Hostname: page-component-586b7cd67f-vdxz6 Total loading time: 0 Render date: 2024-11-30T15:53:59.208Z Has data issue: false hasContentIssue false
  • English
  • Français

The Early Building-History of St. Andrews Cathedral, Fife, and its Context in Northern Transitional Architecture1

Published online by Cambridge University Press:  29 November 2011

Eric Cambridge
Get access Rights & Permissions [Opens in a new window]

Summary

Structural and stylistic analysis of the earliest remains of St. Andrews cathedral reveal the following building-sequence: east and south presbytery walls: north presbytery wall: choir-aisle walls: choir piers, south transept west wall, and nave south wall: presbytery clerestory. Documentary evidence implies work began in 1162 and proceeded without major interruptions until 1178 at least. The date and style of those architectural details attributable to the initial constructional phases imply the existence of a hitherto unrecognized phase in the transitional architecture of northern Britain which antedates the Byland group of designs. The influence of St. Andrews on the abbeys of Arbroath and Jedburgh, and the priories of Hexham and Tynemouth emphasizes the seminal importance of its design, which is in part due to its historical position as the national shrine and mother church of the Scottish kingdom.

Type
Research Article
Information
The Antiquaries Journal , Volume 57 , Issue 2 , September 1977 , pp. 277 - 288
Copyright
Copyright © The Society of Antiquaries of London 1977

Access options

Get access to the full version of this content by using one of the access options below. (Log in options will check for institutional or personal access. Content may require purchase if you do not have access.)

References

NOTES

2 Facsimile edition (London, 1936), 36 (L-B, ii, no. 3992, p. 467); I owe this reference, and much fruitful discussion of all the documentary evidence, to Professor G. W. S. Barrow.

3 Op. cit., introduction, by A. O. and M. O. Anderson, p. xxxiii.

4 Ibid., p. xiv.

5 Ibid., p. xii.

6 Watt, D. E. R., ‘Fasti Ecclesiae Scoticanae Medii Aevi’, Scottish Record Society, N.S. i (Edinburgh, 1969), 291.Google Scholar

7 Laing, D. (ed.), The Orygynale Cronykil of Scotland by Androw of Wyntoun (Edinburgh, 1872–1879) VII, viiGoogle Scholar: Goodall, W. (ed.), Johannis de Fordun Scotichronicon cum Supplementis et Continuatione Walteri Boweri (Edinburgh, 1759) vi, xxxvGoogle Scholar.

8 Watt, , ‘Fasti Ecclesiae Scoticanae…’, loc. cit.Google Scholar

9 Fulman, W. and Gale, T. (eds.), ‘Historia Croylandensis, continuata a Petro Blesensi’, Rerum Anglicarum Scriptores (Oxford, 1684), i, pp. 113–20Google Scholar (L-B. i, nos. 1183–90, pp. 319–22).

10 ‘Statuit novam ecclesiam fundare …’ (Op. cit., p. 113). cf. ‘…opus ecclesiae suae praemeditatum …’ (Ibid., p. 116).

11 Ibid., p. 113, p. 116.

12 Ibid., p. 118.

13 Ibid., p. 113: That Geoffrey began preliminary operations in 1109 is confirmed by the statement of Orderic Vitalis: ‘Denique anno … 1109 … novamque basilicam … inchoavit…’. (A. Prevost, Le (ed.), Orderici Vitalis historiae ecclesiasticae libri tredecim (Paris, 1840), ii, pp. 287–8Google Scholar; L-B, i, no. 1185, p. 319). That the foundations were laid at this time is presupposed by Historia Croylandensis …, p. 118, referring to the events of 1114, where the context demands that, in the phrase ‘… novae ecclesiae suae fundamentum … collo-caret’, ‘fundamentum’ mean the lowest ashlar course of the walls.

14 Historia Croylandensis …, pp. 118–20. Tha t this was the fundatio is corroborated by the Peterborough Chronicle, s. a. 1114: ‘Nova ecclesia Croylandiae fundatur’ ( Giles, J. A. (ed.),: ‘Chronicon Angliae Petriburgense’, Caxton Society (London, 1845), p. 77Google Scholar; L-B, i, no. 1187, p. 320).

15 Cf. especially Symeon's account of the foundation of Durham in 1093 ( Arnold, T. (ed.), Symeonis Dunelmensismonachi opera omnia, i (London, 1882), pp. 128–9Google Scholar; k-B, i, no. 1365, p. 358).

16 Orygynale Cronykil…, loc. cit.

17 This would also help to explain the lack of documentary evidence for benefactions made to the work at St. Andrews. Most of these probably took the form of oral declarations of intent at the foundation-ceremony itself, and would therefore never have been formulated in charters.

18 The plan of the recently founded burgh may corroborate this date—see Cant, p. 78.

19 Cant, p. 80, note 15.

20 For the significance of this, see above, p. 285.

21 Cant, pp. 79–81.

22 Above, pp. 283–4; p. 285.

23 Half-plan of pier in M and R, i, p. 406, fig. 369.

24 Plan of pier in Hodges, pls. 8, 29.

25 Above, p. 279.

26 Cant, p. 79; p. 81.

27 The nave piers were originally like those of the choir—see Hay-Fleming, D., ‘Some Recent Discoveries in St. Andrews’, Proceedings of the Society of Antiquaries of Scotland, xlix (1914–15), 220–1Google Scholar: section of a choir pier in M and R, ii, p. 13, fig. 446.

28 Section of the respond in M and R, ii, p. 14, fig. 447.

29 Illustrated respectively in M and R, ii, p. 36, fig. 465, and p. 44, fig. 474.

30 Hodges, pl. 8.

31 Watt, , ‘Fasti Ecclesiae Scoticanae …’, loc. cit.Google Scholar Richard was elected in 1163, probably early in the year, but he was not consecrated until 28th March 1165.

32 St. Andrews Liber, p. 338.

33 St. Andrews Liber, p. 141.

34 Watt, , ‘Fasti…’, p. 304Google Scholar: The land, as described here, is not listed in the general confirmation of the next bishop, Hugh (1178–88). However, another donation of Richard's, described as ‘… terram etiam extra burgum Sancti Andree de Nhorth quae dicitur turdaph’ (St. Andrews Liber, p. 146), is mentioned. Since the topographical data here are compatible with what we know of the site of ‘rathelpin’, and since this description is further qualified ‘… quam dedit operi nove ecclesie’ (ibid.), the reference is probably to the same piece of land under an alternative description. Neither of the other two general confirmations in which this description occurs (St. Andrews Liber, pp. 141–4: pp. 213–16) specify any connection with the new york. But both are dated 1165 × 1169, before the extant charter in which the new work is first mentioned. The most probable interpretation is that the original grant was intended to support the work ab initio, but this was not made explicit until the re-grant was formulated: I owe this interpretation to Professor Barrow.

35 St. Andrews Liber, p. 209.

36 Barrow, G. W. S. (ed.), ‘The Acts of William I, King of Scots 1165–1214’, Regesta Regum Scottorum, ii (Edinburgh, 1971), pp. 139–40, no. 29.Google Scholar

37 It may well be significant that this sequence was also the one demonstrably followed at Hexham (Hodges, pp. 24–5).

38 Their design is described in Cant, pp. 81–2.

39 The design has been partially lost through the insertion of a fifteenth-century window. For the evidence of the original design, see Cant, pp. 80–1.

40 Cant, p. 80 and note 17.

41 There are two minor irregularities: first the larger of the two angle-shafts never courses through with the walls behind throughout its entire height. Secondly, after the fourth course above the triforium string, the infill of the blank eastern arches of the clerestory arcades does not course through with the adjacent wall. Though this implies that this particular section was constructed separately, the coursing-through begins again in the spandrels of these arches (pl. XLV). Thus, neither irregularity can be chronologically significant.

42 The original intention was presumably to carry up the angle-shafts as executed on the east wall—so the initial design of these clerestories must have consisted of a single round-headed window, as in the stages below.

43 Both are labelled ‘…of transitional character …’ (Cant, p. 81).

44 Section of the main arcades of Jedburgh in M and R, i, p. 406, fig. 369; of the gallery arcades, ibid., p. 408, fig. 371. Section of the main arcades of Byland in Bilson, J., ‘The Architecture of the Cistercians…’, Archaeological Journal, lxvi (1909), 263Google Scholar , fig. 12, iii: The use of pointed arches for the main arcades is probably also derived from Byland.

45 Cant, p. 81.

46 Section of the piers of Jedburgh in M and R, i, p. 406, fig. 369; of St. Andrews in M. and R, ii, p. 13, fig. 446.

47 There is no evidence to support the hypothesis advanced by Fergusson, P. J., ‘The South Transept Elevation of Byland Abbey’, Journal of the British Archaeological Association, xxxviii (1975), 173Google Scholar, that the design of the gallery at Jedburgh was derived from Byland.

48 Fergusson, , Op. cit., pp. 168–9.Google Scholar

49 Easson, D. E., Medieval Religious Houses: Scotland (London, 1957), p. 58.Google Scholar

50 Plan of Arbroath in M and R ii, p. 32, fig. 461.

51 St. Andrews was almost certainly intended to have a nave of this length—see Cant p. 79, note 11; p. 85, note 39.

52 Webb, G., Architecture in Britain: The Middle Ages (Harmondsworth, 1956), p. 86.Google Scholar

53 Plan in Hodges, pl. 8.

54 Hodges, p. 24.

55 Above, p. 280.

56 Above, note 42.

57 Above, p. 284.

58 As against Bony, J., ‘French Influences on the Origins of English Gothic Architecture’, Journal of the Warburg and Courtauld Institutes, xii (1949), 14Google Scholar, note 1, the evidence implies continuity with the romanesque past, rather than a ‘…brief revival…’ of the gallery in the early thirteenth century—it had never been abandoned in the twelfth.

59 Skene, W. F. (ed.), Chronicles of the Picts, Chronicles of the Scots … (Edinburgh, 1867), no. xviii, pp. 138–40Google Scholar, dated by him to 1165.

60 Skene, , Op. cit., p. 140Google Scholar, where Kinrymond (the name of the settlement which pre-dated the establishment of the medieval borough of St. Andrews) is donated ‘…ut sit caput et mater omnium ecclesiarum quae sunt in regno Pictorum …’. On the title ‘Episcopus Scottorum’, see Ash, M., ‘David Bernham, Bishop of St Andrews 1239–53’, Innes Review, XXV. (1974), 7–8Google Scholar. This concept also lies behind the attempts to raise the see to metropolitan status, one of which took place in 1159–60, just before the new church was begun see Barrow, G. W. S. (ed.), ‘The Acts of Malcolm IV King of Scots 1153–1165’, Regesta Regum Scottorum, i (Edinburgh, 1960), p. 11; p. 14Google Scholar.

61 The internal dimensions, as originally designed (see above, note 51), were 391 ft. (119·2 m.) long, and 168 ft. (51·2 m.) across the transepts. The corresponding measurements for Durham in its romanesque form are 384 ft. (117 m.) and 172 ft. (52·5 m.).

62 Douglas, D. C., The Norman Fate 1100–1154 (London, 1976), p. 74.Google Scholar

63 Barrow, G. W. S., The Kingdom of the Scots (London, 1973), pp. 165 f., 187.Google Scholar