Talk:St Mary's Church, Reculver

Another source

According to Simon Keynes, "The Control of Kent in the ninth century", Early Medieval Europe. 1993 2.2, p. 117, King Cenwulf's daughter Cwoenthryth controlled Minster-in-Thanet and Reculver in the 810s. Dudley Miles (talk) 20:44, 20 March 2015 (UTC)

Thanks for the nudge, Dudley, I may actually have a copy of that somewhere, fingers crossed. Cheers. Nortonius (talk) 22:19, 20 March 2015 (UTC)

Dudley, sorry to bother you but I've had a thorough root around and can't find any copies of Early Medieval Europe – I subscribed from the first issue for the first few years and I don't part with stuff like that, I'm mystified! So... I don't suppose you could email a scan or something, could you? No worries if not. Cheers. Nortonius (talk) 14:31, 12 May 2015 (UTC)

Emailed to you. Dudley Miles (talk) 17:00, 12 May 2015 (UTC)

And received – I'm reading it now! Extremely grateful, again. Nortonius (talk) 17:19, 12 May 2015 (UTC)

Well, Keynes's paper ended up only in a footnote, but it's prompted quite a bit of tinkering with this article by me,[1] so it was well worth it (supposing my tinkering's been any good), and thanks again! Nortonius (talk) 14:29, 16 May 2015 (UTC)

Kelly, Charters of Malmesbury Abbey, p. 17 "after Archbishop Cwoenthryth had won his battle with Abbess Cwoenthryth over the lordship (dominatio) of Minster-in Thanet and Reculver..." She seems to have controlled Reculver at some point even though she was only abbess of Minster, but the context is unclear. Dudley Miles (talk) 15:06, 19 May 2015 (UTC)

Archbishop Wulfred...? I don't have sight of the Kelly volume you cite. But a key may be that Coenwulf of Mercia died in 821, leaving Cwoenthryth in charge of Minster-in-Thanet (at least) – did she somehow default through Coenwulf's death to ruling Reculver too? Is Kelly guessing, or just picking up on Keynes (1992)...? Brooks (1984), Early History of the Church of Canterbury, p. 182 says that, "at the council of Clofesho of 825 Archbishop Wulfred reopened the dispute by claiming full compensation from [Coenwulf]'s heir and daughter, Cwoenthryth, for all the losses that he had incurred as a result of Coenwulf's actions. By this tactic the archbishop wrested a more favourable property settlement from Cwoenthryth, who was abbess of Coenwulf's family monastery of Winchcombe as well as of Minster-in-Thanet. Wulfred also seems to have been able to re-establish his control over the monasteries of Reculver and Minster ..." (my emphasis, obviously) The year 825 may be significant there because that is when Wessex began to supersede Mercia's role in Kent, making Cwoenthryth's position very weak. I get the feeling that Cwoenthryth's involvement with Reculver may only have been as Coenwulf's heir, rather than through ruling it; but if Kelly knows better, as she might well do writing more than 30 years after Brooks, I wish she'd say so! Thanks again, by the way! Nortonius (talk) 15:28, 19 May 2015 (UTC)

Brooks could mean Wulfred sought compensation for Coenwulf's action in seizing Minster and Reculver and giving control to his daughter. Brooks never does spell out what Coenwulf did with Reculver, but what if not give it to Cwoenthryth? BTW I have found another quote through Google Scholar in Barbara Yorke's Nunneries and the Anglo-Saxon Royal Houses, p. 62 at [2] "when Abbess Cwoenthryth controlled Reculver". Dudley Miles (talk) 16:00, 19 May 2015 (UTC)

Yes, Brooks could mean that – except that, while he doesn't say what exactly happened to Reculver, he does say what happened to Minster-in-Thanet. He was never one for woolly thinking, so I've taken that to mean that he had nothing to say about exactly what happened to Reculver, except in terms of Wulfred's quarrel. Of course that could be wrong. But add in that new quote from Yorke, where she too gives no reference, and I feel that Keynes, Kelly and Yorke are all getting very far from the primary sources, which is where Brooks began. What to do... For now I'll study Brooks more closely, just in case, but that'll take some time. Cheers. Nortonius (talk) 16:15, 19 May 2015 (UTC)

Aren't you afraid of being struck by a thunderbolt speaking disrespectfully of three such eminent historians!? Dudley Miles (talk) 21:21, 19 May 2015 (UTC)

Eminent, schmeminent! ;o) I think it's telling that Keynes (1992), p. 117, says that "[t]he history of these minsters in the ninth century has been expounded by Nicholas Brooks", but then speaks of Cwoenthryth being in control of both Reculver and Minster-in-Thanet without citing any sources. While Brooks says no such thing, Kelly's (2006) Charters and Yorke's (2003) Nunneries don't cite sources either. QED? Nortonius (talk) 00:33, 20 May 2015 (UTC)

Well. I didn't find anything new in Brooks (1984). I think the key there is when he says (p. 182) that Cwoenthryth "was abbess of Coenwulf's family monastery of Winchcombe as well as of Minster-in-Thanet." If he thought Cwoenthryth had ruled Reculver as abbess, I'm sure that's where he would've said so, and he doesn't anywhere else. But I note that Yorke (2003) says (p. 56) that "Minster[-in-Thanet] and other Kentish houses may have been [covered] by Coenwulf's papal privileges [allowing to him dispose of "his" monasteries as he saw fit] and so were ultimately under the control of Coenwulf, and then of Cwoenth[ry]th as his heir.[3] (my italics) Yorke says this with a reference to Brooks (1984), pp. 183–6, where his central concern is "[t]he king's case", and Reculver is only referenced in that context; but I now think we've got something I'd be happy to add to the article. The "one-sided, Canterbury, version of the quarrel [between Coenwulf and Wulfred] ... drafted in the execrable Latin of the early ninth-century scriptorium at [Canterbury]" (Brooks 1984, pp. 180–1) is described in the Electronic Sawyer as the "[r]ecord of a dispute between Archbishop Wulfred and Coenwulf, king of Mercia, and his heir Cwoenthryth, abbess, concerning the minsters of Reculver and Minster-in-Thanet", and has Cwoenthryth as the first signatory.[S 1436] She's introduced there as "Cwenðryðam abatissam heredem Coenwulfi". Of those two roles, while Brooks is clear that we know she was abbess of Minster-in-Thanet but says nothing of Reculver, the other role is clear enough. It's a shame Yorke and the others didn't reference S 1436 directly! In this context, I notice S 165 of 811, where Cwoenthryth is a witness to Coenwulf's charter giving land in Kent to Bishop Beornmod of Rochester: her signature, purported at least, reads as "Quoenðryð filia regis". That's surely interesting in this context, but I haven't spotted anyone making anything of it, have you? Thanks again. Nortonius (talk) 14:39, 25 May 2015 (UTC)

Excellent. Of course it comes back to you doing original research. You really need to turn your findings into a journal article. I don't get your point about Quoenðryð filia regis. If my poor Latin is correct that just means daughter of the king which we already know? What does seem interesting is that she was Coenwulf's heir, which presumably would not have been possible in misogynist Wessex. Dudley Miles (talk) 14:57, 25 May 2015 (UTC)

I'm glad you agree! Hm yes a journal article... I still think that's realistic, but it's something I'd need to get my head around, as they say! About Quoenðryð filia regis, yes, that's what it says – I just think it's interesting that she's made to sign a charter of 811 dealing with land in Kent but there's no mention of her being an abbess. In Kent. It could at least be used to indicate that presumably she wasn't an abbess at that point (when Abp Wulfred seems to have been in charge of Reculver) even though she was signing her dad's charters; that's all. Agreed about "misogynist Wessex", although I've just added something to the article about Reculver possibly belonging to Eadred's mum in the 10th century, and being sold by her to Canterbury. Cheers. Nortonius (talk) 15:17, 25 May 2015 (UTC)

Another source - again

Patrick Wormald, "The Age of Offa and Alcuin" in Campbell ed, The Anglo-Saxons, p. 106. Unfortunately Cenwulf "fell foul of Canterbury, when one of the greatest Anglo-Saxon archbishops, Wulfred, launched a strong attack on secularised monasteries (see above pp. 87-88) with a special eye on the Kentish houses of Reculver and Minster-in-Thanet where Cenwulf's daughter was abbess". Dudley Miles (talk) 20:39, 5 June 2015 (UTC)

Thanks again, Dudley! It's nice to know you're keeping an eye out for things, while I'm foolishly beavering away at other stuff! Much as I love that book (if only all coffee-table-format books were like it!) I think it's a bit too general to be useful on this point – Patrick Wormald's focus here is on the influence of Charlemagne's ecclesiastical interests on the related activities of Offa, e.g. in establishing Lichfield as an archbishopric, and of Coenwulf, who came to realise, "as Æthelbald and the Carolingians also found, [that Church reform] was not always convenient for kings." (also from Wormald, "Age of Offa and Alcuin", p. 106). This is the same Coenwulf who got a privilege from Pope Leo III saying that he could do with his monasteries as saw fit, and evidently did! I think where Reculver, Minster-in-Thanet and Cwoenthryth are concerned this is peripheral, and all too vague. For example, if pressed, might Patrick Wormald have been inclined to add a couple of commas, so the sentence in question read " ... the Kentish houses of Reculver, and Minster-in-Thanet, where Coenwulf's daughter was abbess"? The meaning would have been quite different. But he wasn't pressed because of the nature of the book and his essay, and anyway his focus was elsewhere: it was probably enough for him in his context that Cwoenthryth had been abbess of Minster-in-Thanet (S 1434), and was the principal lay party to the settlement for Minster-in-Thanet and Reculver in 825 (S 1436). Campbell's book also pre-dates Brooks's 1984 meisterwerk by about 3 years: about that, as you'll recall, Simon Keynes said that "[t]he history of these minsters in the ninth century has been expounded" – I think Keynes is suggesting, and from what I've seen I'd agree, that this had not been properly done before. I would add that nor for the most part has it been followed carefully enough since, except by Yorke (2003, p. 52) (!) – yes, I admit it, I'm a fan of Brooks! Nortonius (talk) 22:38, 5 June 2015 (UTC)

I should have made myself clear. I was not citing Wormald to support Cwoenthryth being abbess of Reculver - I think he is ambiguous on that - but on the context for Wulfred's attack, that it was not (just) an argument about property but that he saw Reculver as a secularised monastery which he was determined to reform. It is not relevant to Reculver, but this seems to me to put him in the context of being a precursor to the Benedictine reformers of the tenth century, although my reading on the early ninth century is far too shallow to know whether historians see him that way. BTW I think there is a typo in "Wulfstan "made a humiliating submission to [Coenwulf]""

Also BTW all my comments are things I have come across during my research on Æthelwulf, and I hope shortly to get it to a stage where I can ask you to peer review it. Dudley Miles (talk) 23:01, 5 June 2015 (UTC)

Well spotted on the typo, thank you! Interesting about Æthelwulf, by all means let me know – Wulfred's motives were disputed at the time, I think the gist is he had a pragmatic approach to attempting to enforce regularity, which was seen as episcopal greed by others. I'll have a look in a day or so, I'm about done for now, cheers! Nortonius (talk) 23:31, 5 June 2015 (UTC)

I'm glad we agree on Wormald re Cwoenthryth and Reculver, then! Have you seen Susan Kelly's entry for Wulfred in Blackwell's Encyclopedia? She offers some sources, including Brooks (1984) of course! I gather you have better access to sources than I, but I can email Kelly's entry for Wulfred, and whatever I find that Brooks (1984) has to say too for that matter...? Nortonius (talk) 12:11, 6 June 2015 (UTC)

I have read Wulfred in Blackwell. Interesting what she says about him converting Christ Church to regular canons. If I understand correctly he changed a monastic community into secular priests serving in the community - the opposite of what Wormald said he was trying to do at Reculver!

I have listed my library at User:Dudley Miles/Library. I can get hold of almost anything else from the London Library, which also gives extensive online access. It is expensive at £39 a month, but I would not be without it. If you were a member you would also have to pay postage on books if you did not want to come up to London. About the only important source I cannot get through my own books or the LL is the journal Early Medieval Europe, and I have photocopied a couple of articles at the British Library - the joys of living in London! Dudley Miles (talk) 16:13, 6 June 2015 (UTC)

Ah yes, sorry, you mentioned your library once before but I'd forgotten! Born in London, grew to loathe it... Never mind. About what Wormald said Wulfstanred was trying to do at Reculver, you're referring to Campbell's Anglo-Saxons p. 106 again? Doesn't he just say that Wulfred was attacking the secularised status of monasteries? That is, I get the impression Wulfred was mainly interested in who owned and controlled monasteries, rather than whether they were secular or regular in nature – though I haven't looked too closely. Nortonius (talk) 17:37, 6 June 2015 (UTC)

Well maybe, but as you say Wormald says Wulfred was attacking secularised monasteries, and if I understand Kelly correctly she says he secularised monastic Christ Church. Of course there is a logic if he thought monasteries should be monastic and a cathedral should be a secular body serving the community. Dudley Miles (talk) 17:52, 6 June 2015 (UTC)

Image of the present structure

Thanks Seth Whales, to be honest I hadn't given much thought about an image of the present structure, as it's virtually the same as in the image presently in the "Enlargement" section – but I think you make a good point! That image was suggested years ago by another user, and I think impresses on the reader just how much has been lost; but it appears in the article for Reculver, where now you mention it I think it is better placed, and could certainly be swapped for something clearer here. The image you suggested on my talk page is a fine one of the west front, but that's all it shows, and it's been the main image for Reculver for quite some time now. I think an image showing as much as possible of the structure would be best, but looking at Commons I don't see quite what I have in mind: this is very close, but the nearest part of the structure blends into the rest. Looking at Geograph, I think this and this are better. If only they had been taken earlier in the day, so the interior were better lit. Thoughts? Nortonius (talk) 14:09, 12 January 2016 (UTC)

• I agree with your thoughts. The other alternative would be to have two images such this and this. I'm no expert on what is a good image...I would leave this up to you. SethWhales ^talk 17:03, 12 January 2016 (UTC)

Yes, two images – good idea! I'll get onto that, thanks for the input. Nortonius (talk) 17:16, 12 January 2016 (UTC)

 Done. Nortonius (talk) 17:48, 12 January 2016 (UTC)

Looks good. SethWhales ^talk 20:40, 12 January 2016 (UTC)