St Mary's Abbey, York
St Mary's abbey is one of the most important
foundations in the North of England, not least for the amount of
information it has accorded the historian on genealogy in the Norman
period. It is therefore worth examining the church's rather
confused foundation before looking at its defensive walls. These
are rather unusual with few such decidedly military defences ever
having been built for religious houses. Ewenny priory, St Davids and Exeter cathedrals are other defences that come to mind, but Lichfield cathedral close is possibly the nearest to St Mary's defences in date.
The foundation of St Mary's was rather longwinded and lasted from 1078
until 1089/93. Before briefly becoming an abbey, the first church
associated with the site was founded by Earl Siward of Northumberland
(d.1055). It eventually became his mausoleum when it was possibly
known as Galmanho, the name reported by Hoveden writing over 100 years later. A nearer contemporary account states:
In the year of our Lord 1056 [1055], Siward, the strenuous earl of the Northumbrians, died and was buried in the cloister (claustro) of the monastery of St Mary, which he himself had built outside the walls of the same city.
That the history of Engulf called the church St Mary indicates that
this passage was written or edited after 1088/93, before which time the
monastery was dedicated to St Olave. Hoveden, writing some 150
years later, correctly dating the event to 1055, named the monastery
built by and entombing Siward as Galmanho. Later documents identify Galmanho as being a part of Bootham, a district of York.
St Olave's church lay to the north of the York city defences
in an area known as Earlsborough, where the Northumbrian earls had
apparently resided. According to the seventeenth century Analecta Eboracensia
‘there was an ancient street enclosed with a ditch and does yet
appear, which in English is called Earlsborough'. The state of
the site is uncertain when in either 1085 or 1086, monks from Lastingham, led by one Stephen from Whitby abbey, were induced to settle there by Count Alan Rufus of Brittany (d.1089), beside York city, or as it was put, the place of fortification (propter loci munitionem).
Alan also gave them St. Olave's church, built by Earl Siward some 40
years before 'at Galmanho', together with 4 acres of land.
Possibly Galmanho, Earlsborough and Bootham were interchangeable names. Count Alan, the lord of nearby Richmond, had earlier been given St Olave's by William I (1066-87) during the archiepiscopate of Thomas of York (1070-1100).
Sometime before his death in 1112, Abbot Stephen, who also claimed to
be, but apparently was never acknowledged, the first abbot of Whitby,
as well as Lastingham and St Mary's
according to his own work, wrote a history of the foundation of St
Mary's. As this seems genuine, it is best for Stephen to describe
the foundation of St Mary's in a translation of his own Latin words,
not least for his description of King William Rufus
which rather contradicts the traditional view of him as
irreligious. Where his work can be checked against other
historical records he seems to be reasonably accurate in his
reminisces. His following text will be broken and commented upon
where necessary.
St. Mary's Abbey of York.
Concerning the founding of the abbey of the Holy St Mary the
Virgin in York in the year from the incarnation of the Lord 1078, the
same abbey was founded as will appear below.
The first thing to note is that St Mary's was certainly not founded in
1078, although Abbot Stephen's story starts in that when he alleges
that he was elected abbot of Whitby.
Although the saintly and
universal Mother Church, spread far and wide throughout the whole
world, is honoured and praised by her children, whom the virgin mother
begets to her by the water of baptism, yet many churches in the unity
of the Catholic faith from the time when she was shaped by the side of
Jesus Christ sleeping on the cross; they are built according to the
devotion of the faithful and are thrown up from the foundations, so
that those who cannot be encompassed by the bays of one church because
of the vast spaces of land and sea, may strive to work in many churches
holding to the right faith, so that those who come after this life may
receive a hundredfold from the Lord with exaltation. Wherefore I,
Brother Stephen, the son of this Holy Mother Church, having been
appointed abbot by no previous merits of mine, but by the grace of God
alone, as well as by the election of my brothers who unanimously
favoured me, how I reached this rank, or how the Church of Saint Mary
of York, to which, by God's authority, I was given as the first abbot,
was founded. I have taken care to make these letters for the
memory of posterity, so that our present and future posterity may know,
who and what kind of founders of this church of ours were and that they
may know how many perturbations, driven by envious storms, we have
endured.
In the year 1078, which was the twelfth of the reign of William the great king of England,
I, Stephen, having renounced the pleasures of the flesh for Christ's
sake and cast off worldly cares, scarcely escaped the wreck of this age
and adopted the habit of the monastic religion at Whitby (Wyttebeia),
as will be explained later. For in that place certain brethren,
at that time leading a hermitic life, desired to renew the place for
the better, which in former times had been honourable in the conduct of
religious men and women, and for its large possession of estates, but
now it was reduced almost to nothing, by various incursions of
barbarians and robbers, or perhaps by other evil causes, of which I do
not know.
But over these brothers with whom I was associated, there was a certain Remfry (Renfridus)
in charge, a man of good morals, gifted with heavenly virtues, whose
works testify to his merit with God and which will benefit many who
wish to follow in his footsteps throughout the ages. For at a
place called Jarrow (Gerva)
in the parts of Northumbria, he had previously resided for some time
and there he had lived alone, freed for divine contemplation and
afterwards, joined by many brothers who had flocked to him through his
desire, he served our God manfully for some time under the ruler of the
district.
The opening section shows that this was written as an account of how St
Mary's abbey was founded from the point of view of Stephen himself and
quite likely in answer to what was being said about this troubled
foundation. As it unfolds, Stephen's story differed greatly in
the telling from what can be ascertained of William Percy, the actual
founder of Whitby abbey and enemy of
Stephen. This has given historians much trouble in trying to
establish the truth. It seems clear from the various accounts at Whitby that Stephen was an interloper who was probably driven out of Whitby to Lastingham,
apparently in 1078. It must be remembered that the dates given by
Stephen were written in hindsight, probably 20 to 30 years after they
had occurred and that there was probably no way for Stephen to check
them. Comparison with the Whitby accounts show that there is obviously much in this story that Stephen has left out.
Remfry was the first prior of Whitby and
there is no evidence of there being an abbot until the twelfth
century. Before taking the religious life, Remfry had been a
knight of William the Bastard
(d.1087) and had taken part in the Harrying of the North. During
this he had discovered the saints of Northumbria when he was at
Streanaeshealh (Streoneshalc). This was the original name for Whitby
in Yorkshire. Remfry subsequently took up holy orders at Evesham
abbey where many survivors of the Harrying of the North had
gathered. Afterwards he jointly led a group to Northumberland,
where they first settled at Monkchester, aka Newcastle upon Tyne and then moved to Jarrow - the Gerva of Stephen - before 1074. At some point between then and 1078, Remfry obviously left Jarrow and moved to Whitby,
Yorkshire, where William Percy granted him the site of the old
monastery. In this manner he became the first prior of that
place. Considering this, it is odd that Stephen regarded Percy as
an evil enemy, yet he implies that he got on well with Remfry and that
he was elected first abbot of Whitby.
Possibly there was a personality or ideological clash going on here
between Stephen and Percy/Remfry. Certainly Stephen only once
accords Remfry the title of prior, which of course is inferior to that
of abbot, but otherwise states that he was the man in charge, praeerat quidam Renfridus. He also neglects to mention Remfry's religious training at Evesham abbey. After a successful career at Whitby, Remfry died in an accident in 1086, while Percy's younger son, Serlo, succeeded Remfry at Whitby. Remfry's descendants continued in the service of the Percys.
For there were in that place
certain brethren, who led an hermetical life, to whom I associated
myself; one Remfry being in charge. This man had dwelt some time
at Jarrow in Northumberland, where seeking
divine contemplation, he became an hermit; to whom many brethren
associated. The place, viz. Jarrow, at
his coming to it was only inhabited by birds of prey and wild beasts,
but had formerly been a fruitful spot of ground to the servants of God
that dwelt in it. And that place, although at their arrival it
had been the abode of beasts and birds, yet once upon a time there
existed in it a fertile colony of the servants of God who dwelt there,
among whom also flourished the venerable presbyter Bede, who left many
sacraments of the scriptures, discussed through the Holy Spirit, for
the edification of the eternal faithful.
The aforesaid Remfry, therefore, not oblivious to his desire,
when he saw the brethren who stayed with him, instructed them in the
regular disciplines, he adhered to the precepts of the monastic
religion, deputing the labours of the present life to be very small in
comparison with the eternal retribution, bade farewell to those who
deserved it, so he came to Whitby (Wyttebeia)
with the grace of leading a solitary life, but there too, having heard
of his reputation, many joined him, desiring to remain with him
perpetually, with whom I also joined, desiring to dedicate myself to
the habit of holy religion to God alone, under his teaching and
priorship, which I undertook in the same place. But after a few
days had passed, Remfry and all the congregation, agreeing to his
advice and command, imposed on me the management of the whole monastery
and at last, I do not know by what judgment of God, I was unwilling and
resisted for a long time, they also chose obedience both to the king's
command and to the venerable archbishops, that is to say, Lanfranc of
Canterbury, and Thomas of York.
I, therefore, having been
elected abbot, as I wished to restore to the former honour that place
which had been newly begun with the help of the Lord and was filled
with nothing of worldly things, many adversities of this world began to
grow against me and to retard my desire from the work which I had
begun. For a certain royal baron, named William Percy, who had
given us the very place, seeing that our lately deserted place was
improved in many ways, inflicted many adversities on us, both by
himself and by his men, repenting of the good he had done us, working
as hard as he could by any means to force us from it. On the
other side, however, the pirates of the sea and the robbers of the
country, of whom there were many at that time, roaming far and wide,
brought force upon us, they plundered what we could have and at last,
gathered together one night, making an attack, putting us all to flight
and plundering all our possessions and having taken all, they took some
of us prisoners and took them to unknown lands, for which reason we
were grieved to the point of death and desiring by some means to avoid
the impending danger, we resolved to intimate to the king whatever
things were troubling us, who, kindly enough to be compassionate,
sympathetic to our needs for God's sake, showed himself ready and
willing to help us.
The fact that William Percy and Remfry kept up their relationship until
Remfry's death in 1086 would suggest that Abbot Stephen was being far
from honest here. More likely he led a breakaway movement from
Remfry's rule - Simon Durham, describing Remfry as unlettered - which
may suggest a matter of professional jealousy between them, with
Stephen obviously being literate.
There was, indeed, not far from Whitby, in the possession of the king himself, a certain place called Lastingham [Whitby is 18 miles from Lastingham],
then, of course, unoccupied, but at one time the number of monks and
religion there was excellent. Therefore this place, given to us
by the king, we began to restore little by little and to build such
things as were necessary for the monastic habitation, that is when the
aforesaid William Percy, in whose estate we dwelt, or others, should
presume to inflict any adverse effects upon us, so that they would
acknowledge us to have some suitable refuge for our profession under
the hand and dominion of the king himself. And when, after this,
the opportune time was at hand, when I should receive the laying on of
the pontifical hand and the abbot's blessing, it occurred to me that I
should go to Lastingham, because it was
under the sole power of the king that he should be professed a monk and
so that he should also be consecrated abbot of that place. This
thing seemed good and useful to our congregation and to the king
himself as well as to our lord, Archbishop Thomas, as well as to all
those whose counsel I complained of; and finally, by God's authority,
it was carried into action by those who wished it. But indeed the
oft-mentioned William, as he had been wont to do before and afterwards
too, was troublesome to us and opposed to us and, as has been said, he
laboured by all means to expel our conventicle from his estate, where
he still lived.
Wherefore I, overcome with
great grief, was obliged to go frequently to the justiciaries of this
kingdom, to make known our misery and oppression to the ears of many
and to beg for help against those who oppress us; but not thus making
any progress, at last I took care to cross over to Normandy, where the
king and William Percy happened to be staying at the same time and how
we could further have our peace, I took care to exert myself by
entreaty with the king and by whatever other means I could and so at
last, having received a chirograph of peace, I returned to my own
country and not long after I obtained peace with and from our
people. For from that time William's spirit and anger flared up
much more violently against us and until he had completely driven us
from Whitby, he did not allow us to have
peace or rest for long. In short, for these demanding reasons, at
last, worn out by the long trouble of insistent pressures and compelled
by the inevitable violence of the oft-mentioned William, Whitby having already been officially and unjustly taken from us, to the aforesaid place called Lastingham,
desiring to remain there at least, we migrated by the king's
command. But since the way of man is not in his own control,
Almighty God disposed of us differently and he prepared in a healthy
way those things which were of eternal benefit to our bodies and
souls. For there too, by some judgment of God, robbers pursued
us, ravishing all around and often plundering our property, filling our
hearts with ineradicable grief.
Quite clearly William Percy had removed Stephen from his position (if he actually held it) of abbot of Whitby, while Remfry continued in his role as prior under and with the support of Percy. Unfortunately the itinerary of William I
adds little to the story. He was in France from 1076 until late
in 1080 and then split his time between England and France in 1081,
1082, 1083 and 1084. He then remained in Normandy from the winter
of 1086 until his death in September 1087. Unfortunately this
adds nothing to Stephen's chronology.
At that time there was a certain count, named Alan [Richmond,
d.1089], born of the noble blood of Brittany, the son of Eudon, a noble
count of Brittany, to whom I had been intimately connected in
friendship for sometime; who greatly admired the probity of manners and
the riches of this age and had a certain church built in honour of St
Olave near the city of York;
to whom, when I had anxiously related all the acts of our persecution,
he was moved by our pusillanimity and promised to give us the pre-built
church with 4 acres of land, for the construction of offices; and that
we should transfer the seat of our abbey to this church itself, having
first obtained permission from the king, for the sake of the
fortification of the place, he sweetly persuaded, promising that he
would give us help in many ways and asserting that the citizens of the
city would also be near to help us in whatever we had to do.
About this time I became
intimately acquainted with a certain earl called Alan, of a most noble
family, being the son of Count Eudo of Brittany; who, commiserating our
condition, gave us a church near the city of York,
dedicated to St Olave, with 4 acres of land adjoining to build offices
on. And, having obtained licence from the king, he kindly
persuaded us to come thither and make it the seat of our abbey.
But Archbishop Thomas of York claimed the ground given us by Alan to
belong of right to him. However, when the king, William Rufus, came to York
he came to visit us in our new monastery and seeing that the building
was too strait and narrow for us, he projected one larger and with his
own hand first opened the ground for laying the foundation of the
church of the monastery. Several lands which are not here
necessary to mention, the king also gave towards the maintenance of the
monks, free from all regal exaction forever. Earl Alan gave us a
borough which is in the suburbs of the city, near the church, upon the
same conditions. This happened in the year 1088, and not long
after our good friend Alan dying, the king, for the sake of his soul,
gave us the towns of Clifton and Overton, which were of his
demesne. In this matter, happy as a result, when I reported the
good will and promise of the count to the king, the king gladly gave
his consent, so that, since iniquity had abounded in the same city, and
much more blood had been shed there than in the rest of the English
cities, that the light of divine religion might shine in it forever and
that the people of the barbarous religious men, who were in our times
and in many times to come after us, becoming accustomed to humble
behaviour and examples, might learn to keep true faith in the lord of
heaven and in the king of the earth, and that, persisting in good
works, they might be able to keep their souls by their frequent visions
and sermons. When these things were done, according to what the
king had arranged and the aforesaid count had promised, our adversary,
the devil, incited the spirit of our Archbishop Thomas to anger against
us, to expel us from this place so he made a complaint against the four
acres of land which the count had given us for building offices; he
raised a complaint that the same land belonged to the benefice of his
church and that we were unjustly possessing it by secular power.
When I with Count Alan made a complaint at London, afterwards, in the
presence of the king and a multitude of bishops, the abbot and the
king's barons, the aforesaid Count Alan argued that the same land was
his by right and still contradicting the archbishop, the king promised
that he would give another land in exchange, so that henceforth he
might have the firmest peace with us.
The chronology of these events now seems hopelessly adrift, which has
led to the questioning of the whole account as a later
fabrication. However, it is possible that Rufus came to York
in what Stephen may have regarded as the year 1088. By modern
standards that year would have started on 1 January 1088, but by the
standards of Robert's day it probably began on 25 March 1088 and ended
a year later, allowing Rufus to reach York at any time before 25 March 1089 - Lady's Day. During 1088 King William II
had faced a major rebellion which kept him fighting in the south of the
country from February until August. He does not appear to have
even been in the North in September when Bishop William St Calais
(1080-96), came to the king under safe conduct from Durham. Soon afterwards on 2 November, Rufus was found at Salisbury
when it was stated that he intended to hold his Christmas court at
London. However, his itinerary for 1089 is totally unknown and if
Count Alan did die early in 1089 (traditionally he died on 4 August,
which is suspiciously the same day as his brother later died in 1098),
then it is possible that Rufus went up to York early in 1089, the year 1088 at that date ending on 25 March 1089. As such Stephen might have been right that Rufus
visited in the year 1088/89. Certainly Count Alan and Stephen's
trip to London to complain of the archbishop could well have taken
place over the Christmas court of 1089 when Rufus' whereabouts in England are unknown.
After this rendition of his affairs under King William Rufus
(1087-1100), Stephen continued with his irregular chronology by
reiterating this story, taking up the reins again shortly after the
death King William I, which happened on 9 September 1087.
After a short time, King William of the English died, his son, William,
succeeded him in the kingdom, who retaining paternal piety and devotion
towards us and our place, not long afterwards about to order the state
of his kingdom, having come to York
surrounded by a great number of nobles, went to our church, in which we
were staying at that time and seeing that it was short and narrow for
us to live in, he was first to lay the foundation in the ground for
another church; also the lands, which it is not necessary to insert
here, for the support of the monks of our church, he handed over to be
possessed in perpetuity, free and quit from all royal exaction; and our
church itself, with all its possessions, a written royal charter, also
with the royal seal, just as it was done with the charter sealed, it is
confirmed forever as quit and free. Count Alan also gave us the
burgh which he had outside the city, near the city itself, willingly,
with the consent of the king, forever; and placing the advocacy of our
abbey into the king's hands, so that henceforth our defender and
advocate might exist, he asked it and obtained it by asking for
it. This took place in the year of the incarnation 1088. A
few days later, our friend Count Alan died and the king, for his soul,
gave us the towns called Clifton and Overton, which were of his
beneficence.
This line is very important as Count Alan traditionally died on 4
August 1094, although there is little evidence to substantiate this
date - namely the uncertain dating of one of Archbishop Anselm's
letters which suggests that Alan Rufus was still alive in 1093.
Against this dating is this alleged copy of an original document of
Stephen's plus a thirteenth century chronicle which uses early
documents for its sources. It seems from these more likely that
Alan actually died early in 1089. Indeed, in the Margam chronicle
his death is specifically linked with that of Archbishop Lanfranc who
died on 24 May 1089. Further, the date of 1094 seems to come from
a recording of his epitaph at Bury St Edmunds. Yet this is
undated, having solely the phrase ‘about that year' (Circa istum annum).
It therefore seems dangerous to date this to circa 1093 as the editors
of the work have done. These disparate pieces of evidence, if
taken together, suggest Count Alan's death more likely occurred in 1089
than 1093/4. However, none of this can be taken as definitive and
it must be remembered that Stephen's account was written from memory
concerning events that had probably happened some 20 to 30 years before
his death in 1112. That Stephen is insistent that this all took
place in 1088 is therefore important if the story is true. The
itinerary of William II makes it virtually impossible for the king to have been in York
between 1 January 1088 and 31 December 1088. However, Stephen's
story is not at odds with this itinerary if it is assumed that
Stephen's year of 1088 ended on 25 March 1089 as it was often reckoned
to do in the eleventh century. The alternative that this account
reputed to be by Abbot Stephen is a later forgery, that must have been
made before 1163, when Henry II seems to have seen a similar story, is of course possible. Regardless of this, Stephen continued his recollections.
Many of the chief men of the
palace were also present at our foundation, whose names are as follows:
Archbishop Thomas (1070-1100), Bishop Odo of Bayeux (1049-97), the
king's uncle, Bishop Godfrey [Geoffrey] of Coutances (1049-93), who at
the same time governed the consulship of the Northumbrians, Bishop
William of Durham (1087-96), Count Alan (d.1089), Count Odo of
Champagne (d.1093), Earl William Warenne (d.24 June 1088), Earl Henry
Beaumont (d.1119) and many other nobles whom it would be too long to
insert here.
After all the arguments above, this witness list cannot stand.
Bishop Odo of Bayeux rose in revolt before Easter 1088 and never
returned to royal service. Similarly Bishop William of Durham was
in disgrace from his fleeing from the king's presence that Spring,
further William Warenne was dead months before the time the king could
have feasiblely got to York
in late 1088 or 1089. Therefore, although there is no problem
with the other witnesses, these 3 show either that the foundation must
have happened before June 1088 or the list and possibly also the
foundation by William Rufus'
own hand have been fabricated. The final alternative, which
appears the only feasible explanation if Stephen's account of the
foundation is to be accepted, is that these were the witnesses of William I's
foundation of the abbey in 1087. Against this is the fact that
William Warenne wasn't an earl then. Considering Stephen's
irregular chronology, as if he is writing things down as he recalled
them, rather than to a sound plan, none of the interpretations
suggested above are impossible. Perhaps it should be mentioned
here that Rufus is
sometimes credited with founding Bermondsey abbey, when in fact all he
did was grant the land of Bermondsey to the foundation that Alwin Child
had founded in 1082. According to the abbey's historian probably
writing in the early 1430s:
1082, Alwin Child, a citizen
of London, founder of the monastery of the monks of St Saviour of
Bermondsey, by royal license gave to the same monks who came into
England in the second year of King William the Second, Rufus, various rents in the city of London, before the same King William II
gave them the manor of Bermondsey. And at the above he encouraged
various lords, both temporal and spiritual, to give estates, churches
and manors, as is evident below, in the time of King William the Second.
This account hardly makes for a royal foundation. Similarly, Rufus
is also claimed to have founded Armathwaite nunnery in Cumberland when
he was at Westminster on 6 January 1089 in the second year of his
reign. This would fit in nicely with an interest in the North
about this time and also possibly a slightly later expedition to York
in the winter/spring of 1089 as suggested above. However, it must be
noted that Rufus did not appear to control Cumberland until 1092, but in the foundation charter he obviously controlled Carlisle.
Further, many of the terms within the document are given in
anachronistic English. Despite the fact it is an obvious forgery,
the ‘charter' was confirmed by Edward IV on 20 June 1480.
In short, the idea that the irreligious Rufus founded an abbey with his own hands, let alone 2 and a nunnery, looks increasingly unlikely.
After this Archbishop Thomas,
seeing us advancing day by day, became more and more envious, as most
people testify, impelled by counsel, he always raised a claim for the 4
acres of land aforesaid and not withdraw his mind from the intention of
allowing us no rest on anything. And when I consulted King William, the son of King William the elder,
about these things, asking also that what his father had once promised
to this archbishop, he himself would not delay any longer in paying; at
last, at Christmas [1089], in the council at Gloucester, the church of St Stephen, situated in York
and all that belonged to it, the king delivered to Archbishop Thomas,
for those 4 acres of land to be possessed in perpetuity and caused the
complaint concerning the aforesaid land to be put before all the
court. And lest this should in any way be forgotten, the king
wrote, sealed with the royal seal, both to archbishop Thomas, as he did
to us, that not only archbishop Thomas, but also his successors, had
the perpetual right to possess the church of St Stephen, situated in
York, with its possessions, for the 4 acres of land.
This was done in council at Gloucester,
in the hearing and seeing of these whose names are here inserted.
Archbishop Anselm of Canterbury (25 September 1093-1101), Archbishop
Thomas of York (1070-1100), Bishop William of Durham (1087-96), Bishop
Robert of Chester (1085-1117), Bishop Robert of Hereford (1079-1105),
Bishop Osmond of Salisbury (1078-99), Bishop Walkelin of Winchester
(1070-98), Bishop Maurice of London (1086-1107), Bishop Herbert of
Thetford (1091-95), Bishop John of Somerset (1088-1122), Bishop Gundulf
of Rochester (1077-1108), Bishop Robert of Lincoln (March 1093-1123),
Bishop Hervey of St Davids (Wilfrid was bishop from 1085-1115), Bishop
Ralph of Chichester (1091-1123), Abbot Thurstan of Glastonbury
(1077/6-96), Abbot Gilbert of Westminster (1085-1117/8), Abbot William
of Cerne (?-1096/1102), Abbot Ingulf of Crowland (1086-1109), Abbot
Reginald of Abingdon (1084-97), Abbot Godfrey of Malmesbury
(1091-96/1106), Abbot Serlo of Gloucester (1072-1104), Abbot Walter of
Evesham (1077/8-1104), Earl Hugh Montgomery (Earl Hugh died in 1098,
but his father, Earl Roger, only died on 27 July 1094, meaning his son
did not become an earl until after that date) and Ernulf his son
(d.1120+, Erunulf was the son of Roger, but brother of Hugh), Bernard
Neufmarché (d.1121+), Norman Darcy (d.1115+), Archdeacon Durand,
Dean Hugh of York, Gilbert the chaplain of Archbishop Thomas and Osmond
his dapifer.
The above charter witnesses could have been at the possible Christmas
court of 1094, rather than that of 1093, the former court likely and
the latter definitely held at Gloucester.
However, there is a problem with the witness list for either
date. As Hugh Montgomery is already described as earl, an event
that did not happen until 27 July 1094, the latter date would seem a
distinct possibility. That said, it appears likely that Earl
Roger was the intended witness of Stephen's story, rather than Earl
Hugh, unless of course, the word father (pater) has been substituted for brother (frater),
concerning Ernulf. Thankfully the question is resolved by a copy
of the charter made by Roger Dodsworth (d.1654) and stored in the
Bodleian. According to his precis:
King William
etc. To Geoffrey Bainard (G. Brenard, sheriff of York since 1088)
and all his faithful French and English greeting.
Know that I grant the church of St Stephen, which is situated in York
by the pond, as well as what is adjacent to it, to Archbishop Thomas
and the church of St Peter in exchange for the land on which the abbey
of St Mary was established, so that from now on the aforesaid abbey may
remain secure and free from all damage. This was enacted in the
council at Gloucester,
on the birthday of the Lord, where the king held his court there for
the first time, in the presence of those who heard and saw this whose
names are here inserted. Archbishop Anselm of Canterbury
(1093-1101), Archbishop Thomas of York (1070-1100), Bishop William of
Durham (1087-96), Bishop Robert of Chester (1085-1117), Bishop Robert
of Hereford (1079-1105), Bishop John of Somerset (1088-1122), Bishop
Osmond (Simundus) of Salisbury (1078-99), Bishop Walkelin of Winchester
(1070-98), Bishop Maurice of London (1086-1107), Bishop Herbert of
Thetford (1091-95), Bishop Gundulf of Rochester (1077-1108), Bishop
Robert of Lincoln (1093-1123), Bishop Hervey of St Davids (Wilfrid was
bishop from 1085-1115), Bishop Ralph of Chichester (1091-1123), Abbot
Thurstan of Glastonbury (1077/6-96), Abbot Gilbert...
Quite clearly this is the same charter and its content shows that it
was made at the Christmas 1093 court. This is proved as this was
the first known time that Rufus held court at Gloucester.
Presumably Abbot Stephen was working from the same charter as Dodsworth
found. He doesn't appear to be copying Abbot Stephen as he does
not mention that was the first Christmas court at Gloucester.
It should also be noted that the ‘of Westminster' of Abbot
Gilbert, is missing as are the rest of the witnesses that Stephen
quotes, both lay and religious. If the date is accepted as 25
December 1093, then obviously it was Earl Roger Montgomery who
witnessed the charter and the R. of the charter has been wrongly
expanded at some time from what was mistaken as H. Abbot
Stephen's account finished:
But I, Abbot Stephen,
considering how great an evil it is that Christians and especially
those distinguished by the light of the divine religion, disagreed with
each other, desiring to make the mind of our Archbishop Thomas in every
way appeasable, I gave him another two carucates of land, one in
Clifton, the other in Heslington, that Archbishop Thomas and his canons
may henceforth have the most firm peace with us and that they may no
longer raise any objection to us - those who wish to disturb the quiet
of the supreme king God, let them raise a complaint about this
matter. However, wishing to make it known to our posterity, from
how many tribulations the almighty Lord has delivered us, I endeavoured
to compose this scripture for the memory of all, so that the present
and future inhabitants of this place may tirelessly invoke our God in
prayers for me and that they may know how our church was founded,
notwithstanding being driven by so many storms, may the divine grace
protecting us be increased and multiplied more and more through Christ
our Lord.
To help in untangling the alleged reminisces of Abbot Stephen there are
a few more documents of relevance collected by William Dugdale
(d.1686). The first to be examined is a document entitled,
Concerning the Construction of the Church [of St Mary of York] and the
Funds contributed to it (De Constructione Ecclesiae et Fundis eo collatis) which was taken from an old membrane found in the Tower of St Mary of York (ex vetusta membrane in Turri S. Mariae Eboraci) in 1628. This read:
In the year 1089, King William Rufus, the son of the King William who conquered England, in the second year of his reign, held a parliament at York, where then, at the request of the most illustrious man, Earl Stephen of Richmond [he was lord of Richmond
from 1098 to 1136], in his own person, with his magnates and standing
with his superiors in front of the monastery of St. Mary of York, which
indeed the aforesaid earl had begun before; and seeing that it was too
narrow, he moved the church as well as changed the name of the church;
and he himself laid the first stone and instead of the name of St
Olave, he conferred the name of St Mary and gave many benefits and
estates and confirmed by royal charter the donations of William the Conqueror,
his father, as well as of his other lords, with liberties and free
customs. In which, among others, the following mention is made,
namely: Earl Alan after me [Richmond,
d.1146] and my father, the founder of this abbey, etc. [Count Eudon of
Brittany (d.1079) was the father of Stephen, while his brother, Earl
Alan Rufus (d.1089) was the founder], gave the church of Catterick and
the tithes of his castellany throughout the whole castellany and
throughout the whole of Yorkshire, except for a part of the Francigena churches, of those lands which they hold from him in the prescribed castellanies, etc.
Quite obviously at some point this has been heavily mangled, conflating together the actions of William Rufus, Count Alan Rufus, Count Alan Niger and Earl Stephen of Richmond.
However, despite this confusion, it does seem to contain the data from
the conflated original documents and again states clearly that there
was a ‘parliament' at York when Rufus
founded St Mary's abbey. That said, it does nothing to unravel
the timeline of Abbot Stephen's history. This conflation is then
followed by the charter of Ribald of Middleham (d.1121+), the brother of the 3 early earls of Richmond (both Alans and Stephen) and then those of other lords. The next section contains the charter of William II exemplified (exemplificata) as it is called. This reads:
The king sends greeting to all. We have inspected the charter of Lord William of good memory, formerly king of England, our progenitor, made in these words:
King William of the English,
sends greetings to the archbishops, abbots, justiciaries and all his
servants and ministers throughout England. Know that I, William, king of the English, son of W, king of the English and duke of the Normans, for the safety of my soul, for the safety of the souls of King Edward, and of the souls of King William
my father and of my mother, Queen Matilda, as well as for the state of
my kingdom, with the counsel and consent of the archbishop of York, who
sometimes raised the question, I authorize the church of the convent of
St Mary of York and the location of the place of the convent itself, as
far as it is outside the city, from Galmon
to the water of the Ouse, with the site of the mill. And I
confirm and grant in pure alms and give to Abbot Stephen and to his
successors and to the aforesaid parish, the lands, churches, tithes,
woods, plains, ponds, mills, and other possessions to be possessed free
and quiet from all earthly service in perpetual possession, with the
same laws, liberties, and dignities and customs which the church of St
Peter of York has, or the church of St John of Beverley, or if any
church in all England is more free, let this also be as free as well as
all the lands belonging to it, which now it has, or which it can
reasonably acquire: hence some are subscribed here. William, my
father, therefore gave to the aforesaid abbey in Appleton le Moors (Apilton) 4 carucates of land, in Normanby (Northmanby) 3, in Spaunton (Spanton) 2, in Lastingham 3, in York the church of St Kirkeby (Kirkby Misperton?) and in Hunkelby and in York 2 mansuras land and the church of St Saviour (Salvator).
I also for the increase of my gift have added 4½ carucates of
land in Grimston. Count Alan, after me and my father, the founder
of this abbey, gave the church of St Olave, in which the caput of the
abbey was better established in honour of St Mary, as well as the
borough in which the church is situated, from Galmon
towards Clifton and towards the water 9½ carucates of lands in
Clifton and the town of Sutton in Holland; the church of St Botolph
(Boston, Lincolnshire) and what belongs to it as well as one carucate
of land and the site of the mill with the churches of Gilling,
Catterick and the tithes of his castellany.
There were then listed the donors and lands granted, namely, Berenger Tosny (Todeni, d.c.1115) giving one carucate of land in Lastingham, 6 in Spaunton, 8 carucates of land in Kirkby Misperton (Misperton-Kirkeby) and 3½ in Dalby, in Stakelden 6 bovates, in Lyndeshay one carucate of land and in Binbrook (Binnebrok,
Lincolnshire) the church and 80 acres..... other named donations were
made by Hugh Fitz Baldrick, Osbert Arches, Odo Balistarius, Gilbert
Gant, W Stois and Ilbert Lacy. There then followed some details
of the abbey's extensive liberties. What is noticeable is that
many of the early grants are set around Lastingham
and therefore probably dated to a time before 1086/7, when the abbey
moved to St Olave's. Finally the document finished with:
Indeed, because of the age of
the same charter and the weakness of the seal attached to the same, we
have exemplified it by the present charter, which we have caused to be
sealed with our seal. Witnessed by the king at Lanercost on the
first day of January.
This does not seem to relate to the eleventh century, but probably reflects the work of Edward I
(1272-1307) when he was incapacitated at Lanercost priory during the
winter of 1306/07. Indeed Lanercost would probably not have seen
a royal visitor until after the founding of the priory in the
1160s. In short this ‘charter' seems an Edwardian
conflation of earlier documents - or was a forgery made around that
time.
Further information about the foundation of the abbey and its
subsequent fate came in the fourteenth century. In 1308 the
charters of St Mary's were examined and confirmed by Edward II (1307-27). The first of these was a grant by Richard I (1189-99), then came one of King William I (1066-87) by which he gave various lands in Appleton le Moors, Normanby, Spaunton and Lastingham, the churches of St Michael and St Saviour in York as well as land in Huntington and Monkbridge (Muncabrige).
This appears to be another version of the charter quoted in the
‘Edwardian' confirmation above. Next came the grant of King William Rufus ‘who also founded that abbey with his own hand in the place where it is now situated' and gave land in Grimston (Grimestona) and the vill of Hemswell (Helmeswella, Lincolnshire). King Henry I (1100-35) also granted lands and then came the interesting grant of Count Alan Rufus (d.1089). This was paraphrased as:
the church of St Olave and the borough in which the church is situated, where an abbey was founded by King William more competently than it was at Lastingham; and in Holland the church of St Botolph [Boston] and what belongs to it...
This was followed by land in Skirbeck (Scirebec,
now in Boston, Lincolnshire), the mill and church in Catterick,
Richmond church with the castle chapel and the tithes of his castellany
which he held in York... It should be noted that which King William founded the new St Mary's is not mentioned and in all likelihood William I rather than Rufus might have been meant.
Then came a grant of Count Alan Niger (d.1098) which consisted of
Gilling church with land and the tithes of Rasingbury as well as land
in Haslingfield (Heselinghefeld) and Skelton (Sceltona).
Next their brother, Count Stephen (d.1036), made his grants followed by
a whole host of other lords. This evidence adds much to our
knowledge of the genealogy of the Northern barons, but sadly little to
the conundrum of whether William Rufus actually laid the first foundation stone of St Mary's abbey.
The final early charter would seem to have been made by King Henry II
(1154-89), during the archbishopric of Thomas Becket (1162-70) and
probably in the latter half of 1163. In this it was recorded that
King William Rufus (1087-1100) had founded St Mary's abbey, giving it 4 carucates of land in Grimston and a half in Hemswell (Elmeswelle). It then continues that:
Count Alan Rufus gave the church of St Olave and the borough in which the church is situated, where an abbey was founded by King William more competently than it was at Lastingham....
When taken together this early evidence would suggest that Stephen and
his followers broke away from William Percy and Prior Remfry at Whitby in or soon after 1078. Stephen then made himself abbot at Lastingham where he attracted the support of King William I
(1066-87) and where he resided for a number of years despite the
hostility still shown him by William Percy and his supporters.
Then, probably in 1085, Stephen transferred his abbey to St Olave's in
York under the patronage of Count Alan Rufus of Richmond (d.1089). It is then possible, but by no means proved that King William Rufus subsequently took an interest in the abbey when he came to York
in an otherwise unrecorded visit at some point during the first 3
months of 1089 and certainly before 25 March 1089, which was considered
the start of the new year in the eleventh century. Thinking St
Olave's too small Rufus
is then said to have laid the foundation stone of the new church
dedicated to St Mary and augmented its lands further. If so, this
is the only religious site actually founded by the notoriously
irreligious Rufus. Finally, on Christmas day 1093, Rufus
confirmed the land exchange with Archbishop Thomas of York, which
really ended the foundation story of St Mary's abbey and confirmed
beyond doubt Stephen as abbot. From all this evidence this leaves
a severe doubt as to whether King William II
did actually found the new abbey with his own hands? If the
account of Abbot Stephen is genuine and therefore written before his
death in 1112, it would appear to be so. However, if the document
is a forgery or Stephen was lying, the document was certainly made
before 1163 when King Henry II
confirmed the claims made in it. There can have been very few
people around in the 1160s who may have witnessed such a royal founding
70 odd years before and the claim that this was a royal foundation must
have had some basis to have been accepted. It therefore seems
probable that Abbot Stephen's account is a reasonable description, even
an apology for what had happened during the foundation of St Mary's
abbey, as there was obviously a lot of bad feeling over these events,
even if these have been rather crudely censored by Abbot Stephen in his
account. As he had outlived William Percy, who had died on the
first Crusade, and Remfry, who had died in 1086, Stephen, it can be
said, had the last say in the matter and his view, however biassed, has
largely come down to posterity. With all this considered, Rufus
deciding that St Olave's was too small and with his own hand laying the
foundation stone of a new structure, just seems at odds with what is
known of the man himself from contemporary sources - which is
admittedly minimal. Probably the truth of the matter will never
be known, but the liklihood is that Stephen was at the least
embroidering the truth when it came to Rufus laying the foundations for his abbey.
St Mary's abbey, regardless of its royal foundation or not, was clearly
of major importance in the religious landscape. It had not long
been founded before a number of cells were established and made
dependent upon it, that of Wetheral priory in Cumberland
seems to have been the first in about 1106. Afterwards there
followed St Bees priory in the same county, St Martin's priory near Richmond
and Rumburgh in Suffolk. In 1132, 13 monks left St Mary's in a
turbulent scene and founded Fountains abbey, another of the great
religious establishments of the North. Five years later, the
house was much injured in the great fire of York in 1137, but obviously repaired.
Some 150 years later, the early church was rebuilt by Abbot Simon
Warwick (1258-96), starting in 1270. According to a piece tacked
onto the end of Abbot Simon's Foundation story, in that year;
on the 9th of April... the
lord abbot of St Mary of York laid the first stone, while giving a
blessing surrounded by the convent, at the bottom of the new choir of
the same monastery, the foundation of which was 9' in height and in
other parts between 24' and 26'.
Defences may have been begun around the abbey a little earlier than those built at Exeter cathedral which were begun after the murder of Walter Lechlade in 1283. Then Bishop Quinell obtained permission from Edward I
(1272-1307) to build a wall around his Cathedral Yard. This was
to have 7 gates which were to be locked at night. The military
defences at St Mary's York, seem to have been started for similar
reasons. On 16 August 1262, the citizens of York attacked the abbey. Four years later it was stated that:
On 31 May 1266, Abbot Simon
began the stone wall surrounding the abbey, beginning at the church of
St Olave and extending towards the gate of the same city, in a place
called Galmanhith.
Galmanhith is obviously the original Galmanho
and lay outside Bootham Bar - the gate mentioned with it.
Possibly this north side of the enclosure was built after the southern
side along the river had been enclosed as is suggested on 9 December
1260 by the king granting:
to the abbot and convent of
St Mary, York, that they may build within their abbey [preinct] a
certain wall of stone as far as the infirmary of the hospital of St.
Leonard, York, the king granting to the same abbot and convent that
they may build the said stone wall below their abbey as far as the
aforesaid infirmary as they see fit to make it more convenient for
them...
St Leonard's lay just north of the Lendal Tower by the Multangular
Tower and therefore close to the riverside. Despite this order,
it has been claimed that a wall was only built along the Ouse in
1334. This was nearly 20 years after the citizens under Mayor
Nicholas Flemming came and ‘with the strong hand filled in the
ditches under the abbey's walls'. Next year the mayor and
citizens demolished an earthen wall before the abbey, the fall of which
killed 5 of them. Probably this was the rampart that previously lay over the Multangular Tower and the Roman fort wall to its southeast. The citizens then dug a great ditch between the abbey
and St Leonard's hospital. Twenty years after this, on 24 June
1354, the lands of the abbey were described as consisting of a street
called St Marygate. This ran:
from the new round tower to the River Ouse and the place called Aumoneriegarth
enclosed with a wall and hay towards the north as far as the fields of
Clifton and thence westwards by a dyke as far as the Ouse.... and all
the abbey as well as the walls of the abbey.... it is agreed that it
shall be lawful for the abbot and convent to scour a dyke extending
from the said round tower to the end of St Marygate towards the gate of
the city called Bootham Bar, which dyke is within the said suburb,
whenever they please for the safety of their wall enclosing their abbey
towards the great street of Bootham....
It was also agreed that the walls could be repaired along St Marygate and also:
from Bootham Bar to the Ouse,
between the abbey walls and the city dyke... the commonalty will never
build on the place where the dyke is between St Marygate and Bootham
Bar...
Ninety years later:
On 12 March 1444, St Mary's was authorised to enclose a close by the River Ouse in Bootham called the Little Island (Lyttell Ynge),
certain parcels of land enclosed with a pale lying without the walls of
the abbey in length from Bootham Bar to a round tower by St Marygate,
the site of the monastery church from Galmou, alias Bootham Bar, by York
ditch on the south of the abbey to the thread of water of the Ouse on
the west of the abbey and from the said ditch by the said thread to a
ditch on the north of the said close called Little Island and thence by
the ditch to a stone wall on the east of the garden called Almery
Garden [presumably now under Almery Terrace] and so by the wall
southward to the gardens of the abbot and convent and so from the wall
by the boundaries of the gardens and ancient devises to Bootham and
thence by the highway to Bootham Bar, which premises were granted by
the king's progenitors.
The last military modification to the enceinte only occurred in the
reign of Henry VII (1485-1509) when a postern with a rectangular tower
was built near Bootham Bar in 1497.
Description
The defences of St Mary's cover a rectangle projecting from Bootham Bar
some 550' and then running 1,050' along Marygate to the Water Tower,
which probably once stood in the River Ouse. Most of these
defences still stand in one form or another, although the defences on
the south side no longer exist - if they ever did. The current
Marygate runs along the probable site of the wall ditch, although it is
possible that this was always the road mentioned in the early charters
as Marygate Street.
At the end of St Marygate to the southwest, probably originally in the
river, was a circular tower. This is defended by a series of
current ground floor Latin crossbow loops with ball oillets at all 4
points in 4 of the 5 openings, the fifth containing a small rectangular
window.
The differences between Greek and Latin loops are described on the main
article on York walls.
Basically if the loops are Greek, ie have sighting slits the same
length as the loop itself, they are modern. Internally the tower
is hexagonal, while the loop embrasures all have shoulder headed
summits. Oddly these are of different heights and too small to be
fighting platforms. Also the 2 easternmost embrasures are
irregular compared to the other 3. The sixth side of the hexagon
faces roughly north and is a shoulder headed doorway which once led to
the enceinte wallwalk along Marygate. This suggests that the
original wallwalk was about 10' high. Within the tower, 2 to 3
ashlar courses beneath the base of the embrasures, was an offset to
support a wooden floor. The summit of the tower appears to have
been a wallwalk, meaning the whole structure only stands some 10'
high. A sketch of the site before 1736 in Drake's Eboracum
shows the tower standing some 25' high and with simple straight loops
at
current ground floor level. This suggests the loops may have been
modified after the time of Drake. The ground is obviously built
up around the structure, accounting for the loss of height.
Indeed, the top of an internal doorway can still be seen within the
structure indicating that at least 6' of its height is now below
ground. Regardless of this, at least some of the facing, the
loops and embrasures could well have been modified in modern
times. That said, to the southeast are traces of the toothing of
a 7' thick wall that ran along the river back towards the Lendal Tower.
The junction of the tower with the enceinte to the north is
modern. The angle of this junction is somewhat odd and may
suggest that much of this has been ‘beautified'. The
archway next to this tower is obviously a modern work, apparently being
made around 1836, but the low wall connecting to the rest of the
enceinte along Marygate would appear to contain the remains of the
original curtain. Along its course, back to St Olave's church,
are 2 small semi-circular turrets about 10' in diameter, the one
northernmost one being a Victorian replacement of one demolished around
1700. There are also 2 blocked shoulder headed doorways of
uncertain antiquity. The battlements and possibly the wallwalk
where they exist are almost certainly all modern, although at one point
along the enceinte the refaced modern wallwalk expands to a reasonable
3' wide in a 4' thick wall. No doubt the wall has been much
altered, but there would appear to be a core within it that is still
medieval.
Immediately southwest of St Olave's church is an ornate Romanesque arch
leading into a 40' long passageway flanked with a blind Romanesque
arcade together with 3 blocked Romanesque doorways. This leads
into the Marygate enclosure. Originally there was a similar
archway at the southeastern end and an arch with a lockable gate in the
passageway. The gateway is thought to be Norman in date, but may
well be a seventeenth or eighteenth century rebuilding using original
masonry which ties seamlessly into the adjoining Lodge. Certainly
the manner in which the archway joins the associated Lodge and church
buildings stand against its authenticity. Much of the gatehouse
was demolished soon after 1800 and what remained was then thoroughly
regenerated in 1839 in a mock Tudor style. Next to this lies St
Olave's church. Much of what remains is fifteenth century, but
some of the lower levels appear more ancient, while the precinct wall
is built into the lower courses of the north aisle.
Beyond the church, the wall, with rebuilt battlements, resumes and runs
with 5 shallow buttresses to a projecting, apparently backless,
rectangular tower. This curtain wall was previously built into
the rear of various houses along Marygate and when these were
demolished was largely restored. The rectangular tower currently
stands nearly 20' tall and has 2 fully oilleted Greek crossbow loops to
the front and one each on either side at first floor level. For
some reason these loops tend to be identified ‘with the walling
of 1318'. These non medieval features show that this tower has
been refaced at the least. There is also one tall, plain loop at
ground floor level to the southwest, covering a modern breach in the
wall. This just might be original, although the embrasure was
blocked before the 1952 restoration, before which it was thought to
have been a doorway. Only one external side of this was then
visible. There are traces of bonding stones for the curtain
parapet to the south, above the modern gateway. The 1952
restoration work also removed traces of a second floor which had loops
facing to the front and both sides.
Leaving the rectangular tower, the enceinte wall is set further back on
its northeastern side, which may indicate a different building
phase. Further the wall cuts back at a slight angle from the
tower to the main course of the enceinte. This section of wall
has every appearance of being original up to some 7' in height.
The wall consists of a damaged ashlar from which some 9 buttresses have
been stripped, leaving their gashes plugged with rubble. These
buttresses seem to have been placed at regular intervals. Some 9
courses up the wall there is a change in masonry style. The
rather poor ashlar suddenly becomes of higher quality with slightly
larger blocks. This carries a wallwalk and battlements and ends
some 25' short of St Mary's Tower. The wallwalk here is only
about a foot wide and has been capped with a sloping chamfer which is
obviously relatively modern, like the rebuilding of the rectangular
tower. Next to this the wall consists of modern brickwork and
probably eighteenth century buttresses. At the northern end of
the wallwalk the capping is missing leaving just the small
platform. This does seem to align with the doorway into St Mary's
Tower, suggesting that the original wallwalk was at this level.
However, most wallwalks are over 2' wide, so this narrow one suggests
that the rear of the wall may have been refaced. In 1972 they
were described as ‘carefully restored in recent years'.
Certainly this is in much better condition that the forward face which
may suggest that it has been rebuilt. Further, stone robbing
operations would seem to have mainly been carried out illegally and
therefore perhaps from the rear of the walls, rather than the more
publically visible fronts.
To the front of the rather pathetic wallwalk stands the
battlements. These look more realistic than the obviously
Victorian battlements on the main city walls and 3 crenels still retain
L shaped slots in the stonework which are purported to be for fitting
wooden shutters. This would mean that the shutters were either
open or shut. Original shutters on a wallwalk exist at Goodrich castle
where the boards swung on rods inserted into the stonework.
Possibly these features, with the crenels being a sensible 10' apart
and only some 2' wide, are medieval, but have been much rebuilt.
The junction of the curtain with the round St Mary's Tower at the
northern apex of the enclosure has obviously been altered. The
toothing in this tower wall shows
that the original curtain ran slightly in front of the current
wall. This therefore suggests that the entire wall between the
rectangular tower and St Mary's Tower is a later, post civil war,
rebuilding. This would explain the insignificant wallwalk.
St Mary's Tower is much rebuilt, having been exploded in 1644 during
the civil war by a mine. Sadly the archives of many religious
houses in the North had been kept there since the Dissolution and these
were much damaged and defaced by the explosion. The survivors
were then lost in the great Cottonian library fire of 1731, but
thankfully not before some were copied. The tower was about 34'
in diameter and stood over 30' high and had a twin chamfered
base. It is claimed to be the new tower built by Sacrist Stephen
Austewyk in the mid 1320s. The rear, southern half of the tower
would appear to be original. This had an octagonal interior and
walls over 6' thick. The northern portion of the tower has been
totally rebuilt, the junction to the west being marked by a rubble scar
and to the east by a ragged inset. At the ground floor the
remains are plain apart from an inserted doorway to the south which has
smashed through the older plinth. However, at ground level to the
west are some odd sections of miniature blind arcading running along
one course of rebuilt ashlar masonry. At first floor level are
the doorways running off to the southeast and southwest to feed the
precinct wallwalks. The recess to the southeast also includes a
mural stair running up to the destroyed upper levels. To the east
is a recess fitted with an off centre fake Greek loop and a now blocked
garderobe. This loop is one of the more interesting ones as the 4
ashlar blocks which make up the sighting slit are obviously modern,
while the upper and lower portions of the loop with their ball oillets
have every appearance of being original. Possibly then this was a
normal loop without sighting slits that has been converted into a Greek
loop of which many fake ones can be found littering York's walls.
Quite likely other loops too may have original components.
The wall
running southeast from here to Bootham Barappears
to be largely medieval and retains another minute wallwalk and some
battlements. Four of these merlons southeast of St Mary's Tower
contain badly damaged loops with at least ball oillets at the
base. That the curtain and battlements clearly butt against St
Mary's Tower would indicate, with the pathetically small wallwalk at a
different level to the access doorway, that this wall is probably post
medieval in its current form. Indeed some 100' from St Mary's
Tower this wall makes a definite angle taking its northwestwards
trajectory off line for meeting the wallwalk doorway into the
tower. Regardless of the wallwalk being on line southeast of this
point, its width is still far too small for it to be defensible, or
even easily traversable in peacetime. Further, the idea that
there was a wooden walkway at this height is improbable. There
are no beam holes to support such a structure and indeed its uniqueness
alone would make it questionable. The most likely answer seems to
be again that the wall has been thinned and then refaced at a later
date.
The enceinte wall contains 2 equidistantly spaced, open backed D shaped
towers about 150' apart. These have blind angular interiors with
a much damaged loop at each angle at first floor level. These
appear more Latin in style than Greek. As standard, these would
seem to have been oilleted crossbow loops and are possibly
original. Again, internally they have shoulder headed embrasure
summits and, unlike the Water Tower, make proper, if rather small,
fighting platforms. The towers were entered from the walkway on
either side by doorways which have clearly been rebuilt in a post
medieval phase in those surviving in the southernmost tower.
These appear to have been about 3' wide and give access to the current,
pathetic sub foot wide wallwalk. Again this suggests the curtain,
just under 3' wide has been thinned by nearly a half. A fine
crease shows that the tower had a flat roof,
while the remaining battlements appear original, one on the tower
nearest Bootham Bar having a very eroded pinnacle on a merlon. Presumably the back of the towers were timber framed.
The Bootham wall terminates with the fifteenth century rectangular
postern tower just before the A1036 fills the site of the city
ditch. The wall, wallwalk and battlements here appear totally
rebuilt and refaced. Obviously much medieval ashlar was reused in
these refacings as some 18 different mason's marks have been found in
the precinct walls.
Copyright©2024
Paul Martin Remfry