ISLIP AS A BUILDER.
When Islip died in 1532 the Abbey Church of St. Peter, Westminster, was
already (with the exception of Hawkesmoor’s addition of the incongruous
western towers in the eighteenth century) substantially the church that
exists to-day, but in order to understand Islip’s contribution to the
buildings as well as the structure erected to some extent independently
of his personal initiative, it is necessary to go back to the time when
Henry of Reims produced his plan for the new church which Henry III. had
designed to erect on the site where for nearly two centuries the old
Norman buildings of the Confessor had stood.
In the year 1220 a Lady Chapel had been begun at the east end of the
Norman church, and when twenty-five years later the Norman apse had to
make way for Henry III.’s new structure the Lady Chapel must have been
incorporated into the plan. When the King died the presbytery, choir,
and transepts had been completed. In 1298 a disastrous fire destroyed
the greater part of the Conventual buildings, and thus work and money
which might have gone to the completion of the church were diverted to
the rebuilding of the monastery.
For a century the Norman Nave served the Gothic church, but about the
year 1365 the rebuilding of the Nave was seriously undertaken on the
initiative of Simon Langham, who had been Abbot from 1349 to 1362 and
subsequently Bishop of Ely, Archbishop of Canterbury and Cardinal. The
story of Langham’s generosity does not belong to the present narrative
and it must suffice to say that when Islip entered the monastery in 1480
a beginning was being made with the vaulting of three of the four
westernmost bays, while the final bay was already raised to the
triforium level. Abbot Estney’s enthusiasm for the work is obvious to
any who can read between the lines in what are designed to be simple
records of receipts and expenditure, and there can be little doubt that
Islip caught the infection of that enthusiasm in the course of his
association with the Abbot as his Chaplain. Abbot Fascet’s association
with the work was honourable if short, and consisted mainly in
generously wiping out debts the payment of which he might legitimately
have charged on the fabric fund. It is not true as stated in Hacket’s
life of Bishop Williams that Islip was responsible for the whole
rebuilding of the nave, but his was certainly the glory of its
completion.
Meanwhile at the other end of the church building of an entirely
different character was going on. It is hardly possible to emphasise too
strongly the contrast. At the west end were builders “original enough
not to seek after originality in their work,” continuing in the
fifteenth and sixteenth centuries the style and plan laid down by Henry
of Reims in the middle of the thirteenth. At the east end the new Lady
Chapel was being erected with all the glories of fan tracery in the most
elaborate development of the Perpendicular. If further contrast be
desired it can be found in Islip’s contemporary building of the Jesus
Chapel, roughly midway in position and style between the severe and the
ornate beauties of the opposite ends of the church.
The west front of the church as Islip left it at his death may be seen
in two pictures. The former of these is an inset into the elaborate
capital letter which should have begun the word _Titulus_ in Islip’s
mortuary roll, destined unfortunately never to be carried further. Here
on the northern tower of the nave stands the great wheel by means of
which the heavy stones were raised. It is perhaps no great matter if
this picture seems to shew the southern tower in a somewhat more
advanced stage than Hollar depicted it in his engravings of 1653 and
1655.
In 1502 the Chapel of St. Erasmus was dismantled and the old Lady Chapel
demolished. The image and canopy of the Saint were placed by Islip over
what is now the entrance of St. John the Baptist’s Chapel; and on
January 24th, 1503, Islip, attended by a distinguished company, laid the
foundation of the King’s new chapel.
With the disappearance of the old chapel went also the tombs of Abbot
Berkyng and Queen Katharine of Valois, Henry’s “graunt Dame of right
noble memorie.” Her coffin was to lie unburied for more than two
centuries and a half. Within less than three weeks from the laying of
the stone Henry’s wife, Elizabeth of York, died at the Tower of London.
Her body was brought in solemn procession a few days later as far as
Charing Cross, where it was met by the Abbots of Westminster and
Bermondsey in full pontificals with the Convent of the former all vested
in black copes. After the solemn censing of the corpse the procession
moved onwards to the Abbey church and the funeral service with a sermon
by the Bishop of Rochester was duly performed. Then comes a gap in the
story, for the site of her immediate burial is unknown. Six years later
her husband directed in his Will that the body of the Queen “be
translated from the place where it nowe is buried and brought and laide
with oure bodye.” This was of course done, but as to the year and manner
of it the records are perplexingly silent.
In the building of the new chapel the King’s mother, Margaret, Countess
of Richmond, took considerable interest. At the end of the year 1496 she
had endowed a chantry for herself at the Shrine of St. Edward, and there
mass was said daily for her good estate during life and for her soul
after death. She had planned also to found a chantry at Windsor in the
new work there, but it does not seem to have come into being, and it is
possible, though there is no evidence to prove it, that with the adverse
judgment given in the matter of the body of Henry VI. her eyes turned
like those of her son towards Westminster. It is certain that from
Easter, 1505, a weekly mass was being said for her in the new foundation
and it may therefore be supposed that the south aisle, rightly called
the Lady Margaret’s Chapel, must have been completed by that date. It is
true that about the same time she had provided for masses to be said at
the old Lady Altar on the north side of the church until Henry the
Seventh’s Chapel should be finished, but entries begin to occur
referring to the “King’s mother’s chapel” which preclude the possibility
of any other identification.
This weekly mass fell to the monks in turn and the celebrant received
three shillings and four pence, which seems a generous endowment. It is
noteworthy that one shilling was being paid at this time for the weekly
mass for Abbot Estney, probably in the Chapel of St. John Evangelist
where he was buried, though the altar is not specified.
The Lady Margaret was indeed a generous benefactress of the new
foundation. She gave to the Abbot and Convent the churches of Cheshunt
and Swineshead, of the yearly value of more than fifty-three pounds, for
the special purposes of the chantries, and also various lands at West
Drayton and elsewhere, the proceeds of which the Abbot was to spend in
the salaries of divinity readerships at the universities, while in her
Will she made gifts of various ornaments to “oure chapell at
Westminster” as well as assigning legacies for masses. She is stated to
have built an almshouse for poor women in the Almonry by the Chapel of
St. Anne.
On St. Peter’s day, 1509, she died in the Abbot’s house, and Bolton,
Prior of St. Bartholomew’s, was charged with the erection of her tomb.
The Sacrist of that year records the receipt of twenty-two pounds in
mass-pence at her funeral.
The arrangements for the new foundation were of the most elaborate
character. For his own guidance Islip found it necessary to summarise
the long indenture made between the King and himself. Apart from the
worship in the chapel itself Henry VII. was to be remembered daily both
at the high mass and the Chapter mass. Ultimately the masses in the
King’s chapel were to be said only by bachelors or doctors of divinity,
though the Abbot, Prior, and Monk-Bailiff were to be excused this
qualification.
Accordingly the Abbot was bidden to cause the Oxford students of his
monastery to take these degrees as soon as might be and within three
months thereafter to appoint them to the service of the King’s masses.
Three additional monks above the present number of the monastery were to
be acquired and placed on the new foundation to say each a mass daily
for the King’s welfare in life and death. These three masses were to be
said at the altar “under the lantern place” until the chapel should be
ready. The greatest bell was to be rung for forty strokes or above a
quarter of an hour before each of these masses and from noon till one
o’clock before the preaching of certain “solemne sermondis” appointed
for various feasts and fasts. Once a year every priest in the monastery
was to say a mass of requiem with special collects and every lay-brother
the psalter of David or our Lady. Needless to say the most elaborate
directions were given as to tapers and torches. Various officials of the
kingdom such as the Chancellor, Treasurer, Master of the Rolls, Barons
of the Exchequer and Justices of the Benches were to receive fees if
they attended the anniversary. So too the Mayor of London, the Recorder
and Sheriffs, for whom the costs of their barges were to be defrayed. In
default of attendance the fees were to go to the prisoners in the King’s
Bench or “mareschalsy.” A weekly distribution of alms was provided for
and an almshouse for thirteen poor men founded. Some nineteen other
monastic or collegiate foundations were to receive fees from the Abbot
of Westminster for the performance of services, as well as the
Chancellor, Vice-Chancellor, Masters, and scholars of both universities.
It would be tedious to follow Islip’s summary of the duties in any more
elaborate detail and it must suffice to add that specific forfeitures of
money were prescribed for the neglect of any article contained therein.
To meet all these expenses the King’s endowment was generous. The
Deanery of St. Martin-le-Grand, the Priory of Luffield, various manors
and advowsons formed substantial gifts, while a sum of more than five
thousand pounds in money was made over for the purchase of other
estates. In the Orde MS. there is the entry of a payment of thirty
thousand pounds for the purchase of lands for the King’s new chapel, but
it is not possible to verify the accuracy of what is only a transcript
from the privy purse expenses of the King. The same manuscript records
in seventeen different items the payment of £9,844 18s. 3d. to the
Abbot of Westminster for the carrying on of the building between October
1st, 1502, and May 20th, 1505. A number of entries in the King’s Books
of Payments (Treasury of Receipts) beginning in January, 1506, amount to
more than £11,188, and so the total expenditure on the new building was
certainly more than twenty-one thousand pounds. The last entry occurs on
April 15th, 1509, about a week before the King died. It would appear to
be a final payment for it refers to the _accomplishment and performing_
of the chapel, while no entries of payments occur in the succeeding
book. It is unfortunate that it is not at present possible to do much
more than note the cost of the chapel and the years occupied in the
building, for the “reckonings” which were presented by Islip from time
to time for the royal approval do not appear, though all probable
sources have been searched.
Islip would seem to have been the general supervisor of the works and
responsible for the disbursement of the money, but the building itself
was carried on under the direction of the royal workmen. One problem of
the greatest interest remains unsolved, and that is the identity of the
master-mason or architect who made the original design and plan of the
chapel. Among the names suggested have been John Alcock, Bishop of Ely
from 1486 to 1501; Sir Reginald Bray; Richard Fox, Bishop of Winchester
from 1501 to 1528, and even the King himself. Mr. Lethaby[4] assumes
that there can be no doubt that Robert Vertue, the senior royal mason,
was the architect, but in the absence of evidence the matter must remain
unsolved. It is to be noted that the only person mentioned in the
directions as to the chapel given in the will of Henry VII. is the Prior
of St. Bartholomew’s, Smithfield, who is described there as the master
of the works of the said chapel. The reference is of course to Bolton
who was Prior from 1505 to 1532 and whose work in his own church may
still be seen. Stow refers to him as a great builder and in any
discussion as to the identity of the architect his name must not be
forgotten.
Mention has been already made[5] of the “brassen” chapel or chapel
within the grille surrounding the tomb of Henry VII. One reference to
this occurs in the Exchequer Accounts of September, 1505, where a
payment is recorded of twenty pounds to “Thomas Ducheman Smith” for
copper-work for the “chapell of metal” at Westminster. This chapel is
said to have been called St. Saviour’s, while the high altar of the new
building retained its dedication to the Blessed Virgin. The dedications
of the chapels in the apse cannot be determined with certainty, but
among them may well be St. Dionysius, St. Ursula and St. Giles, for
chapels in honour of these find mention in the Sub-sacrist’s roll for
the year ending at Michaelmas, 1524. If the last-named chapel may be
identified with “o^{r} ffather Abbottes Chappell w^{t.} in the new
chapell” for which the Sub-sacrist was wont to supply six candles a
year, there would be some slight additional reason for supposing that
Islip’s family name was Giles.
The work of Torregiano in connection with the tomb of the royal founder
is too well known to call for additional record.
The devotion of the Jesus mass, which began to be popular towards the
close of the fifteenth century, was in vogue at Westminster some years
before the actual erection of the Jesus Chapel. For instance, in an
indenture made between the Countess of Richmond and the Abbot and
Convent in the year 1506 it was agreed that when her chapel was ready an
altar should be erected there in honour of the Holy Name and the
Annunciation of the Blessed Virgin, and that among the masses said there
should be a Jesus mass every Friday.
It does not appear when the Jesus Chapel, now commonly known as the
Islip chantry, was built. Its accounts, if they survive, are so
inextricably mixed up with those of building in other parts of the
church that it is impossible to separate them. We have, however, hints
here and there which suggest that it followed closely upon the
completion of the chapel of Henry VII. It is certain that the Jesus
Chapel was in use before it was actually finished, for the Sub-sacrist
notes the provision of pound tapers to be burnt there at Christmas,
1523, while two years later there is a record in the _Novum Opus_ roll
of a payment for carving in the chapel. The final decoration was not
completed until 1530, when Master Humfrey received the last instalment
of the money owing to him for “payntyng uppon the wall in Ihs Chappell”
and for some further work in connection with the Five Wounds which John
Ellys had made for the stairs. The Islip roll gives some faint
indication of the painted Crucifixion on the eastern walls above the
altars and shews also the medallion of the head of our Lord on the outer
side of the western parapet. There is record that weekly masses were
said for Islip after his death and these would naturally be performed in
the chapel where he lay buried, so that Islip’s chantry is a fitting
description of it; but it is to be regretted that its earlier name and
dedication should be relatively forgotten.
The completion of the nave and the building of this chapel do not form
the whole tale of work for which Islip was directly responsible. The
same document which records the payment for painting of the Jesus Chapel
refers to _my lordes chapell at Chenygates_. On the northern side of the
courtyard over part of the substructure of Abbot Litlyngton he built a
set of rooms of two storeys and continued the building round the side of
the south-west tower, making a window into the nave of the church. The
whole of course forms a private part of the present Deanery, but the
panelled chamber called Jericho Parlour which looks on to the courtyard
is well enough known. The chapel at Cheynygates has been identified with
a chamber on the upper floor built in between the tower and the first
buttress of the nave.
In addition to the work in connection with the Abbey church and his own
house Islip was called upon in 1518 to undertake the rebuilding of the
chancel of St. Margaret’s Church, of which the Convent took the
rectorial tithes. The rebuilding of that church had already occupied
some years of the previous century but had been carried on with a view
to the least possible disturbance of parochial worship. The nave was
completed before Islip was required to rebuild the chancel. It was work
which he could not neglect, for the King had made a special grant of
land to facilitate the extension of the church. In justice to him it
must be mentioned that there is no evidence to shew that he desired to
escape his responsibilities. When in 1905 the chancel was still further
extended the demolition of the east wall revealed two stones bearing
Islip’s _rebus_ with which in some of its varying forms the visitor to
the Abbey church is familiar. These stones may still be seen
incorporated into the east wall of the chancel of St. Margaret’s and in
fact their pattern has been multiplied in the frieze of the wooden
panelling.
No narrative of Islip’s work as a builder would be complete without some
attempt, however slight, to indicate the debt which the world owes to
the activity which he and his immediate predecessors displayed. This can
only be estimated by a consideration of the Abbey church as it is with
some thought as to what it might have been. The conservatism with which
the later builders of the nave adhered to the original pattern has given
to the church “a unity and a harmony which largely contribute to its
special beauty.” So far as the interior of the church is concerned
nothing could destroy this, for Islip lived to complete it. How much
that unity has been destroyed externally by the addition of Hawkesmoor’s
western towers is sufficiently obvious, and we are left to conjecture
the possible fate of the interior also had its completion been left for
a later age. If Islip had not died when he did it is probable that the
march of events would not have allowed him to finish the western front
as he must have desired to do. That he lived to do so much must be a
matter of thankfulness to the many who love the place with
understanding.