Bell's Cathedrals: The Abbey Church of Tewkesbury with some Account of the Priory Church of Deerhurst Gloucestershire — Key Ideas to Explore
Edition facts
Bell's Cathedrals: The Abbey Church of Tewkesbury with some Account of the Priory Church of Deerhurst Gloucestershire — Key Ideas to Explore can be approached with a clearer sense of reading commitment from its source measurements: 40,705 words, 2 hr 57 min estimated reading time, and 7 detected text sections.
The text analysis averages about 19.2 words per sentence, while the detected sections provide another way to judge how the source is divided.
Project Gutenberg metadata also associates the work with “Tewkesbury Abbey,” connecting these edition facts with the source record’s subject description.
Calculated from edition completeness, EPUB availability, text structure and catalogue metadata. Not a user rating.
How this score is calculated
- Description quality20 pts
- Title & short description10 pts
- Source metadata20 pts
- Text length15 pts
- Chapters / structure15 pts
- EPUB file integrity20 pts
Total of 100 points, scaled to a 2.5-5.0 range. Editions with an empty description or a missing EPUB file are not scored.
Read the Text
HISTORY OF THE FOUNDATION AND FABRIC OF THE ABBEY CHURCH, AND SOME ACCOUNT OF ITS BENEFACTORS.
Tradition, originating in the desire to account for the name of the town, would assign the foundation of a cell or chapel to Theoc, or in Latin form Theocus, in or about 655. In support of this theory Camden and others assert that it was called in Anglo-Saxon times Theocsburg or Theotisbyrg. Others would derive the name from the Greek "Theotokos," as the Church is dedicated to St. Mary, and others again refer us back to a very early name, Etocisceu--Latinised as Etocessa. In Domesday Book the town is called Teodechesberie, and throughout the Chronicles of the Abbey is called Theokusburia.
The Chronicles of the Abbey tell us that the first monastery at Tewkesbury was built by two Saxon nobles, Oddo and Doddo, in or about the year 715, a time when Mercia was flourishing under Ethelred, and later, under Kenred and Ethelbald. It was dedicated to the Virgin Mary, and endowed with the manor of Stanway and other lands for the support of the Benedictine monks who, under a Prior, were there installed. Oddo and Doddo died soon afterwards, and were buried in the abbey church of Pershore.
Much has been written about these mythical founders, and confusion in the minds of the chroniclers, and in those of subsequent writers too, has been caused by the similarity between the names of Oddo and Doddo, and Odda and Dodda. It is stated in the old Tewkesbury Chronicle that Oddo and Doddo were brothers, who in 715 founded a small cell at Tewkesbury, and that Doddo built a church at Deerhurst to show his love for a brother who had died some time before. They seem to have been two noble dukes, members of an illustrious family and renowned for their great virtue. Oddo is said to have become a monk, and after his death to have been buried at Pershore Abbey.
As Mr. Butterworth points out in his book on Deerhurst, this seems to be a travesty of what actually happened. There were in the eleventh century two brothers, Odda and Ælfric, with probably a third brother, Dodda, who were related to Edward the Confessor, and were, besides, his friends and followers. Charters are extant bearing their signatures and names, and covering the period 1015-1051. It is this Odda who caused to be built the "aula regia" at Deerhurst in memory of his brother Ælfric, with a stone[1] bearing an inscription of which a copy is now in the Saxon Chapel at Deerhurst. This Odda, with his brother, was buried at Pershore. Odda's existence at this time is further confirmed by the Anglo-Saxon Chronicle (edited by Ingram), which states that Odda was in 1051 made Earl over Devonshire, Somerset, Dorset, and the Welsh. The same chronicle says that Odda was also called Agelwin. Florence of Worcester says that he was also called Ethelwin.
It is perhaps easy to see how a chronicler writing 250 years later, should be led to assume that Oddo and Doddo were identical with Odda and Dodda. Sir Charles Isham's "Registrum Theokusburiæ" gives a full-page illustration of this "_par nobile fratrum_," as Dr. Hayman calls them, in which they are termed "_duo duces Marciorum et primi fundatores Theokusburiæ_" i.e., two Earls of the Marches and first founders of Tewkesbury. Each knight is in armour, and bears in his hand a model of a church. Both are supporting a shield (affixed to a pomegranate tree) bearing the arms of the Abbey, which the blazoning on their own coats repeats.
According to the chronicle, Hugh, a great Earl of the Mercians, caused the body of Berthric or Brictric, King of Wessex, to be buried in the chapel of St. Faith in the church at Tewkesbury, in 799 or 800, and Hugh himself was buried at Tewkesbury in 812. Of this fact confirmation is given by Leland, who said that Hugh's tomb was there in his time, on the north side of the nave.
Massé opens his account of Tewkesbury Abbey with a detailed description of the south transept, immediately grounding the reader in specific architectural features: a triangular window of fourteenth-century work, a Norman chapel with its early groined roof, and the Salviati mosaic in the east window. He does not hesitate to offer aesthetic judgments, calling the mosaic's effect 'not good' and a later Clayton and Bell window 'very poor and uninteresting.' This critical candor, combined with precise references to dates (1237, 1246, 1875, 1887) and donors, establishes a voice that is both scholarly and opinionated.
The Author's Critical Voice
Massé frequently interjects personal assessments into his architectural descriptions. Of the Salviati mosaic he writes 'the effect is not good, as too strong a light falls upon the gold background,' and he dismisses a Clayton and Bell window as 'very poor and uninteresting.' He also warns against 'any attempt at polychrome decoration of the ordinary kind' in the Norman chapel, citing a negative example at Gloucester. These judgments are not mere asides; they shape the reader's attention, directing it toward features the author considers worthy or problematic. A first-time reader should note that Massé's evaluations are often tied to specific conditions—lighting, restoration history, or comparison with other buildings—and are not blanket statements.
Use of Plans and Spatial Orientation
Massé repeatedly refers the reader to a plan of the building, as when he explains that the east window of the Norman chapel 'was perforce blocked up when the ambulatory chapels were built' and that 'no other position for a window being possible, as will easily be seen by reference to the plan.' This reliance on a visual aid is central to his method: he assumes the reader has the plan at hand and uses it to clarify spatial relationships that text alone cannot convey. The description of the south transept's upper chamber—a 'large vaulted room' that communicated with the Norman triforium—similarly depends on an understanding of vertical circulation, which the plan and section presumably illustrate. For a first reading, keeping the plan accessible is essential.
Treatment of Later Alterations and Misconceptions
Massé is attentive to the building's post-medieval history, noting changes such as the removal of the font from the Norman chapel to a north-east chapel 'up to the time of the restoration in 1875,' and the transfer of the choir altar to the same chapel afterward. He also corrects popular errors: the upper chamber, he states, has been given 'absurd names,' the 'most absurd being that of the Nun's Prison.' Citing Mr. Blunt, he observes that 'there are many people who cannot hear about monks without immediately thinking of nuns.' This debunking impulse—grounding speculation in documentary evidence (the room 'communicated with the dorter or dormitory' and was for 'invalid monks')—characterizes Massé's approach to the abbey's fabric as a palimpsest of functional and liturgical changes.
The Deerhurst Appendix as a Comparative Case
Although the excerpts focus on Tewkesbury, the title promises 'some account of the Priory Church of Deerhurst.' The inclusion of Deerhurst, a Saxon church, allows Massé to extend his architectural analysis to an earlier period. The preface acknowledges permission to reproduce blocks from a paper on Saxon churches by J.T. Micklethwaite, suggesting that the Deerhurst section draws on specialized scholarship. For a first reader, this appendix functions as a counterpoint: where Tewkesbury is largely Norman and later, Deerhurst offers a pre-Conquest baseline. Massé's method—close observation of fabric, reliance on plans, and critical use of sources—can be expected to apply there as well, making the two studies complementary.
Massé's guide rewards a reader who moves slowly, with plan in hand, and who accepts his opinions as part of the evidence. The book is not a neutral inventory but a personal, learned tour. Pay attention to the dates he supplies for alterations and to his asides about what has been lost or obscured. The Deerhurst section, though brief, may sharpen your eye for Saxon features. Above all, treat Massé's judgments as starting points for your own observation.
Reading Massé’s patient tracing of Tewkesbury’s stone layers, I thought of my grandfather’s worn Bible, marginal notes in faint pencil. He’d linger on endurance, on what survives alteration. That same quiet reverence surfaced years later in Fox's Book of Martyrs Or A History of the Lives, Sufferings, and Triumphant Deaths of the Primitive Protestant Martyrs — Background and Themes, where faith’s architecture stands, chipped but unshaken. Both books feel like listening to old walls breathe.
There are no reviews for this eBook.
Take a moment to reflect on this book
Create a short personal record of your experience with this book.