Patterns Of Reuse The Transformation Of Former

Monastic Buildings In Postdissolution

Hertfordshire 15401600 Nicholas Doggett download

https://ebookbell.com/product/patterns-of-reuse-the-
transformation-of-former-monastic-buildings-in-postdissolution-
hertfordshire-15401600-nicholas-doggett-49994116

Explore and download more ebooks at ebookbell.com

Here are some recommended products that we believe you will be
interested in. You can click the link to download.

Reinventing Traditions On The Transmission Of Artistic Patterns In

Late Medieval Manuscript Illumination New Edition Joris Corin Heyder

https://ebookbell.com/product/reinventing-traditions-on-the-
transmission-of-artistic-patterns-in-late-medieval-manuscript-
illumination-new-edition-joris-corin-heyder-5724166

Patterns Of World History Combined Volume With Sources Sample 2nd

Revised Ed Associate Professor Of History Peter Von Sivers

https://ebookbell.com/product/patterns-of-world-history-combined-
volume-with-sources-sample-2nd-revised-ed-associate-professor-of-
history-peter-von-sivers-44888366

Patterns Of Parental Behavior From Animal Science To Comparative

Ethology And Neuroscience Gabriela Gonzlezmariscal

https://ebookbell.com/product/patterns-of-parental-behavior-from-
animal-science-to-comparative-ethology-and-neuroscience-gabriela-
gonzlezmariscal-46462790

Patterns Of Exposition 18th Edition 18th Edition Robert A Schwegler

https://ebookbell.com/product/patterns-of-exposition-18th-
edition-18th-edition-robert-a-schwegler-48674118
Patterns Of Interaction Computational Design Across Scales Pia Fricker

https://ebookbell.com/product/patterns-of-interaction-computational-
design-across-scales-pia-fricker-49114422

Patterns Of Christological Categorisation Oneness Pentecostalism And

The Renewal Of Jewish And Christian Monotheism Marvin C Sanguinetti

https://ebookbell.com/product/patterns-of-christological-
categorisation-oneness-pentecostalism-and-the-renewal-of-jewish-and-
christian-monotheism-marvin-c-sanguinetti-49459098

Patterns Of Burning Over Archaeological Sites And Landscapes

Prospection And Analysis Alistair Marshall

https://ebookbell.com/product/patterns-of-burning-over-archaeological-
sites-and-landscapes-prospection-and-analysis-alistair-
marshall-49994052

Patterns Of Wisdom In Safavid Iran The Philosophical School Of Isfahan

And The Gnostic Of Shiraz Janis Esots

https://ebookbell.com/product/patterns-of-wisdom-in-safavid-iran-the-
philosophical-school-of-isfahan-and-the-gnostic-of-shiraz-janis-
esots-50236372

Patterns Of Democracy 2nd Edition Arend Lijphart

https://ebookbell.com/product/patterns-of-democracy-2nd-edition-arend-
lijphart-50353360
BAR 331
Patterns of Re-use

2002  DOGGETT  PATTERNS OF RE-USE
The transformation of former monastic buildings
in post-Dissolution Hertfordshire, 1540-1600

Nicholas Doggett

BAR British Series 331

B 2002
A
R
 Patterns of Re-use
The transformation off armer monastic buildings
in post-Dissolution Hertfordshire, 1540-1600

Nicholas Doggett

BAR British Series 331

2002
Published in 2016 by
BAR Publishing, Oxford

BAR British Series 331

Patterns of Re-use

© N Doggett and the Publisher 2002

The author's moral rights under the 1988 UK Copyright,

Designs and Patents Act are hereby expressly asserted.

All rights reserved. No part of this work may be copied, reproduced,

stored, sold, distributed, scanned, saved in any form of digital format or
transmitted in any form digitally, without the written permission of the
Publisher.

ISBN 9781841712963 paperback

ISBN 9781407319698 e-format
DOI https://doi.org/10.30861/9781841712963
A catalogue record for this book is available from the British Library

BAR Publishing is the trading name of British Archaeological Reports (Oxford) Ltd.
British Archaeological Reports was first incorporated in 1974 to publish the BAR
Series, International and British. In 1992 Hadrian Books Ltd became part of the BAR
group. This volume was originally published by Archaeopress in conjunction with
British Archaeological Reports (Oxford) Ltd / Hadrian Books Ltd, the Series principal
publisher, in 2002. This present volume is published by BAR Publishing, 2016.

BAR
PUBLISHING
BAR titles are available from:
BAR Publishing
122 Banbury Rd, Oxford, OX2 7BP, UK
E MAIL [email protected]
P HONE +44 (0)1865 310431
F AX +44 (0)1865 316916
www.barpublishing.com
"Mergate was a nunnery of late tyme. It standith on a hil in a faire woode hard by Watheling streate on the est side of it;
Humfray Boucher, base sunne to the late lorde Berners, did much coste in translating of the priorie into a maner-place."

John Leland, c.1540

11
 Contents

List of Figures lV

Preface and acknowledgements vii

Chapter 1 Introduction: study area, sources and methods 1

Chapter 2 Town and country: adaptation and remodelling in the first and second generations 15

Chapter 3 From monastery to country house: high status conversions 31

Chapter 4 The transformation of monastic buildings: blind alley or wasted opportunity? 50

Chapter 5 Conclusions: the theory of adaptive re-use and suggestions for further work 65

Abbreviations 72

Bibliography 74

Introduction to Appendix (comprising individual site descriptions and bibliographies) 80

Asbridge 80

The Biggio, Hitchin 101

Cheshunt Nunnery 109

Hertford Priory 116

Hitchin Priory 127

King's Langley Priory 135

Markyate Priory 143

Royston Priory 155

St Giles in the Wood, Flamstead (Beechwood Park) 173

St Margaret's, Nettleden 181

Sopwell Nunnery 187

Ware Priory 199

Wymondley Priory 213

111
List of figures

1. Hitchin Priory, north entrance range. Photograph by N.Doggett, April 1989. 17

2. Ware Priory, view of south and west ranges from north-east. Photograph by N. Doggett, April 1989. 19

3. The Biggin, west range. Photograph by N. Doggett, April 1989. 20

4. The Biggin, panelling dated 1585 in first-floor room at southern end of west range. Photograph by
N. Doggett, July 1989. 22

5. The Biggin, crown-post roof truss in attic of west range. Photograph by N. Doggett, July 1989. 22

6. Royston Priory, detail of close studding and infilled mullion window to fonner outside (west) wall of
Priory House. Photograph by N. Doggett, February 1992. 23

7. Royston Priory, former priory church viewed from the north-east. Pen and ink drawing by J.C. Buckler,
1832; H.R.O., Buckler Drawings, I, 31. 24

8. King's Langley Priory, south-east view of The Priory (mistakenly called The Palace). Pen and ink drawing
by J. Buckler, 1830; H.R.O., Buckler Drawings, IV, 107. 26

9. King's Langley Priory, gatehouse from the north. Photograph by N. Doggett, May 1989. 27

10. St Margaret's Nunnery, n01ih-west view of nunnery ruins. Early 20th -century reproduction of drawing by
Benjamin Scott, 1819; H.R.O., Gerish Collection, Box 30. 28

11. St Giles in the Wood, Flamstead (Beechwood Park), detail of early to mid 16th -century fireplace in
housemaster's study. Photograph by N. Doggett, September 1990. 32

12. Markyate Priory, n01ih-east view of house. Pen and ink drawing by G. Buckler, 1839; H.R.O., Buckler
Drawings, IV, 20. 34

13. Wymondley Priory, 13th -century lancet window in south wall of former church truncated by inserted
16th -century floor. Photograph by N. Doggett, November 1989. 36

14. Ashridge, view of cloister walk and detail of angel bosses with armorial shields. Pen and coloured ink
drawing by H.G. Oldfield, c.1800; H.R.O., Oldfield Drawings, III, 189. 39

15. Markyate Priory, house (south and west fronts) viewed across park with parish church in foreground.
Watercolour by unknown artist, c.1800; H.R.O., Knowsley Clutterbuck, iii, 346d. 41

16. Wymondley Priory, north front with triple gables. Photograph by N. Doggett, April 1989. 42

17. Sopwell Nunnery, superimposed plan of Lee's Sopwell, phases one and two. Reproduced from C. Platt,
Medieval England (1978), 216. 43

18. Sopwell Nunnery, estate map with birdseye perspective view of house. Map by M. Pierce, c.1600; H.R.O.,
IV. A. 25. 45

19. Ashridge, north front of house (top) and north front of gatehouse- 'The White Lodge' (bottom). Pen and
coloured ink drawings by H.G. Oldfield, 1802; H.R.O., Oldfield Drawings, III, 186. 46

lV
20. Asbridge, the cloister looking north with great hall beyond. Watercolour by unknown artist,
1788; H.R.O., D/EC1/Z8/181b. 47

21. Thame Park (Oxfordshire), Renaissance panelling and plasterwork in abbot's parlour. Photograph by N.
Doggett, August 1997. 50

22. Cotehele (Cornwall), courtyard showing chapel and hall range. Photograph by N. Doggett, August 1993. 54

23. Buckland (Devon), general view from south-west showing converted nave. Photograph by N. Doggett,
August 1993. 55

24. Montacute (Somerset), general view from south-east. Photograph by N. Doggett, August 1993. 60

25. Abbey House, Montacute, converted monastic gatehouse. Photograph by N.Doggett, August 1993. 60

I am grateful to Hertfordshire Archives and Local Studies (formerly Hertfordshire Record Office) for permission
to photograph the drawings featured in Figs.7, 8, 10, 12, 14, 15, 18, 19 and 20 and similarly to Colin Platt for Fig.17.

V
Vl
 Preface and Acknowledgements

The adaptive re-use of monastic buildings in the second half of the 16th century has been relatively little studied. With a few
notable exceptions, it has generally been assumed that most former monastic sites were simply plundered for their building
materials. Two new approaches suggest that frequently this was not so. First, by examining in detail all the monastic houses
of a single county- in this case Hertfordshire- which survived until the Dissolution and secondly, by treating the surviving
architectural evidence as a primary source, it can be shown that much medieval fabric is in fact incorporated in later houses
on monastic sites, even when this is not readily apparent. Coupled with contemporary documentary records and later
antiquarian accounts, this structural analysis allows a reconstruction to be made of the processes of re-use in the half-century
after the Dissolution.

Hertfordshire is not a county noted for its monastic remains or well-known examples of conversions to domestic use after the
Dissolution. Indeed, as is shown in the detailed architectural descriptions of the thirteen sites which comprise the Appendix
to this study, the monastic origins of several of the buildings included here are not immediately obvious and it was therefore
necessary to investigate and record these structures thoroughly in order to detect their many phases and the survival or
otherwise of medieval fabric. In this way, it has been possible to provide solid evidence from which to draw conclusions.

Too cursory an examination of the buildings could have been misleading and would probably have led to a failure both to
recognise monastic fabric and the ways in which individual structures were re-used after the Dissolution. Such lack of
observation has unfortunately characterised previous work of this kind in He1ifordshire and accounts for the extraordinary
omission of the largely intact 15th-century gatehouse from otherwise detailed architectural descriptions of King's Langley
Priory, 1 the absence of any full published description of the 14th-century roofs at Ware Priory or of any description at all of
the 15th- and 16th-century roofs at The Biggin, Hitchin and Royston Priory. Similarly, although J.T. Smith's recent comment
that "nothing significant is known about the (16th-century) house at Markyate" is happily, if strangely, contradicted by his
own very full description of the building elsewhere,2 his apparently incomplete understanding of Royston could perhaps
have benefited from a more rigorous structural analysis of the surviving building.

My purpose, though, is not to be critical of the work of others. Smith in particular casts his net far wider than mine and
many of his general conclusions have been invaluable in researching and writing this thesis. Likewise, the considerable
limitations of my own work will no doubt be exposed by those who have the opportunity to strip plaster, lift floorboards and
carry out measured surveys of the buildings involved. 3

The essentially building by building approach adopted in Chapters 2 and 3 of this study arises from the detailed site
descriptions contained in the Appendix and has, I believe, one significant advantage over the more usual thematic
approach, which is itself adopted in Chapters 4 and 5. This is that a thorough examination of the raw data, omitting as far as
possible any preconceived notions or ideas obtained from documentary or other sources, enables the conclusions to be
drawn primarily from the built evidence itself. That this deductive approach is paiiially abandoned in Chapters 4 and 5 is not
to be regarded as loss of confidence in its validity, but rather as a sign that, as the discussion broadens, it becomes necessary
to take a wider and more topic-based view if any significant general observations are to be made. The fundamental point
remains, however, that the built evidence is the prime source for a proper understanding of the conversion of former
monastic buildings.

Much is made in this study of the importance and limitations of pictorial evidence. Here too, structural analysis of the
surviving buildings is vital, acting as an impartial check on the accuracy or otherwise of a particular drawing or plan. The
situation can, of course, be reversed, as is well illustrated at Markyate. Here the earliest surviving work is in the short wing
of chequered stone and flint at the north-east end of the present house. This appears to have been a service block at right-
angles to the main south range, and is shown in what is likely to be basically its original fonn in Thomas Fisher's 1805 north-
east view of the house. 4 This same range was, however, drawn in rather different form by G. Buckler in 1839, which raises
some interesting points. 5 The details which Buckler shows of this and the adjoining ranges look like genuine 16th-century

1 See, for example, R.C.H.M, 134-5 and Pevsner, 217.

2 Smith (1992), 66; Smith (1993), 124-7.
3 As, for instance, in the recent as yet impublished investigative work carried out at Ware Priory by the Hertfordshire Archaeological Trust.
4 B.L., Add. MS. 32,349, fol.2.
5 H.R.O., Buckler Drawings, N, 20; Bodl., MS. top. gen. a. 12, fol.90.

Vll
work, but a comparison with Fisher's apparently accurate drawing shows that this cannot be the case. Although this might be
readily apparent from a site inspection,6 this would not necessarily be so. Totternhoe clunch stone (of which the house at
Markyate is principally constructed) is notorious for its friability and poor weathering qualities and, as at nearby Asbridge,
masonry of the 1820s or '30s could quite easily be mistaken for late medieval or Tudor work. The architectural context
makes this far less likely at Asbridge, but at Markyate it might have been only too easy without the graphic evidence falsely
to identify 19th-century Gothic masonry as medieval fabric.

Documentary evidence can similarly show the dangers of carrying out structural analysis in isolation. Once more Markyate
provides the example. Much 13th-century moulded stonework is incorporated in the east wall of the present house, but
documentary sources suggest that this re-use took place only in the 19th century. 7 In many cases, of course, such deductions
would be possible even without further supporting evidence, but the problem is far more acute with regard to internal fittings
and furnishings. Again at Markyate it is known that much late 16th-century panelling was impotied from elsewhere only in
the 1920s, while at Wymondley Priory the provenance of similar panelling remains unknown. At Beechwood (originally the
nunnery of St Giles in the Wood, Flamstead) an early to mid-16th-century fireplace is clearly out of context and not even
careful dismantling would establish its origin. In contrast, the recent discovery of in situ panelling and blocked windows at
Ware Priory has helped to date a paiticular post-Dissolution remodelling of the south range to c.1600, a conclusion it would
otherwise have been considerably more difficult to reach.

Many people have assisted me in carrying out the research for this study, originally undertaken for a Ph.D at the University
of Southampton (awarded in December 1997). First, I should mention the many owners and occupiers of the buildings
involved, almost all of whom were happy for me to visit their properties and record what I saw. For assistance with the
documentary and pictorial evidence I am grateful to the staff of several libraries and museums including the Bodleian
Library, Oxford, the British Library and Public Record Office in London, Hitchin and He1tford Museums and paiticularly
the archivists at Hertfordshire Archives and Local Studies (fonnerly the Hertfordshire Record Office), Hertford, who were
unfailingly kind and helpful.

On a more personal note I should record my debt to Malcolm Airs and Jonathan Hunn for their constant encouragement and
to Michael Bullen for discussing a number of issues and ideas. My employers, South Oxfordshire District Council, were
most generous in providing financial support during much of the time I was working on the thesis. My biggest thanks,
however, are to the thesis supervisors, Colin Platt and David Hinton, whose teaching and utilisation of archaeological,
architectural and historical sources have been an inspiration since I first went to the University of Southampton as an
undergraduate in 1977. Colin Platt in particular was instrumental in the structuring of the thesis and his firm but always
friendly cajoling has enabled me at last to complete it. I should also record my gratitude to my external examiners, Maurice
Howard and Tom James, for the useful suggestions they made to improve the text. I am grateful too to Colin Platt and
Maurice Howard for their continuing encouragement since the thesis was awarded. I should, however, point out that any
inaccuracies which remain in the published work are my own.

Finally, I would like to mention my fainily: my parents for their help and suppoti, my wife, Tace, for her encouragement and
forbearance since I began the project in 1989, and most recently of all my sons, Nathaniel and Josiah, for allowing me
enough time away from their games to finish its writing.

6 Permission to inspect the house at Markyate was refused by its owner, Mr J. Armstrong. N.M.R., file 77,723.

vm
Chapter One destroy the walls of the Cluniac church. 6 Their interest in
the fate of the church at the suppression may, however,
have been brought about by the unusual method of its
Introduction: study area, sources and methods destruction and in general little interest was shown in this
phase of monastic sites.

The re-use of monastic buildings in the 16th century is a Even among St John Hope's followers, leading exponents
subject which has been little studied. Despite the vast of monastic archaeology such as H. Brakspear at Stanley
amount written on medieval monastic buildings, interest (Wilts.) and Waverley (Surrey), J. Bilson at Kirkstall
generally seems to cease at the Dissolution and few writers (Yorks.) and C. Laing at Bardney (Lines.) displayed little
have continued the story beyond 1540. This is equally true interest in the post-suppression history of the sites they
of archaeologists, documentary and architectural historians. excavated. 7 This attitude was also reflected in the activities
For instance, the splendid series of H.M.S.O. guides to of the Office of Works, which after the passing of the
monastic sites prepared by Inspectors of Ancient Ancient Monuments Act in 1911 took several monastic
Monuments for the Office of Works and its successors sites into state care and set about their repair and display to
rarely have much to say about a site after the suppression. the public. As Coppack has recently commented "The
effect that this was to have on monastic sites was
One of the earliest of what could be termed modem, as dramatic," 8 and one which remains all too evident even
opposed to antiquarian, accounts of the post-Dissolution now. Despite radical changes in the management and
history of a monastic site was that of Titchfield (Rants.) by presentation of such sites in the last few years, the usual
W.H. St John Hope in 1906. 1 St John Hope was attracted image of sites in English Heritage guardianship is still one
to Titchfield by the combination of the extent of the of ruthlessly mown and manicured lawns with medieval
surviving ruins and the unusually detailed documentary walls heavily repointed in cement-rich mortar and stripped
sources, which enabled him to reconstruct with great bare of all vegetation. 9
accuracy the sequence of events there. It is perhaps for this
reason that St John Hope's account remains a model of its This approach is not simply one of appearance but in its
kind, which few later writers have been able to emulate. St early days before the First World War and into the 1920s,
John Hope also canied out pioneering studies at many if not later, also involved the clearing away of later
other sites including Fountains and Mount Grace (Yorks.),2 accretions in an attempt to return the surviving ruins to
although at none of these did he examine the adaptive re- their "original" form. Not only was such an ambition
use of the buildings in anything approaching the detail he impossible to achieve, since ruins are as much a product of
employed at Titchfield. gradual decay and changes through time as the result of a
single cataclysmic event, and by today's criteria it would
St John Hope was by no means the first archaeologist or be highly questionable in conservation terms, but it was
historian to display a serious academic interest in monastic intensely destructive of archaeological evidence at sites
sites. At Fountains he was able to draw on the work of R. which were among the best preserved in the country.
Walbran in the 1840s and 1850s,3 while the stone-by-stone
elevation drawings of its buildings by J. Reeve in the 1870s As Coppack has shown, the work of Sir Charles Peers,
remain, according to Glyn Coppack "the most complete Chief Inspector of Ancient Monuments from 1913 until
analysis of any abbey ruin." 4 However, most 19th-century 1933, was instrumental in this process. 10 Peers's own
archaeologists were content simply to follow the lines of interest in and scholarly approach to the sites in his care is
walls in their excavations with the aim of uncovering as
much of the original monastic lay-out as possible. 5 Among 6 M.A. Lowther, 'Reports on the antiquities lately found at Lewes' and
the exceptions to this rule were A. Lowther and J. Parsons, 'Further report on discoveries at Lewes', Jnl. Brit. Arch. Assoc., I & 2
who at Lewes (Sussex) in the 1840s found clear evidence (1846 & 1847), 346-57 & 104-8; see also W.H. Blaauw, 'On the Cluniac
for the mines used by the Italian engineer, Portinari, to priory of St Pancras at Lewes, its priors and monks', Sussex Arch.
Colins., 3 (1850), 185-210.
7 H. Brakspear, 'Stanley Abbey', Wilts. Nat. Hist. Mag., 35 (1907/8),
1 W.H. St John Hope, 'The making of Place House at Titchfield, near 541-81 and Waverley Abbey (1905); J. Bilson & W.H. St John Hope,
Southampton in 1538', Arch. Jnl. 63 (1906), 231-43. Architectural Description of Kirkstall Abbey, Publications of the
2 W.H. St John Hope, 'Fountains Abbey', Yorks. Arch. Jnl., 15 (1898/9), Thoresby Soc., 16 (1907); C.E. Laing, 'Excavations on the site of
269-402 and 'The architectural history of Mount Grace Charterhouse', Bardney Abbey', Assoc. Soc. Reps., 32, pt.i (1913), 21-34. The results of
Yorks. Arch. Jnl., 18 (1905), 270-309. Laing's excavations were fully published by H. Brakspear, 'Bardney
3 R. Walbran, Memorials of the Abbey of St Mary qf Fountains, 1 and 11, Abbey', Arch. Jnl., 79 (1922), 1-92.
Surtees Soc., 42 (1862) and Surtees Soc., 67 (1876). 8 Coppack (1990), 25.
4 I.A Reeve, A Monograph on the Abbey qf St Mary qf Fountains 9 See M.W. Thompson, Ruins: their Preservation and Display (1981),

(1892); also printed in St John Hope, op. cit. (1898/9), (note 2), passim; 29-34 for an attempt to explain the old Ministry of Works policy on the
Coppack (1990), 22. display of ruins and the "advantages" of closely-mown grass in this
5 As typified by St John Hope at Alnwick (Northumberland) and Watton context. Recently a new, less clinical approach has been evident at sites
(Yorks.). See his 'On the Premonstratensian abbey of St Mary at such as Jervaulx in Yorkshire. For examples of other sites where a more
Alnwick, Northumberland', Arch. Jnl., 44 (1887), 337-46 and 'The enlightened approach to interpretation has been adopted, see Greene
Gilbertine priory of Watton in the East Riding of Yorkshire', Arch. Jnl., (1992), 215-26.
58 (1901), 1-34. 10 D.N.B., 1951-60, (1971) 800-1.

1
 Nicholas Doggett

exemplified by the many site guides he wrote,11 but his Nevertheless, it is to be hoped that when restoration
excavations involved the "clearance of all fallen debris, programmes take place elsewhere, especially at sites in
including the evidence for the latest occupation and state guardianship, the post-Dissolution phases of monastic
demolition, (only) stopping at the latest floor levels." 12 buildings will cease to be regarded as sacrificial.
Likewise, the concept of bringing a site into guardianship
with its emphasis on presenting ruins to the public meant The 1950s saw the growth of aerial photography of
that although the church and claustral buildings were likely monastic sites by practitioners such as J.K. St Joseph. 18
to be protected and investigated, the less well-preserved This drew attention to the outer precinct with its
structures and earthworks of the inner and outer courts earthworks and outbuildings and was an important factor in
were often excluded, sometimes as at Buildwas the investigation of the monastery as a wider community
(Shropshire) not even being included within the wider than that represented simply by church and cloister. This
scheduled area. emphasis on the study of the whole monastic complex
roughly co-incided with the emergence of post-medieval
The attention paid to the church and the least-altered archaeology as a discipline in its own right in the late
claustral buildings may have been a contributory factor in 1960s and early 1970s. 19 One of the first of the new
the general disregard of the post-Dissolution phases of generation of scholars to concern itself with events after the
monastic sites. This is typified by the treatment ofRievaulx Dissolution was David Baker, whose excavation of the
(Yorks.), a previously largely uninvestigated site, where small Benedictine nunnery of Elstow (Beds.) included an
Peers began major clearance works in 1919. Although examination of the mansion erected by Thomas Hillersden
Brakspear had earlier shown some interest in the history of in the early 17th century on the site of a house built from
the abbey after the suppression, 13 the post-Dissolution the ruins of the nunnery immediately after the
archaeological deposits and alterations to the fabric were Dissolution. 20 Similarly, Edward Johnson's excavations at
swept away in the determination to restore the ruins of the Sopwell (Herts.) were as much concerned with the post- as
church and recover the full plan of the medieval claustral the pre-Dissolution phases, 21 while at Norton (Cheshire)
buildings. 14 A similar operation took place at Whitby Patrick Greene made a detailed study of the way in which
(Yorks.) in the 1920s and must have occurred at many the abbot's lodgings were converted to a new house after
other places throughout the country. the suppression. 22 Among other examples of such an
approach are Philip Rahtz's work at Bordesley (Worcs.), 23
This cavalier attitude to post-medieval features and and at Blackfriars, Gloucester Andrew Saunders has shown
deposits extended to buildings erected on monastic sites how Thomas Bell transformed the Dominican friary into a
after the Dissolution. Thus in the 1950s the 17th-century factory, retaining the church for his own use as a
farmhouse at Monk Bretton (Yorks.) was systematically residence. 24
dismantled to expose the medieval fabric of the gatehouse
from which it had been fashioned. 15 The disappearance of It is now standard practice for excavators to pay due regard
post-suppression features in this way was the result of a to the post-monastic phases of religious sites, as shown by
desire to understand and (in the case of sites displayed to Tony Musty at Waltham Abbey (Essex), Rick Turner and
the public) to present monastic buildings in a form as close Robina McNeil at Vale Royal (Cheshire), Barbara
to their original appearance as possible. While such an Harbottle at the former Carmelite and Dominican friaries in
approach was perhaps considered justifiable in the 1950s, Newcastle-upon-Tyne and P.M. Christie and J.G. Coad at
it is even less easy to defend the more recent removal of all
traces of the post-medieval domestic use of the former lady
chapel at the priory church of St Bartholomew, Smithfield
in London. 16 Since then the significance of the re-use of John Blair & Julian Munby, 'The thirteenth-century roofs and floor of the
monastic buildings as a social phenomenon has been done Blackfriars priory at Gloucester', Med. Arch., 22 (1978), 105-22 which,
a further disservice by the decision to remove the post- perhaps wisely, offers no conunent on the merits of the "restoration"
Dissolution residential elements from the former church of programme.
18 J.K. St Joseph & David Knowles, Monastic Sites from the Air (1952).
Blackfriars, Gloucester, although it must be admitted that 19 The Society for Post-Medieval Archaeology was founded in 1967 and

this could have provided the opportunity to investigate how its first journal published in that year.
this transformation had been achieved in the first place. 17 20 Post-Med. Arch., 2 (1968), 183.
21Med. Arch., 8 (1964), 242; 9 (1965), 179; 10 (1966), 177-80; 11

(1967), 274.
11 C.R. Peers, H.M.S.O. guides to Byland (1930), Finchale (revd., 1973), 22 Patrick Greene, Norton Priory (1989). See also 'The impact of the
Rievaulx (1933) and St Botolph 's, Colchester (revd., 1964). dissolution on monasteries in Cheshire: the case of Norton' in A Thacker
12 Coppack (1990), 25. (ed.), Chester: Medieval Archaeology, Art & Architecture, Brit. Arch.
13 Ibid 26 Assoc. Conference Trans. xxii (2000), 152-66.
14 C.R'. Pe.ers, H.M.S.O. guide to Rievaulx (1933). See also P. Fergusson 23 Philip Rahtz & Susan Hirst, Bordesley Abbey, Brit. Arch. Rep., 23

& S. Harrison, Rievaulx Abbey (1999), passim. (1976); Susan Hirst, D.A Walsh & S.M. Wright, Bordesley Abbey II,
15 R. Graham & R. Gilyard-Beer, H.M.S.O. guide to Monk Bretton Brit. Arch. Rep., 111 (1983) and G. A.still, 'Monastic research designs:
(1966). Bordesley Abbey and the Arrow Valley' in Roberta Gilchrist & Harold
16 M.W. Barley, Houses and History (1986), 269-70. Mytum (eds.), The Archaeology of Rural Monasteries, Brit. Arch. Rep.,
17 Ibid, 272. No proper account of the post-Dissolution conversion work 203 (1989), 279-93.
has been published, Francis Kelly pers. conun. But see Oliver Rackham, 24 Andrew Saunders, 'Blackfriars', Arch. Jnl., 122 (1965), 217-19.

2
 Patterns of Re-use

Denny (Cambs.), 25 to name but a few. Nevertheless, the specific archaeological studies, although David Stocker has
failure in 1989 of even one of the pioneers of post- tackled the issue of the re-cycling of materials, both within
Dissolution monastic archaeology, Lawrence Butler, to a county context across a wide date range and also with
acknowledge the study of the re-use of monastic buildings specific reference to the Reformation in Lincoln, while of
as one of the research objectives for the "next decades of studies of a particular group of sites before and after the
monastic archaeology" indicates that there may still be Dissolution, Simon Ward's work on the friaries of Chester
some way to go for the topic to be regarded as a priority by is among the most valuable.28
archaeologists. 26

The results of the excavation of post-Dissolution deposits

and the archaeological analysis of surviving fabric are If archaeologists were slow to turn to the examination of
slowly beginning to be represented in general surveys of post-Dissolution deposits and features in their excavation
medieval and post-medieval archaeology. As recently as of monastic sites, much the same attitude towards the post-
1984, however, the question of the re-cycling of monastic suppression period was evident among architectural and
buildings and materials was completely ignored by Helen documentary historians. Indeed, it could be argued that the
Clarke in The Archaeology of Medieval England and, essentially architectural approach of archaeologists like St
although John Steane briefly touches upon the importance John Hope, Brakspear and Peers did much to stifle early
of lead to the crown at the time of the Dissolution, he investigation of the outer precinct buildings, most of which
otherwise makes no mention of the topic in The were by then no more than rubble or marked by
Archaeology of Medieval England and Wales (1984), earthworks. It is true, however, that documentary historians
simply contenting himself with the general and rather showed no premature enthusiasm to devote themselves to
misleading statement that "Not many complete cloisters the study of the 16th-century re-use of monastic buildings.
survive because after the Dissolution they served no useful Among those concerned with the Dissolution of the
purpose and were nearly always destroyed. "27 Monasteries, early writers like Cardinal Gasquet in his
Henry VIII and the English Monasteries (1906) and A.
Much happier than this is Colin Platt's treatment of the Savine in The English Monasteries on the Eve of the
subject in Medieval England (1978) and The Abbeys and Dissolution (1909) make no reference to the subject and
Priories of Medieval England (1984) (see below), while a the topic is only summarily treated by Geoffrey Baskerville
comprehensive review of recent archaeological work on the in English Monks and the Suppression of the Monasteries
re-use of monastic buildings appears in David Crossley's (1937), although in fairness it should be pointed out that
Post-Medieval Archaeology (1990). Increasing interest is, Baskerville's main concern was to trace the post-
however, best illustrated by the devotion of complete Dissolution careers of the ex-religious.
chapters to the topic in Coppack's Abbeys and Priories
(1990) and Patrick Greene's Medieval Monasteries (1992). The topic was totally ignored by D. Hay in his study of the
This is in marked contrast to Lionel Butler's and Chris Dissolution of the Monasteries in the diocese ofDurham, 29
Given-Wilson's earlier Medieval Monasteries of Great but A. Preston, in his transcription of and commentary on a
Britain (1979), which covers much the same ground, albeit detailed account of the demolition of Reading Abbey in
from an architectural and historical rather than an 1549, led the way in showing how documentary sources
archaeological perspective. Apart from these general could be used to illuminate the post-Dissolution history of
surveys, there has been rather little in the way of non-site a particular site. 30 The first documentary historian,
however, to give serious consideration to the wider
25 A.E.S. Musty, 'Exploratory excavation within the monastic precinct,
question of the re-use of monastic buildings in general was
Waltham Abbey, 1972', Essex Arch. & Hist., 10 (1978), 127-73 and P.J. David Knowles in the third volume (1959) of his
Huggins, 'Excavations of the collegiate and Augustinian churches, magisterial The Religious Orders in England. The
Waltham Abbey, Essex, 1984-87', Arch. Jnl., 146 (1989), 476-537; Post- treatment is necessarily brief in a general survey of this sort
Med. Arch., 19 (1985), 159-61 and R. Mc Neil & R.C. Turner, 'An and the elegant statement that "In the main, and especially
architectural and topographical survey of Vale Royal Abbey', Jnl.
Chester Arch. Soc., 70 (1990), 51-79; Barbara Harbottle, 'Excavations at in the numberless small houses in field, forest and dale, the
the Carmelite friary, Newcastle-upon-Tyne, 1965, 1967', Arch. Aeliana,
4th Ser., 46 (1968), 163-223 and with R. Fraser, 'Black Friars,
Newcastle-upon-Tyne, after the Dissolution of the Monasteries', Arch. 28 David Stocker & Paul Everson, 'Rubbish recycled: a study of the re-

Aeliana, 5th Ser., 15 (1987), 23-150; P.M. Christie & J.G. Croad, use of stone in Lincolnshire' in David Parsons (ed.), Stone Quanying
'Excavations at Denny Abbey', Arch. Jnl., 137 (1980), 138-279 and J. and Building in England A.D. 43-1525 (1990), 83-101 and 'The
Poster & D. Sherlock, 'Denny Abbey: the nuns' refectory', Proc. archaeology of the Reformation in Lincoln: a case study in the
Cambridge Antiq. Soc., 76 (1987), 67-82. redistribution of building materials in the mid 16th century', Lines. Hist.
26 Lawrence Butler, 'The archaeology of rural monasteries in England and & Arch., 25 (1990), 18-32; Simon Ward, 'The friaries in Chester, their
Wales' in Gilchrist & Mytum, op. cit., (note 23), 1-27. The omission of impact and legacy', in A Thacker (ed.), Chester: Medieval Archaeology,
the re-use of monastic buildings as a research objective is even harder to Art & Architecture, Brit. Arch. Assoc. Conference Trans., xxii (2000),
account for in the postscript to Greene (1992), especially given that 121-31.
writer's exemplary treatment of the subject in chapter eight of the same 29 D. Hay, 'The dissolution of the monasteries in the diocese of Durham',

book. Arch. Aeliana, 4th Ser., 15 (1938), 69-114.

27 John Steane, The Archaeology of Medieval England and Wales (1984), 30 A.E. Preston, 'The demolition of Reading Abbey', Berks. Arch. Jnl., 39

71. (1935), 107-44.

3
 Nicholas Doggett

work of destruction was swift, and the church and cloister the destruction of Barking Abbey, 35 his summary of the re-
of yesterday were left a stripped and gutted ruin" denies the use of monastic buildings in the county is rather superficial
frequency of re-use,31 but several residential conversions and based mainly on the work of the R.C.H.M. and
are cited and Knowles demonstrates a clear understanding Nikolaus Pevsner.
of the processes of demolition and re-use.
More disappointing still in view of its recent date is J.H.
It is therefore unfortunate that Knowles's example was not Bettey's Suppression of The Monasteries in the West
followed by other historians of the 16th century. The two Country (1989). Despite devoting a complete chapter to the
volumes covering the period in The Oxford History of careers of the ex-religious and the fate of the former
England make no reference whatsoever to the re-use of monastic buildings, his survey (which covers the counties
monastic buildings, 32 while the topic is conspicuous by its of Dorset, Gloucestershire, Somerset and Wiltshire) is of
absence from A.G. Dickens's The English Reformation relatively little value. Admittedly, the area covered is a
(1964). More surprisingly, the situation is no better in two large one but this perhaps reveals the drawbacks to casting
of the most recent general syntheses, Joyce Y ouings' s the net so wide, at least until detailed local studies have
Sixteenth-Century England (1984) and John Guy's Tudor been undertaken. Bettey cites a number of instances where
England (1988). While it might be argued that extensive monastic materials were transported some distance for the
treatment of the subject would be out of place in general building of new houses, but in general he over-emphasises
surveys of the political, social and economic history of the the extent of destruction which took place at the
period, its total absence may still reflect a lack of interest Dissolution. Mention is, of course, made of the region's
among documentary historians. major conversions, such as Forde and Milton Abbas in
Dorset and Lacock and Wilton in Wiltshire, but on the
It is not the case that the wider question of the dispersal of whole the choice of conversions included is unadventurous,
monastic lands has been ignored by historians. This has its the lack of first-hand observation noticeable and the limited
own far-ranging literature, including several notable local amount of space given to the topic seems strangely at odds
and regional studies in counties as widespread as Devon, with the number of photographs of converted monastic
Norfolk and Yorkshire, 33 some of which has been buildings found throughout the book. This is particularly
summarised by H. Habbakuk and G.W.O. Woodward as frustrating given the number and interest of comparatively
well as in the general surveys referred to above. 34 The obscure sites in the region like Woodspring (Somerset),
general history of the Dissolution of the Monasteries has, where part of the church, including the central tower, was
of course, been addressed by many writers. Among the converted into a dwelling after the Dissolution, but for
more useful recent accounts is Y ouings' s The Dissolution which no comprehensive modem account has been
of the Monasteries (1971) and the stripping of the Church's published. 36 Bettey's treatment of the subject is probably
wealth is well covered by W.G. Hoskins in The Age of the result of trying to cover too much ground in one book,
Plunder (1976). Platt's Medieval England (1978) and The but one cannot help feeling that a regional study of this sort
Abbeys and Priories of Medieval England (1984) contain would have benefited from a more detailed and analytical
references to specific conversion schemes, as does account of the re-use of monastic buildings from a smaller
Woodward's The Dissolution of the Monasteries (1966), number of selected sites.
while Felicity Heal's and Clive Hohnes's The Gentry in
England and Wales 1500-1700 (1994) provides the most This criticism cannot be made of Steven Pugsley's recent
recent summary of the context in which conversions at examination of the country house in Devon, 37 where the
gentry level took place. role of the monastic conversion in the development of the
Tudor and early Stuart country house is more carefully
Many of Woodward's examples come from Yorkshire and explored and appreciated. It can only be hoped that similar
it is, perhaps, through local and regional studies that the studies will follow elsewhere.
greatest advances have been made in the last 30 years. J.
Oxley led the way with The Reformation in Essex to the Specific questions have also been examined recently by
Death of Mary (1965) but, apart from a detailed account of historians such as J. Borden, who in his study of former
monastic churches in Cumbria has advanced the view that
while the status of churches as consecrated buildings could
prevent the destruction of parish churches at the
31 David Knowles, The Religious Orders in England, iii (1959), 387. Dissolution, monastic churches were regarded "first and
32 J.D. Mackie, The Earlier Tudors, 1485-1558 (1952); J.B. Black, The foremost as monastic buildings, no different from the
Reign of Eli:=abeth,1558-1603 (2nd edn., 1959).
33 J. Kew, 'The disposal of crown lands and the Devon land market,

1536-58', Agricultural Hist. Rev., 18 (1970), 93-105; T.H. Swales, 'The 35 J.E. Oxley, The Reformation in Essex to the Death of Mary (1965),
redistribution of the monastic lands in Norfolk at the Dissolution', 130.
N01:folkArch., 34 (1962-66), 14-44; R.B. Smith, Land and Politics in the 36 But see Nikolaus Pevsner, North Somerset and Bristol (1958), 343.

England of Henry VIII: the West Riding of Yorkshire, 1530-46 (1970). 37 Steven Pugsley, 'Landed society and the emergence of the country
34 H.J. Habbakuk, 'The market for monastic property, 1539-1603', house in Tudor and early Stuart Devon' in T. Gray, M. Rowe & A
Economic Hist. Rev., 2nd. Ser., 10 (1957/8), 362-80; G.W.O. Woodward, Erskine (eds.), Tudor and Stuart Government, Essays Presented to Joyce
'A speculation in monastic lands', English Hist. Rev., 79 (1964), 778-83. Youings (1992), 96-118.

4
 Patterns of Re-use

secular buildings with which they were in physical former superior's lodging became the basis for a new house
proximity" and could, therefore, be demolished unless they on the site, and draws attention to the speed and frequency
had also been used for parochial worship. 38 Thus, he with which the east claustral range was demolished for the
argues, it was those churches, such as Lanercost, where the fear that, in the words of one of the new lay owners, "the
parish had used the nave before the suppression which birds should build therein again." 41 Another innovative
were most likely to survive wholly or in part after the aspect of Dickinson's work is that he selected relatively
Dissolution. unknown sites among his examples rather than
concentrating almost exclusively on the more spectacular
convers10ns as several earlier (and later) commentators
have done.
It might be expected that architectural historians would
have started to examine the question of the re-use of Although not primarily an architectural historian, many
monastic buildings at an earlier date than their useful insights into the process of re-use have been made
documentary colleagues. However, this is not the case. Of by Lawrence Stone in a series of books and papers
the two first reliable modem studies of the period, J. published between 1965 and 1984. Stone's contribution is
Gotch's Early Renaissance Architecture in England (1914) particularly important for our purposes, because in his
does not address the subject and T. Gamer's and A study of the aristocracy, Hertfordshire was chosen as a
Stratton's splendid two-volume The Domestic Architecture sample area, one paper being entirely devoted to the
of England During the Tudor Period (1929) makes only county's country houses and their owners from 1540
passing reference to the conversion of monastic buildings onwards. 42 In his first book, The Crisis of the Aristocracy
in the introduction, although many examples are included 1558-1641 (1965) to consider the topic, albeit in passing,
in the gazeteer which forms the main part of the book. The Stone suggests two reasons why it may have been more
topic is also ignored by D.H.S. Cranage in his otherwise common for monastic materials to be re-used elsewhere
excellent Home of the Monk (1934 ). rather than for the buildings themselves to be converted.
First, there was the fear that former monastic property
In later general works the subject is absent from Sir John could revert to the crown or the Church and, secondly,
Summerson's tour de force, Architecture in Britain, 1530- there was superstition about "wining, dining and sleeping
1830 (1953) and Eric Mercer's English Art, 1553-1625 on once holy ground." 43
(1962), but Henry VIII's re-use of monastic buildings as
royal houses and the re-cycling of materials in the coastal Stone goes on to suggest that by the 1570s and 1580s there
shore forts is considered by Howard Colvin et al in The were overwhelming reasons among the aristocracy for
History of the King's Works, vol.iv, 1485 -1660 (Pt.2) building. At long last new owners felt relatively secure in
(1982). their possessions, had paid off the purchase price of their
properties and had surplus money available. These factors,
The first general analysis of the re-use of monastic coupled with the emergence of a new architectural style
buildings by an architectural historian was by J.C. with its emphasis on symmetry and various technological
Dickinson in 1968,39 although he had earlier touched on the advances, provided an irresistible urge to build. This stress
subject in his Monastic Life in Medieval England (1961). on the post-1570 period is strangely contradicted in Stone's
Dickinson's study was pioneering in that by treating the 1972 paper on Hertfordshire, which notes that "in terms of
houses of one order, the Augustinian, he was able to new construction or substantial rebuilding, the major
determine the extent and variety of re-use. By this time growth phase ...was over by 1580" and that "only in the
many individual sites had been thoroughly described by the period 1540-80 does new building or total
R.C.HM, VC.H, Pevsner and others but Dickinson seems rebuilding/reconstruction amount to a high proportion of
to have been the first to examine the issue within its total building activity in this period ...the peak of the
historical context. His sample is a very large one, "the building boom (being) the 1540s and 1550s when 13 newly
houses of the English Augustinian canons represent(ing) a built houses entered the sample." 44
quarter of the religious houses in England at the time of the
Reformation", and as he rightly points out "only In An Open Elite? England 1540-1880 (1984) Stone
generalities can be offered" until further work has been emphasises the role of the Dissolution in the creation of
carried out. 40 Nevertheless, the "generalities" which Hertfordshire as "a social and political unit...in its own
Dickinson makes are pertinent. For instance, he highlights right" when the break-up of the vast St Albans estate made
the difficulties of converting the redundant church to possible the establishment of new private estates. "Few
domestic use, emphasises the number of cases where the
41 Thomas Fuller, The Church History qf Great Britain, iii (ed., J.S.
38 J. Horden, 'The fate of monastic churches in Cumbria: a consideration Brewer, 1845), 486.
of the position at law' in J. Loades (ed.), Monastic Studies (1990), 263. 42 L. & J.C. Stone, 'Country houses and their owners in Hertfordshire,
39 J.C. Dickinson, 'The buildings of the English Austin canons after the 1540-1879' in W.O. Aydelotte, AC. Bogue & R.W. Fogel (eds.), The
Dissolution of the Monasteries', Jnl. Brit. Arch. Assoc., 3rd. Ser., 31 Dimensions of Quantitative Research in History (1972), 56-123.
(1968), 60-75. 43 L. Stone, The Crisis of the Aristocracy, 1558-1641 (1965), 549-50.
40 Ibid, 62. 44 L. & J.C. Stone, op. cit., (note 42), 108, 117, 120.

5
 Nicholas Doggett

county elites can have been as heavily dependent upon of claustral ranges could create either "corridor-galleries"
16th-century and early 17th-century dispersal of Church serving the rooms opening off the galleries or "recreative
and crown properties as was that of Hertfordshire ...nearly a galleries" of the type well known at houses like Hardwick
half of all seats extant in 1640 (being) built on land which (Derbys.) or Chastleton (Oxon.). As Howard says "It would
had once been in institutional hands, one third on ex- be pushing the point too far to suggest that monastic
monastic land. "45 conversions first introduced the idea of a sequence of
important rooms on an upper floor, not least because this
Several of the issues explored by Stone have been concept was alien to the monastic lay-out...but (these)
elaborated upon by Malcolm Airs in The Making of the conversions undoubtedly accelerated the growing
English Country House, 1500-1640 (1975), which has importance of the upper floor. " 49
recently been republished as The Tudor and Jacobean
Country House, A Building History (1995). Airs makes the Equally important is Simon Thurley's The Royal Palaces
point that it was the most powerful men and those who of Tudor England (1993), which not only describes the
played an active part in the Dissolution who were most influential conversions of former monastic property by the
likely to be the first to build at ex-monastic property. crown, but provides new observations on the development
Others preferred to wait and often it was not until the of the plan-form of Tudor palaces in the first half of the
property had been sold again or passed to later generations 16th century, particularly the decline in importance of the
that it was exploited. "It is not unreasonable to suggest that great hall. Thurley's book is almost matched in
this further transaction helped to free it from the inhibitions significance by Jolm Schofield's Medieval London Houses
arising from its religious associations". Airs also notes that (1994), which despite its title contains detailed summaries
many houses occupying former monastic sites "were not (many based on the writer's own work) of several post-
begun before the last quarter of the 16th century and some, Dissolution domestic conversions in the capital. Some of
such as Trentham Hall (Staffs) were not begun until well these were unusual in that they were to lead to multiple
into the 17th century".46 occupancy, as at Holy Trinity, Aldgate and St
Bartholomew's, Smithfield but as some of the earliest and
A particularly useful summary of the literature to date from most comprehensive to be carried out, their significance for
the architectural historian's view-point is contained in an understanding of the subject as a whole should not be
chapter seven of Maurice Howard's The Early Tudor under-estimated.
Country House (1987). In contrast to many writers,
Howard emphasises the extent of conversion to other uses Also useful is Geoffrey Tyack's Country Houses of
which took place at the Dissolution rather than simply Warwickshire (1994), which includes several monastic
concentrating on the amount of destruction which occurred. conversions in its detailed accounts of individual houses. It
Howard also plays down the part of superstition or moral is disappointing therefore that the subject receives scant
scruples in discouraging the conversion process. Rather, he attention in the R.C.H.M. 's The Country Houses of
argues, lay involvement in the running of monasteries Northamptonshire (1996), while its almost complete
before the suppression meant "that there was more absence from Nicholas Cooper's Houses of the Gentry
continuity between the pre-Dissolution situation with 1480-1680 (1999) is particularly surprising as this
regard to monastic buildings and their post-Dissolution authoritative work could have provided the ideal
history than is sometimes imagined."47 opportunity to investigate on a national basis the context in
which conversions at gentry level occurred.
Another important point made by Howard is that early lay
owners of former monastic property probably went to some Finally, Roger Stalley's account of the aftermath of the
length to conceal the ecclesiastical origins of their new Dissolution in his The Cistercian Monasteries of Ireland
houses: it was left to later restorers to reveal monastic (1987) provides some valuable insights and sources of
features for antiquarian effect. Howard is also the first comparison for the process of re-cycling of buildings in
writer properly to examine the difficulties of converting England, 50 but so far comparable studies have not been
individual claustral buildings to domestic use, clearly produced for Wales and Scotland.
demonstrating that this was often not so easy as might be
supposed.

Rosalys Coope has recently discussed the role of monastic This summary of the available literature has made little
conversions in the emergence and development of the long reference to books, papers or monographs on individual
gallery.48 Citing Lacock and Newstead (Notts.) among monastic sites, and in its attempt to survey the contents of
others, she suggests that the adaptation of the upper floors what has been written, has probably (at least in some
instances) drawn the line too rigidly between the work of
45 L. Stone, An Open Elite? England 1540-1880 (1984), 361. archaeologists, documentary and architectural historians.
46 Airs (1975), 19.
47 Howard (1987), 143.
48 Rosalys Coope, 'The "long gallery": its origins, development, use and 49 Howard (1987), 156.
decoration', Archit. Hist., 29 (1986), 43-84. 50 Roger Stalley, The Cistercian Monasteries of Ireland (1987), 227-38.

6
 Patterns of Re-use

Some individual studies, like Frederick Hockey's Beaulieu, Dissolution. The next wealthiest community, Ashridge, had
King John's Abbey (1976) contain a limited amount of an annual net income over five times smaller than that of St
information on the question of re-use, but others like G. Albans and even this was nearly four times higher than that
Copeland's work at Buckland (Devon), 51 Paul Drury's of the third richest institution, King's Langley.
study of Walden Abbey (Essex), the precursor of Audley
End, 52 or John Hare's excavations at Battle (Sussex) have It was therefore felt that to include St Albans would
done much to improve our understanding of the post- severely distort the balance of the sample and detract from
Dissolution history of these sites, 53 it undoubtedly being no the significance or otherwise of the remaining religious
coincidence that these are all investigations which draw on houses. This is not to deny or underrate the importance of
all forms of evidence. Similarly, the descriptions of St Albans: clearly its influence was far greater and more
individual buildings by the R.C.HM, VC.H and Pevsner, profound than that of any Hertfordshire house. Its vast
particularly those of the VC.H where they are land-holdings, particularly in the south and west of the
supplemented by detailed documentary material, are often county, were rivalled only by those of St Paul's in the north
the best available accounts of particular sites and form a and east, 57 while it also held many manors outside the
solid basis of information for analysis and comparison. 54 county. 58 The dissolution of St Albans, including the
dispersal of its monks and their post-suppression careers, 59
is a subject awaiting its own detailed study. 60

For the purposes of this study the boundaries of the county Even without St Albans, there remains a surprisingly high
of Hertfordshire are taken as those of the post-1974 number of monastic institutions in Hertfordshire. There
administrative unit. This means that two former monastic were at least nine hospitals in the county, of which very
sites which were previously partly or wholly in little is known, 61 while of the regular houses and friaries
Buckinghamshire, Ashridge and St Margaret's, Nettleden, several were disbanded long before the 16th century. Of
are included in this study. these the earliest casualty was the small Benedictine house
of Salbum in Standon, which seems to have become a free
Hertfordshire was chosen as a study area for several chapel by the early 14th century, 62 while the alien priory at
reasons. First, it is a relatively small county making a Ware was closed in 1414.63 The collegiate house at
detailed examination of the re-use of its former monastic Stanstead St Margarets closed in 1431,64 and the
buildings possible. Its proximity to London means that preceptories of Temple Dinsley and Standon, the properties
local conditions and circumstances would be likely to of the Knights Templars and Hospitallers respectively, do
encourage re-use. This is in marked contrast to counties not seem to have survived the 15th century as religious
more distant from the capital where lower population institutions. 65
densities, the relative lack of sizeable towns and the
absence of a courtier class might provide less of an impetus The Benedictine nunnery of Rowney, Great Munden
for the adaptation of former monastic buildings to secular ceased to function in 1457, although a perpetual chantry
use. Also, as recently noted by J.T. Smith,55 the county is was established in its place,66 but Redboum Priory,
particularly fortunate in the richness of its 18th- and 19th- founded as a dependent cell of St Albans in the late 12th
century histories and pictorial evidence. This is discussed century,67 appears to have survived until the late 15th or
in greater detail below. early 16th century. A prior, Thomas Albon, is last recorded
in 1492,68 and the house is not referred to again until 1535
The decision to omit the only monastic institution of the when, described as a cell of St Albans, its annual net value
first ranl(, St Albans, from this study was taken at an early was given as £9 2s. 69 It is not at all clear, however, what
stage. St Albans was a major religious community, the was meant by the priory at this date and, although the site
fourth wealthiest monastery in terms of net income in the
country in 1535,56 and far outstripped any other 57 Doggett (1991), 47-8.
58 See P.R.O., SC6/Hen VIII/1619, 1626-31 for its Hertfordshire
Hertfordshirehouse in size and influence at the time of the
possessions.
59 Nicholas Doggett, unpublished paper on the dispersal of the
51 G.W. Copeland, 'Some problems of Buckland Abbey', Trans. Devon. Hertfordshire religious and their post-Dissolution careers.
Assoc., 85 (1953), 41-52. 60 An introductory study has recently been published. Eileen Roberts, The
52 Paul Drury, 'Walden into Audley End' in S.R. Bassett (ed.), Saffron Hill qf the Martyr, An Architectural History of St Albans Abbey (1993).
Walden: Excavations and Research 1972-80, C.B.A. Res. Rep., 45 61 Nicholas Doggett, 'Medieval hospitals in Hertfordshire and their

(1982), 94-105 and 'No other palace in the kingdom will compare with it: dissolution', Herts. Past, 38 (Spring 1995), 8-12.
the evolution of Audley End, 1605-1745', Arc hit. Hist., 23 (1980), 1-39. 62 B.L., Add. MS. 6041, fol.73, nos.20-2.
53 John Hare, Battle Abbey: the Eastern Range and the Excavations of 63 Parliamentary Rolls, v (n.d.), 365. For the background to the closure

1978-80 (1985). of the alien houses see Platt (1984), 173-8.

54 See, for instance, the recent accounts of Buckland and Hexham in the 64 Cal. Pat. R., 1429-36, 146.

second editions of Nikolaus Pevsner's Devon (revd., Bridget Cherry, 65 V.C.H, iv, 444-6.

1989), 227-9 and Northumberland (revd., J. Grundy, G. McCombie, P. 66 Dugdale, iv, 343.

Ryder & H. Welfare, 1992), 318-27 respectively, or the R.C.H.M.'s 67 H.T. Riley (ed.), Gesta Abbatum Monasterii Sancti Albani, ii (1867),

earlier account of Forde in Dorset, I (1952), 240-6. 400.

55 Smith (1992), 9-11. 68 B.L., Add. Chart. 34,350.
56 Val. Eccl., i, 451; Knowles op. cit. (note 31), 473. 69 Val. Eccl., i, 451.

7
 Nicholas Doggett

of the house was granted to John Cokks in April 1540, 70 established here in c.1316, 79 and Temple Dinsley, a house
the royal commissioners in 1537 had described it as of 1714 (although extensively remodelled by Lutyens) is
uninhabited by religious persons. 71 It therefore seems likely said to stand on the site of a house built in 1542,
that the land continued to be farmed and presumably some presumably incorporating the remains of the former
of the buildings were maintained well into the 16th century, preceptory. 80 At Rowney, Great Munden the rather
but that monastic life had lapsed c.1500. unprepossessing Victorian house is believed to have a
medieval cellar, 81 and even if this not the case, much
A similar situation seems to have applied at the Trinitarian undoubtedly survived into the early 19th century, as is
friary of Hertford, to which the last certain reference occurs shown by Buckler's drawing of the site. 82 Nothing now
in 1448.72 Its site is referred to as a messuage called "le survives above ground of St Mary de Pre but here too
Trynytie" when it was granted to Anthony Denny in August relatively substantial remains were still evident in the early
1540, 73 but religious life had apparently come to an end 19th century. 83 There is also an umeliable-looking drawing
considerably before that date. More certainty attaches to of the ruins contained in a mid 18th-century manuscript
the closure of the Benedictine nunnery of St Mary de Pre history of St Albans, 84 while more importantly the exact
near St Albans, which (already deserted by its prioress and location of the site is known through aerial photographs. 85
nuns) was suppressed by Pope Clement VII in May 1528.74
In July Henry VIII granted the house to Wolsey, who used The essential point to make about all these lesser sites
its property (with that of several other monasteries) to (including the hospitals) is that the information about the
augment the endowments of his newly-founded Cardinal buildings which survived the Dissolution comes from
College, Oxford. 75 published material and an examination of the documentary
sources. None of these sites has been visited in any detail
Following the decision to omit St Albans from this project, for this study and it is probable that exhaustive structural
it was also necessary to consider whether to include analysis of their remaining buildings (of the kind carried
hospitals and those houses which did not survive until the out on those sites which have yielded the data for this
Dissolution. The decision to exclude the hospitals can be study) would produce results showing extensive survival of
justified on two counts. First, the hospitals were not truly medieval and 16th-century fabric.
monastic and, perhaps more importantly in a study
primarily concerned with the adaptive re-use of buildings, Given that seven of the nine religious institutions
there are no known surviving buildings in the county which (excluding hospitals) which failed to survive until the
can definitely be associated with the medieval hospitals. Dissolution appear to have had buildings of pre-
Dissolution origin which continued in use well after the
These justifications cannot, however, be made for all those Suppression, their omission from this study must be
houses which did not survive until the Dissolution. A late justified. The reason cannot simply be that the remains are
15th-century timber-framed barn remains at Standon Friars, too fragmentary to merit inclusion. Such an argument could
a 19th-century house which stands on the site of the also be advanced for sites such as Cheshunt and St
preceptory, 76 and more of this may, of course, be Margaret's, Nettleden, where nothing now survives above
incorporated in the apparently Victorian house. There is ground, but which survived until the Dissolution and are
good reason to suppose that The Priory in High Street, therefore included in this study. The justification must be
Redboum conceals substantial elements of an earlier that the circumstances of the early closure of these houses
structure behind its fine early 18th-century facade, 77 while was very different from the suppression of the remaining
at Ware, No.9 Church Street (the old rectory), a 17th- houses at the Dissolution. The conditions surrounding their
century and earlier building, has been claimed to be on the initial re-use may have been very different from those
site of the alien priory. 78 which prompted the re-use of monastic buildings after
c.1540.
The Church of St Margaret, Stanstead St Margarets, has an
imposing Decorated chancel, built for the college It could be argued, of course, that in the case of the
Benedictine priories of Redboum and Rowney and the
preceptories of Standon and Temple Dinsley, which as they
70 L.P., xv, g.611 (46).
11 V.C.H, iv, 418.
72 3rd Rep. of the Royal Commission on Historical Manuscripts (1872),

App., 251.
13 L.P., xv, g.1027 (25). 79 Pevsner, 344.
74 Dugdale, iii, 361, no.xi. 80 Pevsner, 359. The pre-18th-century house is illustrated in Chauncy, ii,
75 L.P., iv (2), no.4472, (3), nos.5714 and 5786. See Knowles, op. cit. between pp.176 and 177.
(note 31), 161-4. 81 R.C.HM, 104.
76 V.C.H, iii, 350; Pevsner, 273; J.A. Brown, 'The hospice of the Knights 82 B.L., Add. MS. 36,366, fol.136.

Templars at Standon', Trans. East Herts. Arch. Soc., 1 (1899-1901), 289- 83 Jonathan Hunn, pers. comm.

91 and 'Visit of the East Herts. Arch. Soc., September 1930', Ibid, 8 84 Library of Society of Antiquaries, MS. 720, J. Webster, Gleanings of

(1928-33), 265-6. Antiquity from Verolam and St Albans (n.d.), 147.

77 Pevsner, 277-8; N.M.R., 79,656. 85 S.M.R., Aerial photographs 3706 and 3906; also many aerial
78 Pevsner, 381; N.M.R., 81,117. photographs in R.C.H.M. National Library of Air Photographs, Swindon.

8
 Patterns of Re-use

are all recorded in the Valor Ecclesiasticus, 86 seem to have in the reign of Henry VIII at the royal palaces of Hampton
continued in agricultural if not conventual use until the Court and Nonsuch,9 1 develops under the influence of
Dissolution, 87 any modifications which took place after Protector Somerset and his circle in the late 1540s and
c.1540 can be seen in a similar context to those early 1550s,92 finds further expression in "prodigy" houses
surrounding the re-use of monastic buildings dissolved such as Longleat (Wilts.) in the 1570s, Wollaton and
between 1536 and 1539. This, however, would be to miss Worksop (Notts.) in the 1580s and on a slightly less lavish
the point of my study, and to allow the inclusion of sites scale at houses like Condover (Shropshire) and Doddington
such as Standon and Temple Dinsley would make it (Lines.) in the 1590s.93 Although great courtyard houses
impossible not to include the vast numbers of chantries and continued to be built in the last part of the 16th century, as
monastic manors, which would obviously involve research at Kirby (Northants.) begun in 1570, Theobalds (Herts.)
of a very different type and scale. begun in 1564, and even into the early 17th century as at
the remodelled Audley End, 94 the tradition, which stretched
An argument could also be made for the inclusion of St back to the 15th century and beyond, was certainly on the
Mary de Pre in this study as it was a regular house which wane in late Elizabethan England.
survived well into the 16th century. Nevertheless, it was
undoubtedly suppressed in 1528, its closure being brought The move towards houses of a compact outward-looking
about solely to provide further endowments for Cardinal plan, seen in both buildings of the largest scale like
College. Furthermore, it appears that the convent had been Wollaton and Hardwick, built between 1590 and 1597, and
deserted since June 1527,88 so it is unlikely that it would at more modest houses like Barlborough Hall, Derbyshire
have survived until the Dissolution even without Wolsey's (1583/4), and the now-demolished Heath Old Hall,
intervention. Although the circumstances surrounding the Yorkshire (c.1585) was reflected in the growing popularity
re-use of the buildings at St Mary de Pre may not be that of the E- or H-shaped house, 95 which left the courtyard
different from those pertaining some ten years later, plan of the monastic conversion increasingly obsolete and
Wolsey's suppressions form a separate chapter in the isolated. Houses with central courtyards continued to be
history of the Dissolution of the monasteries and St Mary built in the first decade of the 17th century, but now, as at
de Pre is thus excluded from this study. 89 Chastleton (Oxon.) or Burton Agnes (Yorks.), they usually
amounted to no more than light wells. 96 Instead, as Mark
The sites which are included are all regular houses or Girouard has shown, the emphasis was very much on
friaries which survived until the Dissolution and are as external show, which at great houses like Hatfield (Herts.)
follows: Ashridge (Bonshommes ), Beechwood, formerly St or Blickling (Norfolk) can "supply an almost endless
Giles in the Wood, Flamstead (Benedictine nuns), repertory of picturesque groupings." 97 Even at smaller
Cheshunt (Benedictine nuns), Hertford (Benedictine), houses like Charlton House, Greenwich (1607) and the
Hitchin (Carmelite ), The Biggin, Hitchin (Gilbertine), contemporary Holland House, Kensington "a strict
King's Langley (Dominican), Markyate (Benedictine symmetry, which was perhaps a contribution of the
nuns), Royston (Augustinian), St Margaret's, Nettleden Renaissance, and a feeling for dramatic massing and
(Benedictine nuns), Sopwell (Benedictine nuns), Ware recession (itself) a discovery of the Elizabethans" are the
(Franciscan) and Wymondley (Augustinian). hall-marks of these early Jacobean buildings. 98

This emphasis on external display in later Elizabethan and

Jacobean architecture had its roots in the medieval period,
Having defined the area of study and the sources of not least in the great monastic gatehouses of the 14th and
evidence employed, we must consider the confines and 15th centuries. 99 But monasteries were essentially inward-
possibilities of the period involved. The survey begins in looking communities and their buildings reflected this. The
1540, chosen as the year in which the last monastery, main claustral buildings, which were those most frequently
Waltham Abbey (Essex),surrendered. 90 The selection of chosen for conversion, were often rather irregularly laid out
1600 as the finishing point is more problematic, but can be (perhaps as the result of being of different construction
explained in a number of ways. First, it roughly co-incides dates) and structures such as the frater could often project
with the death of Elizabeth in 1603, the last of the Tudor at right-angles to the rest of the cloister. Similarly, the
monarchs, and in whose reign the great majority of major buildings of the outer court were often insignificant and
monastic conversions were carried out. More important is
the perceptible change in plan-form and architectural styles 91 King's Works, iv, 126-47 and 179-205.
and attitudes at this time. This is a trend which has its roots 92 Colin Platt, The Architecture qf Medieval Britain (1990), 278.
93 Girouard (1983), Chs. 1 to 3; M.R. Airs, The Buildings of Britain,

Tudor and Jacobean (1983), Ch. 1.

86 Val. Eccl., i, 451 (Redboum); iv, 278 (Rowney); i, 403 (Standon and 94 See note 52.

Temple Dinsley). 95 Mark Girouard, Hardwick Hall, National Trust Guide (1990) and
87 See W.G. Hoskins, The Age of Plunder (1976), 123-5. Girouard (1983), 120-5 (Barlborough and Heath Old Hall).
88 P.R.O., E 315/262/79. 96 Girouard (1983), 185-91.
89 But see W. Page, 'The history of the monastery of St Mary de Pre', 97 Ibid 36
98 Ibid, 32.
Trans. St Albans and Herts. Archit. and Arch. Soc., (1895/6), 8-18.
90 L.P., xv, no.393 (1); V.C.H, Essex, ii (1907), 170. 99 Pia~, o~. cit. (note 92), 148-50.

9
 Nicholas Doggett

sprawled over a wide area. Thus, while the courtyard plan have been used in this way, which is perhaps not surprising
of many former monasteries had initially been popular with in a county not noted for its wild and dramatic landscapes
new lay owners for the ease of conversion, other factors but which instead, in the words of E.M. Forster, is best
had come to be taken into account by 1600. described as "England at its quietest, with little emphasis of
river and hill ... England meditative." 104
The re-use of monastic buildings might have received a
fresh impetus around 1600 from the "general
predisposition towards nostalgia", ' 00 typified by Spenser
and others, which included in some quarters a melancholy Several sources of evidence have been used in this study.
regret for the passing of the monasteries. 101 However, in The principal is the physical fabric of the buildings
architecture this took the form of the erection of sham themselves. Of the 13 sites included, Cheshunt, Hertford
fortresses such as Longford Castle (Wilts.) or Lulworth Prioty and St Margaret's Nettleden have no remains above
(Dorset) rather than pseudo-ecclesiastical buildings. 102 ground, while the present houses of Ashridge and
Furthermore, the practical difficulties of adapting monastic Beechwood contain only the scantiest fragments of
buildings or conversions to meet the latest architectural monastic or immediately post-Dissolution fabric. Sopwell
styles and fashions meant that, at least at the highest social is ruinous and the date of the earliest fabric at The Priory,
level, the attempt was largely abandoned by 1600. In some Royston is contentious. But Hitchin Priory, The Biggin,
cases, such as Ashridge in 1603/4, it was possible to Hitchin, King's Langley, Markyate, Ware and Wymondley
remodel the already-converted monastic buildings so that all incorporate substantial elements of their monastic
from the entrance front they conformed to the fashionable predecessors. The relative survival of early fabric is largely
ideal of the H-plan, but even here the details must soon reflected in the published literature. No mention is made by
have looked archaic and it is perhaps no coincidence that Pevsner of Cheshunt, Hertford Priory or St Margaret's,
this was the last full-scale adaptation of a former monastic Nettleden and the VC.H. is exclusively concerned with
building in Hertfordshire. their documentary history. The early fabric of Ashridge and
Beechwood is similarly inadequately treated by both
It therefore seems that the increasing dominance of the authorities, although the later work in both houses is
compact-plan house and to a lesser extent the general satisfactorily described, especially by Pevsner. 105 More
collapse of the Gothic architectural tradition by around disappointing though, considering the recent date of the
1600 provides a logical end-point for this survey. After the volume, is Pevsner's treatment of the remaining sites.
beginning of the 17th century, the re-use of monastic Although basically correct in what little is mentioned,
buildings can be seen as largely accidental. It might still much of significance has apparently gone unnoticed and
occur for the first time as a result of local conditions and none of the accounts runs to more than 22 lines, with most
circumstances, particularly in towns where lack of space much shorter.
could dictate the recycling of otherwise redundant
buildings. However, the particular social attitudes and The situation is a little better in J.T. Smith's recent book on
aspirations which had first encouraged the re-use of Hertfordshire houses. Of the three sites where there are no
monastic buildings between 1540 and 1600 were largely extant remains, only Cheshunt is mentioned and then only
extinct after the latter date. in passing. 106 Ashridge is excluded on the grounds that the
"plentiful graphic evidence did not sufficiently elucidate
Some former monastic sites experienced another period of (its) plan and development", 107 and although the later
activity in the 18th and early 19th centuries, when growing phases at Beechwood are well covered, 108 this site's
interest in the romantic and the development of monastic antecedents are totally ignored. Despite its
antiquarianism led to an appreciation of monastic ruins as importance and a rather fuller description in the
objects of the picturesque. This phenomenon was accompanying inventory volume, Sopwell is sunnnarily
widespread, as evidenced by sites like Bayham in Sussex, treated, as are Hitchin Priory, Ware and Wymondley. 109
Waverley in Surrey and Tintem (Monmouthshire), but was Although there is a good detailed description with plans in
particularly common in Yorkshire, where remote and the inventory, the pre-1600 work at Markyate is dismissed
magnificent ruins like those of Fountains were incorporated in the book with the words "Nothing significant is known
in landscaped parks or, as at Jervaulx, became the focal about the house at Markyate Cell, begun by one courtier
point of a garden. 103 Despite early antiquarian interest in and completed by another before Elizabeth came to the
several of Hertfordshire's monastic sites, none seems to throne." 110 But even this is better than the treatment of The
Biggin, Hitchin and King's Langley which are not

100 Ibid, 293.

101 See Margaret Aston, 'English ruins and English history: the 104 E.M. Forster, Howard's End (1960 Penguin edn.), 185.
Dissolution and the sense of the past', Jnl. Warburg and Courtauld 105 Pevsner, 237-40 (Ashridge) and 91-3 (Beechwood).
Institutes, 36 (1973), 231-55. 106 Smith (1992), 66.
102 M.W. Thompson, The Decline of the Castle (1987), Ch. 7. 107 Ibid, xiii.
103 For these and other examples see Greene (1992), 202-4. For Bayham, 108 Ibid, passim and Smith (1993), 55-7.

see also Anthony Streeten, Bayham Abbey, Sussex Arch. Soc. Monograph 109 Smith (1993), 157.

2 (1983), 50-5. no Ibid, 124-7 and Smith (1992), 66.

 Patterns of Re-use

mentioned at all. The only site to be done anything near be compiled from photographs and published material
justice is Royston, 111 although in the more detailed alone. The decision to compile detailed descriptive
description contained in the inventory, there is a noticeable accounts of each building may sometimes seem to result in
failure to record the full extent of the surviving early lengthy and apparently irrelevant accounts of the existing
fabric. 112 structures. This may particularly appear to be the case at
Beechwood and Royston and to a lesser extent at Markyate
More useful than either Pevsner's or Smith's accounts (and where the present buildings are outwardly 18th and 19th
it should be remembered that neither set himself the task of century in appearance. Nevertheless, as will be seen from
providing exhaustive descriptions of the buildings the Appendix, all contain substantial elements of earlier
recorded) are some of the more up-to-date descriptions structures. It is only by fully understanding and describing
carried out for the Department of Environment's Resurvey the evolution of these buildings that it is possible to
of Listed Buildings. 113 It is therefore unfortunate that only establish how much pre-Dissolution fabric may have
three sites, Beechwood, Markyate and Wymondley, were survived and to what extent (if at all) it was incorporated
included in the most recent survey. It is perhaps into post-suppression buildings on these sites. Thus it was
symptomatic of the Department's earlier surveys that held necessary to describe fully all elevations and internal
Royston Priory is not even included on the Statutory List of features of buildings which may contain elements of pre- or
Historic Buildings, while the description of those buildings immediately post-Dissolution structures.
which are included are singularly inadequate. 114 The
VC.H and R.C.HM can be excused from this sorry state That this approach is justified is shown not only by the site
of affairs on the grounds that the volumes for Hertfordshire descriptions of Beechwood, Royston and Markyate, but by
were amongst the earliest to be compiled and therefore fall the equally detailed descriptions of those sites which
well short of the standards set by later volumes. Individual already published material acknowledges contain
accounts of particular buildings are dealt with under the substantial fragments of monastic fabric. In particular, the
site descriptions contained in the Appendix. full extent of the medieval parts of Hitchin Priory, Ware
and Wymondley is only appreciated by a proper
understanding of these buildings (notably the roof
structures of Ware and Wymondley, no full accounts of
Given that the published material on the physical fabric of which have hitherto been published), while at The Biggin,
the sites covered by this study is generally of relatively Hitchin a detailed examination of the roof structure
little use, it remains to be considered how this source of corroborates Smith's footnote in Pevsner that the present
evidence is treated here. The sites of all the former almshouses "possibly incorporate medieval timber framed
monastic houses covered by this study have been visited. In buildings on a cloister plan." 115 Perhaps the most
two cases, Cheshunt and Hertford, nothing now survives outstanding discovery, however, was the 14th-century
above ground, while at St Margaret's, Nettleden only gatehouse at King's Langley, converted to domestic use
earthworks occupy the site. Elsewhere, the approach after the Dissolution, which appears to have gone entirely
adopted was to make a detailed inspection of the exterior unnoticed by earlier writers.
and interior of the surviving building or buildings. A
comprehensive architectural description was then compiled It is in this detailed examination of the physical fabric of
on site and later written up with the aid of photographs and the surviving buildings that this study breaks the most new
sketch drawings made on site. In all cases, it was ground. Seemingly unpromising exteriors and even
particularly important to carry out a thorough investigation interiors, as at Royston, have concealed early roof
of the roof space, the result of this, as at Royston and structures, which provide valuable evidence for the
Ware, being to provide far more accurate dating than buildings' origins and former functions. Nevertheless, it
would otherwise have been possible. must be acknowledged that while every effort has been
made to provide as full an architectural description as
Only at Sopwell, Ashridge and Markyate was this approach possible of each building, there have been unavoidable
varied; at Sopwell because the buildings are ruinous, at constraints in compiling these. Royston Priory is divided
Ashridge because most of the vast house created by James into three houses; Markyate Cell is a private house and ( as
Wyatt occupies a different part of the site from the old, noted above) permission was not granted for inspection;
while at Markyate the owner refused permission to visit the Ashridge is a Business Management College; Hitchin
site, as a result of which the description of the house had to Priory is a conference centre and offices; Beechwood is a
preparatory school; King's Langley is in mixed residential
and institutional use, and The Biggin, Hitchin is divided
111 Smith (1992), 62-3. into ahnshouses, most of which are currently occupied. At
112 Smith (1993), 150-1.
113 For the background to the resurvey of listed buildings see Martin
the time of inspection only Wymondley (latterly in use as a
Robertson et al, 'Listed buildings: the national resurvey of England', private house) was empty, its future uncertain, while the
Trans. Ancient Monuments Soc., 37 (1993), 21-94. ruins at Sopwell were neglected and partly overgrown.
114 See, for example, the list descriptions of Sopwell, D.O.E. 6th List of

Historic Buildings, City of St Albans (1971) and Ware Priory, D.O.E 4th
List of Historic Buildings, Ware Urban District (1974). 115 Pevsner, 201n.

11
 Nicholas Doggett

Naturally, these factors all imposed limitations on the properties. Descriptions made by Leland, who appears to
extent to which the buildings could be investigated and I have visited Royston in 1540 or 1541 and other
am grateful to all owners and occupiers who generously Hertfordshire sites in 1544 or 1545, 119 are particularly
allowed me to tramp through their rooms and crawl useful as they offer a first-hand contemporary account of
through their attics and cellars. (Individual the condition of sites immediately after the Dissolution.
acknowledgments are given in the Appendix). These Antiquarian interest in the monastic past seems to have
limitations did mean, however, that while furniture and the developed quickly in the second half of the 16th century, 120
like could be and were moved and some disruption to and while the brief descriptions of former monastic
occupants caused, it was not possible to carry out plaster buildings by writers such as Camden or Norden are not
stripping or other invasive recording techniques, which particularly useful, a manuscript history of St Albans,
may have answered individual questions. Likewise, all compiled in c.1610, which includes a brief account of
external inspections were carried out from ground level and Sopwell, can be viewed in this context. 121
it should be recognised that examination of some areas of
walling at closer quarters may have been rewarding in It is not until the late 17th century, however, with the
some instances. compilation of Sir Henry Chauncy's History of
Hertfordshire, published in 1700, that antiquarianism in
Nevertheless, despite these limitations, the descriptions Hertfordshire can truly be said to come of age.
contained in the Appendix are the most comprehensive and Nevertheless, Chauncy was not merely concerned with
detailed in existence for the buildings covered by this items of antiquarian interest; indeed, he seems to have been
study. It can be confidently stated that (with the exception anxious to record features which contemporaries would
of Markyate) no significant part of the fabric of any of have found impressive and worthy of note just as much, if
these buildings was missed during the site inspections. not more so, than relics of the past. It is perhaps significant
that of the many 16th- and 17th-century houses shown in
the fine Drapentier engravings accompanying Chauncy's
text none is of a monastic conversion.
The documentary evidence used in this study ranges from
surveys made by the royal commissioners at the time of the Antiquarianism is more detectable in Nathaniel Salmon's
Dissolution and inventories of the former monastic History of Hertfordshire (1728), although he was primarily
properties made for the new owners, to antiquarian interested in the Roman period and his statements on later
accounts of the 18th century and sales particulars of the buildings are often directly taken from Chauncy. More
19th century. useful for our purposes are the slightly later, unpublished
accounts of Browne Willis and William Cole, which
Perhaps surprisingly, the later documentary material is provide much valuable information on Ashridge, St
often more useful than the contemporary sources. The Margaret's, Nettleden and Royston respectively. 122 From
accounts of the royal visitors and local commissioners are the later 18th century, Richard Gough's annotations to his
not complete for Hertfordshire, although those that do copies of Camden, Chauncy and Salmon provide additional
survive contain useful information on the buildings information on several former monastic buildings, 123 while,
remaining at the Dissolution and their value. 116 The Valor moving into the early 19th century, works like Brayley's
Ecclesiasticus is useful too in recording the incomes of and Britton's Beauties of England and Wales
religious houses before the suppression. 16th- and 17th- (Hertfordshire is covered in volume seven, 1808) refer to
century grants of sites are usually formalised documents several of the sites with which we are concerned.
referring to features such as the "gardens, houses, scite and Nevertheless, the relatively poor survival rate of
soil" without giving any concrete information on the Hertfordshire monastic buildings into this period,
buildings. Surveys and inventories made for the new especially in the form of romantic ruins so beloved of late
owners are sometimes more informative, naming individual 18th- century and early 19th-century topographical writers,
buildings and giving their measurements or commenting on means that such works are not so valuable a source as in
their condition, 117 but only in the case of Wymondley is counties like Yorkshire. However, the antiquarian writers
relevant infotmation on the buildings contained in the referred to above by no means form an exhaustive list and
Ministers' Accounts. 1 18 mention is made of several others in the site descriptions
contained in the Appendix.
In contrast to official records made for the crown or for the
new owners, are descriptive accounts of former monastic
119 John Chandler, John Leland's Itinerary, Travels in Tudor England

(1993), xxx-xxxi.
116 See, for instance, the suppression accounts of Cheshunt, St Giles in 120 See note 101.

the Wood, Flamstead, Sopwell, Royston and Wymondley; P.R.O., E 121 John Shrimpton, The Antiquities of Verulam and St Albans (c.1610),

117112/30. MS. history in H.R.O., 66,296.

117 See, for example, the surveys of Ashridge (printed in H.J. Todd, The 122 Bodi., MS. Willis, passim (Ashridge and St Margaret's, Nettleden)

History of the College of Bonhommes of Ashridge (1823), 60-4), Hitchin and B.L., Add. MS. 5820, fols.19v-35 (Royston).
(P.R.O., SC 12/8/29) and King's Langley (P.R.O., E 315/391 (2)). 123 Bodi., Gougli Gen. Top. 61 (Camden); Gougli Herts. 14 (Channey);
118 P.R.O., SC6/Hen. VIII/1606, m.11. Gougli Herts. 11, 16, 17 and 18 (Salmon).

12
 Patterns of Re-use

The wide range of documentary sources used is a feature of The earliest artist regularly to record former monastic
this study. Even apparently unpromising material like 19th- buildings was H.G. Oldfield, active between 1790-1803.
century sales particulars or newspaper accounts of There is no evidence to suggest that Oldfield had any
archaeological discoveries (see below) can contain special interest in former monastic buildings and in fact his
information not available elsewhere. Although some of the main purpose was to provide drawings of country houses
claims of antiquarian writers naturally have to be treated and churches which would be attractive to potential
cautiously, one soon obtains a strong feeling for those patrons. 126 Oldfield's competence as an artist has rightly
statements which can be treated as reliable or, alternatively, been called into question, 127 and as Smith has commented
dismissed. he "took pains to accommodate owners' preferences by a
careful choice of viewpoint and by the introduction of
Documentary records made during the 16th century or at a discreet planting to screen the stables and service
later period pose problems of a different kind. While not ranges." 128 Despite this selectivity, however, Oldfield's
liable to the prejudices or perceptions of writers of views seem to be basically accurate. Comparisons with
"history", whose aim might be to prove an argument or other evidence, including the work of other artists, suggest
create a literary effect, apparently unbiased records can that his rather uninspiring and pedestrian drawings can
nevertheless be misleading. Royal commissioners or generally be taken as reliable representations of the
compilers of surveys and inventories may have been buildings involved.
tempted to attribute lower values to former religious houses
or exaggerate the dilapidated condition of monastic Far more accomplished than Oldfield's work is that of the
buildings for their own ends. Similarly, grants of monastic Bucklers. Two generations of the fainily earned their living
sites are stylised documents containing little information on as artists, John and his sons, John Chessell and George
individual buildings, simply because the new owners were Buckler. Of the three, the first two carried out the most
aware of what they were obtaining. That which would seem work in Hertfordshire. Like Oldfield, who seems to have
of interest to us now, may well have been regarded as of no worked exclusively in the medium, the Bucklers painted
consequence by contemporaries of the actual events and watercolours but they are more usually represented by their
thus have gone unrecorded. Later records, such as pen and ink drawings and preparatory pencil sketches for
inventories, sales particulars or references in deeds, terriers these. Buckler drawings are notorious for their accuracy
and the like were the product of very different and attention to detail, 129 but even they can be selective in
circumstances and their significance for our purposes must what is shown or omitted and, as Smith has pointed out,
therefore be regarded as coincidental to their original there is a suggestion in some cases of an element of
purpose. archaeological reconstruction rather than literal
representation. 130 Nevertheless, comparison between a
Finally, the point should be made that, as with all sources Buckler drawing and a surviving building is usually a
of evidence, the wealth of documentaiy material varies testimony to the precision of the artist. The Hertfordshire
tremendously from one site to another. While to some drawings with which we are concerned where mostly made
degree this is likely to be a reflection of a site's relative between 1830 and 1840, although a few pre-date 1820.
importance both before and after the Dissolution, it might
also be the result of accidental survival. In other words, the Many other artists made drawings or engravings of former
absence of documentary material does not necessarily monastic buildings, and are referred to in the site
mean that a site was of no significance. descriptions contained in the Appendix. But two more
merit special mention here. These are Thomas Fisher
(?1771-1836), noteworthy for his meticulous early 19th-
century drawings of Cheshunt, Markyate and Ware, 131 and
Pictorial evidence for Hertfordshire's former monastic Thomas Luppino, active between 1790 and 1831, whose
houses is particularly plentiful. The earliest graphic work includes a sketch of the now-vanished Hertford
representation of a monastic conversion is the birdseye Prioty. 132
perspective view of Sopwell on a map of c.1600. 124 There
is then a relatively long gap until the next drawing,
coincidentally also of Sopwell, in the middle of the 17th
century. 125 The likely reason for the absence of early views 126 H.C. Andrews, 'Henry George Oldfield and the Dimsdale collection of
of former monastic buildings in Hertfordshire has already Hertfordshire drawings', Trans. East Herts. Arch. Soc., 11 (1940-44),
been touched upon. The lack of spectacular ruins probably 212-24.
played its part. But it is surprising, nevertheless, that for a 127 Stone, op.cit., (note 45), 63.
128 Smith (1992), 11.
house as magnificent as Ashridge there are no surviving 129 Julian Munby, 'J.C. Buckler, Tackley's Inn and three medieval houses
drawings earlier than the late 18th century. After this date, in Oxford', Oxoniensia, 43 (1978), 123-69.
the number of known views increases dramatically. 130 Smith (1992), 11.
131 See J.H. Busby, 'The Hertfordshire drawings of Thomas Fisher

(1771?-1836)', Herts. Arch., 1 (1968), 110-16.

124 H.R.O., IV. A 25. 132 The Luppino drawings are kept in the Lewis Evans Collection, St
125 Ibid, XIII. 30. Albans Public Library.

13
 Nicholas Doggett

The work of all the artists mentioned here is particularly Archaeological evidence as opposed to antiquarian
important, as much of it pre-dates the demolition or descriptions of the various sites is relatively slim. Chance
extensive alteration of several of the buildings included in discoveries have been made at the majority of the sites and
this study. The value of pictorial evidence where the the outlines of the churches at Hertford and King's
building itself has now gone as at Cheshunt, Hertford, St Langley, along with part of the east end of the church or
Margaret's, Nettleden or changed beyond recognition as at chapter house at Markyate, were uncovered in the 19th
Ashridge barely needs mention, but it can be almost as century. Poorly documented excavations took place in the
critical where the building still survives. In the latter case 1950s and 1960s at Cheshunt and The Biggin, Hitchin, the
the building acts as a check to the accuracy of the drawing former necessarily amounting to no more than salvage and
and the drawing can also provide useful evidence for limited recording in advance of rapid gravel extraction.
changes made to the structure. Only Sopwell has been extensively investigated to anything
approaching modem standards, although the excavations
As Smith has commented, "where drawings show carried out in the 1960s have yet to be properly published.
differences of detail in the same building, reliability is hard Archaeological field evaluations and trial trenching have
to judge." 133 This is the case with several of the buildings been carried out recently at Wymondley, Ware, and to a
included in this study, notably in the many views of the greater extent at Hertford. Full details of all these
north front of the former great hall at Ashridge. Only excavations are contained in the Appendix.
experience of the competence and limitations of the artist
concerned can lead one to a judgment of which Aerial photography can also play its part, especially in
representation is to be relied upon in preference to another. those cases where the post-Dissolution house does not
stand directly on the site of the monastic buildings. Thus
Late 19th- and early 20th-century photographs can be relatively well-defined parch-marks of possible buildings
useful in checking the accuracy of drawings and can be detected at Ashridge and Markyate, although at
engravings, although in most cases they post-date changes Beechwood, where the present house stands at a little
made in the 19th century and are, therefore, less distance from the site of the monastic buildings, no crop-
informative than might have been the case. The most useful marks seem to be present in the adjoining arable fields. No
major collection is the set of photographs taken early in the geophysical or other non-invasive surveys are known to
20th century by A. Whitford Anderson for the V C.H. (now have been carried out on any Hertfordshire monastic
in Watford Central Library), but there are also collections sites. 136
in the Bodleian Library, Oxford, the Hertfordshire Record
Office and the Local Studies Library, Hettford. 134

Map evidence is dealt with separately in most of the site

descriptions contained in the Appendix but its usefulness as
a source can be summarised here. Several early estate
maps, such as the Sopwell map of c.1600 referred to above,
are useful for their pictorial representation of buildings,
while later estate, tithe and inclosure maps often show the
ground-plans of buildings, sometimes indicating ranges
which have now gone and of which little other evidence
survives.

More detailed plans of buildings also fall into this category,

but it is unfortunate that there are no surviving large-scale
plans or even sketch plans of any of the sites included in
this study, earlier than the late 17th century. These are the
elevation drawings of the pre-1702 house at Beechwood
which cast no light on the appearance of the 16th-century
house there, 135 but are at least considerably earlier than for
any other site, there not being any other plans earlier than
the first part of the 19th century.

133Smith (1992), 9-11.

134 The photographs in the Bodleian Library are collected together: MS.
Top. Eccl. b. 28.
135 Beechwood Park, Flamstead: a collection of plans and drawings

dating from the late 17th to the early 20th centuries. According to Smith
(1992), 198 most of the collection was still in the possession of 136 See, for instance, K. Emerick & K. Wilson, 'Fountains Abbey: some

Beechwood Park preparatory school in 1976 but it now appears to have interim results of remote sensing', Conservation Bulletin, 18 (October
been dispersed. 1992), 7-9.

14
Chapter Two other sources to show that the original conversion was
carried out at a higher social level.

Town and Country: Adaptation and Remodelling in the The relative status of a site could change markedly even
first and second generations within the period with which we are concerned. The first
grantees or lessees of monastic property often did little to
the buildings they acquired and it was frequently left to the
Hertfordshire contains examples of all known types of the second or even third generation of lay owners to implement
adaptive re-use of monastic buildings other than industrial. major conversion works. This is a theme which will be
The process of re-use in the county began immediately explored in greater depth in Chapter 3, particularly with
after the Dissolution and continued right up to the end of regard to Ashridge and Sopwell, but the same process can
the period with which we are concerned. Instances of re- also be found in towns at sites like The Biggin in Hitchin,
use range from the minor adaptation of existing buildings Hitchin Priory and Ware, where changes in ownership in
at sites like St Margaret's, Nettleden and King's Langley to the decades immediately after the suppression seem to have
the transformation of monastic buildings into major contributed to the postponement of thorough conversion
country houses as at Ashridge and Sopwell. In this chapter schemes until later in the century. In this context it is also
we are concerned with the first category of sites and the re- worth remembering that some sites such as Hertford and
use of urban monastic buildings, where different Royston, which are now entirely urban, were formerly
circumstances could lead to a wide variety of new uses. situated on the fringes of the towns to which they relate,
this edge-of-settlement location being a hall-mark of some
There are many difficulties in establishing the category to of the more ambitious conversion schemes like those at
which a re-used monastic site should be ascribed. First, the Hitchin Priory, Sopwell and Ware, perhaps indicating that
evidence on which categorisations are made is often the post-Dissolution house at Hertford was of greater
fragmentary and can vary tremendously in its extent and importance than some of the other evidence might suggest.
reliability from one site to another. As shown in Chapter 1,
the sources used in this study are extremely diverse and Coupled with changes in the importance of a site, whether
data used for one site, such as that drawn from in the 16th century or over a longer time span, are the
archaeological excavation, may not exist for another. To considerable difficulties in accurately dating the various
take another example, there is historic pictorial evidence phases of conversion at Hertfordshire's monastic sites.
for all of the sites included but this ranges from two 19th- First, the surviving architectural evidence is at best
century drawings in the case of St Margaret's, Nettleden to fragmentary or in several cases non-existent, obliging us to
sites like Markyate and Sopwell, where there is an rely on incomplete documentary or pictorial evidence, with
abundance of pictorial evidence covering a considerable all the limitations that this can involve. Secondly, even
period of time. It is therefore difficult and perhaps where a building retains fabric or alterations of the period,
misleading to make direct comparisons between one site it is often hard to distinguish work of the late 16th century
and another. Sites like Beechwood and Cheshunt, where from that of the mid 16th century, especially in houses
the surviving architectural and documentary evidence is below the first rank. It is only rarely, as at The Biggin, 1 that
slight or non-existent but which seem to have been particular fittings or a distinct phase of building work are
relatively important conversions, further illustrate the securely dated or can be directly and without doubt linked
significance of historical accident in the survival rate of to a particular owner.
relevant evidence and demonstrate that this must always be
taken into account when assessing the past status of a Developing the issue of the problems of assessing the post-
particular site. Nevertheless, it would be wrong to deny that Dissolution status of a site, one has to consider whether
the extent of surviving evidence for sites such as Ashridge much purpose is served by drawing the line too rigidly
and Sopwell, compared with that for sites like St between a monastic site re-used as a farmstead and one
Margaret's, Nettleden or Hertford, is not at least indicative where the buildings were converted into a gentry or
of their relative importance in the second half of the 16th courtier house. Even if the evidence allows this distinction
century. to be made, were the sets of circumstances in which re-use
occurred so very different in terms of the individual
Another point to consider in making assumptions about the buildings selected for conversion, the time span over which
status of a site in the half century after the Dissolution is the process took place and the ease with which it was
that much of the evidence on which these are based comes accomplished? In short, should different patterns of re-use
from material compiled long after the 16th century. To take be expected at sites of varying status; how will this be
pictorial evidence as an example, few Hertfordshire sites detected in the archaeological, architectural and
were reliably recorded in illustrative form before the late documentary record and, most importantly, how does this
18th century, by which time important sites such as reflect the social and economic conditions of the period? It
Wymondley had declined in status to little more than
farmhouse level, although there is adequate evidence from
1 Panelling in the first-floor room in the south-west comer of the building

is dated "1585".

15
 Nicholas Doggett

is these questions that this and the following chapter will in 1538 the site remained in royal hands, Thomas Parrys
attempt to answer. acting as bailiff for the crown until 1546 when it was
granted to Sir Edward Watson and Henry Herdson. 7 From a
survey of 1546 made shortly before the site was granted to
Watson and Herdson, it appears that demolition and
Of the sites included in this study, Hertfordshire has five defacing were particularly thorough at the Dissolution. The
which are urban in character- Hertford, The Biggin and survey refers to a "mansion house" comprising the "Frater
The Priory in Hitchin, Royston and Ware. Although and Dorter with the Cloister whereon the Frater and Dorter
Sopwell was located on the edge of Tudor St Albans, Sir is builded with a kitchen ... ", the priors's lodging and "two
Richard Lee's extensive remodelling of the former little chambers" for the brothers, along with various other
Benedictine nunnery resulted in the creation of a country service and outbuildings. Apart from the mansion house
rather than a town house and Sopwell is therefore which was "in good estate being maynteyned and repayred
considered in the next chapter. from tyme to tyme since the dyssolucion", all the buildings
are described as "sore decayed" and "verrye ruynowce in
The evidence for the re-use of urban monastic sites in tymber and tyle for lack of reparacions". The church,
Hertfordshire in the four decades after 1540 is patchy and which is called "superfluous", had been defaced, the
inconclusive. This may be because the documentary steeple broken down and all the lead, freestone, glass and
evidence does not survive or that the physical manifestation bells were gone. 8
of this in the buildings themselves has been obscured or
swept away by later remodelling. However, the fact that The details of the grant of the site to Watson and Herdson
this is in stark contrast to the much fuller evidence for re- suggest that they were primarily interested in the building
use after c.1580 suggests that relatively little was done in materials, 9 of which there were many, the presence of
the way of major conversion works during the period 1540 Parrys and presumably other servants of the crown
to 1580. This does not mean to say, of course, that apparently having prevented wholesale plundering of the
absolutely nothing was done to the buildings during this site, although the fact that there was some looting either
time. At Royston, some work appears to have been carried then or at a later date is shown by the re-use of materials
out by the first lay owner of the property, Robert Chester, elsewhere in the town. 10 Watson and Herdson do not seem
who having initially rented the house, bought it from the to have engaged in any conversion works and nothing more
crown in 1540.2 Precisely what works Chester undertook it is known until Watson sold the site to Ralph Radcliffe in
is now impossible to say and it is by no means certain that 1553. 11 It is far from clear what then remained and which
he retained any of the monastic buildings. Indeed, the sale buildings Radcliffe chose to convert, although it does
of the cloister and dorter to Thomas More and John appear that even if it had not already been demolished, the
Newport for £24, shortly before the lease of the property to detached prior's lodging played no part in his plans.
Chester, seems to reflect their value as building materials,3
suggesting that they were demolished at this time. The 1546 survey states that "one parte of the said churche
is broken and decayed by wether and the other (had) no
It seems that whatever adaptation Chester undertook of any manner of leade Belles Freestone nor glasse Remanying",
surviving monastic buildings, or any use he made of their implying that substantial sections still survived, a
materials, was largely complete by 1551 when he supposition strengthened by the possibility that its west
entertained Mary of Guise here on her journey from front is depicted in a birdseye perspective map of the town
Scotland to France,4 by which time it appears that Royston drawn in c.1700. 12 It therefore seems possible that the walls
was his principal residence. 5 The form that Chester's house of the church remained standing in the 1550s, even if the
took can be seen in a sketch-plan of 1578 when the house roof was gone, and that they were re-used in a range built
was considered as a potential resting-place on a royal on its site, some of which may still be incorporated in the
progress but was dismissed as "a very unnecessary hows core of the present south range, which was
for the receipt of her Majesty; yt stand adjoyning to the comprehensively remodelled in the 1770s.
Churche on the sowth syde thereof, not haveing any
pleasaunt p'spects any way ... "6 The problematic question The cloister lay to the north of the church, with the
of whether any of the monastic buildings remained to be dormitory in its usual position on the east side and the
incorporated in the house as it was remodelled by Chester's frater and kitchen on the north and west respectively. There
grandson after 1586 is addressed below. is a well-documented tradition that apart from converting

No more certainty attaches to the date or extent of the first

conversion scheme at Hitchin Priory. On its suppression
7 P.R.O., SC6/Hen. VIII/1607-15; E 318/(Box 22)/1190.
8 P.R.O., SC 12/8/29.
9 P.R.O., E 318/(Box 22)/1190.
2 P.R.O., SC6/Hen. VIII/1607; L.P., xiv (1), p.606; xvi, g.379 (60). 10 R. Hine, The History qf Hitchin, i (1927), 147; H.P. Pollard & W.B.
3 P.R.O., E 315/361, fols.67-9. Gerish, 'The religious orders in Hitchin', Trans. East Herts. Arch. Soc.,
4 Acts of the Privy Council, 1550-52, 406. 3, pt.i (1905), 7.
5 P.R.O., E 115/86/101. 11 VC.H, iii, 12.
6 P.R.O., SP 12/125. 12 B.L., Add. MS. 32,350, fols.71, 73.

16
 Patterns of Re-use

1. Hitchin Priory, north entrance range. Photograph by N.Doggett, April 1989.

its buildings to a residence, Radcliffe established a school This interpretation is largely speculative and all that can
in the former friary, the only clue to its precise location really be said with confidence is that Radcliffe appears to
being a 17th-century reference to the creation of a stage in have carried out some adaptation of the friary buildings,
a "lower room", 13 whereas the principal domestic although it will be noticed that the evidence for this comes
apartments were presumably on the first floor. Although primarily from documentary sources rather than the
there is nothing in the west range which can be securely building itself. There is undoubtedly mid- to late 16th-
dated to the 1550s, its brick mullion windows may be of century work in the present building but, as we shall see,
this period, and as in the north range and the service range this could just as easily have been carried out by
which projects at an oblique angle to the north-west, there Radcliffe's son, another Ralph, who owned the house from
is much medieval fabric within it. The large open space of his father's death in 1559 until his own demise in 1621.15
the refectory could have made it attractive to Radcliffe as
the hall of his new house had it not been situated at right-
angles to the entrance range, which in the medieval friary
would have been in the west range. The hall may, of While the evidence for re-use in the first generation is
course, have been in the east range, but the degree of 18th- slight at Royston and Hitchin Priory, it is practically non-
century and later rebuilding in this range makes this existent at Hertford, The Biggin and Ware. The most that
impossible to prove. The only other possibility was that the can be said is that difficulties in precisely dating the 16th-
hall was located to the south where the church had stood, a century work at these three sites mean that it is impossible
suggestion made all the more credible by the fact that the to be certain that no conversion works took place between
north range has been the entrance range since at least the 1540 and 1580. Indeed, something must have occurred
late 17th century. 14 (Fig. 1) even if it was only selective demolition and routine
maintenance of those parts which were retained.
Nevertheless, the surviving architectural and documentary
evidence points to the suggestion that major schemes of
13 Anthony Wood, Athenae Oxonienses, i (ed., P. Bliss, 1813), 215.
14 See Appendix, pp.146-7. 15 D.N.B., xvi, 576-7; V.C.H, iii, 12.

17
 Nicholas Doggett

adaptive re-use were not implemented at these sites until evidence of any adjoining buildings. 20 The location of the
the late 16th century. These three properties are therefore building and its apparent isolation are thus perfectly
treated in this section along with the evidence for further consistent with the likely position of a late medieval prior's
phases of remodelling at Royston and Hitchin Priory. house, the riverside setting providing a pleasant retreat for
the prior away from the rest of the monastic community.
All traces of Hertford Priory and the post-medieval house
which succeeded it have now gone. Photographic, map and There is good surviving architectural evidence for 16th-
pictorial evidence show that the latter was an L-shaped century re-use at Ware Priory, but there are considerable
building of hall and cross-wing plan. While this structure difficulties in pin-pointing the precise date or dates that
could well have been of medieval or 16th-century origin, conversion works took place. Indeed, there is no particular
all that can be said with total confidence is that it must be reason why conversion works here or elsewhere should fall
earlier than c.1650. The most likely date for its into distinct phases, and it is important to remember that in
construction (or remodelling if there had been an earlier many cases remodelling and adaptation would have been
structure on its site) would appear to be the 1580s. On its an ongoing process. This said, it is unusually difficult at
suppression in 1538 the priory had been granted to Ware to hazard anything but the most approximate dating
Anthony Denny and it remained with his family until 1578 for the comprehensive conversion which undoubtedly took
when it was sold to Thomas Docwra, Sheriff of place. There are two main reasons for this. First, the
Hertfordshire in 1580. 16 Shortly afterwards it seems to have building itself, although undeniably of medieval date and
returned to the Denny family but in 1587 it was sold to containing much evidence in its fabric for 14th- and 15th-
Henry Colthurst. 17 A terrier of that year refers to the "newe century work, is covered externally with a hard cement
bilt howse, with a dove howse, boornes and stables, the render, which makes it impossible to establish whether
myll newe bilt...the howsinge dove howse and barnes ...bilt openings are original or insertions. The situation is further
within thre years coste a thowson markes ...the tennants will complicated by a thorough restoration which took place in
not be bought out for £300 ...", 18 which suggests that much the mid 19th century, the full effects of which are only
of the costs must have been borne by the tenants. Certainly, realised when one looks at the earlier graphic evidence. To
this documentary evidence is not inconsistent with that for some extent, these problems have been mitigated by a
the physical appearance of the building. scheme ofrepair and conversion which took place in 1994.
This has revealed some features which can be more closely
Although the possibility that Sir Anthony Denny, who died dated, but as the project was quite rightly conservative,
in 1549, might have converted some of the former monastic involving the minimum of disturbance and plaster stripping
buildings here into a town house cannot be ruled out, the or the removal of Georgian and Victorian features, it was
lack of any surviving references makes this unlikely and not as revealing as might otherwise have been the case.
the site is just as likely to have been plundered for its
building materials in the years immediately after the The other principal difficulty in establishing exactly when
Dissolution, its proximity to the town centre probably conversion works took place at Ware is the long period of
accelerating this process. The evidence, such as it is, tends ownership by the Byrch family, of whom very little is
to point to a relatively low-key use of the site. The building known. As will be seen in Chapter 3, we should not look
which was to become known as Priory House may have solely to changes of ownership as the time when major
been retained initially as accommodation for the Denny works are likely to have been carried out. Adaptation and
family on visits to the county town, but by the 1580s it remodelling could have been undertaken at any time,
appears to have become a tenanted farmhouse and there is prompted perhaps by a marriage or birth of an heir, or
nothing to show that this was not also the case earlier in the simply because the owner wished to improve his living
century. Further work on the house may have been carried standards or impress his neighbours. Nevertheless, the long
out by Martin Trott, who owned the site between c.1590 and apparently uneventful ownership by the Byrch family
and 1617. 19 from 1544 to 1628 provides few key moments to which one
can attribute a particular phase of work.
If Priory House was a converted monastic building, the
prior's lodging emerges as the most likely candidate. The On its closure in 1538 the former friary was farmed by
house was situated some 100 yards to the north of the Robert Byrch and in 1544 it was sold to Thomas Byrch,
priory church (the site of which is known) and trial who is described in the grant as "yeoman of the crown". 21
trenching in the immediate vicinity in 1988-9 produced no Thomas Byrch appears to have been a scrivener and
accountant and it has been suggested that he was an agent
ofCromwell. 22 It is more likely, however, that as Cromwell

20 Hester Cooper-Reade, 'Jewson's Yard, Hertford: excavations of St

16 P.R.O., C 66/1193/1783; P.R.O., List & Indexes No.9, List of Sheriffs Mary's Priory and St John's Parish Church', Herts. Past, 29 (Autumn,
for England & Wales (1898), 64. 1990), 29-37.
17 P.R.O., C 66/1194/1804; Chauncy, i, 506. 21 P.R.O., SC6/Hen. VIII/1618; L.P., xix, no.610 (68).
18 B.L., Lansd. MS. 116, fol.48. 22 R. Walters, 'Ware Priory', Trans. East Herts. Arch. Soc., 1, pt.i (1899),
19 Chauncy, i, 506. 41.
 Patterns of Re-use

2. Ware Priory, view of south and west ranges from north-east. Photograph by N. Doggett, April 1989.

had been disgraced and dead since 1540, he received the There is evidence too that the building was much larger in
site in recognition of his services to the crown. For the the 16th century. Apart from the obvious truncation of the
reasons described above, it is far from clear whether west claustral range to the north, its present north gable
Thomas Byrch (or Robert before him) began the work of being of 18th-century brick, the presence of rather
conversion. It appears that the friary church was makeshift roof carpentry towards its southern end and 18th-
demolished soon after the Dissolution, the proximity to the century brick to the south gable (while they may simply
parish church making its retention unnecessary. Of the represent rebuilding work) suggests that the range once
claustral buildings, the whole of the south range, along with extended further to the south as well, this projection
the southern part of the west range and a hall range perhaps having served as the infirmary during the monastic
projecting at right-angles to the west, were retained, and period. It also appears from the 17th-century brickwork in
these form the nucleus of the present house. (Fig. 2) the east gable of the south range and the discovery of
foundations to the east of this point in 1892,23 that the
The south and west ranges were originally open to the roof south range was also formerly longer, although it seems
only from first-floor level and, in common with most that the cloister itself returned to the north where the
Franciscan houses, the claustral walks were integral. The building now ends. This evidence for the house formerly
upper floor of the south range was probably the refectory being larger is neatly confirmed by an inventory of 1715,24
and, as in the post-Dissolution house, the kitchen was which clearly relates to a much bigger building than the
probably in the south-west comer of the west range on the present structure.
ground floor. The function of the four-bay hall range is
uncertain. Although physically attached to the west range, The apparent fact that the house was much more extensive
it is structurally separate from and slightly later than it, in the 16th century than later does not mean, of course, that
there also being evidence that it was possibly open from all of the former friary was utilised by the Byrch family.
ground level to its two western bays. It may have served as Parts of it may have been allowed to become ruinous and in
guest accommodation. All three ranges have fine 15th-
century scissor-braced roofs, possibly originally with 23 Ibid, 42; H.P. Pollard, 'Franciscan and Benedictine monuments of

crown posts throughout, although it is now only in the hall Ware', in P.C. Standing (ed.), Memorials of Old Hertfordshire (1905),
range that these survive. 54.
24 MS. inventory in private ownership. I am grateful to D. Perman for
sending me a photocopy of this document.

19
 Nicholas Doggett

3. The Biggin, west range. Photograph by N. Doggett, April 1989.

this connection Weever's statement of 1631 that the house A little more certainty attaches to the date of the 16th-
was "A Frierie, whose ruines, not altogether beaten downe, century work at The Biggin, Hitchin. (Fig. 3) Here it
are to be seene at this day", while it may simply refer to the seems that the claustral ranges were retained in a
church, is particularly interesting. 25 Documentary proof for remodelling of the second half of the century. On its
the involvement of the Byrch family in the conversion of suppression in 1538 the former Gilbertine priory remained
the friary is extremely slight, seemingly being limited to the in royal hands when it was farmed by Robert Marshall and
reference in the verse "The Tale of Two Swannes" (1590) from its apparent decline in value from £13 16s in 1535 to
by William Vallans as "Byrches house, that whilom (once) £10 lls 8d in 1544 when it was granted to John Cocks, 27 it
was the Brothers Friers place ..."26 can be surmised that little was done to the buildings during
this time. That Cocks' s interest in the property was
The date of the poem roughly corresponds with the date of speculative, or that he was acting as agent for another party
the panelling recently discovered in two first-floor rooms in with no intention of converting the buildings himself,
the south range. This appears to be mainly in situ and is of seems likely from the large number of similar grants of ex-
c.1600. A slightly earlier date can be given to the cambered monastic property he received in Hertfordshire and
heads of the blocked stone window arches, which have elsewhere and then sold on to others. 28
been revealed where plaster has been removed from around
the later sash windows inserted in their infill. Both sets of This feeling is strengthened by the fact that there are no
features, while not providing conclusive evidence for a further defmite documentary references to The Biggin until
major remodelling at this period certainly show that there 1570 when William Croocar bequeathed it in his will to his
was some building activity on the site at about the time of sons, Thomas and William. 29 That William Croocar the
V allans' s poem. younger undertook some work at The Biggin is made clear

27 Val. Eccl., iv, 276; L.P., xix (2), g.166 (25).

28 For example, L.P., xix (1), g.80 (48), g.1035 (97).
29 P.R.O., PCC 11 Holney. There are, however, later unsourced references
25 John Weever, Ancient Funeral! Monuments (1631), 544. to the property having been conveyed to Thomas Parrys during Edward
26 William Vallans, 'A Tale of Two Swannes' (1590), contained in his VI's reign (Salmon, 162), while in Cocks's will of 1553 (P.R.O., PCC 24
'Account of Several Parts of Hartfordshire', which is included as a prefix Noodes) the manor of The Biggin had been split between his two sons.
to Thomas Heame's 1769 edition of volume five of John Leland's Croocar's will shows that his wife's mother was named Mary Parrys,
Itinerary (Bodl., Douce HH 169). raising the possibility that he received the house through his wife.

20
 Patterns of Re-use

by the initials "WC" and "IC" (for his wife, Jane) and the formerly a gallery in the east range- a feature not
date 1585 incised in the contemporary panelling in the commonly found in entrance ranges- further suggests that
first-floor south-west room of the house. (Fig. 4) This date there may have been an outer court to the east of the
is consistent with several other features in the building, present east range. The probability that the former cloister
including the mullioned and transomed windows and the represented the inner courtyard of the new house is
Tuscan columns of the colonnade to the west range. While indicated, however, by the fine panelled room referred to
this does not, of course, rule out the possibility of earlier above, which may have served as a parlour to a first-floor
domestic use of the site, it shows that there was hall in the converted church.
comprehensive remodelling of the buildings into a
comfortable, if comparatively modest, manor house at this The existing building at Royston Priory also contains
time, a use which continued during the ownership of some evidence for a phase of remodelling in the last
Robert Snagge from c.1587 until his death in 1606.30 quarter of the 16th century. It appears that at this time the
house was of two storeys in three unequal bays of close-
The presence of the initials and the date 1585 carved in the studded timber framed construction under a steeply pitched
panelling acutely demonstrates the pitfalls in tying plain tile roof. (Fig. 6) The house seems to have been open
particular fittings or phases of building work to individual to the roof from the first floor and on this basis and its
owners, the point being that without such evidence one alignment on a north-south axis, it is tempting to equate
would be just as likely to attribute the panelling to the those parts of the late 16th-century structure that survive
period of Snagge's ownership as to Croocar's. with the west range of the larger double-courtyard house
shown in the sketch-plan of 1578, the principal rooms of
As in most cases where claustral ranges were adapted to which were on the first floor. There are, however, several
residential use after the Dissolution, the principal objections to this, not least of which is the fact that the
accommodation was on the first floor. There is evidence to 1578 survey dismissed the house as "a very unnecessary
suggest that the church was situated on the south side of the hows for receipt of her Mat.y." 33 As the building was in
cloister, in which case the dormitory would be represented sufficiently good repair for Robert Chester, who came into
by the present east range and the refectory by the north possession of the property on attaining his majority in
range. All four ranges have 15th-century roof structures, 1586,34 to entertain James I there in 1603,35 it is most likely
(Fig. 5) the fact that all the ranges are contemporary with that the late 16th-century work post-dates 1586. Certainly,
each other and thus interconnecting at the same floor and little would seem to have done during the time of his father,
eaves levels making it easier to convert the whole structure Edward, who held the property only between 1574 and his
to domestic use than would have been the case had the death in 1577,36 a suggestion made all the credible by the
claustral buildings been of different dates and heights. unfavourable remarks of the queen's surveyors in 1578.

It is probable that the small size of many claustral garths All this is speculative as it must be remembered that houses
would have worked against the retention of the cloister's could often be quickly refurbished for a royal visit and that
dimensions in the more ambitious remodellings of monastic the house condemned in 1578 could well have been
fabric in the later 16th century. However, this is not likely capable of renovation. The work at Royston, though, may
to have been the case at The Biggin where the relatively have been more than cosmetic as James decided to rent the
modest status of the post-Dissolution house and its position house for a year during the preparation of his own hunting
in the centre of Hitchin meant that space would have been lodge in the town, a move which seems to have prompted
at a premium. There is, nevertheless, some suggestion that Chester to live at nearby Cockenach, which became his
the late 16th-century house of The Biggin may have been principal residence until his death in 1640.37
considerably larger than the present structure. First, there
was the now-demolished range attached to the south-west If there are difficulties in establishing the precise date or
comer of the existing building, which cannot have been the instigator of the late 16th-century work at Royston, it is
much later than c.1730 and may well have been equally difficult to establish whether any parts of the
considerably earlier. 31 There is also some indication that, former monastic buildings remained to be incorporated in
just as the west range has a colonnade on its inner face, the the post-Dissolution house. In this regard it is unfortunate
east range may have been at least partly open on the ground that the 1578 sketch-plan does not show the position of the
floor. Excavation in 1968-9 revealed signs of a cobbled house in relation to the church, although the distance of the
driveway running under this range, along with traces of present building, which as we have seen contains late 16th-
various buildings to the east. 32 The evidence that there was century work, from the site of the monastic nave indicates
that it is most unlikely to represent any of the claustral
30 B.L., Lansd. MS. 54, p.65; P.R.O., PCC 31 Stafford. This range is
shown in photographs of 1878 and 1897; Bodl., MS. top. eccl. b.27, 33 P.R.O., SP 12/125.
fol.53. 34 VC.H, iii, 260.
31 This range is shown in photographs of 1878 and 1897; Bodl., MS. top. 35 J. Nichols, Progresses qf James I, i (1828), 105.

eccl. b.27, fol.53. 36 P.R.O. Lists and Indexes No.26, Index of Inquisitions Post Mortem
32 C.A. Beresford-Webb, 'The Biggin' (n.d. but c.1969), unpublished Preserved in the P.R.O., ii (1908), 74.
manuscript, Hitchin Museum. 37 VC.H, iii, 261.

21
 Nicholas Doggett

4. The Biggin, panelling dated 1585 in first-floor room at southern end of west range. Photograph by N. Doggett, July
1989.

5. The Biggin, crown-post roof truss in attic of west range. Photograph by N. Doggett, July 1989.

22
 Patterns of Re-use

6. Royston Priory, detail of close studding and infilled mullion window to former outside (west) wall of Priory House.
Photograph by N. Doggett, February 1992.

buildings. There is absolutely no proof that the house bought by the townspeople in 1540.38 That part of the
shown on the 1578 sketch-plan has anything to do with the church which survives today is chiefly the chancel, choir
present building, but likewise there is really nothing to and choir aisles of the monastic church, and it seems that
suggest that it represents a conversion of the monastic relatively little was done to the building in the 60 years
buildings. after the Dissolution. (Fig. 7) Although there may be much
exaggeration in the reference of 1600 to the church being
Further work also appears to have been carried out at "utterly ruinated and fallen downe to the ground", 39 this is
Hitchin Priory in the late 16th century. The evidence for probably to some extent a true reflection of the neglect of
this is fairly limited and, as we have seen, it is difficult to the church in the second half of the 16th century, while the
distinguish this work from that undertaken in the middle of rebuilding of the tower and north arcade around 1600 was
the century. All that can be attributed with any certainty to probably a response to this period of inactivity. The
this period is the panelling on the north and west walls of statement in the 1578 survey of Priory House that "yt
the west range and a small closet with plastered decoration stand(s) adjoyning to the Churche on the sowth syde
of c.1600 in the former service range, both features which thereof, not haveing any pleasaunt p'spects any way"
can be identified with the long ownership of Ralph suggests, however, that a considerable portion of the nave
Radcliffe the younger. Whether it was he or his father who remained, probably as a ruin, into the last quarter of the
was responsible for the blocking of the claustral arches it is 16th century. Whether or not the house shown on the
impossible to say (indeed this could have occurred later), sketch-plan accompanying the survey can be identified
but such an action would have been quite consistent with with any part of the present house, this suggests that unless
the concealment of medieval features which was often it lay considerably to the east, which on the basis of the
associated with 16th-century monastic conversions. evidence discussed earlier seems inherently unlikely, it was
the ruined nave which spoilt the house's prospects to the
north.

At only two of the sites included in this study did the

former monastic church remain in ecclesiastical use after
the Dissolution. At Royston, Leland's description appears
to make it clear that the nave was demolished shortly after
Alfred Kingston, A History of Royston (1906), 71.
38
the suppression of the priory in 1537, and it seems likely 39Calendar of the Manuscripts of the Marquis of Salisbury Preserved at
that this had already taken place by the time the church was Hatfield House, pt.x Hist. MSS. Com. Rep. (1904), 135.

23
 Nicholas Doggett

7. Royston Priory, former priory church viewed from the north-east. Pen and ink drawing by J.C. Buckler, 1832; H.R.O.,
Buckler Drawings, I, 31.

There can be little doubt that the acquisition of the church the crossing. 41 Although not fully supported by the
in 1540 would have placed a considerable strain on the archaeological record, documentary sources suggest that
town's resources and this may have been a factor in the the church was neglected during the Later Middle Ages,
decision to abandon the nave and to retain only the eastern and one reason why the original post-Dissolution grantee of
end of the church for parochial worship. Indeed, although it the site, Sir Anthony Denny, did not appoint a vicar on
is likely that the population of the town, which until 1540 obtaining the property in 1538 may have been that the
lay in five parishes, 40 had once worshipped in the nave of church was in need of substantial repair, outweighing any
the priory church, there is some evidence to suggest that it profits he would have derived from the advowson. The
was already disused and derelict by the time of the church then seems to have fallen into disuse and further
Dissolution. Although it was more usual for the nave of a deterioration took place in its fabric. The refoundation of
monastic church to be retained after the suppression, if it the church and its rebuilding to a much smaller scale in the
was already ruinous or dilapidated this would have been 1620s are difficult to explain, beyond the suggestion that
sufficient reason to use only the monastic choir and chancel this may have been a belated attempt to breathe new life
for parochial worship. Certainly, whatever the condition of into an impoverished and neglected area of the town.
the nave at Royston, there would have been no incentive to However, although the new building does not seem to have
retain the whole building as the parish church of a been particularly poorly constructed by the standards of the
relatively small town. time, the project was doomed to failure, as is shown by the
church's final demolition before the end of the 17th
At Hertford there is less certainty about the sequence of century. 42
events after the suppression, partly because nothing now
survives above ground of the monastic church or its post-
Dissolution successor. It seems that before the Dissolution
there was only one church in the parish of St John's, in The majority of the rural sites in the Hertfordshire sample
which the priory was situated, and that this was shared by are considered in Chapter 3 but the two sites which never
the monks and the townspeople. Archaeological excavation seem to have been converted to anything more than a
has revealed the lay-out of this church, which comprised a farming use remain to be dealt with here.
long aisleless nave with transepts and a possible tower to

41 Cooper-Reade, op. et loc. cit. (note 20); Hertfordshire Mercury, 2

December 1893.
40 Statutes of the Realm, iii (1817), 797. 42 Chauncy, i, 506-7.

24
 Patterns of Re-use

The post-Dissolution documentary history of King's The survey also suggests that many of the other former
Langley suggests relatively low status use of the site in the monastic buildings were by then in a poor state of repair.
second half of the 16th century, an indication which is The frater, dorter and a "doffe" house are described as
borne out by the archaeological evidence and the surviving "sore decayed" and these and several other structures are
buildings. In 1540 the site was granted to Richard defective "bothe in tymber work and tylinge", while the
Ingworth, suffragan bishop of Dover and former prior of "ruffe" of the entrance going out of the cloister is "ready to
the friary, and in 1546 it passed to John Lord Russell, first fall downe". A 1556 survey of the adjoining royal manor
earl of Bedford, whose family still held the property in with its former palace buildings (little used for their
1556.43 Between 1557 and 1558 the surviving buildings original purpose after the late 15th century),51 paints a
housed a small community of Dominican nuns, after which similar picture, stating that "divers edifices within the site
it returned to the crown, being sold in 1574 to Edward of the manor are decayed, pulled down and carried away by
Grimston the elder and younger. 44 The Grimstons the farmers". 52
transferred the site to Robert Cresswell, who in tum
conveyed it to Francis, second earl of Bedford. 45 It It is not known when or by whom the demolition works at
remained with this family until 1607 when it was sold to Langley were carried out or whether, as seems to have been
Edward Newport, having most recently been tenanted by the case with the palace site, the dilapidation and
Thomas Ewer and Peter Edlin. 46 defacement were largely the result of plunder by local
people. It is likely that both occurred and as significant
It is clear that Ingworth actively petitioned Cromwell for robbing of the site seems to have taken place, this is further
the site, and it is likely that he regarded it as his rightful suggestion that at least by the 1550s the site was used for
prize for the part he had played as a royal commissioner in farming purposes. Not all removal of building materials
the suppression of friaries throughout southern England. 47 from the site, however, was unofficial or unorganised. In
It is not possible to say whether Ingworth intended to 1557 the Dominican nuns were paid £150 by the crown for
convert the buildings at Langley for his own use, but the the stripping of lead from the church roof so that it could
facts that the house was the second wealthiest Dominican be used in the conduit from Windsor Castle to Blakemore
friary in the country at the time of its suppression,48 that Park. 53
Ingworth was not granted any other ex-monastic property,
and of his former associations with the house, all mean that Furthermore, the 1555 survey shows that not all was
this possibility cannot be ruled out. It may be therefore destruction and dilapidation by this date, as indicated also
that Ingworth carried out some conversion work to the by the nuns' use of the site. The survey mentions a "fayre"
buildings and that he was prevented from doing more only gatehouse and stables, the gamer is "littell in decaye" and
by his death in 1544. the great kitchen and the "housse of effyce" (office) are
well repaired, all suggesting a well-run and efficient farm
As little is known about activity at the site during the complex in accordance with the stipulation in the 1536
ownership of John Lord Russell. Towards the end of this First Act of Suppression "to keep or cause to be kept an
period we have a survey of the site carried out in 1555. By honest continual house and household in the same site or
then the church was semi-ruinous: "One arche of the precinct, and to occupy yearly as much of the said
sowthe of the seide chaunsell (is) fallen downe", perhaps demesnes in ploughing and tillage of husbandry". 54 There
suggesting that the church had already lost at least part of is nothing surviving above ground which can be identified
its south aisle, "the old chapell ...on the north seide (?of the with the nuns, and their relatively speedy move to Dartford
nave) is pulled down excepte the walls standing" and there suggests that their stay may never have been intended to be
were further dilapidations in the chancel, belfry, lady more than temporary.
chapel and "the body of the churche". 49 There are several
references to the stonework, glass and ironwork of the Turning now to the surviving buildings, these are entirely
church windows being broken down or "utterly defased", a consistent with an agricultural use of the site in the second
situation attested by archaeological excavation which has half of the 16th century, both showing signs of low-key
shown that the windows may have been smashed from remodelling in this period, although as is so often the case
within. 50 it is not possible to give precise dates to the work. The
principal building remaining on the site is the long
rectangular structure on a north-south axis, traditionally
43 L.P., xv, no.1032 (p.542); P.R.O., E 315/391, fol.40. known locally as King John's Bakehouse. (Fig. 8) Its
44 Cal. Pat. R., Phil. & Mary, 1555-57, 403 & Cal. Pat. R., 1557-58, 417; function during the monastic period is unknown, but it
P.R.O., C 66/1117 /1563. appears to date to the late 14th century and many
45 V.C.H, ii, 238.
46 Clutterbuck, iii, 433.
47 L.P., xiii (2), no.1021; David Knowles, The Religious Orders in 51 King's Works, ii, 977; David Neal, 'Excavations at the palace of

England, iii (1959), 360-5. King's Langley, Hertfordshire 1974-6', Med. Arch., 21 (1977), 124-65.
48 Knowles (1953), 185. 52 H.R.O., Blackwell papers 20,123.
49 P.R.O., E 315/391 (2). 53 Bodi., Ashmole MS. 1125, fol. 70.
50 St John 0. Gamlen, 'Medieval window glass from the Priory, King's 54 T. Wright (ed.), Three Chapters of Letters Relating to the Suppression

Langley', Herts. Arch., 3 (1973), 73-7. of the Monasteries (1843), 110-11.

25
 Nicholas Doggett

8. King's Langley Priory, south-east view of The Priory (mistakenly called The Palace). Pen and ink drawing by J.
Buckler, 1830; H.R.O., Buckler Drawings, IV, 107.

adaptations were carried out to it during the second half of some considerable distance to the south. As we have seen,
the 16th century. These included the insertion of the the church was already semi-ruinous by the 1550s and in
roughly central stack and the flooring over of the northern 1591 it is described as completely "ruinated". 56 It therefore
part of the building, the southern section apparently always seems unlikely that it was used as anything more than a
having had a first floor. Various suggestions have been source of building materials during the post-Dissolution re-
made as to the original use of the range, including an use of the site.
infirmary and "housse of effyce", both of which are
referred to in building accounts of the 1360s and '70s, the It is rather easier to reconstruct the original appearance of
latter with its "great kychen" also occurring in the survey the gatehouse, which is situated in the range running at
of 1555.55 It has also been suggested that it may be the right-angles to the east at the northern end of the long
"fayre" stables of the survey, although the fme carpentry of rectangular range. The gatehouse is of 15th-century date,
its crown-post roof makes it unlikely that this was its comprising a jettied timber-framed superstructure over a
original prime function. There is some evidence to show gateway, the arch of which was constructed of stone on the
that the building separated the cloister from the outer court external side and of timber to the courtyard side. (Fig. 9)
of the friary, in which case it may have served as the To either side of the gateway there seem to have been
refectory or guest house. Whatever its original purpose, chambers. In the 18th century the gatehouse was extended
there can be little doubt that it was primarily domestic in to the south, which means that the inner arch is now
purpose, a use which would have aided its conversion into embedded in the later structure and concealed from view.
a farmhouse in the 16th century, the kitchen on the ground This may also have been when the outer arch was infilled.
floor of the southern part of the building demonstrating a There is nothing to suggest, however, that it did not
continuity of use from the monastic into the post-medieval continue to function as a gatehouse after the suppression,
period. the survival of its late 15th-century crown-post roof
suggesting that this occurred with little or no modification
It is difficult to be precise about the relationship of this to the structure.
building to the friary church, save to say that this lay at

55P.R.O., E 101/466/3 & 5; Cal. Pat. R., 1364-7, 197-8; Cal. Pat. R.,
1370-74, 431. 56 H.R.O, Blackwell papers 20,113.

26
 Patterns of Re-use

9. King's Langley Priory, gatehouse from the north. Photograph by N. Doggett, May 1989.

Likewise, the relatively sparse evidence for St Margaret's campanil( e) and cemetery", 60 while Willis' s statement that
Nunnery, Nettleden, where no building traces survive the church tower stood "ten foot high in the memory of
above ground, makes it difficult to reach any positive man" suggests that at least parts of the church remained
conclusions about the re-use of the former monastic for a considerable time after the Dissolution, even if in
buildings after the Dissolution. The house was a poor one ruined form. Whether or not it featured in any conversion
and it is perhaps no surprise that the re-use was low-key. scheme at the site is impossible to say.
John Verney, the original lessee of the site from 1536 to
1538, clearly had little time in which to carry out The building drawn by Lysons and Scott is shown in
conversion works and these may have been postponed until isolation and it is not known how it related to the other
the house was leased to Sir John Daunce, lessee from 1538 former nunnery buildings. (Fig. 10) It appears, however, to
until his death in 1545.57 Daunce's family had the lease of have been a domestic building in origin and although a
the site until 1630, but the fact that the crown retained doorway and lancet window shown in the drawing look
ownership of the site until then may have acted as a earlier, there is no real reason to deny Willis's and Steele's
disincentive for them to carry out any major conversion assertion that it was late 15th or early 16th century in date.
scheme, and it seems that throughout this period, as during The V C.H. is apparently the earliest authority to identify
the long ownership by the Catherall family from the second the building as the monastic refectory, but such a use
quarter of the 17th century to c.1800, 58 the buildings served would be entirely consistent with its character. 61 It is
as no more than a farmhouse and associated farmbuildings. conceivable therefore that the refectory was converted to
the parlour and hall of a new house, in which use the
According to the early 18th-century antiquaries, Browne surviving structure remained in Willis's time.
Willis and Edward Steele, the building then surviving
(which seems to be the same building drawn by Lysons and
B.W. Scott a century later) was constructed during the
reign of Henry VII, 59 in which case its relatively recent The individual buildings selected for re-use at the sites
date would have made it particularly attractive for re-use. discussed above encompass the full range of buildings
The lease to Daunce in 1538 refers to the "church, commonly chosen for re-use. Perhaps not surprisingly the
most frequently re-used structures are the refectory and
monastic kitchen. The kitchen was obviously just as
57 L.P., xiii (1), g.887 (20); Dugdale, iv, 271. Elsewhere, however, it is
suggested that Daunce died in 1564, Bodl., MS. Willis 101, p.145.
58 V.C.H, Bucks., iii (1925), 383. 60 L.P., xiii (1), g.887 (20).
59 Bodl, MS. Willis 101, p.143; MS. Top. gen. e. 79, fols.8-11. 61 V.C.H, ii, 317.

27
 Nicholas Doggett

10. St Margaret's Nunnery, north-west view of nunnery ruins. Early 20th -century reproduction of drawing by Benjamin
Scott, 1819; H.R.O., Gerish Collection, Box 30.

essential in a post-Dissolution house as in its monastic 1585 at the west end of this range which provides the best
predecessor and thus the west claustral ranges, which had evidence for this use.
housed the monastic kitchen and associated offices,
continued to serve this purpose at The Biggin, Hitchin Similarly, at Ware it is not immediately obvious why the
Priory, Ware and King's Langley, although it is only at the guest range, which projected at right-angles to the west
latter site that clear physical evidence for this survives. claustral range, was adapted as the hall of the house created
for the Byrch family, although here it is far from clear
At many former monastic sites the refectory, usually sited where the entrance range stood, if indeed one existed at all.
on the first floor with an undercroft beneath, was converted At King's Langley the suggestion that the principal
into the hall or other domestic apartments of a new house. surviving building was once the guest hall is derived from
At none of the sites discussed in this chapter, however, is the fact that it seems to have been the range separating the
there unequivocal evidence for the re-use of the refectory inner and outer courts of the Dominican friary. It has also
as great hall and only at St Margaret's, Nettleden is there been suggested that this range may have been the refectory
any suggestion that this took place. At The Biggin and or "house of office" and stables, while ( as discussed above)
Hitchin Priory, where the refectory seems to have been it retains evidence for a kitchen at its southern end.
situated in the north range, it appears that the hall of the
post-monastic house was in the former church, and at Ware At The Biggin it appears that the east claustral range was
it seems that the old guest range was used as the hall in re-used in the mid- to late 16th-century house, although its
preference to the refectory in the south range. That the use was primarily confined to that of a corridor gallery
former refectory formed an important part of the new house linking the principal first-floor apartments of the north and
at Ware is suggested, however, by the panelling of c.1600 south ranges. At Hitchin Priory no early fabric survives in
recently discovered on its first floor, although by this date the east wing of the house but the fact that the central
it appears to have been divided into a series of rooms. courtyard follows the dimensions of the monastic cloister
shows that it must have featured in the original conversion.
The suggestion that the former church at Hitchin Priory Also at The Priory, medieval fabric in the former service
was converted into the hall of the Radcliff es' house is range which runs at an oblique angle to the north-west of
based partly on the fact that it lay directly opposite the the cloister indicates that this must have formed part of the
north entrance range, which as we have seen had probably medieval friary. Its use in this period or in the 16th-century
housed the refectory on its first floor. At The Biggin the house is unclear, but it may originally have been the
apparent re-use of the church as first-floor hall is harder to monastic cellarium.
explain, as this lay at right-angles to the east range (former Only at Hertford is there any suggestion that the superior's
dormitory) of what by the second half of the 16th century lodging formed the nucleus of the post-Dissolution house
had become the inner court of a double-courtyard house and even here the evidence is at best tenuous, while the
accessed from the east. It is perhaps the panelled parlour of possibility at The Biggin of what may have been the prior's

28
 Patterns of Re-use

house, attached to the south-west comer of the cloister, which survived into the early 19th century at St Margaret's,
surviving to be remodelled in the early 18th century is Nettleden was probably remodelled in c.1500. It is only at
supported on even more fragmentary evidence. Much more Royston that there is no evidence for the date of the
certain is the continuing use of the gatehouse at King's claustral buildings and here, as we have seen, it is more
Langley, the only example contained in the Hertfordshire probable that the post-Dissolution house was built on a new
sample where the gatehouse is known to have survived the site, rather than that it incorporated any of the conventual
Dissolution. Finally, at Royston it appears that none of the buildings.
domestic buildings survived to be incorporated in the late
16th-century house built nearby by Robert Chester, We have varying degrees of information about the owners
although the extremely limited extent to which the 16th- and lessees of the ex-monastic property considered in this
century fabric is visible in the present house makes it chapter. As with the buildings themselves, this is so varied
impossible to establish whether monastic materials were re- in depth and quality that it makes comparisons between
used to a significant extent. If this were the case, as the late sites difficult if not impossible. Nevertheless, it is only by
16th-century house was essentially timber framed, re-use attempting to do this that any general patterns or trends
would seem to have been confmed to the timber work. may emerge.
Indeed, much of the priory stonework was presumably re-
used elsewhere following the sale of the cloister as building At Royston, Robert Chester having rented the house
materials to Thomas More and John Newport in 1537. A following its closure in 1537 bought the site in 1540. Born
similar fate would seem to have befallen the non-claustral in 1510 of a Hertfordshire family, Chester had first found
buildings at Hitchin Priory when the house was sold to Sir favour at court as a gentleman usher of the king's
Edward Watson and Henry Herdson in 1546, as their chief chamber.62 In 1544 he was at Calais with 25 archers, who
interest in the site seems to have been for its value as formed Henry's bodyguard when he departed for the siege
building materials. ofBoulogne. 63 Chester was knighted in 1551 and was made
sheriff of Essex and Hertfordshire in 1565.64 He died in
At all the sites discussed above it must be emphasised that 1574 to be succeeded by his son, Edward. It is likely that
the conclusions about which buildings were re-used are the second major phase of 16th-century remodelling at
based on either the evidence of the surviving buildings Royston did not occur until after 1586 when Chester's
themselves or documentary or pictorial evidence often grandson, another Robert, came into possession on
much later than the period with which we are concerned. reaching the age of 21.65 A distinguished poet, whose
As a site such as St Margaret's, Nettleden shows, the rate works include Love's Martyr (1601), Robert was sheriff of
of decay could be very rapid, all above-ground traces of Hertfordshire in 1599,66 the separate office of sheriff for
what was a fairly substantial building disappearing within each county having been created in 1567,67 and was
the 19th century, and there is no reason to suppose that a sufficiently prominent in court circles to have entertained
similar pattern of decay cannot have occurred elsewhere James I at Royston in 1603, shortly after which he was
between 1540 and 1600. Indeed, we know that several of knighted. 68
the houses considered in this chapter were considerably
larger in the second half of the 16th century than they were Ralph Radcliffe bought Hitchin Priory in 1553. Radcliffe
subsequently to become. The late 16th-century houses at came from a Lancashire family and was born in 1519. He
The Biggin and Royston were of double-courtyard plan and was a scholar of Jesus College, Cambridge and was best
at Ware the west claustral range not only formerly known as a scholar and playwright. He died in 1559 after
extended further to the north but to the south of the cloister which his son, also Ralph (1543-1621), seems to have
itself, suggesting that the monastic infrrmary may have taken over at The Priory. 69 Very little is lmown of this
survived the Dissolution to be incorporated in the house Ralph save that he was a bencher of the Inner Temple. 70
created by the Byrch family. Much more is known of Anthony Denny who bought the
site of Hertford Priory on its suppression in 1538 but as it
At all of the sites considered in this chapter none of the seems unlikely that he carried out much work at Hertford
buildings selected for re-use seems to have been earlier and was more active at Cheshunt, his career is considered
than the 14th century. The south and west claustral ranges in Chapter 3. Denny was succeeded on his death in 1549 by
at Ware may date to shortly after the foundation of the his son, Henry, and it seems that both Hertford and
priory in 1338, although both seem to have undergone Cheshunt passed to him. Henry died in 1574 but it is not
some remodelling in the 15th century when the guest range
was added. The long rectangular building at King's 62 Kingston, op. cit. (note 38), 61.
Langley is probably late 14th century in origin but the 63 L.P., xix (2), nos.424, 524 (8).
64 WA Shaw, The Knights qf England, ii (1906), 65; P.R.O., Lists &
gatehouse seems to be a 15th-century structure. At The
Indexes No. 9, List qfSher/ffsfor England & Wales (1898), 45.
Biggin and Hitchin Priory, where all of the claustral ranges 65 V.C.H, iii, 260.
and the church appear to have been re-used in the 66 D.N.B., iv, 203; P.R.O., List of Sheriffs, 64.

conversions, the buildings seem to be essentially 15th 67 Smith (1992), 46.

68 Shaw, op. cit. (note 64), 123.
century. At Hertford the building known as The Priory is
69 V.C.H, iii, 12.
unlikely to have been earlier than this and the structure 70 D.N.B., xvi, 576-7.

29
 Nicholas Doggett

clear whether the Edward Denny who granted Hertford dissolved in 1536, at which time John Verney, of the
Priory to Thomas Docwra in 1578 was Henry's son, prominent Buckinghamshire family, was granted a 21 year
Edward, or Edward, fifth son of Sir Anthony. 71 This, lease of the site. This lease was revoked two years later
however, is largely irrelevant here as it appears most likely when the property was leased to Sir John Daunce. Already
that the remodelling of Priory House before it fmally left advanced in years when he acquired the lease, Daunce had
the ownership of the Denny family in 1587 was carried out been Henry VIII's Treasurer of Wars, through which he
chiefly at the expense of tenants whose names are no was involved in the fmancing of royal works at Camber,
longer known. Portsmouth and Portchester. 76 He had also been appointed
Commissioner of the Peace for Buckinghamshire in 1536
Robert Byrch had the lease of Ware Priory from its and for Oxfordshire in 1537.77 The Daunces remained as
suppression in 1538 and in 1544 the site was bought from lessees of the property until 1630.
the crown by Thomas Byrch. In this grant Byrch is
described as a "yeoman of the crown" but, apart from the Several general points emerge from all this. First,
fact that he seems to have been a scrivener and accountant substantial conversion works were more likely to occur
and presumably servant of the crown, nothing more is during long periods of ownership by one family. Thus at
known of him or his descendants who continued to own the Royston, Hitchin and Ware, owned by the Chesters,
house until 1628. Radcliffes and Byrchs from 1540, 1553 and 1544
respectively, major programmes of remodelling took place
John Cocks was granted The Biggin in 1544, but although before 1600. Some explanation is required as to why this
he was to serve as Sheriff of Hertfordshire and Essex in did not also happen at Hertford, King's Langley and St
1548 and was the recipient of many former monastic lands Margaret's, Nettleden. At all three sites it may simply be
in both counties, 72 he seems to have had little interest in the that the properties were too small and unimportant to
buildings there. It is not known how or when the property interest the Denny, Russell or Daunce families on a
was conveyed to William Croocar beyond the possibility personal level, while at the latter, although the lease first to
that he acquired it through his wife, Luce, whose mother, the V emeys and then to the Daunces required the
Mary, was married to Thomas Parrys, who seems to have remaining buildings to be maintained in reasonable
had an interest in the former priory lands in the 1550s and condition, the fact that it remained in royal ownership may
to be synonymous with the bailiff to the crown at Hitchin also have served as a disincentive to extensive conversion
Priory before 1546.73 Although Croocar left the house to works. An additional factor against major remodelling at St
his sons, Thomas and William, in his will of 1570, Mary Margaret's may have been its relative proximity to Nether
Parrys, "widow", was paying rent for The Biggin as late as Winchendon (Bucks.), John Daunce's principal residence
c.1578. 74 Her occupation of the buildings may have been from 1527 until his death in 1545, and where he carried out
the reason why the second William Croocar waited until much rebuilding during the 1530s.78 Indeed, that re-use
the 1580s before carrying out the remodelling works which did occur at St Margaret's may post-date the
suggested by the date "1585" inscribed in the panelling in acquisition of the house at Winchendon by the crown in
one of the rooms. Nothing further is known of the Croocar 1545 or its sale to the Tyringham family in 1574.79
or Parrys families, while all that is known of Robert Snagge Similarly, if the Russells had ever intended to carry out
who owned the house between c.1587 and his death in more comprehensive works at King's Langley- they did
1606 is that he was a lawyer and second son of Thomas after all take the trouble to recover the site in 1574- it may
Snagge of Letchworth Hall. 75 have been that the break in their ownership dissuaded them
from pursuing this further.
The post-Dissolution career of Richard Ingworth as
suffragan bishop of Dover is well known but there is little The sample is too small to develop the suggestion further,
evidence that he carried out major conversion works at but Robert Chester and Ralph Radcliffe, as well as their
King's Langley. Much is also known of the Russell family, later namesakes, were all young men when they embarked
earls of Bedford, who held the property between 1546 and on remodelling schemes at Royston and Hitchin. Finally, at
1556 and again between 1574 and 1607. However, none of The Biggin it seems that individual family circumstances,
the earls seems to have had a direct interest in the house principally the longevity of Mary Parrys, may have played
and the low-key conversion scheme there is unlikely to their part in the postponement of major refurbishment
have been due to their personal involvement. A similar works until the 1580s.
situation would have applied at St Margaret's, Nettleden,

71 P.R.O., C 66/1193/1783
72 P.R.O., List of Sheriffs, 45; L.P., xix (1), g.80 (48), g.1035 (97).
73 Pencil transcript by Reginald Hine of a document of 1557, Hitchin 76 King's Works, iv, 416, 493, 496; King's Works, iii, 291n. An account
Museum. The transcript does not give the location of the original of Daunce's career is given in given in C.T. Martin, 'Sir John Daunce's
document, but the 18th-century historian, Salmon also refers to the accounts of money received from the treasurer of the king's chamber
conveyance of The Biggin to Parrys during the reign of Edward VI temp. Henry VIII', Archaeologia, 4 7 (1883), 295-336.
(Salmon, 162); for Hitchin Priory see P.R.O, SC6/Hen. VIII/1607-15. 77 L.P., xi, g.1417 (5); L.P., xii, g.1150 (15).
74 P.R.O., PCC 11 Holney; Hine colln., Hitchin Museum. 78 N. Pevsner & Elizabeth Williamson, Buckinghamshire (1994), 449-52.
75 P.R.O., PCC 31 Stafford; D.N.B., xviii, 610. 79 V.C.H, Bucks., iv (1927), 120.

30
Chapter Three Although far from unequivocal proof, the possibility that it
may have been Tregonwell's intention to convert at least
some of the buildings, including the church, is hinted at by
From Monastery to Country House: high status a reference to the "church stepull" in the crown's deed of
conversions exchange with Page in September 1538 and then to the
"campanile" in the letters patent of the following year.2 The
absence of any reference to the church in Leland's
This chapter is concerned with those monastic buildings description of the site, which was probably made in 1544,3
which were converted into gentry, courtier and royal suggests, however, that it did not feature in any conversion
houses. These form a distinct category from those sites which Page may have carried out.
examined in the last chapter. Three of the sites- Markyate,
Sopwell and Wymondley- retain substantial elements of the Indeed, there is considerable uncertainty as to whether
immediately post-Dissolution houses and some physical there was ever a direct conversion of any of the former
evidence for the monastic buildings which preceded them. monastic buildings at Beechwood. In 1548 the house is
Far less now survives at Ashridge, but the post-Dissolution referred to as the "mansion house Beechwood late callyd
house swept away by Wyatt's early 19th-century mansion the priory of Saint Gyles in the Wood" and in 1564 it is
is well recorded in documentary and graphic sources. By recorded as the "dwelling house now commonly called
comparison, Beechwood and Cheshunt are ill recorded, Beechwood",4 suggesting that its monastic antecedents
although at both sites there is enough evidence to enable were already beginning to be forgotten. This, of course, is
some reconstruction of post-Dissolution events to be made. anything but conclusive evidence that the new house of
Beechwood was not fashioned directly from monastic
As with those sites considered in Chapter 2, it is helpful to fabric, and a detailed description of the building in a lease
deal first with conversions carried out in the period 1540 to of part of it to John Cheyne in 1564 is equally umevealing
1580 and then to examine separately those conversions in this respect. 5
made after 1580. By doing this it is possible to establish
something of the rate at which conversions were However, what little physical or archaeological evidence
undertaken and also of the processes which enabled them there is, either for the nunnery or the 16th-century house
to take place. Again, there is some overlap between those which succeeded it, also suggests that the latter does not lie
conversions undertaken in the first generation and those of directly on the site of the former. The earliest surviving
the second and third generations. Indeed, this is even more identifiable fabric in the present building dates to the mid-
noticeable as a general trend in the sites considered in this to late 17th century, and although there is some stonework
chapter, suggesting that not only did social, economic and in the cellar which may be of mid-16th-century or earlier
political conditions allow higher status conversions to take origin, there is nothing which can be linked to the monastic
place earlier, but that the very status of these sites phase of the site. The moulded stone fireplace in what is
prompted further programmes of extensive remodelling now the housemaster's study is probably pre-Dissolution-
later in the century. certainly it is not much later- but there is nothing to show
that it was monastic and it could have come from
elsewhere. (Fig. 11)

Beechwood and Cheshunt can be described as courtier The early 18th-century front range of the house appears to
conversions and at both there is fragmentary evidence for occupy virgin ground, further suggestion that the nunnery
work in the two decades after the suppression. The former buildings lay elsewhere. The most likely location for these
Benedictine nunnery of St Giles in the Wood, Flamstead seems to be approximately 110 yards to the east of the
(Beechwood) was leased to Sir John Tregonwell soon after present house, where parch marks of a rectangular
its suppression in 1537. It is not clear whether Tregonwell building, aligned roughly east-west, have been tentatively
undertook any conversion of the monastic buildings. His identified as the site of the monastic church. 6
complaint in August 1538 when ejected in favour of Sir
Richard Page, to whom the crown gave the manor of It therefore seems that at Beechwood the decision was
Molesey in Surrey in exchange for Beechwood, that he had taken not to convert the monastic buildings but to erect a
already spent £120 in necessaries for husbandry, hedging, new house nearby, very probably using materials from the
making the ground etc., £40 of which had been paid to the nunnery. The reason for this is not clear, but the small size
king at the time of the suppression, 1 would seem to refer to of the nunnery at the Dissolution may provide some
general work on the estate rather than to any physical explanation. The buildings recorded in the inventory made
transformation of the buildings themselves, but this does
not mean that he was not also involved in conversion 2 Dugdale, iv, 301-2; H.R.O., 17,244.
works. 3 John Chandler, John Leland's Itinerary, Travels in Tudor England
(1993), XXX.
4 H.R.O., 17,248; 17,255.
5 H.R.O., 17,255.
1 L.P., xiii (2), no. 74. 6 LV. Bullard, Flamstead, Its Church and History (1902), 6.

31
 Nicholas Doggett

...( and) ...hath translatid the house, and now much lyith
there" to rely upon. 8

The latter part of this remark suggests that Page's work was
extensive and that Beechwood was his principal residence.
Chauncy recites the " ...Tradition that in the Infancy of
Edward VI he was removed thither by the Advice of his
Physitians for some time, and did reside in the said
Religious House ..." 9 The date of this stay is unrecorded but
it may have provided further incentive, if any were needed,
for Page's building work. Page died in 1548 and in March
of that year his widow, Elizabeth, leased the house to Sir
William Skypwith, whom she was eventually to marry. A
lease of 1564 provides some information on the type of
house Beechwood had by then become, referring to "the
upper end of the house frome the haule porche uppward,
the great kytchyn, thre Chambers frome a little entre going
to the gardine ...(and the) great buttery". 10 This suggests a
house of some size, although it is not possible to tell
whether this was largely the result of Page's work or
whether further additions and alterations were made after
1548. All that can really be stated with certainty is that
there was extensive building activity at Beechwood in the
two decades after the Dissolution.

Not even this can be established beyond doubt at

Cheshunt, another small Benedictine nunnery, dissolved in
1536. This is without doubt one of the most poorly
documented monastic sites in Hertfordshire. On its
suppression it was granted to Anthony Denny, passing on
11. St Giles in the Wood, Flamstead (Beechwood Park), his death in 1549 to his eldest son, Henry, who in 1564
detail of early to mid 16th -century fireplace in sold the estate to Anthony Throkmerton, Richard
housemaster's study. Photograph by N. Doggett, Springham and Richard Davys. 11 The inventory made at the
September 1990. house's closure lists a "chauncell, quyre, belfery, dortor,
halle, chamber over the halle, maydens chamber, buttery,
chamber over the buttery, mylke lofte, chese lofte, bruynge
howse, kechyne, my ladys chamber, meanes howsse,
at the house's suppression in 1537- "church (quyre and priest's chamber and gam( er)". 12
vestery), parlour, kechyn, high chamber, myddle chamber,
buttery and backhowsse"- were not extensive,7 and The recorded annual value of £14 ls and the sale to
although the church is described as in "good repair", with Anthony Denny of "alle the goods and catalls for £44 7s"
nothing to suggest that the other buildings were in suggest that the community was a poor one and the fact that
particularly poor condition, it seems likely that both the commissioners valued the church lead at only £2
Tregonwell and Page were attracted by the site itself rather suggests that the building may have been ruinous before the
than by the buildings. Certainly, neither man would have Dissolution. 13
been deterred from sweeping all away and starting afresh.
Denny is reputed to have been born and to have died at
The difficulty of distinguishing any work which may have Cheshunt, and as he is not linked with any other house in
been carried out by Tregonwell from that undertaken by his the immediate vicinity, his death at least is thought to have
successor has been referred to above. Indeed, it is only in taken place at the Nunnery, by which name the house
Page's case that we can be at all certain that building work continued to be called after the Dissolution. 14 Indeed,
was carried out, and it may have been that whatever his
intentions for the property, Tregonwell's tenure was simply 8 Leland, i, 104.
too short-lived for him to have embarked on any major 9 Chauncy, ii, 514.
construction activity. Even for Page, we have only Leland's 10 H.R.O., 17,255.
11 L.P., xi, g.519 (12); P.R.O., C 66/1004/584.
statement that "Master Page the knight hath it now
12 P.R.O., E 117/12/30.
13 P.R.O., SC6/Hen. VIII/1606.
14 H.L.L. Denny, 'Biography of the right honourable Sir Anthony Denny',
7 P.R.O., E 117/12/30. Trans. East Herts. Arch. Soc., 3, pt.ii (1906), 210-11.

32
 Patterns of Re-use

Denny seems to have had a direct interest in the house Writing in 1823, William Caley states that "The refectory
before its closure, the indenture of the nunnery's goods, (not listed in the 1536 inventory) was the last building to
drawn up in May 1536, being made between the the nunnery which remained entire". 18 This is probably the
commissioners and Denny, rather than with the prioress. 15 same structure which William Ellis noted in 1791 "appears
to have been built not long before the Dissolution". 19 It is,
This would all suggest that Denny is likely to have carried of course, quite probable that Caley incorrectly identified
out some building work at the nunnery after the the surviving building as the refectory and it may well have
Dissolution. Certainly, it would have been a convenient been one of the other buildings recorded in the inventory.
centre from which to administer the considerable estate he If the structure was indeed "built not long before the
put together in Hertfordshire and East Essex from the Dissolution", it is likely to have been in good enough
spoils of monasteries. condition for it to have been re-used in Denny's new house.

Nothing now survives, even below ground, of the nunnery During the 1950s' gravel extraction, fragments of Purbeck
as the whole site was destroyed by gravel extraction in the marble column-shafts, which are most likely to have come
1950s, with only the most minimal of archaeological from the monastic church, were found on the site. Their
records being made. Even before that few traces of the exact fmd-spot is not known but they appear to have come
nunnery or the house which succeeded it remained. During from an area to the south of the main area archaeologically
the late 19th and early 20th centuries large glass houses recorded, which seems to have been that occupied by the
were erected around the buildings of Nunnery Farm, which post-Dissolution house. The column-shafts may not, of
itself seems to have been built on the site of Cheshunt course, have been in their original context when recovered
Nunnery, a mainly 18th-century house, demolished in the 1950s, but their location raises the possibility that the
between 1804 and 1811.16 church lay to the south of the 16th-century house. If this
was a conversion of the monastic buildings- and there is
This building is known only from brief later 18th-century absolutely nothing to show that the church itself was
descriptions and sketch-plans and one late 18th-century and converted to domestic use- this suggests that the cloister
two early 19th-century drawings. 17 These latter drawings lay to the north of the church. It is equally likely, though,
are particularly useful and give a good impression of the that the 16th-century house was not a direct adaptation of
house's appearance. From the front, the building is entirely the monastic buildings, but was a new building re-using
18th century in character but the view of the rear, showing materials from the nunnery, in which case the cloister may
the service areas, depicts a number of earlier ranges. It is have been in the more usual position to the south.
not possible to date these accurately, but the more Certainly, a man as powerful and ambitious as Denny
prominent features include a three-storey brick tower would not have been deterred from sweeping all away
which, along with other parts of the building, could belong should it have served his purpose.
to the 16th or 17th century. Indeed, there is a possibility
that one of the service ranges survived to form Nunnery The evidence for the inmtediate post-Dissolution phase at
Farmhouse, when the remainder of the house was Cheshunt is clearly extremely tentative. As we shall see,
demolished. there is equally inconclusive evidence for further activity at
the house later in the 16th century, and all that can be
While this pictorial evidence, along with the discovery of stated with confidence is that Denny is likely to have
substantial fragments of a mid- to late 16th-century mullion carried out some work here before his death in 1549, with
window on the site in the 1950s, are perhaps enough to the strong possibility that further work took place under his
demonstrate that the house contained 16th-century work, son, Henry, before 1564.
they do not indicate whether this work represented a new
house on or near the site of the nunnery or a direct The surviving architectural evidence and the archaeological
conversion of its former buildings. The extremely and documentary material for the immediate post-
fragmentary evidence means that this will never be known. Dissolution phase is much more complete at Markyate,
While there may be no particular reason to doubt Richard another small Benedictine nunnery, which was dissolved by
Gough's asse1tion that "the principle (sic) staircase (in the February 1537. Nothing seems to have been done there
house was) ...ofDenny's time" or his belief, shared by other before 1539 when it was leased for 21 years to Humphrey
antiquaries, that the earlier parts of the house were built at Bourchier. Having tried unsuccessfully to buy the site,
or around the time of the Dissolution, this is very little on Bourchier died childless in 1540 when the house passed to
which to base a reconstruction of the 16th-century house or his widow, Elizabeth. It appears that Bourchier carried out
the nunnery itself. extensive works at Markyate as Leland, who probably saw
the house in 1544, writes that "Mergate was a nunnery of
15 P.R.O., E 117/12/30.
late tyme. It standith on a hil in a faire woode hard by
16 Ordnance Survey maps, various editions; Dugdale, iv, 328. W atheling Streate on the est side of it. Humfray Boucher,
17 H.R.O., Oldfield Drawings, II, 390; B.L., Add. MS. 32,349, fol.45;

Bodl., Gough Herts. 16 and 18, MS. notes between pp.10 and 11 of
annotated copies of Salmon's History qf Hertfordshire belonging to 18 Dugdale, iv, 328.
Richard Gough. 19 William Ellis, Campagna of London (1791), 39.

33
 Nicholas Doggett

base sunne to the late lorde Berners, did much coste in converted to domestic use. The east end of the church or
translating of the priorie into a maner-place: but he left it possibly chapter house was uncovered in 1805 some 40ft to
nothing endid." 20 the west of the terrace to the north of the present house,
indicating that the cloister must also have lain at some
The house created by Bourchier has been much altered distance to the west. If the present building is monastic in
since, with additions of c.1600, the mid-17th century and origin, the only possible candidate which emerges is a
the 18th century, and it owes its present neo-Elizabethan detached superior's lodging, although the distance from the
appearance to a major remodelling by Robert Lugar in remainder of the nunnery buildings and the community's
1825/26. Despite this, it is still possible to reconstruct the relative poverty and small size at the time of its
form of the mid-16th-century house, which seems to have suppression make this inherently unlikely.
consisted of a long hall range on the south aligned roughly
east-west, with cross-wings projecting to the north. The It therefore seems that Bourchier made the decision to start
eastern of these may have acted as a service range, the afresh on a new site higher up the hill side, no doubt using
massive projection to the base of the external lateral stack the old buildings as a convenient quarry. The east wall of
possibly housing a garderobe, while the staircase may have the existing house does in fact incorporate much 13th-
been at the northern end of the west cross-wing. The hall century moulded stonework, although it seems likely that a
range was almost certainly of two storeys from the start and lot of this was only re-used during the remodelling of the
may have been heated by a large stack on the north wall. east range in the 19th century, very possibly following the
The principal rooms appear to have been on the upper level discovery of the east end of the church or chapter house in
above an undercroft or semi-basement and it seems that the 1805. Elsewhere in the house, material which is almost
main entrance was on the south side, probably approached certainly monastic in origin, was probably recycled at a
by a flight of steps, giving direct access to the hall range. much earlier period. This includes a beam in the old
kitchen, on the end of which was a carved shield, surviving
The earliest surviving fabric in the present house is in the to be illustrated by Thomas Fisher in 1805.21 The flint and
short wing of chequered stone and flint to the north east stone chequerwork pattern on the north wall of the east
and in the lower range on the south side, both of which date range may also be re-used material, although as noted
to this period. While it is possible that this work could above, its continuation on to the east wall of the same
immediately precede the Dissolution, it is quite clear that range is more likely to be the result of 19th-century
neither the church nor any of the claustral buildings were remodelling. (Fig. 12)

12. Markyate Priory, north-east view of house. Pen and inl( drawing by G. Buckler, 1839; H.R.O., Buckler Drawings,
IV, 20.

20 Leland, i, 104. 21 B.L., Add. MS. 32,349, fol.6.

34
 Patterns of Re-use

Bourchier's widow married George Ferrers in 1541 but it before the house's closure.25 It shows that although 100
was not until 1548 that the site was granted to him. During marks had been spent on repairs to the church since 1520
this time, the property presumably remained with the crown and two windows at the east end had recently been
and, despite Leland's reference to Bourchier having left it renewed, the nave and chancel were still in need of further
"nothing endid", there is no documentary evidence to work. The bell tower was being rebuilt after a collapse, and
suggest that anything further was done. The house it can be surmised that this was a free-standing structure,
remained with the F errers family until the mid-17th presumably at the west end of the church, as there is no
century, but as the next phase ofremodelling does not seem record of its collapse having caused damage to the rest of
to have occurred until c.1600 this is discussed below. the structure.

The Augustinian priory of Wymondley was dissolved in Repairs did not stop there. In 1537 Nedeham paid £15 4s
1537 and passed to James Nedeham, in whose family the 8d to the former prior, John Atow, "for repairs this year
property was to remain until 1733. For much of this period made on the house and church buildings of the former
the site was little more than a large farm, the converted priory where they were greatly ruined and defective."
west end of the former monastic church serving as the Indeed, £5 more than this was set aside for maintenance,
farmhouse, but there is some evidence to suggest that in its which indicates that repairs were still ongoing after the
immediate post-Dissolution phase the site was of higher Dissolution. 26 This suggests that Nedeham, who had been
status. managing the priory's financial affairs since April 1537,
planned from the start to convert some of its buildings to
The principal surviving monastic buildings are the west domestic use. In December 1537 he obtained the lease of
part of the nave of the Augustinian church, converted with the property, but it may not have been until after he bought
various additions and alterations to domestic use in the the site in April 1538 that building works began.
16th century, and the late 15th-century aisled barn, both of
which stand within a well-preserved moated enclosure. It is not easy to reconstruct the appearance of the house
Outside the moated area are a conduit house to the north created by Nedeham. It is probable that it was much larger
east and a dovecote to the north west, both probably of than the remaining structure would indicate. Writing in
16th-century date. c.1700, Chauncy states that "this Priory has been a fair old
building with cloysters",27 which perhaps suggests that
Although it has been suggested that the building converted although the cloister had disappeared by then, some
to domestic use is not in fact the church but the western vestiges had remained well after the Dissolution. An estate
part of a conventual building, possibly the refectory, 22 this map of 1731 shows the buildings to have been far more
is not generally accepted and what remains of the monastic extensive than now, especially to the east. It is tempting to
fabric of this structure is perfectly consistent with use as a equate the formerly greater extent of the house with a
church. The conversion to domestic use was effected by survival of the eastern part of the church and it is possible
inserting first and second floors and fireplaces and to interpret the roughly cruciform shape of the larger
refenestrating the building with mullioned and transomed building as following the plan of the church. Certain
windows. irregularities suggest, however, that these ranges represent
structures added after the Dissolution, albeit on the site of
Although a case has been argued for the cloister being in the eastern end of the church. Similarly, if the formerly
the usual position to the south,23 it seems more likely that it greater extent of the building does represent the crossing,
lay to the north. Evidence for this can be seen in the transepts and quire of the monastic church, they may not
existing building in the form of a blocked processional have survived as habitable structures but may have been
door in the north wall and the height of the two 13th- shown on the map simply because their walls remained
century lancets in the south wall, which do not allow for a above ground.
cloister walk beneath them. The suppression inventory of
1537 lists a hall, servants' chamber, kitchen, bakehouse, It is unlikely, though, that in such an early conversion
brewhouse, buttery and pantry but it is not possible from Nedeham would have been prepared to tolerate the survival
this to identify their locations. 24 Unless it should be of ruins directly abutting his house- certainly, it is unlikely
identified as the hall, no mention is made of the refectory that he would have displayed any antiquarian interest in
but as it is referred to in a bishop's visitation of 1530 as such features- and if they did survive, it is more likely that
being newly rebuilt, it is unlikely that it failed to survive they would have been put to domestic use. This is all the
the Dissolution. This visitation is particularly useful for the more likely when one recalls the recent repairs to the
light it sheds on the condition of the buildings so shortly church, even though it is not specified to which areas the
repairs were carried out. Finally, the current eastern wall of
the house is somewhat thinner than those on the north and
22 Smith (1993), 218.
23 Gil Burleigh et al, Wymondley Priory, Hertfordshire: An
Archaeological Evaluation (North Herts. District Council Museums, 25 Noel Farris, The Wymondleys (1989), 157.
1989), 4. 26 P.R.O., SC6/Hen. VIII/1606, m.11.
24 P.R.O., E 117/12/30. 27 Chauncy, ii, 110.

35
 Nicholas Doggett

south, suggesting that originally it may have been internal,

although like that on the west it may simply have been
rebuilt.

It is, of course, quite possible that the eastern part of the

house had become ruinous by 1731, particularly as the
status of the site appears to have declined during the 17th
century. IfNedeham was prompted to convert the church to
domestic use partly on account of its apparently good
condition, it is unlikely that he would have ignored the
recently rebuilt refectory, especially as its most likely
position -directly opposite the church- would have led to
the adoption of a convenient and fashionable courtyard
plan. If there was a prior's lodging, and it is possible that
the reference to a hall in the 1537 inventory is to the
refectory, this may have been in the west claustral range. It
is likely that, along with the dormitory in the east range,
this would have been converted to lodgings as the church
appears to have served as the hall and parlour of
Nedeham's new house.

Nedeham died in 1544 and it is not possible to tell how

much had been accomplished by his death. This is partly
because, as is so frequently the case, it is extremely
difficult to distinguish between work carried out in the mid-
16th century and that undertaken later in the century, a
problem exacerbated at Wymondley by an insensitive
"restoration" in the 1970s, which destroyed all the 16th-
century windows and many other potentially datable
features. It is therefore not possible to say whether it was
Nedeham or one of his successors who added the short
brick range on the south west of the main range. Other 13. Wymondley Priory, 13th -century lancet window in
elements of the 16th-century house, such as the triple south wall of former church truncated by inserted 16th -
gables on the north front, are more likely to have been century floor. Photograph by N. Doggett, November 1989.
added later and are therefore discussed with other work of
the later 16th century, but we can be ce1tain that, with the
title to the property assured, Nedeham's successors would Of the other former monastic buildings, the barn would
have continued to work on the house. Indeed, even if the have continued in much the same use as before, while it is
physical evidence had survived, it is very doubtful that it impossible to tell whether the dovecote, which must date to
would be possible to differentiate work carried out for between the 1520s and 1550s, was built before or after the
Nedeham before 1544 from that undertaken for his son, suppression, although the absence of any reference to it in
John, after that date, and since the work would seem to the 1537 inventory perhaps tips the balance in favour of the
have been an ongoing process, it is debatable as to whether latter. The evidence for the date of the conduit house is far
this would in any case be particularly informative. from conclusive but points marginally to later in the 16th
century, which means that it is discussed below. It is not
It is difficult to visualise the appearance of the mid-16th- known when the land to the north of the moated platform
century house, but it is worth commenting that N edeham was first called "the Park", the name which it is given on
would probably have gone to some pains to disguise the the 1731 map, but this probably happened in the mid-16th
most obvious ecclesiastical features. Thus, although the century. This area ofland contains the earthworks of house
lancet windows in the south wall of the former nave are at platforms and enclosures, demarcated on the west by ponds
the right level to serve as first-floor doorways to the south- and a hollow-way on the east. It has been suggested that
west range, the ground-floor ceiling cuts across them, and these are the remains of a tenant settlement linked to the
it must be questioned whether they served as such in the priory, 28 which may have been deliberately depopulated by
16th-century house. If they did, it is likely that their 13th- the Nedehams after the Dissolution. Certainly, a fine
century nook-shafts would have been concealed from view. parkland landscape is just the sort of setting the family
(Fig. 13) would have desired for their new house.

28 D.O.E. List of Scheduled Ancient Monuments, National Monument

Number 11,518.

36
 Patterns of Re-use

A large park was one of the key components created by Sir Furthermore, as early as 1538 he had acted as advisor to
Richard Lee at Sopwell, a small Benedictine nunnery just Thomas Wriothesley at Titchfield, one of the earliest and
outside St Albans. The house was dissolved in 1537 and most daring of the first phase of monastic conversions. It
was granted to Lee in December 1538, with confirmation in may simply have been that he was too busy to attend to
1540. The suppression inventory records a "hall, kychen, Sopwell and wished to wait until he had enough time to
churche and quyre", the confirmation grant also referring to devote his energies solely to that project. He also had other
the tower and cemetery of the church. 29 houses, including the former alien priory of Newent in
Gloucestershire. 34
Archaeological excavation has provided evidence for lead
melting at the site and it is likely that this was carried out Lee came from a Hertfordshire family and it may have
as part of the crown's stripping of the site rather than by been partly for this reason that he was particularly keen to
Lee. Lead was the most valuable building material from the make Sopwell a house of the first rank. Although it was not
nunnery, being valued at £40 in the Ministers' Accounts for until the second phase of remodelling, which probably took
1537.30 Much of this lead was re-used for the king's manor place in the late 1560s and 1570s and which is discussed
of The More at nearby Rickmansworth. This was still later, that the old monastic plan was discarded completely,
taking place as late as 1542,31 which suggests either that Lee never appears to have felt constrained by re-using the
the lead was being stored before removal to The More or, fabric of the existing buildings in the construction of his
as was usually the case, the sale to a lay owner of the new house, which, with his experience of building, we can
former monastic property excluded the lead. Other building be confident that he was closely involved in and very
materials were sold in 1538 to John Shreve and Thomas probably provided the design for himself. This perhaps
Maydewell, presumably local men, whose purchases explains why Lee does not appear to have been overly
included the "Tymber worke in the Quyre" for 40s. concerned by the demolitions and dilapidations at Sopwell
Maydewell also bought the "stones in the churche wt the after 1537 and why, although the buildings seem to have
vestery Stuff' for 40s. 32 been in reasonable repair at the time of the Dissolution,
only their ground-plan and perhaps some of the structural
Lee had been bailiff and farmer of the nunnery since 1534 fabric were re-used in the domestic conversion.
and as he does not appear to have participated in the
purchase of materials before he received the grant of the The existing ruins on the site relate to the later 16th-
site, it must be assumed that he was content to see the century house and this makes it difficult to determine the
buildings left as little more than shells. Lee does not seem extent to which any surviving monastic buildings may have
to have been in any hurry to begin work on converting the been re-used in the first phase of domestic conversion.
buildings. Leland is thought to have passed through St However, as the site has been archaeologically excavated,
Albans on his return to London from his north-eastern albeit that the results have not been properly published, it is
itinerary in 1539 and makes no mention of Sopwell. possible to say a little more about this first conversion than
However, as he also gives no description of St Albans would otherwise be the case. Nothing is known from
itself, it would be unwise too read to much into this. In documentary sources about the lay-out of the medieval
1550 Lee was granted the greater part of the abbey nunnery, but the cloister seems to have been situated in the
buildings and there is a persistent tradition that he used usual position to the south of the church. This seems to
materials from there at Sopwell. 33 While this cannot be have been rebuilt no earlier than the 14th century, as the
disproved, it is likely that the remains of the buildings at remains of an unrelated smaller 12th-century church, which
Sopwell would have provided all that was necessary, at continued in use throughout the 13th century, were also
least for the first house which Lee built on the site. uncovered in the excavations. The nave of the later
medieval church and perhaps part of the central tower seem
The most lilrnly date for the commencement of Lee's to have provided the floor-plan for the hall of Lee's first
building activity at Sopwell would seem to have been after house, although the archaeological evidence suggests that
1548 when he withdrew from public life and spent ahnost a the walls themselves were not retained but were rebuilt on
decade of retirement in Hertfordshire. The reasons for this the old foundations. A wide fireplace was built in the north
delay are not clear. Lee's title to the property was secure, wall of the hall, but the excavator does not suggest whether
he was prominent in royal service and he had been this was of one or two storeys, although in a house of this
knighted in 1544, at about which time he became surveyor status by the mid-16th century one would expect the latter.
of the king's works in succession to James Nedeham.
The dimensions of the medieval cloister seem to have been
followed exactly by the courtyard of the Tudor house, but
29 L.P., xii (1), no.571 (l); H.RO., IV. A 1; L.P., xv, no.282 (123);
the walks appear to have been demolished. The east range,
P.RO., E 117/12/30.
30 P.R.O., SC6/Hen. VIll/1606, m.8.
which seems to have had an undercroft on the lower level,
31 Bodi., MS. Rawl. D. 809. was also rebuilt on the old foundations and, although the
32 P.R.O., E 315/361, fols.63-63b.
33 Cal. Pat. R., Ed. VI, iv, 5; John Shrimpton, The Antiquities ofVerulam

and St Albans (c.1610), 78: MS. volume in H.RO., 66,296; D.N.B., xi, 34 John Harvey, English Mediaeval Architects (revd. edn., 1984), 175-7;

811. King's Works, iii, 13-14, iv, 410-11.

37
 Nicholas Doggett

archaeological work was less extensive to the south and his new house of Gorhambury a few miles to the west of
west, this also seems to have applied to the south and west the town. 39
ranges. The puzzle remains, however, as to why, given that
Lee apparently chose to follow the ground-plan of the It is not entirely clear what happened in the first phase of
medieval nunnery so slavishly, he did not re-use more of its domestic re-use at Ashridge. The college of Bonshommes
fabric. Even allowing for ten years or so of demolition, was dissolved in January 1540 and the site was leased to
decay and perhaps plunder by local people, it is hard to John Norrys for 21 years. 40 Nothing is known of Norrys
believe that some walls did not remain standing. The and it seems that he simply farmed the land and was
sweeping away of the first house by the later building responsible for keeping the buildings in good repair, as is
makes it impossible to prove, but one wonders whether the shown in a dispute between him and Robert Emys, the last
first phase of rebuilding was as total as the excavator of the tenant of the former college, in 1540.41 In 1550 the lease
site would have us believe. was revoked and the site was granted to Princess Elizabeth,
who in 1555 leased the site to Richard Combes for another
A series of plaster and stone medallions now at Salisbury 21 years. 42 One reason why the property was leased rather
Hall in the neighbouring parish of Shenley are said to have than sold to either Norrys or Combes may have been that
been purchased by Sir Jeremiah Snow from Sir Harbottle the crown wished to retain ownership of the house but
Grimston, who bought Sopwell in 1669 and who is preferred to make others responsible for its day-to-day
believed to have demolished at least some of its maintenance.
buildings. 35 The medallions are of very fine quality and
depict the busts of Roman emperors and other figures from Henry VIII had visited Ashridge on at least two occasions
classical antiquity. They are almost certainly of English before the Dissolution, once in 1523 when its pleasures
workmanship and would seem to have been expressly were described in verse by the court poet, John Skelton, 43
commissioned for Lee's Sopwell, but even their general and again in 1530 when the king gave 7s 6d to the shrine of
context within the house is unlmown. Their exact date is the "Holy Blood there" and 4s 8d "To Edmonde the
also uncertain. Although their fine quality would seem in footman for so moche by him given in rewards at Ashridge
some ways to be more in keeping with the more lavish to one that made the dogges to draw water", 44 which is
second phase of Sopwell, they are precisely the kind of probably a reference to the use of dogs to lift up water
work associated with the mid-Tudor Renaissance of buckets from the deep monastic well.
Protector Somerset and his circle and were perhaps
ultimately inspired by the very similar terracotta roundels In August 1543 a meeting of the privy council was held at
of the 1520s at Hampton Court. 36 As such, they are useful the house, 45 and at various times all three of the royal
confirmation that even in its first, comparatively modest children lived there. In 1544 a letter from Prince Edward's
phase, Sopwell is likely to have been a house of more than tutor, Dr Richard Cox, complains about living conditions
local significance. This is further reflected by the choice of and in the 1540s and first half of the 1550s Princess
the house as a stopping-place for Elizabeth on a royal Elizabeth spent long periods at the house, 46 its grant to her
progress in 1564.37 The queen's reaction to the house is not in 1550 presumably enabling her to make any further
known, but as her stay was some years before Lee's second changes she saw fit.
phase of remodelling it can be assumed that the house was
of a sufficiently high standard to meet the requirements of Much of the documentary evidence for the buildings at
even this most demanding of visitors. Ashridge comes from later 16th-centmy sources and, as all
of the conventual buildings except a late medieval barn and
Although it is not known when Lee began work on the an early 14th-century undercroft have been swept away by
formal gardens at Sopwell, it is likely that at least some of the Gothic fantasy of Wyatt's early 19th-century mansion,
these were laid out as part of the first phase of operations. it is difficult to reconstruct the appearance of the house
It seems, however, that the boundaries of the large park during the 1540s and '50s.
with which Lee surrounded the house and gardens were not
defined before the first house was complete and it was not
until 1562 that the London Road was diverted around the 39 J.S. Rogers, 'The manor and houses at Gorhambury', Trans. St Albans

park. 38 Large sections of the wall surrounding the park and Herts. Archit. and Arch. Soc., n.s., 4 (1933-5), 41.
40 Knowles (1953), 176; H.J. Todd, The History qf the College of
were made up of moulded stonework and other materials,
Bonhommes of Ashridge (1823), 83.
which probably came from the former nunnery. Further 41 Todd, op. cit., 84-6.
brick and stone in the wall may have come from St Albans 42 Cal. Pat. R., Ed. VI, iii, 238; Todd, op. cit, 31-2; an original copy of

Abbey, this also being precisely the time when Nicholas the lease is kept in the present house.
43 John Skelton, The Garden qf Laurel! (1523): see A Dyce (ed.), The
Bacon was removing building materials from the abbey for
Poetical Works of John Skelton, i (1843), 361-424 and L.J. Lloyd, John
Skelton (1938), 123-30.
35 Mark Girouard, 'Salisbury Hall, Hertfordshire- II', Country L/fe, 126 44 L.P., V, 321, 751.

(29 October, 1959), 711; Pevsner, 322-3; Smith (1993), 157. 45 Cal. S.P. Dom., ix, 489.
36 Simon Thurley, The Royal Palaces of Tudor England (1993), 106-9. 46 B.L., Harl. MS. 6986, fol.15, Lansd. MS. 1236, fol. 39; Portland MS.
37 P.R.O., E 351/3202. IT, Historical Manuscripts Comm., 13th Rep. App., pt.2 (1893), 7;
38 V.C.H, ii, 15,470. Cussans, iii, pt. I, 138.

38
 Patterns of Re-use

It is probable that the relatively recent date of much of the this must therefore also to a large extent reflect its
claustral ranges, a large part of which seems to have been character and appearance during Elizabeth's occupation.
reconstructed in the mid-15th century, meant that the
principal buildings were still in good condition at the The cloister appears to have lain to the north of the church
Dissolution, when Ashridge was the second wealthiest with the early 14th-century refectory in its northern range.
monastic community in Hertfordshire. 47 It therefore seems The undercroft of this survives beneath the dining room
unlikely that there would have been a pressing need to and drawing room on the south (garden) front of the
carry out major alterations to the buildings, which appear existing mansion. The refectory certainly served as the
already to have offered a relatively high standard of great hall of Egerton's house and there is no good reason to
domestic comfort. suppose that this was not also the case in Elizabeth's time.
Indeed, it may have been because the refectory was
A great deal of work was carried out to the house by selected for re-use as the great hall in the first post-
Thomas Egerton after 1604 and probably also by the Dissolution house that it continued to be used for this
Cheyney family, who owned the house from 1575 to 1602. purpose in the house's later phases.
It is essentially this house which is described by Thomas
Baskerville, Browne Willis and other late 17th-century and A long gallery seems to have occupied the upper level of
early 18th-century antiquaries and which also survived to the north and east cloister walks and, although this is a
be recorded by Henry Oldfield and other artists before its feature more often associated with late 16th-century and
demolition in the early 19th century. (Fig. 14) early 17th-century architecture, there are parallels with
other converted monastic buildings of the 1540s to suggest
There is good reason to suppose, however, that whatever that this formed part of the first phase of post-Dissolution
the work carried out later, Ashridge was- in Norden's re-use. 49
words- "a more stately house" when Elizabeth "lodged
(there) as in her owne", 48 and that this statement was not Working back from later documentary evidence like a
entirely the result of sycophancy to the monarch. Much of survey of 1575, an inventory of 1701 and a sale catalogue
the monastic lay-out is recognisable in Egerton's house and of 1800, it appears that there was an entrance hall in the

14. Ashridge, view of cloister walk and detail of angel bosses with armorial shields. Pen and coloured ink drawing
by H.G. Oldfield, c.1800; H.R.O., Oldfield Drawings, III, 189.

47Val. Eccl., iv, 227.

48 John Norden, Speculi Britanniae Pars, The Description qf
Harifordshire (1598), 11-12. 49 As at Lacock and Newstead. See Chapter 4.

39
Random documents with unrelated
content Scribd suggests to you:
below, then from the rude bridge thrown across just a few feet above where
it leaps into the awful gorge. The scenery and all is in character, and for
savage grandeur I have seen nothing to compare with it. Stopped at the
châlet near the only dwelling within some miles; waited a little for the rain
to subside, and finding that even here a traveler’s first wants had been pretty
well provided for, I made an early but most excellent dinner upon bread,
butter, cheese, and honey, the last especially excellent. No signs of better
weather; so started on, passing a spot where falling avalanches every winter
and spring had swept over a vast space of rock and completely worn it
smooth; was now above trees, with here and there a bit of scanty vegetation,
but almost every step to the end was now on rock or snow, and I walked on
to the hospice near the summit in the midst of a snowstorm, one and a half
hours; knowing it could scarcely accumulate sufficiently to obstruct or
obscure entirely the path until I could reach the place of shelter, I enjoyed it
intensely, but had quite enough when, at one o’clock, I reached the hospice
(twenty miles), near the summit of the pass, surrounded with unmelted
snow, more than 6,000 English feet above the sea. It is as comfortable a
place as can be expected in such a situation, now kept as a kind of inn
during the summer, and in winter left in charge of a single servant, with a
store of provisions to last him until spring. The winter before last it was
crushed by an avalanche, but the man and his dog escaped, and reached
Meyringen in safety. It is now repaired; the stone walls are extremely thick,
the roof protected against the winds, as is usual here, by laying huge stones
upon it. Laid aside part of my wet clothes, and lay down before the fire to
dry the remainder; fell asleep; on waking had just begun to write, but when
I had given the heading, in came three more travelers: two Germans, whom
I had met before at Grindelwald, and a young Englishman; all thoroughly
wet with the storm, which was now more violent. We all had to huddle
about the fire, so there was an end of writing.
 Awoke Sunday morning and found myself in mid-winter; very cold,
snowing hard, and the wind howling frightfully around our humble but snug
place of refuge. The other travelers determined to prosecute their journey,
spite of the Sabbath or the storm, and to go by way of the glacier of the
Rhone, the other side of the summit of the pass and about four miles distant.
They sallied out with their guide and left me to myself, which was one
advantage. But in three hours they returned, giving an alarming account of
the difficulties and dangers of the way. When just abandoning the attempt
they heard a cry for help, and succeeded in rescuing another party of three
with their guide, who had lost their way in the thick mist and storm and
were wandering about in the drifts, suffering extremely with the cold, and
who, as well as their guide, had given up all hope of reaching the hospice
unless their cries should perchance be heard and bring them aid. All
returned to the hospice together, and no further attempts to leave it were
made that day. When left alone I had the fire to myself, and was spending
the time in as profitable a manner as possible, thinking a little, too, of the
strangeness of passing the day in such an elevated position; so their return,
with an accession to their company, though very desirable for them, was not
so favorable to me. And then of all people in the world the Germans are the
noisiest talkers; Frenchmen are nothing to them; the fire which dried their
clothes and warmed their fingers loosened their tongues, and they kept up a
continual gabble for the greater part of the day. Scarcely a winter passes that
some persons are not lost in this pass during such storms. A gloomy lake on
the summit of the mountain, into which the bodies are thrown for burial,
receives the name of “The Lake of the Dead” (Todten-See).
Monday morning, still enveloped in the clouds, but the storm apparently
over. Found it no use trying to make a visit to the Rhone glacier; the clouds
were so thick we could scarcely hope to find it, and the recent snow so deep
nothing could be seen. Was disappointed also by these same clouds in
getting a view of the high Bernese Alps, particularly Finster-Aarhorn and
the glaciers, from this side, but determined not to wait here longer; so set
off at half past ten in company with a native of Valais, who was traveling
towards home and served as guide; traveled through deep snow, climbed up
to the summit of the pass, more than a thousand feet higher, where at first
we were so completely enveloped in the clouds that we seemed actually to
be traveling through them and on them; dug a specimen or two of
Soldanella out of the snow to serve as souvenirs. At length the wind arose
and now and then sent a hole in the clouds to give me some glimpses of the
desolate yet grand scenery through which we were passing. Soon I got a
view of the valley of the Rhone almost at its commencement, with the river
flowing through like a mere rivulet; looked down upon Oberwald, the
highest village in Valais, a collection of little châlets all huddled together as
if to keep themselves warm,—as indeed they have need; got out of winter
and snow and into the valley at the little village of Obergesteln, and walked,
on the same day, through a quick succession of most retired little Swiss
villages of the humblest sort, to Brieg, on the Simplon road, near the
mountain of that name, which I reached at nine o’clock in the evening,
making a journey of forty miles, a portion through the snow, in ten hours
and a half. I would like to tell you much about the upper Valais, a region
seldom visited by travelers, but have not time; people kind and simple; got
nothing to eat on the way except hard and dry brown bread, that may have
been baked ten days; passed the villages where avalanches had fallen in
former years and crushed many people; the scenery much more picturesque
than I expected, but was most interested in the people and their little
villages; women mowing, reaping, and doing every sort of the hardest
labor; all awfully afflicted with goitre, scarce a person wholly free from it;
actually saw one woman with a goitre not quite as large as her own head
certainly, but about the size of that of the child she held in her arms,
apparently a year old; saw one cretin. Stopped a few moments at the
principal auberge in the village of Viesch; found the priest with two of his
parishioners playing a game of cards together. A stranger being a curiosity
in that region, one person accosted me very politely, and took me up the
valley a little way to see the glacier and mountains. Reached Brieg utterly
worn out, but got a good supper and bed; this being just where the famous
Simplon road commences the ascent of the mountains, there are many
travelers and a good hotel, though dear.
Rose Tuesday morning at four o’clock; my feet and legs very stiff and
sore; thought of going up the Simplon road into the mountains to see some
of the galleries and bridges and get fine views, but the morning was cloudy
and I did not like to lose the time; started off down the valley, but got on
slowly and very painfully; however, walked as far as Lenk, I believe about
twenty-four miles, and there hired a char, which took me on to Siou, the
capital of the canton, about twenty-two miles further, where I slept.
 Wednesday, rose at four, and feeling pretty stout, I started off at five on
foot, and though certainly in very far from the best condition for walking,
went on to Martigny to breakfast, which place I reached at half past ten,
twenty-four miles according to the guide-book, but the latter part was very
painful. From this place one may go to the Hospice of St. Bernard in ten
hours. I would have been glad to have seen so famous a place, but as to
scenery it is decidedly inferior to much I had already seen. One may go to
Chamouni in nine hours, getting the superb view of Mont Blanc from the
summit of Col de Balme on the way. Thinking it impossible to walk farther,
I hired a mule, and a person with him, and went up to the top of Col de
Balme (five hours), passing the vale and glacier of Trient. Reached the
summit at four o’clock; enjoyed a fine view of Mont Blanc and its attendant
peaks from top to bottom, or rather at top and bottom, for there was a belt
of cloud about the middle,—a most superb and complete view, Mer de
Glace and all.
Quite satisfied without going to Chamouni, so returned to Martigny at
eight P.M.; another good day’s work, particularly as I walked both up and
down the worst part of the road, being merciful to the beast. On my descent
obtained a splendid view of the Bernese Alps. Much aroused at looking
over the register at the hotel, where the travelers expressed their opinions of
the different hotels on the road, praising some, and speaking of others in
terms of great reprobation; good plan. I think if the proprietor of the hotel at
Sion (a very dirty hotel) could read all that is written in his own book he
would burn it.... Lay down and slept till midnight.
Thursday, took diligence at one o’clock A.M. for Villeneuve; saw the falls
of the Sallanches by moonlight; arrived at Villeneuve at half past seven, just
after the morning steamboat had left for Geneva; am confident we were
delayed on purpose, to induce us to go on in the diligence instead of the
next boat. For myself I did not mind waiting till one o’clock, that I might
make myself look a little decent, though I had not the means here of
improving my appearance much; as to my boots, and indeed all my
habiliments, they were much in the condition of those of the Gibeonites
when they made their visit to Joshua. Wrote a little, went out to take a look
at the Castle of Chillon, which is near,—the building itself not remarkable,
but the situation fine....
Took the steamboat in the afternoon; passed Vevay, Lausanne, etc., etc.,
and after traversing the whole length of this much-admired, most beautiful
lake, arrived at Geneva, just at sunset; having accomplished my pedestrian
tour (long to be remembered) in ten days (excluding the Sunday)....
Geneva, 19th July.
My mornings, between eleven and four, have been constantly and fully
occupied at De Candolle’s. Earlier in the morning I have spent much time
with Mr. Duby,[110] a botanist and clergyman,—one of the government
pastors here, and it is said almost the only one who is a pious man. I have
yet to pack up a box of my gatherings and to send to the roulage to be
forwarded to New York. I have taken lodgings, for my short stay here, with
the Wolff family, very pious and excellent people, who are pretty well
known to many persons of the same class in New York. One of the
daughters is the wife of Dr. Buck,[111] and I believe your dear mother is
acquainted with her. After dinner I have sometimes made little excursions in
the neighborhood; once or twice I have been accompanied by Madame
Wolff and the two daughters. They are very fond of walking, and often
make long excursions on foot. The two daughters walk as fast as I can, and
in fact one of them nearly tired me down the other day, when we were
hurrying in order to watch the effect of the setting sun on Mont Blanc. I
have taken quite a fancy to this river, the Rhone. I made my acquaintance
with it when it was but a babbling brook; I have trudged along with it for
many a mile, until it grew to a headstrong stream, and became so turbulent
and muddy that it was obliged to jump into the lake to wash itself clean, and
when it leaves the lake it is as clear as crystal,—emerald, I should say, for it
is about that color. A few months ago I saw the same river in its old age, just
falling into the ocean. Walked back along the shore of the lake; reached the
house just in time to join in the evening worship,—a sweet hymn was sung
(in French), one of the young ladies leading with the piano and all joining
with their voices, and hearts, too, I doubt not; and then the venerable old
man read a chapter, which I could understand very well, and closed with a
simple and fervent prayer. You cannot know yourself how pleasant it is,
after being jolted about in the rude world for months, to get again with a
pious family. The house is just without the town, surrounded with a large
garden and fine trees and shrubbery, and all very pleasant. Some days after,
we made another excursion to visit their pastor. He was not at home, so I
missed him, but saw his pretty garden. On the two Sundays I have heard
one of the pastors of the Evangelical Society preach in the morning, and the
clergyman of the English chapel in the afternoon. I have also had the
satisfaction of seeing Mr. Malan, who, when he called here the other day,
was so good as to hold a long and edifying religions conversation with me.
He is a very apostle in appearance, and in conversation. Indeed, I have been
thrown here into the midst of religious society of a high tone and of great
sweetness and simplicity. I hope I have received some benefit from it. As I
leave here I shall lose all this and shall see nothing more like it until I get
home again....

TO GEORGE P. PUTNAM.

Bâle, July 23d.

... I left on Saturday morning for Lausanne and Freiburg, where I heard
the big organ on Sunday; came on in the night to Berne, and yesterday to
this place over the Jura. I wished here to see Professor Meisner, but found
out this morning, some hours after the steamboat had left, that he was
absent on a journey. I was a great fool for not finding that out last night, in
which case I should now have been below Strasburg,—and this evening at
Mannheim. As it is, I can’t wait here till Thursday morning for the next
boat, and shall leave this evening for Schaffhausen and Tübingen, and
thence push on, the best way I can, for Dresden and Leipsic. I do not lose a
moment of time. Do not be surprised if I drop in upon you about the 4th or
5th of September. I would like to sail for home the latter part of that month.
In early winter we will hope to give you an entire volume of “Flora,” and
see what you can do with it. I have blocked out, in my mind, scientific labor
enough for several years to come, and several works some of which will be
good in a publisher’s acceptance of the term; others, I dare say, not. As
Murray’s fame is derived from Byron, so shall you be immortalized and
known to all posterity as the publisher of the celebrated Dr. Gray!!!
We have not much time to lose, and on my arrival at London I shall be
wonderfully busy. I hope you will have picked up a great quantity of books
for me by that time. My future credit and comfort will very much depend
upon my bringing home an immense quantity of books for my money....
When I was in England I could scarcely hold up my head as a Yankee
should—what with our border wars and domestic quarrels. But now I feel
greatly relieved. The recent “Birmingham affair” and several other things
fortunately (?) give me “wherewith to answer them that are of the contrary
part.” Let them shut their mouths now! You know my address at Berlin, or
you may address poste restante if you will. I think I shall be there till about
the 25th August. I shall stop a few days at Hamburg. I think I may say that I
shall not go up to Rostock. You will perhaps be receiving some letters for
me, which, now you know my movements, you will act according to
discretion either in forwarding to me or in retaining.
I have bought scarcely any books since I left Paris. I have had some
good ones given me.
Excuse this hurried epistle. I have precious little time, and I find I am
growing more and more slovenly every day. Adieu.
Most truly yours,
A. Gray.

TO GEORGE BENTHAM.

... Arrived at Geneva by way of Villeneuve and the Lake. De Candolle

and Alphonse had returned only three days previous to my arrival. They
received me very cordially, and I went through the herbarium as far as the
“Prodromus” is prepared.
From Geneva I went to Lausanne and Freiburg; ... thence to Berne,
where I made no stay; thence to Bâle, to Schaffhausen, to Tübingen, where
I spent the morning with Mohl;[112] reached Stuttgart toward evening and
Heidelberg the next morning. Frankfort in the evening; took the eilwagen
the same night for Leipsic; saw Pöppig,[113] Schwägrichen,[114] etc.;
railroad to Dresden; saw Reichenbach[115] for a few moments, as he went
into the country the same day; visited the picture-gallery, which deserves to
be called the richest out of Italy; returned to Leipsic; to Halle; passed a day
or two with Schlechtendal;[116] saw the Carices in the herbarium of
Schkuhr;[117] Potsdam, Sans-Souci, the marble palace, the beautiful statue
of the late queen of Prussia by Rauch (the second and best one); and thence
to Berlin, where I remained nearly a month; saw the botanists, etc.

TO WILLIAM J. HOOKER.

London, September 13.

 My dear Friend,—The “penny postage system” not being yet in
operation, I embrace an opportunity that offers to send you a line in
Pamphlin’s parcels. I am again in London, you see; indeed I have been here
about a week. But it is only to-day that I have had intelligence of your
return to Scotland. I had some hopes that I should find you in London on
my arrival, or that you would return here from Chatham, and that I should
have the gratification of seeing you once more. I received your welcome
letter of August 14th, at Berlin, for which I thank you much. I wish my
friends at home were half as prompt correspondents. While on the
Continent I have received precious few letters.
I have been much interested at Berlin, and worked hard. The herbarium
of Willdenow is larger and in better condition than I supposed, and the
general herbarium is very interesting and rich. Klotzsch[118] is very
industrious, and has got the whole collection in much better order than most
of the herbaria on the Continent. I am under great obligations to Dr.
Klotzsch, who not only afforded me every facility at the Herbarium, but
most cheerfully aided me in every possible way, and during a transient
illness (for I was confined to my room for a week or so, and to my bed for a
few days) he procured for me the best medical advice, and took a great deal
of trouble on my account.
I lost some time by this, but fortunately I had nearly finished my work at
the Herbarium, and afterwards I had a few days to finish, and to look at
Kunth’s[119] herbarium, with which I was rather disappointed. Kunth was
extremely polite and attentive to me. He is at work upon the third volume of
his “Enumeratio,” but I fear it will not be very well done. I saw
Ehrenberg[120] frequently, and Link[121] once or twice, but nearly all my
time was spent at Schönberg, where the Botanic Garden and Herbarium are
situated, which is nearly a half hour’s ride from the city. The garden is
much the finest in Germany, and the government annually expends very
large sums upon it. The building exclusively devoted to the herbarium is
very commodious, though Klotzsch begins to complain that he has not
sufficient room. It is so far from town that there are no loungers there, and
one may study perfectly undisturbed. I brought a few things for you from
Klotzsch and Link, which Pamphlin is to send to-morrow.
Having lost some time by illness I did not go to Rostock, a most out-of-
the-world place, although I suppose I shall hereafter regret that I did not see
Lamarck’s herbarium.
I spent several days at Hamburg, saw Lehmann, his herbarium, and the
botanic garden; and took steamboat for London. Since my return I have
been busily occupied in the city, completing some purchases for the
Michigan University, and shall be mostly thus employed during the
remainder of my stay....
19th September.—I saw Dr. Richardson the day before yesterday, who
informed me that the Erebus was still lying at Chatham, and (what I was not
aware of) that I could reach Chatham in three or four hours. So I arranged at
once to go down and see Joseph before he started, but the next day I learned
that the vessels had dropped down from that port.
I expect to sail in the Toronto from Portsmouth on the 1st October.... I
have yet very much to do. Yesterday I dined with Dr. Lindley and visited
the Garden. One wing of the conservatory is erected and nearly covered
with glass. It is entirely glass and iron, about 130 feet long, and will be very
fine.... Believe me, my very dear friend, most truly yours,
A. Gray.
New York, 5th November, 1839.
My dear Father,—Through the favors of a kind Providence, my
journey is safely brought to a close. I am happy to inform you that I reached
New York last evening in the ship Toronto, after a passage of thirty-five
days. I left London on the last of September, and Portsmouth on the 1st ult.
The steamship Great Western, which left on the 19th of last month, reached
New York two days before us! Our voyage was a rather pleasant one,
although we had nearly forty passengers. It was rather rough, but no very
hard gales. I was sea-sick but a single day, and then but slightly. I have
brought with me nearly the full amount of my purchases of books for the
Michigan library, a large collection. I am waiting to hear from Detroit to
know whether it will be necessary for me to go up there this fall. I hope I
shall not be obliged to make this journey until spring. I shall not come up to
see you until I hear from Michigan, when I can take Sauquoit in my way if
it be necessary to go to Michigan. I am now busy in getting my boxes and
parcels through the custom-house, which is a tedious business. I hope I
shall be allowed to remain here during the winter, as I have a great deal to
do here.
 I find here a letter from my friend Dana, of the Exploring Expedition,
dated Valparaiso. He seems not very well satisfied with his situation. I have
not heard from any of you for a full year. Perhaps one of my sisters will
favor me with a letter now that I am so near. Love to all.
 CHAPTER IV.

A DECADE OF WORK AT HOME.

1840-1850.

On Dr. Gray’s return from Europe, the University of Michigan not yet
needing his services, he settled in New York to work on the “Flora of North
America.”[122]
In 1841 he made his first journey to the mountains of North Carolina, of
which he wrote an account in the “American Journal of Science” in the
form of a letter to Sir William Hooker.
The country west of the Mississippi was just now opened to exploration,
and for some years continued to afford an immense amount of new material
to the botanist. Dr. Gray, and his friends Dr. Torrey and Dr. Engelmann
especially, interested themselves in sending collectors with the various
expeditious, explorations, boundary surveys, etc., and were kept very hard
at work in studying and distributing the several collections as they came in.
The difficulties of communication were great, postage was very dear, and
the post-office rule that sheets, no matter of what size, could be sent as one
letter, while the addition of any separate inclosure was utterly forbidden,
added difficulties almost insurmountable to the transmission of any
specimen. Even as late as 1850 the large parcels from St. Louis were sent
by steamboat to New Orleans and then by sailing vessel to New York or
Boston.
Foreign communication was not much better, as Dr. Gray writes to Sir
William Hooker in March, 1840: “I have been waiting during the winter to
write by some of the steamships, but they have disappointed us, and, though
long expected, none reached us until the arrival of the Great Western a week
or more since, which brought us fifty-six days’ later intelligence from
Europe.”

TO W. J. HOOKER.
 New York, May 30, 1840.
I have been tolerably industrious for some years, but have never labored
as I have done this winter and spring. But I look now for a little respite,
which I greatly need. I have this afternoon written the description of the last
plant we have to give in the 1st volume of the “Flora” (a new
cucurbitaceous genus, of which more anon); have prepared the last sheet for
the press,—that is, of the work proper, which reaches to page 656 instead of
550, as intended; and have before me proofs of the supplement extending to
page 672; what is yet to come will make up the volume to 720 pages! It has
extended beyond all calculations or bounds, but we could not stop short. I
hope to have done with the proofs early next week, when I expect to go
immediately into the country and recruit for three or four weeks, for I am
quite fagged out. Except, however, mere fatigue and the usual consequences
of loss of rest, I was never, perhaps, more perfectly in health, and a
fortnight or so of botanizing will restore my strength. You kindly inquire
about my plans and prospects. These are so far favorable that they will give
me (D. V.) another year of nearly undivided attention to the “Flora.” Not
long since I was officially informed that the opening of our university
would be postponed another year, on account of unfavorable times, and the
preparations not being sufficiently advanced. So I am told that I can have
my time nearly all to myself until next spring (1841) if I wish (which of
course I do), but without any salary, which, indeed, I could not with any
propriety take while I perform no duty. By very close economy I think I
shall get on for the year to come, and be able to accomplish a good deal of
botanical work. I am going to pay the Michigan people a visit, and if they
make good their promises made to me a year ago, as I have reason to think
they will, their course towards me will have been liberal and honorable. I
have good reason to hope they will eventually succeed in their plans.
By the London packet of the 15th of June we hope to send you and other
friends some copies of the “Flora,” parts 3 and 4. There are so many errors,
so much bad printing, and so many things that we could now do much
better, that I regret that any portion was published before my visit to
Europe. Many of the most important corrections are given with additions,
etc., in a supplement, but I hope we shall continue to improve as we go on.
We can work to much greater advantage than before, from being much
better supplied with books, as well as with specimens and information. Yet
often do I wish to be within reach of your herbarium and library. Long
accustomed to these advantages, you can scarcely appreciate the difficulties
we often find. I was to-day wishing for a look at your Cucurbitaceæ; we
have, as you know, but few of the order.
I shall not be able to visit Florida or any part of the Southern States this
summer; indeed, I fear I shall be debarred from any botanical journeys for
some years. I must direct all my time and strength to our “Flora.” I hope we
may complete another volume by the spring of next year. The way seems to
be opening for increased facilities in sending a botanical collector to the
Rocky Mountains. Our government is about to establish a line of military
outposts quite up to the source of the Platte, in the principal pass of the
mountains; and in a few years I doubt not we shall have small colonies in
Oregon; but I know not when we shall be able to send a collector. I would
like vastly to go after Grayia myself, but that cannot be at present. Nuttall
has been giving a course of botanical lectures in Boston; and still remains
there, I believe. My attempts to find Wilson’s poem have not yet been
successful. I shall esteem it a piece of good fortune if I succeed. I have
engaged a friend of mine, a bookseller, also to search for it; and when I visit
Philadelphia I shall inquire of some old people who knew Wilson. May God
bless you, my dear friend; kindest, regards and affectionate sympathies to
Lady Hooker.
Faithfully your attached,

A. Gray.

TO ALPHONSE DE CANDOLLE.

New York, September 15, 1840.

My dear Friend.... I had not forgotten our conversation on the subject
of geographical botany. On my return I found I had a copy, a mere proof, of
the little article I spoke of, and was about to offer it to you, but on
examination it appeared to me much less important than I had supposed and
perhaps led you to expect. But as it may be of some little use, I now beg
you to accept it. I have added, here and there, the scientific names when the
popular names only were mentioned.
The question you suggest as to the effect of the destruction of the forests
on the climate is very interesting, and I think still unanswered. I fear it will
be next to impossible to obtain data, even in this country, for its satisfactory
determination. There are very few thermometrical observations on record of
sufficient extent or exactness, except for the last eight or ten years. For a
year or two I shall not be able to pay any attention to these subjects except
to collect materials. But I am very desirous to afford you any aid in my
power, and will attend to any suggestions you make, obtain any data which
come in my way, or secure the services of our botanical correspondents
scattered throughout our extended country. Pray tell me how I can aid you.
The annual reports of the regents of the University of the State of New York
are documents submitted annually to our legislature, and printed at their
expense for public use. They relate chiefly to the condition of our colleges
and higher schools, but for six or perhaps nine years past have also
embodied the results of the meteorological observations made throughout
the State under their instructions. The “Reports” are not on sale, and the
earlier numbers are not to be obtained except by some lucky chance....
The 3d and 4th parts of our “Flora,” of which you speak so favorably,
were sent to you through Baron Delessert, as I have already apprised you.
By the time this work is completed we shall have settled somewhat
accurately the geographical range of our plants, and have laid a good
foundation for the comparison of our flora with that of other regions, etc.
We shall soon begin to print the “Compositæ,” and I trust in early spring we
may see the second volume nearly or quite completed. Pray send me
sometimes loose sheets of your articles or notices (those of your father and
yourself) in the “Bibliothèque Universelle.” I will sometimes translate
them, if you do not object, or otherwise notice them, for the “American
Journal of Science and Arts.”

TO W. J. HOOKER.

New York, 15th January, 1841.

The dedication of the “Flora” we felt to be both a privilege and a duty;
its favorable reception on your part gives us real pleasure.
I hope I have not offended Link by overstating his age. I am pretty sure I
was so informed by Klotzsch who ought to know. You will now and then
see some little articles or notices of mine in “Silliman’s Journal.” I prepare
these notices merely to awaken and deepen the interest of our scattered
botanists and lovers of plants, most of whom see that journal, and few of
whom have any other means of knowing what is going on in the botanical
world. We have, however, a few promising fellows who take the “Journal of
Botany” or something of the kind. Should I have anything to communicate
of interest to any other than our local botanists, I shall publish of course
under my own name. You will receive with this a little notice of some
European herbaria, which, commonplace as it must be on your side of the
water, is useful to our own people. I have been as brief as I could, and have
taken the pains to drop the first person singular. I am not sure but I have
already sent you a copy through Mr. Pamphlin. Poor Rafinesque,[123] you
know, perhaps, is dead; and I have attempted the somewhat ungracious task
of giving some account of his botanical writings, which I will send you
when printed.
I find that Townsend, Nuttall’s companion, published, while I was
abroad, an account of their journey. I have never seen a copy, and am told it
is out of print; but I must try to find a copy for you. Townsend being poor,
Nuttall waived his intention of publishing in his favor. I have heard that
Townsend wishes to make a journey as collector of birds, plants, etc. I wish
he would go to the southern Rocky Mountains, and trace them into New
Spain. Nuttall has brought home the Grayia. Have you ever received any
more of Nuttall’s plants, or has Boott? He is selling them to different
persons for ten dollars per hundred; just such specimens as you received
through Boott, or sometimes much better and more copious ones. I have
some of his Compositæ in my hands, which Webb has ordered. He has a
considerable number of Oregon and Californian Compositæ which Douglas
did not get (and he failed to meet with many of Douglas’s), and others in
the States; as Pyrrocoma with rays. Nuttall ought to send all these to you....
I know with considerable accuracy what plants (Compositæ) are desiderata
with you; and I will take the liberty of writing at once to Nuttall, and asking
for such in your name. I shall ask for about one hundred Compositæ, and
will extend the order to other plants if you desire it. He has, however,
distributed nothing beyond Compositæ. Pray let me know at once if I have
done rightly in this....
Among Drummond’s Louisiana plants is the rarest of all United States
Compositæ, Stokesia cyanea. It was pointed out to me by Arnott (January,
1839), but I have just examined Greene’s specimens.
A. G.
 New York, 20th May, 1841.
I have diligently labored about four months at Aster, in which, as I have
after all not satisfied myself, I can scarcely hope to satisfy others; but I do
think I have laid a foundation for the student of the species in their wild
state. We had very copious materials, but could have done little in
comparison without the aid of your collection, for which we cannot be too
grateful. I am now occupied with Solidago, which is difficult enough, no
doubt but not to be compared with Aster in this respect, partly because there
are fewer species, and the synonymy much less involved, but chiefly
because there are few in cultivation.
We rejoice to hear that Joseph and the Antarctic Expedition are getting
on so well....
No further tidings of the steamship President! We have not until now
surrendered all hope. One of the passengers, a stranger to me, but an
acquaintance of a friend of mine, had charge of a small parcel for you,
consisting chiefly of proof sheets.
October 15, 1841.
I will send by the next London packet (Quebec) and write more at
leisure. I have to-day sent on board that ship a box for Pamphlin, containing
a parcel of plants for you (all of any consequence of my small Carolina
collection with some others). Few as they are, I trust it will give me a
pleasure I seldom can enjoy—that of adding something to your herbarium.
Mr. Brydges takes also for you the proofs of a gossiping article on the
botany of the southern Alleghanies, etc., which I have taken the liberty to
address to you, and hope it will meet your approval. I shall send you clean
copies, as soon as they are printed. The article will not appear here until the
1st of January. I send you also some ripe seeds of Diphylleia for your
garden. I have live roots in the care of a cultivator. If they live shall send
you one in the spring....
I must not forget to mention that my package also comprises a set of
Ohio Mosses from my friend Sullivant, of whom I have often spoken, and
of whom as a botanist we have high hopes, as he has an independence (for
this country), talent, and much zeal. If not too much trouble, I join with him
in requesting you to name them according to the numbers, by which you
will do him great service, as he designs to study and collect American
Musci especially.
 TO GEORGE ENGELMANN.

New York, November 30, 1841.

Dear Doctor,—Don’t hesitate about sending me anything for fear I
may already have it. Very many plants pass through my hands while I am
describing, but my own herbarium is not very rich; and duplicates will not
oppress me. Mr. Carey does not keep European plants except those
identical, or supposed identical, with North American species. Browne,
however, does, and I dare say would be glad to have any you can give him.
They are the gentlemen mentioned in the “Flora.” ...
Eupatorium Engelmannianum, sp. nov. Am. Bor., semina misit
Engelmann. Can this be it, think you? If so pray help me to it; and to
anything else you can, as I mean to give addenda et corrigenda to the
Compositæ at the end of the order, if I ever get through this formidable job.
No wonder seven years’ labor at them ruined De Candolle’s health. You
know he is dead? He died the 9th or 10th of September last....
I send you my article in the January number of “Silliman’s Journal” with
a little one by Sullivant,—by mail. I am extremely busy this winter, but I
hope always to answer your letters promptly, and to attend to your desires
as well as I can, whence I beg you to continue your useful correspondence.
March 30, 1842.
It is not a great while since I got all the copy ready for the number of the
“Flora” now printing,—during which I could do little else. Immediately this
was done I completed an arrangement with my publishers for preparing a
handsomely got up Introduction or Text-Book of Botany, for schools,
lectures, private students (medical, etc.), which must be out on the 1st of
May next. Owing to illness I have as yet written almost nothing, and
besides have to superintend all the drawings, as they must be made by a
person unacquainted with botany; and at the same time I have to correct the
proofs of about thirteen sheets yet of the “Flora,” so that I am almost
distracted when I think how I am to accomplish it here, where I have to see
personally to almost every detail. But I must do it, as I hope to lay the
foundation for a popular and—what is of consequence to me—a profitable
work.

TO W. J. HOOKER.
 New York, 30th March, 1842.
The last steamship left Boston so soon after I received your kind letter
that I was unable to answer it by that conveyance. I intended to send this by
the Columbia steamer of the 2d prox.; but I learn that having broken her
shaft in the outward voyage she is to sail back to England; when it comes to
canvas I have more confidence in our old liners, and therefore send by New
York packet.
Have you not seen or heard of Nuttall yet? He sailed for England on
Christmas last, to take possession of property left him by some deceased
relatives.
I should not feel a residence in Michigan as a banishment. I am fond of a
country life. But at present I see almost no hopes of usefulness there. Like
all our new, and some of our old States, they have squandered the means
they once possessed and encumbered themselves almost irretrievably with
debt. On my return from Europe in the autumn of 1839, I received a letter
stating that they had nothing yet for me to do, and permitting me to spend
the winter in New York. In the spring of 1840, a committee of the regents
wrote to me, to relinquish the provisional salary (of fifteen hundred dollars,
on which I had been placed) for one year from that date, they relinquishing
my services for that period and allowing me to devote my time to the
“Flora,” etc. I at once accepted their proposal; but although another year has
now elapsed since the expiration of the period to which they proposed to
limit this agreement, not a word have I heard officially or unofficially from
Michigan. I have quietly awaited the result, ready at any moment to obey
their call; but having no income for the last two years, I have been greatly
embarrassed, and have struggled through great difficulties, I scarcely know
how. Notwithstanding, I have thought until recently that I ought not to seek
any other situation. I shall now write to Michigan immediately, inquiring
whether, in their present condition, they are ready to fulfill their
engagements with me, or whether they would prefer to accept my
resignation, which I shall offer. I expect, and on the whole hope, they will
accept it.
In December, or nearly the 1st of January last, a friend of mine here, who
had some casual conversation with the President of Harvard University,
wished me to let my name be known as a candidate for the vacant chair of
natural history there. After reflecting for a week or two, I wrote to B. D.
Greene[124] for some information on the subject, saying that, if freed from
other engagements, I would like the botanical part of the professorship, but
not the zoölogy: and that the former, with the charge and the renovation of
the Botanic Garden, would be quite enough for one.
In January I made a flying visit to Boston, where I had never been, and
knew no one personally but Greene, to whom, and to Professor Bigelow,
[125] I expressed my views; but we none of us expected that anything would
be done at present. I incidentally learned, however, not long since, that the
men of science would generally be well pleased to have me at Boston, and
that some with whom I had almost no acquaintance were using their
influence to that end. I was never more surprised, however, than this very
evening, when I received from President Quincy an official letter, offering
me the professorship provisionally, with a small salary, to be sure, for the
present, but with only the duties of the botanical portion.
The president states that the endowment is $30,000, yielding an income
of $1,500, which, however, not being adequate to constitute a full
professor’s salary on a permanent foundation, the corporation deem it both
their duty and the interest of the professorship to continue for a few years,
in a modified form, the policy they have hitherto pursued, and by applying
one third of the income annually to the augmentation of the capital, enable
themselves to place the professor of natural history, at no distant period, on
an equal footing with the other professors of the university. “To this end
they propose to limit your duties, in case you are willing to accept the
professorship, to instruction and lecturing in botany, and to the
superintendence generally of the Botanic Garden (which they wish to
renovate); limiting for the present your annual salary to one thousand
dollars;” thus enabling me, as the communication proceeds to say, to devote
all my time at present to my favorite pursuit, and to go on with the labors I
have in hand. I have reason to hope, also, that by the time they are ready to
give me the full salary, the zoölogical part will be separated from the
professorship, with a distinct endowment. The Botanic Garden has an
endowment of $20,000. If I should take this place, I should hope to see it
better endowed before long, and should immediately set about the
introduction of all the hardy trees and shrubs,—and indeed to enrich it as
fast as possible with all the American and other plants that could be
procured. In that case, separated from yourself by only fourteen to eighteen
days’ navigation, I could hope to be a useful correspondent to you at Kew,
and to show my gratitude for your continued kindness to me. I must here
conclude, by stating that the president’s letter to me is to be deemed
confidential, in case I do not accept the offer. I must therefore beg you to
consider this letter likewise confidential, until you hear further from me,
which you may expect to do as soon as anything is settled in regard to this
matter. I am the less reluctant to leave New York since our good friend Dr.
Torrey is at Princeton, New Jersey (only four hours from New York),
renting his house in town, where for the present he will only remain during
the winter. We have worked so long together that I shall feel the separation
greatly.
New York, 30th May, 1842.
I have the pleasure to inform you that having accepted the offer from
Harvard University of which I apprised you in my letter of April 1, I was
appointed to the professorship on the 30th of April last. The incessant
occupation of this month has prevented me from writing to you sooner, and
still prevents me sending anything beyond this hasty note. I hope in a week
or so to have my new text-book finished, when I shall visit Cambridge to
make the necessary arrangements for my removal thither. I hope hereafter
to be a useful correspondent to you, in the way of supplying you with seeds
and living plants of our own country, and when I see what can be done with
our Garden I shall probably ask you to aid us. I wish to visit the mountains
of Carolina again, in autumn, to procure roots and seeds....

In the spring of 1842, as his last letter intimated, Dr. Gray was appointed
to the Fisher professorship of natural history in Harvard College. He was
then thirty-one years old. He removed to Cambridge in July, taking lodgings
near the colleges at Deacon Munroe’s, on what is now James Street.
Before Dr. Gray came to Cambridge he had been elected into the
American Academy (November 10, 1841). He threw himself with the
greatest interest into its work. Scarcely any winter storm kept him from its
meetings; all other engagements had to give way. And when new life began
in its publications, many of his most important papers appeared in its
volumes.
He was also influential in establishing a scientific club consisting of
members of the college faculty and
other friends in Cambridge. Of this, too, he was a most faithful member.
The club met twice a month at the houses of the different members in turn,
and the one at whose house it met was expected to bring forward some
subject, generally from his specialty, which later was discussed and
criticised. Many of the new interests in science were here first presented by
Dr. Gray.
Among the founders and early members were, Charles Beck, Francis
Bowen, Admiral Davis, Epes S. Dixwell, Edward Everett, President Felton,
Asa Gray, Simon Greenleaf, Thaddeus Mason Harris, Joseph Lovering,
Benjamin Peirce, Josiah Quincy, Jared Sparks, Daniel Treadwell, James
Walker, Joseph E. Worcester, the lexicographer, and Morrill Wyman, M. D.
Later, among those no longer living, were added at different times Louis
Agassiz, Thomas Hill, Joel Parker, Emory Washburn, and Joseph Winlock.
The club is still in existence.

TO JOHN TORREY.

Boston, Monday, 25th July, 1842.

My dear Doctor,—Having time before the mail closes to write a
harried letter, I hasten to let you know that I have this morning secured
lodgings at Cambridge, at a retired house, off the main road, about halfway
between the colleges and the Garden. For $3.00 per week, I have two
rooms, one pretty large, one moderate (of which I shall make a bedroom), a
small nearly dark bedroom which I shall shelve and use for my herbarium,
and three closets, furnished decently (but not extravagantly!!), in a house
where there can at most be only one other lodger, and he must ascend by a
different staircase from mine,—the rooms and bed linen, etc., to be kept in
order.
I am to board at an adjacent house, to which I have access by a private
gate through the garden. The latter house belongs to Mrs. Peck (widow of
my predecessor), who boards there, and who I see has bestirred herself to
contrive and effect this arrangement. I am to take possession next Monday.
Meanwhile I am Mr. Greene’s guest here, where I have the house for the
most part to myself. I arrived here Friday morning, just in time to miss the
president, who had just started for Portland, and has not yet returned. I have
seen Bigelow, Emerson,[126] etc., and have been looking about among the
libraries here, and endeavoring to arrange matters so as to procure just, and
only such, books for the college as are wanting. I am pleased to find a
complete copy of “Linnæa” at the library of the American Academy.
I passed last Sunday all alone in Greene’s house. Mr. Emerson met me
coming from Park Street Church, and on telling him that I was of Orthodox
faith, he said he was very glad of it, although not altogether of that way
himself.
I have been only twice to Cambridge, whence I have just returned, and
where you may address your letters. But I can do little there until the
president returns, by which time, however, I must trust to have my list of
books ready. I have just written to Mr. Wiley to send on my boxes, and hope
next week to get nearly in working order. I now think of remaining here
(studying Compositæ, etc.) through the month of August, and then visiting
Mt. Washington, if I can get money and a companion (I shall ask Oakes),
and in September going (via New York?) to western New York, where I
wish to collect roots and seeds as extensively as may be. I will soon make
out a list of some things I would like Knieskern to get for me in the pine
barrens.
Tell E., also, that I must write her about a learned lady in these parts,
who assists her husband in his school, and who hears the boys’ recitations in
Greek and geometry at the ironing-board, while she is smoothing their
shirts and jackets! reads German authors while she is stirring her pudding,
and has a Hebrew book before her, when knitting [? netting—A. G.].
There’s nothing like down East for learned women. Why, even the factory-
girls at Lowell edit entirely a magazine, which an excellent judge told me
has many better-written articles than the “North American Review.” Some
of them, having fitted their brothers for college at home, come to Lowell to
earn money enough to send them through!! Vivent les femmes. There will
be no use for men in this region, presently. Even my own occupation may
soon be gone; for I am told that Mrs. Ripley (the learned lady aforesaid) is
the best botanist of the country round. But the mail is about to close; this
nasty steel pen refuses to write; dinner is ready, and so with love to all, I
subscribe myself,
Yours most affectionately,
A. Gray.

TO W. J. HOOKER.

Cambridge, 30th July, 1842.

My dear Sir William,—It is indeed a long time since I have heard from
you; although, indeed, I can well suppose that, in your new situation,[127]
you are too much occupied to write frequently to your friends on this side
of the ocean. Having finished my little “Botanical Text-Book” (a copy of
which is sent you through the publishers, Wiley & Putnam, who have an
office in Stationer’s Court, Paternoster Row), and packed up my things at
New York, I have just taken possession of my situation at Cambridge. The
Botanic Garden, which has a good location, contains over seven acres of
land, and the trees have well grown up. It already contains some good
American plants, and I shall immediately commence a plan of operations
with the view of accumulating here, as fast as possible, the phænogamous
plants, etc., of the United States and Canada; and hope to supply you with
such of our indigenous species as you may desire. I wish I could know what
plants are likely to be acceptable to you, that I may not send you what you
already have. I must postpone to next year my contemplated visit to the
mountains of Carolina, where I can make a fine collection of interesting
plants for cultivation. Perhaps I can also visit Labrador next year. This
autumn I must confine myself to an excursion to the White Mountains, to
the western part of New York, and to the pine barrens of New Jersey. I shall
most gladly share the seeds and roots I collect with you. My good friend
Mr. Sullivant, also promises me the living Sullivantia and many other
interesting plants.
Let me also say, my dear sir, that any duplicates you can spare us from
your noble institution will be truly acceptable and in the highest degree
useful to us, as we have very few exotics and hot-house plants. We have a
good gardener, and I think I can promise you that whatever you choose to
give us shall be sedulously taken care of.
Dr. Torrey is now at Princeton. I had the pleasure of spending a week
with him not long since, and hope to visit him again early in the autumn. I
shall miss him very much. I am here more favorably situated with respect to
books than at New York. I hope next week to begin again with the “Flora,”
and perhaps to finish the Monopetalæ.

TO GEORGE ENGELMANN.

Cambridge, 26th July, 1842.

My dear Doctor,—I hope to get settled here, and in working order in a
week or so; to work at Compositæ, all next month, and to occupy a part of
September and October in collecting the roots and seeds of plants, of the
White Mountains, of western New York, etc., for our Botanic Garden here;
which I wish to renovate, to make creditable to the country and subservient
to the advancement of our favorite science. I wish to see growing here all
the hardy and half-hardy plants of the United States (as well as many
exotics, etc.), and shall exert myself strenuously for their introduction. The
Garden contains seven acres; the trees and shrubs are well grown up; we are
free from debt, and have a small fund. The people and the corporation are
anxious that we should do something, and I trust will second our efforts.
Allow me therefore to say that yourself and your friend Lindheimer[128]
in Texas would render me, and also the cause of botany in this country, the
greatest aid (which I will take every opportunity of publicly
acknowledging), if you will send me roots or seeds of any Western plants,
especially the rarer, and those not yet figured or cultivated abroad. But
nothing peculiar to the West and South will come amiss. I am calling on all
my correspondents to assist me in this matter; which, by giving me the
opportunity of examining so many living plants, will vastly increase the
correctness of our “Flora.” I shall not be idle myself. I will defray all
expenses of collection and transportation (boxes may be sent via New
Orleans, directly to me at Boston). If you wish to cultivate anything that I
have or can procure, it shall be forthcoming. Pray let me hear from you on
this subject.

TO JOHN TORREY.

Cambridge, 15th September, 1842.

My dear Friend,—Your letter of the 6th inst. awaited my return from
the White Mountains last evening, and I must drop you a hasty reply by this
day’s mail. I started for the mountains almost at a moment’s warning.
Emerson, who was to accompany me, being called down to Maine, wrote
me unexpectedly to meet him on Monday or Tuesday of last week at the
Notch. I had just time to look up Tuckerman,[129] the very morning of his
arrival! and to get his consent to meet me on Monday morning at the cars
for Dover. Monday evening we reached Conway, New Hampshire, thirty
miles from the White Mountains (full in sight); and Tuesday, in a one-horse
wagon, we reached and botanized up the Notch to Crawford’s at its head.
Emerson had been there, and returned to his father’s in Maine, having
learned his brother’s arrival from France in the ship that brought
Tuckerman. We made two ascents to the higher mountains; slept out one
night; cold weather; a good deal of rain, but had some very fine weather for
views. We saw the ocean distinctly, which is only possible under favorable
circumstances. I made a fine collection of living plants, which was the chief
object. Although too late for botanizing, yet I got many good alpines in
fruit, some few in flower. When I see you, which I trust will be soon, I will
tell you particulars, and bring specimens of the few plants collected that
will be needed in your herbarium.
I have seen the president this morning, and find that Mr. Lowell has
returned, but all are so busy that I doubt if they will settle anything about
our affairs until the last of next week. Consequently I shall be kept here all
next week. I shall immediately, at Mr. Quincy’s desire, or rather approval of
my intimation, draw up a plan of my wishes for the management of the
Garden, and shall ask for a specific appropriation, of small amount, for
obtaining live plants, paying bills of transportation, etc. If I succeed, I may
then be able to engage Knieskern to procure some New Jersey plants, as
well as go to western New York myself; but I fear this delay, with the
advancing season, will perhaps prevent the latter.
Saturday afternoon, 5th December, 1842.
The parcel of Compositæ, etc., of the Far West has only just come in. I
have looked over the Compositæ with some excitement. Some few new and
the old help out Nuttall’s scraps, etc., very well. Tetradymias this side of the
Rocky Mountains!! Some new Senecios, especially, from the mountains,
near the snow line. How I would like to botanize up there!...
I wish we had a collector to go with Frémont. It is a great chance. If
none are to be had, Lieutenant F. must be indoctrinated, and taught to
collect both dried specimens and seeds. Tell him he shall be immortalized
by having the 999th Senecio called S. Fremontii; that’s poz., for he has at
least two new ones....
I have the privilege of expending one hundred dollars in botanical
illustrations,—to be the property of the college and to be increased from
time to time. How do you advise me to proceed in the matter?
Though greatly behindhand, I must get Compositæ all done this month.
Then if you could have the Lobelias and Campanulas ready, I think we
could print the latter part of January, and I get everything off my mind and
ready for teaching 1st of March....
This letter you see has no beginning, as I have scribbled down
memoranda for a day or two past, as they occurred to me. I am deep among
Thistles, which are thorny (though I see that they are satisfactionable, all
but one little group of two or three species), and have been considerably
interrupted, or I should have written you sooner.
 TO MRS. TORREY.

Cambridge, Wednesday evening, December 14, 1842.

It is some time since I have written to Princeton, and longer since I have
heard from any of you; for I believe you are every one in my debt. This,
however, has not restrained me from writing, and I have only waited until a
proposition very unexpectedly made me a few days ago should be disposed
of. I have been invited to lecture before the Lowell Institute next year, and
have had the hardihood to accept! A celebrated lawyer here says that he
never hesitates to take any case that offers, to be argued six months hence! I
have taken this in much the same way. But when the time draws near I dare
say I shall call myself a very great fool. But it is now neck or nothing. The
money will be really very useful to me; to decline the offer, coming from
one of the most influential of the corporation of the college, would have had
an unfavorable effect on my prospects, which moderate success will greatly
advance. The pay is $1,000 for twelve lectures, or $1,200 if they are
repeated in the afternoons. Instead of the latter, I have proposed to give a
collateral, more scientific course of about twenty lectures, with a small
ticket-fee to render the audience more select, and for which I should get
about $500, making $1,500 in all. The Institute will pay for full
illustrations. Mr. Lowell offered at once to engage me for two or three
years; but I told him he had best wait to see how I succeeded. Mr. Lowell
told me that he was in treaty with two of the most distinguished orthodox
divines in this country for courses on Natural Theology and the Evidences
of Christianity; the one to commence next year, the other the year after. I do
not doubt one is President Wayland. Who can the other be? Tell Dr. Torrey
he hopes to get Faraday next year; and Mr. Owen the year after.
I should not wonder if my appointment were in some degree owing to a
little piece of generosity in a small way that I played off not long since. The
president has once or twice asked me to hear the Freshmen next term in a
course of recitations from a text-book on general natural history as a matter
of favor, as he did not wish Mr. Harris or any one else to perform this duty;
and offering me, of course, additional compensation, I suppose $200 or so. I
found, however, that this pay would come from the funds of the Garden, let
who would perform the duty. So to prevent that, I offered to perform the
duty, but to receive no pay for it. At the same time, however, I got the
corporation to appropriate $100 for illustrative botanical drawings, which
otherwise would have come out of my own pocket. So you see I have work
enough ahead, if I live, to give me both occupation and anxiety. I have been
driving away at the “Flora,” of late, very hard, hoping to come to New York
to print next month; when all this matter must be laid aside, and I must
prepare for my lectures, etc., for next term, which commences about the
first of March.
I am very tired, having been in Boston all day,—at tea at Mr. Albro’s,
our good pastor, where I met Mr. Dana, father of “Two Years before the
Mast” Dana, and passed the rest of the evening at Professor Peirce’s.[130]
To-morrow I hope to have for study; but the next day I shall be obliged to
go again to Boston, and perhaps stay till evening for a soirée at Mr.
Ticknor’s.
The Latimer case has greatly increased the abolition feeling in this State,
besides showing that the recent decision of the Supreme Court will in fact
operate in favor of the runaway slave. It is not probable that another slave
will ever be again captured in Massachusetts. There is a petition to
Congress in circulation, designed simply to express the feelings of
Massachusetts, which will probably be signed by almost every person in the
State.

TO JOHN TORREY.

Cambridge, January 3, 1843.

Your letter, truly welcome after so long an interval, reached me
yesterday. I should have been very glad to be with you during the holidays,
but cannot think of leaving before I finish these interminable Compositæ. I
hoped to have accomplished this on Saturday last; all but taking up some
dropped stitches; but was a good deal interrupted last week. The December
number of “Annals and Magazine of Natural History” (of which Professor
Balfour is the botanical editor) contains a very complimentary notice of the
“Botanical Text-Book,” accompanied with a few judicious selections, which
shows that the writer has looked it over carefully; and winds up by terming
it the best elementary treatise (as to structural botany) in the English
language. So easy is it to get praise where it is not particularly deserved!...
My great object for next year is to attempt to raise $10,000 from some of
our rich men, to rebuild our greenhouse on a larger and handsome scale.
There are a few men, who have never given anything to the college, who
may perhaps be induced to give for this object.

TO GEORGE ENGELMANN.

Cambridge, Mass., February 13, 1843.

I note with interest what you propose in regard to Lindheimer’s
collections for sale in Centuriæ, fall into your plans, and will advertise in
“Silliman’s Journal” (and in “London Journal of Botany”) when all is
arranged. Pray let him get roots and seeds for me. I will do all I can for him.
But if the Oregon bill passes, a party under Lieutenant Frémont, or some
one else, will go through the Rocky Mountains to Oregon; and parties of
emigrants or explorers will go also. Now why not send Lindheimer in some
of these? Probably the government party would afford him protection, and
probably he might be formally attached to the party. Frémont will not take
Geyer;[131] but I believe he wants some one. The interesting region (the
most so in the world) is the high Rocky Mountains about the sources of the
Platte, and thence south. I will warrant ten dollars per hundred for every
decent specimen. If he collects in Texas, eight dollars per hundred is
enough. I write in haste, hoping this plan may strike you favorably and be
found practicable. Let me know at once. The opportunity should not be lost.
Do send Lindheimer to the Rocky Mountains if possible.

TO W. J. HOOKER.

Cambridge, February 28, 1843.

I found your most welcome letter on my return from New York a few
weeks since, and have since sent it to Dr. Torrey, who was equally delighted
with myself at the opportunity of hearing from you.
Our term opens to-day, and I am just on the point of commencing my
course of botanical lectures, which is rather formidable to a beginner. So
you will excuse my hasty letter. I would not miss to-morrow’s steamer, as I
wish to say that your offer to furnish our Garden—the great object of my
care—with hardy plants from your rich stores at Kew delights me much. I
have only to say that everything you can send will be truly welcome. Our
stock of European hardy plants (whether herbs or shrubs) is small, and
consists of the commonest and oldest-fashioned things in cultivation. These,
and every Californian, Oregon, and Texan plant of which you have
duplicates to spare us (or seeds), whether hardy or not,—these are the plants
I am just now most desirous to accumulate. Greenhouse plants are scarcely
less welcome, but of those I will write more particularly hereafter. Can you
send us a young Araucaria imbricata and Stuartia pentagyna?
My plans for accumulating American plants were put in operation too
late last autumn to give us much as yet, but my correspondents throughout
the country seem interested in the matter; some will reach me this spring,
and still more, I trust, in the autumn. With regard to all these, as soon as I
see them growing, so that I can send them with authentic names, I shall
most gladly share with you.... I shall continue to direct all my energies to
the advancement of our amiable science in this country, not, I trust, in vain.
I have a plan to publish, from time to time, figures of rare or interesting
North American plants, chiefly those cultivated in our Garden and those
upon which I may throw some light. I think there are persons enough here
interested in the matter, including gentlemen of public spirit here, who
would encourage it for the Garden’s sake, to nearly defray the expense,
which is all I desire or expect....
What a charming place you must be making of Kew! What a field for the
botanist!

TO MRS. TORREY.

Thursday evening, 2d March, 1843.

You will be anxious to hear how my first lecture succeeded, knowing it
was to have been given to-day.[132] But you must wait a week longer. Since
my last letter was dispatched the president, finding the class would hardly
be ready, desired me merely to meet them to-day for the purpose of pointing
out the subject in the “Text-Book,” arranging general plan and all that,
postponing my lecture to Thursday of next week. This I was most ready to
do, as it gave me the opportunity of entering by degrees upon my task,
feeling my way instead of making a plunge in regular desperation. The
great thing is self-possession. The moment I get that I shall feel tolerably
safe. So I met my class to-day, arranged matters, and made a few remarks
without stammering a bit, so far as I recollect, or speaking much too fast.
My class consists of about two dozen students (undergraduates), mostly
Seniors, besides which any law or divinity students and resident graduates
who choose can attend, and several probably will. For my recitations in
natural history generally, I have divided the Freshmen into four sections,
about sixteen in each, two of which I meet on Fridays, and two on
Tuesdays; have given them their lessons, and to-morrow, consequently, I
commence these recitations. I must not forget to tell you that since my
return the Sunday-school class left by one of our people who has removed
to Boston has been given me, a class of eight or nine very intelligent
misses, varying from sixteen years old to twelve, all of one family, though
originally of three, some being sister’s children (orphans, etc.). I am greatly
pleased with them, delighted with their docility and intelligence, and
anticipate a very happy time. So you see I have three sets of scholars, on
different subjects. I ought to be “apt to teach.”
Saturday morning.—I must dispatch my letter by to-day’s mail, and as I
am going to Boston, where I have not been for a week, I will drop it in the
post office there, to insure its transmission by this afternoon’s mail.
Yesterday afternoon I met the first two sections of my class of Freshmen for
recitation. It went off very well. I am pretty good at asking questions. The
lads were well prepared. Next Tuesday I meet the third and fourth sections;
and on Thursday, the ides of March, I give my first lecture on Botany. If I
succeed well, I am sure no one will be more pleased and gratified than
yourself, and that of itself is enough to incite me to effort. If I don’t
altogether succeed, neither satisfying myself nor others, I shall not be
discouraged, but try again, as I am determined to succeed in the long run.
Nil desperandum. I shall have the president to hear me; but he is said
always to fall asleep on such occasions, and to be very commendatory when
he awakes.
I now board with the sister of my landlord, Deacon Munroe, a table of
only five, one professor, one tutor, and two advanced law students. We
yesterday commenced the experiment of dining at five o’clock, much to my
gratification, and if the other gentlemen like it as well as I do, we shall
continue to dine at that hour, until summer at least. It is very cold here;
though the sun shines brightly all day, it scarcely thaws at midday.
Cambridge, March 18, 1843.
 Your most welcome and long-expected letter of the 14th reached me
only this noon. This first day of leisure of this week has been a very busy
one. I have been to town, and just got back. I have had to work very hard
this week. I have got my course of recitations for the Freshmen on Smellie
well in progress, and am quite interested in it, though at first I thought it
would have been a great bore. The class are generally very much interested,
and give promise that I shall reap the fruits of my labor when they become
Sophomores or Seniors and attend the botanical lectures, for which I think I
am laying a foundation. I am now perfectly at ease in my mode of teaching
them; I am pretty good at questioning, and I give them plenty of illustration,
explanation, and ideas not in the book, which pleases and interests them. In
one of the divisions last week, while giving them a sort of lecture, two
hours long! (to which they listened well; for I gave them, or those who
chose, the opportunity of going at the expiration of the regular hour, but not
one of them budged), turning my head at a fortunate moment, I caught one
of the fellows (rather a stupid fellow, a boarder with me last term) throwing
his cap to his companion or playing some trick. You know I can scold. So I
gave him about half a dozen words that made him open his eyes wide; and I
do not think that he, nor any of that division, will venture upon anything of
the kind again very soon.
As to the botanical class, which now numbers thirty-seven, I have given
two more lectures, for I lectured both Thursday and Friday, on the last
occasion, which was a sort of recapitulation quite without notes, as a trial. I
am convinced that for lectures with much illustration I must have only
heads and leading ideas written; for others, I will write nearly in full. I saw
Miss Lowell ... the day before my first lecture, and promised to call upon
her very soon if I succeeded well. Meeting her the other evening at
Professor Sparks’s, she reproved me for not keeping my word. I very
honestly and sincerely replied that I had not succeeded well, and was
waiting until I was better satisfied. Quite to my surprise, I found that the
class, at least those she had seen, her great-nephew and others, were well
pleased with it. I will not repeat their expressions, as retailed to me by Miss
Lowell, because I cannot but suspect that young Lowell may have been
trying to humbug her. I feel I have so far acquitted myself very poorly as a
lecturer; but I am sustained by the firm conviction that I shall in the end do
very well, for a common college class.
 TO JOHN TORREY.

May, 1843.
I have been speaking about the bones of the Zygodon, and there is a
disposition to get up a subscription in the Natural History Society and buy
them, if still for sale, the price not too great, and if Dr. Wyman, on seeing
them, recommends the purchase. Do you know the price? And whether they
can still be seen in New York, at Carey’s storehouse? The Boston zoölogists
are far from praising De Kay’s Report. I heard Silliman on electro-
magnetism the other evening (which hardly belongs to chemistry): great
show of experiments; lauded Henry finely. He is finishing off with galvanic
deflagration. Will Frémont go west this year? So Mr. Carey is going to
Buffalo. Occupation will be the best thing for him; but we shall miss him in
New York....
Monday afternoon, 9th May.
I have a few of Frémont’s plants up from seeds. The two pine-trees and
the Pyxidanthera were received in good condition, to my great wonderment.
Pyxidanthera is in full bloom, and a drawing of it nearly finished (as well as
of Oakesia, about which I have some new matters that are curious) by the
eldest Miss Quincy, whom I have pressed into the service....
Rhododendron Lapponicum, from the White Mountains, is just bursting
into flower. I am building rock-work, but we get on slowly. All the work of
the Garden comes together this spring, and all in a heap.

TO W. J. HOOKER.

Cambridge, 30th May, 1843.

... The community here are very liberal and public-spirited. They have
just given by subscription $25,000 for a telescope, etc., for our observatory.
The college have given me the use of seven or eight acres of land lying
around the observatory, finely situated and diagonally opposite the Botanic
Garden, as an addition.[133]
As soon as our garden begins to increase and prosper, I hope in a year
from this we shall attempt (and doubtless succeed) in raising the funds for a
new conservatory, hot-house, etc.
 TO GEORGE ENGELMANN.

Cambridge, 22d June, 1843.

When you get sufficient collections from any of these botanists for
distribution, you will please forward me a set, with your own critical
remarks. Although I excessively dislike to study special collections far
ahead of my work, yet in these cases it will be important, and I will consent
to do it. If I thus join in the responsibility and labor, which will be great to a
person with his hands so full as mine, the articles written on the subject and
the new species must bear our joint names.
You cannot have failed to perceive that the genus Astragalus is not well
done in the “Flora.” ...
I agree with you generally in the impropriety of too much multiplying
names of species after the collectors, etc., yet I think these are good names,
easily remembered, and particularly advisable in very large genera. My
practical rule is to name such species after the discoverer, etc., if I cannot
find any really pertinent characteristic name unoccupied....
There is much to be done, and so little time that I often wish I could
divide myself into a dozen men, and thus get on faster. Let us, however,
take particular pains to do everything thoroughly as far as we go.

TO MRS. TORREY.

Cambridge, July 22, 1843.

I find Cambridge, in vacation, as quiet as possible,—most people away.
The president’s family were at home, and unaffectedly glad to see me; but
several of them, including Miss Susan, who makes drawings for me, are
about to set out on Monday for Lake Champlain, Montreal, and Quebec; to
be absent nearly to the time that I hope to leave here again; for I find, from
the way the president takes it up, that I shall have no difficulty in obtaining
the sanction of the corporation to my proposed mountain tour. But of that I
shall know certainly in a day or two. In that case I shall hope to see you
again in the latter part of August, perhaps as soon as the middle....
Dr.—— came here the day I returned. He still garnishes, as ever, his lack
of ideas with a deliberate profundity of words.
 I found on my return a letter from my brother, announcing the
approaching marriage of my youngest sister; which event took place, I
suppose, on the 20th inst., the day I left New York. Had I received the letter
in New York, I should have arranged to be present on the occasion. I
wonder if my turn will ever come!

TO W. J. HOOKER.

Cambridge, 11th August, 1843.

I leave home this afternoon for New York, on my way to the Alleghany
Mountains in the north of Virginia, where I expect to meet my excellent
friend Mr. Sullivant, of Ohio. We hope to trace the more westerly ranges of
the mountains down to North Carolina and Tennessee, to revisit my old
ground in Ashe County, etc., and to continue our journey farther south into
Georgia, coming out at Augusta on the Savannah River; thence I may go to
Charleston and return by water. But if time allows I shall perhaps run
through upper Georgia and Alabama, to the Tennessee River, down that to
the Ohio, and thence home. My chief object is to obtain live plants and
seeds; we shall be too late in the season for the best botanizing, yet I think
we shall be in the best time for Compositæ. Mr. Sullivant will turn his
attention primarily to the Musci; but we shall let nothing escape. Thus at
last I may hope to be somewhat useful to you as a correspondent for your
Garden.
I learn within a few days that Ross’s expedition has been heard of from
Rio. Doubtless Joseph will have reached home before this letter arrives, and
I may congratulate him—and yourself—upon his most gratifying success,
which has laid a broad and sure foundation for his scientific eminence. His
Flora Antarctica must be of the very highest interest and importance.

TO JOHN TORREY.

Asheville, Saturday, September 30th, 1843.

My dear Friend,—Your two letters which awaited my arrival—the one
at Jefferson, the other at Asheville—were indeed refreshing. Our long
journey through Virginia brought us behind our estimated time, and hurried
the later and more interesting part of our operations; for Sullivant was
Welcome to our website – the perfect destination for book lovers and
knowledge seekers. We believe that every book holds a new world,
offering opportunities for learning, discovery, and personal growth.
That’s why we are dedicated to bringing you a diverse collection of
books, ranging from classic literature and specialized publications to
self-development guides and children's books.

More than just a book-buying platform, we strive to be a bridge

connecting you with timeless cultural and intellectual values. With an
elegant, user-friendly interface and a smart search system, you can
quickly find the books that best suit your interests. Additionally,
our special promotions and home delivery services help you save time
and fully enjoy the joy of reading.

Join us on a journey of knowledge exploration, passion nurturing, and

personal growth every day!

ebookbell.com