Talk:Greyfriars, Leicester

[Untitled]
You need to be aware that the maps of the location of the Fransican friary in Leiceter is incorrect. You've drawn it extending too far to the west

The frairy is believed to have established during the time when Simon de Montford the younger was Earl of Leicester (1238-65). It was probably established in an area of undeveloped land up against the southern defences of the town (which were originally Roman). Well before then, perhaps by the 10th century, one of the main thoroughfares had been established running from the town's Northgate to the town's Southgate.

By the mid 13th century the western part of the area on your map was occupied by properties running along the southern part of that thoroughfare (this section of which was called Southgates) and the plots that extended to their rear at right angles to the main street.

So the area close to the main road was already developed by Simon de Montfort's thime. So it would not have been possible for this part of the town to be occupied by the frairy. See Leicester Historic Environment Record (HER)). — Preceding unsigned comment added by 194.168.89.195 (talk) 15:08, 26 February 2013 (UTC)


 * Is there something specific on the HER that demonstrates that? It would be very interesting if there is evidence of a known western boundary to the Greyfriars. I have not managed to find it. Bear in mind though that the base map (from OS OpenView) is far from exact about road widths, etc, and the dotted line is self-evidently diagrammatic. The source I based my map on is Billson, 1920, who shows trees near what was then High Street, (later Highcross Street, now the slip road to Southgates). He does have one building, Henry Costeyn's House, on the corner of High Street/St Francis Lane (ie near where the bus depot is - I will investigate that further). But the scale and purpose of this map does not, I would suggest, preclude a line of medieval buildings fronting that or the other streets. It does not show any other lost medieval buildings except the friary. RobinLeicester (talk) 18:15, 26 February 2013 (UTC)

It's difficult to be exact about the western boundary. You really need to study the historic maps. So take a look at the Roberts map printed c.1740 but probably surveyed c.1720. Note the properties running along the east the street then called 'Highcross' (on the western side of the map) and the plots that extend eastwards from them at right anngles to the street. The modern 'Southgates' follows a similar course to this street, although the alignment was altered in the late 1960s when the inner ring road was built. This dominant alignment indicates that these plots predate what in now Friar Lane & Peacock Lane/St Martins. You will also note the c.N-S line that separates the area of these plots from the one marked 'Gray Fryers' to the east. My best guess would be that most of these plots was the area occupied until very recently by a bus depot, and that the post-disolution house was just to the north of the words 'Fryer Lane'. — Preceding unsigned comment added by 212.50.184.130 (talk) 14:13, 27 February 2013 (UTC)


 * Clarification No 1. Wikipedia is not the place to state previously unpublished conclusions. It is really good to float these ideas on this talk page, and come up with a working basis for knowing what to include and exclude within the scope of this page, but we need someone to publish a reliable description or map of the boundaries if these are to be claimed on the page. Billson attempted this in 1920 His map is not an ancient map, rather it is an attempt (however imperfectly) to show the medieval city. The 18th C maps are fascinating, and may hold all sorts of clues, but do not tell us where the map-maker thought the Greyfriars boundaries were. Maybe there are better published sources on this. I hope the University of Leicester study tackles that issue. Currently their very good page at shows (very low res) Roberts and other maps. But they make no attempt to speculate about the Greyfriars boundaries (Other than to include on their maps, everything up to Southgate Street).


 * so having suggested that, subject to better sources turning up, we are not talking about how the page should show the western boundary at this stage, I would be very interested in further thoughts on what elements the page should include. As I suggested above, finding out more about Henry Costeyn's House (NW corner) might help. Another interesting avenue would be the Friar Lane Baptist Church. If the history of either of these can shed light on earlier ownership, that might help us discover if they are or are not on Greyfriars land. (If not, of course, they don't really belong on this page!) There is also the interesting boundary line mid-way between New Street and Southgate Street. That could be pre- or post-disolution. Is there a source which attempts to decide this?


 * Finally, please consider setting yourself up with a Wikipedia account. That way, at least your contribution to discussions won't be quite so anonymous. (I am guessing that the two different IP addresses on this page are the same author). Also, you may wish to think rather in terms of 'How can I contribute', rather than the 'You really need to..' approach above. Wikipedia really is only people making contributions - which is why the verifiable sources thing is so important. Regards, RobinLeicester (talk) 18:41, 27 February 2013 (UTC)


 * I have now found Billson online at Wikisource. The map is shown at s:Page:Mediaevalleicest00billrich.djvu/18. I wasn't sure it was out of copyright. RobinLeicester (talk) 19:06, 27 February 2013 (UTC)

Alas for whatever reason Wikipedia will not allow an account to be established from this address. But if it is a published source you seek pleased see this map from the HER, which, although it's not published in the paper and ink fashion, is a published source. — Preceding unsigned comment added by 212.50.184.130 (talk) 10:10, 28 February 2013 (UTC) As you appear not to believe my point about High Street/Southgates being developed before the Fransiscan Friary was established see P. Courtney, (1998) 'Saxon and Medieval Leicester: The Making of an Urban Landscape.' Transactions of the Leicestershire Archaeological and Historical Society (72) 110-45. Courtney might not have got everything right (We now knew that the early Saxons did not shun the town as he suggest but he did have the benefit of over 50 years of archaeological reserach that Bilsom, of whom you are so fond, didn't. — Preceding unsigned comment added by 212.50.184.130 (talk) 10:44, 13 March 2013 (UTC)

Another Greyfriars burial
Will mention the Guardian article here: so can be followed in due course. Jackiespeel (talk) 13:21, 29 July 2013 (UTC)

Epitaph
Having been moved from 'Exhumation' to here, I am not at all sure the epitaph is any more relevant to be directly quoted on this page either. For the moment I have parked it here, as it is a large lump of information the only tangible fact known about it seeming to be that it was never in Leicester Greyfriars. The ideal would be if it was on reliable online source that could be referenced to. Any offers?

The 17th century antiquarian George Buck also described the epitaph, his source being a different manuscript in the Guildhall, London, and which noted that it was "never fixed to his stone". The epitaph, in Latin from an unknown author, and conceivably contemporary with the monument, is said to have read:

RobinLeicester (talk) 23:46, 25 August 2013 (UTC)

Discussion of the Nichols Engraving
Incorrect if we think this is just Greyfriars of Leicester (see source I’m adding). This image depicts all of the Leicester mendicants. The chapel is also not the Greyfriars Church of St Mary Magdalene. Rather it is St Sepulchre’s a church near the towns Southgate’s and on the site of the present Leicester Royal Infirmary. This should be evident from the following excerpts from page 299 of Nichols work History and Antiquities of Leicestershire, his article on the Greyfriars quoting the Rev Peck - the creator of the image - and from the and Billsons work Medieval Leicester:

Peck on his drawing
“Processio quedam funebris antiqua, quâ cadaver vespillonibus tedas ferentibus precessum est, et Fratribus Mendicantibus asportatum, frequente magna collachrymantium turba. — 1. Vespillones atratis vestibus cereos magnos cadavari preferentes. — 2.  Frater Niger, sive prediactor, ordinis Sancti Dominici. — 3 Frater Leucopheatus, sive minor, ordinis Santi Francisci. — 4. Frater Albus, sive Carmeliticus, ordinis beate Marie de Monte Carmeli. — 5. Frater Eremeticus, ordinis Sancti Augustini. — 6. Consanguinei, affines, proximi, pauperes, populique plurimi alii subsequentes condolentesque.

Notandum est, quod cum unicuique domui mendicantem aliaquam eleemosinam dono dederit vir mortuus, tum cadaver ejus veste fratris mendicantis indutum est; idemque uniuscujusque ordinis frater unus linteolis ad ecclesiam Sepulchrum verses asportat, & in hunc modum eorum omnium confratri agnoscitur mortuus, & bonorum operum cujuscunque ordinis mendicantium (uti asseritur) fit particeps. Nec mirum igitur, quod super tumulos suos, & monumenta sepulchralia, laicorum etiam mortuorum effigies, vestibus religiosis a sculptoribus indute, non raro videntur expresse.”

Which translated reads:

“At a certain ancient funeral procession, when the body has been carried forward by the pall-bearers and has been further carried by the Mendicant Friars, often with great collachrymant noise: 1) The pall bearers, dressed in black, put forward a great waxen figure of the cadaver, 2) A blackfriar, or Preacher, of the order of St Dominic, 3) Leucaphate brother, or minor, of the order of St Francis, 4) Whitefriar, or Carmelite, of the order of the Blessed Virgin Mary of Mount Carmel, 5) An eremite brother, of the order of St Augustine, 6) Family, spouse, friends, paupers, followed by other people who want to wish condolences.

It is to be noted, that when everyone in the house of the mendicants to some degree 'elecmosinam' will give gifts to the dead man, then the cadaver is clothes in the garb of a mendicant friar; at the same time a friar of any order brings back a linen cloth to the burial place, and in that their way all the confriars recognise the dead man, and with good works any mendicant order becomes a participant (?). Nor is it therefore wondrous/marvelous, that on the grave and the gravestone, the laity [make?] an effigy, and the sculptor clothes it in the vestments of the religious, as I have often seen expressly [myself].” (Translation credit to Alexander Van Dijk, Jesus College, Cambridge)

On the Church of St Sepluchre by Charles Billson
The church of the Holy Sepulchre was situated beyond the south wall of the town, on a site now occupied by the Royal Leicester Infirmary. It belonged to the church of St. Mary of the Castle, and was served probably by one of the chaplains who assisted the Vicar of St. Mary's. The church was in existence before the end of the 12th century. It faced the public gallows, and the bodies of those who were hung were generally buried within its cemetery. In two cases the corpses revived. In the year 1363, according to Henry of Knighton, Walter Wynkbourn was hanged at Leicester, at the instance of the preceptor of Dalby, and when he was taken down from the gallows, and was being carried for dead to the cemetery of St. Sepulchre at Leicester to be buried, he began to come to life again, and was carried into the chapel, and there guarded by a Leicester priest. It happened that the King, Edward the Third, was then staying at Leicester Abbey; and, when he heard of this strange occurrence, he sent Wynkbourn a free pardon, saying, in Henry's presence, "God has given thee life, and I will give thee a charter of mercy." Ten years later, another man, named Peter King, was not so fortunate. He revived, as he lay before the high altar of the church; but, on this occasion, the convict was promptly dragged out of the church again, and incontinently rehanged.

​The church was used once as a sanctuary by some thieves who had been robbing the Abbot of Leicester. In front of the building stood an image, at which it was customary for wayfarers to make a small offering. A "parochia Sancti Sepulchri" is mentioned in a rental of Lord de Grey, which is undated, but probably of the 14th century. It was at St. Sepulchre's that the view of frankpledge for the South Gate, or South Quarter, of the town was held every year on the 31st of December.

The change of name took place at the beginining of the 16th century. "Sepulchre's church" occurs in a list of 1492, but from the Visitation of the Bishop of Lincoln in 1510, it appears that the name had by that time been altered, and moreover that the building was then in bad repair. Kelly conjectured that the chapel of St. James formed part of St. Sepulchre's church, but in the report of the Bishop's Visitation it is distinctly described as "capella S. Jacobi dudiim vocat' ecclesia S. Sepulchri." A Hermitage stood on the opposite side of the road, adjoining a spring of water, which long retained the name of "Chapel-well." The old name of the church lingered side by side with the new, for in the rent roll of the Corpus Christi Guild for 1519, it is described by both. There is a rent from "a close beside St. James' church," and a chief rent from "a croft beside Sepulchre church." In 1484 "St. Sepulchre's church" had formed the boundary of one of the town wards, but in 1557 the name given to the limit of this ward was " St. James' chapel." The little church was existing in 1572, but it was then probably no more than a ruin. Nichols said that some of its walls were standing within the memory of persons living in the time of the Rev. Samuel Carte, who died April, 1740, aged 86. In the 17th century Sir John Lambe noted that St. Sepulchre's was a chapel to St. Mary's, but added "quaere, how now?"

Me.Autem.Minui (talk) 17:12, 20 March 2024 (UTC)