^{page 232 note 1} It was not fully spared; there is an, £8,000 claim for compensation from a raid by Edward I in 1299 (Bain, J. (ed.), Calendar of Documents relating to Scotland, 1272-1307 (Edinburgh, 1884), no. 1123, p. 287)Google Scholar. No scars of this calamity are visible on the remains of the church; damage was probably limited to the monastic buildings and granges.

Dundrennan, established c. 1142, was the third of eleven Cistercian abbeys to be founded in Scotland. The Order came north of the border in 1136 under the patronage of King David. He settled the first house at Melrose with monks from Rievaulx and all the other White Monk abbeys in Scotland were founded from one or the other of these two monasteries.

The best general histories of the Cistercians in Scotland are Talbot, C. H., The Cistercian Abbeys in Scotland (London, 1939)Google Scholar, and Easson, D. E., Medieval Religious Houses: Scotland (London, 1959)Google Scholar. Dundrennan's history has been separately treated by Hutchinson, A. B., Memorials of the Abbey of Dundrennan (Exeter, 1857)Google Scholar, and by Christie, A. H., The Abbey of Dundrennan (Glasgow, 1914)Google Scholar. General views of the site can be found in Meer, F. van der, Atlas de Pordre cistercien (Paris, 1965), pls. 641, 650Google Scholar, and in Knowles, D. and Joseph, J. K. St., Monastic Sites from the Air (Cambridge, 1952), pp. 66–7Google Scholar.

^{page 232 note 2} Immediately following the Dissolution the Lords of the Congregation ordered Lord Herries to demolish the church. This he refused to do. Most writers claim that the building continued in use as the parish kirk until 1742, a point vigorously disputed by Christie, op. cit., pp. 90-1. He claims that the tradition refers to the church at Rerrick.

Two references to the condition of the church in the sixteenth century are worth mentioning. In 1543 Abbot Adam granted lands to James Makgill, a lawyer, and his wife ‘…pro 600 marcis solutis ad reparationem ecclesie dicti monast. jam in occidentali parte ruinose …’ Paul, J. B. and Thomson, J. M. (eds.), The Register of the Great Seal of Scotland, 1513-1546 (Edinburgh, 1883), p. 729Google Scholar. Perhaps Abbot Adam's action succeeded; thirty-five years later John Leslie reported that the church stood intact, Cody, E. C. (ed.), ‘Leslie's Historie of Scotland’, Scottish Text Society, i (Edinburgh, 1888), p. 13Google Scholar.

^{page 232 note 3} Royal Commission on Ancient and Historical Monuments of Scotland: Galloway (Edinburgh, 1914), iiGoogle Scholar(Kirkcudbright), no. 398, pp. 217-22. The plan is published on p. 217. The church had a deep aisleless presbytery, three chapels in each transept, and an eight-bay nave with aisles. It measured 209 feet east to west and 107 feet across the transepts.

For the architecture see also MacGibbon, D. and Ross, T., ‘Dundrennan Abbey’, Ayrshire and Galloway Archaeological Association Collections, x (1899), 57–97Google Scholar; Richardson, J. S., Dundrennan Abbey (Ministry of Works guide: London, 1949)Google Scholar. As early as 1760 Bishop Pococke gave a remarkably perceptive account of the remains, recognizing the transitional nature of the styles. His account is published in Kemp, D. W. (ed.), ‘Tours in Scotland 1747, 1750, 1760 by Richard Pococke, Bishop of Meath’, Publications of the Scottish History Society, i (1887), p. 24Google Scholar.

^{page 234 note 1} The dates are mine and are not given in the Royal Commission report. Backing for them is provided by architectural detail and the general character of the walls remaining from the first church. the architectural details are chiefly bell bases, visible in pi. XLIb, in the rebuilt southwest crossing pier. The profiles of these bases are similar o t those in the nave at Fountains c. 1145-65 and Kirkstall c. 1155-75. At Kirkstall the handling of the walls has much in common with Dundrennan. For Kirkstall see Bilson, J., ‘The Architecture of Kirkstall Abbey Church’, Thoresby Society, xvi (1907) 73–140Google Scholar.

^{page 234 note 2} The Royal Commission claims that the clere-story windows of the east walls of both transepts remain from the first church, the arcade and middle storey being inserted beneath them. But such a mechanical feat strains belief and a complete rebuilding is likely.

Briefly, the Royal Commission based its claim on the misalignment of the round-headed windows with the triforium and arcade, and the windows’ stylistic similarity to those in the choir and west walls of the north transept (the short proportions being explained by the insertion of the triforium in what was originally the bottom halves of the windows). To this it can be objected that the masonry of the middle storeys is not disturbed and that it joints in with the flanking walls. the one exception is in the south transept where, from the exterior, a clear masonry break can be seen at the juncture of the south wall (surviving from the first church) with the east wall. This suggests that all the east elevation belongs to one campaign.

^{page 234 note 3} In the years since the Dissolution restorations of the remains are mentioned in the literature although details of the work are not given. After the site came into the hands of the Commissioners in 1841 a report speaks of comprehensive repairs. Whatever these were they do not appear to have materially altered the original disposition of the walls; eighteenth-century drawings and engravings show them much as they are today. See for instance Hooper's, J. 1790 engraving published in Grose, F., The Antiquities of Scotland (London, 1791), pl. 11, facing p. 184Google Scholar. A. H. Christie mentions other, more routine maintenance of the walls (‘Dundrennan Abbey,’ Transactions of the Cumberland and Westmorland Antiquarian and Archaeological Society, N.S. xxvi, (1926), 513–15)Google Scholar.

^{page 234 note 4} The evidence hinges on the already mentioned early walls and the fragment of wall adjoining the south-east crossing pier (visible in pl. XLIb). The treatment of the string course on the north wall of the north transept (pl. XLIIIa), which is stepped up in three stages a total of 2 ft. 6 in., implies an arcade in the first church lower than the present one. To judge by the clerestory windows in the choir and on the west transept walls the original windows would have been nearly twice the height of the present ones. Similar two-storey elevations survive at Fountains and Kirkstall.

^{page 235 note 1} The character and form of transept chapels changes rapidly in Cistercian churches after mid century. In the early churches they were barrel vaulted and thus required abutment along the walls. This gave them a closed, cell-like character. In England, early chapels survive at Fountains and Kirkstall in elevations similar to the first one at Dundrennan. With the introduction of rib vaults the side walls could be removed thus resulting in an increase of light and a greater fluency of space. Churches begun in the 1160s and 70s, such as Roche and Byland, use this arrangement.

^{page 235 note 2} These conflicts are most notable in the west bays of the presbytery where the lean-to roofs over the transept chapel vaults cut diagonally across the lower part of the windows. To correct this a clumsy sloping section of wall had to be constructed across the lower sills.

^{page 235 note 3} This is usually connected with the change of affiliation from Savigniac to Cistercian which occurred in 1148. Powicke, F. M. discusses the historical background in ‘Furness Abbey’, Victoria County History: Lancashire, ii (London, 1908), pp. 114–31Google Scholar. The architecture is treated by Hope, W. H. St. John, The Abbey of St. Mary in Furness (Kendal, 1902)Google Scholar; Dickinson, J. C., Furness Abbey (Ministry of Works guide: London, 1965)Google Scholar; idem, ‘Furness Abbey—an archaeological reconsideration’, Transactions of the Cumberland and Westmorland Antiquarian and Archaeological Society, N.S. lxviii (1967), 51–80Google Scholar. The reworking of the transepts has never been analysed. Abundant proof of a major renovation remains, particularly on the north side. A rebuilding of the south transept in the early sixteenth century has obscured the evidence there.

A similar transept reconstruction in the 1170s took place at Bardney Abbey, Lincolnshire, under the strong influence of Cistercian architecture in Yorkshire. See Brakspear, H., ‘Bardney Abbey’, Archaeological Journal, lxxix (1922), 1–92CrossRefGoogle Scholar, particularly pp. 20-9; Sir Pevsner, Nikolaus and Harris, J., Buildings of England, Lincolnshire (London, 1964), pp. 175–6Google Scholar.

^{page 236 note 1} The chapel widths indicate the struggle to adjust the three openings in transepts whose total widths had been reduced by the insertion of an enlarged crossing. The measurements are: north transept (from north to south) 12 ft.; 13 ft. 6 in.; 13 ft.; south transept (from north to south) 12 ft. 10 in.; 13 ft. 4 in., 12 ft. 6 in.

^{page 236 note 2} Although no shafts are shown in Bishop Pococke's drawing of the north arcade in 1760 (Kemp, op. cit., p. 23) or in A. de Cardonnel's view into the north transept in 1788 (Picturesque Antiquities of Scotland (London, 1788), pl. IIGoogle Scholar under Dundrennan (pages un-numbered)), a ring moulding over the southern pier (visible in pi. XLa) shows that shafts were raised. A break in the string course over the next pier indicates a similar arrangement there. Above the middle storey the situation is less certain; no marks survive on the upper string course, This might be explained by a renewal of the dere-story at the same time that the vaults over the choir were dismantled (see p. 237, n. 1). MacGibbon and Ross in their section draw in the shafts as broken lines (op. cit., pl. VII).

^{page 236 note 3} The openings did not provide access to the chapel vaults. This was gained from a wall passage in the southern wall. The same arrangement occurred at Kirkstall. From the walls that remain from the first church at Dundrennan it is likely that wall passages ran round all the east parts of the church.

^{page 237 note 1} Vaults were raised, the scars of the vault webs being clearly visible in the ashlar (see pi. XLIIIb). However the roof has been lowered about six feet suggesting that the vaults may not have survived Edward I's raid.

^{page 237 note 2} Grose, writing in the late eighteenth century, reports a tradition that the spire was over 200 feet high, op. cit., ii, p. 183. A low stone tower surmounted by a spire was not unusual for Cistercian churches; it is visible in Brissart's 1674 engraving of Citeaux and Lucas’ 1708 engraving of Clairvaux. Both are illustrated in Aubert, M., L'Architecture cistercienne en France (Paris, 1947), i, figs. 3 and 4. Towers are discussed on pp. 369–78Google Scholar.

^{page 237 note 3} Evidence for this survives at Fountains, Kirk-stall, Buildwas, Furness, Roche and, possibly, Louth Park. I have attempted to outline these changes in ‘Early Cistercian Churches in Yorkshire and the Problem of the Cistercian Crossing Tower’, Journal of the Society of Architectural Historians, xxix (1970), 211–21Google Scholar.

^{page 238 note 1} Bilson publishes these (and two other variations) in his discussion of Kirkstall and it is on his drawing that figs. 2a and b are based (op. cit., fig. 35 and pp. 124-5). I would like to thank Mr. Alasdair Glass for preparing these drawings and for his reconstruction (pl. XLb).

Immediately preceding Kirkstall, round piers with paired shafts towards the aisles had been used n i the nave at Fountains. This pier should not, however, be seen as part of the same sequence except in the most general sense; it belongs to English prototypes. P. Héliot has recently discussed these bundled piers in ‘La nef de l'église de Pogny et les piles fasciculées dans l'architecture romane’, Mimoires de la sociiti d'agriculture, commerce, sciences et arts du département de la Marne, lxxxiii (1968), 80–92Google Scholar. Cistercian adoption of this type of pier in France, which Hiot does not mention, occurs early in the sequence, around 1150-5 in the chapter house at Fontenay. For the date see Branner, R., Burgundian Gothic Architecture (London, 1960), pp. 18 and 141-2Google Scholar.

^{page 237 note 2} The abbey has never been fully published, The best analysis of the architecture is Sir Pevsner, Nikolaus, Buildings of England: Yorkshire, North Riding (London, 1966), pp. 94–101Google Scholar. See also Sir Peers, Charles, Byland Abbey (Ministry of Works guide: London, 1934.)Google Scholar Bardney Abbey (Lincolnshire) also provides examples of similar twelve-shafted piers in the transept rebuilding in the 1170s and 80s. The pier section (fig. 2e) comes from Brakspear, op. cit., p. 23. Rebuilding of the church was slow and piecemeal but influenced in all likelihood by work at Byland.

^{page 237 note 3} That the master of the Scottish house kept abreast of developments at Byland is suggested by a change in the set-backs on the responds against the west wall of the church. Here instead of individual bases under each shaft a unitary base is provided, The same occurs at Byland, beginning in the south transept c. 1175.

^{page 240 note 1} There are a number of close parallels in the architectural detailing. In the transepts at Roche, seven and nine shafted piers were used in the north and south transepts (fig. 2f) respectively, but in neither case are the piers similar to those at Byland or Dundrennan. The Roche piers are compound, the shafts being attached to the pier rather than being generated from the center. Only in the nave where octofoil piers appear is there evidence of influence from Byland.

It is interesting that attached shafts and mouldings n i the middle storey at Roche occur only in the presbytery (see pi. XLIIa); in the transepts the openings are plain. For the above see my article ‘Roche Abbey; the source and date of the east remains’, Journal of the British Archaeological Association, xxxiv (1971), 30–42Google Scholar. For comparable treatment of the middle storey in Cistercian abbeys in France see Schlink, W., Zwischen Cluny und Clairvaux (Berlin, 1970), pp. 116–18Google Scholar.

^{page 240 note 2} The site is owned by the University of Nottingham and is under the care of the Department of Classics. It has not been excavated or cleared. See Fergusson, op. cit., pp. 38–9.

^{page 241 note 1} Ripon, and Malton, Old are discussed by Sir Pevsner, Nikolaus, Buildings of England, Yorkshire, West Riding (2nd edn: London, 1967), pp. 403–10Google Scholar; Yorkshire, North Riding, pp. 232-3.

^{page 241 note 2} At Roche dividing shafts also separate the bays but they are differently conceived, rising uninterruptedly from floor to vault. As a result the pier becomes compound in character. Moreover the shaft integrates the storeys in a manner different from that at Dundrennan.

^{page 241 note 3} The choice of wooden roofs at Byland reflects prototypes in north-east Picardy where such roofs persisted as the accepted covering into the last quarter of the twelfth century. The brief use of vaults at Kirkstead and Roche reflects, in turn, influences from further south where stone vaults had been widely used since mid century. The turn to wooden roofs at Byland, then, represents an acceptance of a different regional tradition rather than a dramatic rejection of vaulting. That this coincides with the reassertion of earlier Anglo-Norman values in architecture is a phenomenon present in other non-monastic building in the north.

^{page 241 note 4} Other details confirm the connections. Bases of the transept arcades and of the door into the north aisle are similar to those at Byland. The waterleaf capital in the nort h aisle (visible in pl. XLVa) is also similar to those in the north transept at Byland.

Old Malton was a Gilbertine Priory founded in 1150. The architectural connections with Byland have never been discussed. Influence came after work had started on the nave. Of the piers only those in the west bays show the impact of the Byland design. Throughout the middle storey, however, the composition is identical.

^{page 242 note 1} Dundrennan's cartulary is lost. All that can be definitely established about the identity of the founding house is that the Abbot of Rievaulx was in Galloway in 1164 (presumably on a visitation of Dundrennan as required by Cistercian statutes) and that abbots from Dundrennan were elevated to Rievaulx in 1167 and 1239. For the first date see Sir Lawrie, A. C., Annals of the Reigns of Malcolm and William, Kings of Scotland (Glasgow, 1910), p. 90Google Scholar; for the latter two dates see Stevenson, J. (ed.), ‘Chronica de Mailros’, Bannatyne Club, xlix (1835), 81 and 149Google Scholar. Easson sifts the conflicting historical evidence in op. cit., p. 64.

^{page 242 note 2} The dates of his abbacy are not definitely known but were probably c. 1167 to 1188. Atkinson, J. C. discusses the problem in ‘Cartularium abbathiae de Rievalle’, Surtees Society, lxxxiii (1889), xci–xciiiGoogle Scholar.

^{page 242 note 3} ‘Obiit pie memorie Siluanus quondam abbas Rievallis, vij. idus Octobris apud Belelande, ibique honorifice sepultus est’. Stevenson (ed.), op. cit., p. 98 The assertion that Sylvanus died at Dundrennan seems to originate with de Cardonnel in the late eighteenth century (op. cit.).

^{page 242 note 4} This settled matters in dispute between the two monasteries; see Atkinson, op. cit., p. xcii and no. cxcix. The dispute could well have had its origins in the early 1140s when the Byland monks settled a site at Old Byland. The location of the monastery was close to the present-day Tiles Farm, a mile or so above Rievaulx. The closeness is known to have caused friction and the Byland monks moved to Stocking in 1146.

^{page 242 note 5} The date is established by the abbey's chronicler, Abbot Philip, writing around 1197 (see Dugdale, W., Monasticon Anglicanum (London, 1846 edition), v, p. 353Google Scholar) and is confirmed by the remains of the church.

^{page 243 note 1} Easson discusses the monastery's history, op. cit., p. 64.

^{page 243 note 2} The piers and bases are illustrated in MacGibbon, D. and Ross, T., ‘Glenluce Abbey’, Ayrshire and Galloway Archaeological Association Collections, x (1899), 199–233, pl. LGoogle Scholar. The authors describe the clearance of the site on pp. 201-2. A brief account of the church also appears in the Royal Commission on Historical Monuments of Scotland: Galloway (Edinburgh, 1912), i, nos 296-9, pp. 102–8 although the parts dealing with the south transept are generalGoogle Scholar.