Still, it was the Cistercians of the twelfth century who introduced ribbed vaulting into English churches, [29] and why not into bridges as a development therefrom? At a time when bridges were united to the Church in many ways, new methods in sacred architecture would be passed on to bridge-building. Not only were bridges protected by the Church ([p. 40]), many were built by the lay clergy and by the monastic orders; and when a bridge had neither a chapel nor a little place for prayer, it was sanctified by a shrine, or—and this was usual—by a cross or crucifix raised up from the parapet above the middle arch. It marked the centre of the bridge, and I dare say peasants believed that it prevented evil spirits from passing above running water. Altogether, it is very probable that the first ribbed bridges were built in the twelfth century, though I have no quite conclusive evidence to offer from extant examples.
LE PONT DE VERNAY, AIRVAULT, DEUX-SÈVRES. A FAMOUS BRIDGE WITH RIBBED ARCHES, FRENCH ROMANESQUE PERIOD, XII CENTURY
The six pointed arches in New Bridge on Thames, near Kingston, are very well ribbed, but they are Early English, not Norman; they belong to the early part of the thirteenth century. At Fountains Abbey, Yorkshire, are two small bridges, one Norman, the other Early English; both were built by Cistercian monks, yet neither has ribbed arches, so that I supply you with a fact that runs counter to my hypothesis. At Durham there are two bridges reputed to be of Norman origin, and one of them has two ribbed arches with a span of ninety feet. It is the Framwellgate Bridge at the north end of the city. According to the eleventh edition of the “Encyclopædia Britannica,” Framwellgate Bridge was “built in the thirteenth century and rebuilt in the fifteenth,” but no authorities are given, and counter evidence may be accepted as more probable. For example, William Hutchinson[30] says without hesitation, giving references, that Framwellgate Bridge was built by Bishop Flambard who died in 1128, after holding the See of Durham for 29 years 3 months and 7 days. Flambard “fortified the castle with a moat, and strengthened the banks of the river, over which he built an arched bridge of stone, at the foot of the castle, now called Framwellgate Bridge.” In the fifteenth century the bridge was restored by the famous Bishop Fox, who began his reign at Durham in 1494, and died in 1502. There is no evidence to show that the restoration was a rebuilding, and the character of the arches does not belong to the time of Bishop Fox. Even Parker, in his “Glossary of Architecture,” 1850, is not surprised that the Framwellgate Bridge should be given to the Norman period, for he mentions this attribution and describes the ribbed arches as perfect. The parapet is scorned as “modern.” For many years—I know not how long—a large gateway-tower stood at one end of this bridge, but in 1760 it was taken down.
One of the most famous Norman bridges in Old England was the one that crossed the Lea at Stratford-at-Bow. It was founded and endowed by Queen Mathilda, wife of Henry I. In 1831, eight years before its demolition, a print was issued of Bow Bridge, and ribs can be seen under two of the three arches. The central arch is represented in a direct front view, so the vaulting cannot be studied; but Lewis, who in 1831 published his “Topographical Dictionary of England,” found ribs in the three arches. So a very important question arises here: Was Bow Bridge ever rebuilt? M. J. J. Jusserand shall answer this question; he has read all the evidence, he makes no reference to ribbed arches, he is unbiassed, and his pictures are lively:—
“Whether Queen Mathilda (twelfth century) got wetted or not, as is supposed, on passing the ford of the river at Stratford-atte-Bow—that same village where afterwards the French was spoken which amused Chaucer—it is certain that she thought she did a meritorious work in constructing two bridges there. Several times repaired, Bow Bridge was still standing in 1839. The Queen endowed her foundation, granting land and a water-mill to the Abbess of Barking with a perpetual charge thereon for the maintenance of the bridge and the neighbouring roadway. When the Queen died, an abbey for men was founded at the same Stratford close to the bridges, and the Abbess hastened to transfer to the new monastery the property in the mill and the charge of the reparations. The Abbot did them at first, then he wearied of it, and ended by delegating the looking after them to one Godfrey Pratt. He had built this man a house on the causeway beside the bridge, and made him a yearly grant. For a long time Pratt carried out the contract, ‘getting assistance,’ says an inquiry of Edward I (1272-1307), ‘from some passers-by, but without often having recourse to their aid.’ Also he received the charity of travellers, and his affairs prospered. They prospered so well that the Abbot thought he might withdraw the pension; Pratt indemnified himself in the best way he could. He set up iron bars across the bridge and made all pay who passed over, [31] except the rich, for he made prudent exception ‘for the nobility; he feared them and let them pass without molesting them.’ The dispute terminated only in the time of Edward II, when the Abbot recognised his fault, took back the charge of the bridge, and put down the iron bars, the toll, and Godfrey Pratt himself.
“This bridge, over which no doubt Chaucer himself passed, was of stone, the arches were narrow and the piers thick; strong angular buttresses supported them and broke the force of the current; these formed at the upper part a triangle or siding which served as a refuge for foot-passengers, for the roadway was so narrow that a carriage sufficed to fill the way. When it was pulled down in 1839, it was found that the method of construction had been very simple. To ground the piers in the bed of the river the masons had simply thrown down stones and mortar till the level of the water had been reached. It was remarked also that the ill-will of Pratt or the Abbot or of their successors must have rendered the bridge almost as dangerous at certain moments as the primitive ford had been. The wheels of vehicles had hollowed such deep ruts in the stone and the horses’ shoes had so worn the pavement that an arch had been at one time pierced through.”[32]
This perforated arch proves pretty conclusively that Bow Bridge was never rebuilt; but I look upon doubt as an excellent thing in one’s attitude to matters of this kind, partly because fresh evidence may be discovered, and partly because facts are woefully elusive even when they are tackled by judges, and barristers, and juries.
There is one more controversy to be considered: it centres around the famous bridges on Dartmoor, and I will try to put all the main points both clearly and fairly. In this dispute architects contend against antiquaries, and their arguments hold the field. Let me sum them up:—