The first abbey on the site dated from c.655 and was destroyed by the Danes at the end of the 9c. It was rebuilt by Aethelwold, Bishop of Winchester, and consecrated in 972. Aethelwold’s abbey was damaged by a fire in 1116 and, according to the contemporary chronicler Hugh Candidus, completely rebuilt from 1118, the present church being consecrated in 1238 by Bishop Grosseteste of Lincoln.

The church is therefore a generation later than the first wave of post-Conquest great churches, including the other East Anglian foundations of Ely (begun 1082) and Norwich (1096). The church consists of an aisled chancel, transepts with eastern aisles for chapels and an aisled nave with a west transept. It is described from east to west in more detail below.

Chancel and New Building

The aisled chancel originally had apses at the ends of the main vessel and aisles. The main apse is still there; it is stilted in plan, i.e. it consists of a straight-sided bay and 3 turning bays. On the interior the apse arch responds survive to the level of the capitals, but the arch itself, and the rib-vaulting of the apse itself (indicated by the vault shafts) are gone. As for the elevation, the arches of the two upper storeys survive on the interior, but on the exterior the top level window openings are 12thc and those below have been reframed. The exterior elevation also has blind arcading between the clerestorey and gallery levels of the apse.The 12thc apse is now enclosed by the so-called New Building; a square-ended eastern termination five bays wide, entered from the chancel aisles. When the abbey was suppressed it contained three altars with scenes of the Passion. The New Building was begun by Abbot Ashton in 1438 and completed by Abbot Kirton (1496-1528), and the transition from the narrow Norman aisle into the bright, fan-vaulted space beyond is one of the delights of a visit to Peterborough.

The four-bay chancel is three storeys high, with a main arcade carried on three piers of different plans, cylindrical, octagonal and dodecagonal, and triple shafted responds at either end, against the crossing pier and the pier of the apse arch. The gallery above has double openings with decorated and pierced tympana under an enclosing arch, and the clerestorey has a passage with triple openings, a tall central arch flanked by lower ones. Vault shafts run up the piers to the level of the springing of the central clerestorey arches, where they support a wooden fan-vaulted 15c ceiling. The chancel aisles are divided by depressed arches into quadripartite rib-vaulted bays. The transverse arches fall onto the main arcade pier capitals and onto responds against the aisle wall. One of the 12c aisle windows remains in the north aisle, as do parts of the intersecting arcading decorating the aisle walls.

On the exterior there are turrets with spirelets above the piers of the apse arch. The aisle walls have 12c buttresses with angle shafts between the bays, and these have been strengthened by the addition of later medieval buttresses at the lower levels. All the chancel aisle and gallery windows have been replaced, except for one in the north aisle. The clerestorey windows retain their 12c form, except for those in the turning bays of the apse, which have been replaced with larger segmental headed windows. All windows are now filled with tracery; panelled in the chancel clerestorey and aisles, and at all levels in the apse, and flowing in the chancel galleries. The apse is decorated with intersecting blind arcading in a band below the top windows, and there is evidence on the north side of more arcading that originally decorated the aisle walls below the gallery windows. The aisle walls have chevron stringcourses between the storeys. The tops of the clerestorey walls of the chancel and apse have been rebuilt; the chancel with a plain nebuly corbel table and a parapet decorated with quatrefoils, and the apse with a similar corbel table and a plain parapet decorated with five 13c busts in trefoils.

The main transepts are of 3 projecting bays with chapels on the E side and no aisle on the W. The position of the cloister square, one bay W of the S transept W wall, indicates that an aisle was originally envisaged, as at Winchester and Ely, and there is antiqaurian evidence for the foundations of these aisles (see Fernie (2019), 169). The end walls are treated as 4 storeys: 3 with windows and the lowest decorated with blind arcading. These and the crossing tower were the work of Abbot William of Waterville (1155-74).

The nave is of ten bays with four different compound pier designs and a three-storey elevation of arcade gallery and clerestorey with passage. Part of the explanation of the varied pier designs stems from an original scheme for a nine-bay nave, in which pier 9 was conceived as the W respond. The change of base profile on the E and W sides of this pier in the S arcade make this clear. A detailed breakdown of the building sequence has been attempted by Donald Mackreth. It is usefully summarised in Fernie (2019) and divides work into the abbacies of Martin (1133-55), William (1155-74 and Benedict (1177-94). At arcade level Martin was responsible for 9 bays of the S side and the first 2 on the N, William for the next 2 on the S, and Benedict for the remainder on both sides. In the 10th bay angled shafts and vault springers survive at the W side indicating that Benedict intended to vault, but the scheme was never taken forward and the present 13thc nave ceiling was constructed instead.

The W transept, which extends as a single space from N to S, projecting by one short bay at either end. The E wall of this continues the forms of the nave in its gallery and clerestorey arcades, but it also includes very tall and narrow windows with pointed arches in the projecting sections. On the W wall all details are Early English, so that the (slightly pointed) transverse arches of the vault spring from scallop capitals in the E and fall onto moulded ones at the W, while the arches between them are decorated with elaborate free-standing chevron forms found nowhere else in the cathedral.

The end date for the W facade as it was ultimately completed is usually assumed to correspond with the consecration of the church in 1238, in the abbacy of Walter of Bury St Edmunds, but as Luxford (2019, 216) points out it may have stood unconsecrated for a few years before that. The design at any rate is unique in England, consisting of a galilee faced by three mighty arches of equal heights, each with a gable with a rose. There are carved figures in niches in the gable and the spandrels of the arches, spirelets between the gables and a tower with a spire at each end of the compostion. The galilee is some 5 m. deep , with a central doorway and blind arcading decorating the inner wall. The Trinity chapel, elevated above a lower vaulted entrance arch was later added at the front of the central arch. The upper storey has housed the library since the 18thc., and is accessed by a pair of flanking stair turrets decorated externally with blind tracery panels and niches for statues, none of which remain in place. The date of this is a matter of dispute; and it might contain elements of different periods. The consensus seems to point to a date c.1370-80, with a suggestion that the W window could be a 15thc insertion, although the present author sees no reason to suppose this (see Reilly (2019).

The earliest mention of an abbey here is in Bede's Historia Ecclesiastica, where Archbishop Theodore ordained Seaxwulf 'who was the builder and abbot of the monastery which is called Medeshamstede' to the bishopric of the Mercians. The name was changed from Medeshamstede to Peterborough at some time at the end of the 10thc. Elsewhere Bede refers to Seaxwulf as the bishop in 676, which must be the latest date for the foundation of Peterborough. The earliest (following Gem (2019)) relates to the conversion of the area to Christianity, which is placed in 653 when King Peada introduced missionaries to the area from Northumbria. In the 12thc., a chronicle was complied by Hugh Candidus, who was a monk of the abbey c.1107 x 14 and became its sub-Prior c.1133 x 75. We also have evidence from the Anglo-Saxon Chronicle, a copy of which was produced here between 1116 and 1121, and various charters purporting to date from the 7thc to the 9thc.

From these uncertain sources we gather that in 870 the monastery was burned and totally destroyed by the Danes and the abbot and his monks killed. In the 10thc Peterborough came under the control of Aethelwold, Bishop of Winchester (963-84) . It is unclear what he actully found there, but he dedicated a basilica to St Peter and added domestic buildings for the monks. He also gave vestments, liturgical vessels and 20 books, so that he left the community in a position to celebrate the offices. By the period just before the Conquest, Peterborough was prosperous according to the evidence, butin its aftermath there are records of disturbances and attacks on the abbey and its buildings. Abbot Ernulf (1107-14) added new monastic offices, and it must be his work that we see around the cloister. Then in 1116 a great fire burned the whole church and town according to Hugh Candidus. As for the new building, Hugh reports that Ernulf's work in the chapter house, dormotory, neccessarium and refectory were the only ones to survive the fire of 1116. The Eastern arm of the new church was completed by Abbot Martin (1133-55) whi brought the sacred relics and the monks into the new church in 1140. The transept arms and crossing were completed by Abbot William (1155-74) who also laid out the nave. This was completed by Abbot Benedict (1177-94), who began work on a new West front. Benedict had come to Peterborough from Canterbury, where he was Chancellor to Archbishop Richard. He was therefore familiar with the building works at Canterbury Cathedral. His earliest works at Peterborough were the gatehouse, prison, court hall and records room on the SW corner of Minster Yard.

The chronology of the building accepted by most scholars is that of Sir Charles Peers (VCH Northants II (1906)) calculated on the basis of the Chronicle of Hugh Candidus, outlined above. This may be summed up as follows:

Phase 1: 1118-55. Eastern arm, start of work in transepts, crossing tower, nave S aisle to stringcourse under windows of bay 7, nave N aisle bay 1 to same level, possibly twin towers intended for W façade.

Phase 2: 1155-75. N & S transepts completed to top of triforium, lower parts of next two N bays and all S bays of nave to W towers, where work continued, nave aisles continued.

Phase 3: 1177-93. Ten bays of nave completed to top of gallery. Bays 2-9 clerestoreys completed, towers in bay 8 begun.

Phase 4: 1195-1200. Last bay of nave clerestorey finished by c.1200. West front begun.

Reilly (1997) challenged the accepted chronology, proposing a start-date in the first decade of the 12c. She argued that Peers and his followers placed too much reliance on the testimony of Hugh Candidus, who was concerned to provide a coherent history of the abbey and its abbots, rather than an accurate architectural history. Hugh thus exaggerated the extent of the damage caused by the fire. She further argued that it would be surprising if Peterborough, alone among the major abbeys, had to wait until 1116 and a convenient fire to have its Anglo-Saxon church replaced. The appointment of Ernulf, an experienced builder, in 1107 was for her a sign of new building. She supports this argument with evidence of fire damage discovered in the SW tower, but this is only convincing if we can be sure that there was no other fire after 1116. It also assumes that the west end of the nave was standing at that date, which demands a simultaneous start at both ends of the church. Her methodology in supplying an alternative timeframe was to establish a relative chronology from the internal evidence of the building, and to turn it into a more-or-less absolute one by comparison with work elsewhere, notably at Ely, Norwich, Durham and Anselm’s Canterbury. She suggested that Ernulf began the church around 1107, and that the apse and transept terminal walls are comparable with work at Norwich of c.1096-1119, and the chancel and transept east walls are similar to work at Durham and Anselm’s choir at Canterbury of c.1090 to 1110. The nave she compared with nearby Ely and Norwich work of c.1100-45.

The present author is not persuaded by Reilly’s arguments. Hugh’s account certainly offers a coherent building history that we might suspect is a little too neat, but this in itself is no reason for him to date the start of the work ten years later than it actually happened. By and large, as Reilly points out, the earliest work at Peterborough includes nothing that could not date from 1110 rather than 1120, and in consequence, it has been seen as a conservative building. The very slightness of the changes in design that were implemented in the course of its construction tends to support this view. In terms of its style, however, there are at least two considerations in favour of the traditionally accepted start date. The first relates to the two early 12c doorways in the west wall of the cloister. As Sweeting pointed out in 1898, these appear older than any part of the cathedral and must belong to Ernulf’s cloister of 1107-14 rather than William of Waterville’s (1155-75). If these are Ernulf’s work, then the earliest work of the cathedral cannot be; they are too different in style. The second concerns the chevron stringcourses of the chancel and east transept walls, inside and out. On the outside, the lower, below the aisle windows, is carved with a double row of lateral chevron on roll / hollow profile, while the upper, above the aisle windows, consists of two rows of interlocking chevron; one lateral, the other frontal. Inside there is a frontal chevron stringcourse of quirked roll profile between the arcade and gallery storeys. These early parts of the church thus include a wide variety of chevron decoration, which sits uncomfortably with Reilly’s early date, in spite of her comparisons with work in the nave at Durham.

It is useful to study the changes in the form of cushion and scallop capitals in the main arcades. In the N nave arcade, for example, those at the E end are usually plain and single or double, with decoration confined small wedges or rolls between the cones. By the time pier 3 is reached a form of zigzag scallop has been introduced, the scallops increase to three or four and sheathing appears on the cones. On pier 5 wie see some volutes combined with the scallops, but this is not taken up with any enthusiasm. From pier 6 we see scallops with a bite taken out, which I have referred to as cusped scallops, and this occurs in both the plain and zigzag form. Beaded ornament is used on shields and between the cones from around pier 7, and the multiplication of scallops continues. Finally on pier 9 we see the slipped scallop form, typical of the Romanesque Mannerism seen at Ely Infirmary.

The galleries also show a good deal of variation in the form of the scallop capitals. A curious feature is the introduction of crocket capitals on the 3rd gallery pier on the N side, which O'Brien relates to the arrival of Abbot Benedict from Canterbury in 1177. If so, the experiment was soon abandoned; only 9 capitals in the entire gallery are crockets, and this may represent the work of a single sculptor.

The capitals in the nave aisle blind arcades certainly merit close study. In the 10 bays of the S aisle, almost all the capitals are plain cushions until bay 10 is reached, when a variety of scallop forms including zigzags and composites with Corinthianesque features occur. In the N aisle this kind of variety occurs throughout, and when bays 8 and 9 are reached we even find some attractive shaft swallowers. Finally in bay 10 forms based on waterleaf and flat leaf at last appear.

Tomb sculpture

The Alwalton marble tomb effigies of Peterborough have been justifiably described as 'the very best series of Benedictine memorials in the country' (Sweeting (1926), 93). There are five in all, dating to the period between 1195 and 1230, and those described here are the earliest members of the group, dating from around the year 1200. None of the tombs have inscriptions to identify them, and a glance at the list of abbots shows that William of Waterville (1155-74), Benedict (1177-94), Andrew (1194-99) and Acharius (1200-10) would all be just about possible on stylistic grounds for any of the effigies. They effigies were first described by Dugdale in 1640-41 and illustrated by William Sedgewick. At that time, three including S2 and S3, were in the chapter house, two, including N1, were in the southern part of the church and one was in the northern part of the choir. Dugdale's manuscript is now in the British Library (MS Add 71474). Two years after Dugdale saw them the cathedral's monuments were vandalised by Cromwell's soldiers. In 1719-21 John Bridges commissioned several artists to produce drawings for a projected History of Northamptonshire, and one of these shows six Peterborough abbots' tombs, one of which is no longer extant (Baxter (2019), fig.2). Early identifications of the abbots are always speculative and sometimes unlikely in the extreme. It was not until the paper by Hartshorne appeared in 1876 that some reasonable guesses were attempted. He identified N1 as Abbot Benedict, S3 as Walter de St Edmund (d.1245), and S2 as Robert de Lyndseye (d.1222). More recent writers have tended to avoid trying to identify the effigies, while one author has suggested that they may be a retrospective series carved in the early 13thc. (Saul (2009), 189).