English Churches and the 12th Century

Rowan · Post by **Rowan** » Wed August 17th, 2011, 2:30 pm

Without revealing details about how I got this list - lest you realize just how weird I am - I have a list of 65 churches spread across England. Included in that list are approximate dates they were built. More often than not, it's just that certain parts date to a specific century. I have noticed, though, that roughly half of them were built in the 12th century.

Can anyone explain why there was a sudden crop of churches springing up everywhere? Were the Normans that religious? I know this comes not long after William and his Crew took over, but I confess I don't know that much about the Normans.

Carla · Post by **Carla** » Wed August 17th, 2011, 3:15 pm

I'm no expert on the history of church building or the Normans, so take this with a pinch of salt. For what it's worth, I would guess that the plethora of 12th-C churches reflects partly the Norman liking for building in stone, which tends to last well and therefore still survives, and partly a deliberate policy of new Norman lords to build a new church or replace an existing church with a new church built in the Norman style as a statement of ownership and control - sort of declaring 'I'm in charge here; God and the church are on my side; and things are going to be done my way from now on'.

Rowan · Post by **Rowan** » Wed August 17th, 2011, 3:22 pm

That was kinda along my line of guessing, Carla, but I thought I'd ask since we have a lot of experts here. I also wondered if, since a great abbey was built on the site of the actual battle between Harold and William, if this wasn't a kind of penance for the lesser lords to do as well.

Carla · Post by **Carla** » Wed August 17th, 2011, 3:26 pm

[quote=""Rowan""]That was kinda along my line of guessing, Carla, but I thought I'd ask since we have a lot of experts here. I also wondered if, since a great abbey was built on the site of the actual battle between Harold and William, if this wasn't a kind of penance for the lesser lords to do as well.[/quote]
Possibly not so much a penance as a way of gaining divine favour, or perhaps offering thanks for divine favour. Always a good idea to have God on your side

I sometimes wonder if making huge donations to the church could be analogous to the sacrifices made to gods in earlier times.

annis · Post by **annis** » Wed August 17th, 2011, 7:24 pm

I don't think William felt any need for penance- he was always convinced that God was on his side, and had made sure of it by getting God's representative, the Pope, in his corner. The Pope blessed William's enterprise by giving him various symbolic items to take into battle with him, including the Papal banner under which William fought at Hastings. As a thank you for the favour, William is said to have sent the Pope King Harold's personal banner, known as The Fighting Man and taken as a trophy after the battle. It disappeared into the depths of the Vatican, never to be seen again.

I'd say that building Battle Abbey was a gesture of thanksgiving, but also of triumphant possession.

lauragill · Post by **lauragill** » Wed August 17th, 2011, 9:37 pm

[quote=""Carla""]I'm no expert on the history of church building or the Normans, so take this with a pinch of salt. For what it's worth, I would guess that the plethora of 12th-C churches reflects partly the Norman liking for building in stone, which tends to last well and therefore still survives, and partly a deliberate policy of new Norman lords to build a new church or replace an existing church with a new church built in the Norman style as a statement of ownership and control - sort of declaring 'I'm in charge here; God and the church are on my side; and things are going to be done my way from now on'.[/quote]

That makes sense. Anglo-Saxon churches were built from timber and had elaborate carvings inside, which we know about from some rare examples of surviving woodwork. At some point, they would have to had to be replaced. As Carla said, the Normans would have been making a statement about who was in charge, but also, dedicating a church was a way to win points with God. You might also add that Normans, who never really became Anglicized, would have wanted their churches and other buildings to reflect the current style on the mainland; perhaps they felt the old Anglo-Saxon style was outdated and quaint.

EC2 · Post by **EC2** » Wed August 17th, 2011, 10:06 pm

It's not something I've ever studied in depth so I can't help out but a few thoughts to add to what's already been said.

By the 12thC England was developing into England as the Normans and the English blended together. Other than the nasty time of the Stephen/Matilda period (which only affected certain parts of the country anyway) there were times when the country was prosperous and settled and a stone church was a fashionable and longterm thing to dedicate to God. The Norman incomers felt settled enough to dig their roots deeper and add places of worship. New ideas, new fashions and designs were coming in all the time and people responded to them.
The civil war did see crap stuff happening in parts of the country and some churches were burned down, and then rebuilt in a newer style. It was also the time of the great abbeys with ideas coming in from all over the place - the Cistercians for e.g. Anyone who went to France and saw St Denis must have thought 'Wow!' There was an upwelling of religious light if you like, and people got busy and interested.

DianeL · Post by **DianeL** » Wed August 17th, 2011, 11:34 pm

There's also the ancient tradition by which building programs are a kind of propoganda, provide political clout with the church - and by providing for localities - and creates a sense of both permanence and glory (see also - propoganda) for a populace. Since the Church was also, in its heirarchy, a hugely regulating force upon said populace, stregthening its infrastructure had to have the companion effect of strengthening its place in their lives. If the building program's political mollification of the church by the monarchy is working right, the hand-in-glove operation of influence on citizenry probably served a lot of ends as well ...