Eemstein / Eemsteyn

Reported in C. van Esch's Een middeleeuws doopvont in de R.K. kerk te Papendrecht afkomstig van het klooster Eemsteyn, in Kwartaalblad / Historische Vereniging West-Alblasserwaard (Jrg. 25 ; nr. 3 (2006)‎, pagina's 15-17) as a medieval baptismal font originally from Klooster Eemsteyn [NB: indirect source -- could not get access to the PDF article 14 November 2021 / mt]. Noted in Doopvont als voerbak (1927) [https://www.digibron.nl/viewer/collectie/Digibron/id/tag:RD.nl,20051208:newsml_828011a193f43fb7eadc891c2c51a35c] [accessed 14 November 2021] Doopvont als voerbak (1927) notes: "In de rooms-katholieke kerk van Papendrecht staat een doopvont die afkomstig is uit een klooster dat bij de Sint-Elisabethsvloed verloren is gegaan. Die vont werd in 1940 bij een boer in Kijfhoek ontdekt. Hij had de achthoekige stenen schaal als voederbak voor de koeien gebruikt." The article expands also on other Dutch fonts undergone similar misadventures. Information on the original monastery and two photograhs of the font in Papendrecht may be found in Klooster Eemstein historisch en archeologisch benaderd, Deel 5: De geschiedenis van klooster Eemstein, by A.L.J. van den Berg and R.M.W.M. Beerens [http://www.biesbosch.nu/magazine/0214/artikel_eemstein05.htm] [accessed 14 November 2021]. Pol Herman provided for BSI a summary of the article: " A baptismal font could not be missing in Eemstein either. The first church will most certainly have had a baptismal font, but it is not known whether it survived the devastation of the St. Elisabeth flood. We know more about the baptismal font that stood in the second church. After its destruction in 1572, this baptismal font made many wanderings and eventually ended up in a church in Papendrecht. After the monastery was set on fire, it became a quarry for the local population. Stones were chipped and beams were broken away and reused in farms and houses in the area. The same was true for larger objects like the baptismal font. After it had emerged from the rubble of the burned-down church, it was probably already used by a farmer from the area as a drinking trough or feeding trough for the animals. It certainly had this function in 1940, when the water basin was rediscovered by a pastor from Dordrecht at a farmer's house in Kijfhoek. He used it as a feeding trough for the cows. Only the water basin remained, the base had broken off and disappeared over the centuries. The pastor from Dordrecht soon realized that this water basin was most likely part of the baptismal font of the Eemstein monastery and that it could no longer be used as a feeding trough. Because the pastors from the region felt that the basin should once again be used in Catholic worship and Kijfhoek at the time fell under the Dordrecht deanery, the basin was transferred to Dordrecht. All Catholic churches in Dordrecht and the surrounding area were already provided with a baptismal font, except for the small church on the Veerdam in Papendrecht. And so the basin, after it had been fitted with a foot and a lid, was placed in the Veerdam church in Papendrecht. In 1965 it was placed at the back of the church when the new church on Seringenstraat was inaugurated. On this occasion, a copper plaque was also placed with the inscription: ‘In d’eeuw van 1400 tot Roomsch geluk geboren / Door Godsdienststormgeweld ging hiervan veel verloren. / Ook ik. Terug werd ik gevonden te Kijfhoek in het veld, / En in s’Heren Jare 1940 in ere herstelt. / Mag ik weer de wateren des doopsels bevatten'. [...] It is still not completely clear what type of stone the baptismal font is made of. An initial analysis already showed that the font was made of sandstone. Unfortunately, it has been seriously damaged over the centuries and the heaviest damage was probably repaired with cement in 1940 after its discovery. Although the shape of the font has been well preserved, the character of the stone has been seriously affected. Only in a few places on the side and at the bottom the original stone has been preserved. During a study in 1994, the stone type 'Tuffeau de Maastricht' was found to be the most plausible. This is a hard stone that is mined in the Maastricht area. During another investigation by a natural stone expert from the Rijksdienst voor de Monumentenzorg, he stated that the font is made of Bentheimer sandstone. It is therefore not entirely clear from which stone the baptismal font is made. [...] The baptismal fonts made of 'Tuffeau de Maastricht', especially in South Limburg and neighboring regions in Belgium and Germany. In addition, in the aforementioned church of Kijfhoek there is a foot of a baptismal font. This has long been used as a strut for the pulpit, but it has been fitted with a new basin, which has been re-used as a baptismal font. It was always assumed that this foot and the Papendrecht basin belonged together. However, this foot is made of Namur Hardstone and because foot and basin were always made at the same time, they do not belong together. It is possible that this foot belonged to the original baptismal font of the church in Kijfhoek and that it was also damaged during the Iconoclasm. There are strong indications that this church originally had a baptistery, in which this baptismal font may have stood. For the time being, however, we think that Eemstein's baptismal font is made of Bentheimer Sandstone. Eemstein had many more contacts with the Bentheim region than with Maastricht. Eemstein was part of the Windesheim congregation. It is known that Eemstein maintained many close contacts with monasteries of this congregation from the border region and the vicinity of Bentheim. Perhaps the prior of Eemstein was guided by the good experiences or advice of his colleagues in the east and also ordered a baptismal font from the quarry of Bentheim or that Eemstein received this baptismal font as a gift when she joined the congregation of Windesheim." [NB: the confusion gets worse as the Eemstein original house was re-founded in Kijfhoek, itsled with a twisted baptismal font story]