|
The
Bishop's Palace |
Noticeable
on the property plans of the 18th century is a large self-contained rectangle,
in the south-west corner of the cathedral close. This plot, set in the most secluded
part of the close and opening on the north on to the King's Bath, has recently
been recognised as the boundary of the bishop's close, containing the palace. The
clearest reference to the palace is Leland's in 1542, where we are told 'this
John erectid a palace at Bath in the south-west corner of the monasterie of St
Peter's at Bath one great square tour of it yet appere'. Other 16th and early
17th century references make it clear the the 'Old Pallace' was to be found south
of the King's Bath and west of Abbey Green. In particular, the western wall of
the close is identified as coterminous with that of the palace, and Old Palace
Yard (now vanished) is identified as being in this area. Measurements given in
documents in the early 13th century, outlining part of the bishop's palace (apparently
his private quarters, the 'Bishop's Bower'), fit well with a plot on the southern
side of the yard. Excavations here in 1984 and 1985 uncovered substantial masonry
buildings whose inhabitants had enjoyed a noticeably high standard of living from
the late llth century until the early 14th. The buildings can be safely ascribed to
the bishop and his retainers. The condition of the buildings then suffered a steep
decline. This picture matches the documentary evidence of the declining fortunes
of the priory, especially after the bishops ceased to reside in Bath altogether
after about 1290. Work was still being carried out on the episcopal palace
in 1279, when a private chapel for the bishop was created out of the nave of St
James' church. This was thought convenient, as it adjoined the bishop's chamber
(the chancel being demolished and, as the bishop's charter permitting all this
records, marked with a cross to avoid desecration). As noted above, the parishioners,
who must have been a great nuisance to the bishop for nearly 200 years, were removed
south to a new plot granted them for the purpose. The bishops, however, must rarely
have used the new chapel, and by 1328 were ready to pass over the whole of the
private residence to the prior and brethren.
|
|
The
Cathedral Close and Bishops Palace. The solid black, hatched and stippled areas
are archaeologically proven walls. Unbroken lines are walls and boundaries derived
from post medieval information. Broken lines represent hypothetical walls. The
City wall is shown in black and the Cathedral Close in double outline, a: The
property mentioned in 1271-1290 as adjacent to the Bishop's Court, b: Property
mentioned in 1309 as 'against the wall of the Bishop'- c: Property against the
'old Pallace' in 1573 - d. 'Old Palace Yard'. |
Measured
surveys in the medieval period were rare. We are fortunate that on 27 June 1334
local jurors took the trouble to measure the bishop's close in Bath. A jury had
been convened to establish dciails oft ho palace and close lor the Crown, sim'C
the Bishop ol Bath .ind Wells wished to gram the property to B;iih Cathedral Priory.
The jurors recorded th.it the area measured at least 270 ft by 130 ft (82.23 in
by 3y-f> m) (PRO 0143/231/15). The position of the close is known from deeds
of ptoperucs :tdjoining it and the bishop's description. It lay between -Stall
Street and B.itli Priory. A map of the former priory in 1725 shows a rectangular
area in the right location, closely fitting these dimensions (Illns. i). The
result of the local inquisition was then delivered to a royal clerk in London,
who copied all the details from it into the royal permission to alienate, granted
by letters patent. That was standard procedure. To make matters clear the letters
patent give the inquisition of 27 June as the source of information. Unfortunately
the royal elerk made an understandable error. In the inquisition document the
word diicctitos (two hundred} was split between two lines. The clerk evidently
failed to notice the tin, carelessly read centos as CCHIIIIII and so the figures
became 170 ft by 130 ft in the letters patent issued to the bishop (1'KO €66/183
111.7; Wells, I, 473)- The bishop duly granted to liatb Priory the bishop's palace
and courtyard, for which the prior and convent agreed to pay a yearly rent of
.£1 (BL Eg, 331(1, f. 4(iv; Ralph of Shrewsbury, 291-02, 314). an arrangement
which continued until the Dissolution (I'ahr l-fflrs, l. 123). It comes as no
surprise that the bishop's clerk simply copied the figures for the size of the
property from the letters patent, the document in his possession. So the proposal
by Chapman a al . that the bishop's close was split into two modules of 170 ft
by i 30 ft lorming an L-shape c.innot be sustained. John Speed's map ol Bath,
published in 1610, was used as supporting evidence lor the modular theory. It
shows the former priory conduit house at the north-east corner of a garden jutting
out sharply into Abbey Green, as though forming the base of the proposed l.-shape.
Again the problem is one of inaccurate copying. Speed's map is a poor copy of
a larger, more detailed map by Henry Savile c. 1600 (Mauco 1993), which shows
ihe property in question further west (Illus. 2). In 1616 permission was given
to demolish the conduit house and build on the adjoining garden. The dimensions
of (14 ft by 43 ft (19.5 m by 13.1 m) given in the building lease (Bl. Eg. ch,
5827) correspond as nearly as one can judge with the garden as shown on Henry
Savile's map. The lease .ilso included a two-fool wide strip of Abbey Green beside
the garden. Unless there was another copying error, il would appear that the house
built on the garden was later leased together with a larger part of the Abbey
Green to make a private area in front of the house, since in 1720 a new lease
granted the property 'except 20 ft (6. i m) from the front eastwards' (BL Eg.
3647. f i").
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|