DOI Page / Citation link:
https://doi.org/10.11588/diglit.6913#0087
BUILDWAS ABBEY, SHROPSHIRE.
45
tradition, indeed, remains, with respect to the actual builder of the abbey ; but there
Is every reason to conclude, that it was Roger de Clinton. This prelate signalized
himself much as a builder at Lichfield, where he not only erected a great part of the
cathedral, but added fortifications to the city. It may further be observed, that it is
improbable any other person, except the bishop, should have erected a monastery
upon the episcopal lands ; for, if it were supposed to be an advantage to have such
e8tablishments upon an estate, the founder would, of course, prefer a situation upon
his own, rather than upon the estate of another.
i he charter of confirmation by King Stephen, dated within three years after the
establishment of the monastery, speaks only of the donation of Roger de Clinton; a
circumstance very remarkable, if the family of Burnell had founded, or even contri-
buted, in any degree, to the founding of the abbey. For as the substance of this
deed was either prepared by the monks themselves, or at least, from information
communicated by them, it appears a most extraordinary want of respect and gratitude
to the Burnells, who resided in the neighbourhood, to omit the opportunity of ac-
knowledging the favour conferred on them, if any one of that family had been the
founder of the monastery so newly erected. The omission, in fact, is a decisive
Proof, that no such circumstance had taken place : besides, the Bishops of Lichfield,
who succeeded Roger de Clinton, viz. Walter Durdent, Richard Peche, and
Hugh Xonant, severally confirmed the donations of their predecessor, and recited
the particulars of his grant; but the name of Burnell is never mentioned ; nor does
*t occur, in any deed which I have seen, before the year 1318. Indeed, there is
little reason to believe, that in the reign of Henry the First, this family was in a
sltuation capable of contributing largely to such a work.
The Burnells do not appear, either in Domesday-book, or in the Liber-Niger, as
proprietors of land; and it seldom happened, in those days, that a baron was " dives
opum," unless also " dives agris," the Jews being the only money-holders. Early
ln the fifteenth century, however, when the Burnells had attained some eminence in
the country, the abbey received a considerable benefaction from one of them; and
from this era, it is probable, may be dated the monkish fabrications which succeeded,
111 honour of that family. In the British Museum is a paper, entitled, " The Copie
°* an Auncient Recorde founde in the Church of Buldewas," dated \593, in the
hand-writing of that age. This document enumerates seventeen lords and ladies of
the family of Burnell, who were interred at Buildwas ; but there are so many incon-
gruities discoverable in it, proceeding either from the fallacy of the original, or the
45
tradition, indeed, remains, with respect to the actual builder of the abbey ; but there
Is every reason to conclude, that it was Roger de Clinton. This prelate signalized
himself much as a builder at Lichfield, where he not only erected a great part of the
cathedral, but added fortifications to the city. It may further be observed, that it is
improbable any other person, except the bishop, should have erected a monastery
upon the episcopal lands ; for, if it were supposed to be an advantage to have such
e8tablishments upon an estate, the founder would, of course, prefer a situation upon
his own, rather than upon the estate of another.
i he charter of confirmation by King Stephen, dated within three years after the
establishment of the monastery, speaks only of the donation of Roger de Clinton; a
circumstance very remarkable, if the family of Burnell had founded, or even contri-
buted, in any degree, to the founding of the abbey. For as the substance of this
deed was either prepared by the monks themselves, or at least, from information
communicated by them, it appears a most extraordinary want of respect and gratitude
to the Burnells, who resided in the neighbourhood, to omit the opportunity of ac-
knowledging the favour conferred on them, if any one of that family had been the
founder of the monastery so newly erected. The omission, in fact, is a decisive
Proof, that no such circumstance had taken place : besides, the Bishops of Lichfield,
who succeeded Roger de Clinton, viz. Walter Durdent, Richard Peche, and
Hugh Xonant, severally confirmed the donations of their predecessor, and recited
the particulars of his grant; but the name of Burnell is never mentioned ; nor does
*t occur, in any deed which I have seen, before the year 1318. Indeed, there is
little reason to believe, that in the reign of Henry the First, this family was in a
sltuation capable of contributing largely to such a work.
The Burnells do not appear, either in Domesday-book, or in the Liber-Niger, as
proprietors of land; and it seldom happened, in those days, that a baron was " dives
opum," unless also " dives agris," the Jews being the only money-holders. Early
ln the fifteenth century, however, when the Burnells had attained some eminence in
the country, the abbey received a considerable benefaction from one of them; and
from this era, it is probable, may be dated the monkish fabrications which succeeded,
111 honour of that family. In the British Museum is a paper, entitled, " The Copie
°* an Auncient Recorde founde in the Church of Buldewas," dated \593, in the
hand-writing of that age. This document enumerates seventeen lords and ladies of
the family of Burnell, who were interred at Buildwas ; but there are so many incon-
gruities discoverable in it, proceeding either from the fallacy of the original, or the