Archaeological Journal

ISSN: 0066-5983 (Print) 2373-2288 (Online) Journal homepage: https://www.tandfonline.com/loi/raij20

Constructing a Vision of Salvation: Chantries and

the Social Dimension of Religious Experience in
the Medieval Parish Church

Simon Roffey

To cite this article: Simon Roffey (2006) Constructing a Vision of Salvation: Chantries and
the Social Dimension of Religious Experience in the Medieval Parish Church, Archaeological
Journal, 163:1, 122-146, DOI: 10.1080/00665983.2006.11020671

To link to this article: https://doi.org/10.1080/00665983.2006.11020671

Published online: 20 Dec 2014.

Submit your article to this journal

Article views: 336

View related articles

Citing articles: 1 View citing articles

Full Terms & Conditions of access and use can be found at

https://www.tandfonline.com/action/journalInformation?journalCode=raij20
A5 Roffey 31/5/07 2:48 pm Page 122

Constructing a Vision of Salvation: Chantries

and the Social Dimension of Religious
Experience in the Medieval Parish Church

 
For several years, studies of popular religion within pre-Reformation England have tended to
emphasize that religious practice within the medieval parish church had become increasingly
privatized and exclusive, as a result of the foundation of so-called ‘private’ chantry chapels. In
many cases, these works have neglected the wider role of the chantry in shared religious experience
at parish level, a deficit that has only recently been challenged by historians. This paper sets out
to consider how the structural analysis of surviving above-ground evidence for former chantry
chapels can uncover a wider context for chantry foundation in the medieval parish church. This
paper based on recent research in the south and west of England discusses how the analysis of
church space, light and, particularly, vision enables the reconstruction of aspects of chantry chapel
foundation and can illustrate their wider social dimension. It examines the nature of the archi-
tectural feature known as the ‘squint’ and discusses how it can help in the analysis of former
ritual topography and shed light on the level of private and communal piety. Furthermore, this
paper shows how the use of archaeological approaches can illuminate aspects of medieval religious
practice only hinted at in historical documents.

Since the early s the archaeological study of the medieval church has applied a
broader range of approaches to the study of late medieval religion and belief. Prior to
this, many valuable studies of standing churches focussed generally on the form, fabric
and layout of such structures. Here, the emphasis was on the establishment of
chronologies of development which led to the creation of ‘academic compart-
mentalization’ and ‘an increasingly detailed knowledge of particular aspects of the
churches, but little advance in understanding them in toto’ (Rodwell , ). The
application of high-quality recording techniques and detailed structural analysis more
recently has led to the re-evaluation of many sites. Now, influenced largely by the
application of social theory, principally using ideas first developed in prehistoric
contexts, archaeologists have begun to focus on what the construction, organization
and embellishment of churches can tell us about social structure and the actual nature
of religious experience enacted within their spaces (Gilchrist ; Gilchrist ;
Giles ; Graves ). Coupled with this, the work of some historians and art-
historians, such as Burgess (), Duffy (; ), Goodall () and, more
recently, Barnwell, Cross and Rycroft () and Marks (), have focussed on the
reassessment of surviving documents and their value to the study of church fabric and
fixtures. Overall, these studies have begun to revise our understanding of the
communal nature of medieval religion and have shown that pre-Reformation

Archaeol. J.,  (), ‒

A5 Roffey 31/5/07 2:48 pm Page 123

                      

religious practice was an intrinsic, vital, and hugely popular aspect of medieval life.
However, despite the insights that documentary and architectural study can provide
into the popularity of religion prior to the Reformation, archaeological examination
of parish church fabric can illustrate further aspects of religious practice which may
not be evident from the restricted scope of many historical sources. This paper based
on recent research in the south and west of England (Roffey b) will demonstrate
how the application of viewshed analysis combined with structural analysis of surviv-
ing fabric, can be used to reconstruct the spatial and visual arrangements of the pre-
Reformation parish church. In particular, it will discuss the nature of the architectural
feature commonly known as the ‘squint’, or ‘hagioscope’. It will suggest that parish
church topography, despite the presence of screens and the foundation of ‘private’
chantry chapels, was actually influenced and guided by the participation, not exclu-
sion, of all members of the parish community. Overall, such investigations will
provide an insight into how aspects of medieval piety actually ‘worked’ in practice and
the corporate nature of chantry foundation at parish level.

VIEWSHED ANALYSIS AND THE MEDIEVAL

PARISH CHURCH
The application of viewshed analysis, or the examination of visual relationships
between sites and monuments, has been previously carried out to good effect, mainly
in the context of prehistoric landscapes (Fisher et al. ; Lake, Woodman and
Mithin ; Pollard and Reynolds ). Recent studies focussing on the spatial
analysis of church interiors have indicated how these approaches are equally applicable
to the internal layout of historic buildings. Viewshed analysis may help to articulate
the nature and extent of visual participation in religious practice (Roffey a).
Analysis of lines of sight within buildings has been carried out by Markus (), who
has applied the concepts of the access analysis of Hillier and Hanson () to vision,
and also by Graves, who examined how religious ideas were visually encountered by
the laity (Graves ). Such approaches are invaluable in analysing the spatial
relationship between religious foci in the parish church. They can assist our under-
standing of why altars, monuments and images, for example, were placed in particular
areas of the church. They can also indicate the corporate or communal nature of
religious experience in what have traditionally been described as ‘private monuments’
and both the nature and level of visual participation in the rituals enacted within
particular areas of the church, such as chantries.
The basis of viewshed analysis and its application within parish churches involves
establishing and recording what could have been seen from certain areas, and how
features or structural elements, such as tombs, squints, walls and windows, may
support, inhibit or obstruct former sight lines in the church. Such areas are known as
‘viewpoints’ and may include specific parts of the nave and chancel, chapels, aisles and
transepts, as well as towers and porches. Viewpoints can be investigated where there
is evidence for former subsidiary and chantry altars, which are often marked by the
presence of piscinas (liturgical drains), aumbries (cupboards), and niches suggesting the
earlier presence of images. This information can be recorded on a pro-forma (Roffey
A5 Roffey 31/5/07 2:48 pm Page 124

                      

b) and on measured plans. The methodology involves the use of structural
analysis to establish a chronology of church fabric and to identify what elements and
individual features may have been in existence throughout the medieval period, and
what has been reconstructed, blocked or moved since. This approach is designed to
answer particular questions, including whether it was important for chapel altars to be
viewed from public areas of the church; or if subsidiary altars had a clear view of the
high altar. It may also reveal the extent to which personal and religious symbols,
tombs and monuments were located with respect to sight lines. As will be seen, this
approach may also be useful in investigating and distinguishing if an order of
precedence, or ‘spiritual hierarchy’, operated between subsidiary and high altars, and
also between subsidiary altars themselves. Before we examine the archaeological
evidence it would be helpful at this stage to define the term ‘chantry’ and to discuss
certain related aspects of medieval religion to establish why vision was integral to
religious experience and practice.

CHANTRIES, VISION AND MEDIEVAL

RELIGIOUS PRACTICE
The medieval chantry was a foundation and endowment of a mass by one or more
benefactors, to be celebrated at an altar, normally for the souls of the founders and
other specified persons. The mass was the celebration of the Eucharist and was
performed by a priest. The importance of the mass in popular religion of the period
was paramount. As well as being the central Christian rite, its performance was also
seen in the context of intercession as a unit of cumulative merit: the more masses said,
the less time spent in purgatory. Chantries were a specific response to the develop-
ment of purgatorial beliefs from the thirteenth century onwards, and the belief that
the mass was a unit of intercessory merit. Chantries were probably the most common,
and also one of the most distinctive of all late medieval religious foundations. Many
chantries were simply celebrated at existing altars within the founder’s parish church.
But a number of chantries, founded usually by wealthier men and women, or groups
of fraternities or guilds, were provided with specially built altars and chapels to serve
and to house the celebrations from which they sought to profit (Illus. ). These
structures, although much altered with time, are still a very noticeable feature of many
late medieval parish churches. They can offer a valuable opportunity for the potential
reconstruction of religious experience from the surviving fabric.
All the senses were called into play within medieval religious practice — the
hearing of bells and litanies, the smell of incense, the murmuring of supplications, and
the feeling of sensuous discomfort at kneeling during the performance of mass.
However, the main medium of this communication was through the visual senses, and
indeed there appears to be an emphasis in western lay devotion upon seeing. Some of
this emphasis was on direct visual communion with the host at the point of elevation
during the mass, but also on more indirect visual contact with the architectural
elements of the church itself, images, paintings and memorials. Most pre-Reformation
parish churches were lavishly decorated, to varying extent. The use of embroidered
altar cloths, hangings and veils, sculpture, painting, colours and light played an
A5 Roffey 31/5/07 2:48 pm Page 125

                      

.  Chantry Chapel, Ilchester, Somerset

important part in a symbolic world, a ‘vision of heaven’, that is attested by surviving

accounts and inventories, as well as fragmentary physical evidence.
The celebration of mass was the central point around which this vision of heaven
revolved. The mass was often celebrated in the larger parish church at different periods
throughout the day at specific altars. It was, of course, also a key element of the most
important festival and holiday in the Christian calendar, Easter Week. Ultimate proof
was provided that Christ had died and that souls could be saved by his sacrifice
through the performance of the mass. An essential component of the mass was the
elevation of the host when the Eucharist, for the believer, was quite literally transub-
stantiated into the living flesh of Christ and held aloft by the presiding priest for the
observing communicants to witness. The most important mass was the parish mass; a
‘high’ mass celebrated everyday at the high altar in the chancel. (Those celebrated at
subsidiary altars were normally ‘low masses’.) During the mass, particularly privately
endowed masses, or ‘chantries’, the prayers of the community were particularly
valued: the more prayers, the more powerfully enhanced the intercessory element of
the ritual. The public, in turn, benefited from even more elaborate and plentiful cere-
monies and the protective powers of the Eucharistic ritual and the spiritual efficacy of
the mass in general. Some of the effects of witnessing the elevation are detailed in the
Lay-Folks Mass Book written by John Mirk in the fifteenth century and include,
amongst other benefits, protection from sudden death, from ageing, and lack of food
(Peacock , ). Masses could also be said for protection against storms, trouble of
the heart and, perhaps tellingly, for temptations of the flesh. Such benefits indicated a
belief in the ability to influence both natural and personal predicaments and sustained
an inherent feeling of spiritual and psychological security. There was something for
A5 Roffey 31/5/07 2:48 pm Page 126

                      

everyone in observing the elevation of the host; ‘for the mystic and the irretrievably
mundane, the devout individualist and the communal fanatic’ (Bossy , ).
Transubstantiation itself offered not only the potential of salvation, but also the very
act itself of the bread turning to flesh offered a very personal message of trans-
formation. One could aspire to change. The mass, therefore, offered a message both
inspirational and relevant to all, and one that relied upon visual participation. Parish
church space was often arranged to allow for visual accessibility to key areas, such as
altars. When we examine the layout of the medieval church, we would expect visual
relationships between the altars and other areas of the church to be of prime
importance. For example, if we examine the reconstruction of sight lines within
Aldbourne parish church (Wilts.), it can be seen that visual access to the high altar was
possible from most areas of the church (Illus. ). One can offer the suggestion that it
was the prime visual focus within that building, owing to its significance as the setting
for the parish mass.
Ultimately, the mass was not just a sacrament, but also an important social
institution in pre-Reformation society. It gave a focus for communal piety and group
relationships (Bossy ; Graves ). It provided a sense of human affinity which

.  Aldbourne, Wiltshire. Shading indicates the only areas within the church where the
view of all the altars is obstructed
A5 Roffey 31/5/07 2:48 pm Page 127

                      

dissolved social tensions and bound people together, despite their inherent social
differences (Rubin , ). This universal state was promoted by the use of ritual and
symbolism which relied heavily on the visual senses. Decoration defined sacred space,
providing a colourful and emotive setting for the rituals of the mass, and for associated
lay religious experience. The physical structure and decoration of the medieval church
was partly devised to induce a mood of reverence, to refine or sharpen the senses, and
to engage the emotions with the spiritual truth that was both stated and enacted. It
was to provide a veritable vision of heaven. Crucially, the spatial layout of the parish
church was arranged to reflect the importance of Eucharistic ritual and the setting of
the mass. Space was often devised to provide optimum visual communion with, and
between the high altar and the various other altars which, on particular occasions, may
also have been celebrating mass. Tombs, memorials, and familial and heraldic devices
were positioned to ‘intrude’ on the rituals, often juxtaposed with other forms of
religious imagery. Their location was highly visible and forged an all-important visual
association with the mass being celebrated. In a sense, they inevitably imposed their
memory on the viewer. Pamela Graves called the use of such methods and devices
‘presencing mechanisms’ and commented that they were a ‘powerful technology for
salvation’ (Graves , ). To the medieval mind, the association of the individual
with the ritual of the mass acted as an aide memoire and as such would be an indirect
and mnemonic petition for prayer. However, this relationship was not purely one-
way as the spiritual benefits of the mass, the increase of divine service afford by
individually founded chantry altars and the introduction of new and varied forms of
devotional practice were beneficial to the whole community. They contributed to a
varied and colourful religious experience. The associated embellishment and some-
times expansion of church space and fabric, afforded by personal endowments and
related gifts, also indicate that the relationship was mutually beneficial.

FACILITATING VISION IN THE PARISH CHURCH FABRIC

Vision was an important element of religious practice and gave access to a personal
and direct experience of the holy. How then was it facilitated in the often complex
and busy topography of the parish church, replete with tombs, screens, side chambers
and aisles, and other impediments to clear sight lines? One of the key architectural
features that helped create clear lines of sight between specific areas was the so-called
‘squint’. Squints, often incorrectly termed ‘leper windows’ or ‘hagioscopes’, were
commonly small internal windows, or view-holes. They were inserted within the
fabric of aisles, chapels and arcades to afford a line of sight between particular areas of
the church, where it otherwise would be obstructed. Like much pre-Reformation
church architecture, some squints may have been subject to structural change. Some,
for example, were blocked, such as at Litton Cheney (Dorset), or restored, like the
angled squints at Jevington (East Sussex) which were ‘straightened’ in the nineteenth
century. However, unlike many other remnants of the medieval church, squints, if
present, often remain intact. For example, recent research carried out within eighty
churches of the south and west of England revealed that nearly % of the churches
examined had evidence for squints still intact (Roffey b; in prep.).
A5 Roffey 31/5/07 2:48 pm Page 128

                      

Surprisingly little study has been conducted out on squints. Their various types and
locations have been discussed, but how they worked in practice has not been covered
in any great detail. Traditional interpretations suggest that squints afforded clear lines
of sight for the laity within aisles built to contain a ‘swelling population’ (Turner ,
). However, this may be too generalized. Certain, so-called ‘passage’ squints were
used in processions and were, in fact, internal doorways which also provided a view
between altars. A study of squints in the county of Warwickshire, for example, has
rightly highlighted the connection between squints and altars, in that they were used
to allow a priest a sight of the high altar (Chatwin ). However, the latter inter-
pretation presupposes the presence of a chapel altar, but fails to explain why the priest
there would need to see the high altar. Graves () has recently suggested that one
reason may be to give the priest celebrating at such altars a view of the pyx hanging
above the high altar. Other interpretations offered are for sacring bells, used to signal
the elevation of the host during the mass (Cole ), as well as being used for
offertories, or, alternatively, as a symbol for Christ’s wounds (Green ) and as
confessional windows (I. H. P. ).
Research in the south and west of England (Roffey b) further suggests that the
nature of squints — particular form, size and location — appears to be wholly
determined by local needs and indicates that parish communities were individually
shaping the form and fabric of religious practice. A strict definition of the squint is not
possible except to say that they generally facilitated vision to an altar. The presence of
squints in parish churches appears to be largely a phenomenon of the late fourteenth
century to early sixteenth centuries, though they are hard to date due to lack of archi-
tectural embellishment,. This may be due to the increasing popularity of privately
endowed masses filtering down from the newly founded collegiates, as suggested by
Burgess (), and to the general expansion of church space, specifically the addition
of chantry chapels. The squint would have facilitated clear lines of sight within the
increasingly busy and complex topography of the parish church and, in the case of
‘passage’ squints, allow physical access between the various parts of the expanding
church. In some cases, they also allowed priests at subsidiary altars (such as chantry
altars) to view the high altar to synchronize the rituals. Squints, therefore, can be
found in many forms. Some squints, such as that between the south chapel and
chancel at St John’s, Winchester (Illus. ), provided a view to the high altar only for
an officiating priest. Others, as at Ilminster (Somers.), provided a view to the high altar
for the general parishioners from the aisle and transepts (Illus. ). Double squints, such
as that north chapel, Aldbourne (Wilts.), facilitated views for parishioners and a cele-
brating priest (Illus. ), or to distinct areas of the church. At Stoke Charity (Hants.)
the double squint provided a view from the nave to the north chapel and to the
chancel from the north aisle (Illus. ). On the other hand, ‘private’ squints, as in the
north chapel, Yatton (Somers.) provided an exclusive view for a small group of people
only (Illus. ). However, not all squints were orientated toward the high altar. Those
at Churchill and Whitestaunton (Somers.) and Bradford-on-Avon (Wilts.) were
orientated north-south and gave a view between subsidiary altars.
The analysis of the particular location of squints and their relationship to specific
areas of the church can help shed light on the visual element of religious practice
A5 Roffey 31/5/07 2:48 pm Page 129

                      

.  ‘Priest’ squint

from south chapel, St
John’s, Winchester. This
squint would have provided
a view to high altar for the
priest officiating in the
south chapel

.  Church squint from Illminster,
Somerset. This large squint would have
provided a view to the high altar for a group
of parishioners in the north aisle or transept
.  ‘Double squint’ north chapel,
Aldbourne, Wiltshire. One part of the double
squint (where the image stands) would have
enabled the presiding chapel priest to see the
high altar. The other, narrower, part would
have given a similar view to a small group of
people, probably guild members, situated at
the back of the chapel
A5 Roffey 31/5/07 2:48 pm Page 130

                      

.  ‘Private’ squint at Yatton, Somerset.

This squint would have provided a view for a
small group of people, possibly family members,
from within the chapel. Due to the height of the
squint it is possible that they would have been
either sitting or kneeling

carried out inside churches and the importance given over to the arrangements of
church space. For example, why was it important to see particular areas? And, can the
shape, size and location of squints tell us anything about the level, or nature, of
participation? Viewed collectively, the variety of squint types, their size and location,
suggests that they were used for many different functions dependent on their
particular architectural or topographical context. Despite some decorated examples,
such as the squints with ogee-celled lining at Stapleford (Cambs.), most appear to lack
any architectural embellishment, particularly compared to piscinas and other liturgical
features. The plain, roughly cut squints at Stoke Charity (Hants.), and Great Chalfield
(Wilts.) and Yatton (Somers.) for example, suggest they may have not been used
regularly. Conversely, there were undoubtedly constructional problems with regard to
the insertion of squints and this is why many appear to be fairly basic. Although, of
course, it should also be borne in mind that squints were meant to be looked through,
and not at, and that any decoration may have been superfluous. Although there is no
clear evidence, it is possible that many squints, when not being used for religious
practice, may have also served as aumbries, or cupboards for the display or storage of
liturgical objects, as these features are rarely found together in chapels. It is the relative
size and height of squints that may suggest their primary function. So-called ‘passage
squints’ can be found in many parish churches. These would provide both a view
through to ritual areas as well as facilitating access between altars. Those found at
Basingstoke (Hants.), Churchill (Somers.) and North Cerney (Gloucs.), for example,
were clearly used as processional walkways, as well as providing a view, between the
aisles and high altar. The insertion of passage squint at Sherston (Wilts.) involved the
A5 Roffey 31/5/07 2:48 pm Page 131

                      

construction of a purpose-built extension to facilitate both visual and physical access

between the north chapel and chancel (Illus. ). A similar feature survives at Portbury
(Somers.) sandwiched between the north transept and north chancel chapel which in
this instance was probably the location of the ‘sarcophagus of St Helen’ or Easter
Sepulchre (Roffey in prep.).
The priest’s squint between the Horton chapel and the chancel at Holy Trinity,
Bradford-on-Avon (Wilts.) is of particular interest. It is a significant feat of engineer-
ing running diagonally for almost  m through the wall from the north aisle to the
chancel (Illus. 13). Placed within the squint is a memorial and it is tempting to think
that this is an attempt by an individual to presence themselves within the rituals
facilitated by the squint.

SQUINTS AND THE RECONSTRUCTION OF

RELIGIOUS EXPERIENCE
It is clear that the function of the squints was to provide a clear line of sight to
important areas of the church for various individuals and groups. Some may have also
fulfilled ancillary functions, such as processional walkways, confessionals, and possibly
aumbries. However, examining squints in their wider context can help reconstruct the
important part they played in facilitating religious experience in the parish church. For
instance, the size and setting of particular squints may suggest the level and nature of
lay engagement. At Brympton church (Somers.), the position of a low squint in the
north-west corner of the late fifteenth-century chapel is of particular interest (Illus. ).
The squint is not situated near the location of a former altar, where it would be used
by a priest. Instead, its position provided a view of the chancel from the back of the

.  Sherston, Wiltshire, showing purpose-built passage squint between north chapel and
chancel
A5 Roffey 31/5/07 2:48 pm Page 132

                      

.  Brympton d’Evercy, Somerset, showing the conjectured viewpoint (V) and position of
individuals, either seated or kneeling at back of north chapel, and their views to the chapel altar,
and south and chancel altars (circles mark former location of altars)

chapel. The squint is situated at waist level (with no evidence for significant change
in floor level) and therefore suggests that the observants were either sitting, or kneel-
ing. Furthermore, from this position every other altar within the church can be
viewed — that within the east end of the same chapel, the altar in the north chapel,
and that in the south transept. The chapel, entered via a separate doorway, is exclusive
and provides a unique and commanding view of the major ritual areas of the church.
Indeed, it is the sole point within the church commanding such a vantage point. In
the north chapel at Yatton (Somers.), the piscina for the chapel altar is located at the
east end of the chapel. The squint, however, provides a view of the high altar, and is
located towards the back of the chapel, close to the tomb of Richard Newton and
Emmota de Sherborne. It is possible that this western area was reserved for a distinct
group of people with visual access to both the high altar and chapel altar. This can be
further demonstrated in the south chapels at South Wraxall and Great Chalfield
(Wilts.; Illus. ), where the orientation of squints provides a view from the back of
each chapel to the high altar. These squints are also positioned well below eye-level
suggesting that the observants were either sitting or kneeling.
A5 Roffey 31/5/07 2:48 pm Page 133

                      

.  Plan of Great Chalfield church, Wiltshire. Here, the squint from the Tropenell
chapel to the high altar would have provided a view only for those situated at the back
of the chapel

Spatial and visual organization of parish church topography was also far from static.
It appears that the ritual foci of churches could change throughout time, not just
within the parish church but also within the smaller side chapels, The Hampton
chapel at Stoke Charity (Hants.) parish church provides a particularly good example
(Illus. ; Roffey a). The chapel has been said to date from at least the fifteenth
century (Pevsner and Lloyd , ), although the structure itself is probably of a
much earlier date as the fifteenth-century east window and chancel arcade had been
inserted into pre-existing fabric. Sometime before , a chapel was founded by
Thomas Hampton, probably as a chantry and memorial chapel (VCH Hampshire ,
), a transition that involved the reconstruction of parts of the chapel, including the
A5 Roffey 31/5/07 2:48 pm Page 134

.  Stoke Charity in the fifteenth century (top), showing the views of the laity from
nave and north aisle into the Hampton chapel. In the early sixteenth century (bottom), the
Waller tomb/Easter Sepulchre () becomes a new ritual focus necessitating the insertion of
double squint. Here the visual participation of the laity is still ensured. The squint also gives a
better view of the chancel from the north aisle. (Tombs are shown as grey rectangles)
A5 Roffey 31/5/07 2:48 pm Page 135

                      

insertion of an east window, the raising of the roof and the insertion of a
wood-panelled ceiling. It was probably at this time that the ‘mass of St Gregory’
sculpture was placed within the north-east corner of the chapel, next to the chapel
altar at the east end. The tomb altar of Thomas Hampton and his wife Isabel was
placed within the archway leading from the chancel to the chapel. The location of the
Hampton tomb altar inside the arcade from chapel to chancel indicates a desire to
make the monument visible not just from within the chapel, but also from the chancel
as well as from the nave. It obstructs, or ‘presences’ itself within the direct line of sight
from nave to chapel altar.
The chapel seems to have been subject to changes in the early sixteenth century,
namely the redirection of the liturgical focus in the chapel from the altar at the east
end to a new tomb altar, that of John Waller, situated on the chapel’s north wall. In
his will dating to around , Waller stated that he wished to be buried ‘before the
altar of St Thomas’ (ibid.) and the tomb contains panels which depicted (defaced
images) of St Thomas of Canterbury. The tomb with its carved reredos, as well as
evidence for a metal hook or ‘riddel’ for a curtain, may have also served as an Easter
sepulchre. The redirection of ritual focus also necessitated the insertion of a new
window in the north wall to accentuate this new ritual space, as well as the insertion
of the double squint to permit the laity to see the tomb or Easter sepulchre from the
nave. These alterations alert us to the changing nature of the chapel, as well as
providing comparative dating evidence (for the squint and window), which enables a
chronological phasing to be constructed. It also affirms that the public were meant to
have a relationship with such monuments. This relationship was changed in the years
following the Reformation when visual access was effectively cut of from the nave by
placing the large Phellips monument between squint and tomb or Easter sepulchre
(Illus. ; Roffey ). At Buckland Dinham (Somers.), the addition of an eastern
chapel to the Dinham north chapel also involved construction of a squint to enable
the laity to have visual access to this new area (Illus. ). Ultimately, it can be argued,
such chapels were never really intended to be ‘private’ in the literal sense. Privately
managed, perhaps, but they were part of common ritual topography.
Squints may also be found on external walls, and in a few instances may be linked
to the former presence of an attached anchorite cell, such as at Britford, and Devizes
(Wilts.) and possibly in the north wall of the south west chapel at Burford (Oxon.).
At Alton (Hants.), two narrow squint windows in the east and west walls of the north
chapel may have been inserted to allow the laity a view of the altar from outside the
chapel. These slit windows are also relatively low, suggesting that spectators may have
been kneeling to view the elevation within. It is significant that these windows are
integral with the build of the chapel and therefore a provision on the part of the
founder rather than an afterthought. In the north porch at Bridgwater (Somers.) a
large window-like squint provided a view across what would have been a chantry altar
in the north aisle through to the high altar at the end of the chancel. In this case, the
porch may have served as a sort of ‘overflow’ during particularly busy occasions, such
as Easter. The location and alignment of squints can also alert us to wider changes to
the church fabric. For example, the chancel squints at Old Basing (Hants.) and
Symondsbury (Dorset) are not aligned on the east end of the chancel but to the centre
A5 Roffey 31/5/07 2:48 pm Page 136

                      

.  The Hampton chapel, Stoke Charity in the late sixteenth/early seventeenth century
showing how insertion of the Phellypes tomb has obstructed former ritual space both physically
and visibly.

and clearly suggest that the respective chancels were extended sometime after the
insertion of the squints.

A ‘SPIRITUAL NETWORK’: CHAPELS, CHANTRIES

AND THE PARISH CHURCH
The high altar was the predominant religious foci in most churches, but altars were
also located in other areas of the church, such as between nave and chancel and in side
chapels, aisles and transepts. In parish churches with multiple altars it is possible to
recreate the visual associations between subsidiary altars and the high altar and to
reveal the complex network of inter-relationships between them. Analysis of spatial
and visual relationship between the sites of former altars indicates that they were
closely involved in what can be termed a spiritual network. It is possible that as a result
of the multiplication of masses within the church, performed at these various altars,
that the high altar began to lose precedence — in a sense its spiritual efficacy was being
watered down. Hence, a proliferation of altars in the parish church may have led to
the staggering of masses so that the laity were not able to ‘shirk attending longer parish
A5 Roffey 31/5/07 2:48 pm Page 137

                      

.  North chapels at Buckland Dinham, Somerset, showing visual relationships between
nave and chapels. Note how the altar in the north chapel is close to the raised ledgers of the
Dinhams. These form a slight physical obstruction, probably to the serving priest, and therefore
may have provided a physical mnemonic ‘reminding’ the priest of their presence.

masses’ held at the high altar. (Wood-Legh , ). Consequently, masses
celebrated at subsidiary altars, such as chantries, were timed so that their elevations
were spread out. This may also imply an order of precedence during this time, further
indicating that each respective priest needed to view the preceding elevation. It is
unlikely, however, that such events occurred on a regular basis, particular in the
smaller, rural churches which may have had only one or two priests celebrating mass
once a day. Nonetheless, the presence of particular squints in some examples, as noted,
suggests a visual relationship between altars.
The evidence for an order of precedence of altars is stronger from the larger
institutions. For example, the chapters at St Paul’s, London and York Minster
‘arranged times when different masses should be celebrated’ and ‘if one cantarist did
not begin his mass immediately the preceding cantarist had finished, he would be cited
before the chapter to answer for neglect’ (Edwards , –). Dobson notes the
use of written tables at secular cathedrals for the ‘intabyling’ of priests to celebrate
masses at various altars (Dobson , ). ‘Intablying’ would have also ensured that
A5 Roffey 31/5/07 2:48 pm Page 138

                      

.  Bradford-on Avon, Wiltshire, showing visual relationships between priests serving
at altars (circles)

.  Conjectured visual relationships between altars at Aldbourne, Wiltshire

A5 Roffey 31/5/07 2:48 pm Page 139

                      

attendants at subsidiary altars did not detract from choral services in churches. In the
context of parish church practice, on several occasions priests at St Mary’s Nottingham
celebrated mass as early as possible, ‘without attention to their customary duty of
beginning them after the offertory at the parish mass’ (Thompson , ). Duffy
notes that at Long Melford (Suffolk) the altar at the east end of the north aisle was
provided with a double squint to enable the priest to ‘see across the rear angle of the
Clopton chantry and through the north wall of the chancel to the exact centre of the
high altar’ (Duffy , ). A similar arrangement can be seen in the squints in the
south wall of the Horton north aisle at Bradford-on-Avon. The south squint provides
a view to the opposite south chapel altars, whilst the east squint looks to the high altar.
Graves has noted that the visual connection between the More chapel and the Lane
aisle at Cullompton (Devon) suggests a visual interplay that ‘establishes the principal
lay rivals in the parish’ (Graves , ).
Despite this, the complex relationships between altars should not just be viewed as
strictly hierarchical in the sense of clerical control of lay-founded or subsidiary altars,
or necessarily promoting rivalry between the founding families of chantries and
chapels. It may be argued that these relationships were wholly beneficial to the com-
munity in that the sacred areas of the church, be it chapel, chantry or high altar, were
linked into a common and universal structure which further bonded the community
in its religious practices. The various altars were ‘networked’ into the web of com-
munal piety where the masses celebrated at the various altars interacted with each
other to provide a coordinated ritual, as can be argued for Bradford-on-Avon (Illus.
) and Aldbourne (Illus. ), for example. Orders of precedence, ultimately linked to
the parish high altar, were to encourage a unified approach to the common goal of
Eucharistic celebration and the promise of salvation inherent within. Such an order
must have been carefully worked out to ensure that timing and visual access were
integrated and the dramatic continuity of the various performances ran seamlessly and
with chronological precision.
Other examples collected from recent research in the south and west of England
show these relationships more graphically. The squint at Churchill provides a view to
the south chapel only, suggesting in this case a possible order of precedence or
‘spiritual hierarchy’ between subsidiary altars, as well as the high altar. The celebrant
in the north chapel could clearly see the priest serving the nave or south transept altar,
but could not be seen by them due to the narrowness of the squint (Illus. ). This
suggests that it was not necessary for the others to see the elevation at the mass carried
out in the north chapel. Similarly, the squint at St James, Taunton gives a view not to
the high altar but to the south chapel, or alternatively a rood altar, suggesting an order
of precedence between these two, with the south chapel altar taking priority. At
Whitestaunton, the insertion of a squint in the north-west wall of the Bluett chapel
serves to provide a view to a possible nave altar. Similarly, the masonry screen of the
Brett chapel has two large casement windows within it to provide a line of sight to
the south chapel. Examination of the jambs of the screen doorway suggests that it was
likely that a half-door was inserted here to provide better visual accessibility to the
chapel altar from the nave (Illus. ). A similar network can be reconstructed at St
Cuthbert’s Wells, although it can be seen here that a line of sight exists between the
A5 Roffey 31/5/07 2:48 pm Page 140

                      

.  East end of Churchill church, Somerset, showing visual relationships

between north chapel, high altar and nave/south chapel

two westerly chapels to the high altar, and that this view is actually broached by St
Katherine’s chapel to the north-east and the Lady chapel to the south-east. It may also
be significant that the two former chapels of St Cuthbert and Holy Trinity were a
guild and municipal chapel respectively, and that a view of the high altar, as well as
the other chapels altars may have been particularly sought after. It is perhaps no
coincidence, in this case, that all the altars in the church would be visible from these
chapels (Illus. ).
The visual relationships between the north and south chapel altars, and the high
altar can also be reconstructed at St John’s, Winchester. The relationship highlights
another factor, namely, the orientation of subsidiary altars with regard to the high
altar. At St John’s, the alignment of squints from the north and particularly the south
altar suggests that these altars are aligned slightly to the west of the high altar (Illus.
). This arrangement can be seen in other examples, notably at Aldbourne, Buckland
Dinham, Cheddar, Old Basing, St James’s Taunton, and Whitestaunton. These
particular arrangements may, of course, suggest the former presence of obstructions
such as altar rails or steps. Alternatively, they may indicate that there was a require-
ment to position subsidiary altars slightly west of the high altar. At Corsham (Wilts.)
the north chapel was rebuilt in c. – by Thomas Tropenell of Neston and Great
Chalfield (Walcott , ). Archaeological examination of the structure suggests
that the chancel itself was extended by a half bay so that it would project further east
A5 Roffey 31/5/07 2:48 pm Page 141

                      

.  Plan of the east end of Whitestaunton, Somerset, showing conjectured visual
relationships between altars
A5 Roffey 31/5/07 2:48 pm Page 142

                      

.  Conjectured visual relationships between altars at St Cuthbert’s,Wells (thicker lines

also represent conjectured view of laity)

from the attached chapel to the north. The architectural similarity between chancel
extension and chapel construction suggests that they were contemporary. Overall,
these arrangements may suggest the spiritual prominence given to the high altar,
illustrating the inclusiveness of privately endowed chantries and subsidiary altars in
communal religious practice and the parallel significance and value given to the
parish’s main ritual focus.

TRADITIONAL PERSPECTIVES ON THE SOCIAL DIMENSION

OF CHANTRY AND CHAPEL FOUNDATION
The application of primarily archaeological approaches to the study of parish church
fabric can help us reconstruct elements of the visual and physical arrangements within
church space. It can offer a precious insight into how such space was arranged and
ordered to encourage wider communal participation in religious experience. For
several years, some, mainly historical, studies of popular religion within pre-
Reformation England have tended to emphasize that religious practice within the
parish churches became increasingly privatized as a result of the foundation of chapels
and chantries (Carpenter ; Cross ; Richmond ). Others have under-
emphasized, or neglected the link between elite and common orthodoxy, or
orthodoxy at a common level (Carpenter ; Thomas ). More recently some
historians have attempted to re-address the balance in reaction to traditional
interpretations, (Burgess a; Burgess b; Burgess ; Duffy ; French
; Kumin ; Marks ). In particular, Eamon Duffy has shown the wide-
spread appeal of late medieval popular Catholicism and that ‘no substantial gulf existed
A5 Roffey 31/5/07 2:48 pm Page 143

                      

.  Visual relationships between altars in the east end of St John’s, Winchester

between the religion of the clergy and the educated elite on the one hand, and that
of the people at large on the other’ (Duffy , ).
Chapels and chantries were an important and influential element within late
medieval religion at many levels of society. Despite being claimed as monuments
seemingly dedicated to individualism and individual intercession (Brooke ;
Wood-Legh ), many chapels and chantries have been claimed to have been ‘off-
limits’ to the general laity. Consequently, it is claimed, many chapels were status
symbols demonstrating the power and prestige of local families (French , ,
), and to a certain extent, perhaps they were. However, chapels and chantries
operated in a much wider social and religious context. They were, in a sense, a
mixture of individual and communal motives which was in fact typical of the
medieval period (Kumin , ). The issue was not one of privatization, as
suggested by Carpenter (), or perhaps even ‘domination’, as proposed by Duffy
(, ), but control, or even management. This was a management, however, that
was mutually beneficial, and promoted what has been termed a ‘self-interested
altruism’ (Burgess b, ). Consequently, it is argued, chantry foundation,
particularly multiple chantry foundation, fostered a ‘communal self-regard producing
a parish which in its own estimation mattered’ (Burgess , ).
Many documentary sources taken at face-value emphasize the exclusive role or
influence of individuals on chapel and chantry foundation. Apart from the few
exceptions noted above, this may be why traditional studies of chantries and chapels
have under-emphasized their wider social role. Cursory examination of surviving
chapels, replete with elitist memorials may also support this. Thus, much of the
traditional discussion on chantries and chapels is therefore pitched in unhelpful terms
suggesting, in particular, that such monuments were wholly ‘private’. When looked
A5 Roffey 31/5/07 2:48 pm Page 144

                      

at archaeologically, however, very different conclusions can be reached. The examina-

tion of the chapel form and fabric together, with spatial analysis of topography and
viewsheds, indicates that such foundations clearly had a wider social dimension.

AN ARCHAEOLOGICAL PERSPECTIVE
The archaeological examination of parish church topography can, therefore, highlight
aspects of medieval religious practice which are not found in documentary sources. It
reveals that the construction and spatial arrangement of the parish church only really
worked on a corporate basis. The archaeological reconstruction of ritual topography
informs us how the chantry or chapel actually worked in practice, and how its
Eucharistic and intercessory rituals were enacted within a universal sacred geography.
It illustrates that one of the most important media for the relationship between
chapels, chantries, and the community and parish church, was vision. The visual senses
were integral to lay interaction with the complex symbols of the chapels and chantries,
their tombs and decoration. Vision enabled communion with that most important
aspect of the mass, the elevation. The importance of seeing the elevation is referred
to in many documentary sources of the period, but we are not told how this was
provided for in an often busy, and architecturally complex, parish church. Viewshed
analysis of church topography reveals how visual accessibility both to, and from,
chapels to other ritual areas of the church was of prime importance and how it was
facilitated. It seems to be a pre-requisite in the majority of cases to make chapels
visible from public areas of the church. Moreover, there appears to be evidence to
suggest an effort was made to ‘tie’ the intercessory rituals enacted in such chapels into
the general ‘network’ of rituals within the parish church itself, such as those celebrated
within other chapels and especially the high altar. This research therefore strongly
suggests that there was a visual relationship between subsidiary altars in many
instances, while others can be inferred and conjectured.
The application of viewshed analysis derived largely from prehistoric landscape
studies proves a useful tool in the comparative examination of the medieval built-
environment. The reconstruction of sight lines, or viewsheds, between chantries and
altars within the parish church reveals the paramount importance attributed to vision,
and visual accessibility, in medieval religious practice. Specifically, the squint, at face
value a very minor architectural feature of many chapels, in reality provided a window
to a vision of the holy. It facilitated a communal vision of salvation as represented by
the celebration of the mass. The forms, location and orientation of church squints
were largely dependent on the requirements of individual churches. The evidence
presented here also suggests the extent to which chantries and chapels were very much
part of the parish community and religious practice and that the role of the laity is
implicit. This was clearly not mere passive observation, or sub-conscious assimilation
and reaction to the complex rituals and symbolism. It was a role that involved active
participation from all members of the community. Consequently, despite the insights
that documentary and architectural study can provide with regard to the popularity of
religion prior to the Reformation, archaeological examination of parish church fabric
A5 Roffey 31/5/07 2:48 pm Page 145

                      

can be shown to illustrate aspects of religious practice, which may remain largely
‘invisible’ from the historical sources.

BIBLIOGRAPHY
B, P. S., C, C.  R, A. (eds) . Mass and the Parish in Late Medieval England: the
Use of York, Reading: Spire
B, J. . The mass as a social institution –, Past Present, , –
B, J. . Christian life in the later Middle Ages: prayers, Trans Roy. Hist. Soc., sixth ser., , –
B, C. N. L. . Medieval Church and Society, London: Sidgwick and Jackson
B, C. R a. Strategies for eternity: perpetual chantry foundation in late medieval Bristol, in
C. Harper-Bill (ed.) Religious Belief and Ecclesiastical Careers in Late Medieval England, –,
Woodbridge: Boydell
B, C. R. b. The benefactions of mortality: the lay response in the urban parish church, in
D. M. Smith (ed.) Studies in Clergy and Ministry in Medieval England, Borthwick Studies in History,
, –, York: Borthwick Institute of Historical Research
B, C. R. . St Mary-at-Hill, London, in J. Blair and B. Golding (eds) The Cloister and the World:
Essays in Medieval History in Honour of Barbara Harvey, –, Oxford: Clarendon Press
B, C. R. . ‘Longing to be prayed for’: death and commemoration in an English parish in the
later Middle Ages, in B. Gordon and P. Marshall (eds) The Place of the Dead: Death and Remembrance
in Late Medieval and Early Modern Europe, –, Cambridge: Cambridge University Press
B, C. R. . St George’s College, Windsor: context and consequence, in N. Saul (ed.) St George’s
Chapel, Windsor, in the Fourteenth Century, –, Woodbridge: Boydell
C, C. . The religion of the gentry in fifteenth-century England, in D. Williams (ed.) England
in the Fifteenth Century, –, Woodbridge: Boydell and Brewer
C, P. B. . Squints in Warwickshire churches, Trans Proc. Birmingham Archaeol Soc., , –
C, J. J. . Notes on low-side windows and squints, Archaeol J., , –
C, C. . Church and People –, London: Collins
D, B. . Church and Society in the Medieval North of England, London: Hambledon Press
D, E. . The Stripping of the Altars. Traditional Religion in England c. – c. , London: Yale
University Press
D, E. . Late medieval religion, in R. Marks and P. Williamson (eds) Gothic Art for England
–, –, London: V and A Publications
E, K. . The English Secular Cathedrals in the Middle Ages, Manchester: Manchester University
Press
F, P., F, C., M, A.  R, C. . Spatial analysis of visible areas from the
Bronze Age cairns of Mull, J. Archaeol Sci., , –
F, K. L. . The People of the Parish: Community Life in a Late Medieval English Diocese,
Pennsylvania: University of Pennsylvania
G, R. . Contemplation and Action: The Other Monasticism, Leicester: Leicester University Press.
G, R. . Norwich Cathedral: The Evolution of the English Cathedral Landscape, Woodbridge:
Boydell Press
G, K. . An Archaeology of Social Identity: Guildhalls in York, c. –, BAR British ser., ,
Oxford: British Archaeological Reports
G, J. A. A. . God’s House at Ewelme. Life, Devotion and Architecture in a Fifteenth-Century
Almshouse, London: Ashgate Press
G, C. P. . Social space in the English medieval parish church, Economy Society, , –
G, C. P. . Form and Fabric of Belief: The Archaeology of Lay Experience in Medieval Norfolk and
Devon, BAR British ser., , Oxford: British Archaeological Reports
G, A. R. . The low-side windows of Hampshire churches, Proc. Hampshire Fld Club Archaeol Soc.,
, –
H, B.  H, J. . The Social Logic of Space, Cambridge: Cambridge University Press
I. H. P. . On some perforations in the walls of churches, Archaeol J., , –
A5 Roffey 31/5/07 2:48 pm Page 146

                      

K, B. . The Shaping of a Community: The Rise and Reformation of the English Parish, c. –,
Hampshire: Scholar Press
L, M. W., W, P. E.,  M, S. J. . Tailoring GIS software for archaeological
applications: an example concerning view-shed analysis, J. Archaeol Sci., , –
M, R. . Image and Devotion in Late Medieval England, Stroud: Sutton
M, T. . Buildings and Power: Freedom and Control in the Origins of Modern Building Types, London:
Routledge
P, E. (ed.) . Instructions for Parish Priests, by John Myrc, Early English Text Society, original ser.,

P, N.  L, D. . Buildings of England: Hampshire and the Isle of Wight, London: Penguin
P, J.  R, A. . Avebury: The Biography of a Landscape, Stroud: Tempus
R, C. . Religion and the fifteenth-century English gentleman, in B. Dobson (ed.), The
Church, Patronage and Politics in the Fifteenth Century, –, Gloucester: Alan Sutton
R, W. . Landmarks in church archaeology: a review of the last thirty years, Church Archaeol.,
, –
R, S. . Deconstructing a symbolic world: the Reformation and the English medieval parish
chantry, in D. Gaimster and R. Gilchrist, (eds) The Archaeology of Reformation, –, Society for
Post-Medieval Archaeology monograph, , –, Leeds: Maney
R, S. a. Reconstructing English medieval parish church chantries and chapels: an archaeological
approach, Church Archaeol., ‒, –
R, S. b. A Social Archaeology of Parish Church Chantries and Chapels: A Perspective from the
South and West of England (unpublished doctoral dissertation, University of Southampton)
R, S. in prep. Medieval Chantry Chapels. An Archaeology, Woodbridge: Boydell and Brewer Press
R, M. . Corpus Christi: The Eucharist in Late Medieval Culture, Cambridge: Cambridge University
Press
T, K., . Religion and the Decline of Magic, London: Weidenfeld and Nicolson
T, A. H. . The English Clergy and their Organization in the Later Middle Ages, Oxford:
Clarendon Press
T, D. J. . The archaeology of Surrey, –, in J. Bird and D. G. Bird (eds) The
Archaeology of Surrey to , –, Guildford: Surrey Archaeological Society
VCH Hampshire . Victoria History of the County of Hampshire and the Isle of Wight, , ed. W. Page,
London: Constable
W, M. E. C. . Inventory of Church Goods and Chantries of Wiltshire, London
W-L, K. L. . Perpetual Chantries in Britain, Cambridge: Cambridge University Press

Simon Roffey, Department of Archaeology, Faculty of Social Sciences, The University of

Winchester, Winchester,  
Email: simon.roffey@winchester.ac.uk