sign in sign up
<<
Home , Gloucester Cathedral, Hereford Cathedral, Misericord

THE FOURTEENTH CENTURY STALLS AT CATHEDRAL

Peter Lindfield

The only documented evidence relating to the choir stalls at is contained within the Historia et Cartularium Monasterii Sancit Petri Gloucestrise, a source acknowledged to have distorted the monastery’s history by disguising royal patronage rather than emphasising it.1 However, the Historia establishes a fragmented chronology for the choir stalls’ construction. It states that in the time of ‘ Adam de Stanton...the great of the choir was built, at vast expense, with the stalls there on the Prior’s side [north range], from the offerings of the faithful flocking to the King’s tomb.’2 Under Stanton’s successor, Abbot Thomas Horton, which, as a result of ‘his persevering work... the stalls on the Abbot’s side [south] were begun and finished.’3 This indicates that the work was carried out in two phases, each completed under a different abbot: the Prior’s range from 1337 to 13 5 1, and the Abbot’s from 13 5 1 to 13 7 7 / Charles Tracy argues that the regularisation of the canopy types, starting in the Prior return stalls, coincided with the visitation of the Black Death.5 The stalls and canopies are extant examples of fourteenth century carpentry (Figure 1), although repairs have been made, such as Gilbert Scott’s programme from 18 6 1/ However, the architectural designs incorporated into the stalls reveal a broad base of influence, from , Exeter and the West of England. Primarily, this admixture is no different from the merger of influences that occurs in the cathedral’s south and choir elevations. As Christopher Wilson has identified, Thomas of Canterbury’s work in the south transept reveals a knowledge of the French Rayonnant style, which was being experimented with at St Stephen’s Chapel, Westminster, from 1292. At Gloucester, in the south transept, this influence can be detected in the undulation of the mullion cross-sections;7 the deployment of major and minor vertical shafts that traverse the internal registers of the and unify, to an extent, the elevation.8 At Gloucester the hexagonal abaci and capitals are derived from the rebuilding of St Ouen at Rouen, from 13 18 , and they are characteristic of of Canterbury’s respond design for St Stephen’s Lower Chapel, London.9 Additionally, in the south window of the south transept at Gloucester, there is the deployment of split, or barbed cusps, which are characteristic of Kentish design of the fourteenth century, and compliment the linear elements within the window design writ large.10 The south transept vault is an original mixture of the complicated West of England bay obscuring net- vault form without bosses. This is applied to a tunnel vault with penetrations," where the major and minor ribs duplicate those found on the vault of the Aerary Porch, St George’s Chapel, Windsor, by Master John de Sponlee.12 It was in this broad, yet specifically influenced environment that the stalls were designed and created. Even though at first sight the north and south ranges seem identical, symbolically representing the communal unity of the Benedictine house, they

Regional Furniture Volume XXI 2007 1 7 4 GLOUCESTER CATHEDRAL CHOIR STALLS are not. Modification to the design of the stalls occurred before the | pestilence, as well as after, when there were some major revisions.13 The standards of the stalls are archaic in form14 with a rectangular lower section whose elbow projects far ou' side the limit of the capping above (Figure 2). Use of this archaic form affords a large surface area for Perpendicular detailing, which consequently relates the stall bases to their environment. At Gloucester, beneath each misericord, and above the stalls in tb e cresting fretwork, a quatrefoil panel identical to those found in the south transept and choir elevations are deployed. The stile is incised with a trefoil headed panel, which is similarly consistent with the Perpendicular environment. Additionally, about the arc ;>f the misericord a trefoil headed trapezoid panel is inset. All these details indicate that the choir stall designer was aware of the pioneering Perpendicular style that had b een deployed in the south transept, especially because the panelling attempts to duplicate that found on its elevation. However, the lack of a perceivable gridiron effect, a leitmotiv of the Perpendicular style, on the standards indicates a dilution of the Perpendicular sche na. Rather than the individual architectural components being located within a perpendi :ular framework, as found in the tentative choir stall design,15 they were deployed without one, indicating an organisational regression compared with the Hereford standards. However, the micro-piers that divide the stall bays at Gloucester, and from whi ch the stall canopies spring, duplicate the south transept high vault shaft system.16 In the transept, the vault responds alternate from major to minor, responding to the variation n the vault ribs that springs from it, and this philosophy is carried over into the stall desig: 1. The oscillation of the responds is less rigid compared with their e> ecution in the south transept because the mouldings on the canopy do not consistently alternate from major to minor. Moreover, the hexagon is used as a moulding profile for so me shafts and bases, which also featured in the south transept. Combined with the standards and the arrangement of major and minor shafts, oscillating in diameter with respect of the moulding supported, this indicates the direct influence of the south 1 ransept remodelling upon the stall design. This canopy respond system contrasts markedl y with the high vault respond configuration used in the choir elevation. Instead of the multiplicity of shafts, the long-standing English tradition of a single respond to receive the vault springers17 is used. This indicates that the architectural model for the stall design was the south transept, rather than the concurrent modifications made to the choir. Even the Horton stalls, which could have been updated with the single respond formation to match the choir, maintain the multi-respond configuration. However, it is above the stall canopy springers where alternation reigns supreme. The primary division between the ‘standard stall types’18 is whether the buttresses, which rise from the nodding ogee canopy haunches, are incised with a trefoil headed panel, or receive a gable per face. The more ornate form; gable enriched, slso has sub-cusping added to the standard pierced cinquefoil cusping on the lower eading edge of the nodding-ogee canopy. Tracy identified these forms as the G (gablec) and P (panelled).19 This division is valid because the relationship of the G and P buttress forms to the cusping and sub-cusping on the canopy remains constant throughout all the stalls. However, Tracy argued that during the first phase of construct on, up to the Prior return stalls, these two types were dispersed randomly; ‘on the north side there does not seem to be any consistent deployment of these particular elements [G and P forms]. On the return stalls and lateral stalls G and P forms alternate regularly.’10 This rationalisation, PETER LINDFIELD 175 noted by Tracy, coincides with a modification to the general design, specifically the phasing out of the occasional rosette stops, in favour of circles, on the cusping of the screen above the stall canopies. The inconsistent deployment of G and P forms on the north range has been overstated (Figure 3)/' On the northern range, only two out of the twenty-four stalls interrupt the consistent GPGPGP deployment. To state that there is no ‘consistent deployment’ is inaccurate, and Tracy may have overemphasised this minor disparity to strengthen his case for other inexplicable modifications to the stall design in the first phase of construction. Indeed, by suggesting that a major reorganisational programme affected the west and south ranges, the new GPPGPP format could simply be accepted as an extension of this programme, whereas, in reality, it represented a fundamental modification .“ The tracery in the screen cresting the stalls has been identified, by Wilson, as a reproduction of the Old St Paul’s, London, tracery. However, what has only been briefly mentioned is that, based upon the projected reconstruction of this cloister tracery, the supermullions that cut the arch head at Gloucester continue into the spandrels, and produce reticulations. This development is symptomatic of the maturing Perpendicular environment that the choir stalls inhabit, and indicates a conscious decision to integrate the details with the Perpendicular surroundings. This is emphasised by a band of quatrefoils aligning with the tracery below, maintaining the mullion organisation of the screen-like elevation. The basic stall canopies are formed from nodding ogees, the spandrels of which are not filled with perpendicular tracery, unlike the screening above. Rather they are filled with a circled quatrefoil and two daggers (Figure 4). Although these motifs duplicate the tracery forms found in the south transept, they are not exclusive to Perpendicular architecture, and are not deployed in the spandrels using a Perpendicular framework. Even the larger Prior’s stall canopy exhibits a simple elaboration upon this format, with the addition of a circled trefoil above the quatrefoil. However, in the case of the Abbot’s stall, a radical variation upon this format occurs around the time of the pestilence and the change of abbot. The tracery applied to the Abbot’s canopy exhibits competent Perpendicular design, and, because the ogee canopy hardly nods, the visibility of the tracery and its Perpendicular grid is emphasised (Figure 5). Although the daggers are used at the acute angles to fill the space, especially below the circled quatrefoil, the remainder of the space is filled with panels that are trefoil cusped at the head and foot. Mullions rising from the circled quatrefoil divide these and, although there are no transoms, the panels terminate at two levels, generating the impression of transoms, and a Perpendicular gridiron format with vertical emphasis. Therefore Perpendicular motifs, similarly applied to the standards, are in this case deployed within a regularised grid of horizontals and verticals, as found in the presbytery elevation. Instead of utilising the new tracery pattern, the southern stall canopies receive the standard tracery, except for most easterly high-status stall. In this case, the Abbot’s canopy tracery is deployed (Figure 6), and the stall’s dominance over the southern range stalls is achieved by the increase in height of the canopy, although it remains within the margins of the screen. Unlike the Abbot’s stall, which was most probably made by inexperienced carpenters because the corner canopy was botched and the capping telescoped, the easterly stall makes a considered use of the stylistic repository of designs available. The choir stalls at Gloucester Cathedral were a fundamental expression of the unity of the monastery. The stalls were designed, as it has been shown, to inhabit a Perpendicular 176 GLOUCESTER CATHEDRAL CHOIR STALLS

Gothic clad eastern limb, and the maturity of the Perpendicular components increased in the design for the Abbot’s stall. Although discussion on the pattern of alternation of stall types has been misleading, it is critical to understand how architectural environments influenced the design of furniture.

ACKNOWLEDGEMENTS I am extremely grateful to the Precontor of Gloucester Cathedral, Revd Neil Heavisides, and the Janitors for their generosity in allowing me access to the choir stalls and always giving me a warm welcome. Thanks also go to David Jones and Dr Julian Luxford, who together have developed my interest in Gothic furniture and assisted me with this article.

REFERENCES 1. This aspect is primarily examined by Tout in T.F. Tout, ‘The Captivity and Death of Edward of Caernarvon’, Bulletin o f the John Rylands Library, Volume 6, 19 22, PP.9Z-3, also see J.M . Luxford, Art and Architecture of English Benedictine Monasteries, 13 0 0 -15 4 0 ; A Patronage History, Woodbridge, 2005, p .16 1 2. W. Barber, (trans.) ‘Historia Monasterii Sancit Petri Gloucestriae’, The History, Art and Architecture of Gloucester Cathedral, 19 9 1, Wolfeboro Falls, p.630 3. Ibid, p.632 4. The Historia indicates that the reign of Abbot Thomas Horton was 26 years, making his abbacy 13 5 1 to 1377. However, Tracy, C. Tracy, English Gothic Choir-Stalls; 1200-1400, Woodbridge, 1987, p.44, gives a smaller period, 1:351-74. As there is no firm evidence for the completion of the stalls, the author quotes the maximum range. 5. Ibid, p.44. This is substantiated by a pause also occurring during the construction of the choir stalls at during the main phase of the pestilence. 6. C. Tracy, English Gothic Choir Stalls, 19 87, p.45. Welander effectively summed up Tracy’s observation, in an unreferenced quote, that a piece of ‘wood was let into the standards below the arm rest, which tends to give the impression that the standards have been deepened, but this is not so because otherwise the panel at the bottom with its inset trefoil would be correspondingly narrower.’ D. Welander, The History, Art and Architecture o f Gloucester Cathedral, Wolfeboro Falls, 19 9 1, p.202 7. C. Wilson, The Gothic Cathedral: Architecture of the Great Church 130 0 ~ 1530 , London, Reprint 2004, p.205 and C. Wilson, The Origins of the Perpendicular Style and its Development to Circa 1360, Unpublished Ph.D. Thesis, London, 1979, p.145 8. C. Wilson, The Origins o f the Perpendicular, 1979, p.154, 158 and 162 9. R.K. Morris, ‘Master Masons’, 2003, p.12 10. C. Wilson, The Origins o f the Perpendicular, 1979, p.155 1 1 . Tunnel vault is a simplification, see C. Wilson, The Origins o f the Perpendicular, 1979, pp.150-152 12. R.K. Morris, ‘Master Masons’, 2003, p.15 13. This lack of visual differentiation between the two sides occurs because the modifications to the design occur on minor elements of the stall canopy, which do not alter in its profile. Indeed, it is because these changes are not noticed that the subtleties of the stall designs are subordinated to the effect of the whole; a defining feature of Perpendicular architecture. 14. C. Tracy, English Gothic Choir Stalls, 1987, p.45 15. Tracy did not consider this aspect when suggesting the Gloucester stalls were an advancement upon the Hereford or Wells examples. 1 6. This has not been commented upon in published material as far as the author is aware. 17. C. Wilson, The Origins o f the Perpendicular, 1978, p.167 18. This refers to all stalls except those for the Abbot and Prior, or the unusual south east stall. 19. C. Tracy, English Gothic Choir Stalls, 1987, p.45 20. Ibid, p.45 21. Awareness of this inaccuracy does not appear to have been noted in any published material. Welander seems to have generated a fictional deployment of the G P forms on the north range to emphasise this inaccuracy. 22. This bias towards the least decorated, possibly junior monks’, stalls most probably spawned from their increased proportion within the monastic community after the Black Death to replace the dead. Importantly this development maintains the adjacent senior/junior monk relationship as found in the northern range. PETER LINDFIELD 177

1. Gloucester Cathedral. The choir stalls and canopies Photo: author 178 GLOUCESTER CATHEDRAL CHOIR STALLS

z . Gloucester Cathedral. Choir stalls standards in South Range, c.1351-77 Photo: author PETER LINDFIELD 179

3. Gloucester Cathedral. Ground plan of choir and stalls indicating canopy buttress gable and panel embellishment l8o GLOUCESTER CATHEDRAL CHOIR STALLS

4. Gloucester Cathedral. Choir stall canopy in North Return Range, c. 1337-51 Photo: author PETER LINDFIELD l8l

5. Gloucester Cathedral. The Abbot’s stall canopy in South Return Range, c.13 51-77 Photo: author l8l GLOUCESTER CATHEDRAL CHOIR STALLS

6. Gloucester Cathedral. The most easterly choir stall canopy in the South Range, c .1 3 5 1 - 7 7 Photo: author