CITY OF DURHAM 



it were by the projecting mass of the Galilee 

 and towering high above the tree-clad cliff. 



In the cathedral church there were several 

 CHANTRIES. Of these one of the earliest was 

 founded about the year 1355 by Ralph Lord 

 Neville,^" who assigned an annual rent-charge of 

 j^io, which was later compounded for by the 

 release of a debt of ;^400 by his son John. The 

 mass of this foundation was sung at the altar 

 of the Great Rood {Magnae Crucis). Another 

 Neville chantry, that of Thomas Neville, is men- 

 tioned in the i6th century.^' A third chantry, 

 probably situated at the altar of St. Bede in the 

 Galilee, was that of Bishop Neville (d. 1457) and 

 Richard of Barnard Castle.^- The chantry of 

 Walter Skirlaw (d. 1405) was attached to the 

 altar known previously as that of St. Blaise.^ 

 The chantry of the Holy Trinity of Prior Fossor 

 (d. 1374)^'* was founded for a monk to say mass 

 for his soul daily at the altar of St. Nicholas and 

 St. Giles in the north transept. The chantry 

 of the Name of Jesus^^ was either founded or 

 augmented by Prior Thomas Castell (d. 1519), 

 who also built the chapel of St. Helen. The 

 chantry of John Rude may have been identical 

 with that of Robert Rodes of Newcastle and 

 his wife Agnes.^^ Of the important foundation 

 of Bishop Langley (d. 1437), the chantry of 

 Our Lady and St. Cuthbert in the GaHlee, an 

 account has been given in an earlier volume.^' 

 Other chantries in the cathedral church which 

 may be mentioned were those of Isabel Lawson^* 

 and of Our Lady of Pity.^^ 



The most important gild associated with the 

 cathedral church was that of St. Cuthbert, often 

 known as the Frary. Its foundation was early.*" 

 At the Dissolution the gross yearly value of the 

 revenuesof this gild was estimated'" at £j 14/. 8f/., 

 or, less reprises, £6 i6s. T,d. The Anchorage in 

 the cathedral has already been mentioned.*^ 



In the chapel of the castle of Durham was a 

 chantry which in 1535 was of the annual value 

 of ^os}^ 



3* Scriptores Ires (Surt. Soc), 134 ; Durh. Acct. R. 

 (Surt. Soc), iii, Intro, p. Ivii. 



31 Durh. Household Bk. (Surt. Soc), 91. 



32 Durh. Acct. R. (Surt. Soc), iii, Intro, p. Iviii. 



33 Script. Ires (Surt. Soc), 145 ; Durh. Acct. R. iii, 

 Intro, p. lix. 



3* Script. Tres (Surt. Soc), 131 ; Durh. Acct. R. iii, 

 Intro, p. Ixi. 



^Durh. Acct. R., loc cit. Cf. Script. Tres (Surt. 

 Soc), 153. 



3* Durh. Acct. R. iii, Intro, p. Ixii ; Durh. House- 

 hold Bk. 99. 37 i^,c.H. Dur. i, 371. 



38 Durh. Acct. R. (Surt. Soc), ii, p. 418. 



3* Rites oj Durh. (Surt. Soc. 107), p. 44. 



** The foundation of 1437 was obviously merely a 

 reorganisation. Hutchinson, Durh. iii, 260 n. 



" Injunctions and Eccl. Proc. Bp. Barnes (Surt. 

 Soc), Ap. vi, p. bcii. <« V.C.H. Dur. ii, 130. 



*3 Valor Eccl. (Rec Com.), v, 324. 



The monastic 

 MONASTIC BUILDINGS buildings are 



grouped on the 

 south side of the church around the cloister and 

 follow the usual arrangement of the Benedictine 

 plan, with the chapter house in the east 

 range and the frater on the south. The 

 dorter, too, was originally in the usual position 

 on the first floor of the east range, south of the 

 chapter house, but was afterwards moved to the 

 west range, a change of plan perhaps determined 

 by the fact that the river forms the western 

 boundary of the site and affords special con- 

 venience for drainage, and also possibly by the 

 west range being on the side farthest from the 

 town houses. A part of the old east range was 

 then used as a prison, while the rest was taken 

 by the prior's lodging. The nature of the site, 

 which is longer from north to south than from 

 east to west, also determined the position of the 

 outer court, which was placed south of the 

 cloister, and the infirmary stood between the 

 west range and the river, a position dictated by 

 convenience. With these variations, and allow- 

 ing for the inevitable changes to which the 

 buildings were put after the Dissolution, the 

 normal arrangements of a Benedictine house can 

 perhaps be nowhere better studied than at 

 Durham. Although a certain amount of re- 

 building has been done since the i6th century, 

 especially in the south range, the references to 

 the various parts of the buildings in ' Rites of 

 Durham ' can generally be followed, and afford 

 a vivid picture of the Hfe of the monastery in 

 the years immediately preceding the surrender. 



Mention has already been made of work in 

 the east and south ranges which is earlier than 

 any part of the existing church, and in all 

 probability forms part of the buildings begun by 

 Walcher. According to Simeon, Walcher began 

 the erection of ' suitable buildings for a dwelling 

 place of monks, '^ but met his death before they 

 were finished. It is not unhkely, however, that 

 the existing undercrofts at the south end of the 

 east range and the east end of the south range, 

 with the passage between them, were completed 

 by 1080, and it would seem probable that 

 Walcher's work was planned round a cloister 

 about 115 ft. square, the north side of which 

 was formed by Aldhun's White Church. The 

 evidence for this was set forth by Sir William 

 Hope in 1909,- and though not conclusive, as 

 no trace of Aldhun's church was found, fur- 

 nishes strong probability that Walcher's build- 

 ings were attached to it, and that the east and 

 south sides of the present cloister preserve the 

 lines of the first cloister. When the site of the 

 lavatory opposite the frater door was uncovered 



^ Sim. of Durh. (Rolls Ser.), i, 10. 



* Proc. Soc. Antiq. Land. (2nd ser.), xjrii, 416. 



123 



