The Remains
of Coggeshall Abbey (2)
By G F
Beaumont, F.S.A.
An extract from Transactions ‘n.s.’ Volume 15 part
1. This volume is available exclusively
to members in digitized format. To
subscribe use the ‘Contact Form’ on this site.
The
Abbey House
From the foregoing
we learn, among other things, that the mansion in which Sir John Sharpe dwelt in 1518, and which Clement
Harleston occupied in 1528, was still standing in 1647, and we conclude that there can be no doubt that it is in part
represented by the abbey
house. It is conceivable from the fact that Sharpe was a wealthy man the house was built
by him, but it seems much more probable that it was built by Harleston; the
nominal rent of 9s. and
the lease for 90 years
suggest this,
added to which he was not improbably inspired to its erection by the great work which was going on at Layer
Marney between 1500 and 1525, and which he must have had constantly under observation,
as, according to Morant,[1]
he married a daughter of
William Tey, of Layer-de-la-Haye, the adjoining parish.
That the house was originally
considerably
larger than it is now is obvious from the fine chimney
stacks, of which there are four. In the ancient wall
(probably Norman) which runs through the house from the front to the
back[2]
there are three stacks, of which two
contain two chimneys apiece, the western
couple being modern and those to the east of them
ancient; and the easternmost stack contains three chimneys in
a row, and there are four chimneys in a row
in the east wall of the hall, the fireplace on the outer side of the east wall being
exposed. All the chimneys above the roof, except two which are round, are hexagonal. The
front wall of the house is 3 feet
thick, and the wall which runs through the building,
and is the oldest part of it, is 29 inches thick. Towards the
east end of this wall is a pointed Norman arch springing from
stone scolloped cushion capitals, that on
the east side being
supported by
a circular brick pillar, and that on the other side by a semi-circular respond
of similar construction. From the fact that there is a treble
chimney stack in this wall, it would
seem that what was evidently part of an arcade was adapted to serve as an inner wall of the Tudor mansion. The fine window in the northern portion of the front wall has stone mullions and quoins, and a stone plinth runs along the entire front of
the house. The porch
is of moulded brick and
is apparently of the same date as the front wall. It was originally of one floor the front
wall, above the roof, being stepped and rising to a point
which was probably crowned with a finial, but
a small chamber was
added later, and as the stone which was
inserted above the door bears
the date 1581 and the initials
R. B.A., the addition was doubtless made by Richard Benyan
and Anne his wife, the latter as we have seen having
become entitled to the leasehold
interest in the property under the will of Thomas Paycocke
in that year.
Although not very legible now, Holman,[3]
in the early part of the eighteenth century, noted the initials and date as above. The illustration of
the house, which is from a photograph taken
about 1886, shews that
the 4-light Tudor window of the porch still remained; it
has since been replaced by a 3-light
window. The Tudor window
to the left of it was reduced
in size at a much earlier
date. The hall and some of the upstair rooms are beautifully panelled
in oak, probably contemporary with
the erection of the house, but one piece of the work,
though apparently not in its original position, bears
the initials
of Richard Benyan:
it was, perhaps, the screen of the hall.
The
abbey house mill, farm and lands, containing together about 143 acres, which had
been in the Bullock family of Faulkbourne Hall
for more than
a century, were sold by the trustees of
the will of the Rev. Walter Trevellyan Bullock in 1879, Mr. Sidney Pattisson
purchasing the greater part of the property and Mr. Robert
Appleford the mill, mill- house, pondwick, garden, etc.,
containing together about
16 acres. The Law Union Insurance Company,
who were afterwards in possession
of the farm, sold it some years ago to the late Mr. N. N. Sherwood, who,
dying in 1916, left it to his eldest son, Mr. W. H. C. Sherwood.
From
the time when the property was conveyed to Bromfield
and Colbron in 1647, until the latter end of the nineteenth century, we have been unable to find any documents relating
to the freehold of this property. We have seen that the house was
occupied by Geo. Nicholls in 1647, and it appears to have continued in his occupation for many
years, for in 1666[4]
he was assessed for six hearths, and
the depositions in Boys v. Cudmore[5] in 1691 state that
he resided at the abbey, being
then aged 70. Although as the chimneys shew there were at least nine fireplaces in
the Tudor mansion, and probably there were many more, yet in 1666 the
number had been reduced to six. Notwithstanding that
a great part of the house had been then
destroyed - by what means we know not - it was then still apparently one of the most important houses in the parish, being exceeded only by the house occupied by Matthew Elliston, which
was presumably the Home Grange (Boys
v. Cudmore), and
in respect of which he paid for twelve hearths, and the house
occupied by Robert Merrills, which had
seven hearths.
The Infirmary of the Monks
The
lease to Harleston, in 1528, refers to the mansion as situate near to the infirmary of the monks, and the lease to Bacon, in 1603, describes it as
being next to the infirmary, so there can be but little,
if any, doubt that
the long building immediately south
of the abbey house, and
consisting of a groined passage with
dormitory above and the oblong building
at the southern end of it and
into which the lower and upper floors enter
by arched doorways, formed part
of the infirmary of the monastery. The
illustration
of the abbey house shews
on the west wall of the long building and the north wall
of the oblong building that there was a large vaulted
apartment, perhaps the
infirmary
hall, adjoining those buildings. It will
be seen from the illustration of the dormitory
of the adjoining building that there is a recess in the wall of the building beyond, and this
would seem to have been used as a seat, from which the occupant
had a clear view along
the sleeping apartment.
The
infirmary,
or firmary, or farmery, as
it was variously called, of a monastery, generally
consisted of a set of buildings apart from the principal cloister
buildings, but sometimes connected to them by a passage.
In
some cases they were erected round a minor court
and had a hall, a kitchen, and frequently a
chapel. The infirmary was, speaking generally, used for the sick and aged monks.
For
descriptions shewing the
general arrangements of Cistercian abbeys one cannot do better than refer to the learned papers of Sir Wm. St. John Hope[6]
and Mr. Brackspear.[7]
One of the illustrations is
taken looking east through the groined passage. The original ground level was 2 feet below the present level, so it is possible that some portion of the pavement would
be disclosed by excavation. The pointed
trefoil headed arch, shewn in
the other illustration, is
in the west wall of the next section of the passage.
The
Tanhouse Hall
This building is, in the documents, sometimes referred to as "a certain stable of
old time called the Tannehouse Hall."
It seems doubtful from the references to it in
the deed of 1647 whether the
building was then standing or not, for the deed
purports to
convey the "building near the abbey called the Tannehouse Hall," and almost immediately afterwards "the cottages, tenements and buildings erected on the place where the Tannehouse Hall stood."
Of this building no more can be said than that the
whole or some part of it
had disappeared in 1647, and none of the present
buildings are now known as the Tanhouse Hall.
This was still standing in
1647, and were it not for the fact that the
chapel in the
Abbey lane was, without doubt, known as St. Nicholas as well before as after the dissolution, as will be seen hereafter, one might perhaps have ventured the
opinion that that building was the chapel of St. Nicholas. Can it be that the
detached building which is
situate near the southern end of the existing range was the Chapel of St. Katherine? It certainly has a chapel-like appearance, and it does
not seem to answer to any other building
referred to in the post-suppression documents. It is
true that the longer axis of the building
is roughly north and south, but that fact is not conclusive against its ecclesiastical use as we have the case of the monastic church at Rievaulx[8] similarly orientated. The entrance to this building was on the north side. For
a plan and illustration of it see the Rev.
E. L. Cutts' paper in vol. i. (o.s.)
of the Transactions.
The
chapel is said to have been enclosed round about by banks and ditches, a fact which militates against the suggested assignation, as the river
on
the one side and the buildings nearby on the other side would seem to have rendered such a protection unnecessary.
The definite location of St. Katherine's chapel, and with it the appropriation
of the chapel-like building,
remain unsolved.
The building
is of
rubble, which includes a Norman capital, of
which the illustration is a sketch.
[1] Vol I, p.100
[2] The plan in
vol. i. of the Transactions (o.s.) is not quite accurate
with
regard to this wall. It is not at right angles to the front wall, but from the front to the back
inclines in a somewhat southerly direction.
[3] M.S.in Colchester Museum
[4] Hearth Tax Return,
246/19
[5] Depositions of Will
and Mary
[6] “Furness in Cumberland and Westmorland Arch. Trans., vol. xvi.
“Fountains”, in Yorkshire Arch. Trans., vol. xv
[7] “Waverley”, in Surrey
Arch. Trans. “Hayles” in Arch. Journal,
vol. lviii. (1), (2) “Beaulieu”, a joint
production in Arch. Journal, vol. lxiii
[8] Brit. Arch. Journal, vol. xix, p.323. See also “orientation” in the Oxford
Dictionary.
No comments:
Post a Comment