FAVERSHAM ABBEY RECONSIDERED
By CANON W. TELEER, M.C, D.D.
A T the Dissolution Faversham Abbey held but a smaU community.
Abbot John Caslock and eight monks surrendered their house to the
King on 8th July, 1538. On 10th May, 1539 the King sent order for
t h e church and cloister to be demolished and the stone removed from
the site. On 16th May Sir Thomas Cheyney, Lord Warden of the
Cinque Ports, purchased the Abbey site and other land. It follows that
the work of demolition would be carried out under his direction.
Some Abbey buildings of no architectural distinction escaped
demolition at this time and were turned to new uses. But one by one
they were puUed down. And today nothing of the Abbey remains
above ground but the building known as Arden's House. This is
substantially the Abbey guesthouse, adjoining the outer gate which led
t o the town. As to the buildings demolished in 1539, no local tradition
remained, either as to their site or size. When Thomas Southouse,
living alongside the outer gate (then still standing), essayed to give a
history of the Abbey in his Monasticon Favershamiense (1671), he could
find nothing to teU him either the position or the architectural character
° f the quondam Abbey church. His book gives the impression that
Faversham Abbey was of local interest but of no special distinction.
About 1840 a local antiquary, Edward Crow, writing his manuscript
•Historical Gleanings, recorded signs of monastic buildings in the WeU
a*id Sextry orchards. He describes part of the underfloor of the church,
^ t h o u t paving or foundation stones, as running eastwards from the
stone wall which encloses the Sextry orchard on the west. He thought
*hat, at one point, the foot of this wall belonged to the foundations of
t h e west front of the church. But he estimated that the church was
^ l y a 100 ft. long, and narrow in proportion. And in spite of the
*aot that part of a drain running from the Abbey to the Creek was
^Uicovered, and proved to be built of stone, 5 ft. from floor to vault,
^row still retained the impression that Faversham Abbey had been of
110 great size. It was wholly unexpected, therefore, when, in January
2*id February, 1965, the Reculver Excavation Group directed by Mr.
-**cian. Philp found that Crow's 'underfloor' extended nearly four times
f^ far to the east as Crow supposed. Their excavation quickly proved
that the Abbey church had not been smaU but huge. And whUe .the
215
PLATK 1
rJjhTil', ^-SJWVM? reti-ijhril .~i *> "~£„<£ Ji%sC&~£ i .'-»' &r„,^{
"*~*^ **-*«*•»* .»rr*rc-»»lV.v} ^^...rrw- V»&(«j ^ ~ *£.»-..U f.*%* »r«$»0 -^
-j~~4„rf »*»»«•,.„ ^ m ; „ -*.£-_,.; ,„»«,' ^4L~i £+- l*t*~ >..vs> .><, A^ <^ >TVK W- 3*_ .So- K -rf-w^'W** *** .
4
[/are p. 216
FAVERSHAM ABBEY RECONSIDERED
Know ye further that I and Queen Matilda my wife have given to
William of Ypres in exchange (escambium) for the said manor of Feversham,
Lillechurch and its appurtenances (of the Queen's inheriting),
and to complete the bargain, some land from my manor of Milton
(Regis).
Witnessed at Bermondsey by Henry Bishop of Winchester my
brother, by Robert Bishop of London, and by Count Eustace my son,
in the presence of W of Ypres, R of B, W Martin, Richard de Lucy,
Henry of Essex, and R de CanniU.
It is a misnomer to call this document, which is neither directed to
the Abbot and Brethren of Faversham Abbey nor concerned to regulate
their hfe, a foundation charter. It is royal letters-patent. Issued by
the King in the presence of witnesses, it publishes to all and sundry the
news that Stephen has founded Faversham Abbey, and it tells of the
provision that he has made for its continuance.
Letters-patent are a form of publication. Copies were made and
read in appropriate assemblies. There was opportunity for the King
to open his mind to his people on wider issues than that which first
occasioned their issue. Letters-patent on a particular theme may also
disclose a policy. Where they concerned rehgion and the good of Holy
Church, they would be read in churches, and everywhere reach the ears
of the common people. Our document is of this kind.
It does more than secure the Abbot and Monks of Faversham Abbey
in the enjoyment of what has been granted to them. It also expresses
the King's desire for the unity of his people. Franci and Angli throughout
the land are one nation under his rule. There follows a more
subtle expression of the same thought. This foundation, Stephen says,
is for the good of souls; first his own soul and the souls of his family.
But his continental forbears are not mentioned. Their place is taken
by Stephen's predecessors on the throne of England, Angli and Franci.
He treats them as one succession because the kingdom is one. This
Abbey will be the royal chantry of England. So it will be a symbol
of the nation's unity.
It is perhaps an indication of the importance of this thought of
national unity in the mind of Stephen and those around him that his
brother Henry of Blois caused the remains of Saxon and Danish royalties
lying in St. Grimbald's at Winchester to be brought across into his
Norman cathedral. It is as though these men of Blois would say
'Forget the Conquest, and think only of the continuing hfe of England'.
Stephen's plans for Faversham Abbey were complex and must have
called for long preparation. He wanted to staff his royal chantry with
Cluniac monks. They above all others were schooled and disciphned
in performance of the liturgy and divine offices. But every Cluniac
monk was under obedience to the Abbot of Cluny. With the multipli-
217
FAVERSHAM ABBEY RECONSIDERED
cation of Cluniac houses, it was still the rule that every monk spent
some time at the mother house. For the rest, they were moved as the
superiors of the Order decided. If the royal chantry at Faversham
were to be a daughter priory to the Cluniac Priory of Bermondsey, its
personnel would not be permanent nor its head an Abbot. But
Stephen wanted it to be a royal abbey and its brethren permanently
his chaplains. It is wonderful that he was able to get his way in this.
Stephen had to persuade Peter of Cluny to surrender a splinter group
from his Order to staff his chantry. And Peter was persuaded. For
Clarembald and twelve monks from Bermondsey left that cloister and
Cluniac obedience, in 1147, to become Abbot and monks of Faversham
Abbey. Stephen must have won Peter over to his view of the importance
of the new foundation. And that pledged that it would be a
grand foundation.
If the church followed a Cluniac pattern, that would have been a
grand gesture for the King to make to the little band that, to forward
his purpose, accepted perpetual exile from their spiritual home. For
Cluny remained their spiritual home. When Clarembald swore
monastic obedience to Archbishop Theobald in place of the obedience
from which he had been released, he explained himself in words that
emphasized the obedience to himself of his Faversham monks. That
suggests that despite his changed canonical status he meant his company
to hold fast to their Cluniac ideals. Light is thrown upon this subject
by a document in Canterbury Cathedral library, connected with the
emancipation of Clarembald and his convent from Cluniac obedience.
I t is a declaration addressed to Archbishop Theobald and to the company
that wiU be gathered with him in his cathedral to witness Clarembald's
profession of canonical obedience to the See of Canterbury. The
writer is 'B. Prior of the convent of St. Mary of Charity' of the Cluniac
order. He addresses himself also to the Bishop and clergy of Rochester,
the Prior and monks of Christchurch, and to all clergy and laity
present, testifying the absolute and final character of the emancipation
as well from the Church of Cluny as from every subordinate Cluniac
authority. To conclude, he equates Clarembald's emancipation with that
enjoyed already by the Abbot of Reading. So there was precedent
for granting Stephen's request.
In 'B's' eyes Reading and Faversham belong to the same singular
category of royal foundations to which a special concession was in place.
And since Reading was tremendous (length of church 450 feet, chapterhouse
frequently housing the English parliament) Faversham might be
expected to be on the grand scale. But there the parallel ends. The
Abbot of Reading owed no canonical obedience within the English
realm. And whereas Henry I, founder of Reading, was at pains to explain
his choice of place, Stephen offers no hint of his reason for choosing
218
FAVERSHAM ABBEY RECONSIDERED
Faversham. Yet the last part of our letters-patent puts it beyond doubt
that the choice was deliberate.
So this foundation of Stephen's in 1147 was not just another English
abbey, but something special. Then why at Faversham? The last
part of our document puts it beyond question that the choice of Faversham
was premeditated and deliberate. The escambium with William
of Ypres must have taken some working out. And in relation to the
Faversham of 1147 the choice of the actual site for the Abbey was a
clever one. This part of the plan looks as if it was as weU thought out
as the other. But this time we can only guess at the reasons that
guided the plan. They might, however, be connected with Stephen's
involvement in the possibility of naval war. Faversham had strategic
possibilities. It could be the forward headquarters for the defence of
the English Channel coasts against naval attacks from the Continent.
It became exactly this in 1292. Faversham looks out over the
Swale, at its east end a shallow piece of open sea in the lee of Sheppey.
Here was anchorage for many little ships, and here Edward I mustered
a fleet to assist him in his Scotch war. Eastwards there were no
harbours on the north coast of Kent. Faversham was half-way from
London to the Channel ports and was touched by Watling Street. So
hither came Gilbert, Earl of Clare, the King's admiral. Guncelin, Earl
of Badlesmere, lent Gilbert, it seems, his manor house in SeUing for
residence. So Gilbert was there for the last three years of his life, a
fact commemorated stUl in the east window of SeUing church which
Princess Joan had placed there to Gilbert's memory. The house
where they lived was probably Rhode Court, whence the Swale and its
creeks were in view. The fleet that in 1293 swept the French off the
Channel was probably marshaUed off Faversham.
Evidently these doings suddenly raised the importance of Faversham,
as the town was assessed for seven out of the fifty-seven ships of
war to be provided by the Cinque Ports for the King's service. So to
this day the borough seal carries the proud legend REGIS VT ARMA
REGO LIBERA PORTVS EGO. And the device of the seal is a ship
of war being manned, while she flies as admiral's flag the chevrons of
Clare. Might this scene have been anticipated in the 1140's? There
is no reason against. And if Stephen had placed his great royal
chantry overlooking Faversham creek, it was there to house him, its
chapter house for his councils of war, and the great nave in which to
assemble his officers for briefing.
No sooner, however, was the Abbey built than the tide of events
turned against Stephen. Matilda and Eustace predeceased him. He
died at Dover in 1154 and was laid to rest in Faversham Abbey church,
while the Enghsh throne passed to Henry Plantagenet. With that
succession Stephen's royal chantry had lost its national significance.
219
FAVERSHAM ABBEY RECONSIDERED
And the grandeur of its minster could no more keep it an important
institution than it could preserve its adhesion to Cluniac ideals.
Did the great minster, through the centuries, make its impression
upon beholders? Nothing seems to survive to tell us, until the visit
of John Leland to Faversham about 1530. He speaks of our Abbey as
'the great abbey of black monks'. It was not great in numbers.
There were less than a dozen Brethren. It was not great in reputation.
Leland found its manuscript library almost neghgible. What drew
from him the adjective 'great' can only have been the minster.
What is so astonishing is that the people of Faversham who lived
through generations in the presence of this architectural landmark
quickly lost ah memory of the greatness that had been. When in 1965
the spade re-established that greatness, it came as a complete surprise.
And for this reason it is time for a reconsideration of Faversham Abbey,
of which a great part must be left, however, until after the completion
of Mr. Philp's report upon the excavation.
220
