http://boar.org.uk/abpwxa2Brownemon.htm Latest
edit 20 Aug 2008.
Text and page ©R.J.PENHEY 2006, 2007 and 2008
Bourne Archive
Reading Artefacts as Documents: The
High on the north wall of the inside of the chancel of
Several hypotheses have been proposed to explain it but for many years, it remained a puzzle. However, it has now become clear that the symbols do not represent a rebus on the name of a mid-thirteenth century Abbot, Robert de Hamme. This idea was not convincing owing to the 16th to 17th century style of shield shape. This period was not one in which people would have been looking back to commemorate the Roman Catholic canons of the abbey.
Nor is the symbol the Hebrew
letter ayin, which is so named
because it is the first letter of the Hebrew word ayin, meaning eye. It was read as such, independently, by two
Hebrew readers and the splayed edges of the lower stone might have represented
light rays converging on the eye of God. This would have been very surprising.
A direct representation of an eye itself is unusual but not unknown, in church
wall painting. It is called an oculus and there is an outstanding example of
oculi in the parish
All seems to come clear when the arms of the Browne family are
recognized. In the period of the early seventeenth century, a branch of the
family was, for a few decades, prominent in the parish. Its leading member,
John Browne held the advowson of the parish and introduced Edmund Lolley as
vicar in 1613 (new style). [Foster
p.xii] His successor, Richard Titley was introduced in 1632, by Winifred
Browne. [Foster p. xii] These were difficult times for the Church in
It should not be imagined that
holding the advowson meant that Winifred necessarily lived in Bourne. A few
decades before, it had been held by Queen Elizabeth and there is no indication
that she ever lived there. Furthermore, Peck’s Annals [p. B
22 col. 2.] mentions a ‘Mrs. Winifred Brown, wife & executrix of John
Brown, late of this [All Saints,
The family had been prominent in the cloth trade of
Browne’s philosophy was taken up in whole or part, by others. John
Cotton was a later leader in the same general pattern, in
There remains a puzzle. The ‘long-lost’ stone, discovered in 1869 is mounted on a wall which appears to have been built in the early nineteenth century. According to Birkbeck (p. 102), the chancel was rebuilt in 1807 and in 1840; the interior of the church was re-plastered, though the chancel could have been new enough not to have needed it. On the other hand, though 1807 is early for the fashion for rough stone interiors in churches, the chancel may have been built down to a price and this may have been the part of the church which was plastered. Thus, 1840 may have been when the keying was done.
Inspection of the outside of the chancel shows it as a building of three bays, of which the easternmost appears to be fifteenth century, with repairs. It bears graffiti dated 1760 and 1807 (Figure 3.), at a height which would be conveniently reached by youths passing idle hours in that secluded corner of the churchyard. In 1760, between the Dissolution and the rebuilding, the wall was part of a ruin; though the Dissolution is not likely to have been directly relevant to this. However, the two graffiti mentioned are done and placed in a semi-formal way and may be the signatures of men who did repairs. The co-incidence of the 1807 dates makes this likely, in the later instance. The other two bays are quite different in appearance. They look early nineteenth century with windows in the Gothic style of the period (Figure 4.). The monument is mounted in line with the buttress (Figure 5.) between the two rebuilt bays of the northern wall, alongside the extension built in 1869 to house the new organ. It is shortly after 1807 that we find a reference to “a lofty chancel” (Cooke).
In order to reconcile these contradictions, we must be prepared to speculate; working to some degree of probability rather than seeking certainties.
Hypothesis 1. The chancel was left to ruin in the late 1530s,
following the dissolution of the monastic abbey in 1536.
If so, a wall will have been built at the eastern end of the nave to
keep the weather out. It seems probable that this was done by retaining the
abbey’s pulpitum and extending it upwards, as was done at Crowland (
When the chancel at Bourne was rebuilt in 1807, the pulpitum and the wall above and around it will have been removed and used as a source of stone. This would be how the stones in the form of small chevron-decorated blind arches of the later twelfth century, remain in two stacks near the south door (Figure 7). If we hypothesize that they were part of the canons’ side of the pulpitum and were preserved by being incorporated into the wall which closed the east end of the nave, they will have needed only to have survived 200 years as loose curios to be with us today. Those years will have come after the development of antiquarian interest had given such things a value beyond their usefulness as second-hand building stone.
If we hypothesize further, that between these two dates, 1536 and 1807, in the early seventeenth century, the Browne memorial had been erected on the west side of this relatively temporary (271 years) east wall of the nave, it will in 1807, have been lying loose. With no one from the family left in Bourne to speak up for it, as a good big stone, not too thick, it was probably used whole, as a building stone in the 1807 north wall, ready for rediscovery in the 1860s. It was then that the plaster was disturbed, very close to the stone if not on it, by the opening of the arch in which the organ console stands. Though, it’s curio value was obviously recognized. Otherwise, it would have been broken up and used as more conventional blocks.
At first sight, the idea of mounting a family memorial in what at that
stage will have been the east wall of the church seems a little strange. Now,
such a thing would seem impertinent, mounted behind the altar. However, it must
be remembered that at the time in question, there was probably no altar but a
communion table (G&H pp.467-75). The introduction of such a concept came in
the reign of Edward VI, and early in
On the balance of probabilities, it was the change in liturgy following
the restoration of the monarchy in 1660, which marked the time when the
Brownes’ stone was keyed for plastering; while it was still in the east wall of
the nave. This change will have re-introduced the concept of an altar to the
then, east end of the church, so that the memorial was found to be in an
inappropriate place, according to the new thinking. The Browne family, with
Winifred’s support of the Parliamentarian cause will at this stage, have been
something from a past which may have seemed better forgotten. For the same
reason, the earthworks from the October 1645 defensive preparations at
Hypothesis 2. The chancel was laid to ruin by fundamentalists
during the seventeenth century Civil War.
Given that the above is all true so far as it goes, the focus of our
picture of events may be sharpened if we can add further information, such as
that given in the introduction to C.W. Foster’s edition of the Parish Register.
He tells of a report on the state of churches in
Seen in this light, the pattern of events outlined so far is
corroborated to some extent but the onset of the ruin was later, perhaps at
about the time of the Civil War. At some stage, the fronts of the two holy
water stoups by the south and west doors respectively, were knocked out,
clearly to prevent their further use (RJP1) (Figure 8). This might have
happened in Edward VI’s reign but it would also be consistent with the
circumstances of the 1640s when Parliament’s troops and supporters generally
were passing through the town, back and forth. For the Parliamentarian party,
this road, now known as the A15, served as a substitute for the
There is certainly damage on the north face of the remaining medieval bay of the chancel, which looks as though it had been inflicted by fairly hefty bullets from small arms (Figure 9). The buttress to the east of the one against which the monument is mounted is largely medieval. It bears two apparent bullet marks and there is a patch of repair which may represent another. One of these scars, on its north-eastern corner is repeated in the face of the next bay as though the bullet caught the corner and continued into the wall. If so, the relative positions of the damage indicate that the shot was fired a very few metres from the building. The remaining medieval bay includes no window but it is reasonable to suspect that the next one to the west, which now includes the small window, pictured above, then contained a large one, extending close to the buttress. It looks as though an iconoclast was aiming to shoot out the stained glass in it. If so, any shots which hit the window will have continued, into or through the chancel roof .
A 1643 date for a ruination of the chancel would have meant that a
building of the east wall of the nave on the pulpitum occurred when Winifred
and others had a lively interest in the church. 1643 is sometimes quoted as the
year of foundation of the
However, there is an indication that the work was done in a reasonably
tidy manner. In
The idea that the nave’s temporary east wall may have been properly constructed rather than raised on the pulpitum is consistent with a view that the pulpitum, which clearly represented the old, Roman Catholic practice of the monastic canons, would have been the primary annoyance as seen by Cromwell’s troopers. On which line of argument, it would have been the first part of the chancel that they knocked down or at least, damaged. The stones bearing the blind twelfth century arch shapes, seen in the stacks of stones, will then have been built into the seventeenth century east wall as individual, re-used stones, available for salvage in 1807.
This somewhat mysterious stone seems therefore, to lead a train of thought through the history of the Abbey, including some turbulent times. Much of the above story is indeed, a train of thought - based on assumptions which need to be assessed, each with regard to its probability.
References
AU 62: Act of Uniformity, 1662.
Birkbeck: J.D.Birkbeck A History of Bourne. Published by Lanes,
Cooke: George Alexander Cooke, Topographical and Statistical Description of
the
Davies: Joseph J. Davies, Historic Bourne and the Surrounding District, Including an Account of
Foster: C.W. Foster editor. The Parish Registers of Bourne in the
G&H: Gee, Henry, and William John Hardy,
ed., Documents Illustrative of
no ref: This is based on information from a web site which no longer exists.
Peck: Francis Peck, Antiquarian Annals of
RJP1: Personal observation
RJP3: conclusion based on some investigation and thought but not written up.
Scholes: Scholes, P. The