La Élite política de 1942 a 2005 en el Estado de México

Mills and millponds were another water element in medieval landscapes and were the preserve of lords of the manor, as Creighton points out:

The status of the mill as a symbol of lordly authority has long been recognised … Millponds could also be, in effect, components within designed landscapes: at Nappa Hall [Yorkshire] the pond was at least partly ornamental and designed to be seen from the hall, while the mill was tucked away out of sight downslope.48

This elite status of mills is confirmed by John Langdon, who says of the early medieval period, “there does at times seem to have been a genuine belief that no manor was suitably equipped unless it had a mill”.49 _{Whilst there is a good body}

of knowledge about mills themselves, the same cannot be said about millponds, and most evidence is map based, or gleaned from the EH listings and short sections in works on mills.

The most common source of power for a watermill is a river or stream, though tide mills were not uncommon in the medieval period.50 _{The siting of}

watermills is very dependent on topography, as Leslie Syson makes clear: “The simplest method of obtaining power, if the site was right, was to use the natural fall of the river or stream.”51 _{Where the water source was insufficient, such as in}

a relatively flat area, or where demand for milling was high, it would be necessary to construct a millpond. This would retain a larger amount of water, which could be released as required. In other words, the millpond stored power for use by the miller. He controlled this through the use of sluices and leats; being able to control excess water was vital to avoid damage occurring to the mill wheel, and to nullify fluctuating water-levels.52 _{As with fishponds, the basic}

principles of construction to control the flow of water were the same as in the eighteenth century.

Fig. 2.8. Stokesay Castle, Shropshire, 1883 First Edition 6ˈˈ OS map.

Stokesay Castle, Shropshire (Fig. 2.8), originally built in the late thirteenth-century by Lawrence of Ludlow, illustrates several interesting

aspects. A millpond (0.1 h) near the castle was supplied thus:

A leat takes water from the River Onny above the weir at Stokesay Bridge to a mill SE of the Castle… A causeway S of the castle held back a pond, fed by a stream from the NW, which almost certainly supplied the castle moat, and which may also have served as a fishpond.53

The position of the millpond and fishpond are important here: they are both situated within full view of the castle, which was on a moated platform raised above the surrounding ground.54 _{The mill required a long leat to supply it in}

that position, suggesting this was deliberate. It could have been situated on the main river, and the fishpond could have been located further away in the park. As Oliver Creighton points out, the main approach from Ludlow passed across the dam of the fishpond, illustrating the desire to display the pond as a status symbol, and possibly for its aesthetic impact, as at Nappa Hall.

Whilst millponds were usually small in general, they were clearly valued not just economically but also for the status they conveyed on the owner. As with fishponds, the skill base involved in building and operating them was also carried forward into the early modern period.55 _{As will be seen, watermills were}

also a recurring motif in the waterscape, retaining their status well into the eighteenth century: Cuttle Mill at Rousham, Oxfordshire, was remodelled by William Kent in c. 1738 as an eye catcher. Similarly, at Chatsworth, Derbyshire, when the mill and fishponds adjacent to the house were demolished in the eighteenth century, an ornamental mill was then constructed in the gardens.56

Likewise, at Bowood, Wiltshire, in the 1760s, Brown planned a mill at the north end of the lake, though it was not constructed.

Sulby Abbey helps to illustrate how fishponds and millponds occurred within the same contexts, with implications for ornamental lakes (Figs. 2.3 and 2.9). The proximity of the abbey to the large vivarium, as well as the smaller servatoria and the probable mill site is significant.57

By the early modern period, as will be seen below, moats and mills conferred authenticity at one remove, being symbols of established seigneurity, though fishponds continued to confer status directly. They were still valued for their original function of supplying fresh fish, but by 1600, they were also acquiring a new role: ponds in which to angle for pleasure. These elements became embedded in the ‘waterscapes’ of the time, and were the antecedents of the ornamental water features of the eighteenth century and beyond. Fishponds in particular provided the technological base which enabled eighteenth-century practitioners to construct large, ornamental lakes. Interestingly, Christopher Currie comments that the sluices installed, possibly by Brown, at North Stoneham were not as good quality as the remaining medieval ones.58 _{What this}

also tells us is that the lake was constructed on the site of existing fishponds, a phenomenon which will be noted throughout the thesis. The extent to which these features had an aesthetic influence will also be explored.

Fig. 2.9 Site of Sulby Abbey, Northamptonshire, with a vivarium of c. 6.7 h. Stew ponds

Vivarium