The York Fire of 1137: Conflagration or Consecration?

Abstract

BIG FIRES ARE HOT NEWS, now as in the Middle Ages. In 1984 headlines were made around the world when the south transept of York Minster was devastated by fire. The coincidence of the fire with the consecration of a controversial Bishop of Durham, and the fact that no physical cause was ever certainly established, meant that publicity continued long after the embers had died down, giving rise in certain quarters to curiously'medieval-sounding interpretations of the event as a sign of divine displeasure. But the 1984 fire was only the latest in a series of incendiary disasters which have punctuated the long history of York Minster. In 1840 the wooden vault and roof of the nave were destroyed from end to end as a result of the carelessness of a workman leaving a candle burning in the south-west tower. Only eleven years before, a similar catastrophe had overtaken the entire eastern arm of the building thanks to the efforts of the arsonist Jonathan Martin. The 1829 fire was the most destructive of the modern fires, destroying as it did not only the roof and the wooden vault, but also the organ, the choir stalls, and the high altar and screen, as well as numerous lesser fittings and monuments. Another roof fire was only narrowly avoided in 1753, when workmen repairing the lead covering part of the south transept accidentally set fire to the timbers. Little is known about a fire recorded in the year 1463/4 but the fire of 1137 has found its way into every history not just of the Minster, but of the city of York.! A great fire is said to have ravaged the Minster and much of the city as well. The wording differs in the various chronicles, but in every case a major conflagration is implied. The fullest account relates that the Minster, St Mary's Abbey and the hospital (i.e. St Peter's Hospital, latterly generally known as St Leonard's Hospital) were all burnt on the same day, along with thirty-nine other churches; a short while afterwards Holy Trinity Priory on the south bank of the river suffered the same fate. The only source for this particular version was long thought to be Stowe's Annales, and doubt had occasionally been cast on its credibility, but in 1965 John Harvey showed that Stowe had based his account on a variant text (which had actually been in his possession) of the chronicle of John of Worcester (the so-called 'continuation' of Florence of Worcester), which had been written by about 1150. The account was therefore practically contemporary, and there the matter seemed to rest.2