About Me

My photo
Pilgrim, priest and ponderer. European living in North East England. Retired parish priest, theological educator, cathedral precentor and dean.

Sunday, 30 September 2012

Who is like God? A sermon for Michaelmas

Yesterday was Michaelmas Day.  It is a prince among seasons. I love it not just for the light and colour of autumn or because of my Christian name but because of the symbolic power of its themes. I was first a vicar in the parish of Alnwick where the whole town, not only the church, is under the protection of St Michael the Archangel.  At this festival the beautiful medieval church would overflow with Michaelmas daisies.  I left there to go to Coventry Cathedral, another hill-top church dedicated to St Michael, and persuaded the flower guild to do the same.  They were a bit sniffy at first and said that Michaelmas daisies were no better than weeds.  But in time they succumbed. After that I went to Sheffield Cathedral where I missed St Michael and his daisies, so the flower guild took pity on me and always put a vase of them on my office table for Michaelmas.  I have yet to work on Durham.

Who is Michael the mighty archangel?   That name asks a question in Hebrew: ‘Who is like God?’  It is a question, not a statement.  Angels are the Bible’s great questioners.  When an angel appears to Daniel and strengthens him, it is with a question: ‘do you know why I have come?  When the mysterious shadowy figure wrestles with Jacob in the dark, he asks him his name.  An angel in the book of Zechariah pesters the prophet with a full-scale catechism: ‘what do you see?’, ‘do you know what this is?’, ‘do you not know what these are?’  It’s as if God sends angels to tease us mortals with questions that are bigger than they seem. 

Who is like God?  The Book of Genesis says that we are made ‘like God’, in his image.  Early on, the Hebrews thought this measnt that human beings looked physically like him.  Later, the image of God came to mean being aware, knowing right and wrong, being male and female, recognising beauty, or being capable of thought and speech. But I think from the way Genesis tells the story, that the image of God is most closely linked to the idea of authority and dominion.  ‘God said, “let us make humankind in our image, according to our likeness; and let them have dominion over the fish of the sea, and over the birds of the air and over all the wild animals of the earth.”’  To be a man or a woman, in the Old Testament, means the care and responsibility for the world.  One of the psalms says: ‘the heavens are the Lord’s, but the earth he has given to the children of men.’  And if ever we needed to take seriously the thought that we are stewards of this good earth, it’s now.  The threat of climate change has made it all to clear how fragile our planet is and how easily the human race could wreck the delicate fabric of the life it sustains, including our own.  

We are called then to hold dominion responsibly, on God’s behalf.  In the Book of Revelation, there is a passage that speaks of the archangel Michael as the mighty warrior who ‘takes dominion’ against evil.  He stands for salvation, truth and justice against all that is evil and false, all that comes from the adversary Satan, ‘the deceiver of the whole world’.  By throwing the dragon out of heaven, Michael re-enacts the creation battle of ancient myth where sea-monsters are defeated and the world comes into being.  So there is a new creation: the universe is saved from chaos and destruction, and restored to the order and goodness it had at first.  By the one who is like God, what was lost in the fall is won back, put right. 

So much for what is going on in heaven.  But now come down to earth.  This question ‘who is like God?’ looks beyond the archangel, for Michael is not alone in taking the victor’s crown.  In that same passage from Revelation, the victor’s crown also belongs to ‘our comrades’ whom Satan had accused night and day before God.  It is they ‘who have conquered him by the blood of the Lamb and by the word of their testimony, for they loved not their lives even unto death’.  It’s a beautifully drawn contrast between the huge apocayptic events taking place in the sky, and the human scale of what is happening on earth. The vast canvas on which the angelic conflict is fought out is mirrored in the personal victories won by individual people, the martyrs of Christ.  We can imagine how this picture of evil defeated in dimensions unseen would strengthen those facing persecution at that time. So the question ‘Who is like God?’ is answered in those who follow Jesus in the fiery ordeals of passion and death, who ‘bear witness’ at the cost of their lives.  Their suffering shows the true meaning of dominion.  ‘This is the victory that overcomes the world, even our faith’. 

Discipleship, said Jesus, is to be so free within yourself, so given up to God, so focused on the kingdom of heaven that you can contemplate losing your life in order to find it.  And whatever the way of the cross holds, it means having the inner soul of a martyr which is what a ‘witness’ literally is. I believe the New Testament sees the disciple as a potential martyr: to be baptised is to be ready to bear witness to Christ wherever it leads, whatever it costs. It’s a hard truth for us to hear, and I find it as tough as you do, wondering how on earth I have got myself into this, not only as a Christian but as a priest, a public representative of this way of living.  What else might we have done with our lives if we had not chosen this way of crucifixion that commits us to live courageously for truth and righteousness, to reject worldly power and success, to disown human glory? 

In the early church, when persecution subsided, many chose what came to be called ‘white’ martyrdom, by entering monasteries as a way of dying to the world.  Perhaps baptism is a kind of white martyrdom, where being a Christian is unusual, eccentric, bizarre, an offence against the lazy tolerance that does not like the idea that truth is something you might not only live for but die for. There are many who have and they inspire us to this day: St Francis embracing Lady Poverty and kissing the leper; St Martin giving his cloak to the beggar; St Cuthbert turning his back on what comforts he knew to live alone on the Inner Farne and fight evil through his prayers; St Therese, the ‘Little Flower’, full of simplicity and purity, a young girl’s life offered to God’s love; Mother Maria Pilenko stepping into the queue to go into the gas chamber in the place of a frightened old woman.  It is stories like these that make me realise that Christianity is true. 

I am nowhere near it, though on my better days I do want to be, I do want to live a life that has this single focus of loving God with all my heart and being.  You become like the gods you worship, said a Roman philosopher.  The issue is, whom do we worship, what do we put first in our lives?  So this question, ‘who is like God?’ must be the question for all of us who want be serious about Christianity.  How do we live up to our name and bear faithful witness to Jesus so that our dominion reflects his own everlasting reign?  For if the demons that stalk this world are to be conquered, and the storms that threaten to overwhelm it are to be stilled: if people are to feel after God and find him, so much turns on how we live out our discipleship.  I ask myself the question, if you were up in court on a charge of being a Christian, would there be enough evidence to convict you? 

Jesus calls us to lay aside everything that stops us giving ourselves to this great project of the Christian life.  For God walks the earth and looks for those who will bring in the just and gentle rule of Christ.  He asks us the archangel’s question Mi-cha-el, who is like God, who will take the dominion of Jesus and bear God’s grace and truth to our world?  He waits for our answer, and only God knows what it will be. 

Sunday, 23 September 2012

In the Name of the Trinity and Very Wet: a baptism sermon

Today we are baptising Christopher Newitt.  I am of the school that says that baptism should be in the name of the Holy Trinity, and very wet. It is, or ought to be, a ceremony of few words and lots of water. And this morning, it is the wetness of baptism I want to speak about. Christopher’s very name reminds us of the watery legend in which the saint used to carry travellers across a river.  Once he was presented with a small child whose weight made the big man bow beneath his burden, none other than the Christ himself.

It is a paradoxical rite, because water is itself paradoxical, ambiguous.  In our celebration of baptism water is the focus.  Yet baptism has a dark side, for water is dangerous, unpredictable, capricious.  Outside its proper bounds, it threatens our stability, our safety, our very existence even. In sufficient quantities, it stirs up our primeval fear of chaos.  The ungovernable deep, in the mythologies of most cultures, is where demons lurk: Leviathan, Rahab, Tiamat, Moby Dick, Titanic, all symbols of terror and destruction.  Creation, in many myths, is to subdue the deep, establish its bounds which it cannot pass.  Chaos is kept at bay only at great cost.

So baptism, like all rites of passage, is an ordeal. It symbolically dangles us over the abyss, then plunges us without mercy into it, into the deep waters of death as the baptism rite puts it.  There, we are ritually speaking drowned.  Something in us is put to death for ever, for there can be no going back on baptism. The rite is as cruel and unforgiving as the waters that swept across the old world in the days of Noah and engulfed it. The waters of the font confront us with our mortal destiny, which is that we must die.  And Christopher, who is little and innocent and has no notions yet of mortality must pass through the ordeal of the waters. It is a time of trial. Jesus knows this well.  In today’s gospel he speaks about it, not for the first time: ‘the Son of Man is to be betrayed into human hands, and they will kill him’ he says.  But his disciples didn’t understand, and were afraid to ask.  But the waters of death do not lie.  Which is why Christopher will be marked with the sign of the cross, the reminder that none of goes up to joy but first we suffer pain.  That is the character baptism confers: the identity of the suffering servant of the Lord.  Bonhoeffer said: ‘When Jesus calls a man, he bids him come and die’. 

Yet - such a big word for three letters - yet when we pass through the waters, God is with us. The ordeal is ours, true.  But it is also his. Where we walk, and are tested, and know pain, he has been before us. And that is to draw the sting of death out of the baptismal waters, for we know that we are saved through the ordeal of water just as Noah was delivered safely through the flood, and Israel walked through water towards the land of promise, and Jonah was not swallowed up by the deep but was spared to serve God. These archetypal stories embedded  in our baptismal imagery are our stories too: we who came through the waters of our mothers' womb towards light and life; we whose fragile life evolved out of the womb of the primeval ocean, we who are re-born in the womb of the font by water and the Spirit.  This is the other side of baptism: its glorious side. Water is gift. By water we are kept alive, sustained, enabled to grow. It is the symbol of life itself. Its natural sources - springs, wells, rivers, the sea - are amongst the great mother symbols of humankind, images of a good earth that is kind to her children and cares for them.

So baptism is a rite that holds out both risk and promise. It symbolises burial and resurrection, ordeal and deliverance, mortality and everlasting life. Plunged into the water, we are lost in it. We become as nothing and as nobody. Yet at the same time we inherit the kingdom of nobodies where all of us become somebody: where we are marked for Christ, uniquely precious, known by name, held, valued, loved for ever.  This is how I read the touching episode in our gospel where Jesus takes a child in his arms and says: ‘whoever welcomes one such child in my name welcomes me’.  Children were the lowest-status members of the household in ancient times.  Yet Jesus reverses that assumption and make this little creature somebody of infinite value and importance.  So as Jesus welcomes Christopher at the font, and takes him in his arms, he gives him the noble dignity of being a human being and a Christian. Baptism saves us because it is the proclamation of Easter. As Jesus says in the gospel, his destiny is not only to be killed by to rise again.  Today, Christopher becomes a member of the Easter people. Today he learns to sing alleluia. Today he joins in the laughter of the saints and begins to play before God.

We are here at this eucharist on the first day of the week because of the resurrection. We are what we are, an Easter people, through this watery ceremony of baptism.  Today is the day of Christopher’s ‘yes’ to Easter, when he begins to enter into his inheritance, and be marked as a child of God. And if that is his destiny and ours, it is no less the destiny of the entire cosmos to be redeemed from the chaos out of which it was born, which the creation story likens to the watery deep.  In the little child Jesus held in his arms that day in Capernaum is encapsulated the entire history not only of the human race but of the whole created order: to be ordered, redeemed, held, sustained and loved by the one who welcomes us home and gives us space to be.  In Christopher we re-enact this wonderful drama of how it is God's wise and loving will to bring all things in heaven and earth into unity in Christ.

So much is gathered up in baptism. Nothing less than death, judgment, hell and heaven are hidden in its waters; infinity in the palm of the baptiser's hand; eternity in the liturgical hour; an old order passed away, a new order begun. It consists of a few simple words and lots of water, sign of the grace, mercy and peace of an abundantly generous God.  Your name Christopher means ‘Christ bearer’.  And that is what your baptism means: to bear Christ, to wear Christ, all your life long.  It feels like a heavy burden being laid upon your tiny shoulders, yet your baptism is all gift, for his yoke is easy and his burden light.  Indeed, in our gospel it is not we who carry Christ but he who carries us.  His pledge is that he will do this all your lifetime and beyond.  So, marked with his cross, wear his grace and truth joyfully before the world.  In baptism, all things are yours, and you are Christ's, and Christ is God's.  Alleluia.

Michael Sadgrove
Durham Cathedral, 23 September 2012
At the baptism of Christopher Newitt
Mark 9.30-37

Saturday, 22 September 2012

Saxon Saints and Saxon Places: Spiritualities of North-East England

1  What is Iconic?
Some years ago I wrote a new guide book for Durham Cathedral.  I began, as deans do, by offering a word of welcome to it, saying that there were three sites in north-east England that were commonly regarded as ‘iconic’ of the region: Hadrian’s Wall, the Angel of the North, and Durham Cathedral.  Later, I was drawn into a long conversation with a visitor from eastern Europe who had taken exception to what I had written.  He said that I was using the word ‘iconic’ in an ambiguous way that obscured how different these three places were, and how only Durham did justice to the true meaning of ‘icon’.  What made the Cathedral ‘iconic’, he said, was not simply its unforgettable visible image, but the indissoluble association between the place and its people over more than a thousand years.  He believed that the Cathedral’s rich ‘texture’ was not only its architecture and history, what we might call the ‘heritage’, but specifically the memory and lived experience of a common life focused on a particular place over centuries, and continuing today.  Hadrian’s Wall only had this connection to a human community in an attenuated way, and for a far shorter period of time; while he doubted whether the Angel of the North was ‘iconic’ at all other than as an easily recognised profile on the skyline; it was an ‘icon’ only in the modern and as he thought, debased, sense that is familiar to us as an overused lazy epithet from the travel-writer’s lexicon. (I have ow banned the use of the word in our Durham literature.) 

He was I think making two points in this thought-provoking exchange.  The first was that what makes something ‘iconic’ in this deeper sense is not simply that it symbolises something, nor even that enough people assign value to it to get it included in some canon of defining images.  An iconic place has to do ‘work’, not in the crudely functional sense that it necessarily serves a functional purpose, but that it is profoundly connected to a community, ‘does’ something for it and invites, indeed requires, that community to do things for it.  The second was that an icon, in the Christian spiritual tradition, opens doors, discloses meanings beyond itself, draws us into another dimension of experience.  An icon is always ‘charged’ with significance which is why it is inseparable from the emotional, spiritual and aspirational investment in it on the part of human beings.  This is how art and heritage take on ‘texture’. 

I am still not sure whether I agree with my conversation partner, or whether in fact his argument proves more than he intended, for it is indisputable that for the people of this region, these three places represent something more than mere branding, and more than a simply aesthetic appeal to the senses.  There are many people in the north-east who do not like Anthony Gormley’s sculpture, and who regard it as a piece of rather brutal temporary art shorn of any truly symbolic meaning, and beset by all the uncertainties and lack of conviction that characterises our age with its ambivalence about strong religious or cultural statements.  But even they recognise the way it has captured the imagination of the north-east and to travellers on the A1 or the East Coast Main Line gathers up its sense of place.  I suspect that Hadrian’s extraordinary wall is more admirable and fascinating rather than ‘beautiful’ in itself; yet there is something evocative about its relationship to the lowering skies and wide lonely landscapes of Northumberland that makes it an eloquent and moving image for this part of England.  There are even a few who do not greatly care for Durham Cathedral, who find the building dark, intimidating and oppressive; yet precisely because of this admit that it captures the tough astringency of north-east England. 

Where my critic was undoubtedly right about ‘texture’ was in something that was implied rather than stated in his comments about how an icon exists only in relation to a community.  What was implied was to do with the particular people who are remembered at certain places.  Part of the value a community finds in such places is its association with memory, not only specific events that constitute a story but the people who are its central protagonists.  In narrative terms, this is how particular sites have meaning conferred on them, because of the connection between place, people and event.  In this place, something significant has happened to certain people.  When that story intersects and resonates with the self-understanding of a community or an individual, its ‘place’ becomes charged with significance, if you like ‘iconic’ in a more focused sense than the loose way I used it as part of the Durham Cathedral promotional-speak.  Sometimes it is a public significance for a society or nation, like the Cenotaph.  Sometimes it holds private significance for families and a few individuals, like a roadside shrine where flowers are tied to a post in memory of a loved one killed in a road accident.  Sometimes it carries religious significance, sometimes not.  But a site that capable in any way of inhabiting the landscape of the mind, and evoking some kind of spiritual response, will I think have a texture that is layered by a sense of place, the memory of particular people, and an event or events in the distant or more recent past that live on in the present.    

Faith communities have always understood this.  In the history of religions, the ‘idea of the holy’ is not usually of some disembodied presence, rather it is an experience of the divine, mysterium tremens et fascinans, that is concretely located in particular places, people and events.  Pilgrimage in the world’s religions is the universal human way of acknowledging the importance of places where certain significant things happened to certain significant people.  In the Old Testament, we could cite many examples, such as the shrine at Bethel that was associated with the patriarch Jacob because of his dream of the ladder to heaven and the altar he built there; or Solomon’s temple at Jerusalem whose altar of burnt offering was situated at the very place where David had bought a threshing floor in order to build an altar to thank God for the cessation of a plague.    

Medieval pilgrim churches always have this layering of place, people and event.  You only have to think of the three great pilgrim destinations of medieval Europe, Jerusalem, Rome and Santiago da Compostela to realise this.  But I want to focus on north-east England where we see this in abundance; for this region is the richest in England for its concentration of pilgrimage sites related to the origins of Christianity in Saxon times. 

 
2  The Significance of Durham for North-East England
Let me start with Durham.  The Cathedral, and therefore the city, only exists because of the memory of one man and the community who revered him.  Cuthbert’s body, together with the Lindisfarne Gospels written in his honour, was brought to Durham by the community that bore his name in 995 after more than a century of wandering around the north of England. In an important sense that journey defined a ‘sacred geography’ that roughly approximates to north-east England.  Holy sense of ‘place’ was built into the journey of Cuthbert’s relics from the first.  At every place where the coffin rested, a church was erected and the memory of Cuthbert enshrined into the self-understanding of a locality: places such as Norham on the Tweed, and Chester-le-Street, the mother church of the Durham Palatinate.  Such churches were always dedicated to St Cuthbert, or to Our Lady and St Cuthbert, as indeed was our Cathedral (which, after a lapse of over 450 years following the Reformation, now has St Cuthbert restored to its legal title alongside Christ and Blessed Mary the Virgin). 

So the ‘texture’ of Durham, its iconic significance, its sanctity if you like is inseparable from the saint whose shrine it was from the very beginning.  The shrine legitimises sacred place.   And inevitably, the sacred attracts the sacred.  St Oswald’s head had already been interred with the Cuthbert relics as the royal patron of the Northumbrian mission (and perhaps because the presence of a martyr’s relics added potency to those of Cuthbert).  Add to this, as part of the same symbol-system, the Lindisfarne Gospels, written ‘in honour of God and St Cuthbert’ early in the 8th century perhaps a decade and a half after his death, and always intended to be inseparable from his relics.  Next summer we look forward to welcoming the Gospel Book to Durham for a three month visit.  The significance of this is not simply to open up this national treasure to the people of the north-east who have such a deep feeling of connection with it.  It is that you can only understand the Gospel Book in its Cuthbert context, that is to say, in and around the Cathedral.  This is what gives that sense of ‘texture’, community belonging and spiritual meaning to what is otherwise just a beautiful ancient manuscript.

But the monks of Durham were greedy for more relics, I don’t say that they did not covet sanctity; but more relics meant more pilgrims and more pilgrims meant more gifts and endowments including valuable estates.  In the middle ages, one way of strengthening the relationship with sacred history was the practice of furta sacra, the sacred theft of relics from other shrines. ‘Professional traffickers in holiness’ travelled around snatching and selling relics of the saints. Bishop Hugh of Lincoln was an ardent practitioner. He was once allowed to handle the arm of Mary Magdalene at a rival shrine, whereupon he surreptitiously bit off a finger and took it back to Lincoln.  The monks of Durham were not above this practice, and this is part of your history here in Wearmouth.  They insinuated one of their number at Jarrow; and when that monk had gained sufficient trust, he stole the relics of Bede and brought them back to Durham to form a second shrine alongside Cuthbert.  That was in 1022.  Bede’s remains have been there ever since, an additional focus of spiritual presence in a church already well endowed with saints and the source of a millennium of irritation on the part of Jarrow people towards Durham. But we ought also to acknowledge our further debt to Wearmouth and Jarrow because it was from here that Benedictine monks were translated to Durham by William of St Calais in 1083 to found the Benedictine community there and to build its new Romanesque cathedral. 

The intriguing history of Bede’s bones is an important story to tell here in Wearmouth, because it shows how strongly the association of holy place and holy people was felt in the middle ages, and is still felt today.  But it opens up another aspect of the relationship of sacred people to sacred place.  St Peter’s Monkwearmouth, like St Paul’s Jarrow, are both moving testaments to the faith of the Saxon era, so vibrant and colourful, so intensely focused on the goal of human sanctity and on the reconciliation of earth to heaven.  (If you want to see an entire surviving church from the era of Bede, you must to to Escomb in the south of the county, a pure Saxon building of consummate beauty that hints at what these two churches of the double monastery might once have looked like.) 

After 1022, Jarrow became a pilgrim’s paradox: a saint’s shrine without the saint’s relics.  It became an empty place, shorn of the very thing that gave it meaning.  And yet the meaning lived on, perhaps tenuously for many centuries, but then strongly revived in the 18th and 19th centuries with the rise of romanticism and its passion for antiquity.  Where Bede had lived and worked and died, there the memory was once again revered.  That there were no physical remains left to honour made no difference.  You can still see what Bede saw, the inscription marking the dedication of St Paul’s Jarrow above the chancel arch; you can still walk where Bede walked, through the Saxon porch of St Peter’s Monkwearmouth.  Mention ‘Bede’ in the north-east, and the reply you will get will probably be ‘Jarrow’, not Durham Cathedral.  You will hear about Bede’s World, a successful and enjoyable rehabilitation of his memory in the place he knew and loved. The numinous character of these two great churches is not that they are conventionally beautiful but because of the spiritual, cultural and intellectual ‘heritage’ the legacy of Bede represents.

The extent of interest in Bede here at Wearmouth-Jarrow is almost saying of Durham, ‘they may have the body of Bede, but we have his spirit’.  Something similar is said on Lindisfarne about Cuthbert.  I am not going to say that they are altogether right, but neither are they wholly wrong.  My point is that the association of holy place and holy people can and does transcend physical remains.  A place can become a shrine and attract pilgrims for its holy (or heroic) memories and resonances.  And this is, in fact, how most of our ‘shrines’ in the north-east are.  I am not only thinking of Lindisfarne, or the Inner Farne of Aidan and Cuthbert, or the Wearmouth and Jarrow of Benedict Biscop and Bede.  We need to remember Bamburgh where Aidan died, Hartlepool where Hild ruled a double monastery, Coldingham where Aebba presided over a similar community, Hexham and Ripon with their crypts associated with Wilfrid, Finchale where Godric lived as a hermit, and many other sites across County Durham and Northumberland where memory has sanctified place. In all these places, memory does not need the support of physical remains. The nexus of place, people and event is powerful enough on its own. 

The implications of this for Durham are perhaps not comfortable.  For uniquely among the places I have mentioned, Durham has no intrinsic relation with any of the saints whose relics it houses.  Cuthbert presumably did not visit the obscure peninsula hilltop site of Dunholm far away from any major centre of population and from his own native Farne.  Bede, who was given to this double monastery as a child, probably never left it apart from two occasions when he travelled to Lindisfarne.  So Durham is the paradox of a holy place whose sanctity has nothing to do with what is indigenous to the place itself.  It’s a cuckoo in the nest, originating out of the historical accident that this was where the community of St Cuthbert chose to inter their saint and erect his shrine.  This is why the 12th century chronicler Symeon of Durham, who probably came to England with the founder of the new Cathedral William of St Calais and who therefore had an interest in promoting the project of the Normans, goes to such great lengths in his Libellus or ‘little book’ on the origins of the Cathedral to legitimate the shrine, telling stories of how providence had guided the community to that spot, how the coffin refused to be carried any further became the saint had decided that his resting place should be at Durham. 

This story was important and influential in two ways.  First, it bolstered the fortunes of the Cathedral Priory at a time when the murder of Thomas Becket was placing the rival shrine at Canterbury ahead of Durham in the pilgrimage stakes.  But second, and importantly, it supported the temporal power of the prince bishops whose legitimacy as rulers of a palatinate kingdom within a kingdom depended on the patronage and good will of the local saint.  We can see something similar in the legend of how the relics of St James the Great came to be discovered in ‘the field of the star’, Compostela, thus legitimating the great shrine and pilgrim destination that place was becoming, and at the same time acting as the patron saint of the long Reconquista of Spain, the reclamation for Christendom of the Iberian peninsula from Islamic domination.  If you know the Pilgrim Road, you will be familiar with many images of St James as the Matamoros, the slayer of the Moors, hardly a comfortable depiction of a Christian saint for our own age, but an eloquent reminder of how both sacred people and sacred places become appropriated to the social and political causes of the day. 


3  Seven Saxon Saints and their Places
Having said something about the relationship of sacred people to sacred place and sacred event, let me devote the rest of this lecture to looking more specifically at seven of the north-east’s most important saints from the Saxon period and the places with which they are associated. Simply to list these names is to remind ourselves what an extraordinary era the 7th and early 8th century was, from the baptism of Edwin in 627 to the death of Bede in 735.  (Let me say, while I am about it, that I avoid the use of the word ‘Celtic’ to describe the saints of that century.  It is a slippery word that in popular spirituality tends to mean uncial script, intertwined decoration and fancy knotwork, images of golden sunsets and all pleasantly scented like a National Trust shop.  I joke but as a matter of accuracy, only one of the northern saints was of Celtic or Irish origin.  The others were all Saxon Northumbrians, strongly influenced by the Irish traditions of Lindisfarne but in no way Celts themselves, least of all after the Synod of Whitby in 664 when the Saxon church adopted Roman ways two decades before Cuthbert became bishop and before Bede was even born.)  And while it is inevitably simplistic, I am going to associate with these saints and ‘their’ places a quality that for me identifies each of them as a distinctive, figure who occupies a unique place in the landscape of the mind and spirit. 

Oswald, king and saint, is in many ways the founder and midwife of the Christian mission in Northumbria, and through it much of England.  He is the only one of the seven to have become a martyr.  He became a Christian on Iona, returning to Northumbria to do battle with the pagan British king Cadwalla.  The story is told of how he set up a wooden cross at Heavenfield in the Tyne Valley and gathered his army to pray for victory.  The defeat of Cadwalla was a turning point in the Christianisation of the kingdom, and led to his sending to Iona for a bishop who would preach the gospel to Northumbria.  This is what brought Aidan to England.  However in 642 he lost his life in battle against the Mercian king Penda, a death that was quickly construed as a life offered for the cause of Christ against paganism.  Penda dismembered his body, and this accounts for the fact that his relics are honoured in many different places.  His head was buried with Cuthbert’s remains on Lindisfarne and found its way to Durham: as is common in the Cuthbert iconography, there is a medieval statue of Cuthbert in the shrine there, holding Oswald’s head.  We can associate the lonely site at Heavenfield with him; but perhaps more eloquently, the castle at Bamburgh, where Oswald established his royal court, not as Northumbria’s first Christian king (that honour belongs to Edwin), but as the monarch who decisively established Christianity in the kingdom and thus gave it its character.  In this, he is an image of the Christian leader in public life, for whom politics and faith, for all their ambiguous alchemy, belonged inextricably to a single baptismal vocation.

I see Aidan as the missioner.  He is inevitably associated with the place where he founded a monasterium, the Holy Island of Lindisfarne.  It is one of the most numinous, or as they say up there, ‘thinnest’ places in England.  Of Aidan’s monastery nothing remains, only the memory; but what a memory it is!  I have called Aidan a symbol of mission, for as I have said he was brought from Iona by Oswald not as his personal chaplain, but specifically to convert the Northumbrians to Christianity.  The choice of Lindisfarne as the base of the Northumbrian mission is very significant.  Aidan seems to have looked for a site where his monks could live in community according to their rule following his native Irish traditions, from where he and others could travel across the kingdom preaching the gospel. The ‘semi-detached’ nature of the Island was ideal: it is connected yet not-connected to the mainland, a place with porous boundaries where holiness could be nurtured as the prerequisite for mission.  But there is another aspect to the island’s physical location.  This is that it is within direct sight of Oswald’s royal palace at Bamburgh, as if to say, not only was the king patron of the mission, but the politics of the court were accountable to the High King, God himself, whom the island community existed to proclaim.  This pattern of holy place juxtaposed to secular power is common in medieval sites: Durham is a good example of this.  The message is: mission is to the institutions of a society as well as to its individual members.  All of human life is subject to the kingship of God, and mission is to proclaim that fact. 

My next saint is Wilfrid and his place Hexham.  I see him as the organiser and shaper of Christian institutions in Saxon England. Among the bishops, Wilfrid was one of the most able intellectually and the most forceful as a personality.  He built the first church at Hexham in the 7th century on such a grand scale, says his biographer Eddius, that no other church north of the Alps could compare with it. He was a native Northumbrian who was sent to be educated by Aidan on Holy Island.  From there his studies took him to Canterbury, Gaul and Rome, travels that gave him an understanding of the wider church few others of his generation had, and which gives us the clue to his life.  A colourful career as ecclesiastical statesman and politician par excellence, led him to stride out across Europe like some new Joshua to conquer lands for God.  From the beginning, as abbot of Ripon and bishop of York, and as apologist for the Roman way at the Synod of Whitby, he courted controversy.  Combative and pugnacious, he fell out with practically every Saxon king and prelate in the land. Wilfrid is usually presented as an unattractive image of worldly ambition and self-interest, corrupted by the power he craved.  But his achievements were considerable.  Not only did he found churches, monasteries and schools on a grand scale, he also introduced the Rule of St Benedict to England, a development that would prove highly significant in the Christian history of our country.  In the debate about the date of Easter, he understood where the future lay: not because it was ‘Roman’ rather than Irish, but because he was committed to the unity of the church and believed that the bishop was its focus. Wilfrid understood how the tides of history were flowing.  But we do him a disservice if we somehow imagine that he was interested only in the institution of the church and its power relations with the state.  To touch his spirituality, you need only visit his two crypts at Hexham and at Ripon. They are a truly Saxon testimony to the power of holiness, the spiritual quest to re-connect with what truly belongs to the foundation of a life lived before God. 

I propose Hild as the reconciler.  She was related to the Northumbrian royal family and was one of the first to become a Christian alongside the first Christian king of Northumbria, Edwin.  Aidan established her in a community somewhere between the Wear and the Tyne (traditionally South Shields), but she soon afterwards became abbess of the convent at Hartlepool.  In 657 she founded the double monastery at Whitby where the famous Synod was held in 664.  That she hosted it is important, together with her loyalty to its outcome in favour of Roman customs in the calculation of the date of Easter and the design of the monastic tonsure.  As an heir of Aidan, this will not have been easy; yet it is clear that she worked tirelessly for the unity of the church in Northumbria, gaining much influence and authority among both the nation’s leaders and the common people who often resorted to her for advice.  A feminist reading of her life would emphasise the respect in which able women could be held in Saxon times: she was unusual, but as we can see from the life of Aebbe, prioress of Coldingham, by no means unique.  Perhaps it is not fortuitous that it was a woman who, in both physical and metaphorical ways, ‘created space’ for a contentious, difficult debate to take place and for an outcome to be reached that did not fracture the church.  This reconciling instinct may perhaps be a particular gift of women in leadership. Her place in north-east England is of course the headland of Hartlepool, another of the region’s numinous places, where the great Early English church of St Hilda was built near to the site of her monastery. 

Cuthbert is the ascetic in this septet.  He stands out not because the others did not also practise askesis or ‘spiritual training’: rather, it is the lengths to which he took it.  He is the one saint of this period who can truly be called eremitical, for the vocation to live as a hermit never faltered, even in the midst of a life fully taken up with the evangelistic, pastoral and organisational duties of a bishop.  To me he is always Cuthbert of Farne, for it was here in the harsh, lonely environment of a rocky island set in a grey hostile sea that he truly found his home.  We misconstrue Cuthbert if we see this as the introvert’s love of solitude, the quest for a peaceful retreat away from the demands of a busy life.  The Farne belongs to the same world as his well-documented habit of spending hours standing in the sea overnight as the tide retreated and advanced again saying prayers and reciting psalms.  It was a determined battle against the forces of evil in the world and in himself.  His extreme spiritual discipline is familiar to us from Irish monks such as Columba and Columbanus, and they seem to owe it to the example of Anthony of Egypt and the desert fathers for whom refuge in the fierce wild places on the margins of human existence was to find God and do battle with demons.  The paradox of this man of holy simplicity is that he should end up buried beneath Europe’s greatest Romanesque building, built as his shrine, yet at the same time so palpably a monument to human power and achievement.  To me the simplicity of his shrine at Durham plays an important role in acting as the Cathedral’s conscience, a reminder that the ascetic journey towards holiness, rather than the seductions of grandeur, is the vocation of all the baptised. And we should remember the Cuthbert is associated not only with Lindisfarne and Durham, but also with the many places he visited in lifetime, and even more those where his body rested after his death.  They include Norham on the Tweed, and pre-eminently Chester-le-Street, Durham’s first cathedral where the saint and his Gospel book rested for more than a century before they found their way on to the peninsula at Dunholme.

The least well-known member of this canon of Saxon saints is Benedict Biscop, the first abbot of Wearmouth and then of Jarrow.  He was the most travelled of the northern saints, making no less than six visits to Rome.  He brought many treasures back to England, for his famous library here and at Jarrow; bringing too a new Archbishop of Canterbury, Theodore.  He was an energetic church builder, bringing continental stonemasons with him to England whose achievement, in the pre-Norman Romanesque style, we see in the wonderful Saxon remains at Jarrow and here at St Peter’s Monkwearmouth.  Among the craftsmen he introduced were the first stained-glass makers, an art for which Sunderland can claim to have pioneered in England, a skill which is perpetuated today in the National Glass Centre on Wearside.  But it is for his cosmopolitanism that I want to celebrate Benedict Biscop.  His long, arduous journeys are a timely reminder that far from being isolated from European civilisation and culture off the north-west corner of the mainland, his Christianity was intricately connected to the continental church. So he reminds us that the local church is always a part of a greater whole: this is the meaning of Catholicism.  As to the place with which I identify him, it must be Sunderland and specifically Monkwearmouth.  A few years ago I was preaching at a civic service at Sunderland Minster.  The civic leadership, celebrating their new and much coveted city status, had wanted to make Bede the patron saint of Sunderland.  I replied that this would be contested by both Jarrow and Durham whose claims seemed stronger.  I asked them to think about Benedict Biscop instead, for some of the reasons I have outlined.  I am glad to say that they have officially adopted him. 

My final saint is of course Bede, and his place here at Wearmouth and at Jarrow.  This is not to undermine the significance of his shrine at Durham, simply to acknowledge that it was in the lands between the Wear and the Tyne that Bede was given as a child to Biscop’s double monastery, and where he spent the rest of his life.  Bede is my undoubted symbol of Christian scholarship, learning and wisdom, or as I like to call it, religious intelligence.  He owed this not only to his education under Benedict Biscop but also to the library with which Biscop had endowed the monastery.  He was said to be the most learned man in Europe: a poet, astronomer, mathematician, biographer, theologian, translator and most famously, historian.  His great delight, he says, was to ‘learn, to teach and to write’.  ‘Bede’s World’ gives us a feel for the range of his achievements, though there is no substitute for reading him, especially his History of the English Church and People, which ought to be one of the best-loved books of English Christians.  But if you had asked Bede which writings he regarded as the most important, he would have said (modestly, for he was a deeply humble man), his biblical commentaries.  He was working on a translation of St John’s Gospel when he died.  So Wearmouth-Jarrow is one of those places where the memory enshrined here recalls us to the Christian imperative to love God not only with the heart and soul and will but also with the mind. 


4  Conclusion

I have tried to say something about how Saxon sacred places are connected to Saxon sacred people and the events for which they are remembered, and how this imparts both historical and spiritual texture to those sites.  I have mentioned places that fulfil this role in north-east England: from north to south, Norham, Lindisfarne, the Farne Islands, Bamburgh, Hexham, Jarrow, Wearmouth, Chester-le-Street and Hartlepool.  I could have chosen others, of course, for the Christian history of north-east England is uniquely rich in this respect: Yeavering by the Cheviots where Paulinus baptised; or the Yorkshire sites that belong to the world of Northumbrian Christianity like Lastingham and Ripon; or the scores of small, often isolated, ancient churches whose very obscurity makes them moving testimonies to lived faith and prayer across so many centuries, places where the holiness of unknown men and women is still palpable.  When I was a parish priest in Northumberland 30 years ago, I got to know and love these churches; indeed, one of them, a small hamlet called Edlingham, was part of the united benefice I served, and I used to travel out across the moors to take services for a handful of people in a tiny moorland church that was almost beyond dating for it seemed to have merged completely with its wild remote surroundings, with the stump of a Norman castle next to it and a small cluster of houses huddling together as if for protection against the blasts of wind that swept down off Cheviot.  Who knows what heroic souls weathered physical and spiritual storms in this forgotten corner of England, the kind of men and women who seemed to step straight out of an R. S. Thomas poem? 

That was, as it happened, a Durham Dean and Chapter living, so almost certainly part of the patrimony of St Cuthbert, maybe even (though this is conjecture) one of the many places where the body rested for a while on its long pilgrimage around the north.  And this brings me back where I began, to Durham Cathedral.  Where does Durham belong in the sacred geography of the north whose ‘core’ sacred places I have mentioned?   

I’ve suggested that Durham is different from the other sites I’ve mentioned because it has no first-hand connection with any of the saints whose shrines it houses, only a memory that has embedded itself in that place for historical reasons.  Yet that memory has proved powerful beyond words, as we all recognise when we look at the immensity of the Cathedral perched on its peninsula, and consider that it was the story of the simplest and humblest of saints that led to its being built.  So a ‘borrowed’ sanctity has, if you like, become indigenised at Durham, taken root there, for the Cathedral, St Cuthbert and the Lindisfarne Gospels are, or ought to be, inseparable in what I have called the landscape of the mind.  A few years ago, I took an elderly imam from Saudi Arabia round the Cathedral.  He was completely blind, but did not wish me to speak very much about the building before he had experienced it for himself.  I ended the visit, as I usually do, at the shrine of St Cuthbert.  Before I could say anything about him, he said at once: ‘ah; I recognise here the presence of a holy man.  Someone important is buried here, isn’t he?  I sense it, because in Islam we too have our holy places where holy men are buried.’  I have pondered the word ‘presence’, for it says so much about how the power of religious memory makes the past live in the present, so that the saints become our contemporaries, fellow-travellers, friends, guardians and intercessors.  There is a mystical theology of person-and-place here that only prayer and contemplation will open up for us.

So Durham is not, after all, the cuckoo in the nest.  It is, I think, the shrine in the north-east that gathers up and embraces all the others, because its sanctity of person and place is inseparable from theirs.  I prefer not to use the epithet ‘mother church’ to describe this relationship, for historically, Durham is more daughter than mother, whether in relation to Lindisfarne, Wearmouth-Jarrow or Chester-le-Street.  But the lineal descent of Durham from the sources of 7th century Christianity in Northumbria, those extraordinary places and people who were the fountainhead of an entire nation’s faith, does make it in my view truly symbolic of the Christian north.

In the list of diocesan bishops you find in Crockfords, the Durham entry does not begin with Aldhun, the first bishop to be resident when the community of St Cuthbert arrived on the peninsula in 995.  It begins with Aidan, the first bishop of Lindisfarne who came to Northumbria in 635.  The Diocese of Durham (with its own 19th century daughter Newcastle Diocese) therefore stands in direct continuity with the Saxon church and its saints and martyrs: we are still the diocese of Aidan and Cuthbert whose first seat was Lindisfarne and whose present focus is Durham.  What Durham expresses in its textured relationship between place and people is the same reality that we have seen lived out in the other shrines of the north with their memories of sacred people and sacred events.  Together, they have shaped the Christian character of the North-East and given it its distinctive spiritual identity.  These Saxon saints in their Saxon places continue to speak to and inspire us today in ways they could not have dreamed of.  For that, we continue to thank God.  

 
The Wearmouth Lecture, St Peter's Monkwearmouth, September 2012

Friday, 17 August 2012

Ruth Etchells RIP

Obituary published in the Church Times, 17 August 2012

Ruth Etchells, who died on 8 August 2012, was both a Durham institution and a Durham treasure.

Following a brilliant school and university career in Liverpool, she taught English at Aigburth Vale High School in that city, after which she went on to lecture in English at Chester College of Education. In 1968, she came to Durham to teach in the English Department and to help shape the newly established Trevelyan College where she was later to be Vice-Principal. She was as an outstanding teacher of undergraduates. Her pioneering course on modern drama engaged students with the radically new literature of the 1960s: this was the era of Beckett, Osborne and Pinter. But what made her teaching so inspiring was the conviction that literature, poetry and drama were charged with issues of ultimate meaning in human life. I was an undergraduate at Oxford when she published her ground breaking and influential little book Unafraid to Be. Thanks to her, I began to learn how to discern God in art and culture. It proved an important catalyst in developing cross disciplinary engagement, not least in the emerging field of theology and literature whose early British home was in Durham.

However Ruth’s enduring contribution in Durham was as Principal of St John’s College between 1979 and 1988.  St John’s is one of two Church of England recognised colleges within the University.  Her appointment was a risky and courageous choice. She was a lay person taking on the leadership of a college that was responsible for the training of ordinands at Cranmer Hall. She was known as a scholar of English literature rather than as a theologian, despite her holding degrees in both. And of course she was a woman, the first female Principal of a Church of England theological college at a time when the Church did not ordain women to the priesthood and not much more than a decade after St John’s had begun to admit women undergraduates.

St John’s College, in the shadow of Durham Cathedral, faced big challenges in the 1980s. One of these was its need to demonstrate that it could not only hold its own academically but could also be financially sustainable. Ruth launched an ambitious refurbishment programme, established a rigorous undergraduate admissions policy, transformed John’s into a genuinely multi-disciplinary learning community and, possibly more than any other individual in its history, brought to the college the vision of a Christian community of learning and scholarship that could inhabit creative borderlands between the academy, the church and the wider world.

Ruth was not a cradle Anglican.  Born in 1931, and the adopted daughter of a Congregational minister, it was only when she fell under the spell of Durham that she became a member of the Church of England. She made her first communion in the Cathedral’s Galilee Chapel, an event she would often recall as a kind of homecoming. Her service to the Church at both a national and international level was rich and varied.  She served on the General Synod, the Doctrine Commission and the Crown Appointments Commission (as it was), as well as being present at the Lambeth Conferences of 1988 and 1998 as a theological adviser.  She published a number of fine books on literature, prayer and spirituality.  In recognition of her contribution to the wider church, Archbishop George Carey awarded her a Lambeth DD in 1992, an honour that meant a great deal to her, particularly since her own PhD thesis had been in a car that was stolen.

Ruth was a fervent advocate of the ordination of women, but never sought it for herself, having a strong sense of vocation to ministry as a lay person (she was licensed as a lay worker in 1979). Her energies were unabated in retirement, whether as a pastor, writer, governor of, among other organisations, Durham High School for Girls, Ridley Hall Cambridge and Scargill House.  She found time to take on the demanding role of Vice-Chair of Durham Family Health Services Authority.  She discovered a new dimension of her creativity as a stained-glass artist: she has a window of the Annunciation in the High School.  She served as a member of Durham Cathedral Council during my time as Dean, and regularly led the intercessions at the sung eucharist.  No-one will ever forget her flair for words and the profound spirituality woven into her public ministry of prayer, preaching or reading the scriptures.  She had a unique understanding of the power of language and how to put it to work in the service of God. 

Ruth loved life, and relished open air and wide landscapes.  Her camping ‘expotitions’ (her word, or rather Pooh’s) with friends and colleagues in a campervan were legendary. She delighted in big fry-ups in the open air.  She loved animals including her dogs Bonnie and Saffy.  But perhaps what she will most be remembered for is her remarkable gift of friendship.  She had an uncanny insight into people, a kind, humane discernment seasoned by an appreciation of the absurd.  It helped restore perspective and hope to many. She was the much-loved confidante of students and bishops alike: the world was still beating a path to Ruth’s door in Sherburn Hospital up to her death. Her friends who were with her in her last days have spoken of the radiance and peace with which she prepared for her final journey.  She died full of days, leaving behind countless sweet and happy memories.  May she rest in peace and rise in glory. 

Michael Sadgrove
Durham, August 2012
With acknowledgments to Margaret Masson, Anne Harrison and Rosemary Nixon








Saturday, 11 August 2012

At a Golden Wedding

I often say that when Jesus attended the wedding at Cana in Galilee, he didn’t preach a sermon or give the couple advice.  What mattered was to make sure the wine didn’t run out and that the party could go on.  I dare say he would have done the same at a golden wedding.

So sermons on these occasions should be short.  But the central word of marriage and of life is short too. ‘Love’. Yet it’s the biggest word there is.  Where do we find love? In the tiniest hazelnut, says Mother Julian: it exists because God loves it; in  the entire sweep of the universe, says Dante, because it is ‘love that moves the sun and the other stars’. And today love has a human face in Stephen and Joy and the 50 years of marriage they celebrate. Today we know that love is God’s meaning.

A rabbi asked his pupils how they could tell when it was daybreak. ‘When you see an animal, and there is enough light to tell whether it’s a fox or a dog?’ one said.  ‘No’ said the teacher.  ‘When you look at an orchard, and can tell the difference between an apple and a pear tree?’ said another.  ‘No. Day breaks when you look at someone and know that they are your brother or your sister. Until you can do that, no matter what time of day it is, it’s always night.’ So love is a kind of dawn, an illumination.  It lights up our lives.  We see each other in a new way.  And when marriage is not only long-lived, but wholesome and happy and good, we recognise how love lights up not only two lives given to each other in vows and promises and rings but everyone else who is privileged to be brought into this circle of God-given grace. Marriage is one of the places in human life that demonstrate St Paul’s great saying: that love bears all things, believes all things, hopes all things, endures all things.  For love never ends.  

The gospel reading from St John talks about love in words so simple that a child can understand it.  Perhaps we would find it easier to take it in and live it if we were a little more childlike. Jesus says: ‘as the Father has loved me, so I have loved you.  Abide in my love’.  He is speaking about the new relationships we become part of when we are brought into relationship with God.  Divine love has human love as its consequence. The church is a society of friends says John, a community of truth and love.  Our badge is that we love one another. And this is as true of marriage as it is of all the other ways we love. In the Jewish Talmud, it says that the shekinah, God’s presence, his very glory, dwells between a husband and a wife. Ubi caritas et amor, Deus ibi est.  Where love is, there you find God.  For God is love. 

And the model of all loving is Jesus.  ‘As the Father loves, so I have loved you.’  There is more. Jesus will go on to say, in words familiar from so many war memorials, ‘Greater love has no-one than this, to lay down one’s life for one’s friends.’ Anyone who has ever loved knows what the cost of love is, the often little, sometimes big ways we are called to lay down our lives for those we love. Love demands as well as gives.  It’s tough as well as gentle. It asks everything of us; yet it gives everything in return.  Love is not only cross. It’s resurrection. When we love as Jesus does, the day breaks, the shadows flee away.

We have already heard from your beloved George Herbert in this service in Richard Lloyd’s exquisite setting of his poem ‘The Call’. But I have another Herbert poem to mark this occasion.  The name ‘Stephen’ means ‘crown’.  And happily, the poet brings together your two names, in an echo of St Paul, in a poem called ‘A True Hymn’.   

            My joy, my life, my crown!
            My heart was meaning all the day,
            Somewhat it fain would say:
            And still it runneth, muttering up and down
            With only this, My joy, my life, my crown.

He is saying that he wants to sing a true hymn, his best hymn, in praise of God; he has the words, the rhyme, the metre but somehow not quite the spirit.  He knows that what life is meant for is to worship God ‘my joy, my life, my crown’.  But how to live the truth of his own song? At the end he finds the way.   

            Whereas if the heart be moved
            Although the verse be somewhat scant,
            God doth supply the want.
            And when the heart says, sighing to be approved,
            O could I love! And stops: God writeth, Loved. 

The point is: it is being loved that is the secret.  To know you are loved and cherished is what liberates the heart to sing and the tongue to praise.  This is what moves the heart to recognise and know God.  And a long and happy marriage is surely one of the ways in which we know that we are loved everlastingly, and come to love God as ‘my joy, my life, my crown’. 

So, Stephen and Joy, ‘joy’ and ‘crown’ with life held between your names: in God’s eternal love you had your beginning 50 years ago.  In that time you have tasted its length and breadth and height and depth, have glimpsed in each other how the love of Christ passes knowledge, have walked side by side in loving God as your joy, your life, your crown. In his love may you also have your end, and many more golden days to come in the meantime. And as good Tobias prayed, may you both find mercy and grow old together.

For Bishop Stephen and Joy Sykes, 11 August 2012
1 Corinthians 13
John 15. 9-11


Friday, 15 June 2012

'Historic Cathedral City': expectation and reality at Durham

When you drive towards Durham on the A1M, you pass brown signs alerting you to Durham: historic cathedral city.  They are so familiar that we scarcely give them a second thought.  Yet we do notice other peoples’ brown signs pointing us to their towns and cities, and I imagine that an audience like this is willing to be enticed by them.  Perhaps those who are not fortunate enough to live in a ‘brown sign’ town or city envy those of us who do.  But it is good to ask ourselves from time to time how our town or city measures up to the allure of its coveted sign.  Do we deliver what the brown sign promises? 

‘Historic cathedral city’ is an evocative epithet.  There is something very English about it.  It conjures up nostalgic images that extend beyond the meaning of the words themselves, associating to mental landscapes of a kind familiar from railway posters of the 1930s and dust-jackets of Batsford Books.  We know, or think we know, what is, and is not, a ‘historic cathedral city’.  We mean places like Wells, Salisbury, Chichester, Winchester, Canterbury, Hereford and Lichfield: modest-sized towns with a medieval Cathedral at their heart.  We expect the Cathedral to be surrounded by a sward of immaculately tended green, a close lined with Georgian houses with (preferably) a wall around it and a gate that is shut at night.  We expect there to be a dense cluster of historic buildings lining networks of narrow streets and lanes along which the evensong bell echoes each day.  We expect urban sprawl to have been contained, and the depredations of industry and commercial development to have been kept out of their historic core.  We expect there to be interesting shops to detain us, independents and not merely the generic high-street brands.   We expect a townscape with an individual, personal texture and a strong sense of place, not a clone of somewhere else but a city that has personality, that is truly, authentically itself.  Those are some of my criteria for a good historic cathedral city.  They may be difficult to state but I think we recognise it when we see it.

There are many cities that are historic in the sense that they have a history.  Most have cathedrals.  But we do not think of them as ‘historic cathedral cities;.  In the case of the so-called large ‘core-cities’ like Bristol, Birmingham, Manchester, Sheffield and Newcastle, the cathedral is not magnet towards which visitors are first drawn.  You do not go to these places solely for the purpose of visiting their cathedrals, and indeed none of them had a cathedral in the middle-ages.  Bristol become a cathedral under Henry VIII while the others have parish churches that acquired cathedral status in the 19th or early 20th centuries.  When I went to Sheffield, some people were surprised to learn that it even had a cathedral.  Meanwhile, some of our largest cities do not have cathedrals at all: Leeds, Hull, Plymouth, Nottingham, Southampton and closer to home, Sunderland.  Liverpool and Coventry (where I was a canon before going to Sheffield) are perhaps the only large urban centres outside London whose cathedrals are destinations in their own right. 

At the other end of the scale, there are towns that do have cathedrals but are not cities: Southwell, Ripon and Bury St Edmunds, latecomers as cathedrals go, for their monastic churches only gained cathedral status in the last 150 years.  Truro, with its fine 19th century cathedral, has successfully emulated the historic cathedral cities in some respects.  Guildford has a 20th century cathedral but is not (yet) a city.  Bath is an interesting case because in the medieval period its Abbey was one of the two cathedrals of its diocese, only becoming a secular parish church at the dissolution. But it is still a city today.  And then there are those cities that have grown considerably beyond their pre-modern city limits but whose centres still retain the character of a cathedral city – some more so like York, Norwich and Chester, some less so, like Exeter, Carlisle and Peterborough, this last city having been treated cruelly by developers ever since the 16th century. 

If I am right to say that we know intuitively what we mean when we talk about ‘historic cathedral cities’, then it may be worth examining how well it applies to Durham.  I should like to do this by taking these three words in turn, ‘historic’, ‘cathedral’ and ‘city’.  We should imagine that they are hyphenated, for they cannot ultimately be separated.  I hope to raise issues that Durham perhaps needs to face if it is to cherish its identity as a ‘historic cathedral city’. 


Historic
In 2008 The Princess Royal unveiled Fenwick Lawson’s sculpture ‘The Journey’ in Millennium Square.  I chaired the committee that raised the funds for the piece.  The reason this proved a popular project was not only the beauty of the piece and the distinction of its sculptor.  It was its subject.  At the time we said that we believed it was important to have in the city-centre some visible reminder of how and why Durham came to be.  This means the story of St Cuthbert and the journey made by the monks of his community who arrived on the peninsula of Dunholme and set up his shrine there in 995. From that event the entire history of Durham flows.  There was much discussion about whether the sculpture should be sited on Palace Green or in the city-centre.  I argued for the city, because its title is The Journey, not The Arrival.  Moreover, the city-centre is not over-endowed with public art, nor are the Saxon and Christian origins of our city evident as you walk around it.  And I think that to have the ‘historic’ interpreted in a contemporary townscape makes for a suggestive setting. 

What do we mean when we say that a place is ‘historic’?  It is probably to do with what it evokes by its essential character.  ‘Historic’ in the rhetoric of travel promotion tends to mean ‘pre-industrial’, a notion that colludes with the nostalgic colouring certain places acquire in our minds.  Our nearest city neighbours, Newcastle and Sunderland speak of a more recent history that does not quite qualify for the epithet ‘historic’: a proud industrial past, great urban expansion, a centre of commerce and trade.  Durham, by contrast, has a more or less intact core of pre-modern buildings that effectively define its nature, at least as we remember it in the landscape of the mind.  There is more to Durham than this, of course: its mining history and other local industries, its long lines of Victorian terraces at Langley Moor or Pity Me that are so typical of the north-east; its bland 20th century suburbs and retail parks that are generic England and could be anywhere.  But we do not remember Durham for these things.  We remember it for a compact townscape that wears its history visibly in its ancient street-patterns, its medieval, Tudor and Georgian houses, its river banks, bridges and churches, its castle and cathedral. 

However, this seems to me to be a weak use of the word ‘historic’.  It can so easily be debased into meaning that it exudes an atmosphere of ‘oldness’ or ‘quaintness’.  (The promotional rhetoric of travel literature speaks of a ‘vibrant old town’ whose ‘winding’ narrow streets are ‘studded’ with ‘picturesque’ old houses ‘huddling together’ or ‘nestling’ under the shadow of a ‘stunning’ or ‘iconic’ cathedral ‘perched’ on its hilltop.  This is language inflation and if we care about our heritage, we should take as much care over words we use to describe it as we do over our buildings, monuments and landscapes.  I do believe that Durham Cathedral is an ‘iconic’ and ‘stunning’ building in the sense that few others in the world can claim to be.  But I have resolved that we shall stop using these words in our literature. We do not honour what is distinctive about Durham or its Cathedral by falling into cliché.) 

The word ‘historic’ has to carry a stronger sense than merely looking or feeling ‘old’.  History has to do with the narrative we relate and inhabit.  That story is not simply about the past.  It has to do with self-understanding, how we elicit meanings.  So an historic town or city is one that has a sense of its own origins, a defining myth that explains why it is what it is and not something else, and why it is here and not somewhere else.  Douglas Pocock speaks about the quality of ‘Durhamness’[1].  ‘Durham-ness’ is not only about what constitutes our city’s unique setting and townscapes.  It is to do with how the built heritage relates to its cultural, intellectual and spiritual heritage.  This historic sense alone enables us to read the townscape intelligently.  This brings me back to St Cuthbert and ‘The Journey’.  The image of the monks tramping up the hill with their infinitely precious cargo is an unforgettable image of our city’s origins.  It makes visible an aspect of the history we need to know if we are to grasp what makes this an ‘historic’ cathedral city.

It is this strong sense of the word ‘historic’ that we should do more to promote in Durham.  In what ways is Durham unique or at least distinctive historically?  Here are some suggestions.  Durham is the only Cathedral in England that is almost entirely Romanesque.  It is the best-preserved monastic site in the country that is still in use for its original religious purposes.  It is the oldest continuously inhabited place of learning in England.  It has the best preserved monastic library that is still in situ.  It is the only cathedral to have intact shrines not only of one, or even two, but of three saints.  The Cathedral has held resonances for its region in a way true only in a handful of other places.  The Durham Palatinate with its counts palatine or prince-bishops was a unique political arrangement in England of which the Castle is the symbol.  The Castle is the oldest working university building in the world. Durham is one of the few cities to have preserved its medieval walls.  No doubt you can add to this list.

Going back to St Cuthbert, in 2005 his name, removed by Henry VIII from the Cathedral’s dedication, was reinstated in its legal title as ‘The Cathedral Church of Christ, Blessed Mary the Virgin and St Cuthbert of Durham’.  Cuthbert continues to inform our historic sense.  We are looking forward to receiving into the Cathedral a contemporary replica of the Cuthbert Banner that once hung in the south quire aisle, was carried into battle, and which was summarily destroyed by a reforming dean’s wife (I am sorry to say).  We have a great opportunity to build on this in 2013 when the British Library has agreed in principle to loan the Lindisfarne Gospel Book and St Cuthbert’s Gospel Book (newly acquired for the nation by the Library) to Durham for three months.  They will be exhibited in the University’s new exhibition space on Palace Green.  The Lindisfarne Gospel Book was written at the turn of the 7th and 8th centuries ‘in honour of God and St Cuthbert’ and brought here by his community along with his body; the Cuthbert Gospel was interred with him in the 7th century.  This close connection with Cuthbert is the intellectual and spiritual reason for welcoming them into Cuthbert’s place, the peninsula of Durham and displaying them close to his relics.  In the medieval Cathedral Priory we can assume that this intimate connection would have been regarded as a symbol-system that was unbreakable.  I would discourage us from speaking about this as some romantic homecoming: I would rather that we spoke instead about affirming our own history by bringing together the ancient emblems that lie at the heart of our identity.    

History has its dark side, and recognising this ought to be part of branding a place ‘historic.  This is however often forgotten.  For example, I point out to visitors awed by the beauty of the Cathedral that it would not have been read that way by the native Saxons who had suffered as a result of the Norman Conquest.  To them, its grey towers stood for the harrying of the north and for brutal oppression. It was intended to be a symbol of ruthless power.  This gives the building an ambiguity that is not always recognised: it is at once built for the glory of God but also to establish the hegemony of a foreign invader.  Nor does the shadow stop there. The inhuman treatment of Scottish prisoners of war by Cromwell in the bitter winter of 1650-1651 when they were incarcerated in the cathedral after the Battle of Dunbar is a part of our history that we are only now getting round to commemorating in the building.  The empty niches of the Neville Screen, the levelling of Cuthbert’s shrine, the mutilated Neville tombs are further visible aspects of the destructiveness the Cathedral has seen since the 16th century.

This ‘shadow’ is caught for me by Mark Hudson in a memorable book about the mining village of Horden.  He is speaking of the Miners’ Gala, and how the banners of collieries where men had died in the year’s pit disasters would be processed into the Cathedral lined with black crepe.  He describes the links between the Cathedral and the mining communities: the Haswell banner in the south transept and the Miners’ Memorial in the south aisle.  Here is his introduction to them: ‘Anyone who wants to say that they have seen Durham Cathedral, should see it not only in summer, the three great towers rising hazy and visionlike through the balm of the great cloud of foliage, its interior bathed in golden light, the majestic columns dappled with the reflected hues of its stained glass, but also in the very dead of the year, when the last leaves have departed the elms that cling to the great rock, its gaunt winter face peering down through soot-encrusted eyelets into the black dank water of the Wear, when the light seems hardly to penetrate much of the interior, and the broad blank expanses of stone between the rows of upper and lower arches rising from the submarine dimness towards the feeble light from the upper windows have about them the clammy, irremediable chill of river mud.’[2] 

It matters that we read a building and a place in its totality, not selectively, editing out everything that does not charm or elevate us.  It is like Virgil leading Dante around the circles of hell before Beatrice can lead him into paradise.  There should be integrity about our treatment of historic places.  I felt this especially strongly when my wife and I visited Pompeii a few years ago.  It was magnificent.  But the interpretation lacked a sense that these were disaster scenes where many human lives had been lost when the volcano erupted in 79AD.  At this mass grave, the jokey commentary struck a false note.  There was no recognition of loss nor was there reverence for life.  I found myself wishing that history was not so susceptible of being popularised and thereby trivialised.  But I would be naïve not to recognise that many readings of our historic cathedral city are just as selective and superficial.  This is the inevitable down side of mass tourism.  We need to understand our role as an historic place, and pay attention to the story we tell and how we tell it. 


Cathedral
Why is Durham still named after the topographical feature of Dun-Holme rather than being called St Cuthbert’s like other pilgrim places such as Bury St Edmunds, St Albans, Santiago da Compostela?  The name tells us something important about how, despite its powerful founding myth, an older memory persisted with a longer history even than that of our native saint.  We know how Durham’s topography defined a sacred space for the Cathedral and its precinct, a defensive space for the Castle and its bailey, a civic and commercial space with its market place and town hall, and compact residential spaces spreading out from the centre but always determined by the river and its crossing points. 

The phrase ‘historic cathedral city’ turns out to be about more than it seems.  Our city has developed out of a founding myth that sacralises the physical geography.  By that I mean that the history of the Cathedral is inseparable from the history of the city, not because the city would not exist without St Cuthbert, but because every chapter in the story right up to the present day shows how dependent each is on the other.  The history of the Cathedral has encapsulated, embodied or even controlled the larger history of the city as the interplay of sacred and secular power has changed down the centuries. 

Once upon a time, a coffin was brought on to the peninsula, a shrine was established there, and around it was the first Cathedral was built.  It’s important to state it this way round: our church is not a cathedral that has a shrine in it, but a shrine that has a cathedral round it.  This affects the way we read the building as a succession of spaces that lead up to the sanctuary, the high altar, the Neville Screen and the feretory beyond.  Cuthbert’s shrine is the spiritual and emotional climax of a building that functions as a long processional way that leads up to a great climax.  You cannot see it yet from the west end, nor even from the crossing or quire; but you know it is there.  Like millions of pilgrims before you, it may be the principal reason you have come: to make your own journey between the mighty Romanesque piers like an avenue of trees, while above you, as if to shelter your path, spreads a stone canopy of ribs and pointed arches that constitute the pioneering stone vault.  St Cuthbert tells you what this church is for.  When the Normans colonised the cult of St Cuthbert and rebuilt the Cathedral in 1093, we can plausibly conjecture that whoever designed this masterpiece knew exactly what he was doing in creating architecture with the strongest sense of drama.  The Cathedral is a theatre of the soul because of the remembered power of Cuthbert to draw the eye and the imagination ever eastwards towards the shrine. 

This pattern is reproduced in the development of Durham City.  At the beginning of its story, there was a cathedral.  Around it a community settled: first Cuthbert’s Saxon community who had at last found a home after the years of wandering around the north of England.  Then came the Normans, and with them, the city as we know it began to take shape.  Again we need to tell the story the right way round.  Like the shrine enclosed by a Cathedral, the Cathedral was in turn enclosed by a city, paroikiai, parishes, communities that literally ‘lived around’.  Durham is not a city that has a Cathedral; it is a Cathedral around which a city has grown.  Perhaps this is what we vaguely understand by the phrase ‘historic cathedral city’ because many such cities turn out to have grown out of and been formed around their cathedrals. 

Take Salisbury.  This was a new medieval city established in the water meadows of the Wiltshire Avon when in the 13th century its bishop and chapter abandoned the waterless chalky hill-top of Old Sarum with its Romanesque cathedral, a site which they shared uneasily with a military garrison.  They built another cathedral by the river to house the relics of St Osmund and a large close to house its clergy.  The footprint of the close dictated the grid on which the chequers of the city were laid out. Like Durham, medieval Salisbury is entirely the product of its cathedral. Bishop Richard Poore, who founded the Cathedral of New Sarum and laid out the plan of the city, came here as Bishop in 1228.  Here he built the Chapel of the Nine Altars, so reminiscent of the Early English of Salisbury.  Poore would have recognised the symbiosis between city and cathedral when he came to Durham, how the Cathedral and its college constituted a ‘city within a city’ that shaped the evolution of the medieval town.

My point is that ‘historic cathedral cities’ are mostly those in which the cathedral has decisively shaped the history of its city, and in some has been the very reason for its existence.  And ‘shaping’ is about more than simply the physical development of a city.  It has to do with its ‘character’ and ‘personality’ as a lived community.  That character has many dimensions. In the case of Durham, these are particularly well documented.  For example, we know a great deal about the economic impact of the Cathedral on the city and region in the era just before the convent’s dissolution.[3]  A city with an immensely powerful monastic institution at its heart could not fail to feel the effects of its gravitational pull at all levels of its political, social and economic life. 

In his fine account of Durham Priory in the first half of the 15th century under the long reign of Prior Wessington, Barrie Dobson writes about Durham ‘The English Zion’.  This well-known epithet refers to Cuthbert’s personal choice of this rocky hill surrounded by ‘the sweet and delectable river of Were’ as his resting place.  So it was claimed that God himself had founded the city[4].  As Dobson points out, this is to assume that there was no human settlement on the site prior to Cuthbert’s arrival, whereas even Symeon of Durham knew that this was not the case.  However, the myth expressed a conviction about Durham, that it would not have become what it was without its saint and his shrine.  Durham’s genius loci is inextricably a consequence of a history shaped by the Priory as a place of pilgrimage and prayer.  Its effect was to sacralise it as a holy city, an English Zion.  Dobson writes: ‘if the monks of Durham owed everything to Saint Cuthbert, the lay inhabitants of the city owed nearly everything to the monastery which provided them with employment and reflected glory.  Like the residents of a modern university town, the inmates of fifteenth-century Durham may have sometimes looked askance at the impressive corporate monster in their vicinity; but they were wise enough to realise that it brought them less pain than profit.’[5]

We could trace this theme into the modern era.  In subsequent centuries, despite the weakening of the sacral ties between church and community, the Cathedral nevertheless continued to wield significant power and influence in the city.  This continued into the industrial era when the Cathedral’s extensive coal interests in the neighbourhood were an important factor in shaping its economy.  At the same time it was playing a decisive role in the founding and running of its university. But I want to bring us up to the 21st century to suggest how the same is still true in one aspect of the life of Durham, tourism. 

Bill Bryson famously said in Notes from a Small Island: ‘I got off at Durham and fell in love with it instantly…  It’s wonderful – a perfect little city.  Take my car.’  In the same book he gives us the best marketing strap line any dean and chapter could want: ‘the best Cathedral on planet earth’; though the affirmation that means most to me is that he says: ‘Everything about it was perfect – not just its setting and execution but also… the way it is run today…. no nagging for money, no “voluntary” admission fee… no clutter, … no irksome bulletin boards… nothing… to detract from the unutterable soaring majesty of the interior.’[6]  On the strength of that, one couple enjoyed a city break here and endorsed Bryson’s eulogy in the Guardian.  They rhapsodised about the ‘hushed cloisters’, the ‘vertiginous vaulted ceiling’, the ‘ancient pillars’, this ‘mind-boggling feat of Norman engineering’.  They have evidently dipped deep in the travel-scribe’s armoury of words and phrases but it is well-meant. 

The Cathedral receives more than 600000 visitors each year, which makes it the biggest visitor attraction in the north-east.  ‘Durham’, the city and county,  is one of only fifteen ‘recognised destinations’ in England where the national tourism strategy is now being concentrated as financial cuts curtail tourism promotion by the regions and local authorities.  Clearly, as a ‘destination’, Durham relies heavily on the Cathedral.  Its image appears everywhere: it is Durham’s ‘brand’.  Just as in the middle ages the city benefitted from the benign invasion of pilgrims, so 21st century visitors come here and bring business to the city.  The economic impact of cathedral tourism has been studied and it is possible to put a figure against it in terms of direct and indirect spend.  The Cathedral and the city need each other, even if there are tensions in managing a site that is a working church before it is a heritage site and tourist venue.  I don’t believe that tourism erodes the qualities in city or cathedral that visitors come to see: rather, the human flow adds vitality to our streets, precinct and cathedral. Tourism reinforces the sense of drama that a city like ours possesses because the throng changes the way we experience it – the same can be said of our students.  But beyond its economic benefit to the city, how do you assess ‘value’ in a deeper way?  How does the Cathedral contribute to the city’s cultural, intellectual, social and spiritual capital? What indeed are the city’s values – is it possible to name them?  For if our ‘values’ were merely economic, we would be a poor place.  They are to do with how we understand ourselves, where we have come from, and what we believe about ourselves, our communities, our places.  They are to do with our aspirations for the future: what kind of historic cathedral city we want to become, and why.  These are important questions for Durham because environment, buildings and townscape express our values for good or ill.  So let me finally turn to that third word ‘city’. 


City
I began by suggesting what the phrase ‘historic cathedral city’ evoked, and I have explored some of its aspects.  In particular, I have drawn attention to what we might call the delicate ecology of this cathedral city: the relationships between the Cathedral and castle, the river banks, the medieval town. The first observation I want to make is that in Bill Bryson’s epithet ‘a perfect little city’, the word ‘little’ is not casually thrown in.  It describes what he valued when he came here.  He found a city in which things appeared to be in scale, where there was a sense of proportion about the way Durham had evolved around its historic core.  I made the point earlier that ‘historic cathedral city’ seems to mean a place where urban life is felt as intimate and benign because a sense of neighbourhood can be felt across it and the bonds that tie a community to its place remain strong and close.  Perhaps this is in deliberate contrast to large cities that can be experienced at least in part as alien and threatening wastelands.

Alain de Botton reflects on the power of architecture to degrade its environment, to be less beautiful or useful than the green field on which it was built.  He is realistic about the processes that lead to inappropriate development.  ‘An investigation of the process by which buildings rise reveals that unfortunate cases can in the end always be attributed not to the hand of God, or to any immovable economic or political necessities, or to the entrenched wishes of purchasers, or to some new depths of human depravity, but to a pedestrian combination of low ambition, ignorance, greed and accident.’[7]  The ‘architecture of happiness’ means buildings that disclose to us who and what we could become; our best aspirations for ourselves and for our communities.  Such architecture can be grand or modest, sacred or secular, a castle or a cathedral or a terraced house under a viaduct.  We recognise its honesty and integrity when we see it, and become more humane and more human by inhabiting it.  Bad architecture is, by contrast, ‘a frozen mistake writ large’.  Unlike a bad book or picture or play, mediocre architecture or town planning cannot be ignored.  I am thinking of developments that are dissonant or out of scale with their surroundings, or ugly in themselves, or merely bland and compromise the strong sense of character and individuality that belongs to cities.[8] 

As a relative newcomer to Durham (I have lived and worked here for 9 years), I have to say that what I now see compared to what I remember from visits in the past is not all improvement.  It is true that the city centre is now a much cleaner, livelier, more attractive place than it was in the 1960s.  I do not share the view of some that the reconfiguration of the market square is a mistake (though however flawed the processes may have been, we need to reserve judgment until the works are finished).  Greater mistakes were made much longer ago when high street names like Woolworths, Marks and Spencers and Boots were allowed to create large shop frontages whose ugly expanses of glass violated the intimate scale of the medieval town-centre, obscured the lines of the medieval burgage plots, straightened out the natural movement of the streets and subverted the role of those buildings that ought to have pride of place in a town square, the parish church and the town hall.  These frontages are not irreversible.  It would be possible to respect the context better by creating more varied, narrower, smaller scale frontages that still allowed the footprint of the shop to extend to its full width behind. 

In a ‘historic cathedral city’, scale and proportion are everything.  They matter because of the delicate interplay between the massing of the Castle and Cathedral on their acropolis and the intimate townscape below that acts as an essential foil to them.  This delicacy is at risk in Durham City.  Inevitably, we all have our own list of developments that we either like as genuine enhancements of an evolving working city, or find incomprehensible, inappropriate or downright bad.  The best developments in Durham are those that do not impinge on the historic core or the irreplaceable views to and from the World Heritage Site, or are courageous and innovative enough to hold their own in that setting.  George Pace’s University library overlooking the river behind Palace Green is one example.  Kingsgate Bridge may be another (though I wish I could like it more).  Perhaps even Dunelm House is another: it certainly has hutzpah.  Millennium Square has its virtues: its striking contemporary forms, and the fact that it is invisible until you get there.  The High Street shopping development is formulaic but is discreetly hidden away so it avoids my hit-list.  Like the rest of Durham, it would be much better if there were more independent shops of the kind people like to find and browse in when they come to cathedral cities.  In Chester or York, the shops are almost as good as the cathedrals.  But not in Durham, as visitors point out with a sense of disappointment. If Durham is to be an overnight destination, this aspect of its ‘visitor offer’ needs hard work. 

So far so satisfactory.  The same cannot be said for the cross-river (left bank) developments downstream of Framwellgate Bridge.  Not only have unsurpassed river-front opportunities been lost here, but the scale of these buildings, including the latest of them, the Radisson Hotel, is too obtrusive when viewed from Prebends’ Bridge.  From here, the modern Milburngate road bridge was cunningly designed to be invisible so that all you would see would be the Cathedral and Castle standing proud above the river gorge and its tree canopy, and closing off the view, a medieval bridge.  Now as you descend the incline from the Cathedral towards Framwellgate Bridge the skyline is spoiled by the elevations of the large buildings that lie beyond.  There is a lack of architectural humility and respectfulness on the west bank of the Wear.  The same offence was committed on the other side of the peninsula with the erection of the Prince Bishops car park and shopping centre.  Here, the beautiful view of Elvet Bridge from Kingsgate is compromised by the ungainly mass of Prince Bishops immediately behind, looking like a monumental barn-conversion with a gratuitous green brick fascia to pick out the stairwell externally.  Try photographing Elvet Bridge looking upstream: you cannot get the Prince Bishops out of the frame.  This is homogenisation writ large with the rhetoric of supermarket vernacular, and given what it is an emblem of, the commoditisation of the towscape. Such things can perhaps be accepted at the Arnison Centre or Dragonville.  On the edge of the medieval city-centre, the grandiose should have no place. 

Questions of scale and proportion extend beyond buildings and heritage to the larger issues of the future of Durham.  Here I shall no doubt be controversial.  Under the County’s development plan, it is proposed to make Durham City the engine of the economic development of the County.  This would entail significant population growth, the construction of more than 5000 new houses, many of them on the Green Belt, with all its consequences for road traffic and infrastructure.  It is difficult to see how Durham would remain a ‘little’ city under the Plan.  It would lose much of its genius loci which is not simply the value of the historic core in itself but the compactness of the city and the sense of arrival as you cross the threshold from ‘country’ to ‘town’.  The risk is that our historic cathedral city could collapse into being simply the medieval heart of a large township whose swathes of housing and out of town developments would spread across and obscure the face of a city set in a bowl and surrounded by low green hills.  Once lost, this double heritage of both a natural and a built environment evolved over many centuries would never be recovered.  20th century developments in cathedral cities like Exeter and Peterborough should worry us in case they portend the future of Durham.  As the Guardian writers so eloquently said, it is precisely the littleness of Durham that is part of its appeal.  To my mind, there is much to be said for policies that would re-populate the city centre, get people living once more above the shops and offices, reinstate the human texture and sense of community that belongs to small cities. 

As guardians of our historic cathedral city, we want to be good stewards of our heritage while also recognising what belongs to its authentic evolution as a living working community.  We do not want a chocolate box city that is merely pleasant to look at.  We want a city in which human beings flourish because its institutions, temple, academy, market- place, seat of government, are in a harmonious relationship with one another and with its citizens.  This is how a community realises its best self and knows its city to be a ‘healthy city’, a good place that fosters happiness.  Citizenship means believing in our city in this way and caring about its future, even if that means defending it against the tyranny of the market and its love affair with the grand projet. 

Let me end by quoting a great artist on the experience of living in another historic cathedral city.  Eric Gill moved from Brighton to Chichester when he was a boy: not very far geographically, but spiritually a world away.  ‘Chichester, the human city, the city of God, the place where life and work … were all in one and all in harmony… a town, a city, a thing planned and ordered – no mere congeries of more or less sordid streets, growing like a fungus… Chichester was what Brighton was not, an end…, a place, the product of reason and love… Here was something as human as home and as lovely as heaven.’  It modelled ‘dignity and loveliness… a civilised life… a way of living beautiful and spacious’.[9]  That is my vision for this historic cathedral city. 


Durham, February 2011 (revised June 2012)



[1] Pocock, Douglas, Durham: essays on a sense of place, Durham 1999, 6.
[2] Hudson, Mark, Coming Back Brockens: a year in a mining village, 1994, 121
[3] Threlfall-Holmes, Miranda, Monks and Markets: Durham Cathedral Priory 1460-1520, 2006
[4] Dobson, R. B., Durham Priory 1400-1450, Cambridge 1973, 33.
[5] Ibid, 50.
[6] Bryson, Bill, Notes from a Small Island, 1995, 294-5.
[7] De Botton, Alain, The Architecture of Happiness, London, 2006, 254. 
[8] Lefebvre, Henri, Writings on Cities, Oxford, 1996, 238. 
[9] Cited by Kenyon, Ruth, ‘The Town in Tomorrow’s Christendom’ in Reckitt, Maurice B., Prospect for Christendom: essays in catholic social reconstruction, London 1945, 127-8.