My pilgrimage to Rome will give me the opportunity to sample the monastic way of life in much the same way as pilgrims travelling along the Via Francigena would have done staying in hospices run by religious orders along the route.
I’ll be stepping out of my ‘comfort zone’ and will be, to some large degree, reliant on the kindness and charity of strangers.
Sigeric the Serious, the Archbishop of Canterbury who travelled to Rome in 990 AD to collect his pallium from the Pope and whose route along the Via Francigena I will be following, was originally a monk at Glastonbury Abbey before being elevated to Archbishop. His journey to Rome is commemorated by a statue in the grounds of the Abbey.
I am planning to stay in monasteries at Wisques (Abbaye St Paul), the Benedictine Monastery at St Thierry, and possibly the Benedictine Monastery as well as the Great St Bernard Pass Hospice, a Franciscan Monastery in Chatillon, the Abbey of Santa Croce at Mortara, a Franciscan convent in Piacenza, a Cappucin convent in Pontremoli, the Abbey of San Caprasio in Aulla, the San Francesco convent in San Miniato, St Agostino convent in San Gimigniano, a Cappucin convent in Viterbo and a Carmellite monastery in Sutri.
My walk will also pass the Cistercian Abbey of Clairvaux, founded by Bernard of Clairvaux in 1115. Bernard, a Burgundian noble was one of the principal driving forces of the Cistercian Order and was responsible for its rapid expansion, including founding Rievaulx Abbey and Fountaina Abbey in Yorkshire. Bernard was one of the most influential theologians of his time, involved in the establishment of the Knights Templar and the preaching of the Second Crusade in 1146 in a field outside Vezelay from where I started my own walk along the Sentier de Saint-Jacques to the Pyrenees in 1989.
During my time living in Asia I stayed in a number of Buddhist monasteries including the Po-lin Monastery on Lantau island in Hong Kong, the Shouzen monastery in the Alishan mountains of Taiwan, the Labrang Yellow Hat monastery in Xia He province in China near the Tibetan border , and a number of Buddhist monasteries in Korea. But until now I have yet to spend time in a monastery run by one of the Christian religious orders.
There is a monastic connection with St Peter’s Winterbourne Stoke. The current church was built in the 12th century and from the time of the Domesday Book in 1086 belonged to the Benedictine Abbey of Jumieges in Normandy. Founded in 654 by the Merovingian King Clovis II, in the ninth century it was burnt and pillaged by the Vikings, and a new church was consecrated in 1067 in the presence of William the Conqueror.
Enjoying the patronage of the dukes of Normandy, the abbey became a great centre of religion and learning, its schools producing, amongst many other scholars, the national historian, William of Jumièges. It reached the zenith of its fame about the eleventh century, and was regarded as a model for all the monasteries of the province. It was renowned especially for its charity to the poor, being popularly called “Jumièges l’Aumônier”.
On my journey I will be carrying with me a crucifix, blessed by the Benedictine monks of Pluscarden Abbey in Scotland to keep me safe on my walk.
So what, if any, is the connection between Monasticism and the Christian concept of Charity?
There is a paradox within the monastic ideal: on the one hand, monks are meant to withdraw from the world into spiritual and ascetic seclusion; on the other hand, scripture enjoins hospitality on all Christians. Saint Basil the Great, one of the fathers of Western monasticism, said that living in community is better than living as a hermit. “As a hermit,” he said, “one has no opportunity to practice Christian charity.”
What the two phenomena, pilgrimage and monasticism, share in particular is the focus on sacred space. Pilgrims are drawn to a location by the inherent sanctity of the space, whether because it is the site of an event of the New or Old Testament, it is the burial site of a martyr or saint, or it has other holy attributes (e.g., healing springs), from which some spiritual or even physical benefit might be obtained. Monasteries similarly form at sacred sites for similar reasons, and monastics often become custodians of loca sancta.
Charity in Christianity is not just almsgiving, and should not be seen only as an obligation or duty. Charity is love. Christians believe that God’s love and generosity towards humanity moves and inspires us to love and be generous in response.
Jesus taught that to love God and to love neighbour are the greatest commandments. Charity is not an optional extra, but an essential component of faith. In Matthew’s Gospel (chapter 25), Jesus identifies himself with those who are poor and excluded, and teaches that we will be judged, not on how beautiful our altars are, but on the way that we treat others. We cannot profess to worship God in church, yet not express that love practically to our neighbour. And our neighbour is not just someone local to us. In the story of the Good Samaritan Jesus made clear that our neighbour may be someone on the other side of the world, who is not ‘one of us’ but different. Because of our common humanity – because we are each created and loved by God – we cannot allow anyone to go without what is needed for a dignified life.
The early saints of the Christian church had a very challenging view of charity. They argued that what God provides generously and freely is effectively ‘stolen’ by those who hoard their wealth instead of sharing what they have with those in need. A Christian understanding of charity is far more radical and demanding than simply giving from what we have ‘left over’. Christians believe that anything that we have is a gift from God and does not belong exclusively to us. It must be shared if there is someone who needs it more.
Later church teaching expresses this love towards others as ‘solidarity’ with those in need. If we live by this principle, when we act out of charity or love we do not do it out of patronising pity, but out of commitment to the common good, so that every human being can reach their full potential.
Pilgrimage, monasticism and Christian charity – food for thought and food for the soul. Hopefully my walk to Rome will provide enlightenment about the continuing relevance of these traditions in the modern world we live in.
As I’m hoping to spend time in a number of Benedictine monasteries on my walk to Rome, I thought it might be helpful to write a blog post on the history, teachings and way of life of the Benedictine Order of Monks or the ‘Black Monks’ as they are popularly known (in reference to the colour of their monastic habits.)
Benedictine monks are a religious order if monks and nuns of the Roman Catholic Church living under the Rule of St. Benedict of Nursia (circa 480 – circa 547). Because they wear black habits, Benedictine monks are often called “Black Monks.”
The Benedictine order is a federation of independent monasteries dating back to the lifetime of St. Benedict, who first established a hermitage in Subiaco, Italy, and later at Monte Cassino.known today as the Father of Western Monasticism, established a Rule that became the pattern for life in the monasteries of Europe and a standard for monasticism in Western Christianity.
Benedict Of Nursia,known today as the Father of Western Monasticism, established a Rule that became the pattern for life in the monasteries of Europe and a standard for monasticism in Western Christianity.
In about 540 AD, after founding the monastery of Monte Cassino, Benedict wrote his Rule for the monastery, which became the foundation of the Benedictine order.
Benedict’s principal goal was to create a setting and a way of life where the voice if God could be heard without distractions and where the disciplines of of prayer. service, and good works would lead to continual progress in spiritual growth, faith, and ultimately, inexpressible joy in loving and serving God.
While studying rhetoric and law in Rome, Benedict was so repulsed by the immorality he witnessed in the city that he withdrew from society before completing his education and went to live as a hermit in a cave near Subiaco. During that time, he became the abbot for at least two different groups of monks. Eventually, in about 529 AD, after founding at least a dozen communities for monks, Benedict started a monastery at Monte Cassino, in Italy, where he remained until his death and where he wrote his famous Rule.
Benedict disagreed with the extreme asceticism of some monks and monasteries, and thus, sought to cultivate an environment where ordinary men and women could hear the voice of God and pursue the service of God and their own spiritual development through a balanced life of manual work, prayer, worship, and biblical studies.
Although Benedict did not set out to found an order, his ideas regarding monasticism spread rapidly, and by 541 were introduced into Sicily, and in 543 into France. Pope Gregory the Great (540 – 604), who wrote a biography of Benedict, used his vast influence to make the Rule of St. Benedict widely known. Also, in 580, when Monte Cassino was ransacked by the Lombards, the Benedictine monks escaped to Rome, and likely began to spread their knowledge and practice of monasticism.
As more and more Benedictine monasteries were established throughout Italy, God’s light of truth and love began to shine into the darkness of medieval times. By 597, Benedictine missionaries reached England, and from there spread to Germany, Denmark, and Iceland.
Because Benedict’s Rule was so flexible and insightful into human nature, it has proven to be remarkably adaptable throughout the 15 centuries following its inception. Even today, the concept of balancing prayer, study, and work still characterizes the day to day lives of humble, quiet, and peace-focused Benedictine monks and nuns around the world.
In about 540 AD, after establishing the monastery of Monte Cassino, Benedict wrote his Rule for the monastery, which became the foundation of the Benedictine order. These guidelines for an ordered and celibate form of communal Christian life were based on disciplines that had already been developing within the church for a couple of centuries before his time. Recognizable influences in Benedict’s Rule include that of Basil the Great, St Augustine, and John Cassian. But it was Benedict’s “little rule for beginners”—the name Benedict gave his Rule—that set the standard for monasticism in Western Christianity.
The Rule of St. Benedict begins with a lengthy prologue of rich teaching followed by 73 short chapters laying out spiritual and administrative guides to the monastic life. The first chapter outlines the qualities of an abbot, who is the spiritual father and supreme authority of the monastery. Most of the remaining sections focus on how to live obediently and humbly in community.
Benedict thought of the heart as a battleground where a constant war between God and evil was fought. He believed the Christian life was a progressive journey of the heart, which consisted of listening to the Word of God putting it into practice in heart and body, and then, “As we progress in this way of life and in faith, we shall run in the path of God’s commandments, our hearts overflowing with the inexpressible delight of love.”
Becoming a monk under the Rule of Benedict meant a life-long commitment. After a year on probation, a monk professed three vows: stability (a promise to remain in the community), the reformation of his own life, and and obedience.
Much of the Rule is devoted to developing the monastic family and how life in the community should operate. Benedictine monks spend about four hours a day in the “divine office” of prayer and another four hours a day in reading reading the Scriptures. According to Benedict, manual work is a form of holy prayer. Each monk is given work assignments because labor is a valued and integral part of the human experience.
Work is also crucial because each monastery is to be as independent and self-supporting as possible. In the Middle Ages, when beer was a primary source of nutrition for most people, Benedictine monks became famous for their advanced methods in beer-making. Around 100 monks were needed to operate a brewery.
Another prevailing rule Benedict stressed was that to belong to God, one must listen to the voice of God. He underscored the need for silence and gave instructions on how to overcome the obstacles to hearing God’s voice. Coarse jesting and idle conversation were forbidden, and prayerful listening formed the center of Christian life in the monastery. While perpetual silence was not enforced, monks were encouraged to use sign language rather than speak whenever possible, and observe strict silence at night.
Following the Rule of St. Benedict, monks live a common, separated, ascetic life, and submit themselves in unrestricted obedience to their superiors. Benedictine monasteries foster a family atmosphere among the monks and emphasize principles of wise moderation in fasting and other ascetic practices, solid biblical grounding, flexibility, sensibility, and balance between spiritual teaching and practical instruction, as well as the value of physical labor for both the rich and poor.
Benedictine nuns claim St. Scholastica, the sister of St. Benedict of Nursia, as their founder, but the assertion is without solid historical grounds. History, although unclear as to the exact time when nuns were included in the order, seems to suggest that they have been involved in separate female communities since the very beginning under the direction of Benedict of Nursia. Wherever Benedictine monasteries for monks have existed, there have also been communities for nuns established. In England, the earliest convent for women was founded in 630.
The role of women within the Benedictine order mimicked the function of noblewomen in society. Nuns devoted themselves to caring for the sick and needy, studying science, literature, and the arts, and the education of children.
One significant contribution of Benedictine monks to Christian history has been the copying and preservation of religious manuscripts and medieval literature, providing consistency and continuity for future generations of the faith. The Benedictine monastic movement has also provided schools for children throughout Europe and other parts of the world.
Benedictine monks are officially known today as the Order of Saint Benedict, even though they do not operate as other orders under a single chain of command. Benedictine communities remain autonomous but are represented internationally by the Benedictine Confederation, an organization that was established in 1893 to serve the group’s shared interests. Benedictine monks work closely with Cistercians and Trappist Monks, who also follow St. Benedict’s Rule.
Today, according to the Benedictine Confederation, there are more than 20,000 monks and nuns in about 400 monasteries throughout the world who live according to the Rule of Benedict.
In general, Guildford has had a blessedly peaceful history. It has the good fortune to be situated in a long settled part of England and shelters behind the joint protection of London and the Southern Coastal defences. Aside from the massacre of Alfred Atheling’s followers in 1036 and the far from spectacular capture of the Castle by forces supporting the Dauphin of France in 1216, Surrey’s county town has been a comparative stranger to strife and bloodshed (if one also discounts the 19th century Guy riots and the modern day lager-riots).
And yet nearly 500 years ago, in an almost forgotten episode in the Town’s history, Guildford was occupied by an army of perhaps as many as 15000 insurgents, en route to an attack on the capital. The authorities in London, shaken at the arrival of such a force and far from confident of success, sent out a probing force to engage the rebels. The two sides clashed just outside Guildford and the Town thus saw its first military action since high medieval times. Thankfully, despite subsequent Civil and World Wars, it has remained undisturbed ever since. However, the origins of this last, mini ‘Battle of Guildford’ lie a long way from the Town or even Surrey itself ….
In 1497, Cornwall was very far from assimilated into the unitary nation state of England. It was a Celtic land and retained its own culture and language (the latter only finally expiring in the 18th century and presently being revived). It was an isolated peninsula, cut off in the east from England proper by the wide valley of the Tamar and extensive moors on either side. To the north and west and south was the sea. Prior to the ‘discovery’ of America, a man looking west from Cornwall would envisage only the immense ocean, extending without limit. Cornwall was on the edge of the known world.
This isolation had led to the Cornish keeping largely to themselves, outside of the political life of England but, in 1485, with the victory of the Welshman Henry Tudor at the Battle of Bosworth, the kindred Celtic peoples, (or more particularly their upper classes) including the Cornish, who had aided his victory, were encouraged into the mainstream life of the nation.
Henry, now Henry VII, rewarded his followers with titles and patronage. An unprecedented Welsh and Cornish presence developed at court. Celtic poets speculated whether their race’s long subjugation was coming to an end.
In politics however, gratitude and loyalty are transitory things, particularly so in the minds of rulers contemplating the ruled. Henry had become King of England and King of England first and foremost. Other considerations were secondary and earlier allegiances could be jettisoned. Accordingly, a mere twelve years after Bosworth, Cornwall found itself with good reason to rise against him.
The primary cause was heavy taxation, levied to fund a war against the Scots. The Cornish could not see that this was any concern of theirs. Not without some logic, the broad sweep of Cornish society felt that the Scots were a matter for the English alone – and the northern English at that. Natural leaders came spontaneously forth to give voice to this opinion. One such was Joseph Smith (known as An Gof = the Smith), a blacksmith from St Keverne, on the Lizard peninsula of the extreme west.
It seems that the idea of a march against London was his, conceived whilst leading a march of protesters to Bodmin in May 1497. There he encountered one Thomas Flamank, a Bodmin lawyer (and son of one of the principal tax-gatherers), who argued that such taxation was unlawful and that responsibility for it – and thus their grievance – lay with the most intimate of the King’s councillors, Cardinal Morton and Sir Reginald Bray, rather than the King himself. He further proposed that no harm was intended to any man by their actions and so, in the words of one chronicler (Francis Bacon – source for all quotes unless otherwise stated), somehow persuaded the Cornishmen that:
he could tell how to make rebellion and never break the peace.
Alas, the Tudor King was to take a very different view.
Armed with righteous indignation and ‘bows and arrows and bills and such other weapons of rude and country people’, an army perhaps 15,000 strong marched into Devon, attracting considerable support in terms of provisions and recruits as they went. Aside from one isolated incident at Taunton, where a tax commissioner was murdered, their march was ‘without any slaughter, violence or spoil of the country’ – a fact that gives some credence to their initial, limited aims.
From Taunton, they moved on to Wells, where they were joined by their most eminent recruit, James Touchet, the seventh Baron Audley, a member of the old nobility and an accomplished soldier. Known to be a malcontent, dissatisfied with the recognition afforded him by Henry VII, Touchet must nevertheless have been singularly reckless to throw in his lot with such a desperate venture.
Despite this welcome and prestigious acquisition of support, ‘An Gof’, the humble blacksmith remained in command of the army. Audley joined Flamank as joint ‘political’ leader of the expedition.
After issuing a declaration of grievances, the army left Wells and marched to Winchester via Bristol and Salisbury in a remarkable unopposed progress right across the south of England. At this point, having come so far, there seems to have been some questioning of what exactly should be done. The King had shown no sign of willingness to concede the issue and, far from home, there must have come to the leadership the belated cold realisation that only force of arms would resolve the matter one way or the other. Flamank conceived the idea of trying to broaden the rising; to force the monarch into concessions by mobilising wider support for the Cornishmen. He proposed that they should head for Kent, ‘the classic soil of protests’, the home of the Peasant’s revolt of 1381 and Jack Cade’s rebellion, to rally the volatile men of Kent to their banner. It was a subtle and ambitious strategy – but sadly misinformed. Although the Scottish War was as remote a project to the Kentishmen as to the Cornish, they not only declined to offer their support but went so far as to offer resistance under their Earl. Sadly disillusioned, the Cornish army retreated and some of the fainter hearts (and wiser heads) quietly stole away back to their homes. The remainder, ‘the sturdier sort and those that were most engaged’ were only strengthened in resolve and, emboldened by what they had already achieved, let go the pretence of acting against the King’s ministers alone. They were prepared to give battle against the King himself.
By Tuesday 13/6/1497 the Cornish army arrived at Guildford. The neglected condition of the Castle and town defences would not have encouraged any such gesture. In addition, it is stated that the gentry of the Home Counties and their armed retainers had already retired to London to join the King’s forces.
Although shocked by the scale of the revolt and the speed of its approach, Henry VII had not been idle. The army of 8000 men assembled for Scotland under the command of Giles, Lord Daubeney, Henry’s chief general and Lord Chamberlain was recalled. Then, by a curious paradox, the Earl of Surrey (the very area under occupation), was sent north to conduct a defensive, holding operation against the Scots until such time as the King had quelled his domestic difficulties. The Royal family (and the Archbishop of Canterbury) moved to the Tower of London for safety whilst in the rest of the City there was a feeling akin to panic. It is said there was a general cry of ‘Every man to harness ! To harness !’ and a rush of armed citizenry to the walls and gates. Then, the same day that the Cornish arrived at Guildford, Daubeney and his men took up position upon Hounslow Heath and were cheered by the arrival of food and wine dispatched by the Lord Mayor of London. London’s courage and confidence was somewhat restored.
Not before time, the Crown decided to take the offensive and test the strength and resolve of the rebel forces. Lord Daubeney sent out a force of 500 mounted spearmen and they clashed with the Cornish at ‘Gill Down’ outside Guildford on Wednesday 14/6/1497. It isn’t clear whether this was a planned attack or an accidental brush with the Cornish outlying positions and the outcome of the skirmish is similarly opaque. Depending on which account one credits, Daubeney’s men were either repulsed with substantial losses or else inflicted respectable damage before retiring with two prisoners to present to the Lord Chancellor for interrogation. As an aside, one wonders if (as was quite possible) these two were monoglot Cornish speakers. If so, they would have been of limited help to their questioners !
After this initial encounter of arms, the rebellion moved to a swift conclusion. The Cornish army left Guildford and moved via Banstead and Chussex Plain to Blackheath where they pitched their final camp, looking down from the hill onto the Thames and City of London. It was Friday June the 16th, they had come very far and, that evening, standing before the capital city and the army of the Crown waiting there to meet them, the magnitude of their undertaking seemed to dawn on them. The ‘Great Chronicle of London’ states that the Cornish spent the night in ‘great agony and variance; for some of them were minded to have come to the king and to have yielded them and put them fully in his mercy and grace’. However – ‘the Smith was of contrary mind’. Somehow ‘An Gof’ held his army together but even so, in the quiet of the night, many rebels deserted and by morning only there only 9-10,000 rebel stalwarts in arms were left.
Henry VII, as meticulous and cautious as ever, had mustered an army of some 25,000 men: healthy odds against the residue of the rebels, who in addition lacked the supporting cavalry and artillery arms essential to the professional forces of the time. After carefully spreading rumours that he would attack on the following Monday, Henry moved against the Cornish at dawn on his ‘lucky day’ – Saturday (17/6/1497). The Royal forces were divided into three ‘battles’, two under Lords Oxford, Essex and Suffolk, to wheel round the right flank and rear of enemy whilst the third waited in reserve. When the Cornish were duly surrounded, Lord Daubeney and the third ‘battle’ were ordered into frontal attack.
At the bridge at Deptford Strand, the rebels had placed a body of archers (utilising arrows a full yard long, ‘so strong and mighty a bow the Cornishmen were said to draw’) to block the passage of the river. Here Daubeney had a hot time of it before his spearmen eventually captured the crossing with some losses (a mere 8 men or as many as 300 depending on one’s source). The ‘Great Chronicle of London’ says that these were the only casualties suffered by the Royal forces that day but, in view of the severity of the later fighting, this seems most improbable.
Through ill-advice or inexperience, the Cornish had neglected to provide support for the men at Deptford Strand bridge and the main array stood well back into the heath, near to the top of the hill. This was a sad mistake since a reserve force charging down from the high ground might have held the bridge bottleneck and made the day a far more equal contest. As it was, Lord Daubeney and his troops poured across in strength and engaged the enemy with great vigour. Daubeney himself was so carried away that he became isolated from his men and was captured. Astoundingly enough, the Cornish simply released him and he soon returned to the fray. It would appear at this late stage, the rebels’ hearts were no longer in the battle and they were already contemplating its aftermath and the King’s revenge. Why else free their opponent’s commander ?
The two other Royal divisions attacked the Cornish precisely as planned and, as Bacon succinctly put it:
being ill-armed and ill-led, and without horse or artillery, they were with no great difficulty cut in pieces and put to flight
Estimates of the Cornish dead range from 200 to 2000; certainly they were severe and the Royal forces showed none of the casual attitude latterly manifested by the rebels. A general slaughter of the broken army was well under way when ‘An Gof’ gave the order for surrender. He fled forthwith but only got as far as Greenwich before being captured. The less enterprising Baron Audley and Thomas Flamank were taken on the field of battle.
At 2:00 in the afternoon, Henry VII returned to the City in triumph, knighting deserving parties on the way, to accept the acclamation of the Mayor and attend a service of thanksgiving at St Paul’s.
The epilogue to the rebellion was predictable although moderate by contemporary standards. Henry was a calculating rather than merciful man but the effect on his policy decisions was nevertheless the same: he preferred to extract money rather than blood from all but the most implacable of his enemies. Again, in the words of Bacon:
The less blood he drew, the more he took of treasure
In due course, severe monetary penalties, eagerly, even excessively, extracted by Crown agents, pauperised sections of Cornwall for years to come. Prisoners were sold into slavery and estates were seized and handed to more loyal subjects. For the ring-leaders however, in the context of 15th century statecraft, there could be no mercy.
After condemnation in the White Hall at Westminster, ‘An Gof’ was dragged to Tyburn on a hurdle on Tuesday 27th June and there hung drawn and quartered. He met his end with characteristic bravery, beforehand defiantly declaring:
He should have a name perpetual and a fame permanent and immortal.
And so he has, in the minds of the Cornish at least. His fine words are inscribed on the plaque raised in his honour by Mebyon Kernow (the Cornish cultural/ nationalist movement) and unveiled by the chairman of Cornwall County Council at St Keverne churchyard in 1966.
Thomas Flamank met the same fate but for Baron Audley propriety demanded a slightly more refined demise. He was taken from Newgate to Tower Hill, dressed in mock-armour made of paper, all torn to symbolise his treachery, and there he was beheaded, as was thought to befit a delinquent member of the nobility, on 28 June 1497.
In deference to Cornwall’s still restive state, the body parts of the executed rebel leaders were not dispatched to their native lands for display as was originally intended. Instead, Henry made the prudent decision to exhibit the heads on London Bridge. The other grisly remnants were distributed elsewhere in the capital save that, once again, class distinctions dictated that Baron Audley’s torso be ‘decently’ buried in the Blackfriars Church within Ludgate.
The rank and file rebels were either pardoned or sold. There must also have been a sizeable flow of escapees making their stealthy way across country back to their homes and comparative safety. Some, however, had not learned their lesson and still had rebellious spirit enough to immediately join the cause of the pretender to the throne, Perkin Warbeck, who had opportunistically made his appearance in Cornwall in September 1497 and proclaimed himself ‘Richard IV’ at Bodmin. Around 6000 Cornishmen rallied to him and made an unsuccessful attack on Exeter. Lord Daubeney and his army, following up the victory at Blackheath, eventually entered Cornwall and Warbeck fled before him. The Cornish were left to the King’s mercy and the financial depredations mentioned above could then proceed unopposed.
And that was the end of the matter – as well as the end of a chapter in Cornish and indeed British life. The Cornishmen’s undoubted bravery and sturdy provincial spirit had not availed them against the power at the disposal of the developing English nation-state. The era of independent, anarchic regionalism, in England at least, was rapidly drawing to a close.