A HISTORY OF NORTHAMPTONSHIRE 



for us by Peterborough chroniclers, and it may be 

 that, even after ninety years of ruin, parts of it were 

 sufficiently sound to be repaired without rebuilding. 



If the church of Brixworth is that of the colony 

 sent from Medeshamstede to ' Bricklesuurtha ' in the 

 end of the 7th century, we may form some idea of the 

 size of a mother church which, within the first half- 

 century of her existence, could raise so large a building 

 for a daughter house. The history of the two build- 

 ings must have been much the same ; the marks of 

 fire on the walls of Brixworth have always been attri- 

 buted to the Danish ravages of 870, and the evidences 

 of repair of the church at a time not later than the 

 I Ith century, and very possibly in the loth, point in 

 the same direction — so that in this case it may be 

 fairly assumed that a Dane-destroyed 'minster' was 

 left in sufficiently good condition to be repaired 

 without rebuilding. 



The words of the chroniclers are not decisive, but 

 give some support to this idea. The Saxon Chronicle 

 says that Athelwold found there nothing but ' old 

 walls and wild woods.' But in the old walls, in that 

 curiously opportune manner in which monastic houses 

 now and again chanced on documents of vital 

 importance at critical times in their histories, he 

 found a record of the ancient privileges of Medes- 

 hamstede, written by abbot Hedda, and presumably 

 stored up for the benefit of future generations at the 

 time of the Danish attack. 



Hugo Candidus is more detailed in his account. 

 He says that St. Athelwold found cattle and horses 

 stabled in the church {in ipsa eccksia), and the whole 

 pl.ice full of filth and uncleanness, but still showing 

 clear evidence of its former size and splendour. And 

 in his account of the building of the present church, 

 after the fire of 11 16, he mentions the discovery of 

 the great foundation-stones {immaniuimi lapides), of 

 which eight yoke of oxen could scarcely draw one, 

 which he considers to be part of Peada's church. 

 'Quos et nos vidimus,' he says, ' ut domus dei firmiter 

 starct supra firmam Petram aedificata.' ' But, later 

 on, he speaks of the rebuilding and refurnishing of 

 the church, and says of the new abbot, Adulf, and his 

 monks, that they built {construxeruni) the church of 

 God. At any rate, it is possible to speak with some 

 certainty about the condition of the church after the 

 work of restoration or rebuilding undertaken by St. 

 Athelwold, because what are undoubtedly the remains 

 of its eastern end may be seen to this day below the 

 floor of the south transept of the present church, and 

 it has left other traces of its existence which will be 

 noted in due course. 



No record has been preserved of the monastic 

 buildings which were contemporary with the Saxon 

 church, and the only notice that occurs in the tenth 

 century relates to the enclosing of the monastic pre- 

 cincts with a wall by Abbot Kenulf, 992-1005. This 

 was in itself an important work, but its most interesting 

 result was that it changed the name of the monastery 

 from Medeshamstede to Burgh, the walled or fortified 

 place, afterwards from its wealth called for a time 

 Gildenburgh, and finally Peterburgh. 



In the sack of Burgh by Hereward, about 1070, 

 the abbey buildings except the church are said to have 

 been destroyed, and shortly afterwards the church it- 

 self set on fire and completely burnt through the 

 carelessness of the brethren. But if this were so, the 



1 Sparkc, 17. 



damage cannot have been as great as is recorded, for 

 it is clear that in ErnuH's days, 1 107— 14, the con- 

 dition of the church was satisfactory, and what work 

 was done immediately before and during his time was 

 connected with the claustral buildings. The only 

 parts of the church mentioned by Hugo are the/or- 

 ticus of St. Andrew and the tower, and no actual 

 description of the building is left to us. But it must 

 have been of considerable size and importance, as 

 several facts, beyond the architectural evidence, tend 

 to show. It survived the Norman Conquest for fifty 

 years, and then perished in a great fire, and there is no 

 evidence that any scheme for rebuilding it was at the 

 time in contemplation. Abbot Thorold, 1069-98, 

 indeed, might have been expected to make it his first 

 business to destroy the works of his Saxon predecessors ; 

 but his tenure of the abbacy, though long, was also 

 stormy, and it is probable that he found no time to 

 devote to anything so peaceful as the rebuilding of his 

 abbey church. The only mark he h.is left on Peter- 

 borough is the earthen mount on the north of the 

 cathedral, now called Tout Hill, but formerly Mount 

 Thorold — the strong place made by him to overawe 

 his rebellious monastery. After his time Abbots 

 Godric, 1098-99, and Matthias, 1 103-4, ruled 

 for too short a time to undertake any work of import- 

 ance, and from 1099 to 1 103, and 1 104 to 1 107, the 

 abbey was in the king's hands. In 1 107, however, a 

 great builder, Ernulf, prior of Christ Church at 

 Canterbury, came as abbot to Peterborough, and it is 

 unlikely that he would have left the church unaltered 

 if it had been unworthy of the great and wealthy 

 house to which it belonged. But instead of touching 

 it he turned his attention to the monastic buildings, 

 and beginning on the east side of the cloister built a 

 new dorter and reredorter, finished the chapter-house, 

 which he found incomplete, and was in course of 

 building the frater when in 1 1 14 he was translated to 

 the bishopric of Rochester. None of his work now 

 remains in any of these buildings, but it is probable 

 that he set about an entire renewal of the claustral 

 buildings, as the west wall of the cloister is certainly 

 earlier than the fire of 1 1 16, and not improbably a 

 part of his work. 



His successor, John de Siez, 1 1 14-25, continued 

 his work, as we are told that in 1 1 16 the new frater 

 was just finished. But in this year a great fire, which 

 began in the bakehouse, spread through the whole 

 monastery and adjacent buildings and burnt every- 

 thing except the new chapter-house, dorter, and frater, 

 in which last the convent had dined together for three 

 days only. 



The fire lasted nine days in the tower of the church, 

 and on the ninth day a strong wind arose and 

 scattered fire and live coals from the tower on to the 

 abbot's lodgings, and all that had hitherto escaped 

 seemed to be in danger of burning. The chronicler 

 more than hints that the disaster was due to an un- 

 fortunate speech of the abbot, who lost his temper 

 about some trifling matter, and ' rashly consigned the 

 house to the enemy,' with the result that a servant 

 who had some difficulty in lighting a fire that day, 

 and called on the Devil to help matters, found his 

 appeal only too readily answered, with disastrous 

 results. 



The rebuilding of the church having now become 

 necessary, the work was undertaken the next year, 

 though according to Hugo the foundation stone was 

 not laid till 8 March, 1 1 18. l"he site was east and 



432 



