rosses, h eads, a nd f oliate p atterns, on the c hamfer. providing a n Bibliography:

The w ork a t K ilcooly d ates t o c irca approximate d ate f or t hese a rches i n Leask

1 967,

1 29;

L eask

1 971,

5 6,

1 460-70, F ethard.

1 27;

M aher

1 990,

3 5-40.

Site No.

2 0.

PRIORY OF S T.

EDMUND,

Athassel,

Diocese: C ashel Grid reference: S 013 3 65 Order: Augustinian C anons R egular Founder: W illiam d e B urgo(?) Foundation d ate: C irca 1 200, d issolved

Co.

Tipperary

1 541

Marks: There are e ight d ifferent marks c onfined t o f our a reas: ( A ) t he d oor j ambs l eading f rom t he c hoir t o the s outhern transept ( sandstone) ( Fig. 3 4), ( B) t he d oor j ambs l eading f rom the c loister to t he o uter p arlour ( sandstone), ( C) l oose fragments, a t present i n t he c hapter house ( sandstone), a nd ( D) pier i n the s outhern t ransept ( Fig. 1 9). Discussion: This i s o ne o f t he l argest a nd most impressive priories i n I reland , w ith massive f ortification-like w alls s till surrounding the r elatively i ntact c hurch buildings. C ut s tone was u sed l iberally t hroughout i n a c ombination o f l imestone a nd s andstone, w ith t he f ormer p redominating. There a re n o marks on the main d oorway i nto t he c hoir, b ut a n umber a re f ound on a l ess ornate entrance t o t he s outhern t ransept f rom the c hoir ( Fig. 3 4). S imply cut w ith a p ointed a rch, i t i s unremarkable and typical o f mid-thirteenth c entury work. The more f inely f inished and o rnate d oorway f rom t he c loister t o t he outer p arlour h as a pointed opening w ith d etached s hafts on t he exterior a nd c apitals 7 0

C atalogue

w ith s tylised f oliage b all d ecoration. I t i s a lso t ypical of E nglish designs o f t he m id-thirteenth c entury a nd w ould n ot be o ut o f p lace i n a n E nglish building o f c irca 1 250-60. L eask ( 1967, 7 6) h as d istinguished f our d ifferent phases i n t he c onstruction o f t he b uilding, w hereas S talley ( 1971, 1 26-29) d ates t he entire c onstruction t o t he thirteenth c entury. I t i s c lear t hat Athassel i s c ontemporary w ith Cashel C athedral, S t. C anice 's Cathedral, K ilkenny, a nd S t. D ominic 's P riory, C ashel, a ll o f which w ere u nderway by t he mid-thirteenth c entury and a ll o f which s hared a workforce w ith this s ite. L imestone i s used t hroughout t his s ite f or s culptural d ecoration, w hereas the g eneral walling i s l argely i n s andstone. Architectural s culpture a t Athassel i s u sed s paringly f or a building which i s s o c lose t o C ashel C athedral. T here c an b e l ittle doubt t hat t he c athedral must h ave exercised a c ertain i nfluence i n the c hoice o f motifs a nd d esigns u sed i n buildings i n t he s urrounding a rea. The u se o f c apitals w ith human h eads i s a f eature which l inks i t to C ashel C athedral i n p articular. Even though o nly a f ew o f these c apitals now s urvive a t A thassel, t hey exhibit t he s ame o riginality o f d esign a s a t C ashel, where three o r f our h eads a re a rranged around t he c apital a nd a re i nterspersed w ith n aturalistic f oliage motifs. B ibliography: M ott

1 976,

S ite No.

L eask 1 967,

9 4-99;

L eask

1 971,

1 34-35;

B reffny

a nd

6 7-69.

21.

PRIORY OF S T.

MARY,

Caher,

Co.

Tipperary

D iocese: Lismore Grid r eference: S 048 2 58 O rder: Augustinian C anons R egular F ounder: Galfrid d e C amvill F oundation

d ate:

C irca

1 200-20,

M arks: Three d ifferent marks t ower ( A ) ( Fig. 1 9).

d issolved

a re

1 540

r ecorded on t he p iers

under

t he

D iscussion: D uignan a nd K illanin ( 1967, 1 33) d ate t he c onstruction t o c irca 1 220, b ut t he present r emains a re c learly o f a l ater d ate. P ollock ( 1996, 1 79) believes t hat t he c hurch w as c ompleted f irstly a nd t he e astern r ange added a t a l ater s tage. The main body o f t he c hurch underwent c onsiderable r enovation i n t he f ifteenth c entury when a n ew e ast w indow as w ell a s a northern w indow i n t he c hoir were added , t ogether with a c entral tower. The e ast w indow w ith i ts t riple-light, switch l ine t racery h as s ome i nteresting f eatures, n ot l east o f which i s 7 1

C atalogue

a n e laborate C eltic i nterlace p anel i n t he s pandrel a bove t he s outhern mullion. T his l arge p anel ( approximately 1 5 i nches i n l ength) i s a lso paralleled by t wo more r ectangular p anels u nder the t ower, both of which h ave s imilar i nterlace designs. T he three h eads o n the h ood moulding on t he exterior, a s w ell a s t hose o n c apitals o n t he i nterior of t he w indow, a re d istinctively c arved by a s culptor with a t endency t o d epict f lattened e ars which project a t n inety d egree angles a nd a re double l ined. The s ame d istinctive workmanship i s f ound a t C ashel C athedral ( northern t ransept, s outhern end o f s outhern w indow, exterior hood mouldings) ( Fig. 3 2). The w indows i n t he northern w all of the c hoir a t C aher were c ut by the s ame m ason and h ave n aturalistic o ak l eaves and a corns i nterspersed amongst the h eads. T he use o f C eltic i nterlace panels on b oth t he w indows a nd t ower i s part o f t he n ative r evival i n t he a rts which h appened t owards the e nd o f t he f ifteenth c entury a nd a ppears t o h ave e nded w ith the R eformation. These windows, a s w ell a s t he t ower, a re c learly o f o ne p eriod a nd w ould d ate to s ometime between

1 470-1500.

B ibliography:

Leask

Site No.

KILLAGH PRIORY

2 2.

1 971,

5 3;

P ollock

1 996,

1 90.

( De Bello Loco),

Co.

Kerry

D iocese: Ardfert Grid r eference: Q 823 0 15 Order: Augustinian C anons R egular Founder: G eoffrey d e Marisco Marks: Two d ifferent marks a re f ound o n the s outhern wall of the c hoir ( Fig. 2 0).

e astern w indow o f

t he

D iscussion: F ounded o n t he s ite o f an o lder monastery , t his Augustinian priory h as a l ong r ectangular n ave i n w hich c ut s tone i s u sed s paringly. T his i s l argely r estricted to t he w indows a nd doorways i n t he main body o f t he church, with s andstone u sed i n preference t o the l imestone t hat was more w idely u sed a t t his period. L ater insertions i nto t he f abric, i ncluding t he e ast window, a re i n l imestone. The t hree-light w indow i n t he s outhern wall o f t he c hoir h as pointed o penings w ith f inely w rought mullions. No o ther e xamples o f t his mason 's work a re k nown, but the workmanship and d esigns a re t ypical of t he mid-fifteenth c entury. B ibliography:

Leask

1 971,

1 24-25;

7 2

Harbison

1 970,

1 16.

C atalogue

SI TES WH ERE MA SONS ' MA RKS A RE KN OWN T O HA VE ON CE EX ISTED

S ite A .

BLACK ABBEY,

Adare,

D iocese: L imerick G rid reference: R 466 4 63 O rder: Augustinian F ounder: J ohn F itz T homas F oundation

d ate:

1 316,

Co.

L imerick

F itzgerald

d issolved

1 539-40

M arks: The f orm o f t he marks h as b een r ecorded b y H ewson ( 1938, 1 08). I t i s unfortunate t hat the a ctual n umber a nd p recise l ocation o f each mark w as n ot noted, a s much o f t he o riginal s tonework has s ince b een o ccluded by modern p laster.

S ite B .

LEIGHLIN CATHEDRAL,

Co.

P rovince: D ublin G rid r eference: S 662 6 52 F ounder: Unknown F oundation d ate: 1 111 ( medieval

Carlow

d iocese)

M arks: Wakeman ( 1851) r ecords the p resence of m arks o n t he s outhern transept a rchway which h ave n ow d isappeared.

S ite C .

ST.

DECLAN 'S CATHEDRAL,

P rovince: Cashel Grid r eference: X 190 7 73 F ounder: Unknown F oundation d ate: 1 152 ( medieval

Ardmore,

Co.

Waterford

d iocese)

M arks: N either t he f orm n or t he n umber o f the m arks i s r ecorded f rom this s ite. F itzgerald ( 1859, 3 85) s tates, h owever, that a t l east o ne mark i s t o b e f ound.

S ite D .

DUNBRODY ABBEY

( Portus

St.

D iocese: F erns Grid reference: S 710 1 47 O rder: C istercian M onks F ounder: H erve d e Monte H arisco F oundation d ate: 1 182, d issolved c . 7 3

Mariae),

1 536

Co.

Wexford

C atalogue

Marks: F itzgerald ( 1859, 3 84) a gain n otes t hat marks were r ecorded a t this s ite, b ut u nfortunately d oes not g ive t he number, or l ocation.

Other

r eligious buildings o utside

masons ' marks

a re

t he

a rea

k nown t o h ave e xisted

o f

this

i nclude:

Church, Youghal, Co. C ork , S t. Multose 's P arish Co. C ork, D rumcliff P arish Church, C o. C ork.

7 4

S t.

f orm ,

s tudy w here Mary 's

Church,

P arish

K insale,

B ibliography Alexander, J ., 1 996. Masons' Marks and S tone Bonding I n T he Archaeology of C athedrals, O xford U niversity C ommittee for Archaeology Monograph No. 4 2. Ed. T . Tatton Brown and J . Munby. Oxford., 2 19-236. Alexander,

J .,

and B inski,

P lantagenet

England,

P .,

1 987.

Age

1 200-1400.

of Chivalry:

Allen, J ., 1 983. R estoration a nd Archaeology C athedral. Devon Archaeology 1 :1-5. Andrews, F . B ., 1 999. T he Medieval Mineola, New Y ork.

Art

i n

London. in

Exeter

Builder and His Methods.

Beaumont S legge, W ., 1 950. Masons ' Marks i n Dorset Churches. Journal of t he Dorset N atural H istory a nd Archaeological S ociety 7 1:73-83. Barry, T . B ., L ondon.

1 987.

T he Archaeology of Medieval

Berry, H . F ., 1 905. The D ublin Guild of Masons and Heliers i n the S ixteenth Royal

Society of Antiquaries

Bigger, F . J ., C ounty of

Carpenters, Millers, Century. Journal of t he

of Ireland 1 5:321-37.

1 901. The F ranciscan F riary of Kilconnell i n Galway. J ournal of t he G alway Archaeological

H istorical Bloe,

Ireland .

the and

Society 1 :145-67.

J . W ., 1 923. M asons' Marks i n E ssex. H istorical Monuments 4 :181-2.

Bradley, J ., and Manning, G raiguenemanagh, Co.

C ., 1 981. K ilkenny.

Royal

Excavations Proceedings

Commission

for

a t D uiske Abbey, of t he Royal

Irish Academy 8 1:1397-426. Breffny, B . de, and M ott, I reland . London. Byrne,

J .,

1 912.

G lanworth.

Archaeological Carville,

G .,

G .,

1 973.

1 976.

T he

Journal

C hurches

of t he

and Abbeys

Cork H istorical

S ociety 1 8:166-74. T he Heritage of Holycross. 7 5

Belfast.

of

and

B ibliography

Champneys, A . London.

C .,

1 910.

Irish Ecclesiastical

C lark, M ., a nd Refausse, Guilds. Dublin.

R .,

1 993.

Architecture.

D irectory of H istoric Dublin

C lifton-Taylor, A . and I reson, A . S ., Building . Over-Wallop, H ampshire.

1 983.

English

Stone

Cochrane, R ., 1 892. Notes o n t he C istercian Abbey of Graiguenamanagh. Journal of t he Royal Society of Antiquaries

of Ireland 2 2:237-47.

Coldstream,

N .,

1 991.

Masons a nd Sculptors.

C oldstream ,

N .,

1 994.

T he Decorated S tyle:

Ornament, Collins,

T .,

1 998.

Record. C olumbkille,

1240-1360.

Hore Abbey,

1 984.

Architecture a nd

Toronto. Cashel:

T ipperary Archaeological F r.,

London.

The Archaeological Journal

K ilcooly Abbey.

2 34-40.

O ld Kilkenny Review

3 :155-63. Coulton, G . C ., 1 928. Reprint: Hamden,

Art a nd t he Reformation. Conn., 1 969

Oxford.

C ourtenay, L . T ., ed., 1 997. T he Engineering of Medieval C athedrals. S tudies i n t he History of C ivil Engineering, vol. 1 . Aldershot. Craig, M ., T imes

1 982. T he Architecture t o 1880. London.

of Ireland from

Crosby, S . McK., 1 966. Masons' Marks at Melanges Offerts A Rene Crozet. Ed. R iou. P oitiers., 7 11-717.

S aint-Denis. I n P . Gallais and Y -J.

Cunnington, B . H ., 1 946. Masons' Marks on W iltshire Archaeological a nd N atural 3 78-80, 4 70. D avies,

R .

H .

C .,

Cotswolds.

1 938.

Masons ' Marks

Archaeological

in

t he E arliest

Edington Church. H istory Magazine 5 1:

Oxfordshire

Society Report

and t he

8 4:69-83.

D avies, R . H . C ., 1 954. A C atalogue o f Masons ' Marks as to Architectural History. Journal of t he British 7 6

a n Aid

B ibliography

Archaeological Association D e

1 7:43-76.

P aor, L ., 1 997. I reland a nd E arly Europe: Occasional Writings o n Art a nd Culture.

D ionigi,

R .

C .,

D uignan, M . V . Ireland .

1 996.

I segni

a nd K illanin, L ondon.

dei

Essays a nd D ublin.

l apicidi.

Lord.

1 967.

V idevano.

T he

S hell

Guide

to

E llermeier, F ., 1 980. D ie S teinmetzzeichen des 2 . Burgmannshofes z u Hardegsen. Nörten-Hardenberg bei Göttingen. Emery, A ., 1 975. The D evelopment of R aglan Castle and K eep Late Medieval England. T he Archaeological J ournal

in

1 32:151-86. Erlande-Brandenburg, A ., nd. C athedrals t he Middle Ages. New Y ork. Evans,

A ., 1 930. London.

T he

P alace of Minos

and C astles:

at

Knossos,

Building i n

Vol.

III.

F itzgerald, E ., 1 858-59. On Ancient Masons ' Marks a t Youghal and E lsewhere a nd t he S ecret Language of the Craftsman of the Middle Ages i n I reland. Journal of t he Royal Society of Anti quaries F ort,

G . A ., Marks.

of I reland 5 :67-73,

1 885. A H istorical P hiladelphia.

F reshfield, E ., 1 887. Masons' Archaeologia 5 0:1-4.

3 84-96.

T reatise

Marks

a t

o n

E arly Builders'

Westminster

Hall.

G aimster, D . a nd Margeson, S . and Barry, T ., 1 989. Medieval Britain a nd I reland i n 1 988, Medieval Archaeology , 3 3. G impel,

J .,

1 983.

T he C athedral

Godwin,

G ., 1 844. Masons' Marks Observable on B uildings Middle Ages. Archaeologia 3 0: 1 13-20.

Gwynn, A ., and H adcock, Ireland . B ristol. H ayman,

S .,

1 854.

1 ,

S t.

Mary 's

N .,

Builders.

1 970.

Medieval

New Y ork.

Society of Antiquaries

Church.

Journal

o f Youghal,

of t he Royal

of Ireland 3 :96-118. 7 7

the

Religious Houses,

The Ecclesiastical Antiquities C ollegiate

of

No.

B ibliography

Harbison, p ., 1 975. Twelfth and Thirteenth Masons i n Regensburg ( Bavaria) and the the

West

H arbison,

P .,

in

Connacht.

1 977a.

S ome

S tudies F urther

North Munster Antiquarian Harbison, P ., D ublin.

1 977b.

Harrison Myers,

T .,

H istorically Harvey,

J .

H .,

G uide

1 906.

no.

2 56:

Sculpture

Journal

i n

3 33-47. Ennis

F riary.

1 9:39-41.

t he National

Monuments of I reland .

Masons' Marks Ancient

and Modern

Treated .

1 975.

Harvey, J . H ., 1 984. D ictionary down Healy, W ., 1 891. T ipperary.

t o

6 4,

C entury I rish S tone End of t he S chool of

Medieval

Craftsmen.

London.

E nglish Medieval Architects: t o 1 500. G loucester.

A B iographical

The C istercian Abbey o f K ilcooly, C o. Journal of t he Royal S ociety of Antiquaries

of

Ireland 2 1:216-27. Henry, F ., 1 967. Irish Art During A . D .). London. Hewson,

R .

F .,

1 938.

Antiquarian H ickson, Miss, of Kerry.

t he

Adare Augustinian

Journal

1 ,

no.

Hodkinson, B . J ., Castle, 1 996

P riory.

( 800-1020

North Munster

3 :108-13.

1 895. Ardfert F riary Journal of t he Royal

Ireland 2 5:30-40,

V iking I nvasion

and the F itzmaurices, Lord Society of Antiquaries of

3 29-37.

1 999. Excavations i n the Gatehouse o f N enagh and 1 997. T ipperary H istorical Journal

, 162-12. Hoornaert, G ., 1 997. Metseltekens in W est-Vlaanderen e n NoordFrankrijk: Een i nventarisatie en systematische s tudie. Archeologische en H istorisch Monografie n van Z uid-WestVlaanderen 3 5. K ortrijk. Hourihane, C ., 1 984. Unpublished Phd.

The I conography o f Medieval I rish Art. Thesis, University of London.

Hourihane, C ., 2 000. The V irtuous Pelican i n Medieval I rish Art. I n V irtue and V ice: T he Personifications i n t he I ndex of C hristian Art. Ed. C . H ourihane. P rinceton. 7 8

B ibliography

Hourihane, C ., f orthcoming. Two T raditions? The G aelic R evival i n Late Medieval I reland. I n From I reland C oming: Irish Art and I ts European C ontext Ed. C . Hourihane. P rinceton. Hurley, M ., and P ower, D ., 1 981. The Medieval T own Wall of Cork. Journal of t he C ork H istorical and Archaeological Society 8 6:1-20. Hunt,

Hunt,

J . 1 974. I rish Medieval S tudy of Irish T ombs w ith Dublin.

F igure S culpture 1 200-1600, A notes o n Costume a nd Armour .

J ., 1 975. The I nfluence of Alabaster Carvings o n Medieval Sculpture in E nnis F riary. North Munster Antiquarian Journal

1 8:35-43.

J anse, H ., and de Vries, D . J ., 1 991. Werk en merk v an de s teenhouwer: Het s teenhouwersambacht i n de Nederlanden 1800. Zwolle. J ope,

E . H ., 1 966. Belfast.

An Archaeological

voor

S urvey of C ounty Down.

Knoop, D ., and Jones, G . P ., 1 967. T he Medieval M ason: An Economic History of English S tone Building i n t he L ater Middle Ages a nd E arly Modern T imes. 3 rd edition. New York. Leask, H . G ., 1 966. I rish C hurches and Monastic B uildings, 2 , Gothic Architecture t o A . D. 1 400. Dundalk.

vol.

Leask, H . G ., 1 971. I rish C hurches and Monastic B uildings, 3 , Medieval Gothic: T he L ast P hases. Dundalk.

vol.

Lydon,

J .

Maher,

D .,

Co.

F .,

1 973.

1 990

I reland i n

Masons ' Marks

Tipperary.

t he L ater Middle Ages.

at

t he Augustinian Abbey,

North Munster Antiquarian

J ournal

D ublin. F ethard, 3 3:35-41.

Marner, D . S t. John, f orthcoming. The Masons ' Marks a t Norwich Cathedral. Archaeological Journal ( forthcoming). Martin,

F .

X .,

1 995.

( 1169-c. 1 300). Moody and F . X . McGarry,

D .,

1 980.

The

Normans:

Arrival

and

S ettlement

I n T he Course of Irish History . Ed. T . Martin. Cork and Niwot, Colo., 1 23-143. C arved Medieval

Kilkenny Review 2 ,

no.

2 :34-36. 7 9

F ont

a t

Thomastown.

O ld

W .

B ibliography

Maloney, M ., Journal

1 944. K ilcooly: F oundation a nd Restoration. of t he Royal S ociety of Antiquaries of Ireland

7 4:219-23. Mooney, C ., 1 956. Franciscan Architecture i n P re-Reformation I reland. Journal of t he Royal Society of Anti quaries of Ireland 8 6:125-69. Mortet,

V .,

1 911.

Recueil

de

t extes

relatifs

l 'architecture d ans XIe-XIIe s i cles. Nestle, E ., 1 977. Stadtkirche: Schorndorf. Ö hEailidhe, Dublin. Studies

P aris.

Die S teinmetzzeichen der Schorndorfer e . Beitr . z ur B augeschichte der Stadt.

P ., 1 988. T he C loister Arcade f rom Cook S treet, I n Settlement a nd Society i n Medieval Ireland, Presented t o F . X . Martin. Ed. J . Bradley.

K ilkenny, 0 '

ä l 'histoire de

3 79-95.

K eeffe, T ., 1 999. An A nglo-Norman Monastery, Bridgetown Priory and t he Architecture of t he Augustinian C anons Regular in Ireland . K insale.

0 ' Meadhra, U ., 1 979. E arly C hristian, V iking a nd Romanesque Art Motif-Pieces from I reland: An I llustrated and Descriptive C atalogue

of t he

5 th-12th Cents. S tockholm. O 'Neill, T ., 1 987. Dublin.

S o-called Artists' ' Trial

A .D .,

Found i n

Merchants

Ireland,

a nd Mariners

Overfield, H ., 1 947-48. O n Masons ' Marks. W iltshire Archaeological a nd N atural Pollock,

D .,

1 996.

Historical P ower,

P .,

t he

1 938.

Excavations

Journal, The

a t

c .

1830-1973.

i n Medieval

Ireland .

Journal of t he H istory Society 5 2

Cahir Abbey.

T ipperary

1 79-90.

C istercian Abbeys

Cork H istorical

c .

P ieces" from

o f Munster.

a nd Archaeological

Journal

Society 4 3:1-11,

9 6-100. Radding, C . M . and Clark, W ., 1 992. Medieval Architecture, Medieval Learning, B uilders i n t he Age of Romanesque a nd Gothic. New Haven a nd London. 8 0

of

B ibliography

R ae,

E . C ., Abbey.

1 966. T he S culpture o f t he C loister of J erpoint Journal of t he Royal Society of Antiquaries of

Ireland 9 6:59-91. R ae,

E . C ., 1 970. I rish S epulchral Ages, P art I T he Ormond Group.

Monuments of the L ater Middle J ournal of t he Royal Society

of Antiquaries of Ireland 1 00:1-38. R ae,

E . C ., 1 971. Ages, P art I I

I rish S epulchral Monuments of the L ater Middle T he O 'Tunney Atelier. Journal of t he Royal

S ociety of Antiquaries R ae,

of Ireland 1 01:1-39.

E . C ., 1 987. Architecture and S culpture, New History of I reland , volume 2 . Ed. A .

1 169-1603. Cosgrove.

I n A Oxford,

7 37-78. R echt, R ., 1 989. P aris.

Les B ätisseurs des

C ath6drales

Gothiques.

R odwell, W ., 1 989. A rchitecture and t he S tanding F abric: Recent S tudies at L ichfield C athedral. Antiquity 6 3: 2 81-94. Ryan,

N . M ., 1 989. H ouse, D ublin.

M asons ' Marks on C ut-Stone at the Custom J ournal of t he Royal Society of Antiquaries

of Ireland 1 19:127-35. Rylands,

W .

H .,

H istorical Rynne,

E .,

1 891.

1 990.

The S wastika

R esurrection. R ziha,

F .

von.,

The Masons ' Mark.

Journal

of t he

Society of L ancashire a nd C heshire 7 -8:123-200. a t

Ennis:

Symbol

N orth Munster Antiquarian

1 989.

S tudien

of

the

Journal

3 2:3-17.

über S teinmetz -Zeichen.

S alzman, L . F ., 1 952. Building i n Documentary H istory . Oxford.

England down

t o

1 540:

Leipzig. A

Smidt, F . de., 1 974. E nkele XIIIde-Eeuwse S teenhouwersmerken de S int-Niklaaskerk t e Gent. B russels.

i n

S pring, R . O ., 1 974. T he Masons' Marks of S alisbury C athedral, w ith a T est for F inding Some of t he Marks. S alisbury. S talley,

R .

A .,

1 150-1350.

1 971.

Architecture a nd Sculpture

D ublin. 8 1

i n

I reland,

B ibliography

S talley, R . A ., 1 980. Mellifont Abbey: A S tudy of I ts Architectural H istory. Proceedings of t he Royal Irish Academy 8 0,

no.

1 4:264-354.

S talley, R . A ., 1 987. T he C istercian Monasteries of Ireland: An Account of t he History, Art, and Architecture of t he W hite Monks i n Ireland from 1 142 t o 1 540. New Haven. S talley, R . A ., 1 994. Ireland a nd Europe i n t he Middle Ages: Selected Essays on Architecture a nd Sculpture. London. S talley,

R .

A .,

1 995.

Architectural

t he Dominican

Priory,

Cork.

F .

S talley,

R .

Ed.

M .

A .,

1 997.

S t.

S tone.

Mary 's

Hurley and C . M. Architectural

I n

of t he

Excavations a t

I sle,

S heehan. S tone.

Crosse's

Cork,

L ate

Medieval W aterford, Excavations 1 986-1992. Hurley, 0 . M . B . Scully, a nd S . McCutcheon.

Green,

9 7-105.

V iking a nd

Ed. M . F . Waterford,

3 90-92. S talley,

R .

A .,

T aylor, A . J ., London.

1 999. 1 974.

Early Medieval T he K ing 's

W orks

Architecture. i n

W ales,

Oxford.

1277-1330.

Teixeira, F ., 1 995. Magonaria e s iglas de pedreiros: atray s d a Ermida de P aiva. Cascais. Tous

I S anbra, J ., U na important

Wakeman, W . 1 851. Waterman, S tone

F .,

D .

H .,

1 975. E ls s ignes de pedrapiquer a Bellpuig: f amilia de Bellpuig del segle XVI. Bellpuig.

1 851.

T he

1 970.

i n Medieval

Archaeology

V iagam

Irish Ecclesiastical

Journal,

Somersetshire and O ther Foreign Ireland,

c .

1 175-1400.

Ulster

J uly

Building

Journal

of

3 3:63-75.

Werling, M ., 1 986. Die Baugeschichte der Ehemalingen Abteikirche O tterberg u nter besonderer Berücksichtigung i hrer S teinmetzzeichen. Kaiserlautern. Westropp,

T .

J .,

1 240-1693.

1 889. Journal

History o f

Ennis

of t he Royal

Abbey,

Co.

Clare,

Society of Antiquaries

Ireland 9 :44-48. Westropp,

T .

J .,

1 895.

Ennis Abbey and the 8 2

O 'Brien Tombs.

of

B ibliography

J ournal

of t he Royal

S ociety of Antiquaries

of I reland

2 5:135-54. Westropp, T . Journal

J ., 1 900. T he Augustinian H ouses o f Co. C lare. of t he Royal S ociety of Antiquaries of Ireland

3 0:118-36. W estropp, I II,

T . J ., 1 903. N otes o n A skeaton, County Limerick. P art the Abbey. J ournal of t he Royal S ociety of A ntiquaries

of Ireland 3 3:239-54. White,

N .

B .,

1 936.

1 200-1600.

I rish Monastic a nd Episcopal

Deeds,

A .D .

D ublin.

Wright, G . A . A . a nd Wheeler, W ells C athedral C hurch.

W . A ., Wells.

8 3

1 970.

Masons' Marks

o n

C . )

c p r i

U J

( J )

CD

C . )

O .S . S HEET ' MONAST IC

• i n

CATHEDRAL

D OMINICAN FR IARS

—J

z ( r ) cr

C

A

zA 1 1C

I 1

B

I I-A

V r 1

A D oorway i nS ou thern Wa l l o f Nave B Wa l l ing i n Nave C L oose F ragmen t s

S i te N o : 1Du iske Abbey , Gra iguenamanagh , C o . K i lkenny

F ig . 2

e

g

i _

rl:

= 1

X

A

C U

0

0

C U " ZZ

C U "0

=

=

l"

C I

1. •

I 1

. . A . , s , ‚

3

0

4

_

l•

v s

C L 4

MS

b C i j i B i

7z: .

=

k .

=

•0 Z M

< e :

_ .

J . -

,

e

Z .

•vv 4

,

,

C U

. -

, . . -

l

. , ..

C U C U " & . . . — , c u v C l ) C l ) 4 . .. I

. . _

C e

Zy

0

2

= . 4.

12 0

. el .

'

‚ , .• I .

A N

. 1

q

z

C U C .4

= C A •^I , Ce

( J ) =

'

=

te ' T' = =

. C U

-b • ' '

=

c l A :

e l c z t zuzwT . i u=0-0 D

6 .. ..

6

1

w

2 , = ©

gi

. © © ©& . ° 3 ' " )1 ` ' 'z ©2 › 3

i

,

C U

CA

W 4 t =tü

1

4 .

-I I

.

.ä. ..b

C U I=

,

. , ' . e . . , .


— c _9 C O

e p

S i te N o : 3Hore Abbey , C ashe l , C o . T ipperary

c 3 ?

1

r-

C • J

t D

( T )

N J

4 w

a• •

V-)

c v

W

L i .

A

A8 ,B 1

FR

A

1

1

A

C

A 3 ,C1 ,D5 ,E2 ,F1

E

6

3

2

•

1

D 3/E 1 G 1

A3 , D2 , E1 ,F1

A 1

F1

A l

1

1

A

1

D i ,E l

1 I .A

FR A

FR

< 0 .>

A4 ,B 12

C 1r a l l mg v i h e #

A

We s te rn A rch u nde rT owe r

B

E a s te rn A rch u nde rT owe r

C D E F

V a lu t ing u nde rT owe r Wa l l ing i nS ou the rn T ran sep t Wa l l ing i n Nave Wa l l ing u nde rE a s tW indow

G

P i sc ina i nC ho i r

S i te N o : 3Hore A bbey , C a she l , C o . T ipperary F ig . 7

1

9 r -•

,

e , , ,

4 Z

1

— —, —

. 1—

—

O D

9-. I

I

, . . _

A .

. 1 e

r . 1

e c n

V e .•

, . , . -

e

e -

f l

i

e

g r—

e -

* --

e , e -

1-

-

C I3

LL .

I

Nor thern S ta l l

g r-

S outhern S ta l l

< z e

Wes tern A rch u nder T ower

. .

.

S outhern Door i n Nave

n o -

En trance A rch t o Nor thern T ransep t

9k - •

—

*

l 1 F R C

A

4

F

C

_ . 3

E 3 ,F2

1

1 IC l ,E 1F 1

0

t

RC

F R B 1 ,H2 ,

I E

4 1 IE

E

IE

E l , F l

IH

I :7

,

1 I C

IE

4077f 1 E

U

H

1

G

0

0v2. D 1

R

1 I,

IC


K1 I

1

1 I

t F 2 ,G 1 ,A2 ,B2 .I IE

J

Window J ambs i nS outhern T ransep t

K

Door J ambs i n Nor thern T ransep t

L

Door J ambs i n Cho ir

M

Mou ld ings i n Nave

F ig . 1 6

L 4

F

.

41

c ., , es

2X IB

IM

1 IB 2 F 2

IJ

IM 2

IM

1

IA

I

I I M

I

A

N or th We s tern P ier u nder T ower

J

Window J amb s i nS ou thern T ransep t

B

N or th E as tern P ier u nder T ower

L

Door J ambs i nC ho ir

M

Mou ld ing s i nN ave

F

Wa l l ing i n Nor thern T ransep t

S i te N o : 1 6

C ashe l Ca thedra l ,C o . T ipperary

A

C ruc if ix ion P laque i nN ave

S i te No . 1 7 C loyne C a thedra l , C o . C ork

•

•

A4 1 1

1

O m«

0

5 0

( after L eask )

A

Nor th E as tern P ier u nder T ower

B

Ambry i nN or thern T ransep t

C

Window J amb s i n Cho ir

v -7 _,TJ, , Vt > c iX [ > IA A

7

f t . ,

9

6 2

2 S i te No : 1 8

A

2 1 1,1 . k2

2 1

S t . Can ice 's C a thedra l , K i lkenny

F ig . 1 7

7 1A

A

6 IB

9 IA

V V1

1

2 1

S i te No : 1 8

A

Nor th E as tern P ier u nder T ower

B

Ambry i n Nor thern T ransep t

C

Window J ambs i n Cho ir

S t .C an ice 's C a thedra l ,K i lkenny

2

'/ N \

5

I /\ N

r

) I

\ /

. . .

•

6

1 2

7 8

A

1 3

9

A rch d iv id ing A is le a nd N ave

( af t e r Mahe r 1 990 )

S i te No : 1 9 Ho ly T r in i ty P r iory ,F e thard ,C o .T ipperary F ig . 1 8

A

1 11 1

4 i , , 11 _ 2 3.

A

D oor f rom Cho ir t o S outhern T ransep t

B

Door f rom C lo ister t o Ou ter P ar lour

C

L oose F ragments

D

P ier i nS outhern T ransep t

A

0

1 A

1

A

1

3

8 °

f t .

( after Le ask)

A l , D 2

1 4

D 3 e r

S i te No : 2 0 P r iory o fS t . Edmund ,A thasse l , Co . T ipperary

• \ \

A

A

A

S i te No : 2 1

A

1

Nor th E as tern P ier u nder T ower

P r iory o fS t . Mary , C aher , C o . T ipperary

F ig . 1 9

A 1 A

A

P ier s u nder T ower

1

S i te N o : 2 2 K i l lagh P r iory , Co . Kerry

Ho lycross Abbey ,C o . T ipperary Area D Ho lycro s s Abbey , C o . T ipperary Area C

F ig . 2 0

Du i ske Abbey

. .

1 250

D a te : c .1 240 -

A rea : B

D a te : c .1 272

A rea : E

D a te : c .1 272

A rea : D , E

D a te : c .1 272

A rea : D , E ,G

D a te : c .1 272

1280

D a te : c .1 270

A rea : B

.

A rea : A , D , E

D a te : 1 3 th C .

A rea : A

D a te : c .1 268

,

.

D a te : c .1 3 17

D a te : c .1 317

A rea : A

D a te : c .1 245

,

A rea : C D a te : c .1 250

D a te : c .1 250

D a te : c .1 260 A rea : B , E , G .. I _D a te : 1 280

A rea : C

A rea J

D a te : 1 280

A rea : B

A rea : A D a te : c .1 250 D a te : c .1 280

D a te : c .1 245

A rea : C

A rea : C

1260

D a te : c .1 250 A rea : E

A rea : E ,F ,G D a te : c .1 280

D a te : c . 1280

E ,J

A rea : A , B , C

D a te : 1 260

A rea : J

D a te : c .1 280

A rea : E , F

D a te : c .1 245

D a te : c .1 260

A—r e a : A

r

A rea : A , D

-

A rea : J

D a te : 1 280

A rea : E

< g

,

P

-. 4 _,

/

MASONS

--

E )

H

1 7

[ -

I \

' eY

-3 ,

U

\I N

, i -

0

11

, ) ' -_ < , , .•

-

KD QD


_ \ > \ _ID .

x

e _

< w _ J

WOVEN F ORMS

„ ,

L i l >

L EAVES

C ROSS F ORMS

G EOMETR ICAL

L INEAR A ND

L ETTERS

E

C URVES

L IA ND B , FORMS

r

X

ARROWHEAD

0

. W

1 -

K , e ,

, 4 4

N i

X

T R IANGLE A ND S H IELD

CATALOGUE

F orms u sed i nI r i sh Masons Mark s

MARKS

. = 4 i lr e \"/

e -

1 )

G ( f )

Ho lycros s Abbey , C o . T ipperary A rea E Ho lycro s s Abbey , C o .T ipperary A rea A

Ho lycro ss Abbey , C o . T ipperary A rea A

H o lycro s s Abbey ,C o .T ipperary A r ea B

F ig . 2 6

Ho lycross Abbey , C o . T ipperary A rea J

Ho lycross Abbey , C o . T ipperary Areas B ,F

K i lcoo ly Abbey , C o . T ipperary A rea C F ig . 2 7

K i lcoo ly Abbey ,C o . T ipperary A reas B ,H

P r iory o fS t . Mary , C aher Co . T ipperary

Enn i s F r iary ,C o . C lare Area A

Ho lycross Abbey , C o .T ipperary Area F

F ig . 2 8

P r iory o fS t . Mary ,C aher C o . T ipperary

F ig .2 9

K i lcoo ly Abbey , C o . T ipperary Doorway o f fE a s tern Range o fC lo i s ter

K i lcoo ly Abbey ,C o . T ipperary D e ta i lo fh ead o n d oorway

Ho ly T r in i ty P r iory ,F e thard ,C o .T ipperary Head o n a rch mou ld ing

F ig .3 0

C ashe lC a thedra l ,C o . T ipperary Nor thern w indow si nN or thern T ransep t

F ig . 3 1

C ashe l Ca thedra l , C o . T ipperary D e ta i l , s how ing h ead o nw e s tern w indow s N or thern T ransep t

Ca she lC a thedra l ,C o .T ipperary We s tern w indow s i nN or thern T ran sep t

S t . Mary sP r iory ,C aher Co . T ipperary Cap i ta lo n n or thern w indow so fc ho ir ( i n ter ior )

F ig .3 2

C loyne C a thedra l C ruc if ix ion P laque ( Area A )

F ig . 3 3

Hore Abbey , Cashe l , Co . T ipperary Arch mou ld ing u nder c ross ing ( Area A )

A thasse lP r iory , C o . T ipperary Door f rom Cho ir t oS outhern T ransep t ( Area A ) F ig . 3 4

K i lcoo ly Abbey ,C o . T ipperary S ou thern S ta l lu nder c ro s s ing ( Area A )

Hore Abbey ,C a she l ,C o . T ipperary P i sc ina i n Cho ir ( Area G ) F ig .3 5

K i lcoo ly Abbey ,C o . T ipperary C orbe li n Nor thern T ran sep t

F ig . 3 6

• •

"

K i lcoo ly Abbey ,C o . T ipperary Door f rom C lo i s ter t o Nave ( Area C )

F ig .3 7

Ho lycross Abbey , Co . T ipperary D oor f r om C lo i s ter t oD or ter R ange ( Area F )

F ig . 3 8

Ho lycro ss Abbey ,C o . T ipperary D oor f r om C lo i s ter t o Dor ter R ange ( Area F )

F ig .3 9

Ho lycro s s Abbey , C o . T ipperary Ai rc h. 1 T 2

Ho lycros s Abbey , Co . T ipperary A reas B ,F

Ho lycross Abbey , C o . T ipperary A reas A ,B , C ,D F ig . 4 0