ABBEY. RY BU GLASTON ^tastoiikrjj: ©he |luins.' BY JAMES PARKER, M.A., F.G.S. The following summary of the lecture includes the observations made on the spot, together with further historical details^ and references to the sources from which they are obtained. S. JOSEPH’S CHAPEL. ~T NEED not dwell upon the details of the legends of the early churches of Glastonbury: how Joseph of Arimathea is said to have built a church here of wood in a.d. 63, in honour of the Blessed Virgin; and how Phaganus and Diruvianus built another of stone, in honour of S.S. Peter and Paul, in A.D. 166 ; how S. David built another, and King Ine a fourth, though at this point, as I have already said in my lecture of this morning, we pass from the region of legend into that of history. In one of the passages in William of Malmesbury’s treatise “ De antiquitate Glastoniensis Ecclesiae,” ^ it is implied that all four churches were erected on different sites, in a line (2) with one another, from west to east ; but on the other hand, it seems that there standing (3) were only the two churches in his time [c. 1130], and that what he has written of the position of the other two is derived only from legend. That which seems to stand out clear from amidst a mass of vague and incredible statements, is that an early wooden church was built here, and was for long preserved as an object of (1). See Part I, pp. 43-48. I have taken the opportunity offered me of revising the reporter’s notes, to insert such historical matter which neither the time at my disposal, nor the circumstances of open-air lecturing gave me an opportunity to introduce when on the spot. William of Malmesbury, p. 53. This treatise is printed in Hearne’s edition of Adam of Domerham (and from this I shall quote throughout, in preference to Gale’s edition). The exact date of the original treatise is not ascertainable. It was after 1126, and probably not later than 1135. Ne-iv Series, Vol. FI., i88o, Part II. D ; 26 Papers^ ^c. veneration. We are not dependent wholly upon the traditions collected by William of Malmesbury in his hook, as to the existence of the wooden church,” for two of the charters, copies of which are preserved elsewhere, are dated as having been signed in this “ Lignea BasilicaP^ How long this wooden church was preserved seems doubtful. The name possibly survived the actual structure,® and we soon meet with another name more frequently applied to the same building, namely, “ vetusta ecclesia,^'’ or as Malmesbmy writes—which is called the ealdechirchP Nowhere does Mahnesbury imply that the wooden church was standing in his time. But what is certain is that it was dedicated to S. Mary. It is certain, also, that a later and greater church was built to the east of it, but probably never actually part of it ; and that the building by which we are standing, and now called S. Joseph’s Chapel, occupies the ” site of the vetusta ecclesia dedicated to S. Mary ; while the ruins beyond occupy the site of the larger church, dedi- cated to S.S. Peter and Paul. There is no suspicion of these dedications having been shifted, and though errors sometimes creep in from confusing the dedications of certain altars with the dedication of the churches, there is no room for such error(4) here. Now the special feature of this Church of S. Mary, or Lady Chapel,(5) as there is some reason to suppose that it was afterwards called, is that it stands at the west end of the church, and was once evidently an absolutely distinct building. The conmion position for a Lady Chapel is at the east end of the minster but at Durham an example exists at the west end, and there was a special reason for it in that case. In many cases too . The one of King Ine, a.d. 704. [See Kemble's Codex Diplom., Ko. 51.] The other of King Cnut, a.d. 1032. [See K.C.D., No. 747.] Copies of these are found in the Secretum, or Chartulary of Glastonbury, preserved in the Bodleian. afterwards . The wooden church of York, it will be remembered, was enclosed with a stone one, which was again enclosed by a still larger church ; but here the analogy with Glastonbury ceases, because there by extension westward as well as eastward, the individuality of the first church was entirely lost. Glastonbury : The Abbey Ruins, 27 there is a Lady Chapel adjoining the north transept, and in one, the south transept. There are also many examples where the Lady Chapel is a separate building, though not one, per- haps, where it is so much detached as this must have been before the Galilee connected it with the west end of the church. But we must bear in mind that there are special reasons why it stands where it does : the first church had been originally dedi- cated to S. Mary, so another chapel dedicated to her was not absolutely needed, though of course such may have been built elsewhere.® When the larger church was required there was probably no room to build to the westward of S. Mary’s Church, or from the nature of the ground it was unadvisable; con- sequently the larger church was built eastward. And also, whereas in many cases the earher and smaller church has been absorbed, so to speak, into the larger church, here the halo of reverence with which the antiquity of the building seems to have been surrounded, and the special sanctity which it ob- tained on account of the burials, or relics, within it, caused it to be preserved as a separate structure. The starting point in the architectural history of this building is the year 1184, when, as we learn from Adam of Domerham’s Chronicle, ^Mn the summer, on S. Urban’s day (May 25), the whole of the monastery, except a chamber with its chapel, and the bell tower, was destroyed by fire.” ^ We learn from the same writer, as well as from the chronicle of John of Glaston- bury, who had access to much the same series of records, that (6). The “ Sacellum in Capella 8. Marise a boreali parte chori” (Leland, Itin. hi. fol. 86) is explained by Professor Willis to be a small chapel or oratory, built out from the north side, towards the eastern end of this chapel, and not on the north side of the choir of the great church. Willis’ Glastonbury, p. 14. Undoubtedly Leland is no longer speaking of the choir of the large church, for after giving a list of tombs in the choir, and then in the nave, he speaks of the Chapel of S. Mary. It may be therefore, that he refers to this chapel, though I confess to being unable to see the traces of the Sacellum in the ruins of the present building. It must also be admitted that in the view given by Stukely (dated 1723) one of the chapels on the east side of tlie north transept is marked as “ S. Mary’s Chapel,” and in the letterpi’ess he writes ‘ ‘ On the north side is S. Mary’s Chapel, as they told me, used as a stable, the manger where the altar stood.” (7). Adam of Dorn., Hearne, p. 333. 28 Papers,^ &c. Henry II, after the fire, committed Glastonbury to Ralph Fitz- Stephen, one of his chamberlains ; and that he completed the Church of S. Mary of square stone of most splendid work, in the place where from the beginning the old church had stood, sparing nothing which could add to its adornment.” It was dedicated, so John of Glastonbury adds, ‘‘by Reginald, Bishop of Bath, on S. Barnabas’ day (June 11), about 1186.”^ I do not stop now to question the dates, hut I think the care shown by the insertion of the word ^ about ’ adds to our confidence in the general accuracy of the writer’s statement. Probably there was no year given in the register from which he copied, and he therefore judged of the date from the sequence of other entries as nearly as he could. There can be no doubt whatever that the existing building (that is, the four western- most bays of the whole structure), is the church meant in this passage as being dedicated on S. Barnabas’ day ; there can be no question that this was what they began building first of all after the fire of 1184, leaving the larger church still in ruins. One or two questions arise, however, not easy to answer. Was the site of the original “vetusta ecclesia” identical with what we have now, and was its eastern wall originally in a line with the wall marked in the plan as separating the chapel from the site of the Galilee ? And secondly, was there a space between the two churches, such as that now occupied by the Galilee? As to the “ vetusta ecclesia,” the chronicle above referred to, describing the building and dedication of the structure, says distinctly that the new Church of S. Mary was built in the place where, from the beginning^ the old had stood.” This should not, however, be taken too literally, for it is very possible that the older church would have been enclosed, and the remains of the burnt church not moved away til] the ]jresent was built around it.