Ford Abbey.
This portion of the edifice, whose original uses are conjectural, shows, both inside and out, considerable vestiges which appear to suggest a Norman origin, and which we may assume were possibly erected under the immediate auspices, if not under the personal superintendence, of the Lady Adeliza. The exterior angles of the eastern end exhibit the quoins so characteristic of the Norman style of building, and the interior has many fine examples of Anglo-Norman work, in the pillars, the groined stone roof, the arches at either end, of a slightly pointed character, with the well-known zig-zag or chevron moulding. The eastern window is of much later date, being Perpendicular in style, and it is believed to have been inserted by Thomas Chard, the last Abbot, as the upper panel of the left-hand side depicts a stag’s head, whilst the companion panel, parallel to it, contains faint traces of the oft-repeated monogram, T. C.
The next feature in point of antiquity is what is now termed the “Monks’ Walk,” a range of ivy-clad buildings running back for nearly four hundred feet from the eastern end of the Abbey in a northerly direction, and it is thought that a similar range ran parallel to it. The remaining wing is on the eastern side, and consists of two storeys, the lower of which possesses some beautiful Early English work, and the upper one was probably the monks’ dormitory. In the centre is an archway of fourteenth century date, and along the entire length of the wing is a series of lancet windows, almost perfect on the western side, but destroyed or built up on the eastern. Hearne thus notices this wing:
But now, though one of the chief uses of the cloisters was for walking, yet in Religious Houses they had sometime galleries for the same end. We have an instance of it in Ford Abbey in Devonshire, which is one of the most entire abbeys in England; in the east front whereof, which is the oldest of the two fronts (though the south front be the chiefest), there is a gallery called the Monks’ Walk, with small cells on the right hand, and little narrow windows on the left.
Great as is the antiquarian interest of these fragments of what we may reasonably presume to have formed part of the original foundation, the greater part of the existing fabric is the work of Abbot Chard, of whom we shall have something to say later. The best view of the building is obtained from the front, where nearly all that meets the eye affords a striking instance of the consummate taste and devoted perseverance of this remarkable man under circumstances that may well have discouraged the boldest. The storm which culminated in the dissolution of the monastic houses was gathering; but instead of being filled with dismay, as were so many of his fellow-churchmen, Thomas Chard spared no effort to beautify his beloved abbey, perhaps that the very glamour of her loveliness might enchant the eyes of the spoilers and turn them from their purpose of ruthless spoliation. To a great extent, his work was preserved, for, although the abbey did suffer, and that grievously, yet it escaped the wanton wreckage by which most of these foundations throughout the land were devastated.
Sidney Heath 1907
Details from Cloisters. Ford Abbey.
The first portion of Chard’s building to claim attention is the cloister, late Perpendicular in style, with mullions and window tracery which present an appearance at once good and bold, and show no signs of the debasement and formality that are so characteristic of the late buildings of this period. Above the windows a frieze of stonework depicts on shields the arms of various benefactors to the Abbey—as those of Courtenay quartering Rivers, Poulett, the Bishop of Exeter, etc.; and on many shields appear either the monogram or the name of Thomas Chard.
An excellent account of the cloister—and, indeed, of the whole Abbey—is contained in a very rare little volume, entitled, a History of Ford Abbey, written anonymously many years ago, but acknowledged by ecclesiologists to be the work of one who for a long period must have resided there, and who thus, by daily associations with the fabric, became more familiar with its minute architectural details than could possibly be the case with anyone who had not enjoyed a similar privilege. As this volume is rare, as well as interesting and accurate in regard to its architectural information, no apology is needed for quoting certain passages from it here. In reference to the cloister we learn that: