put forward "of State barges entering the ditch, rowing onto a kind of
submerged slipway at the Cradle tower, when, _mirabile dictu_, boat and
all were to be lifted out of the water and drawn into the fortress!"
Such things are only possible in the vivid imagination of a writer
devoid of the most elementary knowledge of the purpose for which this
gateway was designed. It suffices to point out that no long State barge
could have entered the ditch without first performing the impossible
feat of sharply turning two corners at right angles in a space less than
its own length, and too confined to allow oars to be used, while there
are no recorded instances of such mediaeval equivalents of the modern
floating and depositing dock! The Cradle tower gate is too short and
narrow to admit any such a lift with a large boat upon it, nor does it
contain the slightest trace of anything of the kind, or of the machinery
necessary for its working. Although prior to the restoration in 1867
there were side openings to Traitors' Gate as well as that from the
river, not only were they too low and narrow to admit a boat, but they
were fitted with sluice gates for the retention of the water in the moat
when the tide was out, which were used until, in 1841, the moat itself
was drained and levelled, and the Thames excluded by a permanent dam.
The Cradle tower was, as already stated, a postern, leading from the
wharf to the Royal Palace, and derived its name from its cradle or
drawbridge that here spanned the waters of the moat.
When, in the time of Henry VIII. and his successors, the water gate,
"I," ceased to be a general entrance, and was only used as a
landing-place for State prisoners on their way to and from trial at
Westminster, it first received the less pleasing appellation it still
bears of "Traitors' Gate."
The procedure when the Queen or any distinguished person visited the
Tower by water was as follows: They alighted from the State barge at the
Queen's stairs, "Q," on the river face of the quay, "O," and
traversing this on foot or in a litter, entered the Tower by the Cradle
tower postern, "K," which afforded the readiest and most direct access
to the Palace in the inner ward, while it was entirely devoid of any
sinister associations.
In conclusion, it only remains for me to express my thanks to the Major
of the Tower, Lieutenant-General Sir George Bryan Milman, K.C.B., for
the permission so courteously accorded to visit and examine portions of
the fortress closed to the general public, and to the officials of the
Tower for facilities kindly afforded me to do so on several occasions.
FOOTNOTES:
[1] The _Saxon Chronicle_ (Thorpe), vol. i., pp. 156, 157. (Subsequently
cited as "_Sax. Chron._").
[2] _Ibid._, vol. i., pp. 240, 241, 262, 263, 280, 281.
[3] _Archaeologia_, vol. lii., p. 615.
[4] See dotted line on plan.
[5] "The Conqueror's Footsteps in Domesday." _English Historical
Review_, vol. xiii., p. 17.
[6] _Sax. Chron._, vol. i., p. 339.
[7] Orderic Vitalis, _History of England and Normandy_, book iv., chap. i.
[8] _Norman Conquest_ (Freeman), vol. v., Appendix N., "Castles and
Destruction in the Towns."
[9] _Introduction to Domesday Book_ (Ellis), vol. i., pp. 116-122.
[10] _Sax. Chron._, vol. i., p. 351.
[11] The _Custumale Roffense_ (Thorpe), p. 128; the _Registrant
Roffense_ (Thorpe), p. 481.
[12] "Conventios inter Gundulfum Episcopum et Eadmerum Anhoende
Burgensem Lundoniae. Dum idem Gundulfus ex praecepto Regis Wilhelm magni
_praesset operi magnae turris Lundoniae_ et hospitatus fuisset apud ipsum
Eadmerum," etc., from the _Registrum Roffense_ (Thorpe), p. 32.
[13] The present entrances on the north face of the keep are entirely
modern.
[14] _Sax. Chron._, vol. i., p. 363.
[15] The "turris," or keep, of Colchester is referred to in a charter of
Henry I. in 1101, which recites that the King's father and brother had
previously held the castle.
[16] _Anglia Sacra_, vol. i., p. 338.
[17] Stow's _Survey of London_, "Of Towers and Castles."
[18] _Norman Conquest_ (Freeman), vol. iii., Appendix, note PP.
[19] William of Malmesbury's _English Chronicle_, book v.; and _Sax.
Chron._, vol. i., p. 365.
[20] _Orderic Vitalis_, book x., chapter xvii.; and _William of
Malmesbury_, book v., chapter i.
[21] _Norman Conquest_ (Freeman), vol. ii., ch. viii., pp. 189, 190,
"The vengeance of Duke William on the men of Alencon."
[22] _Geoffrey de Mandeville_ (J. H. Round), p. 89 and p. 334.
[23] The kitchens of the period were usually situated at no great
distance from the Hall, and were in general of very slight construction;
frequently they were only wooden-framed buildings, with walls of wattle
and daub, and thatched roofs, hence the need for the continual repairs
that figure so numerously in the early records.
[24] _Mediaeval Military Architecture_ (G. T. Clark), vol. ii., p. 257.
[25] "Norwich Castle" (A. Hartshorne, F.S.A.), _The Archaeological
Journal_, vol. xlvi., pp. 264, 265.
[26] Stubbs's _Introductions to the Rolls Series_, edited by Hassall, p.
221.
[27] The total cost of erecting Chateau Gaillard des Andelys amounted to
L42,361 14s. 4d., according to the _Roll of the Norman Exchequer_ for
1198 (edited by T. Stapleton; vol. ii., pp. 309, 310 _et seq._), a sum
which compares very well with the equally great outlay upon the works at
London in 1191.
[28] _Archaeologia_, vol. lx., p. 239.
[29] Roger of Wendover's _Chronicle_ (Bohn's edition), vol. ii., p. 100,
and Roger de Hoveden's _Annals_, _ibid._, vol. ii., p. 137, sub. 1190
ad.
[30] _Manuel d'Archaeologie Francaise_ (Enlart), vol. ii., section xi.,
pp. 497-500.
[31] "The Norman Origin of Cambridge Castle," W. H. St. John Hope,
_Cambridge Antiquarian Society's Communications_, vol. xi., p. 340.
[32] _Exchequer Accounts Roll_, 3/15, 5 Edward I.
[33] _Peel: Its Meaning and Derivation._ George Neilson, F.S.A.Scot.
[34] In the ruins of the Palace of the Archbishops of York at Southwell,
in Nottinghamshire, one of the wall turrets used as a latrine chamber,
or garderobe, has just such an arrangement for the drain as that above
mentioned.--_English Domestic Architecture_ (Turner & Parker), vol. ii.,
p. 114.
[35] Matthew Paris's _English History_ (Bohn's edition), vol. i., pp.
166, 315, 326.
[36] Also known as "Galighmaes, or Galleyman's," Tower, but the
nomenclature of the various towers has been greatly changed at various
times.
[37] William of Malmesbury's _English Chronicle_ (Bohn's edition), p.
443, sub. 1119 ad.
[38] _Liberate Rolls_, 37 & 39 Henry III., m. 5 and m. 11.
[39] _Ibid._
[40] Many curious particulars of this menagerie are to be found in
Maitland's _History of London_, vol. i., p. 172 _et seq._ In 1754 there
were two great apes called "the man tygers" (probably orang-outangs),
one of which killed a boy by throwing a cannon ball at him!
[41] _Liberate Roll_, 24 Henry III., at Westminster, February 24th
(1240).
[42] _Liberate Roll_, 25 Henry III., m. 20, at Windsor, December 10th.
[43] Matthew Paris, _ut supra_, vol. i., p. 488.
[44] _Close Roll_, 21 Henry III., m. 11; and _ibid._ 37 Henry III., m.
2; also _The Ancren Riwle_ (Camden Society), pp. 142, 143.
[45] _Liber Albus_ (Riley), folio 273 b., E 35, p. 477.
[46] _Close Roll_, 35 Henry III., m. 11.
[47] _Close Roll_, 9 Henry III., p. 2, m. 9. The Close Rolls were so
called because they contained matters of a private nature, and were
folded or closed up, in contradistinction to the Patent Rolls which
(being addressed to all persons impartially) were left open, with the
Great Seal affixed to the lower edge.
[48] _Issue Roll_, 19 Edward I., at Westminster, November 30th.
[49] Accounts of Ralph de Sandwich, Constable of the Tower, 17 to 29
Edward I. Army Accounts in the Public Record Office.
[50] _Close Roll_, 10 Edward I., m. 5.
[51] _Exchequer Q.R. Memoranda_, 26 Edward I., m. 109, and _Privy
Seals_, Tower, 33 Edward I., file 4.
[52] _Memorials of Westminster Abbey_ (Stanley) (second edition), chap.
v., pp. 413, 415.
[53] _Placita. Coram Rege. Roll_, 17 Edward II., p. 2, m. 37.
[54] _Archaeologia_, vol. xxxii., "The Early Use of Gunpowder in the
English Army," pp. 379-387.
[55] _History of the Tower of London_ (John Bayley, F.S.A.) (first
edition), vol. i., Appendix, pp. 1, 4.
[56] _Issues of the Exchequer_ (F. Devon), pp. 43, 74; Expense Roll for
works at Westminster Palace, 43 Henry III.
[57] _The Tower of London_ (Harrison Ainsworth), book ii., ch. xi.
[58] _History of the Tower_ (Bayley), vol. i., p. 179.
[59] _History of the Jesuits in England_ (Taunton), ch. vii., p. 166.
ST. BARTHOLOMEW THE GREAT, SMITHFIELD
BY J. TAVENOR-PERRY
Anyone now visiting the Church of St. Bartholomew the Great, after a
lapse of fifty years, would scarcely recognize in the present stately
building the woe-begone and neglected place of his recollections. In the
apse and the transepts, in the lofty screen to the west of the stalls,
suggesting a hidden nave beyond, and in the glimpses of the Lady Chapel
across the eastern ambulatory, he would see the completed choir of some
collegiate church, of which the principal architectural features
suggested an ancient foundation. It is true that, in the church of fifty
years ago, the Norman details were still very distinct, though the round
arches of the arcades had been parodied by the Georgian windows of the
east end, and by the plastered romanesque reredos; but gloom and
darkness overspread the whole place, encroachments of the most
incongruous kinds had invaded the most sacred portions, and to the
casual observer it seemed impossible that the church could ever be
rescued from the ruin with which it was threatened, or reclaimed from
the squalor by which it was surrounded.
To understand the difficulties which lay before the restorers, who, in
1863, commenced the task of saving the building from annihilation, and
to properly appreciate what they have achieved, as well as what they
only aimed at accomplishing, it is necessary to give some account of
the state of the fabric in that year, and, without repeating at undue
length the oft-told tale of its foundation, to give a history of the
church during the eight hundred years of its existence.
The founder, both of the priory and of the hospital, was one Rahere, of
whom but little is certainly known. Some assume that he was that same
Rahere who assisted Hereward in his stand against the Norman invaders of
the Cambridgeshire fens, but if so, this did not prevent him, later on,
from attaching himself to the court of the Conqueror's son. He is
generally described as having been jester to Henry I., and it has been
assumed that the nature of his engagement involved a course of life
calling for repentance and a pilgrimage. But whatever the reason may
have been, he apparently went to Rome in 1120, though the journey at
that particular juncture was a very unsafe proceeding. He may, perhaps,
have joined himself to the train of Pope Calixtus II., who had just been
elected at Cluny, in succession to the fugitive Gelasius II., and who
made his journey to Rome in the spring of that year. If so, he arrived
in Rome at the very worst season, and like many others who visit the
city in the summer, he contracted the usual fever. During his illness,
or after his recovery, St. Bartholomew appeared to him in a vision, and
directed him, on his return to London, to found a church in his honour,
outside the walls, at a place called Smithfield. Although visions and
their causes are not always explicable, the association of St.
Bartholomew with this dream of Rahere's may, perhaps, be accounted for.
The church of S. Bartolommeo all'Isola had been built, a century before
Rahere's visit, within the ruined walls of the Temple of AEsculapius, on
the island of the Tiber, and Saint had succeeded, in some measure, to
the traditional healing-power of the God. In classic times, those who
flocked to the shrine generally stayed there for one or two nights,
when the healer appeared to them in a vision, and gave them directions
for their cure. So, in mediaeval times, his successor and supplanter
followed the same course, but provided cures for the soul rather than
for the body.
Rahere can have lost but little time in hastening home and obtaining
from the King a grant of the prescribed land, for we find that within
three years of his visit to Rome the church of his new convent was
sufficiently advanced for consecration, and presumably the convent
itself was ready for occupation. The new priory was designed for the
reception of Canons Regular of the Order of St. Augustine, and the
reason for the founder's adoption of this Order, apart from the fact
that it was somewhat fashionable at this period, may have been partly
because his former occupation had particularly fitted him for public
speaking, and partly because two, at least, of the men with whom he had
been closely associated at Henry's court were themselves members of this
order. And it is necessary to bear these facts in mind in considering
the never-to-be-determined question of whether the apse of St.
Bartholomew's was ever completed by Rahere.
These two friends of the founder's were Richard de Belmeis, Bishop of
London, and William de Corbeil, or Corboyle, Archbishop of Canterbury,
and they were not only themselves Austin Canons, but were actively
engaged in spreading the influence of that order. The Bishop had then
recently built the Priory of St. Osyth, in Essex, of which the
Archbishop, who had previously been connected with the Priory of Merton,
had been the first prior. Moreover, Corbeil, soon after he had received
the pallium, obtained permission to suppress the monastery of St.
Martin-le-Grand--for monasteries were suppressed in the reign of the
first Henry, as well as in the reign of the last--and devote its
revenues to building a new priory for Austin Canons, outside the walls
of Dover. This priory, known as St. Martin New-work, of which
considerable portions remain to this day, presents what may be regarded
as a model plan of a church of this order, and consisted of a small
square-ended choir, shallow transepts, and a large nave with aisles.
From this it is evident that Rahere's building differed most essentially
from the recognized type, and the question is, did his friends point out
to him his deviation from the almost invariable rule of the Austin
Canons to give their churches a square east end in time to enable him to
modify his design, or were they able to induce him, after he had
completed his apse, to remove the two easternmost piers, and to insert
in place of them a square-ended chapel? But to this question no answer
has ever been discovered.
[Illustration: FIG. 1--NORMAN CAPITAL.
_Discovered in 1863._]
[Illustration: FIG. 2--PRIORY GATE AND CHURCH TOWER IN 1863.]
[Illustration: FIG. 3--TRANSITIONAL CAPITAL.
_Discovered in 1863._]
At the death of Rahere, in 1143, but a small part of his great scheme
had been achieved, of the existing church perhaps no more than the choir
to the top of the triforium and the choir aisles; but judging from
fragments discovered from time to time, such as the capital to a nook
shaft shown in fig. 1, which clearly belong to this period, he had
completed other works which have now been destroyed. Perhaps during his
life-time the conventual buildings, as was the case at Merton, were
mainly of wood, and of a merely temporary character; but it may be
assumed that these, together with the cloisters, had been built when the
great arch, which formed the entrance to the priory (shown in fig. 2),
was completed about the middle of the thirteenth century. The work to
the choir and transepts went on gradually, no doubt, without any
alteration of design, or only such modifications in the details as
resulted from the changes in progress in the style, until their
completion, and it is likely that the end of the twelfth century saw the
conclusion of that section of the work. The fragment given in fig. 3 is
a fair example of this transitional style. In the building of the nave,
which was a very important part of the church with the Austin Canons,
who sought by their preaching to attract large congregations, some fresh
departure in the design was made. Evidence of this can be seen in the
east bay of the south side (fig. 4), where an Early English
clustered-shaft, with the springing of some groining, standing clear of
the older Norman pier, gives an idea of the character of the work of
the now destroyed nave. With this building, which was apparently
achieved before the close of the thirteenth century, we may regard the
priory as finished, having taken over a hundred and fifty years to
accomplish.
After a lapse of two hundred years, it is not unlikely that the building
had fallen somewhat into a state of dilapidation and for that reason, as
well, perhaps, from a desire for improvement and display, large works of
alteration and rebuilding were undertaken at the beginning of the
fifteenth century. Prior John Walford, of whom little is known, except
that he was summoned to a convocation at Oxford in 1407, is credited
with the work, which embraced the new east wall to the choir, and
perhaps a reredos, the Lady Chapel and chapels, on the north side of the
north ambulatory, and the rebuilding of the east walk of the cloisters
with rooms above. But although Prior John may have been the agent for
carrying out all these works, the initiative was probably due to Roger
de Walden, afterwards Bishop of London. This man, who had a most
remarkable career, was in some way closely associated with St.
Bartholomew's, for his stepmother resided in its vicinity, and he had a
brother John, a man of considerable wealth, who is described as an
esquire of St. Bartholomew, Smithfield. During the reign of Richard II.,
Roger de Walden held high and lucrative ecclesiastical appointments, and
in 1395 became Dean of York and Treasurer of England, and when
Archbishop Arundel was banished from the realm in 1397 for his share in
the conspiracy of his brother, Roger was advanced to the See of
Canterbury. After the downfall of Richard, Arundel returned to England,
and Roger was ousted from his seat; but strange though it may appear,
the Archbishop bore him so little ill-will for his usurpation that he
induced Henry IV., though with some difficulty, to agree to his
nomination to the Bishopric of London at the next voidance of the See.
As Bishop of London, he died in 1406, and though he lay in state in his
chantry chapel at St. Bartholomew's, it is believed that he was actually
buried in St. Paul's Cathedral.
[Illustration: FIG. 4--EAST BAY OF SOUTH AISLE OF NAVE.]
It was during his years of prosperity, and before he had anticipated the
honours to which he afterwards succeeded, that he built his chantry
chapel in the church with which his early youth was doubtless
associated, and tradition, to some extent supported by both
architectural and heraldic evidence, has identified the screen in which
Rahere's monument is encased as a portion of that chapel. The beautiful
canopies and tracery, the character of the carving of the effigy and its
attendant figures, and the arms of England emblazoned on one of the
shields, all point to a date supporting the tradition, whilst the arms,
which seem undoubtedly to be Walden's, displayed on the fourth shield
make it improbable that the work can be assigned to any other person.
Of the building carried out at this time, except the screen of the
chantry chapel and some portions of the restored cloister, but little
remains, and all the evidences which might have enabled us to determine
how far the east wall was a restoration, or an entirely new work, were
swept away when the apse was rebuilt. That this east wall was not merely
a reredos is shown by the fact that the upper part rose clear of the
aisles, and was pierced by two large traceried windows in the same
position as the Georgian windows which lighted the church in the last
century, and it is quite possible that it was only a restoration of an
earlier wall, which had been built across the apse so as to make it
conform to the Austin Canon rule. The screen of the chantry chapel, the
two eastern bays of which have been destroyed, but which is shown
complete in our illustration (fig. 5), may have been continued across
the east wall, and formed the reredos itself, but all traces of this
were effaced in subsequent alterations.
[Illustration: FIG. 5--SCREEN OF ROGER DE WALDEN'S CHANTRY, AND RAHERE'S
MONUMENT.]
One alteration was made in the choir which very much affected the
proportions of the building between the date of its first building and
the erection of Rahere's monument. Perhaps because the ground outside
the church had become raised by the building operations, which had gone
on around it, and the drainage of the interior had become defective, or
for some other reason, the floor over all the eastern part was filled in
for a depth of nearly three feet, dwarfing considerably the Norman
arcades, and burying the bases of the columns; and it was upon this
altered level the screen of Bishop Roger de Walden's chantry was built.
Having undergone such extensive repairs the priory received no further
alterations until, after another hundred years, William Bolton became
prior in 1506. It has been asserted, on what seem very insufficient
grounds, that Bolton was the architect of Henry VII.'s Chapel at
Westminster; but although this is very improbable, he was associated
with those who were engaged on the work, and seems himself to have been
disposed to architectural display. He has been credited with very large
alterations to the conventual buildings, and the erection of a tower
over the crossing; but nearly all traces of his work have disappeared,
except a doorway in the south aisle, and the beautiful window in the
triforium, overlooking the choir, which is always, known as "Prior
Bolton's window," and is distinguished by his rebus, a bolt in a tun, in
the centre lower panel, as is shown in the illustration (fig. 6).
Bolton's successor, Robert Fuller, was the last of the priors, and with
him is ushered in the era of dissolution and decay, when--
"The ire of a despotic King
Rides forth upon destruction's wing."
The priory was suppressed, and the great nave was deliberately pulled
down. But, except that so much of the cloister as adjoined the nave was
destroyed with it, no further demolitions took place at that time, and
it was only gradually that the conventual buildings, some of which
lasted to our own day, were removed. The choir and transepts were
preserved to form a parish church, and the area of the destroyed nave
became the churchyard. The rest of the buildings were sold by the King
to Sir Richard Rich, for the sum of L1,064 11s. 3d., not a large sum
considering the area of the site and the extent of the buildings, which
included, among others, the prior's lodgings, styled "the Mansion,"
which had housed so great a man as Prior Bolton.
[Illustration: FIG. 6--PRIOR BOLTON'S WINDOW.]
In Queen Mary's reign the Church resumed possession of the conventual
buildings, and they were occupied by the Black Friars, who, it is said,
made some attempt to rebuild the nave; but beyond some slight works to
be seen in the east cloister, they left no traces of their occupation
behind, the sole relic remaining of them being the seal of their head,
Father Perryn, the matrix of which has already come into the possession
of the church authorities.
With the death of Mary the friars retired, and the choir became, once
more, the parish church, and for the next century neglect and decay
continued the ruin of the fabric. But with the advent of Laud to the See
of London, some attempts were made at reparation. It is said that the
steeple had become so ruinous that it had to be taken down, and in 1628
the present brick tower, which stands over what was the easternmost bay
of the south aisle of the nave, was erected. Where the ruined steeple
stood is not clear, but most probably over the crossing, and as towers
were unimportant features in the churches of the Austin Canons, it is
likely that it rose but little above the roofs. Another and remarkable
erection of this period was the charnel-house at the east end, known as
"Purgatory," which was constructed with some attempt to give it a Gothic
appearance, and was attached to the reredos wall. This is shown in fig.
7, which illustrates the eastern ambulatory, as it existed before the
restoration.
[Illustration: FIG. 7--EASTERN AMBULATORY AND PURGATORY BEFORE
RESTORATION.]