Gisborough Priory

Gisborough Priory is a ruined Augustinian priory in Guisborough in the current borough of Redcar and Cleveland, North Yorkshire, England. It was founded in 1119 as the Priory of St Mary by the Norman feudal magnate Robert de Brus, also an ancestor of the Scottish king, Robert the Bruce. It became one of the richest monastic foundations in England with grants from the crown and bequests from de Brus, other nobles and gentry and local people of more modest means. Much of the Romanesque Norman priory was destroyed in a fire in 1289. It was rebuilt in the Gothic style on a grander scale over the following century. Its remains are regarded as among the finest surviving examples of early Gothic architecture in England.

The priory prospered until the Dissolution of the Monasteries in 1540, when it was abolished along with England's other monastic communities. The priory buildings were demolished and the stone re-used in other buildings in Guisborough. The east end of the priory church was left standing with its great window forming a distinctive arch, a well-known landmark used as a symbol for Guisborough. It became part of the estate of the Chaloner family, who acquired it in 1550. The east window was preserved by them as part of a Romantic vista adjoining their seat, Gisborough Hall, from which the priory takes its idiosyncratically spelled name. It is owned by the Chaloners but is in the care of English Heritage as a scheduled monument.

Since the 19th century archaeological excavations have taken place in the priory grounds, though a substantial part of the site has not yet been investigated. In addition to the east window, surviving visible fragments of the complex include the lower courses of the west range, a vaulted undercroft, a gateway and a 14th-century dovecote still in use today. The adjoining Priory Gardens, laid out by the Chaloners in the 18th century, are under restoration by a volunteer group. The priory ruins and gardens are open to the public throughout the year.

## History

### Establishment

Guisborough was well-established at the time of the priory's founding; the town's name refers to the fortified place of a Scandinavian called Gigr, who may have taken over a site established by the Anglo-Saxons or Romans who lived in the vicinity before the arrival of Vikings in the 8th and 9th centuries. A priest, church and mill were recorded in 1086 in the Domesday Book which refers to the town as "Ghigesburg". Following the Norman Conquest, William the Conqueror gave lands in the area to the Count of Mortain. He passed them to his friend Robert de Brus, Lord of Skelton, one of the largest landowners in the north, owning more than 40,000 acres (160 km2) in Yorkshire alone. William's Harrying of the North left the region in a severely depressed and depopulated state. There were few monasteries north of the River Humber and opportunities existed for new agricultural and religious developments. The Augustinian order came to England at the start of the 12th century and established houses in England, including major ones at Bridlington, Nostell and Kirkham. They were communities of canons living under the rule of St. Augustine, wearing dark robes that earned them the name the "Black Canons".

According to the priory's founding charter, Robert de Brus "founded a certain Monastery of a religious order in Gysburne  [sic], to the honour of God, and the holy Virgin Mary". He gave "to the same Church and the service of God in it, all Gysburne, with all things pertaining thereto it". The gift included lands amounting to twenty carucates and two oxgangs (roughly equivalent to about 2,500 acres (10 km2)), churches, mills and other possessions, and grants from others. The charter started that the endowment was to provide "material for ever for their buildings, and all other necessities of their house". The foundation was authorised by Pope Calixtus II and Thurstan, Archbishop of York. De Brus may have been emulating his peers in Yorkshire, who had founded monastic institutions for their religious obligations. The date of the foundation is unclear. The 14th-century canon and historian Walter of Guisborough gives it as 1129, but a charter of confirmation from Pope Calixtus dates to the period of his pontificate between 1119–24. The priory may have had two foundation charters, a shorter one dating possibly to 1119 and a detailed one dating to 1129 that may have been the definitive document. Robert de Brus appointed his younger brother, William de Brus, to be the first Prior of Gisborough and the Brus family continued to be the primary patrons of the priory and have a strong influence there.

The rights and privileges of the prior and canons grew over the centuries added to by royal grants. Henry III granted the rights of soc and sac, thol and theam and infangtheof. He established a Monday market at Guisborough and the right to hold an annual three-day fair to mark the feast of the Assumption (15 August). The proceeds and fees from these events supported the priory. The prior and canons were granted free warren in the lands around Guisborough and several nearby villages which was extended to more demesnes by Edward III, who permitted them to convert 80 acres (320,000 m2) of land into a deer park (now Park Wood). Henry IV gave them the twice-yearly right of frankpledge, the right of waif and stray and the return of briefs and writs which gave the priory a steady income from rents, fines, licences and other fees. The canons of Guisborough owned 4,000 sheep, mostly in Eskdale, in the 13th and 14th century.

The priory became known for its strict observance of the Augustinian rule and religious precepts. Its reputation for ducentes canonicam vitam ("living a canonical life") attracted Saint Malachy from Ireland who, as Saint Bernard of Clairvaux had a long and close involvement with Gisborough. The canons were closely associated with the Cistercians who, like the Augustianians, had a reformist outlook. One Gisborough canon, William of Newminster, moved to the Cistercia's Fountains Abbey to become its abbot. The priory was supported by the local people and records survive of numerous small grants, related to the almonry (the place or chamber where alms were distributed to the poor) and to support building work. The canons leased, bought and sold land and loaned money using property grants as collateral to benefit the priory's building fund. As the priory became more wealthy, discipline among its canons slipped and the Archbishops of York found it necessary to take corrective action in the late 13th century. A number of canons were sent to Kirkham and Bridlington for correction and Gisborough in turn took in disobedient canons from other places. The priory also became embroiled in a dispute with a local landowner, Robert de Thweng, who raided its properties and tithe barns in 1232 under the alias of "Will Wither", in the course of a dispute with the priory over the advowson of Kirkleatham parish church.

On 16 May 1289, the priory suffered a catastrophic fire. According to an account by Walter of Guisborough, a plumber soldering the lead roof forgot to put out his fire, causing the roof timbers to catch fire and molten lead ran down into the church below. Much of the building was destroyed and many effects, costly books, chalices and vestments were lost. The canons sought to raise funds for rebuilding. They petitioned the king to grant them the advowsons of the parish churches of Barnham, Easington and Heslerton, and in 1309 and 1311 the Archbishop of York and the Bishop of Durham rewarded the priory's donors with indulgences granting remission of temporal punishment for sins. Most of the nave and chancel was rebuilt with the support of the de Brus family, whose coat of arms was displayed on its buildings.

Rebuilding probably took around a century to complete. Work was slowed by high costs and civil unrest in the early 14th century, when Scottish raiders repeatedly plundered the north of England. The priory's lands were reduced in value by the raids, diminishing its income. Its wealth was tapped by Archbishop Melton of York to make good his own losses in 1319, and in 1320 it had to take in refugees from monastic houses that had been forced to disperse to escape the raiders. Probably as a consequence of the troubles, in 1328 the priory petitioned the king to be exempted from the "clerical tenth" (a 10% tax on clerical property) and in 1344 it was granted permission to fortify its buildings. By 1380 its staff had diminished to 26 canons and two lay brothers.

The Yorkshire line of the de Brus family died out with the death of the childless Peter IV de Brus in 1272 but the priory was still patronised by the local nobility. The Fauconberg and Thweng families, who married Peter's sisters Agnes and Lucia, took over the patronage which continued for several centuries. Many prominent local nobles were buried there, as was the Scottish Robert V de Brus, grandfather of King Robert the Bruce. At least nine patrons and their families were buried in the priory between 1295 and 1411. The priory received substantial financial support from its patrons; in 1381 William, Lord Latimer provided funds to complete the north nave and donated £333 6s 8d (roughly equivalent to £1.6 million today) for a new belfry. He left the priory cattle from his manor at Ugthorpe, bequeathed a range of religious items, and made arrangements for his body to be interred there on his death.

### Dissolution and after

In 1533 Henry VIII of England was excommunicated for divorcing Catherine of Aragon. The Act of Supremacy passed in 1534 declared Henry Supreme Head of the Church of England and the church's estate in England became part of the king's estate. In 1535 Henry ordered a comprehensive survey of the church's property, the Valor Ecclesiasticus. It found that Gisborough Priory had an annual net value of £628.6s.8d., which made it the fourth wealthiest monastic house in Yorkshire. In 1536 monasteries with less than £200 of annual income were suppressed, exempting the priory from the first wave of suppression.

A second survey carried out by the king's commissioners, Thomas Legh and Richard Leyton, provided for the final suppression on charges of a lack of quality of religious life. Prior James Cockerell of Guisborough was forced to resign and was replaced by Robert Pursglove, who was loyal to the king. The priory's dissolution was not welcomed by locals, who derived economic benefit from its presence – in 1536, around 500 families depended on it for their livelihood. The strength of feeling was recorded in a letter from Lord Conyers and Sir John Bulmer to Thomas Cromwell: "On Sunday, 11th  July [1539], at Gysburn in Yorkshire, when the parish priest was declaring the articles [of dissolution] directed by the King to the Archbishop of York, one John Atkeynson alias Brotton came violently and took book forth of the priest's hands, and pulled it in pieces." Popular discontent sparked the Pilgrimage of Grace, in which Prior Cockerell was implicated. When the revolt failed, he was hanged at Tyburn in London with the Prior of Bridlington, the Abbot of Jervaulx and the former Abbot of Fountains.

The priory was formally dissolved on 8 April 1540 and surrendered to the king's men on 22 December 1540, making it one of the last monastic houses in England to be suppressed. A proposal to found a secular college there came to nothing and the priory buildings – with the exception of the gatehouses and the great east window – were demolished. On 21 November 1541 Thomas Legh was granted a lease "of the buildings with the site and precincts of the Priory to be then demolished and carried away." Demolition was carried out by collapsing its central tower into the body of the church, crushing it in its fall and reducing it to rubble.

The site and lands were re-let in 1550 to Sir Thomas Chaloner, who later purchased the property outright. The Chaloners occupied the former priors' quarters in the west range before moving to their new mansion, Old Gisborough Hall, on Bow Street in the late-17th century. The priory remains were cleared and the fallen stonework looted or sold. The grounds were redeveloped as formal gardens within the grounds of Old Gisborough Hall. John Walker Ord, a local historian in the mid-19th century, described how the priory's stonework could be seen in many buildings around Guisborough. He deplored the profane uses to which it had been put:

> I have seen with my own eyes broken pillars and pedestals of this august pile desecrated to the vile uses of gateposts, stands for rainwater casks, and stepping-stones over a common sewer. A richly ornamented doorway of the venerable priory forms the entrance to a privy. I have beheld with sorrow, shame, and indignation, the richly ornamented columns and carved architraves of God's temple supporting the thatch of a pig-house.

Some fragments of the priory travelled further afield. At Hardwick Hall near Sedgefield, a mock ruin was built incorporating sculptured stones brought from the priory. The priory's wealth became the stuff of local legends, one of which claimed an underground passage led from the priory to a cave under the hills in which a raven stood guard over a chest of gold.

The priory's lands around Guisborough were a source of wealth for the Chaloners. Around 1595, Sir Thomas Chaloner's son, also called Thomas, established England's first alum works at Belman Bank south of the town. Alum was an important product with a variety of industrial uses. It was especially important to the cloth industry as a mordant (a substance used to fix dyes on cloth). The supply of alum was controlled by a cartel controlled by the Papal States and Spain which were in conflict with England and exercised a virtual monopoly on the provision of alum to Christian Europe, as the import of cheaper Turkish alum was banned by Pope Paul II in the mid-15th century. Chaloner visited the Pope's alum works at Tolfa near Rome and noticed the soil and vegetation around them resembled those of his estate at Guisborough. On his return he established alum works at Belman Bank with the aid of workmen smuggled from Rome, earning him a papal excommunication. John Walker Ord casts doubt on the story, noting an account published a few decades afterwards stated that the workmen came from France and does not mention Chaloner's travels in Italy.

The only substantial part of the priory to survive was the eastern gable of the presbytery with its great east window. Its survival owed much to the rise of Romanticism in the 18th century. The portrayal of ruined buildings in idealised landscapes by and his contemporaries inspired a fashion for the nobility and gentry to produce paintings of monasteries providing an incentive for landowners to preserve them as romantic ruins, rather than using them as quarries. Gisborough Priory's east window was one of the first examples of a monastic ruin to be retained for its visual qualities. It was incorporated into the grounds of Old Gisborough Hall as a romantic ruin and the sill of the great window removed to ensure an uninterrupted view. Fittingly, given his role in inspiring the east window's preservation, Turner himself sketched it in 1801 during a visit to Yorkshire.

East Lawn was laid out in front of the east window and was used for grand bazaars and fêtes until the early 20th century. A ha-ha was installed behind to keep cattle out of the grounds. To the south of the priory buildings the Long Terrace ran almost the full length of the grounds. It afforded access to the ruins via a flight of steps flanked by two carved demi-sea wolves, reflecting the coat of arms of the Chaloners. They were thought to be dragons by local people and the steps were referred to as the Dragon Steps.

Old Gisborough Hall was demolished around 1825 and the Chaloners built a mansion house, Gisborough Hall, about half a mile to the east in 1857. In 1932, Thomas Chaloner, 2nd Baron Gisborough transferred control of the priory to the Office of Works. which became the responsibility of the Ministry of Works, then the Department of the Environment and from 1984, English Heritage. It remains the property of Lord Gisborough; English Heritage is responsible for maintaining the ruins, while day-to-day running is managed by Redcar and Cleveland Borough Council.

According to folklore, the priory is haunted by the ghost of a monk in a black habit who returns annually to check that its buried treasure has not been disturbed. He is said to arrive at midnight on the year's first new moon to lower a ghostly drawbridge spanning a vanished moat. In 1966 and 1967 a hundred people turned out to watch and allegedly managed to spot a cowled figure, but in 1968 the few spectators who turned up saw nothing.

## Description of the priory buildings

Gisborough Priory is characterised by a few highly visible remains. The priory church survives in a fragmentary state, dominated by the east wall of the presbytery that stands to its full height. Several of the priory church's column bases can also be seen, as can a number of excavated graves within the presbytery. Elsewhere on the site, the outline of the cloister is visible but is largely unexcavated, while the ruins of the west (or cellarer's) range constitutes the largest area of other remains above ground. A ruined gatehouse and a still-intact dovecote (the latter off-limits to visitors) stand on the western edges of the site.

### Priory church

The remains of the priory church are dominated by the eastern gable wall of the presbytery that still stands to its full height. Its great east window is regarded as one of the finest examples of late-13th-century church architecture. The design is so close to that of the eastern arm of Ripon Cathedral, which was built around the same time, that it is thought to have been modelled on Ripon's design. The window's tracery has disappeared, as has its sill, but from the stubs and surviving fragments it can be deduced that it had seven major lights (the glazed openings in the window). At its centre was a great circle of tracery filled with trefoiled lights. The main gable of the east wall is flanked by massive buttresses capped with gables and octagonal pinnacles. A similar pair of pinnacles top the main gable, flanking a window of unusual design; a bracket projects from the lower lobe to support a statue (no longer present), possibly of the Virgin Mary, to whom the priory was dedicated.

Little remains above ground of the rest of the priory, but much can be deduced from the surviving stonework. In its final form the priory church had a nave of eight bays and a quire and presbytery of nine bays, with a total length of 351 feet (107 m). The survival of the east wall allows us to deduce that the ridge line of the roof stood 97 feet (29.6 m) above ground. The presbytery's arcades were supported by eight clustered shafts, the bases of which are still visible, with capitals carved with naturalistic foliage. The clerestory and triforium were combined into a single arch with the main arcade below. The presbytery's high vault was executed in stone with bosses decorated in red and white paint and gold leaf, traces of which were still visible when several of the bosses were found in the 19th century. The eastern bay of the presbytery was divided into several chapels and the remnants of parclose screens are visible on the main aisle's north and south responds. The main altar would have stood a short distance to the west, behind a tall screen.

At the angle of each aisle, a spiral staircase – still visible on each side of the surviving east wall – gave access to a passage inside the walls and to secondary stairs within the angles of the main gable enabling access to all parts of the building for maintenance and cleaning without requiring scaffolding. Nothing remains of the north or south transepts, which extended on the north side beyond the present boundary wall into the graveyard of St Nicholas's Church.

Several burials (presumably of high-ranking benefactors and clergy) were made within the priory and 19th-century archaeologists found stone coffins during excavations. They are visible against the east wall, but their original location was not recorded. Two centrally placed grave slabs are visible below the east window. The priory once housed the Brus cenotaph, a memorial to its founders erected in 1521. It was removed in 1540 and dismantled. Most of its parts were recovered and reassembled in the 19th century, and the reconstructed cenotaph is displayed in Saint Nicholas' Church next to the ruins.

The priory church housed a shrine to the Virgin Mary which one of the most significant Marian shrines in the north, along with others at Walsingham, Lincoln, Scarborough, Jesmond and Carlisle. Although it was destroyed during the Reformation along with the priory, it was revived in 1949 by Father Arthur Mercer, Guisborough's first Roman Catholic parish priest for 400 years, and is housed in the town's St Paulinus Church.

### Ranges and cloister

Fragments of other buildings associated with the priory can be seen on the site. There was a cloister measuring 120 feet (36.5 m) square to the south of the priory church surrounded by domestic buildings or ranges. They replaced an earlier cloister and ranges destroyed in the fire of 1289 rebuilt to a new, larger, design. Processional doors on the cloister's north wall gave access to the nave of the church. In 1854, surviving arches and columns from the cloister were taken to London for display in the Crystal Palace where they provided the basis for a reconstruction of a medieval cloister in the "English National Art Court" section of the exhibition.

Fragments of the west range – the cellarer's range – are extant. It was entered from the west by an outer parlour, projecting from the north end of the range, where members of the community received visitors. The prior lived on the upper floor which comprised a hall, chamber and chapel dedicated to Saint Hilda. The prior's rooms were probably located above the outer parlour, as was the pattern at other monasteries, accessing the cloister and the outside world. The largest surviving fragment of the range comprises a cellarium or storehouse where supplies were kept. It is a vaulted undercroft of nine bays constructed from stone ashlar with its floor level below that of the cloister. It is relatively well-preserved and believed to have been divided by timber partitions which were later replaced in stone.

Most of the refectory (dining hall) range to the south of the cloister and the dorter range to the east, which contained the chapter house and dormitory, have yet to be excavated. Only the western end of the refectory range has been excavated; it presents a vaulted undercroft, three bays of which survive, above which the refectory was located on the first floor. A service passage survives between the kitchen and the refectory. The western part of the undercroft was used as a buttery in the late Middle Ages but would have had severely restricted headroom due to its raised floor.

### Outer buildings

The priory buildings stood at the centre of a walled precinct arranged in two courts, inner and outer with gatehouses at the entrances to both; the remains of the great gate of the inner court are extant but the outer gatehouse no longer survives. The gate comprised an outer porch, an inner gatehall and a porter's lodge on the ground floor with chambers above the arch. It survived intact into the early 18th century but only the outer porch remains. The structure consists of a single large round-headed archway on the outer side with two smaller arches of different sizes, both deeply rebated to accommodate doors, a few metres to the south. The larger arch was for wagons while pedestrians entered through the smaller arch. Little remains of the gatehall or the porter's lodge; the only remnants visible are the stub of its north wall and a latrine shaft.

The canons built an octagonal dovecote a short distance to the west of the west range. The dovecote is extant, though it cannot be visited and is not part of the priory grounds. Built in the 14th century, it was modified in the mid-18th century with the addition of a pyramidal roof tiled with Welsh slate and capped with an open-sided timber cupola. The original nesting boxes have been removed and the dovecote is used as a garden store.

### Older buildings on the site

Gisborough Priory was rebuilt three times; the ruins visible today are principally those of the third rebuild. The site was occupied in Anglo-Saxon times by at least one structure, possibly a timber-framed church or boundary wall, indicated by a number of postholes. It is believed there was a Saxon settlement in the vicinity as late-Saxon potsherds and an 8th-century coin have been found buried under the remains of the priory's west nave. The site was abandoned at some point and by the time the priory was built the land on which it stood was mostly under cultivation. Part of it was used as a graveyard in the early 12th century and an early Norman building was erected in the vicinity, possibly a temporary church.

The Norman priory, completed around 1180, was relatively short and narrow. It was constructed in the Romanesque style with twin aisles either side of the nave and a single tower at the west end, aligned with the main axis of the church. It could be entered from the north, via an external door, and the south via the cloister. The existence of the northward door suggests it was used by a secular congregation, possibly the local nobility and patrons. A number of graves associated with the first priory have been found in the south aisle's floor and against the north wall.

The priory was rebuilt around 1200 on a larger scale with the Romanesque church demolished to its first course of ashlar. The construction of the new church continued through much of the 13th century. The enlarged priory had twin towers at the west end flanking a large double doorway above which was a central rose window; piped water was provided using lead pipes from the cloister, under the church to buildings or standpipes to the north or west of the priory. The main body of the church comprised a nave with two aisles, transepts and a choir. The aisles were laid with geometric coloured tiles adjoining the sandstone columns of the nave. The north aisle was divided into alcoves or private chapels where a number of people – probably local nobles and gentry – were buried. An unusual feature of the church was a well, sunk into the nave, possibly built in an effort to safeguard its water supplies.

The effects of the fire that destroyed the priory in 1289 can be seen in scorched paving between the surviving pillars. It was thought the church had been completely rebuilt, but excavations in the 1980s show that a substantial amount of the less damaged west end was reused which resulted in a distinct inconsistency between the two ends, which were constructed in different architectural styles. Rebuilding was a major task that took several generations and was probably not completed until the end of the 14th century. It is unclear how much of the second priory survived the fire. Where the priory was rebuilt, its builders reused as much as possible; the core of the surviving eastern gable wall is full of fragments from the destroyed second priory.

### Priory Gardens and Monks' Pond

Land immediately south of the priory was used by the Chaloners for formal gardens attached to Old Gisborough Hall. In the early 18th century they planted an oval-shaped double avenue of trees, the Monks' Walk, where stonework recovered from mid-19th century excavations was deposited. In between the trees was a manicured lawn used to hold musical and theatrical productions. The Monks' Walk fell into disuse and became overgrown but is under restoration by the Gisborough Priory Project.

In the late 19th century, Margaret Chaloner, wife of the first Lord Gisborough, laid out formal gardens of a typical late-Victorian and Edwardian design with elaborate bedding schemes and gravelled paths. There was a rose garden and a sunken Italian garden with an ornamental pool at its centre. They were open to the public for a small fee and could be entered through a gateway on Bow Street. The gardens are now freely accessible.

Further east, off the Whitby Road, is the Monks' Pond, the canons' fish pond. It presents a dramatic vista in which the priory arch is reflected and has often been photographed and painted. In 1908, the pond was the scene of an elaborate water tableau organised by Lady Gisborough to raise funds for the restoration of St Nicholas' Church. The pond was home to a number of exceptionally large fish, but pollution in 2000 caused by a sewage leak led to the death of more than 5,000 fish.

### Other properties owned by the priory

The priory was responsible for St Leonard's leper hospital at Hutton Lowcross to the south-west of Guisborough. The hospital was probably founded in the 12th century and became a dependency of the priory in 1275. It was last documented in 1339. Its fate is unclear but it probably survived until the Dissolution in 1540. Archaeological excavations in a field near Hutton Village in the 1960s did not find definite evidence of the leper hospital.

The priory may also have owned a cell at Scarth Wood at Whorlton. A grant issued by Stephen de Meynell in the reign of Henry I records the donation of the hamlet of Scarth to enable the priory to establish a cell for habitation by a single monk or canon. It is unclear whether the cell was built as Scarth is not mentioned in the priory's deeds or in Henry VIII's commissioners' valuation of its property. Fragmentary building remains at Scarth are recorded as existing in the mid-18th century. They were cleared by the start of the 19th century so there is no trace of whatever might once have stood there or indication of what it might have been used for.

## Excavations

In 1865–1867 Captain Thomas Chaloner and William Downing Bruce carried out the first major excavation by cutting a trench across the site. A number of features were discovered, including a stone coffin containing the skeleton of a tall man thought to be Robert de Brus, the remnants of a monumental shrine and painted roof bosses. Evidence of the 1289 fire was discovered in the form of pieces of fused metal – an amalgam of lead, silver and iron that had melted and penetrated the floor in the heat of the fire. The Office of Works carried out excavations in 1932 in conjunction with work to consolidate the walls and grounds so they could be opened to the public. Further work was carried out by Roy Gilyard Beer between 1947–54 for the Ministry of Works, which exposed more of the site and cleared material from the 19th century.

In 1985–86 Cleveland County Archaeology Section carried out a major excavation of the west end of the nave to consolidate an area of subsidence. Its cause was the collapse of an unrecorded burial vault. The excavations found more evidence of the fire of 1289 including scorched masonry, a shattered bell and broken grave-slabs. The remains of 47 people – 21 men, 17 women, 6 children and 3 of undetermined gender – were discovered, some of whom had been buried with grave goods including a gold finger ring and jet crosses. Two chalices and patens were found alongside the remains of two priests. The skeletons were cremated and the ashes scattered in the Monks' Walk in the Priory Gardens. A geophysical survey carried out to the west and east of the west range indicated the existence of the remains of other monastic buildings which have yet to be excavated.

## Priors

Between its establishment and its dissolution, 24 priors were recorded holding office at Gisborough Priory. Their names and dates of taking office or periods when they held office, where known, were as follows:

- William de Brus (1119–45?)
- Cuthbert (1146–54)
- Ralph (1174?–80)
- Roald (1199–?)
- Lawrence (1211–12)
- Michael (1218–34)
- John (1239–51, 1257)
- Simon (date uncertain)
- Ralph de Irton (1262)
- Adam de Newland (1280)
- William de Middleburgh (1281)
- Robert de Wilton (1320–1)
- John de Darlington (1346)
- John de Horeworth or Hurworth (1364–93)
- Walter de Thorp (1393)
- John de Helmesley (1408)
- John Thweng (1425)
- Richard Ayreton (1437)
- Richard de Hoton (1452)
- Thomas Darlington (1455)
- John Moreby (1475)
- John Whitby (1491–1505)
- John Moreby (1505)
- William Spires (1511)
- James Cockerill (1519–1534?)
- Robert Pursglove (1537, 1539)

## Other burials

- William Neville, 1st Earl of Kent
- John Lumley, 4th Baron Lumley
- William de Brus, 3rd Lord of Annandale
- Robert de Brus, 4th Lord of Annandale
- Isabella of Gloucester and Hertford
- Robert de Brus, 5th Lord of Annandale
- William Latimer, 4th Baron Latimer

Ruined Augustinian priory in Guisborough, North Yorkshire, England

Buildings and structures in Redcar and Cleveland

Christian monasteries established in the 12th century

English Heritage sites in North Yorkshire

Monasteries dissolved under the English Reformation

Religious organizations established in the 1110s


G-spot

The G-spot, also called the Gräfenberg spot (for German gynecologist Ernst Gräfenberg), is characterized as an erogenous area of the vagina that, when stimulated, may lead to strong sexual arousal, powerful orgasms and potential female ejaculation. It is typically reported to be located 5–8 cm (2–3 in) up the front (anterior) vaginal wall between the vaginal opening and the urethra and is a sensitive area that may be part of the female prostate.

The existence of the G-spot has not been proven, nor has the source of female ejaculation. Although the G-spot has been studied since the 1940s, disagreement persists over its existence as a distinct structure, definition and location. The G-spot may be an extension of the clitoris, which together may be the cause of orgasms experienced vaginally. Sexologists and other researchers are concerned that women may consider themselves to be dysfunctional if they do not experience G-spot stimulation, and emphasize that not experiencing it is normal.

## Theorized structure

### Location

Two primary methods have been used to define and locate the G-spot as a sensitive area in the vagina: self-reported levels of arousal during stimulation, and stimulation of the G-spot leading to female ejaculation. Ultrasound technology has also been used to identify physiological differences between women, and changes to the G-spot region during sexual activity.

The location of the G-spot is typically reported as being about 50 to 80 mm (2 to 3 in) inside the vagina, on the front wall. For some women, stimulating this area creates a more intense orgasm than clitoral stimulation. The G-spot area has been described as needing direct stimulation, such as two fingers pressed deeply into it. Attempting to stimulate the area through sexual penetration, especially in the missionary position, is difficult because of the particular angle of penetration required.

### Vagina and clitoris

Women usually need direct clitoral stimulation in order to orgasm, and G-spot stimulation may be best achieved by using both manual stimulation and vaginal penetration. A yoni massage also includes manual stimulation of the G-spot.

Sex toys are available for G-spot stimulation. One common sex toy is the specially-designed G-spot vibrator, which is a phallus-like vibrator that has a curved tip and attempts to make G-spot stimulation easy. G-spot vibrators are made from the same materials as regular vibrators, ranging from hard plastic, rubber, silicone, jelly, or any combination of them. The level of vaginal penetration when using a G-spot vibrator depends on the woman, because women's physiology is not always the same. The effects of G-spot stimulation when using the penis or a G-spot vibrator may be enhanced by additionally stimulating other erogenous zones on a woman's body, such as the clitoris or vulva as a whole. When using a G-spot vibrator, this may be done by manually stimulating the clitoris, including by using the vibrator as a clitoral vibrator, or, if the vibrator is designed for it, by applying it so that it stimulates the head of the clitoris, the rest of the vulva and the vagina simultaneously.

A 1981 case study reported that stimulation of the anterior vaginal wall made the area grow by fifty percent and that self-reported levels of arousal/orgasm were deeper when the G-spot was stimulated. Another study, in 1983, examined eleven women by palpating the entire vagina in a clockwise fashion, and reported a specific response to stimulation of the anterior vaginal wall in four of the women, concluding that the area is the G-spot. In a 1990 study, an anonymous questionnaire was distributed to 2,350 professional women in the United States and Canada with a subsequent 55% return rate. Of these respondents, 40% reported having a fluid release (ejaculation) at the moment of orgasm, and 82% of the women who reported the sensitive area (Gräfenberg spot) also reported ejaculation with their orgasms. Several variables were associated with this perceived existence of female ejaculation.

Some research suggests that G-spot and clitoral orgasms are of the same origin. Masters and Johnson were the first to determine that the clitoral structures surround and extend along and within the labia. Upon studying women's sexual response cycle to different stimulation, they observed that both clitoral and vaginal orgasms had the same stages of physical response, and found that the majority of their subjects could only achieve clitoral orgasms, while a minority achieved vaginal orgasms. On this basis, Masters and Johnson argued that clitoral stimulation is the source of both kinds of orgasms, reasoning that the clitoris is stimulated during penetration by friction against its hood.

Researchers at the University of L'Aquila, using ultrasonography, presented evidence that women who experience vaginal orgasms are statistically more likely to have thicker tissue in the anterior vaginal wall. The researchers believe these findings make it possible for women to have a rapid test to confirm whether or not they have a G-spot. Professor of genetic epidemiology, Tim Spector, who co-authored research questioning the existence of the G-spot and finalized it in 2009, also hypothesizes thicker tissue in the G-spot area; he states that this tissue may be part of the clitoris and is not a separate erogenous zone.

Supporting Spector's conclusion is a study published in 2005 which investigates the size of the clitoris – it suggests that clitoral tissue extends into the anterior wall of the vagina. The main researcher of the studies, Australian urologist Helen O'Connell, asserts that this interconnected relationship is the physiological explanation for the conjectured G-spot and experience of vaginal orgasms, taking into account the stimulation of the internal parts of the clitoris during vaginal penetration. While using MRI technology, O'Connell noted a direct relationship between the legs or roots of the clitoris and the erectile tissue of the "clitoral bulbs" and corpora, and the distal urethra and vagina. "The vaginal wall is, in fact, the clitoris," said O'Connell. "If you lift the skin off the vagina on the side walls, you get the bulbs of the clitoris – triangular, crescental masses of erectile tissue." O'Connell et al., who performed dissections on the female genitals of cadavers and used photography to map the structure of nerves in the clitoris, were already aware that the clitoris is more than just its glans and asserted in 1998 that there is more erectile tissue associated with the clitoris than is generally described in anatomical textbooks. They concluded that some females have more extensive clitoral tissues and nerves than others, especially having observed this in young cadavers as compared to elderly ones, and therefore whereas the majority of females can only achieve orgasm by direct stimulation of the external parts of the clitoris, the stimulation of the more generalized tissues of the clitoris via intercourse may be sufficient for others.

French researchers Odile Buisson and Pierre Foldès reported similar findings to those of O'Connell's. In 2008, they published the first complete 3D sonography of the stimulated clitoris, and republished it in 2009 with new research, demonstrating the ways in which erectile tissue of the clitoris engorges and surrounds the vagina. On the basis of this research, they argued that women may be able to achieve vaginal orgasm via stimulation of the G-spot because the highly innervated clitoris is pulled closely to the anterior wall of the vagina when the woman is sexually aroused and during vaginal penetration. They assert that since the front wall of the vagina is inextricably linked with the internal parts of the clitoris, stimulating the vagina without activating the clitoris may be next to impossible. In their 2009 published study, the "coronal planes during perineal contraction and finger penetration demonstrated a close relationship between the root of the clitoris and the anterior vaginal wall". Buisson and Foldès suggested "that the special sensitivity of the lower anterior vaginal wall could be explained by pressure and movement of clitoris's root during a vaginal penetration and subsequent perineal contraction".

### Female prostate

In 2001, the Federative Committee on Anatomical Terminology accepted female prostate as a second term for the Skene's gland, which is believed to be found in the G-spot area along the walls of the urethra. The male prostate is biologically homologous to the Skene's gland; it has been unofficially called the male G-spot because it can also be used as an erogenous zone.

Regnier de Graaf, in 1672, observed that the secretions (female ejaculation) by the erogenous zone in the vagina lubricate "in agreeable fashion during coitus". Modern scientific hypotheses linking G-spot sensitivity with female ejaculation led to the idea that non-urine female ejaculate may originate from the Skene's gland, with the Skene's gland and male prostate acting similarly in terms of prostate-specific antigen and prostate-specific acid phosphatase studies, which led to a trend of calling the Skene's glands the female prostate. Additionally, the enzyme PDE5 (involved with erectile dysfunction) has additionally been associated with the G-spot area. Because of these factors, it has been argued that the G-spot is a system of glands and ducts located within the anterior (front) wall of the vagina. A similar approach has linked the G-spot with the urethral sponge.

## Clinical significance

G-spot amplification (also called G-spot augmentation or the G-Shot) is a procedure intended to temporarily increase pleasure in sexually active women with normal sexual function, focusing on increasing the size and sensitivity of the G-spot. G-spot amplification is performed by attempting to locate the G-spot and noting measurements for future reference. After numbing the area with a local anesthetic, human engineered collagen is then injected directly under the mucosa in the area the G-spot is concluded to be in.

A position paper published by the American College of Obstetricians and Gynecologists in 2007 warns that there is no valid medical reason to perform the procedure, which is not considered routine or accepted by the College; and it has not been proven to be safe or effective. The potential risks include sexual dysfunction, infection, altered sensation, dyspareunia, adhesions and scarring. The College position is that it is untenable to recommend the procedure. The procedure is also not approved by the Food and Drug Administration or the American Medical Association, and no peer-reviewed studies have been accepted to account for either safety or effectiveness of this treatment.

## Society and culture

### General skepticism

In addition to general skepticism among gynecologists, sexologists and other researchers that the G-spot exists, a team at King's College London in late 2009 suggested that its existence is subjective. They acquired the largest sample size of women to date – 1,800 – who are pairs of twins, and found that the twins did not report a similar G-spot in their questionnaires. The research, headed by Tim Spector, documents a 15-year study of the twins, identical and non-identical. According to the researchers, if one identical twin reported having a G-spot, it was more likely that the other would too, but this pattern did not materialize. Study co-author Andrea Burri believes: "It is rather irresponsible to claim the existence of an entity that has never been proven and pressurise women and men too." She stated that one of the reasons for the research was to remove feelings of "inadequacy or underachievement" for women who feared they lacked a G-spot. Researcher Beverly Whipple dismissed the findings, commenting that twins have different sexual partners and techniques, and that the study did not properly account for lesbian or bisexual women.

Petra Boynton, a British scientist who has written extensively on the G-spot debate, is also concerned about the promotion of the G-spot leading women to feel "dysfunctional" if they do not experience it. "We're all different. Some women will have a certain area within the vagina which will be very sensitive, and some won't — but they won't necessarily be in the area called the G spot," she stated. "If a woman spends all her time worrying about whether she is normal, or has a G spot or not, she will focus on just one area, and ignore everything else. It's telling people that there is a single, best way to have sex, which isn't the right thing to do."

### Nerve endings

G-spot proponents are criticized for giving too much credence to anecdotal evidence, and for questionable investigative methods; for instance, the studies which have yielded positive evidence for a precisely located G-spot involve small participant samples. While the existence of a greater concentration of nerve endings at the lower third (near the entrance) of the vagina is commonly cited, some scientific examinations of vaginal wall innervation have shown no single area with a greater density of nerve endings.

Several researchers also consider the connection between the Skene's gland and the G-spot to be weak. The urethral sponge, however, which is also hypothesized as the G-spot, contains sensitive nerve endings and erectile tissue. Sensitivity is not determined by neuron density alone: other factors include the branching patterns of neuron terminals and cross or collateral innervation of neurons. While G-spot opponents argue that because there are very few tactile nerve endings in the vagina and that therefore the G-spot cannot exist, G-spot proponents argue that vaginal orgasms rely on pressure-sensitive nerves.

### Clitoral and other anatomical debates

The G-spot having an anatomical relationship with the clitoris has been challenged by Vincenzo Puppo, who, while agreeing that the clitoris is the center of female sexual pleasure, disagrees with Helen O'Connell and other researchers' terminological and anatomical descriptions of the clitoris. He stated, "Clitoral bulbs is an incorrect term from an embryological and anatomical viewpoint, in fact the bulbs do not develop from the phallus, and they do not belong to the clitoris." He says that clitoral bulbs "is not a term used in human anatomy" and that vestibular bulbs is the correct term, adding that gynecologists and sexual experts should inform the public with facts instead of hypotheses or personal opinions. "[C]litoral/vaginal/uterine orgasm, G/A/C/U spot orgasm, and female ejaculation, are terms that should not be used by sexologists, women, and mass media," he said, further commenting that the "anterior vaginal wall is separated from the posterior urethral wall by the urethrovaginal septum (its thickness is 10–12 mm)" and that the "inner clitoris" does not exist. "The female perineal urethra, which is located in front of the anterior vaginal wall, is about one centimeter in length and the G-spot is located in the pelvic wall of the urethra, 2–3 cm into the vagina," Puppo stated. He believes that the penis cannot come in contact with the congregation of multiple nerves/veins situated until the angle of the clitoris, detailed by Georg Ludwig Kobelt, or with the roots of the clitoris, which do not have sensory receptors or erogenous sensitivity, during vaginal intercourse. He did, however, dismiss the orgasmic definition of the G-spot that emerged after Ernst Gräfenberg, stating that "there is no anatomical evidence of the vaginal orgasm which was invented by Freud in 1905, without any scientific basis".

Puppo's belief that there is no anatomical relationship between the vagina and clitoris is contrasted by the general belief among researchers that vaginal orgasms are the result of clitoral stimulation; they maintain that clitoral tissue extends, or is at least likely stimulated by the clitoral bulbs, even in the area most commonly reported to be the G-spot. "My view is that the G-spot is really just the extension of the clitoris on the inside of the vagina, analogous to the base of the male penis," said researcher Amichai Kilchevsky. Because female fetal development is the "default" direction of fetal development in the absence of substantial exposure to male hormones and therefore the penis is essentially a clitoris enlarged by such hormones, Kilchevsky believes that there is no evolutionary reason why females would have two separate structures capable of producing orgasms and blames the porn industry and "G-spot promoters" for "encouraging the myth" of a distinct G-spot.

The general difficulty of achieving vaginal orgasms, which is a predicament that is likely due to nature easing the process of childbearing by drastically reducing the number of vaginal nerve endings, challenge arguments that vaginal orgasms help encourage sexual intercourse in order to facilitate reproduction. O'Connell stated that focusing on the G-spot to the exclusion of the rest of a woman's body is "a bit like stimulating a guy's testicles without touching the penis and expecting an orgasm to occur just because love is present". She stated that it "is best to think of the clitoris, urethra, and vagina as one unit because they are intimately related". Ian Kerner stated that the G-spot may be "nothing more than the roots of the clitoris crisscrossing the urethral sponge".

A Rutgers University study, published in 2011, was the first to map the female genitals onto the sensory portion of the brain, and supports the possibility of a distinct G-spot. When the research team asked several women to stimulate themselves in a functional magnetic resonance (fMRI) machine, brain scans showed stimulating the clitoris, vagina and cervix lit up distinct areas of the women's sensory cortex, which means the brain registered distinct feelings between stimulating the clitoris, the cervix and the vaginal wall – where the G-spot is reported to be. "I think that the bulk of the evidence shows that the G-spot is not a particular thing," stated Barry Komisaruk, head of the research findings. "It's not like saying, 'What is the thyroid gland?' The G-spot is more of a thing like New York City is a thing. It's a region, it's a convergence of many different structures."

In 2009, The Journal of Sexual Medicine held a debate for both sides of the G-spot issue, concluding that further evidence is needed to validate the existence of the G-spot. In 2012, scholars Kilchevsky, Vardi, Lowenstein and Gruenwald stated in the journal, "Reports in the public media would lead one to believe the G-spot is a well-characterized entity capable of providing extreme sexual stimulation, yet this is far from the truth." The authors cited that dozens of trials have attempted to confirm the existence of a G-spot using surveys, pathologic specimens, various imaging modalities, and biochemical markers, and concluded:

> The surveys found that a majority of women believe a G-spot actually exists, although not all of the women who believed in it were able to locate it. Attempts to characterize vaginal innervation have shown some differences in nerve distribution across the vagina, although the findings have not proven to be universally reproducible. Furthermore, radiographic studies have been unable to demonstrate a unique entity, other than the clitoris, whose direct stimulation leads to vaginal orgasm. Objective measures have failed to provide strong and consistent evidence for the existence of an anatomical site that could be related to the famed G-spot. However, reliable reports and anecdotal testimonials of the existence of a highly sensitive area in the distal anterior vaginal wall raise the question of whether enough investigative modalities have been implemented in the search of the G-spot.

A 2014 review from Nature Reviews Urology reported that "no single structure consistent with a distinct G-spot has been identified."

## History

The release of fluids had been seen by medical practitioners as beneficial to health. Within this context, various methods were used over the centuries to release "female seed" (via vaginal lubrication or female ejaculation) as a treatment for suffocation ex semine retento (suffocation of the womb), female hysteria or green sickness. Methods included a midwife rubbing the walls of the vagina or insertion of the penis or penis-shaped objects into the vagina. In the book History of V, Catherine Blackledge [pl] lists old terms for what she believes refer to the female prostate (the Skene's gland), including the little stream, the black pearl and palace of yin in China, the skin of the earthworm in Japan, and saspanda nadi in the India sex manual Ananga Ranga.

The 17th-century Dutch physician Regnier de Graaf described female ejaculation and referred to an erogenous zone in the vagina that he linked as homologous with the male prostate; this zone was later reported by the German gynecologist Ernst Gräfenberg. Coinage of the term G-spot has been credited to Addiego et al. in 1981, named after Gräfenberg, and to Alice Kahn Ladas and Beverly Whipple et al. in 1982. Gräfenberg's 1940s research, however, was dedicated to urethral stimulation; Gräfenberg stated, "An erotic zone always could be demonstrated on the anterior wall of the vagina along the course of the urethra". The concept of the G-spot entered popular culture with the 1982 publication of The G Spot and Other Recent Discoveries About Human Sexuality by Ladas, Whipple and Perry, but it was criticized immediately by gynecologists: some of them denied its existence as the absence of arousal made it less likely to observe, and autopsy studies did not report it.

## See also

- A-spot
- Human female sexuality
- Human sexuality
- Labiaplasty
- Vaginoplasty

Factitious anatomical detail