A Bishop of Two Peoples: William of St

A Bishop of Two Peoples: William of St. Calais and the Hybridization of Architecture in Eleventh-Century Durham meg bernstein University of California, Los Angeles

homas Girtin’s romantic, loosely rendered water- language was deployed. Consideration of these structures as color and pencil drawing Durham Cathedral and a pair provokes questions that study of the cathedral alone T Castle (ca. 1800) shows an imposing pair of build- does not: about architecture’s role in expressing and navigating ings rising above a river, an arched bridge, and groups of royal–religious political dynamics and about the deployment chimneyed houses (Figure 1).1 While the houses are cast in of architecture in the consolidation and expansion of power. shadow and visually blended together, the castle at left and Each building’s design was informed by its presumptive the cathedral to its right are dramatically lit and more fully ar- audience. The cathedral was planned as a public space, and it ticulated. In contrast to the movement of people and livestock spoke to members of the larger public in a language they could across the bridge and the water flowing down the river, falling understand and appreciate. The castle’s Norman Chapel, on and splashing in the foreground, the castle and cathedral an- the other hand, was a private space catering only to the small chor the scene and give a sense of how these buildings to- group of elites, and it spoke only to them. Yet both buildings gether dominated medieval Durham. had the same patron: the second Norman-appointed bishop ’ As Girtin s image shows, Durham was home to two struc- of Durham, William of St. Calais (1030–96, r. 1080–96). tures that together served as the spiritual and administrative Bishop William is well known for his role as initiator of the center of the north of England after the Norman Conquest in new Romanesque Durham Cathedral in 1093; this infor- 1066 (Figure 2). The scholarly literature of the past hundred mation comes from Symeon of Durham, who wrote in 2 years has focused mainly on the cathedral (Figure 3). The 1105 that the bishop ordered the destruction of the existing castle is often overlooked, to the detriment of an understand- church and the laying of new foundation stones.4 Less well ing of Durham as an environment fraught with complex known is the history of the castle chapel, which represents power relations between the bishop and the Anglo-Saxon la- an intentionally pure Norman style uninflected by Anglo- ity.3 This article considers the close relationship between Saxon architecture. Bishop William’s involvement with these two buildings, focusing on the castle’sso-calledNorman these two architecturally disparate buildings casts light on Chapel to see what insight it may provide into the patronage his political ambitions and on his relationship with Norma- and architectural iconography of the complex as a whole nitas, or Norman cultural identity. (Figure 4). My aim in analyzing the chapel and cathedral to- Normanitas, a term that comes up frequently in the litera- gether is to sharpen our understanding of the careful crafting ture about Norman identity and self-perception, refers to the and political ramifications of Norman visual language; these ways in which the people we call Normans viewed themselves. buildings illustrate the situation-specific ways in which that It is a complicated mind-set to reconstruct, given the tension between these people’s assimilation with and resistance to Journal of the Society of Architectural Historians 77, no. 3 (September 2018), 267–284, ISSN 0037-9808, electronic ISSN 2150-5926. © 2018 by the Society France, their political entanglements over the English throne, 5 of Architectural Historians. All rights reserved. Please direct all requests for and their incursions into Sicily and elsewhere. Historian permission to photocopy or reproduce article content through the University of David Bates has critiqued the term’suseasvagueandthus ’ California Press s Reprints and Permissions web page, http://www.ucpress.edu/ “ journals.php?p=reprints, or via email: [email protected]. DOI: https:// unhelpful, arguing that identity cannot be understood with- 6 doi.org/10.1525/jsah.2018.77.3.267. out reference to the history of power.” I propose that when

267 Figure 1 Thomas Girtin, Durham Castle and Cathedral, ca 1800, watercolor over pencil heightened with gum arabic (J. Paul Getty Museum, digital image courtesy of the Getty’s Open Content Program).

Figure 2 Durham Castle and Durham Cathedral, Durham, England, view from a distance (photo by James F. King).

power structures are taken into consideration, Normanitas In Durham, the decades following the Norman Conquest can be understood not as a monolithic identity but as a set of constituted a politically charged period in which those put in identities through which Norman elites established their cul- power by the Normans utilized architecture to further the tural position in relation to their subjects. In terms of art and Norman cultural conquest. The notion of hybridity, developed architecture, Normanitas is manifested in a distinct visual vo- by the linguist Mikhail Bakhtin and popularized within postco- cabulary, one deployed in different ways, depending on the lonial studies by Homi Bhabha, can be applied to illuminate audience. The unfettered expression of Normanitas effected the conditions of architectural production in post-Conquest by Bishop William in the castle’s chapel suggests that the pa- England. As art historians Carolyn Dean and Dana Leibsohn tron was disinterested in assimilating to his new homeland and note, hybridity “is usually understood to designate specific by- still considered Norman visual language to be superior. And products of European expansion” and thus reflects the coming yet, while Normanitas could have been used to erase the ca- together of the “European” and the “non-European.”7 To thedral’s Anglo-Saxon visual heritage, it was employed there think of the Norman Conquest in England as a colonial enter- with great caution, put in conversation with Anglo-Saxon mo- prise is precarious, because colonialism is typically fraught with tifs as a means of pacifying the rebellious northerners. racialized connotations having to do with the categorization

268 JSAH | 77.3 | SEPTEMBER 2018 and mixing of distinct bodies. There is no Anglo-Norman The concept of hybridity is most useful when disparate “mestizo”—Norman dominance was not racial, and intermar- power relations between colonizer and colonized are empha- riage was not stigmatized or rigidly differentiated within a hier- sized. As literary scholar Jeffrey Jerome Cohen notes, “Hybrid- archy of social relations. The offspring of those relationships ity does not indicate some peaceful melding of colonizer and were not considered racially inferior. colonized. . . . It neither obliterates nor supersedes the histories it intermingles.”8 In Durham’s case, the stylistic contrast between chapel and cathedral—one private and one public—gives evidence of Bishop William’s political machinations. Standing less than 200 meters from the castle’s chapel and constructed roughly contemporaneously, the cathedral exemplifies the role played by hybridity in the Norman military and post-Conquest campaign waged by elites to gain and maintain control of England. Formally distinct from the chapel, the cathedral utilizes Norman-derived monumental scale and elevation composition with bay divisions but places visual priority on Anglo-Saxon surface decoration and arcading (Figure 5). William’s interest in displaying the integration of cultures is thus apparent in the outward-facing architecture of the cathedral. Meanwhile, in the private space of his chapel, William emphasized Norman style and Normanitas. Postcolonial theory has proved itself a useful lens for students of medieval culture, particularly in reference to the Norman Conquest.9 Yet postcolonial approaches remain novel in the study of post-Conquest architecture. Scholars have described the process by which Normans subdued the Anglo-Saxons after the 1066 invasion as one of “colonialism”; here, the phrase cultural conquest seems more appropriate, and it still leaves space for a postcolonial critique of the topic.10 Eventually, Anglo-Saxons and Normans intermarried, and by the mid-twelfth century, distinctions between the two cultures were barely acknowledged. But even in the eleventh century, Figure 3 Durham Cathedral, Durham, England, choir elevation, after 1093 when this cultural convergence was still fresh, its constituent (Conway Library, The Courtauld Institute of Art, London). elements were usually understood as matters of political rather

Figure 4 Norman Chapel, Durham Castle, Durham, England, ca. 1081–96, general view facing east (author’sphoto).

A BISHOP OF TWO PEOPLES 269 Figure 5 Durham Cathedral, Durham, England, after 1093 (author’sphoto). than racial or ethnic difference. William the Conqueror in- yet again to establish the cathedral at Durham.13 This peripa- vaded England because he believed he had a claim to the tetic diocese was composed not only of the bishop but also of throne, and there is no evidence that he or his fellow Normans what Symeon of Durham called the congregatio sancti Cuthberti, considered themselves ethnically superior to the English in the community of Cuthbert, later described by historian any meaningful way.11 For these reasons, the power structures William Aird as “an awkwardly constituted body of married at work in eleventh-century northern Europe must be differ- priests and monks living according to a monastic rule.”14 The entiated from later instances of European imperialism in the community, in addition to caring for the relics of Saint Cuth- Americas, Africa, the Middle East, and Asia. bert, was in charge of lands gifted to the saint posthumously. Still, there are strong resonances in the Norman Con- The importance of the community in the governance of the quest with postcolonial theories of hybridity, which Dean north cannot be overstated; as historian William Kapelle notes, and Leibsohn argue refer not to biology but to “political the members of the community elected the bishop (usually and cultural events in which conquest and colonization, re- from among their own ranks) and carried out the spiritual sistance and subversion, play significant roles.”12 Issues of responsibilities of the cathedral, but they also held land and “purity” and “authenticity” come to the fore in attempts to married. The community was rich and powerful, and, perhaps parse the “Normanness” or “Englishness” of architectural most important, it reflected continuity with the pre-Viking forms, and following that, in attempts to determine what north.15 Soon after becoming bishop in 1080, William dis- these meant to the indigenous population in England after banded the community of Cuthbert and instituted in its place the Conquest. Indeed, Bishop William’s near-simultaneous a Benedictine convent at Durham, thus undermining the com- commissioning of the cathedral and castle chapel in Dur- munity’s power and severing its members’ ties to their Anglo- ham demands a critical approach to “pure” or “authentic” Saxon cultural lineage.16 style (here seen in the castle chapel’s utilization of conti- The cultural conquest begun in 1066 by William, Duke of nental Norman forms) and “contaminated,”“hybrid,” or Normandy, and his followers was not the first encounter be- “mixed” style (as in the cathedral’s decorative scheme). tween England and Normandy. England and the Norman What power structures and relations come to light in the duchy had long been in close contact, and in the years prior conversation between these two buildings? How do their to the Conquest they were linked by trade and political ex- formal similarities and differences illuminate the nuances change between Edward the Confessor and Duke William. of Norman political strategies? Edward brought Norman clerics to England, and, notably, he had Westminster Abbey rebuilt in a Norman style before his death in January 1066.17 Likewise, the crossing and dwarf The Settlement and Conquest of Durham transepts at Holy Trinity, Great Paxton, probably built be- The see of Durham originated in Lindisfarne, where Cuthbert tween 1042 and 1066, reflect Edward’s and his builders’ (634–87) had been bishop. An important cult developed there knowledge of a broader, continental European Romanesque after his death. Following nearly a century of invasion and at- (Figure 6).18 The tower arch of Saint Bene’t in Cambridge tack by Vikings and Scots alike, the see moved to Chester-le- represents yet another attempt—clumsy but concerted—by Street in 883, where it remained until 995, when it was moved Anglo-Saxon builders to replicate continental Romanesque

270 JSAH | 77.3 | SEPTEMBER 2018 Figure 6 Parish church of Great Paxton, Huntingdonshire, England, ca. 1042–66, Anglo-Saxon crossing (photo by James Alexander Cameron). motifs (Figure 7). Too little is left to support any systematic Figure 7 Saint Bene’t, Cambridge, England, first half of eleventh century, theory of how Anglo-Saxons interpreted Romanesque motifs tower arch (author’sphoto). on English soil prior to the Conquest, or to what degree they did so. We must, however, set these stylistic moves made Norman Conquest, Durham had already been the site of an prior to Edward the Confessor’s death apart from the more Anglo-Saxon cathedral for three-quarters of a century, since forceful ones brought by William the Conqueror’s regime, 995, when it became the permanent resting place for the beginning just after the Battle of Hastings. saintly Bishop Cuthbert.20 William, then Duke of Normandy, landed on English soil The strategic location, cultural significance, and recalci- in 1066 and soon defeated the army of Harold, the Anglo- trant populace of Durham ensured that its bishops paid close Saxon king, at Hastings. Immediately, William took over the attention to the public messages they projected to their dio- southern part of the country, yet it was not until several years cese. The architectural decisions they made must be consid- later that his forces managed to quell resistance in the north of ered within the context of the Conquest as a whole, during England, including Durham, in a series of events known as the which time the Normans used techniques similar to those Harrying of the North. Northerners fought against conquest employed by modern colonial powers in order to invade, sub- with greater tenacity than did their southern counterparts, in due, and govern the Anglo-Saxons. William—now king of keeping with the history of violent separatism within their England—appointed bishops and handsomely rewarded his region.19 Durham was especially well protected, given its ad- followers with land and titles, effectively imposing an “alien vantageous geographical position: far from the political center aristocracy” on England while at the same time stripping of England, it was surrounded on three sides by the natural many of the natives of their property and positions.21 The na- “moat” of the River Wear. The nearly vertical slopes of the tive populace was subjected to new taxes, as well as to shifts in river’s gorges constituted a significant obstacle for hostile ar- administration and pastoral care, while episcopal sees were mies. The gorges, which were also a source of building stone, moved in the aftermath of the Conquest. Beyond these ad- had made Durham the logical place to locate the spiritual ministrative changes, the Normans introduced new linguistic and temporal centers of the north. Indeed, by the time of the and visual vocabularies on a broad scale. Unlike the trickle of

A BISHOP OF TWO PEOPLES 271 pre-Conquest cultural influence, after 1066 the Normans Bishop William is best remembered for his largest building quickly initiated a powerful program to rebuild nearly all project: the Anglo-Norman Romanesque cathedral in Dur- existing major churches using an architectural vocabulary im- ham, which he commissioned in 1093 to replace the earlier ported from Normandy, part of a potent and effective politi- Anglo-Saxon building.23 cal effort to gain control over England. Little documentation is available on the castle’sextentand condition when Walcher took over in 1071. First priorities for the builders would certainly have been establishing defen- The Norman Chapel and the Case for William of ’ sive boundaries and creating temporary accommodations for St. Calais sPatronage the bishop. According to Martin Leyland, who has completed In 1072, William the Conqueror and his associate Waltheof, the most extensive archaeological study of the site, the castle’s a native earl of Northumbria who kept his title in exchange curtain walls (i.e., the connecting walls between the towers, for an oath of fealty (only to be put to death after participat- not to be confused with the non-load-bearing curtain walls of ing in a revolt), began building a new castle close to the site of modern architecture) were first to be constructed, as these Durham’s extant Anglo-Saxon cathedral.22 Before significant addressed the need for security. The west range, probably in- construction had begun, William granted the castle to the cluding the original gate and temporary accommodations, bishops of Durham to serve as their future residence. The came first, followed by the east range.24 earliest Norman-appointed bishops of Durham needed to Now encased by the fabric of later building campaigns, build their episcopal palace ex nihilo. The first to reside there theNormanChapelisonthenorthsideofthecastle’souter was William Walcher of Liège, a Lotharingian appointed walls—the earliest extant part of the castle. The diminutive bishop in 1071; he served until his murder in 1080. His suc- chapel is a rectangular space measuring 10 meters by cessor was William of St. Calais, a Norman from Bayeux who 6.8 meters (Figure 8). Although it now appears to be mostly had served as abbot of Saint-Vincent-des-Prés near Le Mans; subterranean, archaeological studies show that today the his episcopacy spanned from 1080 until his death in 1096. surrounding ground level is at least 2.6 meters higher than

Figure 8 Norman Chapel, Durham Castle, Durham, England, ca. 1081–96, plan (Victoria County History, 1905).

272 JSAH | 77.3 | SEPTEMBER 2018 it was in the Middle Ages; thus the chapel was built at columns and complex sculptural capitals stand in stark con- ground level.25 Longitudinally planned with three aisles, trast to the nearby cathedral, whose monumentality and the outer two slightly wider than the central one, the insistently carved abstract decoration seem a world away. chapel features six columns made of golden-brown sand- About halfway through the episcopacy of Bishop Walcher stone from the Durham coal measures, each stained with (r. 1071–80), King William named him Earl of Northumbria swirling concentric rings reminiscent of agate or marble and thus granted him the power to act as a government offi- (Figure9).Thereisamodernentranceonthewestern cial, not simply as an episcopal one. This conferred upon wall, but in the Middle Ages one would have entered from Walcher and his successors legal authority alongside their the bailey through a door on the south. The curtain wall spiritual power, making their position unique among English features windows that were substantially enlarged after the bishops. When the bishop was given control over this region, MiddleAges;theyareoneithersideofasallyportofap- a number of responsibilities shifted to his purview, including proximately 2 meters in height. The chapel has attracted the raising of an army, the minting of currency, and the col- scholarly attention primarily for its rich sculptural pro- lection of taxes from residents.27 In short, after 1075 power gram. Among other things, the historiated capitals of its in Durham was consolidated in one individual. Leyland has sandstone columns represent human faces, a stag, lions, a argued that Bishop Walcher was the patron of the Norman mermaid, a tau cross, grapes, Saint Eustace, and a repeated Chapel, but I propose that this is unlikely for historical and chip-carved saltire pattern (Figure 10).26 The slender stylistic reasons.28

Figure 9 Norman Chapel, Durham Castle, Durham, England, ca. 1081–96, golden sandstone columns (author’sphoto).

Figure 10 Norman Chapel, Durham Castle, Durham, England, ca 1081–96, capital with mermaid and lion (author’sphoto).

A BISHOP OF TWO PEOPLES 273 First, the expanded jurisdiction attached to prince-bishop the building of the castle’s chapel, it is probable that Lothar- status rendered the bishops of Durham especially vulnerable to ingian architectural elements would be found there, along- attack. Durham was far from the southeast of England, where side or rather than the Norman ones we see. Even more the king was based, and the city’s proximity to the Scottish bor- than Jarrow (for which Walcher was an external patron), and der made potential encroachment by its northern neighbors unlike domestic accommodations or spaces built for other a long-standing source of anxiety.29 As with churches, which more mundane purposes, a chapel’s style represented its pa- were typically built from east to west to allow worship to begin tron. A chapel was a prestigious commission, one that offered as soon as possible, a new castle in a volatile region had to be an opportunity to include sculpture that was comparatively constructed in a manner that prioritized certain functional re- rare in domestic settings. quirements, particularly the provision of a safe, defensible Thus, on the basis of functional and formal logic, it seems space for habitation. Archaeologist Oliver Creighton has ar- likely that Bishop William was the patron of the castle chapel. gued that “military considerations were only one of many var- An overview of William’s life before his appointment as iables” in castle building, with others including symbolic and bishop of Durham contributes to an understanding of his administrative functions.30 Still, it is difficult to imagine that motivations. Before his arrival in Durham, he served at within his first seven years as bishop and steward of the castle, Bayeux Cathedral as a secular cleric and professed monastic Walcher could have managed to ensure its security and func- vows at Saint-Calais, where he became prior. Unfortunately, tionality along with commissioning and completing a fully fin- the style of the Norman Chapel cannot be compared to the ished chapel. monastery buildings at Saint-Calais, as those were destroyed The chapel’s style must also be taken into consideration. in a fifteenth-century fire.32 However, the future Bishop While little documentary evidence exists regarding Walcher’s William was probably at Bayeux Cathedral during the more architectural patronage in Durham, the projects with which or less continuous building activity that took place there he was associated display a style consistent with his place of from 1049 to 1077.33 At Bayeux, he likely observed the con- origin, Liège, in the region once known as Lotharingia (east- struction of a Romanesque church on Norman soil. ern France, the Rhineland, Belgium, and Holland). Walcher Along with his allegiance to monastic and religious insti- was involved with the construction of the monastic buildings tutions in Normandy (in addition to his connections with at Saint Paul’s Monastery at Jarrow, not far from Durham, Bayeux and Saint-Calais, he had been prior of Saint-Vincent which have features consistent with contemporary buildings in Le Mans), Bishop William had a marked preference for in Lotharingia, such as the crypt of the collegiate church of objects created in Normandy. This is evidenced by his non- Huy and Saint Peter’s Church in Utrecht; notable at Jarrow architectural patronage. It has been noted, for instance, that are the bulbous bases of the monastery’s arched doorway of the forty-nine manuscripts William donated to the monas- and its cushion capitals (Figure 11).31 Walcher, not the prior tic library at Durham—according to a list in the surviving of Jarrow (whose name was Aldwin), was the link between volume of his two-volume Bible—most were probably made Jarrow and the Low Countries; it is likely that he employed in Normandy, or by scribes in England who had been trained a master mason from his homeland for the monastery. in a Norman milieu.34 Symeon of Durham corroborates the Significantly, the Durham Castle chapel manifests no first theory, writing that the bishop “did not return empty- Lotharingian architectural features, nor do Norman architec- handed, but took care to send on ahead of him to the church tural tropes appear at Jarrow. Had Walcher commissioned many sacred altar vessels of gold and silver, various ornaments,

Figure 11 Saint Paul’sMonastery,Jarrow, England, 1070s, cushion capital (author’sphoto).

274 JSAH | 77.3 | SEPTEMBER 2018 and also many books.”35 Symeon’s statement suggests that a consecrated in 1066, the Abbaye-aux-Dames, like the bishop’s significant amount of material was sent from Normandy—so chapel at Durham, features crossing piers framed by volutes; much that William sent it in advance of his own arrival. the crossing arch is surmounted with wide bands of saltires. In the case of the castle chapel, style provides the most The crossing likely postdates the Conquest, having proba- compelling evidence of Bishop William’s patronage and polit- bly been built soon after, during the late 1060s or early ical motivations. There is no indication of visible hybridity in 1070s. Its appearance suggests that this motif was an indig- the chapel space—English style has not entered into the de- enous Norman one adopted during the following decades sign. The chapel’s volute capitals, for instance, find their clos- in Norman-controlled northern England.40 Art historian est relatives not in England but in Normandy (Figure 12).36 Maylis Baylè has commented on the similar character of the The volute form was popularized in Normandy in the second capitals at the Abbaye-aux-Dames and the Durham Castle half of the eleventh century, and early examples are found in chapel, and the likely influence of the former on the latter.41 cryptsatRouenandBayeux,aswellasatJumiègesandat It is indeed possible that Bishop William had seen the abbey. Caen in the Abbaye-aux-Dames (Figure 13). Following the It was a prestigious foundation, and it was probably com- Norman Conquest, the form was brought to England, where pleted before William the Conqueror’s own nearby monastic it can be seen in a number of places, including the east aisle of the north transept of Ely Cathedral (Figure 14).37 The volutes of the Durham Castle chapel are more sophisticated than the roughly contemporary ones at Ely. In the chapel, the volutes unfurl delicately from the capital, while at Ely they appear labored, even tentative. The Ely examples seem to be a step further from their Norman source; perhaps they are copies of Norman volutes made by a Saxon mason. In contrast, the volutes in the crypt of Bayeux Cathedral, which was consecrated in 1077, are similar in form to the Durham Castle examples, suggesting a stronger connection with Normandy for Bishop William’schapel. Another feature of the chapel capitals that is more charac- teristic of Normandy is their geometric decoration, even in the representation of human and animal forms.38 Tw o m o t i f s are employed in the capitals’ surface decoration: chip-carved saltires and a crosshatch or trellis pattern (Figure 15). An early example of chip-carved saltires can be found in the crossing at the church of La Trinité at the Abbaye-aux-Dames in Caen— the burial foundation of Matilda of Flanders, wife of William Figure 13 Bayeux Cathedral, France, dedicated 1077, columns with the Conqueror (Figure 16).39 Founded around 1060 and volute capitals (Conway Library, The Courtauld Institute of Art, London).

Figure 12 Norman Chapel, Durham Castle, Durham, England, ca. 1081–96, volute capital with stag (author’sphoto).

A BISHOP OF TWO PEOPLES 275 Figure 14 Ely Cathedral, Ely, England, eleventh century, volute capitals in the north transept (photo by Ron Baxter/Corpus of Romanesque Sculpture of Britain and Ireland).

Figure 15 Norman Chapel, Durham Castle, Durham, England, ca. 1081–96, capital with chip- carved saltires (author’sphoto).

Figure 16 La Trinité, Abbaye-aux-Dames, Caen, France, founded ca. 1060, consecrated 1066, chip- carved saltire decoration on the crossing piers (author’sphoto). burial foundation’s church, Saint-Etienne, which was not be- made of a stone different from that used for the columns, were gun until 1066. Bishop William was appointed to his position carved in Normandy and purchased there by Bishop William by King William himself, so it is plausible that William would for his prospective chapel in England.42 This would be consis- have visited Caen in the company of England’s new king. tent with contemporary practice for English Romanesque While there, he might also have visited Matilda’schurchfor sculptural decoration, which, according to art historian George women, La Trinité, the construction of which was in prog- Zarnecki, was almost always carved off-site.43 The castle chapel’s ress long before Bishop William’s own chapel was built at capitals are small by comparison with other Romanesque capi- Durham. At La Trinité, the future bishop could have observed tals, and there are only six of them.44 Their transportation by the latest in Norman decorative fashion. boat would have been entirely possible, particularly given Dur- TheDurhamCastlechapelemphasizedmotifsfromNor- ham’s position on the thoroughly navigable River Wear. mandy, but this leaves open the question of exactly how Bishop The columns, made of golden carboniferous sandstone, are William succeeded in building a chapel that would seem to have marble-like in appearance because of their sand content. Al- been more at home in the duchy than on English soil. It is possi- though the columns inside the chapel are still in good shape ble that the bishop brought a mason from Normandy back with (having suffered only minor water penetration), the outer walls him to Durham, perhaps after he concluded his exile in Nor- made from the same material have been ravaged by weather and mandy (1088–91), which was imposed on him by the Conquer- time, and they survive in poor condition (Figure 17). The capi- or’s successor, William Rufus, who accused him of treason. tals, meanwhile, made of a homogeneous, smooth white stone However, an alternative explanation would be that the capitals, suitable for carving, are in excellent condition (Figure 18).

Figure 17 Norman Chapel, Durham Castle, Durham, England, ca. 1081–96, southwestern respond (author’sphoto).

Figure 18 Norman Chapel, Durham Castle, Durham, England, ca. 1081–96, capitals compared with western responds (author’sphoto).

A BISHOP OF TWO PEOPLES 277 Figure 19 Norman Chapel, Durham Castle, Durham, England, ca. 1081–96, eastern responds (author’sphoto).

Although they have not been chemically tested, they are almost razing and replacement of Anglo-Saxon churches as a pri- certainly made from a type of limestone, possibly even Caen mary means of communicating their power. This was an ex- stone.45 Because of the quality of the stone, the six capitals, pansive architectural campaign that had an indelible impact as well as the two eastern responds, retain the sharpness of on the built environment and urban fabric of England. Eric their carving (Figure 19). By contrast, the western responds, Fernie notes that the years following the Norman Conquest which imitate the capitals in their shape and decoration but “must have turned the country into a vast building site, with are made of sandstone like the outer walls, have deteriorated. almost every city, town, and village affected.”46 He argues Perhaps these responds were made as a stopgap measure be- that the Normans carried out England’s material transforma- cause an insufficient number of capitals were available for the tion “because they saw modernizing the country as a means of chapel’s design; this would tend to support the theory that the indicating who, both politically and culturally, was in charge.”47 capitals were brought to Durham by the bishop in advance of The totality of the campaign was impressive: almost no surviv- the completion of a design. If they were carved in England, ing cathedral or large monastic church contains Anglo-Saxon the western responds could have easily been made at the same elements within its standing masonry.48 Within this broader time, and of the same stone, as the column capitals and east- visual field, Durham Cathedral deserves special consideration, ern responds. given its conspicuous and unusual use of Anglo-Saxon motifs. All things considered, it seems likely that the capitals were Although the post-Conquest Anglo-Norman building commissioned by Bishop William in Normandy and that the program drew on contemporaneous architectural styles from chapel was designed to showcase these “genuine” Norman across the channel, the resulting English work was hardly objects. The bishop looked to Normandy when he selected identical to structures found in Caen, Jumièges, or Rouen. a decorative scheme for his chapel, opting to import an alien According to architectural historian Lawrence Hoey, the style rather than utilize hybrid motifs of the sort that would Normans built structures in England that were “more ambi- characterize his cathedral building. tious and imaginatively varied than those they had left, or were still building in Normandy. . . . Anglo-Norman Roman- esque architecture, given its great variety of plan, elevation, Durham Cathedral and Anglo-Norman and articulation, is the most self-consciously creative of its Architectural Hybridity day.”49 Hoey’s statement becomes particularly salient in light In order to understand the relationship between the chapel’s of Durham Cathedral, which disrupts Norman paradigms architecture and that of Durham Cathedral, one must view not only in its decoration but also in its innovative engineer- both within the context of England’s political and social status ing of ribbed vaults and pointed arches.50 in the years immediately following 1066. While scholars have Bishop William began the rebuilding of Durham Cathe- cautioned against imagining 1066 as a turning point that dra- dral in 1093. During the late eleventh century, the town would matically altered everyday English experiences, it is clear that have been abuzz with the activities of building: planning, the Normans were the power brokers of post-1066 England. transporting and carving stone, and erecting the structures. Normans were quickly appointed to spiritual constituencies The physical and temporal proximity of these two building and given duchies, and it is well established that they used the projects—the cathedral and the chapel—raises the question of

278 JSAH | 77.3 | SEPTEMBER 2018 whether each had its own master and lodge of masons, or if interest in architecture would have extended to his private there was a centralized lodge and perhaps a single mason in chapel as well. charge of executing both projects. Even if there were two dis- Lisa Reilly has argued that although Durham Cathedral crete groups of masons working on the Durham peninsula in contains recognizably Saxon elements, it “may not call to the late eleventh century, they would certainly have rubbed mind a particular Saxon building in any specific way we un- shoulders and perhaps shared or swapped personnel. Since derstand.”52 It incorporates motifs unknown either in Nor- both projects were spearheaded and funded by the same mandy or in first-generation Anglo-Norman buildings, such bishop and built in such close proximity, a certain amount of as the column decoration and the interlacing dado arcade exchange would be expected. What is remarkable is that there (parallels have been identified in Anglo-Saxon manuscripts, does not seem to be any formal commonality between the two but not in buildings), and the monumental 10-foot thickness projects. While the castle’s Norman Chapel might be seen as of the walls was not typical in pre-Conquest buildings or in representative of ruling-class resistance to assimilating a local Normandy.53 The decorative program of the cathedral, vernacular, the hybrid Norman-Anglo-Saxon cathedral seems particularly with its emphasis on linearity, recalls Anglo- more politically manipulative than culturally inclusive. Saxon stripwork decoration typical in eastern England Although art historians generally consider Durham to be (Figure 20).54 For instance, the abstract surface decoration typical of English Romanesque cathedrals, this characteriza- of the cathedral’s columns calls to mind the spiral columns tion is somewhat flawed: the cathedral, in fact, is exceptional, in the Saxon crypt of Saint Wystan’s, Repton, although the both formally and historically. The special circumstances of the deeply incised carving at Durham leaves a different visual cathedral’s Norman takeover and governance by the prince- impression (Figure 21).55 These ambiguities have made bishops set it apart from its southern peers, such as Winchester Durham the subject of significant scholarly interest. and Ely. Architecturally, as already noted, the building is highly As Reilly notes, scholars have approached the question of innovative. Although it utilizes a Norman elevation and plan, Durham Cathedral’s influences archaeologically, seeking but the viewer is struck by the church’s difference from, rather than failing to locate a direct precedent in another building or to its affinity with, other post-Conquest buildings in England. In determine the nationality of the mason.56 She asserts that particular, Durham manifests a number of Anglo-Saxon refer- “the invocation of the Anglo-Saxon past at Durham may be ences. Given that the building was begun in 1093, during the read as a Norman manipulation of the historical past to make second generation of Anglo-Norman cathedrals, this stylistic their presence part of an ongoing tradition and to gloss over character was clearly a deliberate choice made by the patron the rupture their conquest represents.”57 The design fuses ar- and builders. Malcolm Thurlby paints a picture of Bishop chitectural and decorative features from the Romanesque ar- William as deeply concerned with the appearance of his chitecture of Normandy with existing English forms, but the cathedral and well aware of other Norman building projects lack of specificity in the Saxon elements keeps recognition throughout England, as well as prestigious churches, like Old just out of reach. Reilly contends that seeking the nationality Saint Peter’s in Rome, with which Durham shares the use of of the designer of the cathedral is futile and indeed irrelevant, spiral designs on supports (a Solomonic reference) and prox- and I agree. My interest is not in seeking origins but instead imate measurements in plan.51 Doubtless, Bishop William’s in elucidating the sociopolitical field that demanded and

Figure 20 Parish church of Saint Peter, Barton- upon-Humber, Lincolnshire, England, ca. 1000, stripwork on tower (author’sphoto).

A BISHOP OF TWO PEOPLES 279 by a native English workforce into one that looked as though it could have been built in Normandy, Bishop William made his aversion to cultural integration explicit. The Norman cathedral was probably designed by someone from Normandy or, at the very least, by someone familiar with the architecture of Normandy. The workforce that exe- cuted that vision, however, was likely drawn from a local population and used local techniques and materials. Whether the Anglo-Saxon northerners would have seen anything of themselves or their architectural traditions in the cathedral is a question that will likely remain unanswered. From the continental perspective, however, Durham Cathedral could have been read as an essentially Norman building that utilized a few unfamiliar motifs in order to placate local populations by providing a locus of familiarity. For an Anglo-Saxon, the cathedral might well have appeared as a Norman building that nonetheless allowed expression of the north’s cultural resil- ience and respected its native saint, Cuthbert.59 Cuthbert, an indigenous Anglo-Saxon saint from near Melrose (in modern-day Scotland), was best known for his role as bishop of Lindisfarne, and he provided Durham’smost important relics. Thus, Bishop William probably considered it advantageous to present his new cathedral as visually con- nected with the saint and his milieu, rather than at odds with them. Historian Susan Ridyard has convincingly argued that Figure 21 Parish church of Saint Wystan, Repton, Derbyshire, England, Norman abbots and bishops were not generally hostile to in- eleventh century, spiral columns in crypt (Conway Library, The Courtauld digenous saints, as some scholars had previously suggested. Institute of Art, London). InthecaseofDurham,sheassertsthatthe“protection of St Cuthbert was no less useful to the continental bishops of created these two contemporaneous yet markedly different Durham than their Anglo-Saxon predecessors.”60 The archi- forms of architecture. tectural planning of earlier Anglo-Norman building projects, The strategies employed in the cathedral’sarchitecture however, was arguably less concerned with indigenous saints were quite deliberate and can be productively read in the con- and could comfortably focus on a more pan-European Chris- text of hybridity. In reality, both the chapel and the cathedral tianity. Perhaps, between the difficulty of conquering England’s are hybrid structures. However, unlike the cathedral, where north and the desire to exploit the important Anglo-Saxon references to an Anglo-Saxon visual vocabulary were openly saint interred at Durham, Bishop William came to view the made, at the castle chapel, the work of the Anglo-Saxon ma- modification of Anglo-Saxon decorative motifs for his cathe- sons—undoubtedly the labor force behind the Norman dral as advantageous. building—remains invisible. In other words, the two building Rebuilt not long after Durham Cathedral was Lindisfarne projects exhibit dramatically different degrees of fidelity to Priory, which picked up on a number of the cathedral’s the architectural vernacular of those in power—the Normans decorative motifs (Figure 22). Lindisfarne is closely linked and, more particularly, the prince-bishops of Durham. Cul- with Durham because of its Cuthbertine associations, and tural hybridity could have been visually expressed in both the the Romanesque priory there was settled by monks from chapel and the cathedral, but it is evident in only one of them. Durham Cathedral priory. Although smaller, Lindisfarne This fact underscores my assertion that, rather than being the Priory imitates the cathedral in numerous ways: it has a natural outcome of a cultural exchange, and in contrast to the three-story elevation, alternating piers, incised carving, rib “invisible hybridity” of the chapel, the visible hybridity of the vaults, and chevron.61 In spite of the priory’spoorstateof cathedral was a deliberate, strategic choice. Once the chapel preservation, this visual comparison is compelling. Partic- was completed, it no longer bore the signs of the indigenous ularly in light of the strong visual relationship between labor and methods used to construct it. As Dean and Leib- Durham Cathedral and Lindisfarne Priory, which were sohn note, “Recognizing colonial hybrids is—or ought to constructed contemporaneously, it seems that the bishop of be—aprofoundlypoliticalact.”58 By fashioning a chapel built Durham must have found it advantageous to link the two

280 JSAH | 77.3 | SEPTEMBER 2018 in terms of either decoration or architecture. This is unusual, given the formal similarities between other pairings of cathedrals and bishops’ chapels—for example, Reims Cathedral and the bishop’s chapel there, built concurrently and probably by the same masons.62 Bishop William’s commitment to Norman craftsmen and their style has been discussed with reference to his donation of manuscripts to Durham Cathedral. Likewise, the chapel’s architecture and decoration project its Normanitas—the Norman identity of its patron, the bishop. The chapel’sde- sign is a private reminder that the bishop did not identify with the northern English people over whom he presided. As noted, the bishop had significant connections in Nor- mandy, having been a young cleric and, later, a political exile there. Bishop William had the opportunity to choose from a number of styles for his chapel, and he could have mixed and matched elements from each. However, he opted for a formal language that linked him with his past and place of origin, a testament to Norman cultural conquest over England rather than to cultural integration. When the chapel is considered in relation to the cathedral, the impression of what is communi- cated by style in that well-studied building is altered, and the conception of both spaces is complicated. The hybridity at work in Durham Cathedral may be read as a visual marker of northern resistance to the Norman Con- quest. Bishop William’s decision to incorporate Anglo-Saxon motifs in a building begun nearly thirty years after Norman Figure 22 Lindisfarne Priory, Lindisfarne, England, eleventh century, troops met Harold Godwinson at Hastings seems an inten- nave as seen from the north aisle (author’sphoto). tional attempt to manage uneasiness about the north’srestive native population. According to Dean and Leibsohn, “Hy- bridity—the marking of particular kinds of difference—is structures related to Saint Cuthbert and the north, and to do generated out of intolerance, the need to distinguish and so by means of fitting an Anglo-Saxon decorative vocabulary come to terms with unacceptable, conditionally acceptable, 63 into a Norman plan. Within the context of these choices or uneasy mixes.” The Harrying of the North created the made at two different sites, Durham Castle’s Norman Chapel context for a historically particular “intolerance”—one indi- seems peculiar precisely because it does not conform to the cated both by the friction between the Anglo-Saxons and the aesthetic shared by the cathedral and the priory. Indeed, the Normans and by the intolerance of more recent historians, chapel makes no reference to the Anglo-Saxon motifs that are who have traditionally seen Anglo-Saxon and Norman motifs so significant at those sites. as incompatible because of that contentious history. The Harrying marked a time of transition, when the Norman elites resisted assimilation into English culture and avoided Conclusion visible hybridity among themselves but employed it as a That a bishop’s chapel has functions different from those means of bringing the rebellious northerners into the fold, of a cathedral requires little explanation. The cathedral is softening the blow of their subjugation. large, formal, and public; the chapel is small and part of a Dean and Leibsohn argue that “once we accept that hy- residential complex. At Durham, the chapel was located bridity owes no less to present needs and desires to see and within the castle’s walled enclosure, used by the bishop and know what is disquieting about colonial history than it does members of his household, and perhaps occasionally at- to any particular past event, we can begin to write more tended by diplomatic guests. One would not expect the two complicated histories.”64 The monographic tendency to spaces, disparate in function and size, to be identical. How- treat the cathedral and the castle chapel separately has re- ever, the cathedral and chapel also have no commonalities sulted in an erasure, allowing students of both to overlook

A BISHOP OF TWO PEOPLES 281 the two structures’ richly textured, shared history and the Reality?,” Anglo-Norman Studies 4 (1981), 104–16; Nick Webber, The Evolu- – signs of struggle and discord, manipulation, and placation tion of Norman Identity, 911 1154 (Woodbridge: Boydell Press, 2001); Hugh M. Thomas, The English and the Normans: Ethnic Hostility, Assimilation, and visible—and invisible—within their fabrics. Identity 1066–c. 1220 (Oxford: Oxford University Press, 2003). 6. David Bates, The Normans and Empire (Oxford: Oxford University Press, Meg Bernstein is a PhD candidate in art history at the University 2013), 7. of California, Los Angeles. In 2015–17 she was a Kress Institutional 7. Carolyn Dean and Dana Leibsohn, “Hybridity and Its Discontents: Con- fellow at the Courtauld Institute of Art. Her dissertation focuses on sidering Visual Culture in Colonial Spanish America,” Colonial Latin American English parochial architecture in the twelfth and thirteenth centu- Review 12, no. 1 (2003), 6. ries, and her research interests encompass Romanesque and Gothic 8. Jeffrey Jerome Cohen, Hybridity, Identity, and Monstrosity in Medieval Brit- architecture and urbanism in Europe. [email protected] ain: On Difficult Middles (New York: Palgrave Macmillan, 2006), 5. 9. On postcolonial approaches to the Middle Ages, see Jeffrey Jerome Cohen, ed., The Postcolonial Middle Ages (New York: St. Martin’s Press, 2000); Ananya Notes Jahanara Kabir and Deanne Williams, eds., Postcolonial Approaches to the Euro- 1. This article originated as a paper supervised by Kris Tanton, whose men- pean Middle Ages: Translating Cultures (Cambridge: Cambridge University torship and friendship have been crucial to its development. It was first pre- Press, 2005); Cohen, Hybridity, Identity, and Monstrosity; Heather Blurton, sented at the International Congress on Medieval Studies in 2015 in a “Reliquia: Writing Relics in Anglo-Norman Durham,” in Cultural Diversity in session organized by Steve Walton and sponsored by the Association Villard the British Middle Ages: Archipelago, Island, England, ed. Jeffrey Jerome Cohen de Honnecourt for the Interdisciplinary Study of Technology, Science, and (New York: Palgrave Macmillan, 2008), 39–56. Art. I completed the majority of the research while I was a Samuel H. Kress 10. J. C. Holt also demonstrates discomfort with the term colonialism—in spite Foundation fellow at the Courtauld Institute of Art, and the Conway Library of the provocative title of his compilation of essays—and fails to rationalize its there allowed me photographic rights to the institute’s collections. Further use systematically. See J. C. Holt, Colonial England: 1066–1215 (London: photography was graciously provided by Ron Baxter, James F. King, and Hambledon Press, 1997), 2. Robert Bartlett distinguishes between medieval James Alexander Cameron. Additionally, I am appreciative of the JSAH team, and modern colonialism, considering medieval colonialism a “new plantation in particular Keith Eggener, as well as Gemma E. Lewis, Michael Glen, and of outsiders,” unlike modern colonialism, which has “the connotation of po- Peter Carne, who kindly granted me access to the Norman Chapel and its litical dependence on a foreign state.” He defines medieval colonial aristocra- documentation. I thank my adviser, Meredith Cohen, for her encouragement, cies as “alien military landed élites intruded upon native societies” as part of patience, and feedback. James Alexander Cameron accompanied me on my the “territorial extension of existing lordships or the creation of new ones.” final trip to Durham and has contributed enormously to my thinking on this Robert Bartlett, “Colonial Aristocracies of the High Middle Ages,” in Medie- topic. In the process of writing and revising this article, I benefited from the val Frontier Societies, ed. Robert Bartlett and Angus MacKay (Oxford: Oxford advice and camaraderie provided by Jamin An, Emily Floyd, Maeve O’Don- University Press, 1989), 24. A sensitive synthesis of the wider debate over nell-Morales, Sarah-Neel Smith, and Lauren Taylor, and Richard Plant’sin- such terminology can be found in Francis James West, “The Colonial History cisive commentary was invaluable. Finally, I thank my partner, Alessandra of the Norman Conquest?,” History 84, no. 274 (1999), 219–36. Amin, for her unflagging support, academic and otherwise. 11. Thomas, The English and the Normans,47. 2. The focus on Durham Cathedral to the exclusion of other buildings in the 12. Dean and Leibsohn, “Hybridity and Its Discontents,” 9. complex can be traced to the work of eighteenth- and nineteenth-century re- 13. Symeon of Durham, Libellus de exordio atque procursu istius.Forasummary storers, who frequently destroyed subsidiary buildings. Examples of this are of the moves of the community of Cuthbert, see David Rollason, Saints and plentiful, including at Durham, where the Norman chapter house and the Relics in Anglo-Saxon England (Oxford: Basil Blackwell, 1989), 197–202. north porch were contracted to be destroyed in the 1790s under the direction 14. Symeon of Durham, Symeonis monachi opera omnia: Historiae ecclesiae dun- of James Wyatt. See Gerald Cobb, English Cathedrals: The Forgotten Centuries— helmensis, ed. Thomas Arnold (Cambridge: Cambridge University Press, Restoration and Change from 1530 to the Present Day (London: Thames and 1882), 213; W. M. Aird, “St Cuthbert, the Scots and the Normans,” in Hudson, 1980), 12; Alan Doig, “Sacred Space and Its Use,” in Durham Cathe- Anglo-Norman Studies XVI: Proceedings of the Battle Conference, 1993,ed. dral: History, Fabric and Culture, ed. David Brown (New Haven, Conn.: Yale Marjorie Chibnall (Woodbridge: Boydell Press, 1994), 5. University Press, 2015), 357. 15. William E. Kapelle, The Norman Conquest of the North: The Region and Its 3. A recent anthology offers a broad view of the cathedral but does not re- Transformation, 1000–1135 (Chapel Hill: University of North Carolina Press, late it to the castle. See David Brown, ed., Durham Cathedral: History, Fabric 1979), 31. and Culture (New Haven, Conn.: Yale University Press, 2015). Martin Ley- 16. On this change in personnel at Durham, see A. J. Piper, “The First Gen- land has written about the castle, but not in the context of the cathedral. See erations of Durham Monks and the Cult of St Cuthbert,” in St Cuthbert: His Martin Leyland, “The Origins and Development of Durham Castle,” in Cult and His Community to AD 1200, ed. Gerald Bonner, David Rollason, and Anglo-Norman Durham, 1093–1193, ed. David Rollason, Margaret Harvey, Clare Stancliffe (Woodbridge: Boydell Press, 1989), 437–46. and Michael Prestwich (Woodbridge: Boydell Press, 1994), 407–24. 17. D. Talbot Rice, English Art, 871–1100 (Oxford: Clarendon Press, 1952), 4. Symeon of Durham, Libellus de exordio atque procursu istius, hoc est dunhel- 24; Eric Fernie, The Architecture of Norman England (Oxford: Oxford Univer- mensis, ecclesie/Tract on the Origins and Progress of This the Church of Durham, sity Press, 2000), 98. The scant material remains of Edward the Confessor’s ed. and trans. David Rollason (Oxford: Oxford University Press, 2000), abbey show parallels with Jumièges, Mont-Saint-Michel, and Bernay. Al- 245, iv.8. For further interpretation of Symeon’s chronicle, see M. G. though none of the masons associated with the building have Norman names, Snape, “Documentary Evidence for the Building of Durham Cathedral Fernie concludes that “as there is nothing Anglo-Saxon about what we know and Its Monastic Buildings,” in Medieval Art and Architecture at Durham of Westminster, it has to be assumed that [Edward] had involved his architects Cathedral, ed. Peter Draper and Nicola Coldstream (Leeds: W. S. Maney, in his education in Norman manners.” Fernie, Architecture of Norman Eng- 1980), 20–36. land, 98. 5. See R. H. C. Davis, The Normans and Their Myth (London: Thames and 18. Eric Fernie, The Architecture of the Anglo-Saxons (New York: Holmes & Hudson, 1976); G. A. Loud, “The ‘Gens Normannorum’—Myth or Meier, 1983), 129–33.

282 JSAH | 77.3 | SEPTEMBER 2018 19. Northumbria (initially bordered on the south by the Humber) was an in- 38. Zarnecki, English Romanesque Sculpture,10. dependent kingdom prior to Danish invasions in the ninth century. After the 39. In spite of Matilda’s moniker, to my knowledge her activity as an architec- southern part of the kingdom succumbed to the Danes, the land north of the tural patron was limited to her married life in the duchy of Normandy and not Tyne remained separate, though weak, until 954. For more on the historical made manifest in Lotharingia. precedent for a distinct northern identity, see Kapelle, The Norman Conquest 40. For discussion of the chronology of La Trinité, see Maylis Baylé, La Trin- of the North,9–14. ité de Caen: Sa place dans l’histoire de l’architecture et du décor romans (Droz: Bib- 20. Cuthbert’s many miracles are recorded, for example, in the writings of Bede liothèque de la Société Française d’Archéologie, 1979), 57. Baylé has also and Symeon of Durham. Bede, Ecclesiastical History of the English Nation,trans. called attention to the wide influence of La Trinité’s decoration in England, J.A.Giles(London:J.M.Dent,1903),285–349; Symeon of Durham, Libellus citing examples in Nottinghamshire, in Somerset, and at York Minster. See de exordio atque procursu istius;Fernie,Architecture of Norman England,131. Grove Art Online, s.v. “Caen,” by Maylis Baylé, 2003, http://www.oxford 21. Brian Golding, Conquest and Colonisation: The Normans in Britain, 1066- artonline.com/groveart (accessed 30 Mar. 2018). 1100, 2nd ed. (Basingstoke: Palgrave Macmillan, 1994), 54. 41. Baylé, La Trinité de Caen,106. 22. Richard Brickstock, Durham Castle: Fortress, Palace, College (Lindley: 42. On sculpture avant la pose, see Kirk Ambrose, The Nave Sculpture of Véze- Jeremy Mills, 2007), 1. lay: The Art of Monastic Viewing (Toronto: Pontifical Institute of Mediaeval 23. Symeon of Durham, Libellus de exordio atque procursu istius,245. Studies, 2006), 8–9. On the possibility of transporting stone from outside 24. Leyland, “Origins and Development of Durham Castle,” 412–14. a local area for high-status commissions, and on the evidence of carving at 25. Richard Annis, “North Terrace, Durham Castle, Durham: Archaeological quarries and transportation of carved elements to different buildings, as at Evaluation,” report 3508, produced by Archaeological Services of Durham Anzy-le-Duc, see Neil Stratford, “Romanesque Sculpture in Burgundy: Re- University on behalf of Estates and Buildings, Durham University, August flections on Its Geography, on Patronage, on the Status of Sculpture and on 2014, 1. the Working Methods of Sculptors,” in Studies in Burgundian Romanesque 26. On the sculptural program of the Norman Chapel, see George Zarnecki, Sculpture (London: Pindar, 1998), 4–5, 8. English Romanesque Sculpture, 1066–1140 (London: Alec Tiranti, 1951); Rita 43. George Zarnecki, “The Romanesque Capitals in the South Transept of Wood, “The Norman Chapel in Durham Castle,” Northern History 47, no. 1 Worcester Cathedral,” in Medieval Art and Architecture at Worcester Cathedral, (2010), 9–48. ed. G. Popper (Leeds: W. S. Maney, 1978), 39. 27. Brickstock, Durham Castle,2. 44. The average height of Romanesque historiated capitals is approximately 28. Martin Leyland, “The Origins and Development of Durham Castle to 51 centimeters; the capitals in the chapel are only about 28 centimeters high. AD 1217: The Archaeological and Architectural Record” (PhD diss., Univer- Wood, “The Norman Chapel in Durham Castle,” 11; Kristine Tanton, “The sity of Durham, 1994), 127–29. Marking of Monastic Space: Inscribed Language on Romanesque Capitals” 29. The border between England and Scotland was not static in this period, (PhD diss., University of Southern California, 2013), 3. but the River Tweed consistently provided its de facto demarcation. Valerie 45. The conservation report produced for the Society for the Protection of Wall, “Malcolm III and the Cathedral,” in Rollason et al., Anglo-Norman Dur- Ancient Buildings does not specify the material of the capitals and seems to ham,336. presume that they are made of the same stone as the columns. The report 30. O. H. Creighton, Castles and Landscapes: Power, Community and Fortifica- gives no evidence for this, however. Bertram C. G. Shore, Report on Norman tion in Medieval England (London: Equinox, 2002), 35. Chapel, Durham Castle (London: Society for the Protection of Ancient Build- 31. Walcher set up a community at Jarrow, bringing monks from Evesham to ings, 1951). Michael Glen, consultant architect to Durham Castle, does not resurrect the monastery established there by Benedict Biscop. When Walcher question the report’s apparent assumption that the capitals were made from was killed in Gateshead, it was the monks of Jarrow who mourned him and re- the coal measures sandstone but suggests that the stone was selected for its trieved his body. Symeon of Durham, Libellus de exordio atque procursu istius, fine grit. Michael Glen, email correspondence with author, 23 Mar. 2018. 201–2, 219. On Jarrow, see also Eric Cambridge, “Early Romanesque Archi- 46. Fernie, Architecture of Norman England,19. tecture in North-East England: A Style and Its Patrons,” in Rollason et al., 47. Ibid., 24. Anglo-Norman Durham, 149–52; Fernie, Architecture of Norman England, 200. 48. Ibid. Sherborne Abbey (formerly Sherborne Cathedral) is exceptional for 32. Louis Froger, ed., Cartulaire de l’abbaye de Saint-Calais (Le Mans: Pellechat, retaining limited Anglo-Saxon fabric, namely, a west door that presumably 1888), xv, http://gallica.bnf.fr/ark:/12148/bpt6k91416j (accessed 29 Mar. 2018). opened to the north aisle, now accessible only from within the church. John 33. On the chronology of Bayeux Cathedral, see Maylis Baylé, ed., L’architec- Newman and Nikolaus Pevsner, Dorset (New Haven, Conn.: Yale University ture normande au Moyen Âge,vol.2,Les étapes de la création (Caen: Presses Uni- Press, 1974), 368. versitaires de Caen, 1997), 37–44; Valérie Chaix, Les églises romanes de 49. Lawrence Hoey, “Tradition, Innovation, and Creative Adaptation: The Normandie: Formes et fonctions (Paris: Picard, 2011), 226–33. Medieval Rebuilding of English Church Architecture 1066–1530 (Work in 34. Alma Colk Browne, “Bishop William of St. Carilef’s Book Donations Progress)” (unpublished manuscript, 2001), 15. Hoey’smanuscriptwasawork to Durham Cathedral Priory,” Scriptorium 42, no. 2 (1988), 150. Anne in progress at the time of his death. I thank members of the British Archaeo- Lawrence-Mathers registers skepticism about the number of books logical Association for making the text available, and James Alexander brought to Durham from Normandy, but she accepts that at least some Cameron for sharing it with me. were. See Anne Lawrence-Mathers, “Durham and the Norman World,” in 50. On the technical and formal innovations of Durham Cathedral, see Peter Manuscripts in Northumbria in the Eleventh and Twelfth Centuries (Wood- Kidson, Peter Murray, and Paul Thompson, A History of English Architecture, bridge: Boydell Press, 2003), 34–48. See also Wood, “The Norman Chapel 2nd ed. (Norwich: Penguin Books, 1979), 48–53. in Durham Castle,” 46. 51. Malcolm Thurlby, “The Roles of the Patron and the Master Mason in the 35. Symeon of Durham, Libellus de exordio atque procursu istius,243–45. First Design of the Romanesque Cathedral of Durham,” in Rollason et al., 36. Fernie, Architecture of Norman England,277. Anglo-Norman Durham,163. 37. George Zarnecki, “Romanesque Sculpture in Normandy and England in 52. Lisa Reilly, “The Emergence of Anglo-Norman Architecture: Durham the Eleventh Century,” in Proceedings of the Battle Conference on Anglo-Norman Cathedral,” in Anglo-Norman Studies XIX: Proceedings of the Battle Confer- Studies 1978, ed. R. Allen Brown (Woodbridge: Boydell Press, 1979); Fernie, ence, 1996, ed. Christopher Harper-Bill (Woodbridge: Boydell Press, Architecture of Norman England,277. 1997), 345.

A BISHOP OF TWO PEOPLES 283 53. Eric Fernie, “The Romanesque Cathedral, 1093–1133,” in Brown, Dur- 59. For a discussion of architectural foreignness and the medieval awareness of ham Cathedral, 136. Richard Plant has argued that the first intersecting arcad- it, see Peter Draper, “English with a French Accent: Architectural Franglais in ing in an English building may have been at Winchester Cathedral on Late-Twelfth-Century England,” in Architecture and Language: Constructing the exterior of the south transept gable. Richard Plant, “La Cathédrale de Identity in European Architecture, c. 1000–c. 1650, ed. Georgia Clarke and Paul Winchester: Ses sources et son influence,” in L’architecture normande en Crossley (Cambridge: Cambridge University Press, 2000), 25–27. Europe: Identités et échanges du XIe siècle à nos jours, ed. Martin Kew Meade, 60. S. J. Ridyard, “Condigna Veneratio: Post-Conquest Attitudes to the Werner Szambien, and Simona Talenti (Marseilles: Éditions Parenthèses, Saints of the Anglo-Saxons,” in Anglo-Norman Studies IX: Proceedings of the 2002), 56. Battle Conference, 1986, ed. R. Allen Brown (Woodbridge: Boydell Press, 54. M. O. H. Carver, “Intellectual Territories in Anglo-Saxon England,” in The 1987), 197. Oxford Handbook of Anglo-Saxon Archaeology, ed. Helena Hamerow, David A. 61. Although 1093 is frequently given as the beginning date for Lindisfarne Hinton, and Sally Crawford (Oxford: Oxford University Press, 2011), 940–41. Priory, J. Philip McAleer has cast doubt on that estimate, suggesting that a 55. On Repton and the debate about its chronology, see Fernie, Architecture of date before 1100 is unlikely. J. Philip McAleer, “The Upper Nave Elevation the Anglo-Saxons,116–21. and High Vaults of Lindisfarne Priory,” Durham Archaeological Journal 2 56. Jean Bony argues that the mason was “brillamment normannisé, mais (1986), 50. On the relationship between Durham Cathedral and Lindisfarne encore si Saxon de coeur.” Jean Bony, “Durham et la tradition saxonne,” Priory, McAleer has argued that the high vault at Lindisfarne was formed of in Études d’art médiéval offertes à Louis Grodecki, ed. Louis Grodecki et al. groin—not rib—vaults, which may serve as proof that the original high vault (Paris: Ophrys, 1981), 84. Similarly, Thurlby argues that the mason was in- of Durham’s choir was indeed groin vaulted. J. Philip McAleer, “Encore Lin- digenous and responsible for the “grammatical” indigenous features of the disfarne Priory and the Problem of Its Nave Vaults,” Antiquaries Journal 74 building, while also responding to the patron’s requests for specifically (1994), 197. Fernie’s observation that there are chevrons throughout Lindis- continental features. The mason probably learned about such features by farne and that they are introduced only partway through the building pro- visiting cathedrals in Normandy as well as first-generation Norman build- gram at Durham strengthens the claim of a date later than 1093 for ing projects in England’s southeast. See Thurlby, “Roles of the Patron and Lindisfarne. E. C. Fernie, “The Architectural Influence of Durham Cathe- the Master Mason.” dral,” in Rollason et al., Anglo-Norman Durham,269. 57. Reilly, “Emergence of Anglo-Norman Architecture,” 345. Conversely, 62. Meredith Cohen, The Sainte-Chapelle and the Construction of Sacral Monar- Lawrence Hoey raises questions about the legibility of Anglo-Saxon referen- chy: Royal Architecture in Thirteenth-Century Paris (Cambridge: Cambridge ces to contemporary viewers, namely, the community of Cuthbert and lay- University Press, 2015), 135. men. See Hoey, “Tradition, Innovation, and Creative Adaptation,” 14. 63. Dean and Leibsohn, “Hybridity and Its Discontents,” 6. 58. Dean and Leibsohn, “Hybridity and Its Discontents,” 24. 64. Ibid., 29.

284 JSAH | 77.3 | SEPTEMBER 2018