movement, provides an additional element of probability to the theory.
Founded by Edward I., and built under the auspices of his son, it had
in both its royal parents a close relationship to the great Franciscan
church of London, erected through the bounty of the wife of the one
and the step-mother of the other, and it is not improbable that the
personal element was brought to bear on the design of the later
building with far-reaching results.
Once the new idea had taken root under royal patronage it rapidly
spread over England, and in the next century some even of the old town
churches were rebuilt in the then prevailing style, and it is perhaps
not too much to say that the great Perpendicular parish church, of
which there are so many noble examples, is the direct outcome and
lineal descendant of the friars’ buildings, which have unfortunately
so nearly disappeared.
[Illustration: FIG. 105.—BLACKFRIARS, LONDON.
_Plan by A. W. Clapham._]
BLACKFRIARS, LONDON.
Blackfriars to the modern Londoner is as familiar a title as that
of any part in the City, and to all frequenters of Fleet Street the
district of Whitefriars must be little less familiar. Yet the homes
of the Dominicans and the Carmelites, their churches and the numerous
buildings within their precincts, have disappeared so completely that
it is doubtful if the majority of people who daily use their names
have any intelligent idea of the origin of the terms. And even for
those who have given thought to the subject there has been no definite
description of the buildings such as would enable them to reconstruct
in their minds the great monastic establishments of the two orders. It
is possible, however, from various sources to draw out with tolerable
accuracy the plans of the houses of the Blackfriars and the Whitefriars
and to ascertain the accurate position of all their principal
apartments. The arrangements of the Blackfriars has an additional
interest in that the Guest House is still exactly defined by the Hall
of the Apothecaries’ Company, and the Upper Frater which lay across the
entrance to Printing House Square served not only as the Parliament
House in the reign of Henry VIII. but was later converted into the
celebrated Blackfriars Theatre.
The priory of the Dominican or Black Friars in London was founded in
1221 on a site to the south of Holborn and east of Chancery Lane. In
1274, however, a new site was given them on the north bank of the
Thames, just east of the Fleet ditch. This necessitated the pulling
down of that part of the city wall south of Ludgate, and a new wall was
built running eastwards from the gate and turning south to the river
within the Fleet. It appears that the church was not begun until 1279.
Although there is little documentary information regarding the
buildings before the Dissolution, it is some evidence of their
importance that the meetings of Privy Councils were held here during
the first part of Henry VI.’s reign, and that three Parliaments met
here in 1450, 1523–4, and 1529. The Emperor Charles V. lodged in the
Guest House in 1522, and a gallery was built by Henry VIII. to connect
his apartments with Bridewell Palace, where his train was accommodated.
In 1529 the King’s divorce from Catherine of Arragon was tried in the
“Parliament Chamber,” Henry VIII. and his queen being in residence in
Bridewell.
In an anonymous fourteenth-century Wickliffite lampoon upon the friars,
entitled _Pierce the Ploughman’s Creed_, there is a long passage which
refers almost certainly to the London house of the Blackfriars, since,
whenever the details can be tested, they are found to be accurate. As
the lines are not only of peculiar interest from their remarkably vivid
description of a great friary in its architectural prime, but also from
their containing the most graphic purely architectural description in
the whole range of English mediæval literature, a free rendering of
them is quoted below:—
Then thought I to question the first of these four orders,
And pressed to the Preachers to make proof of their will;
I hied to their house to learn more about them,
And when I came to their Court I gazed all about.
Such a boldly built pile on earthly heights
Certain, I have not seen for a long time.
I thought on that house and long thereon looked,
How the pillars were painted and finely adorned
And quaintly were carven with curious knots,
With windows well wrought, lofty and wide.
Then entered I in and went all about,
And everywhere there were walls around the dwelling
With posterns for passing privately whenever they list,
Orchards and arbours arranged with neatness,
And a curious cross craftily constructed
With tabernacles encircled facing all sides—
The price of a ploughland in pennies so round
To adorn that pillar were little indeed.
Then I gat me forth to look at the Church,
And found it well and wonderfully built,
With arches on each side, embellished and carven
With crockets on their angles and knots of gold.
The wide windows all wrought with numberless writings
Shining with shapely shields to make a display,
With merchants’ marks all figured between,
To the number of more than twice two and twenty
(There is no herald that hath half such a roll),
And newly set out as if by a Ragman.
Tombs upon tabernacles raised up aloft,
Railed in with iron, with many an effigy
In armour, of alabaster, seemingly clad;
Laid upon marble in divers manners,
Were knights now clothed in their martial dress—
All, it seemed, saints who were sacred on earth!—
And lovely carved ladies lay by their sides
In many gay garments that were beaten gold;
Though the taxes of ten years were truly gathered
It could not make half that church, I trow.
Then came I to the Cloister and gazed about
How it was pillared and painted and carved so well,
All roofed with lead low on the stones
And paved with painted tiles, one after another,
With conduits of clean tin, closed all about,
Washing basins wrought of shining latten;
I trow the price of the ground in a great shire
Would not apparel that place from beginning to end.
Then was the Chapter House wrought like a great church,
Carven and roofed and curiously constructed,
With a beautiful ceiling set up aloft,
Like a Parliament-house all painted about.
Then fared I to the Frater and found there again
A hall for a great king, to hold his household,
With broad tables and benches beautifully furnished,
And windows of glass, wrought like a church.
Then walked I further and went all about,
And saw halls full high and houses full noble,
Chambers with chimneys, and chapels gay,
And kitchens such as kings may have in castles,
And the Dorter furnished with strong doors;
Farmery and frater with many more houses,
All of strong stone walls raised up on high
With garrets, great and gay, and every window glazed;
And other houses now in which to lodge the queen,
And yet these builders will beg a bag full of wheat
Of a poor man that may, for once, pay
Half his rent in a year and half be behind.
Apart from the general description contained in these lines, the
sources of our information regarding the buildings of the Blackfriars
date from after the Dissolution and are contained in certain grants
of property, and some surveys of the time of Edward VI., the latter
preserved at Loseley, near Guildford. From these it is possible to
reconstruct the greater part of the Friary, an outline of which is
given below.
The position of the Church is determined by the Cloister, the east walk
of which is now marked by the passage called Church Entry, and its
western range of buildings by the Apothecaries’ Hall. The name “Church
Entry” points fairly conclusively to the usual passage between the nave
and chancel—passing north and south beneath the steeple—that has been
already referred to as characteristic of the friars’ plans. The nave
with its two aisles measured some 114 feet by 60 feet internally, and
alongside its northern aisle at the west end was the Lady Chapel, which
increased the width of the west front to 90 feet externally. There is
a record of this chapel as early as 1437; but from the will of Robert
Castell we gather that it had been rebuilt by Lady Ingoldsthorpe,
who died in 1494, sister of John Tiptoft, Earl of Worcester (“the
Butcher”), who was executed in 1470. The occasion of the rebuilding may
have been the interment of his body, and beside him was later buried
the headless body of James Touchet, Lord Audley, who suffered death at
the hands of the executioner in 1497.
The steeple between the nave and choir, called in the grant to Sir
Thomas Cawarden (1550) “the Campanile,” is shown in the view of London
by Van der Wyngaerde. Polygonal in form, and with pinnacled parapet and
spire, it obviously followed the same model as those still to be seen
at Coventry and Lynn.
The choir, in all probability aisleless, measured 90 feet from east
to west, making six bays. The great cloister (110 feet square) lay to
the south of the Church, and, unlike the general practice among the
friars, its walks were roofed and not built over. The description in
_Pierce the Ploughman’s Creed_ is borne out by the surveys at Loseley,
and there is little doubt that the poet’s admiration was well founded.
Some curious particulars of burials in the cloister are preserved.
In the will of Sir Robert Southwell, Knight, dated 1514, is a desire
to be buried “in the Cloister of the Friars Preachers in the city of
London, under or near the Lavatory there nigh to the picture of the
holy Crucifix there set.” In his further directions he says: “I will
that that friar of the same place, appointed daily for the work to say
there the mass of the Trinity, by the space of xx years next after my
decease say every day a special collect in his mass for my soul, also
de profundis with a pater and ave and crede for my said soul ... at the
said lavatory immediately when the convent of the same place or the
most part of them shall go to dinner. Item I will that that friar being
a priest that first happen to come any day during the said xx years, in
the morning first to the said lavatory to wash his hands and then and
there to say de profundis for the souls before said, have for his so
doing 1d.” Besides this, he desires the prior and sub-prior to say “God
have mercy on my soul every day after dinner,” and awards them 13s. 4d.
a year for the purpose.
Another curious legacy is that of William Stalworth, a citizen and
merchant-tailor, who was also buried in the Cloister, and in his will,
dated 1519, says: “I will that there shall be distributed to the Friars
Preachers every Lent for ten years a barrel of white herrings, and
to the young friars of the same house for the same time a frayle of
fygges.”
The extensive buildings of the Friary lay round the Great Cloister,
and considerably to the south and east. The Chapter House stood in
the centre of the eastern range, and over its vestibule and various
rooms on the ground floor stretched the dorter (or dormitory), which
is described as having a stairway down into the Church. Behind the
northern part of the dorter was the Prior’s lodging,[39] and leading
eastwards from its southern part was a second or south dorter, built
over a vaulted undercroft, remains of which were discovered in 1900.
This last-named appears to have been the Provincial’s lodging, and the
whole building formed the northern range of the Infirmary or Inner
Cloister. The infirmary on the west, the upper and lower libraries on
the east, and the bakehouse and brewhouse on the south completed the
enclosure.
[39] To the prior’s lodging belonged two gardens, described as adjacent
to the lodging called the priory lodging on the east side, and
above the great royal garde-robe, vulgarly called “the King’s great
Wardrobe on the west side thereof, containing by estimation one acre
of land.” These gardens are of considerable interest, as it was in
this neighbourhood that Shakespeare’s house in Blackfriars formerly
stood.—_Archæologia_, vol. LXIII.
Of the Great Cloister the southern range was occupied by the Frater (or
dining hall), and on the east was the Guest House, which, even before
the Dissolution, was let out to tenants. This was the lodging prepared
for Charles V. in 1522, and the porter’s lodge behind marks the point
at which commenced the gallery built by Henry VIII. for the Emperor’s
convenience, between the Guest House and Bridewell. A window appears to
have been formed between the nave of the Church and the Guest rooms,
occupying much the same position as that to be seen at Westminster
Abbey. South of this range and communicating with the Frater were the
Buttery and Kitchen. The Guest House ultimately passed into the hands
of the Apothecaries’ Company (1632), who rebuilt it after the Great
Fire. In size and position, therefore, the present building follows
precisely that which gave shelter to the Emperor Charles V. To the
south of the Kitchen and Buttery was the Chapel of St. Anne, which,
though not a parish church, was no doubt erected for the benefit of the
various lay inhabitants of the precinct. Its site is now occupied by
_The Times_ printing office, and considerable remains came to light in
the course of rebuilding in 1872.
Regarding the “Upper Frater,” which stands still farther south, I will
quote from my contribution to _Archæologia_ (vol. lxiii.):—“The only
buildings now remaining to be noticed formed a block of considerable
size lying to the south-west of the cloister, and quite separate from
the ranges flanking it. The main structure of the group was a building
of such unusual size and obscure designation that it will be necessary
to consider it at some length. Hugh Losse describes it as ‘One house
called the upper frater containeth in length 107 ft. by 52 ft.,
abutting south and east to the Lady Kingston’s house and garden, north
to a hall where the King’s revels lieth at this present and west toward
the Duchy chamber and Mr. Portinary’s house. A void room being an entry
towards the little kitchen and a coal house containing in length 30 ft.
and in breadth 17 ft. One chamber called the Duchy chamber, with a dark
lodging thereunder containing in length 50 ft. and in breadth 16 ft.,
abutting against the north end of the said frater and abutting west
upon Mr. Portinary’s parlour.’
“The mention of Mr. Portinary’s parlour fixes the position of the
whole block, and shows that the Duchy chamber flanked the kitchen yard
(mentioned above) on the south side, for the same parlour is mentioned
as the southern boundary of the yard.
“Setting it out on these lines we find that the eastern wall of the
upper frater must have been the western building line of Printing House
Square, while its southern end is represented approximately by Huish
Court.
“A second description of this building is to be found in a rather
unexpected quarter. In 1597 Sir William More, of Loseley, as executor
to Sir T. Cawarden, sold to James Burbidge a certain great building
with yards and subsidiary structures adjoining, of which the
description in the deed of sale leaves no doubt that it was the upper
frater and its adjoining buildings of the earlier survey.[40] If any
further proof were needed beyond the similarity in description it is
found in the fact that the upper frater is the only available building
once belonging to Sir Thomas Cawarden that his executor could have
sold. The description in the deed is too lengthy and involved to be
quoted in full, but it describes a building three storeys high, the
top floor being formerly one great room with staircases leading up to
it, bounded on the north by the Pipe office and its yard (formerly the
kitchen yard). This was the structure that James Burbidge transformed
into the celebrated Blackfriars Theatre, and a document recently
discovered by Dr. Wallace gives its internal dimensions as 66 ft. by 46
ft.[41] It will be at once seen that the width 46 ft. internal agrees
admirably with the external width of the upper frater, 52 ft., allowing
some 3 ft. for each side wall. The difference in length is accounted
for by the fact that Burbidge did not make use of the whole building,
but divided off the northern part into ante-rooms and apartments for
the children of the chapel, &c., leaving 66 ft. out of 107 ft. for the
theatre itself.[42]
[40] Printed in full in Halliwell-Phillipps’s _Outlines of the Life of
Shakespeare_, Vol. II., p. 299.
[41] Dr. Wallace, _The Children of the Chapel at Blackfriars_, p. 39.
[42] A drawing in the Gardner Collection, supposed to represent the
front of the theatre, is reproduced in G. P. Baker’s _The Development
of Shakespeare as a Dramatist_. It indicates a classic building with an
open colonnaded portico, but the ascription is doubtful.
“With regard to the monastic use of this building it was obviously not
the common frater of the friars, which here flanked the cloister. There
is, however, one mediæval building, of the existence of which there is
documentary evidence—‘the Parliament Chamber’—which in all probability
is the structure in question. It was the great apartment used for the
sittings of two parliaments of Henry VIII., and which also witnessed
the trial for the divorce of Catherine of Arragon and Henry VIII.
before Cardinals Campeggio and Wolsey.
“The writ of summons for this trial describes it as the ‘Parliament
Chamber near the Friars Preachers.’ The fact that this name is used is
sufficient proof that the great frater of the priory is not referred
to, while the term ‘near’ implies that it was not one of the main block
of the priory buildings grouped round the cloister, but lay somewhere
within the precinct.
“The upper frater will be found to satisfy all the conditions required.
It was the largest hall in the precinct, and a large apartment would be
essential both for the ceremonial of the trial and for the sittings of
Parliament. Secondly, it was situated on the outskirts of the priory
buildings, suiting admirably the description. Thirdly, there is no
record of the existence of any other hall of sufficient dimensions in
a similar situation; and lastly, the small structure adjoining it was
called the Duchy chamber, which argues an official use at some time of
these apartments.
“All things considered, then, there is every likelihood of the identity
of the ‘Parliament Chamber’ with the house called the upper frater and
the Blackfriars Theatre of later times, and we may conclude that when
Shakespeare’s _Henry VIII._ was played at Blackfriars the celebrated
trial scene was acted within the actual walls that witnessed the real
drama that ruined the fortunes of the great cardinal and put an unhappy
termination to Queen Catherine’s married life.”
WHITEFRIARS, LONDON.
The London house of the Carmelites or the White Friars lay between
Fleet Street and the River Thames, their precinct being bounded on the
west by the Inner Temple—the present houses of King’s Bench Walk—and on
the east, roughly by the present Whitefriars Street. Bouverie Street
runs across the nave of their Church and traverses the site of the west
walk of the cloister.
[Illustration: FIG. 106.—WHITEFRIARS, LONDON.
_Plan by A. W. Clapham._]
Although little has been hitherto known concerning the buildings, it is
possible, with the assistance of a plan of seventeenth century date,
of documentary evidence of the period of the Suppression, and of the
evidence of remains discovered on the site, to present a very fair
idea of the general arrangements of the Priory of Our Lady of Mount
Carmel before its destruction.
The house of the White Friars in London was founded by Sir Ralph Gray
in 1241, and Stow tells us that in the fourteenth century their Church
was rebuilt by Hugh Courtenay, Earl of Devon, whose house adjoined the
precinct. Various additions were made to their property about this
time. Courtenay was succeeded as patron by Sir Robert Knolles, and the
choir, presbytery, and steeple were rebuilt by Robert Marshall, Bishop
of Hereford, in 1404–16. The precinct was extended to the Thames by the
year 1396.
The position of the cloister is accurately shown on the seventeenth
century plan already referred to. The Church lay to the north of it,
and the north-east angle of the nave was discovered incorporated in
some old buildings in Bouverie Street. It was a massive structure of
fourteenth or fifteenth century date, built of chalk and ragstone
with quoins of Godstone stone. The wall returned at right angles at
the east end of the yard at the back of the house, and apparently
continued westward right under Bouverie Street, the south having been
the internal face. Within the angle was a vault containing the remains
perhaps of Sir John Paston, who in his will, dated 1477, bequeaths “my
body if I die in the city of London [to the church] of our Lady in the
White Friars there, at the north-east corner of the body of the Church,
and there to be made an oratory ... to the value of xx ls.”
The height of the wall makes it almost certain that the aisle was
lighted by lofty windows similar to those to be seen at Austin Friars,
and that the clerestory was omitted, as indeed is distinctly shown
on Wyngaerde’s view of London. If this were so, it would have been
necessary to leave an open court between the cloister and the Church
to light the south aisle precisely as was done at the Grey Friars. The
nave would thus be some 80 ft. wide and apparently some 150 ft. or 9
bays long.
From the list of burials and other sources we learn that there was
the usual “walk between the choir and the church,” or passage way
beneath the steeple. The fifteenth century choir was almost certainly
aisleless, and to the south of it, separated by an open space, was the
“old quire” of Sir Ralph Gray’s thirteenth century building, which had
been left standing while the new church was in process of construction.
From particulars of the grants made at the Dissolution, and with the
help of the sixteenth century plan in the Print Room of the British
Museum, it is possible to extract the following information. The
cloister measured 97 ft. 6 in. from east to west and 91 ft. from north
to south, including the walks which were built over in accordance
with the general practice of the friars. The eastern range held the
dorter on the first floor and the southern range the frater, while the
western buildings perhaps contained the library (which is mentioned
in connection with the cloister), since the Guest Hall must almost
certainly be assigned to a long building shown on the plan extending
westwards from this side parallel with the nave of the Church. The
Chapter House was built out from the eastern range, and south of it
was the prior’s lodging, probably on the spot where still lies a
small vaulted crypt beneath the pavement of Britton’s Court—the sole
remaining relic of the Carmelite Priory. This vault, some 12 ft. 6 in.
square, has a small door at the north end of the west wall, and is of
a curious domed form with diagonal and intermediate ribs meeting at a
carved boss in the centre, which apparently represents a full-length
figure within a large Tudor rose.
Beyond this our information is uncertain; it is impossible to locate
the infirmary, and such names as “the Court Place,” “the Brewhouse,”
and the “Mill House” can only be approximately referred to any given
locality. It is to be feared that little further information is likely
to come to light unless some extensive rebuilding takes place upon the
site. With the means at our disposal, however, the main buildings have
been identified, although the little vaulted cellar under the prior’s
house and the nameless grave in the nave now filled with concrete are
the only existing relics of the great convent that stood for three
hundred years upon the Strand of the Thames between Temple Garden and
St. Bride’s Church.
—A. W. C.
QUEENBOROUGH
CASTLE
[Illustration: FIG. 107.—QUEENBOROUGH CASTLE.
_From a Drawing by Hollar._]
XVI.
QUEENBOROUGH CASTLE AND ITS BUILDER, WILLIAM OF WYKEHAM.