1

‘ l .>.. . . g; in k we”.
' , ‘,.,,“. '-« I; w!“ ‘9' two,- ..
r Hum v. 11 H . ‘1 ‘ “5 W“ "H“; “9‘“
. « H ,‘9 v .n a~ «u - ”Mu-w $. 0' a. .
"'""7‘1”:":‘$":":7.‘s 9 ' ‘ 4 I“ ' a Ra’1n'.q"q!:‘.“:": 4 m 457“" ‘ ‘7 ‘rot-'5“‘r’l‘i‘o“¢“i':“c‘3pfl~q‘3"i'a¥fl
Ihzl : . .1, «» ,.,, <.. n~'- ~
. ‘ .a " . | v ~ n, , 'c, . 14. fi‘
“a“‘..““-'~‘- HM . ‘ , 31" h 3‘? “4 «“u‘ n g ‘ ‘a . ‘ ”Rid-35‘s 2|" “3:; H
r . .t 1.)“; , q » ‘i

‘l

a
u

0' . . . I5

9 I ., “N" y ¢ v 131-1 1‘. m:
z. t.‘ A. 4
.. v

4

M . ”ATV
él.)“ll§.
» xulnv!

 

-|.

“v1
“‘1”,
.'._¢-'|

' , 4 4 . 1
www ‘ . ‘ nur n4

4, - - H .. ~ . . ‘ .

2<yi‘.',§-Ju‘4’?’1 ‘ V ‘ a"? 1 k

.31. W

I .

fl \
J Ian ““7” a . 4 , A ~

\
(>419,
I1

6
l "Vi-.3331?! I. 4:».
'1‘4'0"u'1‘x; 4w ' "3’
v Maw.” . I“ ‘ «*4 w; 1]?
n “ma gvr;i}$‘.§‘-;-s"'1 11'
: '1 m 4 Um 4'an 4!
1'

 

.« H ,v.

z t 11 mum
.iqu1h1nn
. ‘4.” “1‘ ! ir‘uy'
, , 4 '
> n It'd)“

(-1 w (i

-| u
A ( " ‘0
‘

a , : g'Q-Il‘ _
a :»:-i:-:~;«ws mas
6‘94““? H t

p}: Ali “-1 «Q

I A
fl ‘ Q 5 5‘
flag; Wad

I. at- o -c x
~ ‘ .. n o A A A b
.‘prtan’c.

, +5.: '
.A . u 4 «7 ‘l ' -
‘1 1,-1.0? 4’: 1 v ‘I7d13'1'3’1x
1, Ié'lillqivfiilqll 5.1“; "‘3" a,
i': H «rultvluw.
" "y‘a”£5."“-’-q 1 H,

u_o
.‘.

Mus n.3,;

,v '5
9",,“
h “I *1

Ni
u

.1 lv‘i [w

1. ~ ‘1 ‘HM':

\ _,, u v, N") I» Mfg!

, . :| g .Ivli’¥‘ 1““: }..v

\
um

”it?”
u 1'? ‘5 I‘m;
{‘1 if. ’5’
h
‘a a: ‘

v

.v, ~
,-- *45“!
III: I‘«
L‘x.e.~g:1»4¢‘;¢
'51.:qqq.,
.‘ , u.

 

«~12
HI

4;:

1'13”;
1'4 x‘l.‘
.4 v
{a b Jun
, “mm-:1.

1

a 9‘ 4 h ’l

' 33153:"! "‘
in}

3. ,

any“?!
NJ» :9
page

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

-uw .., ‘ ,K. Tin. .. Li. I {5.4%.}. :ka ‘_ A. x; .C. ,n.‘

 
 

 

 

WESTMINSTER ABBEY 899
THE KINGS’ CRAFTSMEN

 

 

$ ‘

 

    

   

 

 

, 9. | .
u ' ’
’ ‘ ‘ ‘>
' l' i ,
‘ . é
" ' .
‘ x
, 1
~ v,
’ . ‘ ,. v

 

. g;

 

WESTMINSTER ABBEY 89"

THE KINGS’ CRAFTSMEN
A STUDY OF MEDIEEVAL
BUILDING: BY W. R. LETHABY

 

NEW YORK: E. P. DUTTON 69’ CO.
LONDON: DUCKWORTH {9’ CO.

MCMVI

€115?! :szvwk. , 1 . Liviat .

m
r
I
n
h
h
.n
U
A

 

 

 

 

PREFACE

Mr chief purpose in the pages which follow is not to add
another to the many and excellent descriptions of the Abbey
which exist already, but it is to give an account of the
artists—the masons, carpenters, sculptors, painters, and other
craftsmen—who built and decorated it.

Alt the same time, in working over much new material from
MSS., or recently printed sources, or in examining well-known
facts from my own point of view, I have necessarily had to
reconsider the history of the flbbey buildings.

I want to show that, just as in thirteenth-century Italy we
assign certain works of art to flrnolfo, Niccolo, or Giotto, so
here we can identify the works of 7ohn of Gloucester, mason;
7ohn of St. fllbans, sculptor; and William of Westminster,
painter. And as in Florence, so at Westminster, a personal
human interest must add to our reverence for an otherwise
abstract art.

I have wished also to get at the facts as to building organ-
isation in the Middle flges—the “ economic basis” of Gothic
art. If this is understood, it seems to me that the futility of
copying the mere shapes taken by this great historical art must
be acknowledged. The more we imitate the works of the men
who wrought the marvels of Gothic art, the less we have of
their spirit, for they adventured into the unknown.

It has been generally assumed that nothing is known, or
may be known, of the “architects ” of our medieeval English
buildings, but so great is the mass of records which have been
preserved regarding their erection, that an account of the
builders of several of the cathedrals can be made out with
some fulness. I have satisfied myself that this is the case in

V11

PREFACE

regard to Canterbury, Lincoln, York, Durham, Salisbury,
Wells, and Exeter, and I have given some account of how the
last-named was built in the Architectural Review of 1904.
l/Vestminster dbbey, however, is by far the best documented
of our medieeval buildings.

The Introduction and two following chapters of this book
may, I hope, serve as a guide to the flbbey considered as a
work of art. Three or four chapters which follow are his-
torical and technical, and the larger part of the rest is
concerned with the medieval craftsmen whose works are
there preserved.

For several of the most detailed and valuable illustrations
of this volume I have to thank friends, and above all Mr.
Mick/ethwaite for the use of his analytical plan and section.
Mr. S. Vacher put his large detailed section at my disposal,
and Mr. Lee allowed me to consult some original drawings
of Wren’s in his possession. «El/Ir. F. G. Knight lent me his
now invaluable survey of the Chapter House doorway, Figs. I 3
and I4, drawn when it was in a much better condition. Both
Mr. Vacher and Jllr. Knight have now given these drawings
to the Spiers Collection at the South Kensington flrt Library.
I am indebted also to Jllr. ?. S. Slater, JIr. '1'. JIacLaren,
the late Jtlr. H. IV. Brewer, and Jllr. R. lVebster. cilly
thanks are also due to the proprietors of The Builder, The
Building News, The Architect, and The British Architect
for allowing me to use some of the drawings referred to in the
forms in which they have appeared in those journals; and to
my friend, J/Ir. S. C. Cockerell, for reading my proofs. I
must also express my gratitude to the Dean and to all who
have charge of the Albbey for the way in which I have been

enabled, as a mere casual visitor, to minutely examine the
viii

l

 

PREFACE

fabric and tlte works of art wlziclz it contains. The vergers,
w/zo fulfil a dificult ofice wit/z great patience, have always
been most lzelpful, alt/zouglz I went to tlzem entirely un-
recommended.

Collecting for tlze purpose of t/zis volume, wlziclz lzas ex-
tended over a period of a dozen years or more, Izas necessarily
been done in tbe intervals of business, and I lzope tlzat some
faults will be excused on tltis account. I slzould have liked
my references to lzave been muclz fuller, and lzere I slzould
say that all tlzose given by numbers alone, as: 471, I and
2, mean in every case—The Record Ofice, Exclzeguer
flccounts, Works, QR. (now KR): t/ze numbers referring
to tlze bundles and items, as, in tlze above example: bundle
471 ; items I and 2.

At tlze last moment I must add a word of tlzanlcs to my
friend Mr. Emery Walkerfor tlze plate 126 lzas preparea of
tlze noble portrait of Richard H.

II] INVERNESS TERRACE,
October 1906.

 

CHAP

I.

II.
III.
IV.
V.
VI.
VII.
VIII.
IX.
X.
XI.
XII.
XIII.
XIV.
XV.
XVI.

CONTENTS

INTRODUCTION . . . . . . . I
THE INTERIOR OF THE CHURCH . . . . 9
CLOISTER AND PRECINCTS . . . . . 37
THE EXTERIOR AND “ RESTORATIONS ” . . . 63
FROM THE FOUNDATION TO HENRY III. . . . 94
HENRY 111., HIS ARTISTS AND THE DESIGN . . I IO—Vfi
POINTS OF CONSTRUCTION . . . . . 127
THE FIRST MASTERS . . . . . . I 50,2
LATER KING’S MASONS . . . . . . I74 ,
FIRE, AND COMPLETION OF THE NAVE . . . 198

A MASON AND A CARPENTER . . . . 212
HENRY THE SEVENTH’S CHAPEL . . . . 222
WESTMINSTER SCULPTORS . . . . . 24o
PAINTERS OF THE WESTMINSTER SCHOOL . . 257
METAL WORKERS AND GLAzIERS . . . . 284.
THE MOSAIC WORKERS . . . . . 309»
THE TOMES AND CHAPELS . . . . . 329
APPENDIX . . . . . . . . 357
GENERAL INDEX . . . . . . . 375
INDEX OF CRAFTSMEN . . . . . . 378

xi

 

ILLUSTRATIONS

PAGE
Portrait of Richard II. at Westminster Abbey . Frontzspim

. General Plan of the Abbey and Palace compiled from Sand-

ford, Wren, and Fig. 2

2. The Abbey buildings, from a plan by Mr. Micklethwaite
3. Plan of the Church, by Mr. Micklethwaite . . . 5
4. Bay of the Interior of Presbytery (Lower Storey.) By Mr.
S. Vacher . . 12
5. Bay of the Interior of Presbytery (Upper Storey). By Mr.
S. Vacher . . I3
6. Upper Storey ofS. Transept. By Mr. J. A. Slater . . I7
7. The Old Stalls . . . . . . . . 24,
8. Original Misericord . . . . 25
9. Plan of half of the Ambulatory, showing old paving . . 28
10. Early part of Cloister (5.1.24.5). From a Drawing by Mr. T.
MacLaren . - 3I
11. Early part of Cloister (6.12.1.5) From a Drawing by Mr. T.
MacLaren . . 33
12. Bay ofN. Walk of Cloister . . . . 35
13. Doorway from Cloister to the Chapter House. By Mr. F. G.
Knight, 1873 . . . . . . . . 39
14.. Enlarged detail of the last . . . . . 41
15. From Old Drawing of Chapter House . 4+
16. Window of Chapter House. Drawn by Mr. H. B.
Brewer . . . 45
17. Tile from Chapter House : the“ Salmon of St. Peter . 46
18. Tile from Chapter House floor . . . . . 47
19. Tile from Chapter House floor . . . . . 5o
20. Tile from Chapter House floor . . . . . 5o
21. Tile from Chapter House floor . . . . . 51
22. Tile from Chapter House floor . . . . . 52
2 . Tile from Chapter House floor . . . . . 52
24.. Tile from Chapter House floor . . . . . 53
25. Tile from Chapter House floor . . . . . 53
26. Rose Decoration . . 54.
27. Ancient Belfry which stood on the N. side ofthe Church . 58
28. Arms of Henry III. from the Chapter House floor . . 62

xiii

FIG.

29.

3o.

31.

32.

33-
34-

ILLUSTRATIONS

One of Four Tiles from Chapter House floor, representing
a Rose Window .

Ancient Rose Window of N. Transept. From a Drawing
by Wren

Gable of N. Transept. Ancient form, from :1 Drawing
made before the last great restoration

North Transept. Recess above right-hand porch, ancient

form . , . . . . . . .
North Transept. Diagram of form of Ancient Porch
Conjectural plan of the Confessor’s Church

354. Ancient Door in Dormitory, now Westminster School
35/). Ancient Masonry (c. 1100) in Little Cloister

36.
37-
38.
39-
40.
41.
42.
43~
44»-
45-
46.
47-
48.
49‘
50.
51.
52.
53-
54--
SS-
56.
57-
58.

S9-
60.

xiv

Norman painting in undercroft of Dormitory

Plan of St. Katherines Chapel

Detail of Arcade of St. Katherine’s Chapel

Henry III. and the Relic .

Church, Shrine and Bells from M. Paris .

Destroy ed Church of St. Pharon at Meaux

Pillars and bases at Reims and Westminster

Diagram of Chapter House Windons

Diagram of lower part of “ est front of Amiens Cathedral
Diagram of bay of the 1nterior, Amiens .
Diaper from the west front, Amiens Cathedral .

Vault at Avesniers, near Laval : r. 1180

Diagram of Vault of Aisles at Westminster

Relation of Vault to Clercstory Windows .
Diagonal and Transverse Ribs of Vault over Presbytery
Section of Mouldings of Ground Arcade in Presbytery
Super- Capitals of Triforium

Arrangement ofWindons 1n Apsidal Chapels

Plans of Main Piers: east and 11 est of the crossing
Bronze Band (full size) . .

Profiles of Capitals fromS .Transept

Buttress System S. Side of Choir

Diagram shoviing Iron Tie- bars of the Interior .
Sketch Plan of Apsidal Chapels, shouing the passage along

windows

Suggested relation of Apse and Lad) Chapel . .

PAGE

71
77

81

82

99
103
103
l04>
105
106
112
11;
118
120
122
12+
12;
126
128
129
130
131
132
'33
13+
135
136
'37
138
1+0

1+2
1+3

.e *2.“ JHL_~‘,.I “1).; «bdrm

 

 

 

FIG.

61.

62.
63.

64.

66.
67.
68.

69.

70.

71.
72.
73-

74-
7s.

76.
77-
78.

79-
80.

81.
82.

83.

84.
85.
86.
87.

88.

)

89.
9o.

ILLUSTRATIONS

Various Works at entrance to Lady Chapel

V arious ties to the arches of the Chevet . .

Diagram showing junction of the larger and later diaper,
with the earlier, on N. side of Presbytery

Section showing dates of the several parts of the work By
Mr. Micklethwaite

. Masons and Carpenter, [. 1270. From MS. “Life of the

Confessor”
Foundations on the north side of the Choir
Head ofa Lay Master, high up in N. Transept .

The Queen’s Cross, Northampton. Drawn by Mr. R.
Webster .

Diagram showing constructive idea of Waltham Cross.
Tomb of Aymer de Valence .

Edwardian Window in Norman opening

lslip’s screen. West end of Nave Aisle

Porch added to N. Transept, probably by Yevele. After
Hollar

Statue of St. Anne, Henry VIIth Chapel. Drawn by Mr.
R. Webster.

Statue of St George, Henry VIIth Chapel Drawn by Mr.
R. Webster . . .

Bay design, Henry the Seventh’s Chapel

Diagram of Vault System, Henry VIIth’s Chapel
Head 1n Triforium . .
Painted Altar- —piece of St. Faith’s Chapel

Painted figure of Donor, at side of Painting Fig. 79
Painting on the Tomb of Queen Alianor .
Continuation of the last .

“Cufic decoration” from an English MS. Bible, Corpus
College, Cambridge

Restoration of painting on Coronation Chair
Gesso decoration on the Jamb of the tomb of Aveline .
Decoration of Arch-moulding

Painted decoration on vault of Aveline’s tomb. From

’Uetwm M amt/71671171
Small Shield with lion 1n gesso from Crouchback’s tomb
Part of painting from basement of Crouchback’s tomb .
The Sedilia in 1821. After Harding

PAGE

144
146

I47
148

151

I57
172

I75
178
183
200
210

215
228

229
231
232
256
258
260
262
263

264
266
267
268

268
269
270
272

xv

91.
92.
93-
94-
95-
96.
97-
98.
99-

100.
[01.
102.

103.
104.
105.
106.
107.

108.
109.

110.

111.
112.
113.
114.
115.
116.

117.
118.

119.

120.
121.
122.
123.
124.

xvi

ILLUSTRATIONS

Figure from Sedilia. Drawn in 1775. ‘Ueturta Monumenta .
Painting on Sofiite of arch above Sebert’s tomb .

One half of Canopy over tomb of Richard II.

Other half of Canopy over tomb of Richard II.

Part of Bronze Effigy of Henry III. From ‘Uttwta aMonumenta
Figures engraved beneath Effigy of Henry III.

Seal of Queen Alianor

Part of Inscription from tomb of Henry III.

Seal of Henry III.

Ancient glazing of Apsidal Chapels

Ancient glazing of Apsidal Chapels

Border of last . . . . .

Coat of Arms of Earl of Cornwall. From east window

A Fragment from east window .

Name stamped on iron-work at Windsor

Brass letters existing in the Presbytery pavement .

Pattern of one of the small Circles in pavement .

Pattern of top of tomb

Tombs of John and Margaret

One- half ofS. side of the Marble and Mosaic Basement of
the Shrine. From V ertues engraxing. The inscription
is of the time of Abbot Feckenham

Restoration of part of1nscription on Basement of Shrine
Monogram .

Mosaic Pattern restored

Plan of Basement of Shrine

Part of West end of Basement of Shrine

Restoration of one of the patterns of Mosaic. Tomb of
Henry III.

Pattern of Mosaic floor 1n the Confessor 5 Chapel
Mosaic Centres of Pavement (Fig. 117)

Burial of Queen of Charles V. of France. From a contem-
porary MS.

On S. Wall of Cloister

Abbot Ware. From his seal

Crcsting of Screen of Chapel of St. Andrew
Inscription over door of Chapel .
From Marble base N.W. angle of CrOSsing

PAGE
273
274
280
281
285
286
287
288
298
300
301
302
303
303
305
31 3
3 I4
315
31 8

320
322
37-3
323
324
325

326

327
328

330
3+7
3+8
352
35+
356

 

INTRODUCTION

“It i: a Wilding second to none amongxt all tne mmzeifiqf 3
arrniteetuml beauty produced by tne Middle _Age:.‘ Lille"
all men [mi/dings, if: éeauty is eanvinez’ng am! :et: ‘erjtietgyl, . ,
wide.” '3 1.

WILLIAM MORRIS, “Westminster Abbey.”

THE Abbey Church of St. Peter is but a part of
what was once the great monastic establishment at
d First Westminster. Those .WhO have seen
Visit the Abbeys of Fountains, Furness, and

' Rievaulx, ruined, indeed, but other-
wise unaltered, may best imagine what Westminster
was as it stood complete with its attached farm-
buildings, mill, and workshops, When the vineyards,
orchards, and tilled fields came up to the precinct
walls. The Church, excluding the seven western
bays of the Nave, and Henry VII.’s Chapel to the
east, was built by Henry III. in the twenty—five
years from 1245 to 1270. The Chapter House,
the portion of the Cloister which leads tolit, and
those of its bays which are attached to the south
aisle of the early part of the Church, are all parts
of Henry III.’s work. The western bays of the
Church, the rest of the Cloister, and the Abbot’s
House (now the Deanery) were built in the four—
teenth and fifteenth centuries.

The exterior has been so completely recased that
to describe it will be to describe a series of modern
works. Save for the mass, and a certain grace
of general form, only the interior can concern
us as an authentic work of ancient Art. However,

the south side, as seen from the Cloister, with its
A I

INTRODUCTION

four tiers of Windows and immense flying buttresses,
is a very noble composition, and the south—east
3.:‘3. corneribetvyeen the Chapter House and HenryVII.’s

 

 

 

 

 

F112. 1.-Ge11eral Plan of the Abbey and Palace compiled from
Sandford, \Vren, and Fig. 2

Chapel, is quiet and has an echo of romance. I

want to think of it here as it was when it stood

in its first fairness, when Henry III., in 1262, ,
ordered peai trees to be planted in “the herbary

between the King’s Chamber and the Church,"

evidently so that he might see it oxer a bank or

blossom (see Figs. I and 2).
2

INTRODUCTION

The Church Within has been little injured, except
by the erection of pompous tomb-trophies, and
modern sham Gothic fittings and glass, which are

CW

(—1

too.

'60.
.

 

Co...
.000-

.40
0‘.
0'.
010
.0
to
or.
oi.
oi.
0-.
02.
ca

 

FIG. 2.——The Abbey buildings, from a plan by Mr. Micklethwaite

even more injurious because more specious and
confusing.

The interior ever surprises me by its loveliness.
The grace of the parts and their ordered disposition,
the slender springing forms and the gaiety of the
style, the fine materials and the romantic early
monuments, are arresting beauties of a matchless
whole. The skilful planning of the Apse and

3

INTRODUCTION

radiating Chapels, the great space which opens
between the Transepts and the Altar, and the
contrivance by which two windows of the Eastern
Chapels are placed so as to tell in the vistas of the
long aisles, are triumphs of arrangement. This
beauty of plan is the necessary foundation for all
the other beauties of the church (Fig. 3).

On first entering by the North Transept door,
look across the transverse vaults to the great South
Rose. Then diagonally right and left, where
wide and distant prospects into the Choir and
Presbytery open to the View. It is possible from
the north—east corner of the Transept, where we
stand, to see the outer windows of the middle stage
through the Triforium openings west of the
crossing. On the east one can see away through
the Transept Chapels towards the Altar and the
Shrine. Crossing towards the South Transept, the
central avenue, looking east, is very satisfying.
Notice the difference between the simpler vaulting
of the eastern limb and that over the Choir west
of the crossing, which is, perhaps, only ten years
later. The height is greater than in any other
English church; it is 103 feet to the crown of
the vault of the choir. The width of the church
across the transepts is about 200 feet, and the total
length, including Henry VII.’s Chapel, is about
500 feet.

The diagonal view from the door of St. Faith’s
Chapel in the South Transept is the finest of all.
One may see, between some dozen slender marble
columns, and beyond the middle space, the shapely
windows of the apsidal chapels.

4

mama-4......” .«w'r .Ar ». . .

 

BRSABEUME £2 .3 £856 05 we quantum .orm

 

91.2KB

max .. 003 g
amt- onQ A 0._ §n
035. OOQ g
3Q: oomk !

com? nfmx
003: on“! I

 
       

 

oricwua‘okoxsimnsseawfll Wins

Emu/x Mmhmfizhmmb?

INTRODUCTION

Starting from the South Transept for a first rapid
survey of the Church, and having regard particu—
larly for the earlier features, examine the sculptures
high up under the Rose window, and then, before
leaving the transept, enter the Chapel of St. Faith,
where, over the Altar, is a figure of the tutelary
Saint, painted by a contemporary of Cimabue.
Passing down the South Aisle of the western limb
of the Church and returning by the North Aisle,
in each case outside the Choir, examine the series
of sculptured coats—of—arms wrought about 1260,
the finest early heraldry in England. In the South
Aisle they have been mostly pushed aside from
their proper positions, but in the North Aisle
the original disposition is nearly intact. Notice,
especially, the Confessor’s Cross, and the three
leopards of England—the first two on the south
side—and on the north, the double-tailed lion ot
Simon de Montfort, and the lilies of France. The
shields seem to be suspended by straps from project-
ing heads of fine character.

Turning now into the aisle ofthe North Transept,
do not miss the carved spandrels of the wall-arcade,
especially one of St. Michael and the Dragon.
Crossing the centre of the church again ascend
the steps towards the altar. On the left are three
of the most beautiful tombs anywhere to be seen,
those of Aveline, Countess of Lancaster (1273),
Aymer de Valence (1326), and Edmund of Lan-
caster, son of Henry III. (1296). Opposite, on the
right, are the Sedilia (1308), and the portrait of
Richard II. (1398). The floor is of splendid

Italian Mosaic laid down in 1268.
6

 

INTRODUCTION

Entering the south Ambulatory around the Apse,
we find within the gates on the right the alabaster
tomb of Cardinal Langham(1376) : then the mosaic
tomb of the children of Henry IlI.,made about
1272. On the left-hand side we pass first Sebert’s
tomb, with the canopied back ofthe Sedilia above it.
The tomb of Richard II. and his Queen (I 394.) is the
next, and then we come to the tomb of Edward
III. (1377), with little brass images around the
side, and enamelled coats-of—arms. Opposite, within
and against the screen of the first chapel, is the
splendid tomb efligy,in enamelled bronze,ofWilliam
de Valence (1296). On the opposite side of the
door in the screen is the fine alabaster tomb ofjohn
of Eltham, son of Edward II. (1336). Examine
particularly one of these radiating chapels as a unit.
They are the most perfect works of central Gothic
architecture in England. Going eastward again,
the last tomb on the left is that of Philippa, Edward
IIl.'s Queen (1369). Observe the coats-of—arms,
carved with remarkable delicacy in white marble.
Passing the middle point of the Ambulatory under
the elaborately sculptured Chantry of Henry V., we
come next to the tomb of Alianor of Castile, with
a superb piece of wrought iron to guard it, all a
work of the last decade of the thirteenth century.
Opposite, on the right, is the tomb of Sir Ludovic ,
Robsart, a much later work (14.31). Further west,
on the left, is the mosaic tomb of Henry III.,
which can be best seen from here, as so much less
of the mosaic remains in place on the other side.
Beyond it is the plain black marble chest contain-

ing the body of Edward I. ; and still beyond are
7

INTRODUCTION

the three canopied tombs which we saw to the left
of the Altar. The middle one, especially, has little
images of “ weepers ” of the most exquisite quality
of sculpture—there are no better.

Go right on to the chapels east ofthe North Tran—
sept. At the angle, before entering, is the late,
double-staged tomb-chapel of Islip, the last Abbot.
In the chapels beyond are some pretty spandrel car-
vings and the ruins of alate reredos. Return and
ascend to the Confessor’s Chapel inside the circle
of royal tombs. At the middle point is the Con-
fessor’s own tomb, and facing it on the west is the
Coronation Chair. Beginning here, I shall in the
next chapter more particularly describe the parts of
the interior in their historical aspect. But before
concluding the first general survey, visit Henry
VII.'s Chapel, and look especially at the gates, the
vault, the tomb of Henry VII. and his Queen, with
the brazen screen about it, and the tomb of Margaret
of Richmond in the South Aisle.

Passing into the Cloister by the door just west of
the South Transept, notice the open-work carving
of its arch, and visit the Chapter House remarking
especially the figures right and left of the door on
the inside, the tiled floor, and the remnants of paint—
ing in the wall arcades—especially to the east.

From its crowded associations, and the many
lovely minor works it contains, as well as its own
intrinsic beauty, this church must be held by
Englishmen as the supreme work of art in the
world.

CHAPTER I
THE INTERIOR OF THE CHURCH

The Shrine and Royal Tombs: The Altar and Coronation Chair:
The Presbytery: The Crossing and Coronation Stage: The Choir
and Pulpitum : Nave, Chapels, and Pavements : Glass and Colouring

“ Famour, fleautzful, and Ifllté’ly ,- tfie éuila’z'ng wit/tin 2':
supported by lofty pillar: of grey maréle.”
NORDEN MS. HARL. 570.

THE focus of the whole church was the Confessor’s
Golden Shrine, which rested upon the high base-
T/ze S/zrz'ne ment of marble and mosaic which still
stands at the centre of the Royal chapel.

and Royal In the earlier arran h h '
Tomé: gement t e .s rine
' must have been seen from the ch01r over
the High Altar, which would have had only a low
retable. “ The shrine of the most illustrious King
Edward the Confessor was placed on high like a
candle upon a candlestick, so that all who enter
into the House of the Lord may behold its light.” 7"
Some Bohemian travellers who Visited the church
in 1466 wrote with admiration of the large golden
coffin covered with precious stones, and noticed
among the relics the stone with the marks of
Christ’s feet, which, as we shall see, was given by
Henry III. ; also the girdle of the Virgins!“
Trevisano, an Italian, describing a Visit in 1497,
says: “I saw one day the tomb of King Edward
in the Church of Westminster, and, truly, neither
St. Martin of Tours, nor anything else that I have

* Liéer Trinitatz'r.
T Pawolowski, S. Commentarius Brevis, &c., 1577.

THE SHRINE AND ROYAL TOMBS

ever seen, can be put into any comparison With it.”*"‘
Offerings to the shrine continued to be made until
the Dissolution. Edward I. dedicated to it the
crown of Llewellyn and his Scottish spoils.
Richard II. gave a costly silver tablet enamelled
with the story of the Confessor and the Pilgrim,
which had been presented to him by the citizens
of Londonxl' “ At St. Edward’s shrine,” writes
Caxton, “remaineth the print of King Arthur’s
seal in red wax closed in beryl, on which is written
‘ Patricius Arthurus,’ ” 8:0:

Directly against the west end of the shrine was
the altar of St. Edward, which is mentioned in the
order for the coronations, and in the Cambridge
manuscript a miniature shows a priest at a lectern
by the shrine, singing Te Deum [(Illdafllllf.

Right and left of the altar were isolated pillars,
which supported images of the Saint and the
Pilgrim. Four silver basins for lamps at the shrine
were amongst the gifts of Henry III. From the
Book of Customs, compiled by Abbot \Vare, about
the time of the opening of the church,§ it appears
that these were suspended in a transverse row, two
over the shrine, one to the North over the tomb of
Edgitha, the Confessor’s wife, and one to the South
over the tomb of Matilda, queen of Henry 1., both
of whom lie unmarked under the mosaic floor of
this chapel. To the east of the shrine must have

’ “ Account of England " : Camden Society.

'f Fabyan speaks of it as being at the shrine “to this day," a
passage significantly omitted in the second edition.

I Prologue, “ Morte d’Arthur."

§ Just published by the Bradshaw Society.
[0

THE SHRINE AND ROYAL TOMBS

stood the altar of relics, until later it gave place to
the elevated relic chapel formed by the chantry of
Henry V. A relic altar was then placed on the
north side of the shrine?!6

Henry III.’s tomb occupies the usual founder’s
place on the north side. It is similar to the base-
ment of the shrine, of marble, porphyry, and glitter—
ing gold tesserm, and it supports a beautiful efligy of
gilt bronze (c. 1290). Notice on the column to the
west of the tomb a tiny recess, about 6 in. by 1% in.
Did it once hold a relic.P The recesses beneath
the tomb almost certainly contained relics, and
right at the back of each, hidden in the shadow, is
a mosaic cross. Next eastward is the tomb of
Queen Alianor (d. 1290), with a most lovely statue
of gilt bronze once set with jewels. At her tomb
lights were kept burning night and day for about
two hundred and fifty years, so says Fabyan.

The tomb next in order of date is that of
Edward I. (1307), a chest of plain polished black
marble. On great occasions it was covered with cloth
of gold. Queen Philippa’s tomb to the south-east
(d. 1369) is of white marble sculpture and minute
tabernacle work, on a basis of black marble. Next
to her, westward, is the tomb of Edward III.
((1. I 377), with a recumbent statue, and, on the out-
side, little “ weepers,” of gilt bronze. Next again,
both in position and order of time, is the tomb of
Richard II. and Anne, his queen, which was begun
in 1394.. The efiigies of the king and queen are

* Stanley’s “Memorials.” The Feast of Relics was July 16. See
Westm. Cal. in Psalter, 2 A 22, at the British Museum. Jan. 5, Edward

K. and C. ; Jan. 12, Octave of; Oct. 13, Translation of; Oct. 20, Octave.
I I

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

m n x w 1.2.
. no.4. ,\
x .x V.
I . \X
x . \.
. . .
F. \\
X \
\ \
Ray”?
1/.
_ ,
0.... . / r1
..\ 1 ~
. ~ . a. w
w. .n .y ,
1.! A r

 

 

 

 

 

 

4

p

 

,: _-_:E_ WE,.:H t: B

x

 

 

,, i- 13: Ear 3H2.”

 

 

H—

 

 

 

A;

E: E, : :_
s ,. , ; :

a

2::

 

 

 

_
H H

,

_:::K

 

 

 

 

:: _ _ 3&1

J

~ 21-1

L
r
‘

 

 

 

_,A.

v

 

1:):

“d _.J:._-._‘__ x

. ‘- ht.—

 

 

THE INTERIOR OF THE CHURCH

FIG. 4..—-Bay of the Interior of Presbytery

(Lower Storey). By Mr. S. Vacher

 

FIG. 5.—Bay of the Interior of Presbytery
(Upper Storey). By Mr. S. Vacher

THE SHRINE AND ROYAL TOMBS

of gilt bronze, their robes covered with delicately
engraved patterns. Above is a beautifully painted
tester. About the tomb “stood four great tapers
continually burning.”*‘ The whole circle of
tombs had testers from the first. That over
Philippa’s is the earliest now existing, but
Alianor’s tomb had a contemporary painted canopy,
and so must Henry III.’s have had as well.

The last king to be buried in the chapel was
Henry V. (1422), and the circuit of tombs having
been already completedgi“ an important monument
was built for him by a most ingenious contrivance.
An upper chapel, which is supported by little more
than two staircase turrets of openwork, spans the
ambulatory and covers a portion of the Confessor’s
chapel just sufficient for the tomb, on which, says
Caxton, “is a rich image like himself, of silver
and gilt, where he is daily remembered and prayed
for.” Now only the wooden core of the image
remains. The possibilities of the Confessor’s
Chapel being exhausted, Queen Katherine was laid
in the Lady Chapel, and Henry VI. tried to find a
place in vain, and was buried at Chertsey.

Henry VII. refounded the Lady Chapel as a
second mausoleum.

The floor of the Confessor’s chapel is of marble
inlaid with mosaic. The state of the pavement
seems to show that the shrine has been pushed
westward of its first position. Probably the build—
ing of Henry V.’s chantry necessitated some
rearrangement of the shrine and high altar.

‘ Caxton.

T Henry IV. was buried at Canterbury.
I4

“v 'm ____.__.-

T

 

THE ALTAR AND CORONATION CHAIR

In the splendid painted panel now preserved in
the Deanery we have the only known remnant of

the Altar. This is a long panel about

3:1: 3:247 11 ft. by 3 ft., with paintings set in gilt
” 4.1-0” - tabernacles ornamented with gesso, and
C/zair made “ glistering” with inlaid glass

imitating enamels. It is clear on com-
paring it with some of the large pieces of gold-
smithery of the time, such, for instance, as the
shrine at Evreux,and another in the cathedral library
at Rouenf“ that it was intended to resemble a piece
of goldsmith’s work set with enamel and jewels.
Viollet—le-Duc speaks ofit as “an object perhaps
unique in Europe . . . one of the most ancient of
the great movable retables known, which, by its
dimensions, could only have belonged to the chief
altar of the celebrated abbey. Ifit is not of French
make it resembles similar work of the middle of the
thirteenth century, of which some dc’brz': remains,
and it gives us a good idea of the perfection of such
furniture, made in a manner now entirely for-
gotten. ’1

It is clearly a work made about 1270, and ma
very well have been the original retable placed on
the altar for the consecration service of 1269.: In
style it would have harmonised perfectly with the
gold shrine which rose above and behind it.

We possess also an account§ for a marvellous

“ In these we get short lengths of enamels set in borders just like
the glass imitations in the retable.

‘l “ Diet. Mobilier.” Cf. our p. 263.

I Or it may have been a frontal for the Altar.

§ Printed in “ Gleanings.”

THE ALTAR AND CORONATION CHAIR

gold-embroidered frontal for the great altar, which
was set with jewels and enamels. Four women
were engaged in making it for three years and nine
months, and it cost the immense sum of £280,
nearly 23000 of our money. It must have been
the most splendid piece of“ Opus Anglicanum ’
embroidery ever wrought. This also was doubt-
less in place at the dedication. In the “ Customs”
a “precious frontal” and others are mentioned in
the directions for ornamenting the altar. A careful
drawing of the Presbytery, made on the occasion of
Abbot Islip’s funeral in I 532, and now at the Society
of Antiquaries, shows the altar in its later state
after the high stone reredos had been built; but
above the reredos was a Rood beam, which was
probably part of the original arrangement. On
either hand of the Crucifix were figures of Mary
and John, and beyond them two cherubim.*

From several accounts of Henry III.’s time it
appears that this was a common arrangement.
Below the Rood the drawing shows a tester above
the altar, and figures of SS. Peter and Paul. It
is likely that it also existed from the first. An
order of 124.3 directs that the crowns of SS.
Edward and Edmund, the keys of St. Peter, and the
sword of St. Paul should be well gilt. All these
may have belonged to the Rood beamrl“

Between the High Altar and the shrine stood the

* Engraved, but not well, in “ Gleanings.” The suspended
tabernacle for the sacrament is made to look like a turret. For a similar
composition dating from the XIIlth Century, see MS. Bible I.D.L. in
the B.M.

T Sharpe’s MS., Cal. Close Rolls.
16

 

THE INTERIOR OF THE CHURCH

 

Fm. 6.—Uppcr Storey of S. Transcpt. By Mr. J. A. Slater

THE PRESBYTERY

Coronation Chair and the famous stone of Scone on
a stage or low platform, and facing west like a
bishop’s throne in a basilica. The original bill for
it, which has been preserved, speaks of it as “a
chair for the Scotch stone by the altar and in front
of the feretrum.” * A Scottish account, which
seems to have been written only a little later than
the removal of the stone from Scone, tells how it
had become “1e sege du prestre a ce haute auter ”
at Westminsterxf" The chair is of wood, patterned
over with elaborate designs of gesso. It was entirely
gilt except for some inlays of glass imitating
enamels. The ugly lions at the bottom are com-
paratively modern.

The floor in front of the altar is a mosaic of
porphyry and Italian marbles. lnlaid in the marble
T/ P is an inscription Of brass letters which

16 re:- . ,
glves the date of 1268, so this was also
in place at the dedication of the church.

The romantic canopied stone tombs to the left
of the altar and the wooden sedilia on the right
were entirely covered with gilding, patterned gesso,
inlays of coloured glass, and with painting ; they all
probably belong to the first third of the fourteenth
century. Frederick of \Viirtemburg, who visited
the church in 1592, noted that “ the beautiful
tombs of kings and queens ” were “ all covered over

byfcry.

* The stage for it is mentioned in the account. See zlrr/ia‘d.
702127144 xiii.; and cf G. C. Scott, “ Eng. Church Archr.”

TSkene, Chron. Picts and Scots. “Beside the shrine of St.
Edward” (Robt. of Gloucester). “ For a mass priest to sit in . . . in

a chair of old time made full fine ” (Harding).
18

THE PRESBYTERY

with gilding.” The reclining statues of these
tombs were highly painted, so that they seemed
like the knights and ladies themselves in their most
splendid robes. High above these tombs were
testers, which are shown in the earliest views of
the interior.

The sedilia—or more properly the presbyteries—
the seats of the clergy to the south of the altar, are
placed directly above the tomb of the supposed
founder of the church, Sebert, and formed one
work with it, so that the whole is usually called
“ Sebert’s tomb.” According to V’Valsingham,
Sebert’s body was brought from the Cloister to this
place in 1308, and it is evident that the arch over
the tomb and the sedilia are of this date, and make
part of one composition. The panels contained
large paintings of the founders, Sebert and Edward
the Confessor, and of other kings and saints ; two
of those on the inside are still in fair condition and
are most noteworthy. At first the tomb proper
must have been visible from the presbytery through
the low arch, which later was filled up. A con-
sistent plan seems to have been maintained from the
first that the altar and all that was placed near to
it should be gilt. We must try to imagine the
dazzling shrine, the altar with all its furniture, the
coronation chair, the sedilia, and the tombs, all like
colossal pieces of goldsmiths’ work, when they were
lighted up by many lamps suspended from a great
silver circle* and reflected in the mirror-like floor.

The Inventory of 1388+ makes mention of a

" Henry III. gave such a circle in 12.1.6.

Jr Arr/m’o/agia, vol. 52.
I9

THE PRESBYTERY

canopy for the King’s Cage (Cawagium) by the
great altar. The editor of the Inventory gives
reasons for thinking that this “ cage” must have
been the King’s Pew. It probably stood to the
west of the sediliafl" 'We may think of it as a
screen of tracery enclosing the royal seats and richly
painted and gilt. Occupying the south-west bay
of the presbytery it would have completed its
splendidly decorated furniture and monumentsxl"
“Two drawing purple curtains for the [Lenten]
Veil before the High Altar” are noted in the Sup-
pression inventory. The reredos or screen which
now divides the presbytery from the Confessor’s
Chapel is of fifteenth—century work. The arrange-
ment of the sculptures of the life of the Confessor
on the east side in a series of loops is exactly like
similar loops in Henry V.’s chantry, and the detail
of the niche canopies is almost identical with the
tabernacle from Margaret \Voodville’s Chapel of.
St. Erasmus (once by the Lady Chapel), which is
now placed above the entrance to one of the
northern Chapels. We may with great probability
say that it was erected during the reign of
Edward IV., for the filling, at the back of Sebert‘s
tomb, which was probably done at the same time
as the screen, bears the badges of Edward IV.
The eastern side of the screen is still in an authentic
condition, and some vestiges of painting—blue
and vermilion—are yet to be seen on the tracery.
Dr. M. R.]ames has pointed out that the sculptures

* Mr. Micklethwaite.

’l‘ A chantry at Salisbury “was vulgarly called the cage, and used as
a pew.” “ Bib. Topog. Brit.” vi. p. 80.
20

 

 

CROSSING AND CORONATION STAGE

of the frieze closely resemble the pictures in a MS.
Life of the Confessor at Trinity College, Cam—
bridge.* “Both in selection and in composition
the pictures in the MS. are so closely related to the
sculptures that the latter might well be supposed
to have been adapted from them.”

‘ The western side of the screen was defaced in
1705 when a new altar-piece was set up. Enough
was found when it was altered again and again by
\Vyatt and Scott to show that it had been similar
to the eastern side, except that in the middle,
occupying the space of five niches, was a recess for
a (probably sculptured) retable. The whole had
been decorated in colour, the ground red and
azure, the mouldings and carvings gilded. These
restorations, however, succeeded in removing the
original traceried wood doors of the screen which
had remained until this timerl“ If we may judge
from the drawing on the Islip Roll the statues to
the left of the altar were ecclesiastics and those to

the right (sainted) kings.

The lower floor of the presbytery—the square at
the crossing of the church—was separated from
the transepts by screens. The floor was

776 . .
Crlorrz'n about 18 In. higher than at present, and
and g here stood the Paschal candlestick be-
. tween the tombs of two abbotsj, It
Coronation
Sta 6 had seven branches, and must have been
3 ' of great size. To the west would have

stood the matins or choir altar, mentioned in the

' B. IO, 2.

'l‘ See Neale and “Gleanings.” I Sporlcy MS.
2|

CROSSING AND CORONATION STAGE

Book of Customs. Again, the directions of
Henry VII. for masses, provided that they should
be sung “at the altar under the lantern place
between the Quire and the High Altar” until his
new chapel was “fully edified.” In this space at
the intersection of the two vistas of the church,
has, from the first, always been set up the throne for
the coronation. It was placed on a stage covered
with tapestry and cloth of gold ; above was a tester
of silk hung around with little silver bells. The
order for the coronation of Richard II. provided
that a square stage covered with tapestrv and railed
about, and with flights of stairs eastward and west-
ward, should be set up “close to the four high
pillars between the Quire and the Altar.” In the
earlier order of 1307 it is also directed that the
throne should be placed between the monks choir
and the presbytery of the great altar. From this
stage at the centre of the church the Archbishop
appealed to the people whether the king should be
crowned, and they cried out, “Let it be done.”
Here the oath was taken by the king: To grant
the laws and customs and franchises ot the people,
to guard the peace, and to do justice in mercv.
To all which young Edward s“ ore—“Je le graunt,
je le garderez, ie le terez.’ The accounts for the
coronation of Edward I. show that a similar stage,
called a “ pulp1tum with tester and silver bells,
was prepared at the same place for him and his
queen, Alianor of Castile.

The stage was so much elevated that men might
ride under it For the coronation of Edward III.

. cc ‘
the stage ( pulpitulum ) and canopy were cm ered
22.

THE CHOIR AND PULPITUM

with tapestry, samite, and cloth of gold. The
rails of the altar, the pavement and the tomb‘of
Edward I., were also covered with cloth of gold.ale

At the crossing were set up the state herses

where dead kings lay before their burials't'

The choir extending westward from the crossing
was separated from the nave by double walls sup
T/ze C/zoir porting a loft called the pulpitum. In

the centre of the structure was the
and Pul— . 4.
pz'tum. chorr door. A plan.,_ made. about 1715
for \Vren shows the ch01r stalls, the
screens separating the crossing from the transepts,
and the position of the pulpitum.

The stalls were destroyed in 1775; the plan
shows sixty—four in all, and agrees with a descrip—
tion printed in 1708 which says that there were
twenty-eight stalls on each side and eight at the
west end.§

The stalls are shown in Sandford’s “ Coronation
of James 11.”: their arched canopies were sup—
ported by slender shafts with moulded annulets and
caps. Two of the carved misericords still exist, and
also what is probably a portion of one of the carved
divisions || (Figs. 7 and 8). These may be parts of
the work begun in 1253, when Jacob was the “June—
tor.” Dart (1723), who says that the stalls were
crowned with acute Gothic arches supported by

“ Brayley and Britton, Palace of Westminster, pp. 119 and 14,3.

1‘ See Sandford’s account of the funerals of Henry VII. and ofthe
Duke of Albemarle.

I In the possession of Mr. Lee. § Hatton’s “ New View.”

H “ Gleanings.” Sandford shows a level cornice, and this may have

been original.
23

THE CHOIR AND PULPITUM

pillars, and that the abbot’s and prior’s stalls were re-
spectively to the right and left on entering, adds that
in the further ends on the south side “is remaining
the painting of Richard II. The lower parts of
the picture are much defaced by the
backs ofthose who fill that stall, w hich,
ifI mistake not, is the place of the
Lord Chancellor when the House of
Lords repairs here. . . . Proceeding,
we rise by the first ascent towards the
altar to the second or lower pavement.
On each side of it are doors entering
into the transepts; hence by another
ascent we come to the altar.” As will
be shown further on, the existing por—
trait of Richard II. was painted for this
position in the choir. Such were the
stalls from which the monks “ repeated
from quire to quire the thanksgiving ot~
the convent.”*‘ A new “ great book ”
for the lectern in the middle of the
Fm. , —Thc choir was provided in 1399.
01:1 gm“, At Easter and other feasts the floor
was strewn with green stuff, partly for
the sake, I suppose, of the scent, as in the
Romance of the Holy Grail—“ The hall was
strewn with flowers, and rushes, and sweet herbs,
and gave out a smell like as it had been sprinkled
of balm.”
The choir and presbytery would have been
ornamented with hangings. Abbot Berkinge had
given some 1 on which the story of the Confessor

 

 

 

 

 

 

" Matthew of Westminster. 1‘ Sporley.
2+

THE CHOIR AND PULPITUM

was wrought, and Mary, Countess of Pembroke,
left others on which the arms of Aylmer de
Valence were figured.”“ \Veever, writing in 1631,
tells us of “cloths of Arras which adorn the
choir,” and he gives the Latin verses from one
which represented a coronation (P the Confessor’s) 73'
others depicted the stories of the Confessor and the
Pilgrim, and the Adventure with a Thief, also

 

inscribed with verses. These tapestries, which we
may conclude from the subject—the Life of the
Confessor—were ancient, were ejected in 1644., but
the tradition of hanging the presbytery with cloths
was kept up. Hollar shows the interior so
decorated on the occasion of the coronation of
Charles 11.3‘

When Alianor of Castile had her chamber tapes—
tried the people of the time said it was “like a
Church.” §

Some portions of the plain stonework which

* Sharpe’s Wills.

’r Ham rrgum radar; ubi Petra; camttmt ardent, Weever, p. 45.

I Keepe, writing in 1681, says that the tombs were “ visible but by
drawing the hangings which are hung before them for the better
adornment of this place.”

§ Quoted by Hudson Turner.
25

THE CHOIR AND PULPITUM

may be seen on each side of the present choir gates
appear to be ancient and may have formed part of
the pulpitum. The loft of the pulpitum was
served by two staircases, which would have occu—
pied some of the space between its two walls. The
western part of the church was shut off from the
choir by this structure and the nave had its own
altars. The principle nave altar must have been
placed some distance to the west and in front of
the door to the choir against a screen. To the
right and the left of the central altar were two
others, and above in the loft was a fourth. In the
Book Of Customs we get this group of altars thus
defined in an account of the lights: The Altar of
Holy Cross in the Nave (that is the central altar) :
the Altar of St. Paul and the Crucifix, to which,
for kissing the feet of the Crucifix, the people
ascended the steps on one side and descended on
the other (that is from the loft) : the old Altar of
St. Mary (on the left “ by the North door” some
accounts say): the Altar of Holy Trinity (the
remaining altar and, therefore, on the south side).

This arrangement persisted until the Reforma-
tion, and the Suppression inventory names the
“Jesus altar below ” (Holy Cross) and the “Jesus
altar above ” (St. Paul and the Crucifix).*“

There cannot be a doubt that the Jesus altar
above was on the pulpitum, for the inventory
associates with it “a pair of organs,” and organs
were usually placed on those lofts, from which also
the Epistle was read. The organs of the church

* Cf; Durham rites, and Mr. S. John Hope on Gloucester. ->1rr/.uxac/.

jaunt/1!, 1897.
26

.MN“, -M,,.______.‘A__ .. MAAQ xxx—~31: ‘_

NAVE, CHAPELS, AND PAVEMENTS

are mentioned as early as 1242. The Bohemian
travellers of 1466 spoke of the “music delightful
to hear.” The “ organs” must have been modest
things, very different from the big steam-driven
machines we now employ to roar at us. The
medimval ideal in music, I fancy, was that expressed
in “The Flower and the Leaf”:

“ And then the company answered allc
With voices sweet entuned and so smalle.”

It is evident that the Nave Rood or Crucifix
at first stood near enough to the loft to allow of
Christ’s feet being kissed; but there is some
evidence in the church that a beam once passed
across the nave between the pillars five bays from
the crossing.*

While the choir was being built in 1251,
Edward of Westminster was ordered to have a large
cross placed in the nave of the church at VVest-
minster and to buy two cherubim to stand on
each side of the crossx’t' In the Suppression in-
ventory mention is made of “the Crooked Rood.”

The nave is particularly interesting on account
of its being one of the very few instances in which
builders of a later time tried to make

JVare, . . .
the1r work like that whlch they were
C/zape/r, . .
and completing. The general lines are
maintained; the “detall” 18 that or
Pavement:

the later time. (Another most impor-
tant example of this desire for harmony is the nave
of Beverley Minster.) In the aisle wall at the

* Mr. Micklethwaite. 1" Close Rolls, 35 Henry III.
27

NAVE, CHAPELS, AND PAVEMENTS

south-west is a projecting gallery with a com-
munication from the abbot’s house.
In the fourteenth and fifteenth centuries the

I
I
I
I
I
I
I
I
I
I
I
I
|
I
I
I
I
a
I
I
I
I
I
I
I

 

Fm. 9.-——Plan of halfof the Ambulatory, showing
old paving

transeptal and other chapels were enclosed by
screens erected by several donors, details of which
may be seen in a document printed in Stanley's
“Memorials.” At this time the eastern door out
of the north transept-aisle, which has been recentlv

opened out again, was closed in forming the Chapel
28

r amn‘wmrr M

GLASS AND COLOURING
of St. Andrew. St. Michael’s Chapel in the central

bay of the same transept—aisle still preserves a part
of its reredos, and its altar slab stands behind a
tomb. The south end of the south transept also
was screened OH: to form the Chapel of St. Blase.

The last vestiges of what must be the original
arrangement of the paving of Henry III.’s work
are even now visible ; but the arrangement of these
slabs is much less clear than when I first noticed
it. Its condition forty or fifty years since is care-
fully shown on the old lithographed plans which
stand about the church. The slabs were from Pur—
beck. In the apse around the ambulatory straight
strips running east and west left spaces between
them which were filled with squares set diagonally
(Fig- 9).

The radiating chapels seem to have been tiled
like St. Faith’s Chapel, which retains its original
floon

There is evidence enough to show that the
windows, of the ground floor at least, were glazed
with risaille atterned glass, set with
gfyojirjigld morselgs of brinht colour and charged
1 g' with heraldic shields. The windows
of the apse and the transept roses would have
had stories in brilliant ruby and sapphire glass.
The Fabric rolls, as we shall see, show that in
the last years before the consecration of 1259
much painting, including figure-work, was done.
On the walls, here and there, are some slight
vestiges of colour decoration. A good authority
writes: “The interior was decorated by being
29

GLASS AND COLOURING

whitened and stoned in red lines. The diaper
work of the triforium was gilt on a red ground ;
the sculptured bosses were gilt and coloured.”6

The wall arcades may have been decorated in
vermilion and gold like the eastern bays of the
Chapter House. Some slight stains may be seen
on the capitals by the mosaic tomb of Katherine ;
and the fine shields in the aisles outside of the
choir, with the straps and heads to which they
seem to be suspended, still show gilding and colour.
The sculptured angels in the south transept also
Show traces of colour decoration.

The marble—work, which was polished, varied
from grey—green to purplish-grey, and this must be
thought of as part of the colour schemes-[-

1 have spoken of the brilliant decorations of the
presbytery, and we have seen how splendid were
the earlier tombs of gilt bronze, mosaic, and marble.

Even the polished marble and alabaster tombs
were touched with gold and colours. A drawing
in the Powell Collection at the British Museum
shows that the mouldings and carvings of Alianor’s
marble tomb were gilt, and colouring may still
be traced on Langham’s tomb. For the decora-
tion of Philippa’s tomb see the model at South
Kensington.

All the stone tombs, earlier or later, seem to
have been brightly painted. For example, the
efligy ofAbbot Colchester (14.20) had gesso enrich—
ments, and the whole tomb was coloured and

* G. G. Scott, jun., “ English Church Architecture.’y

Jr Parts of the piers in the east aisle of the north transept still
preserve the original surface.
30

s;
’r.
E

 

5243.2 uh 3:2 .3 wESEQ a ESL A3: cv 5220 me flag bézldw .EL

 

 

GLASS AND COLOURING

gilded.’* Most ofthe tombs had painted testers ;
that of the Duchess of York was painted with the
Crucifixion on a blue ground studded with stars.
Even the ironwork of Henry V.’s tomb was illumi—
nated red and blue, in lengths charged respectively
with three lions and three fleurs—de—lys.

The screens of the chapels were also painted.
Keepe tells us that the screen of the chapel of St.
Andrew in the north transept was “ richly adorned
with curious carvings and engravings, and other
imagery work of birds, flowers, cherubims, devices,
mottoes, and coats—of—arms of many of the chief
nobility painted thereon. All done at the cost of
Edmond Kirton, Abbot, who lies buried on the
south side of the chapel under a plain grey marble
tomb.” Dart says that the screen was “ one of the
beautifullest pieces of ancient work that I have
seen, . . . not long since removed.”

In a MS. collection ofarms and inscriptions from
the church, dated 1680, which is in my possession,
there is a coloured drawing of the screen to the
chapel of St. Andrew. Its chief feature was a
beautiful brattishing, or band, consisting of angels
holding shields, and between each pair a blossoming
tree “ supported” by a crowned eagle and a crow,
which hold the ends of a label on which was
“ Kyrie 81133022.” In another place was a large rose
surrounded by rays, and an inscription with the
date 1367.1" (Fig. 122.)

This manuscript also shows that the screen of
St. Paul’s Chapel formed by the fine tomb of Sir

'* “ Gleanings,” and Stothard’s Efligies.

‘f See Appendix. See Fig.122, butitwas probably painted,not carved.
32

GLASS AND COLOURING

Ludovic Robsart, 1431, not only had a row ot
coats of arms painted, as may still be traced on the
frieze-like band, but that the whole was brilliantly

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

Fin. 11,—Early part of Cloister (r. 12.5). From :1 Drawing
by Mr. T. MacLaren

coloured and gilded, including the big heraldic
beasts and the banners they bear, as well as his
crest and garterfi“ These facts are a mere index to

* A fully-coloured lithograph of this tomb, published last century,
shows that the ground colour on the stone~w0rk was blue.

c 33

GLASS AND COLOU RING

the evidence as to the profuse use of colour, but no
index can give any idea of the colour itself. Such
a list of blues, reds, and gold may even seem repel—
lant to the reader who has not made a long study
of mediaaval painting. Every one who makes that
study, however, is glad to admit that the old painters
were masters of a secret simple as innocence, yet
consummate as the tradition of centuries could
make it, by which the juxtaposition of bright
hues brought about a result at once soothing and
exalting, a high harmony of vision.

In trying to think back a picture of the church
as it was, we must by imagination set out the
treasures of the altar, suspend the coronac of lights
from the vaults, and recall the chanting priests in
their splendid vestments, as they passed with their
shrines,censers,crosses, and banners along the aislesfiis
One of the banners, a gift of Henry III., was of
red samite embroidered with a dragon of gold, the
eyes of which were of sapphire, and whose tongue
seemed to movesi"

Of one such scene we have an account evidently
written by an eye—witness. In May 1307 the
Abbey was Visited by Peter of Spain, and on this
occasion a solemn mass was celebrated in memory of
Queen Alianor. Her tomb was lighted up by forty-
eight candles placed about it, each weighing 16 lbs.

* See the several inventories; also Gasquet on the Suppression of
the Monasteries. A cup called St. Edward’s mazer, a cross of beryl,
and a dish of precious stone called agate, ornamented with precious
stones and pearls, are mentioned. Excheq. Augt. Oll‘. Treas. Roll,
11 m., 109.

Jr Such a dragon banner was used with another representing a lion.

They were called Rogation banners.

3+

GLASS AND COLOURING

Twenty—four candles were placed at the tomb of
King Henry, and twelve around the feretrum of
St. Edward. Then to the marble columns all along
on both sides of the fere-
trum beams were fixed as
far as to the end of the
choir, and on the beams
candles were placed all
the way, not more than a
foot and a half apart ; and
the monks and all the
people carried candles—
“ So that the radiant lights,
like the glory of the starry
sky, exhilarated the souls
of the beholders with
joyousness.” 7‘

Perhaps the most re- W,
markable yearly pageant V'
must have been that of
the eve of St. Peter ad Fm. ”$33,150:: Walk
Vincula, when by a grant
of Henry III. eight bucks of Windsor forest were
delivered in the church so that those who carried
them should “make two companies before the
High Altar.” 1

One of the last great spectacles of the old order
of things was on the occasion of VVolsey’s receiving
the Cardinal’s hat in 1515. The mass was sung
by the Archbishop of Canterbury, many other
bishops and abbots being present, he of Rochester
being crosier-bearer to the Archbishop. Colet

* Chron. Reigns of E. I. and E. ll. 1’ Close Rolls, pmn'm.

 

 

 

 

 

 

35

GLASS AND COLOURING

preached, and said that “ a Cardinal represented
the Order of Seraphim, who continually burneth
in love, and therefore he only is appareled in red,
which colour only betokeneth nobleness.” During
the prayers the Cardinal “lay gravelling” (sic)
before the altar, and the Archbishop set the hat

upon him.*

"‘ Cal. State Papers, Hen. VIII.

36

CHAPTER II
CLOISTER AND PRECINCTS

The Cloister: Chapter House: Rose Decoration: Refcctory: Belfry

and Precincts.

“ 171 Mare (loirm‘: I aaz'e paired, peraapr, :ome (y [/13 most
rational agar: of my lifi’. [a (at/l rem'm’dparaméulatiaa round
it: end/€51 air/e I Mil/found my tfioagét: ei'tr I‘ereiz'e some new
rematiom.”
JOHN CARTER.

OUR best authority for the Cloister is the account
given by Keepe: “I shall trouble you a little
T/ze longer by leading you out of the Church
into the Cloister which you are let into
by two doors. By that towards the
west was the picture of Our Saviour Christ nailed
to the Cross, the Virgin standing on one side and
St. John on the other, curiously painted and very
pitiful to behold. And round about the sides of
these Cloisters were other noble paintings with a
variety of verses alluding to the history of the
foundation and the figures. On every side oppo-
site to the walls, Where now are only frames of
wood, were fine glazed windows of tinctured glass
of divers colours, and over the entrance into the
Chapter House was placed the statue of the
Blessed Virgin and Our Saviour in her arms and
two angels on each side, all richly enamelled and
set forth with gold and blue, some vestigia of all
which are still remaining whereby to judge of the
former splendour and beauty thereof.” 9‘6

ChfimL

* H. chpe, 1683.
37

THE CLOISTER

The Crucifixion by the seat of the Master of
the Novices (mentioned above) had been made to
the order of the Prior Merston, who died in 1376.*

The present shafts and capitals of the north walk
of the Cloister are mostly ancient, and some
authority for the cusping of the sub—arches is still
evident at the west bay , the cusping of the circles
is modern, but doubtless resembles what was once
the form. 3 The glazing spoken of by Keepe must
have filled the tracery heads of the openings, or
fenestrals, as it will be convenient to call them, down
to the iron bar. Some fragments of glass remained,
I believe, before the restoration, and in one or two
of the smaller spandrels. of the tracery are still to
be found the iron margins to which the glass Vs as
attached by pins. The bays of the north— east
angle, which form part of the earliest “ork of
Henry III., are particularly remarkable. See
Figs. IO and II. I have drawn one of the ex-
ternal fenestrals of the north side for the sake of
the shadowing, which is one of the great beauties
of such traceried arcades (Fig. 12).

Carter engraved the beautiful Decorated bays or
the eastern walk before they were rebuilt by Blore
about 1835,: whose copy seems to have been what
we call accurate, save that Purbeck marble was not
used for the shafts. Some ancient base stones in
the triforium, which were evidently prepared for
this work or other similar bays and discarded, show
sockets for Purbeck shafts. The groove for glaz—

" Sec Document in Stanley’s “ Memorials."
l‘ The circles were grooved for such cusps.
: Sec \V. Cavclcr also.

38

 

 

FIG. 13,—Doorway from Cloister to the Chapter House. By Mr. F. G. Knight, 1873

l

l
\
THE CLOISTER
ing the tracery was also omitted by Blore. The
state of the cloister a century since is described in
detail by Carter. In the west walk one of the
fenestrals had lost its tracery; the north and east
walks were nearly unaltered. Of the south walk
he says, “the tracery from six of the eight win-
dows was cut away about seven years ago.” These
bays were entirely rebuilt by Scott, who says
that the tracery of the south walk had been en-
tirely lost before his time ; *‘ but he appears to
have meant the cusping, as the main divisions
existed in two bays till 1820 at least, and are shown
in a careful engraving by Neale. Neale also shows
the west walk, of which the forms of the openings
were as at present, except that the cusping only re—
mained to the heads of the lights, and none to the
tracery. A few of the jamb—stones and mullions
of the west walk fenestrals are still ancient, and
one narrow bay at the north-west corner, which
appears to be a copy made in VVren’s time of the
original work, is untouched. The forms of the
cusping of this bay, which are echoed again in the
iron gates set up about 1750, are not followed in
the new work, although it would seem that they
would have been the best guide for it. Up to the
present time the inner walls and vaults of the
Cloister walks remain untouched save for a newly—
made recess at the south—west corner which is sup—
posed to represent a monk’s lavatory, but, as no one
proposes to wash here now, it is a mere toy. The
vaults and side walls are most terribly decayed, but
the experiments made of the preservative effects of
* “Gleanings.”

+0

{{{{{

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

I4.—Enlarged detail of the last

F IG.

THE CLOISTER

whitewash in the vaulted passages which lead out
of Dean’s Yard show that this leprosy might still
be cleansed by such simple means, were it not that
we always prefer to do some great thing in
“ restoration.”

The several ornamental doorways leading from the
Cloister are practically disappearing by rapid decay.
The fine thirteenth-century door from the choir
to the cloister (Fig. 10) is represented in an
engraving in W. Caveler’s book. In the hollow
of the moulding are set roses, and there is a fair
queen’s head to the left and a decayed king’s head
to the right, Eleanor and Henry probably.

The splendid entrance to the vestibule of the
Chapter House is best represented in some excellent
drawings published some thirty years ago in the
“ Sketch—book of the Architectural Association.” *6
(Figs. 13 and 14..) A large part of the injury here
followed the application of Scott’s Preservative
Solution (shellac in spirit, i..e ,French polish), which
was lashly applied without adequate experiment.
This “ preservative” was being used 1n the cloister
in 1878, when a protest from the zit/1312mm: stopped
itl “The first step towards preservation has been
to remove more of the surface than would have
perished in a century; . . . on the preserved ribs
scarcely a moulding line remains.” T We have seen
from Keepe’s account that the Chapter House door
was painted in bright colours. A sketch in the Burues

b
collection at South Kensmgton shows that the

* Vol. vii., by Mr. F. G. Knight, who has been so good as to allow
me the use of the originals.

'|‘ Aug. 17 and 31. I Bid/Jar, Sept. 7, 1878.
+2

CHAPTER HOUSE

foliage was of vermilion and gold on a background
of blue. The sculptures are described in chap. xii.

The outer vestibule of the Chapter House is low
because the dormitory passes over it, but it is ex-
tremely pretty and a perfect introduction
to the burst of glory beyond. In the
inner vestibule the window on the right
is a restoration of Scott’s, for which he thought he
had found some authority, but how much is
doubtful. The west wall of this inner vestibule is
one of the best preserved parts of the fabric;
being very much out of sight it has been hardly
at all tampered with, and a dark ochre wash still
protects the stone. Where this skin has been
broken through decay is rapidly taking hold of
the stone. In the outer vestibule, a later phase of
the same process may be followed, there most of
the surface is eaten away and only very little of
the protective coat remains. There is a crypt
beneath the Chapter House with walls no less
than eighteen feet thick, with a joint in the walling
five feet from the outside. It would seem that it
was begun of a smaller size, and that the outer
thickening was added before the superstructure
was commenced.

The noble Chapter House and crypt must have
been begun concurrently with the church,
Matthew Paris speaks of it as “the incomparable
Chapter House,” under the year 1250, and indi-
cations in the fabric accounts prove that it was
completed as a structure by 1253. The Rolls
of Parliament show that it was early used for the

+3

C/zapz‘er
H owe.

CHAPTER HOUSE

assembly of Parliament, but the monks retained
the use of it until the Dissolution. The state of
the Chapter House before restoration is fully de-
scribed by Carter in the Gentleman’s Magazine and
later in Scott’s “ Gleanings.” In
his “Recollections,” Scott says:
“ Not a point was missed which
would enable me to ascertain the
actual design of any part, nor was
any old feature renewed of which
a trace of the old form remained.
I know of no parts which are
L conjecturally restored but the
l following: the external parapet,
T— - the pinnacles, the gables of the
Fm. ,5__Fr0m Old buttresses, and the roof.”
Drawing ofChapter AS (0 this I‘OOf, it is, I think,
House unlikely that it originally had a
steep pyramid; that at \Vells
still retains a flat roof; the one at Salisbury is a
capricious alteration against, I believe, the evidence.
For the steep roof of the Lincoln Chapter House
reason is found in the gabled roof of the western
extension. The Westminster Chapter House had
a flat roof within a generation or so of the Dissolu—
tion ; it so appears in the so—called Aggas Map of
London, as well as in the views of Hollar. One of
the flying buttresses is shown by a rough sketch in
the Crowle Collection at the British Museum.
Instead of the gablets there was a low capping
directly above the slope of each flyer, and this may
have been the original form (Fig. 15). The interior
vault stood fast until 174.0, when it was assisted to
4+

  

 

   

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

CHAPTER HOUSE

fall. The central column
with its carved capital was
still standing when Scott al—
most discoveredthis wonderful
building. Numbers of the
moulded ribs from the vault-
ing were found walling up
one of the windows, and the
ancient springers with their
hooks for the iron ties still
remain. We shall see that the
western window was altered
at an early time (p. 200); it
was originally of four lights
with tracery like that on the
blank north—west side of the
octagon, which was found
nearly intact. It is unneces—
sary to Speak of the glass,
which was probably originally
of white pattermwork, as it
was at Salisbury Chapter
House. Fig. 16 shows the
form of the windows.

The sculptured Majesty in
the tympanum of the door is
modern. Carter says: “The
double archway entering the
Chapter House has had its
dividing column with nearly
all its tracery cut away.” The
fine figures to the right and

I

   

 

 

.t .5 1” W3“ .ll
i l. . ; ..’ J» l. .‘
i him. lililiinsh «31.1,

left are original, and represent FIG.l6.~W'indowofChaptcrHousc.

Drawn by Mr. H. B. Brewer
+5

CHAPTER HOUSE

the Virgin and the Angel. The carved archivolt
and jambs with little figures seated amidst running
foliage are untouched and lovely.

The arcade of the interior with its marble
columns and capitals is to a great extent originals“
The ycu/ptured capitals in polished marble on the
east side are guaranteed as authentic by Scott, who
calls them exquisite. The mouldings and diaper

    

Fm. I7.——Tile from Chapter lluuse : “the salmon of 5. Peter "

here show considerable remnants of gilding and
colour. This is represented on the paper cover of
an old “Handbook to the Abbey,” published by
Bell. The lithograph is lettered “ Arcades in the
Chapter House as originally decorated.” The
hollows were all coloured black and blue, the
mouldings vermilion, the projecting fillets being
gilt. The capitals and their abaci were gilt. The
diaper in the spandrels was gilt on a vermilion
ground. One of the diaper patterns is a most
beautiful trellis of naturalistically treated rose.

" The little heads are all or mostly modern; but see three at the

west end ofthe inner vestibule.

46

CHAPTER HOUSE

The mid—fourteenth—century paintings in the
eastern bays of this arcade are, or rather were (for
only some shadowy, but beautiful heads remain),
of Christ surrounded by angels. The series from
the Apocalypse westward was given by John of
Northampton late in the fifteenth century.

The tile floor of the Chapter House is almost

 

Fm. IR—Tile from Chapter House floor

entirely ancient, and must be the finest pavement
of the kind now existing. It had been protected
by a wooden floor up to the early part of last
century. Cottingham, in Vol. XXIX. of “ Archzeo—
logia,” noted the discovery of these tiles, and made
drawings from them, which were published in
1842.5“ “On the removal of the boarded floor the
pavement was found to be in a very perfect state,
few tiles being broken, and the colours in many
parts as brilliant as when first laid down.” Some

"’ J. G. Nichols, Gothic Tiles.

CHAPTER HOUSE

of the tiles which form the outer border represent
a fine rose window, others display King Henry’s
arms ; the designs of others are evidently taken from
Eastern stuffs, and still others have figure subjects.
These last, which Ilwas allowed to examine and
draw some ten years ago, are quite as fine as the
otherwise unequalled Chertsey series, with which
they have much in common. They may even be
earlier works by the same maker. The accounts
show that they can be dated about 1255. Three
varieties, which contain figures of a king, queen,
and abbot, must represent Henry III., Eleanor of
Provence, and Crokesley. The king, seated on his
throne, plays with a brachet, which drags at his
master’s mantle; the queen has a hawk; and the
abbot blesses with hand upraised. A fourth tile
represents the Confessor giving his ring to the dis—
guised St. john, and a fifth has two musicians, one
playing a harp, the other a fiddle with a bow.
The published drawings give little idea of the value
and beauty of these tiles; for instance, the king’s
dog is omitted altogether. Three other tiles seem
never to have been figured ; they represent a deer
being chased by a horseman and dog and shot by
a bowman. These figured tiles are disposed in two
rows exactly south of the central pillar; between
them were some vestiges of an inscription; one
word, I thought was ABBASfl‘ (See figs. 17 to 25.)

* [fear that the endeavour to protect the tiles by linoleum is not
entirely successful. Their surface is turning to dust, and it was only by
comparing duplicate tiles that I could make out the subjects. Accurate
drawings of them should be made at once. The Chertsey tiles were
made, it is believed, r. 1270. Although they followed the English
4.8

rmw a:

ROSE DECORATION

A plan of the whole floor has been printed by
H. Shaw. It is clear from the subjects that the
tiles were specially designed for Westminster.

One of the spandrels of the eastern wall—arcade
is carved into a beautiful trellis of roses, and some
R0“ of the other spandrels are variations on

. the same motive. The naturalistic
Decoration. . . . .
rendering of this rose pattern IS quite
remarkable, and we may here best mention the
profuse way in which roses are used as a decorative
theme throughout the church. The exterior
jambs of the door from the church to the cloister
are set with roses ; so, also, are all the ground—floor
arches of the end wall of the south transept, and
the end wall of the north transept, and of the
western aisle of the latter (Fig. 26). There are
roses at the centres of some portions of the square
diaper on the walls, and some of the bosses of the
ambulatory are roses; so also are those of the
earliest part of the Cloister.

It is said that Eleanor of Provence, Queen of
Henry 111., had a rose for a badge, also that
the rose was one of the badges of Henry III.*
Boutell says that the badge of Edward I. was
a golden rose, “and from it, apparently, was
versions of two Romances (Tristram and Richard), M. Paulin Paris
thought that they were French, but as others of the same series were
found at Halesowen, it seemed more likely that they were English.
The resemblance to the Westminster tiles completes the proof; some of
the details are so much alike in both sets that they may both be
designed by one artist.

* “Reliquary” 1884, but no evidence is offered. Aylofl‘e in Vet.

Mon., 1780. The use of badges at this early time is doubtful.
D +9

.~

 

ROSE DECORATION

FIG. 20.—Tile from Chapter House floor

ROSE DECORATION

derived, but by what processes are unknown .

the red rose of Lancaster.” Both Edward I.
and Edmund, earl of Lancaster, were sons of
Henry III. and Eleanor, and the rose was used
scores of times as a recurring decoration
painted on the mouldings of Edmund’s tomb.*

 

FIG. 21,—Tile from the Chapter House floor

Not only are there painted roses on his tomb, but
one of the little shields on the south side hangs to
an exquisitely carved rose-tree. The shield, if my
memory is not at fault, is that of Provence. On
the tomb of his wife, Aveline, roses are painted in
the same way, alternating with the arms, and the
arch is set around with carved roses. Again, in

" Camden remarks, “ Edmund Crouchback, first earl of Lancaster,
used a red rose wherewith his tomb at Westminster is adorned.”

51

-mm A A-._/‘

52

ROSE DECORATION

 

 

W.mh, -

ROSE DECORATION

 

 

    

FIG. 25.——Ti1e from Chapter House floor

53

ROSE DECORATION

124.0, Henry III. ordered “the Chamber of our
Queen ” at the Tower to be whitened and “ newly
painted with roses.” We might suppose that an
introduction of the “Rose of Provence” by the
queen would account for all this ; but we are told
that Crouchback, who in 1272 married Blanche,
widow of the Count of Champagne, and lived
much at Provins, brought from
thence the roses, incorrectly called
Provence roses, to Englandf’g‘ In the
guide-book accounts of Provins we
read that it has for centuries been
celebrated for roses, imprOperly
called Provence roses, which have a
rich crimson hue, and they are said
FIG. 26.—Rose to have been brought by Crusaders
Decoration from the Holy Landxl‘

Henry III. decorated with roses his
church which was begun in the same year that
Edmund was born. For this there may be no
other reason than that it was an epoch of rose
culture and admiration ; of this there is abundant
proof. Roses at this time were prized in gardens,
were the fashionable flower for Chaplets, and to
this age belongs the Romaunt of the Rose.
Amiens and other contemporary buildings in
France have rose decorations.

 

" Stanley’s “ Memorials,” and Diet. Nat. Biog.

T Thibault IV. of Champagne, it is said, brought From Syria the
famous red or purple rose cultivated at Provins. C. Joret, “ La Rose
dans l’Antiquité,” &c., 1892.

54.

REFECTORY, ETC.

The rest of the Abbey buildings to the south of
the church have been almost completely elucidated
Refectory by Mr. Micklethwaite. Over the vest1—
€56 ’ bule .of the Chapter House ran the
' dormltory, with a little passage crossmg
the end of St. Faith’s Chapel to the stair in the
south—west corner of the south transept, the door
of which may still be seen.* The spiral stair itself
is shown in VVren’s plan.

The Refectory, originally a noble hall of Nor—
man work, had a long timber roof. From the
roof hung a large crown of lights, the fall ofwhich
is mentioned by Caxton. Over the high table was
painted a great Majesty which seemed to reign
over the assembled monks. The tables were set
with cups and salts of silver. South of the Refec—
tory stood the Misericord, Kitchen, and other
buildings.

In the Customs of Abbot Ware (1266), together
with a full account of the daily life of the monks,
there are many incidental references to the build-
ings. We hear of the Guest-house of the Miseri-
cord, the “ Scriptorim Domus” and the Sacristy.
Also of the Lavatory by the Refectory door, and of
an alteration in the kitchen by which it was put in
better communication with the Refectoryrl"

The upper part of the gate tower through which
access is obtained to the Cloister from the Elms
(Dean’s Yard) was rebuilt several years ago. In
the niches some stumps of figures remained until
a comparatively recent time. It appears from a
passage in “Camden’s Remains” that images of

* See Arrfld’ol. journal, 1876. 1‘ Bradshaw Society, 1904.
55

THE BELFRY

the Confessor and a pilgrim occupied these posi-
tions. This subject, repeated dozens of times in
the painted and sculptured imagery of the Abbey,
showed how the Confessor, being at Havering, had
alms begged from him by St. John disguised as a
pilgrim. The king, having nothing else, gave the
ring from his finger. The story doubtless origi—
nated as an explanation of the name of Edward’s
manor of Havering. Camden saw the relation,
but inverted it, “Havering from taking the
ring.”

Immediately to the north of the Abbey stands
the parish church of St. Margaret. It is said to
have been built by the Confessor.* A twelfth-
century deed of the Abbot’s in the British Museum
speaks of it as “in our cemetery.” It was rebuilt
by the Abbey and the merchants of the staple in
the time of Edward Isl—and again still later.

Further to the north on the site of the present
Guildhall stood the belfry which was completed
in 1253. This was a most remarkable

T/ze . . .
. structure, bemg an immense, masswely

Belfry. . -

bu11t tower 75 ft. square and only
about 60 ft. high, which was surmounted by 1
great leaded spire, on which, as we shall see,
plumbers were engaged in 1249—53. It must have.
been begun concurrently with the church, if not
earlier. I doubt whether this belfry ever became
the actual property of the church ; it may,I think,
in part at least, have been built to represent \Vest-
minster town in some sort of competition with

* See Charter in Bentley's “ Cartulary." 'f Stow.
56

 

THE BELFRY

the London bell-house by St. Paul’s. Stow says
that Henry III., devising how he might extort
money, in 124.6 appointed a mart to be kept for
fifteen days, during which time trade was to cease
in London. Stow, when he tells us that this
belfry (in the Little Sanctuary) was built for the
use of St. Stephen’s chapel, shows at least that he did
not know that it had belonged to the Abbey. It
was, he says, a strong clochard of stone and timber
covered with lead, containing three great bells,
usually rung at coronations and funerals ; the bells
had been taken down and the spire had probably
also been destroyed at the time he wrote. The
stone tower, however, remained until 1750, when
it was drawn and described by Stukely,* who says it
was absurd to call it a belfry (not so now that we
know of several such structures), but that there was
profound ignorance as to its meaning. He, how—
ever, states that it was built as an asylum for those
who fled into Sanctuary. This seems to be the first
statement of the “ Sanctuary” theory, which has
been repeated ever since with more and more
detail, until Sir W. Besant tells us that some of the
princes born in sanctuary were born here. Widmore,
writing about 1750, says that the tower had been
used for two hundred years as a cellar to a tavern,
and was by some “imagined ” to have been a
chapel, but he found it called a Belfry in a charter
of 1290, and it continued in use as a bell-tower till
Islip built the towers of the church. A genera—
tion before Stukely wrote, Strype had given a plan
of the structure, and sought to identify it with a

* “Archaeol. ” vol. i. ori inals at Soc. Anti .
7 7 g q

57

church of the

time of Henry

THE BELFRY

Holy Innocents, mentioned in the

III.

The Abbey church, with its whole Close, was

 

 

 

 

 

 

F10. 27. — Ancient
Belfry which stood
on the N. side of
the Church

the Sanctuary. When the monas—
tery built houses within the Close,
the tenements enjoyed its pri-
vileges (thus the Holy Ground of
one age was to become the
“ Alsatia ” of another), and doubt-
less the names of two streets,
Broad Sanctuary and Little Sanc—
tuary, arose in consequence. The
latter happened to be close to the
belfry, and that I suppose is the
only original connection between
them. The tower, like all belfries,
was built very strongly so as to
support a great timber bell—cage.
The angles of the lower storey
were masses of masonry 22 ft.
square, and it w as only destrm ed
at great expense. A guild had the
bells in charge, one of which was
ofimmense size. They were taken,
Norden says, by Henry VIII. be-
fore his expedition to Boulogne.

In Van den \Vyngaerde s \ 1ew
of London appears a large leaded

spire which, occupying the right position, could
hardly have been anything else than this beltr}.
It resembled the thirteenth- century beltry \\ h1ch

used to stand

on the north side of Salisbury

Cathedral; and by putting together these indica-

58

PRECINCTS

tions we can make a fair approximation to the
form of the Westminster bell—house. (Fig. 27).
How famous these bells were may be gathered
from the narrative of Simon Simeonis, a travelling
monk, who visited London and Westminster in
1322. He says : “ Beyond the walls, at the other
end of the City, is the monastery of Black Monks
called Westminster, in which all the kings of
England are buried, amongst whom is the Lord
Edward, the most Maccabaean king of the English,
who, with the most Christian king, St. Louis of
France, passed over the sea with a war host. Here
' are two bells, the first in the world for size and of
admirable sound, and the monastery is close by the
palace of the kings of England.” Matthew Paris
evidently considered that these bells deserved
record along with the new church and the shrine

of gold. See Fig. 4.0.

The precincts are best described by Norden,
c. 1600: “At the end of King’s Street, within
an old gate, lieth the Sanctuary, having
three gates and a postern, whereof one
leadeth from the Sanctuary into King’s Street,
the second into Tothill Street, the third into
the Abbey yard and the Almonry, the postern
into King [’s Palace ?]. It was called the Great
Sanctuary in regard to a lesser which it in-
cluded called the Little Sanctuary, wherein is a very
ancient and old building and strong, now made a
dwelling-house, sometime a tower, wherein was a
bell of wonderful bigness weighing, as is reported,
33,000 wt. and was rung only at coronations,

59

Precincts.

PRECINCTS

which bell King Henry VIII. employed to other
uses at his going to Boulogne. The Almonry is
a place within the Gate—house towards the Abbey-
yard. The Gate-house is a prison, not only for
the City of Westminster but for the Shire. There
are in the City the long VVool-staple and the round.
Yet appeareth an old and large house above the
stairs in the south-west angle of the round \Vool—
staple."* The precinct was walled, or re-walled by
Abbot Litlington who also built the gate toward
Tothillfl“ Stow says that the gate was built by
Walter de Warfield, the cellarer, in the time ot
Edward 111.; I suppose he acted for Litlington.
Some of the trees of the Close are shown in Van
den Wyngaerde's drawing, and much of it remained
a green cemetery down to the beginning of last
century. The position of the walls and gates and
the relation of the Church to the Palace are best
shown on Sandford’s Plan, 1685. See Figs. I
and 2.

Outside the walls and gates which shut it in
there were the few houses of Tothill and Lang-
ditch.?; The principal entrance to the church b
the north transept exactly faced the old King
Street, which has been destroyed while these pages
were being written. From the time of the Con-
fessor to the time of Henry VIII. we may think of

* MS. Harl., 570.

'l‘ Bentley’s Cartulary.

I The bridge over the mill stream was only discovered last year.
See Arrfiifcctuml Risa, 190.1,. The Tothill Gate is figured in Stanley's
“ Memorials." A part of the King Street Gate, which seemed to be the
work of Henry “L, is shown by '1‘. T. Smith.

60

 

PRECINCTS

Westminster as a little town, hall monastery, half
palace. Westminster Hall, the Great Hall of the
palace, now alone represents the group of royal
buildings which once was gathered around it, as
the church represents the monastery. These palace
buildings may be sub—divided into four parts:
(I) The Public Palace and Justice Hall ; (2) The
King’s Lodging, with its Painted Chamber covered
all over with the work of Master Walter the
Painter; (3) St. Stephen’s, the Palace Chapel, the
Westminster parallel of St. Louis’ Ste. Chapelle in
Paris, with its attached Cloisters and Vicars’
houses; (4.) The Exchequer Buildings, the Court
of Star Chamber, and the Clock Tower. All
these buildings with their gardens were tightly
packed Within a walled enclosure between the east
end of the church and the river bank. So far as I can
gather it was probably Knut who first made West—
minster his residence. His successor, Harold, was
the first of the English kings to be buried in
the Abbey church.* Later, the proximity of the
the palace reacted on the Abbey, and the church
became, in a manner, the great royal chapel
attached to the palace, much as St. Mark’s is
related to the Doges’ palace, and the Dom at
Aachen to the palace of Charlemagne. Both
the rebuildings of the Abbey by the Confessor, and
by Henry III., were paid for out of their own

* It is evident from its name, Westminster, that the Abbey existed
before the palace. Probably one of the kings took to staying at the
Abbey, and eventually built a house close by. As early as the twelfth
century it was said that it was at Westminster that Knut rebuked the
tide. (Gaimar.)

61

PRECINCTS

purses. It is occasionally called the Great Chapel
of the Palace, and a right of user was retained in
more than one part. The Chapel of the PyX was
the Kings’ treasury, the Chapter House was the
meeting place of Parliament, and the Confessor’s
Chapel was the Royal burial place. The Abbey
belongs to the State in a far greater degree than
does one of the Cathedrals, and the State has
continued from time to time to contribute to its
repair.

Westminster, after the time of Henry 111., must
have looked like one of those cities of romance
now only to be found in illuminated manuscripts.

 

 

Fm. zS.—:\rms ochnry ”1., from the
Chapter House floor

CHAPTER III
THE EXTERIOR AND “RESTORATIONS”

The North Transept: Rose Window: The Gable: Middle Stage:
Porches : South Transept : The Chevet : The Choir and Nave: West
Front : Lantern : Care and Repair.

“ It i: arcfiilect’: arc/Eitecture.”
W. Moruus on the New Casing of the
North Transept.

THE exterior of the church has been subjected to
such a series of injuries and “ improvements” that
‘17] hardly one old stone ofit remains upon

e . .

Nort/z another. The original form of the

Trame t once so beautlful North Transept, Wlth
p .

its three great portals, had to a large ex-

tent disappeared under a layer of alterations even

before the great restoration (1875—90) which made
all false.

The Westminster transepts were of such extra-
ordinary interest as showing the progress of London
building in the middle of the thirteenth century,
that it is worth some trouble to gather up the
evidence as to their original form before they
were made over in the “ Early English” of to-
day.

Without being a student of records it is impos—
sible to tell what is even an echo of the ancient
work. The expert re-editing of old buildings, with
all its pretensions to science, comes in practice to a
muddling up of so much copy of old work, so much
conjecture, and so much mere caprice, without

leaving any record as to which is which. This
63

THE NORTH TRANSEPT

actual obliteration of authentic remnants and
evidence is what we call Restoration.

One sculptured stone, the boss of the right—hand
porch , one piece of moulded stone, a span long, 1n
one of the statue corbels; the soifits behind the
arches of the first stage , and some of the plain
wall-stones in the recesses here and in the porches,
is all of the ancient exterior of the North Transept
that would be recognised by Henry the king and
Henry the mason as having formed part of their
work.

Up to thirty years ago the front, as left by Wren,
remained intact. An excellent engraving in “ Neale ”
gives the best representation of this front as it was
in 1816. The work of re—casting the porches was
commenced before the death of Sir. G. G. Scott.
In September 1884 scaffolding was put up to the
whole of the North Transept ; in 1886 an appli-
cation for aid was made to Parliament. Mr. Fowler,
in replying on behalf of the Government to
criticism, stated that he had received a letter from
the Dean saying that “this is no question of
beautifying the exterior, but is simply to prevent it
from coming down, and it is for that, and nothing
else, that the funds are required.”9le Possibly the
public money was required for necessary repairs so
as to release all other funds for beautifying, possibly
no public grant was made, and having less money
a more ambitious scheme may have been thought
of; however this may be, when the close hoarding,
which I well remember shut out any view of what
was being done, was taken away about 1892, it was
6 ‘ Timn, June 17, 1886. Compare below, p. 228.

4.

\_ w... .h.

THE NORTH TRANSEPT

clear that the whole transept had been very
completely “ beautified. ” Restoration schemes are
now conducted so far as possible in secret,
on the principle that dead buildings tell no
tales.

At the latter end of the fourteenth century a
large porch,which Ishall call the Galilee,was built in
front of the central doorway of the North Transept.
In 1654, when Hollar made an etching of the
front, this Galilee was still standing. It had three
long windows in the gable, and a little door be-
neath. It has been suggested that its purpose was
to shelter the sculptures of the central door, but
this does not, I think, satisfactorily explain its
erection and its destruction. (Fig. 73).

Early in the reign of Richard II., in 1378, a man
who had taken sanctuary in the church was killed
in the choir, and the church thus desecrated was
closed for a time.*16 Now there cannot be a doubt
that the Galilee was added to the church in the
reign of Richard 11., although Dart’s statement
' that the king’s arms and badge were sculptured on
it seems to be based on misreading Sandford, who
spoke of the north porch of Westminster Hall.
Apassage 1n Capgrave’ s “Chronicle’ which relates
how, in 14.10, a knight was compelled “ to take
Westminster (sanctuary), ” and “there so straited
that he dwelt in the porch of the church both day
and night, suggests that the Galilee was built
with reference to the right of sanctuary after the
desecration of the church.

I shall now bring together some notes upon the

* See Stanley’s “ Memorials.”

E 65

THE NORTH TRANSEPT

authorities for the recovery of'the best evidences as
to the original forms of the North Transept.

(A) In Van den Wyngaerde’s “View of London”
(C. 1560) there is a sketch of the church which
shows the pinnacles of the four great buttresses of
the North Front and a fifth pinnacle on the apex
of the gable. A similar pinnacle is also shown on
the south transept gable.

(B) The little and very rough engraving of
the church on Speed’s “Map of London” (c.1610)
shows that the pinnacles of the transepts, except-
ing the two flanking the north gable, had been
replaced by low, leaded, turret roofs. The para—
pets, which both Speed and Hollar show as em-
battled, may have been re—made at the same time ;
they usually are among the earliest things to
decay.“-6

(C) Hollar’s etching of 1654. is detailed and evi—
dently accurate. It shows that the statues were
still in place, and it is probable that the front was
in the main uninjured, save by weather, although
everything proves that it was much decayed. A
little etching by Lodge (1649—89), and two or three
smaller views by Hollar, confirm the accuracy of
the large etching. In the Pepys Collection at
Cambridge there is a rough oriorinal sketch by

Hollar, which shows the houses bwhich stood in

front of the North Aisle.
(D) In 1683 Keepe described the North Front as

“a ruinous building . . . a skeleton . . . shrivelled

* Some repairs at the Abbey were executed in 1600. See B.M.
Add. 3+19§. Norden, [. 1600, says of the pinnacles of the but-
tresses that many, “ through antiquity, have lost their form.”

66

 

THE NORTH TR ANSEPT

by the north wind and the fretting of the smoke or
sea-coal.” He goes on to describe “ a most noble
door, with a porch thereto, and on each side lesser
porticoes, one of which only was an entrance.”
The porch had been called “ Solomon’s Porch.”
“Therein were placed the statues of the twelve
Apostles at full proportion, besides a multitude of
lesser saints and other devices.” The Galilee
porch must have been cleared away by this time ;
it is not shown on Sandford’s plans of 1685. As
a sum of money for repairs was set aside by Dean
Dolben in 1662, and as repairs usually mean
destruction, the Galilee probably disappeared then.

(E) A print by Collings, engraved in 1689, was
probably made to correct Hollar’s view in respect
to these alterations. It shows that certain modifi-
cations had been made to the small gables above
the original porches, and that the beautiful arcaded
gallery beneath the great Rose had been replaced
by a row of plain arches (later called by Wren
“the little Doric passage”). Several of the sculp-
tures, however, still remained. This print is, in
the main, a poor copy of Hollar’s, amended in
respect of the new work, but some of the copied-
details are much corrupted.

(F) Some time before Wren’s alterations were
made to the North Transept, an engraving was
made of the Front for Strype’s edition of Stow. It
shows the Transept in the same state as Collings’
print ; while evidently based on Hollar, the details
have obviously been redrawn from the building,
and it is a valuable supplement to Hollar’s view.

(G) From 1697 till his death Wren was “ chief
67

THE NORTH TRANSEPT

director” of the works of the church. In 1711
Parliament made a grant of £4000. Wren, in
1713, “ considering his advanced age,” drew up a
statement of what had been done and his further
proposals. Much of the east end and south side
had by this time been recased. “A great part of
the future expense ” (he reports) “will be in the
North Front and in the Great Rose Window there,
which being very ruinous was patched up some
years since, before I was concerned, and must now
be new done. I have presented a proper design
for it.” ”x‘

The Rose had been stopped with plaster, he
says, but should be rebuilt with Portland stone, to
answer to the South Window, rebuilt forty years
beforegi" the staircases at the corners should be new
ashlared, and pyramids set on the pinnacles “ con-
formable to the old style.” He speaks of “the
little Doric passage patched on before the Great
Window ” and of a design he had made more in
agreement with the original, “without modern
mixtures to show my own inventions."

(H) While the “ restoration " of the upper part
of the Transept, undertaken in 1884, was in full
blast, a document of the highest authority was
publishedfif This was a careful measured drawing

* In the Bodleian there are copies of the accounts from 1698 to

1713 with full details. (Gough Coll. 18,051.) The epitaph of Ed.

'l‘ufnell, buried in the south Cloister, 1719, speaks of his having repaired

the south and east parts. There was an Act of Parliament for the works.

T Say 1670, about the time,I suppose, that the outer porch was
removed. (See l’arcntalia.)

I Building Kurt's, Oct. 26, 1888. The text refers to the restora-
tion then in progress. “The work seems to be devoted to rebuilding

68

 

mm

Kat-‘1 2.1....»

. nwr mam r

THE NORTH TRANSEPT

of the front as existing before 1713. It was
probably made by Dickenson, the surveyor to the
church, who acted under Wren’s general advice.
On a flap is shown the scheme for the alterations,
which, when carried out, made the front into what
some of us remember—a front which still retained
a good deal of original work, and where the altera—
tions often reflected in some degree what they
replaced. The smile of the old work shone as
it were through an ungraceful veil, and the whole
front still preserved a certain lightness and spring.
To trace the evidence, and to imagine the old
features, was a problem of fascinating interest.
VVren’s alterations to the part now under con—
sideration (I shall call them Wren’s, although
they were probably designed in regard to detail
by Dickenson) were undertaken about 1719, for the
flap is signed by Wren, “I doe approve of this
design, 1719." This drawing of the then existing
front agrees with the prints above referred to
(E. and F.), but, being an accurate elevation to
scale, in supplementing and confirming them it
gives them much greater value. The large Rose
Window, and the panelling of the gable above it,
are shown to have been of the most beautiful
geometrical tracery. This drawing while perfectly
explaining and harmonising the small rough repre-
sentations by Hollar, and in Strype’s Stow, shows
that before 1719 the window and gable tracery
were, without doubt, genuine original work.

the buttresses and recasing parts ofthe facade, and we hear that a new
design has been prepared for replacing the Rose Window. The close

hoarding, however, prevents a proper inspection.”
69

THE NORTH TRANSEPT

Further, it appears that when the new design
shown on the flap was prepared, it was not in—
tended to alter the great Rose immediately; the
Rose, the filling of the gable, the windows in the

 

71 <1
}

 

 

 

 

I’m. 29.77 One olil“our 'l‘iles from Chapter House floor,
representing a Rose \Vindow

recesses of the first stage, and the doorways are
shown as left without alteration, the flap placed
over the survey of the then existing front being
cut away to expose those portions of the under
drawing. The portions to be renewed were the
faces ot‘the buttresses,the pinnacles, stair turrets, and
the gallery beneath the Rose. Mr. Lee, the owner
of this drawing, has several others which he has

”'0

I

THE NORTH TRANSEPT

allowed me to examine. Amongst them is a large
detail for the Rose which was soon to replace the
early one, to be itself destroyed in the 1884
campaign. A model of it is also preserved in the

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

l“i(.. 3C.—;\neient l{o:e \Vindo'w‘ of N. 'l‘ransept.

l’rom a Drawing by \Vren

triforium of. the Abbey. From a date which was
in the glazing of the window itself, we know that
it was completed in I722?“ The window of
VVren’s, while poor and thin compared with the

" Some interesting lead pipe-head: torn down from the North 'l‘ran-

sept at the recent I‘Crttn‘fltlhn were also dated 1722, when, from this

CV'ldCDCC, “'6 “lily say \l’ 11:11,: work “'35 COIllplCICCl.
-1
/

ROSE WINDOW

earlier one shown on the survey, yet preserved the
tradition of the old one in some important points ;
the spandrels of the square in which it was placed
were pierced and glazed; the pattern on the whole
indeed was largely a simplification of the old
window. Wren may have discovered the basis of
an old pinnacle on the apex of the gable, for he
added such a one. (See A. above).

Thus disguised, but not destroyed, the old front
was handed on to our day. On a copy of lVIiddle-
ton’s large lithograph of 1801, in the Crowle Col-
lection, some one (probably Carter) has noted what,
early in the last century, appeared to be of ancient
work ; the old work being correctly described as of
Reigate stone, a safe criterion. This included the
gable with its beautiful filling of tracery, the
windows in the recesses of the first stage, and the
jambs and arches of the doorways.

When theclose screen which concealed the pro-
gress of the last “ restoration ” was removed it was
found that all this had been swept away, together
with Wren’s work. . All was new.

Viollet-le—Duc”“ shows that in France the large
circular windows went through the following steps
in their development: They were at
Rose . . . .
. first Circular and contained Withln round
er/o‘w. . -
rear arches. In the middle or the
thirteenth century at Reims “ where they pushed
the principles of the architecture of the Guilds t}
l’outrmzee,” they pierced the spandrel between the
Rose and the pointed vault behind and about it,

‘ Art. Rose.
72

 

ROSE WINDOW

so that it became a pointed window with rose
tracery.

In the Ile de France the Roses of the thirteenth
century were usually framed up in rquares. That
of the south transept of Notre Dame (begun 1257)
had the lower spandrels pierced, but the upper ones
were filled with blank tracery because the vault
behind blocked them. “ But about the same epoch
they learnt to I'm/ate t/ze wall rim of the vault: from
the inside of the wall, thus leaving between the
vaulting ribs and the Rose Window a space so that t/Ic‘
upper spandrelr qf t/ze Iquare mtg/1t 4/50 bepicrced. . . .
Such is the Rose of the Chapel of St. Germain
en Laye."—bui1t about 1240. Sac/z were t/ze rarer
of Wertmzmter Aééey wroug/zt aéout 12 55. Will it
be believed that in the late re-editing of the north
window the traditional form in this respect as
handed down by Wren was departed from ? Not-
withstanding the square inside and out, and the
isolated wall rib of the vaulting contrived for the
very purpose of making that square available, the
spandrels have been filled in solid in this curious
caprice of “ restoration.” Compare the South Rose
where the proper tradition has been continued.

In respect to these pierced spandrels, and the
resulting square form, the Rose at Westminster stood
in the very van of Gothic development, and except
at St. Germain it was diflicult to match it at so
early a time. The resemblance of the tracery of
the old Rose at Westminster to a dozen French
examples is most remarkable. It was a typical
window of French form at the moment when it
was built. The west Rose at Reims (6. 125040)

73

"lllll

ROSE WINDOW

may be said to be exactly like it in pattern of the
wheel, except for its having twelve rays instead of
sixteen. The south Rose at Paris is like Reims,
with additional foiling, and is framed in a square.
The north Rose at Rouen (c. 1280) is so exactly
like the Westminster window in its open spandrels,
number of rays, foiling, and indeed in every respect,
that it is difficult to suppose that it may be an
independent development and not a copy of some
original from which the \Vestminster window was
also derived. The north transept Rose at Tours
is also almost identical, and this may be earlier than
Rouen.

At Paris and Rouen the pierced spandrels serve
to unite the Roses to tiers of windows below them.
The same intention may be seen in the South Tran-
sept at Westminster, and also at old St. Paul’s (east
end, begun in 1256), where a row of lights below
a great Rose in an open square, going up behind the
vault, went far towards that turning of the whole
wall into window which seemed to be an aim of the
Gothic schools* (Fig. 6). The instance ofSt. Paul’s
would put the key—stone to the evidence (if fur—
ther evidence was necessary) that the original Rose
window of \Vestminster is correctly represented
on the drawing prepared for \Vren. The design
of the east Rose at St. Paul’s, and the windows
beneath it as shown in Dugdale and imitated in
a way at St. Catherine Cree—was without doubt a
developed copy of the \Vestminster windows.

Scott had considered the question of the original

 

' The same thing had been earlier attempted in the north transept
of Chartres.

7+

ROSE WINDOW

form of the Rose windows, and came to the con-
clusion that both the old ones resembled to some
extent that now in the South Transept, which he
thought was a fifteenth-century version of the
original form (Fig. 6). He endeavoured in a figure
to “ translate ” the design back into an earlier style,
and he pointed out that the result so obtained was
exactly like the Rose windows represented on some
early tiles in the Chapter House. His design, so
arrived at, and these tiles agree in a most remark—
able way with the window shown in the drawing
made for W’ren, of which Scott was ignorant, so
again it is evident that the drawing must represent
the thirteenth-century window, and that the south
window does continue the form of the original
windows as be supposed. Scores of these window
tiles still exist, and I have verified Scott’s repre—
sentation of them as being entirely correct. They
are 14. in. square (in four pieces), and might have
been made from the original drawing for the actual
window (Fig. 29). The building of the transept
windows was probably reached about 1258, and in
that year, as the accounts show, the tile floor of the
Chapter House was being laid down. Again,
although the representations of the Rose in Dugdale
(Hollar) and Strype are small, it is quite clear that
they represent the same form as Scott arrived at.
My Fig. 30 is in the main based on Dickenson’s
drawing.

One other minute point in regard to the north
Rose—Scott pointed out that theheadsofthewindow
lights generally were uncusped, but he could not
forbear (notwithstanding the tile) to cusp the lights

75

THE GABLE

of the Rose in his translation. The original, as
shown on Dickenson’s drawing, was uncmped, a sure
mark of early date. Without Dickenson’s drawing,
Scott, by taking thought, had reached to a know—
ledge of the form of this window, and his critical
conclusion should not have been set aside. Above
all, Wren’s new window should not have been

destroyed.

The tracery filling the north gable, as shown by
Dickenson, was preserved by repair until it was
T/ze Gaé/e. destroyed and something qulte,d1fferent

put 1n its place, at Mr. Pearson s restora-
tion. When I first saw the church with architectural
eyes, this tracery interested me more than anything
else, so that I made a careful drawing of it (Fig. 31).
It was probably the most remarkable example of
early tracery in England, but it fell accurately into
the sequence at Westminster, its pattern being that
of a bay of the north Cloister slightly developed.
This work of original form was swept away to
substitute for it what appears to be a reading of
Hollar’s etching, which was only a short—hand
note, thoroughly good for a gable an inch high,
but not of course more accurate than the actual
work from which it was sketched. In the old
work the large foiled circles were pierced to form
lights to the roof; in the “ scientific restoration”
they are blank and blind and foolish. The restorers
seem never to have heard of criticism. They ought,
one would think, to know old forms when they see
them. They ought, if anxious for such daring
feats as enlarging liollar’s etchings into stone, to ask
76

THE GABLE

themselves where they will stop. If the real gable
was to be made to agree with the tiny sketch made

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

\

Fm. 3I.——Gable of N. Transept. Ancient
form, from 3 Drawing made before the
last great restoration

from it, why not the clerestory and the triforium ?
Are all the remnants of buildings shown in
“ Monasticon ” to be re-edited where the original

77

MIDDLE STAGE

work is not thought to agree with little prints a
few inches over ?

That this gable tracery lasted on to our time in
its original form is put beyond doubt by comparing
Dickenson’s drawing with Strype and Dugdale.
But without this evidence, how could they have
thought that such beautiful forms of 1250—60 got
up there? Were they of VVren’s style? Why
not have left them alone ?

Such is scientific restoration ; but let me not be
misunderstood. Now it is done don’t alter it ; I
would not meddle with even the restorations of a
restorer. The north gable as is stands has already
more than a dozen years of antiquity (“ Early
English” they call it I). It is now the nearest we
can have to the original work.

Dickenson’s drawing shows parts of the two
early pinnacles which flanked the gable, and the
flying buttresses which contain within them stair—
cases, which are also shown to have been original
by the fact that the early entrances to them at the
top of the spiral stairs still exist.

The gallery under the Rose has been restored, in
respect to the number of bays, in accordance with
Middle Wren’s work. I have hotbrng to say
against this ; indeed continuity 18 what we
should advocate in opposition to all
“ chopping and change.” It must be pointed out,

owever, as we are trying to arrive at the early
forms, that before \Vren’s time there were four bays
in the centre and two in each ofthe flanks. This

was the number of bays in the “little Doric
~8
/

Stage.

MIDDLE STAGE

passage,” and when we find that Hollar, the only
first authority for the original arcade, shows this
number of bays, we must decide that the evi—
dence rules that there was this number of arches?"e
This evidence is confirmed in three ways, as
follows :

The greater number of bays necessitates detail
much smaller in scale than found elsewhere in the
structure.

The flanking spaces are just half of the central
space, and dividing them 2 : 4. : 2 was the natural
course. At present the division is 3 : 5 : 3 which
makes the flanks still more pinched as to scale than
the centre.

At Amiens the prototype of this front, as will
be shown, the similar arcade is divided 2 : 4. : 2.

This gallery-is carried by four arches, composed
as I : 2 : I filling the same spaces immediately
below the gallery ; these arches are distorted in a
bold and remarkable way so that their heads
shall make correct centres, evidently with a View
that these centres would come under strongly
marked central lines of the arcades, and com-
bine with them in one composition. (See
Fig. 32.)

On the inside of the transept a similar system of
bay composition is followed.

The alteration of the North Front is indeed very
important; it alters the entire storey arrangement
of the front thus—

 

* Ifindependent evidence for this is required, see Dart’s version of

the Hollar print.
79

MIDDLE STAGE

Old. New.
Gable Gable
Rose Rose
Gallery and Gallery

{Windows Windows
Porches Porches

That is, this middle stage of the front is now
made up of two weak stages, instead of one strong
one comprlsmg two parts.

Wren, as if feeling that something was required
if the two sub-divisions were not combined, pushed
the gallery up some two feet from the top of the
eccentric arches beneath. Vestiges of the caps and
bases of the ancient arcade were found on the sides
of the buttresses at the restoration; the present
arcade, in respect to height and level, represents the
old one, and the openings through the buttresses
behind it are original. The passage above this
arcade is also at the original level, and the openings
through the buttresses pass under original Purbeck
slabs which define the width of the buttresses.
The diapering of the spandrels is entirely modern.
The “ eccentric arches ” had been hacked back by
Wren, and cased, but the springers were found and
are said to be still in use. The soflits of these
arches are also ancient, so the forms of the old work
are here closely represented. The outer limbs of
the lateral arches rested on sculptured heads (from
VVren’s time at least, and I suspect originally) not
on single shafts as at present. The walling of the
recesses is in great part old, but the heads of the
windows in the lateral compartments have been

altered as to design. When I first drew them,
80

mm)... s. a

PORCHES

about 1875, they had, as shown by Dickenson,
trefoil—arches instead of arches with cusps. (Fig. 32.)

Wk

\

\. \ .
\‘\t\\ I.” 3‘
\ ‘ \ \\“ \\
\\8 §‘\\\\\\i
. \\ .

\\\\\\“\.i
\\\\\\§\\.\\\\
\ \ \
\\\‘ ‘ \ \
.\.\\\ 1M

flay/4

lll

 

\ \‘\\

 

 

 

 

 

 

. \3 C
\.\\\\ \\~\\\~
.\\ \ \ \ \‘
\\'\»\\\\\\\‘
“ \\ \

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

‘- \
\\\ . \ \
smut} My _\
t.\\\\.\\\\1\\

F10. 32.—North Transept. Recess above right-
hand porch, ancient form

 

The tympanum of the Great Door was removed
at the same time as the Rose (6. 1722). The
filling shown in Dickenson’s survey
agrees with Collings’ engraving, 1689,
and was certainly the original thirteenth—century
work. (Fig. 33.) Ijudge this by the design, and
Wren would not have had occasion to alter more
recent work. His (or Dickenson’s) design for what
took its place exists in Mr. Lee’s Collection. The
old tympanum was sub-divided into tracery which,

doubtless, held sculptures possibly of the Life of
F 81

Port/16:.

PORCHES

Christ, as at Higham Ferrars, but more probably of
the Last Judgment.’* The sheltered parts of the side
porches were little altered by Wren ; indeed, they
came down to us until yesterday, tolerably intact.

 

 

$V?

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

FIG. 33.-——North Transcpt. Diagram of form of
Ancient Porch

Carter (in Gentleman’s Aldgdzine) pointed out that
though the front had been “reformed” by those
who had “the presumption to improve the work
of our ancient artists,” yet the eastern of the three
porches remained in its original state.

Scott, twenty years before his reformatory works
were begun, said that the doorways retained a mun—
ber of mouldings “ in the original stone,” which

' See Appendix, p. 301, and below, 1:. 85.
82

PORCHES

contained remnants of carved foliage, “like the
doorway to the Chapter House . . . the tympana
of the smaller openings [side porches] still retain
their original stone, which are decorated with
circular panels.” 9*

Scott here guarantees the work for which he
afterwards substituted a copy. Judging from an
old photograph, I should say that the “ copy” is
generally “correct” in the eastern porch and the
sides of the western. Mr. Lee has a drawing
which shows the circles filling up the side arches
(6. 1715—20.) A little plain ancient walling still
remains in these porches. Some of the statue
corbels were replaced by Scott : signs of filling by
Wren show that they had originally existed, and
were cut out by him. In the eastern or blind
porch, about a quarter of one is preserved. The
vaulting of these side porches is “correct,” and
the boss of the western opening is original and
beautiful. A thirteenth—century scroll of foliage of
finest style, “ completely undercut with lions and
birds at intervals to give variety,” which belonged
to Cottingham, and was described as from “the
Door of N. Aisle of Nave,” may have belonged
to these porches. Compare the lions of the
capital on the left of Chapter House door. The
new tympanum of the central porch speaks for itself,
the angels in medallions up the soflits are copied
from the interior, although from VVren’s time at
least, there was a row of circles here, which
suggested the “ treatment.” The authority for the
gables was Hollar’s etching; a few stones as evi-

* “ Gleanings.”

83

PORCHES

dence for the deep slopes at the back were found
at the re—building. Neale pointed out that the
arches over the porches were struck from centres
above the springing line, and contracted before
they. reached the caps—were, in fact, slightly
“ horseshoe,” as we say.

The niches on the face of the buttresses between
the porches had trefoil heads, and were without
canopies beneath them (such as Scott added) and
Dickenson’s survey shows that this was the original
form. Wren’s principal work was on the fronts of
the buttresses and the pinnacles above. Hollar,
who represents the buttresses of the choir correctly,
with niches 450126 and plain slopes beneath, shows
similar niches to the transept front at theflrrt stage,
the buttresses above that having plain slopes. The
plain slopes were shown by Dickenson, but the
niches of the first stage had disappeared. The but-
tress Slopes of Hollar’s View agree also so completely
with those of the South Transept, which have under—
gone little alteration, that his accuracy is entirely
confirmed.

Dickenson’s drawing shows that the mid-post of
the central door had a statue corbel similar to those
in the ground-storey niches, which the early
engravings show carried statues. The engravings
show four other statues, occupying the niches in
the buttress faces above the porches. There are
also two niches of the largest size in the jambs of
the central door, which must have contained large
statues like the lateral niches. Keepe says of
“ Solomon’s Porch ” that it was adorned with “ the

statues of the Twelve Apostles at full proportion.n
8+

SOUTH TRANSEPT

Hatton in 1708 says “there remain six below and
four above.” Crull (1711) says: “this portico
still retained below two of these admirable statues,
besides three others quite defaced, also two above
each of the side porches.” Hollar shows these
last four standing in the blanks by the windows in
the side recesses. All these statues disappeared in
the repairs of 1719—22. Dart (1733) says: “this
stately portico is now lately beautified, and the
time—eaten sculpture and masonry pared away.”
The statue on the mid-post of the doorway would
have been Christ blessing. The Apostles on either
hand call for this, and reference to Amiens con-
firms this View. In the Quatrefoil of the tymp-
anum would have been the Majesty. At Amiens
scenes from the Last Judgment accompany such a
figure, and this also was probably followed at
Westminster. At Amiens, again, there is a figure
below the Christ of the door-post .which used to
be called David, but is now thought to be Solomon.
Did such a figure at Westminster give rise to the
name Solomon’s Porch ?

According to Wren, the Rose of the South Tran—
sept was renewed about 1670. The form ofthe one
Soul/z then inserted was so incontestably of the
type of c. 1400 that the one it replaced
was probably of that date. Carter who
watched the renewal of the renewed (and said it
was unnecessary) in 1814., reports that the one then
put in was copied from it with fidelityfi“ This
window of 1814. (Fig. 6) has itself now been

a“ See his engraving of the older one.

Tmmc’pt.

85

SOUTH TRANSEPT

destroyed. New glass was put in as a memorial
about 1900, and it was thought well to make all
new “while they were about it.” The same
opportunity was taken to carve some new coats—of-
arms over the window outside—nothing was here
before.

I write with a photograph of the S. Transept,
made about 1865,before me;it shows all the four pin-
nacles capped by the low sixteenth—century leaded
roofs shown in Speed’s engraving of 1610. These
interesting and—supposing that the original pin-
nacles had fallen—mosr reasonable coverings were
torn off, and “ correct ” ecclesiasticisms stuck up in
their places about [870. The gable itself was bare
in 1865. The existing buttress slopes agree with
those shown in Dickenson’s survey of the North
Front—a confirmation for both. This South Front
has suffered, but, below the Rose, it has never been
“ done up fine ” like the North Front, and remains
therefore much as it was when \Vren left it, and
substantially the old thing in its lines. The gable-
filling was, I believe, originally similar to that of the
north gable, but there is very little evidence to go
upon. The etching of this front in Dugdale, by
King, seems to be compiled from Hollar’s North
View. The best authority is a smaller View by
Hollar, which shows the gable-filling just as he
shows the north gable also in a small View.

The largest extant portion of the thirteenth-
century exterior work is three or four yards square
about the eastern door entering the South Transept.
The doorway itselfhas been much injured, but by
comparing it with the corresponding door of the
86

THE CHEVET

North Transept (which had been blocked up till
1896, and is now opened out, althdugh the filling
was probably medi$val and done 6. 14.00 when the
chapel was formed) the original form of both can
be fairly made out on paper. The outer moulded
order exists at the south door, and fragments of the
inner carved one at the north. The pattern of one set
of caps at the south door canjust be traced, and here
the two marble shafts of each jamb are in position,
but a third had been added, taking the place of the
roll moulding of the jamb of the north door. In
the latter two beautiful carved caps of French
fashion have been left untouched.

The east end has been so defaced by time and
blinded by violent handling that it is difficult to
T/ze imagine what must have been its first
C/ze‘vet graceful beauty. Some work to this
' portion was begun by Dean Williams
1620—1650, and when Hollar’s View was made
all the parapets of the chapels and pinnacles of the
buttresses had been thrown down. These eastern
buttresses must have been originally furnished
above with niches and statues like the eastern
bays of the nave. In Hatton’s “New View,”
(1708), after describing the nave buttresses and
their statues, it is said that “there were also
several figures on the buttresses of the east side
of the church which in reparation thereof are
rebuilt plain.” Wren began his work of cutting
down and recasing at the east window about 1697.
The jamb-shafts, and arch-mouldings of the win-

dows have also been obliterated in the general
87

THE CHOIR AND NAVE

coarse recasing of this part, so that only the
general disposition of forms remains.

About 1628, the great buttresses of the west bays
of nave, north side, “ which were almost crumbled
T/z . to dust ” were “ re-edified with durable

6’ C/zozr - n ' ‘ cc
and Nave materials .by Dean Williams and

' beautified With elegant statues.” 9" These
bays have again been repaired, but some of the
original Reigate stone has been suffered to remain
in the wall spaces. Carter in 1808 described the
state of the thirteenth—century bays just west of the
crossing, and engraved the third bay. The battle-
ments, cornices, pinnacles, niches, and the mould-
ings and shafts ofthe windows had been “ havocked,”
he says, by Wren; but the triforium stage re-
mained unaltered and Carter engraved a detail of
this—a valuable record. An engraving of 1818 in
“ Neale,” gives even a more accurate general view
of these bays. Blore began the complete recasing
of these bays, which are now a sort of full-size
model of what the original work must have been
(except niches and pinnacles, which have lost all
elegance), but every positive link with the past is
swept awaysi' The statues in the niches, outside
the choir, had been removed before Dart wrote:
their broken fragments were then “laid in the roof
above Henry VII.’s chapel.” They were ulti-
mately buried, I believe, in the north green some-
where. Hatton says they were of “ princes."

‘ Sec Stanley.

l Blorc was at work on the \V. side of N. Transept in 1835.
Scott was appointed in 1845.
33

THE CHOIR AND NAVE

An invaluable document for the form of the bays
of Henry III.’s choir is the large model, now in
the triforium, prepared to show Wren’s (or Dicken-
son’s) central tower. One bay of this accurately
shows the details before alterations, including the
shafts to the windows and the niches on the north
buttresses (for which compare Neale and Carter).
This model also shows two blank lancets which
filled out the space between the clerestory windows
and the fliers of the buttresses; these have dis-
appeared entirely, but vestiges of similar lancets
have been found on the south side in the recent
restoration. The evidence of Wren’s model, in
this respect, had not I believe been noticed. Before
the early recasings of the eastern limb similar blank
arches may have existed there also. Altogether
a complete paper-restoration can be compiled for
the bays of the choir.

Much of the south side remained, until its
“ thorough restoration” in I882—-92, as it had been
left by Wren’s heavy hand. The clerestory wall-
ing was almost entirely the original Reigate stone
of the fair greeny—grey colour, now only to be seen
here and there in a few patches. On the bench
of the north walk of cloister in 1899 rested a frag-
ment ofa thirteenth-century Purbeck capital from a
window mullion. If it came, as I believe, from the
south clerestory, it is enough, with the evidence it
gives of the fixing of the shaft beneath it, to show
that the window columns were marble, as, I believe,
was every shaft of the early work.

89

x l“

WEST FRONT—THE LANTERN

At the Dissolution, the West Front was far from
complete. Hollar accurately shows its state, and
W Wren reports how the gable in his

art . . .
time was still only of weather boarding.
The porch is the only original work
left. The west window, Wren says, was in a feeble
state, and the work about it was renewed, being
completed 6. I735. The heightening of the towers
was not Wren’s work. About a dozen years after
his death, Ralph writes (I736) : “There is a
rumour that the Dean and Chapter still design to
raise the towers.” The Grué Street 30107241, 1735,
had said that Hawksmoor was to do this, but he
died in 1736. The work seems to have been done
about 1740—2, Papworth supposes by John James,
who succeeded Dickenson in 1725 and died 174.6.
Considerable repairs to the West Front were done
about 1898—1902.

Front.

We shall see that the tower over the choir is
mentioned in 1274, and, again, in the will of
T/ze Henry VlI.1t is.called the Lantern. It
IS probable that it was never completed.
When \Vren reported on the state of the
church he pointed out that the piers of the crossing
were bent by the thrust of the arcades, and argued
that the carrying up ofa central tower would, by
weighting these piers, increase their stability. He
proposed a scheme for a tall steeple, and some work
in preparation for it was probably undertaken. A
ceiling over the crossing was destroyed by fire in
1803, but, together with the stone-work which
appears outside, it was replaced directly after.
()0

Lantern.

CARE AND REPAIR

Carter, who saw the fire, reports that the repairs
to the crossing were nearly complete in 1804..
“The groins were something like Wren’s, de-
stroyed by the fire.” * Even before Wren’s time
the ceiling here was of a temporary kind. In re—
commending the erection of a central tower Wren
wrote: “It was plainly intended originally to
have had a steeple, the beginnings of which appear
on the corners of the Cross, but left oflr before
they rose so high as the ridge of the roof, and
the vault of the choir under it is but lath and plaster
and now rotten.” Wren 5 description of the begin—
ning of piers agrees exactly with what is shown
in the smaller views by Hollar, where we see
gusset pieces in the valleys roofed over in a tem-
porary way. A low octagonal lantern, probably
of wood covered with lead, is shown complete on
the View of the church (a mere symbol rather than
a representation), given on the “ Islip Roll ” ; and
Keepe tells us that Islip designed “ a stately tower
and lantern ” for a goodly chime of bells, but
found the pillars too weak. It is probable that
the vault here was never completed in stone, for
if it had been some evidence would have survived.

How different it would have been with the
Abbey church if, instead of all the learned and
ignorant experiments to which it has
been subjected, this ever fresh energy
in pulling down and setting up, there
had been steadily carried on during the last century
a system of careful patching, staying, and repair!

Care and
Repair.

* Gent.Mzzg.,18o3—.4
91

CARE AND REPAIR

Even yet, if we could arrest attempts at improve—
ment—as if the church were not good enough for
us—of which the results are creeping over the
whole building in a sort of deadly disease, and
substitute mere daily carefulness, much of the
authentic past might be handed on for other ages.

Already in 1683 Keepe noticed that the corro-
sion of the walls of the church was the result
of “the smokes of sea-coal.”* Since that time
surface decay has gone on with ever increasing
rapidity. Some of Scott’s work, like the well-
built and costly parapet, is already quickly perishing,
and parts of the surface of the still newer transept
are blistering and powdering. Extravagant works
of this sort cannot be repeated every fifty years,
and we must face the fact that only one reasonable
thing can be done, and that is to wash the whole with
lime. Ifmedizeval authorityis wanted there is plenty
of precedent for such “blanching.” In 1342, for
instance, “slaked lime for whitening the walls of
the church” appears in the accounts, and in those
of 1253 one Ade, dc’a/éator, is seen engaged week
after week. Probably this was for the interior,
but orders for Windsor and the Tower say dis—
tinctly that certain important works are to be
whitewashed “inside and out." On the question
of beauty I do not doubt that a thin skin oflime,
the obtrusiveness ofwhich would soon mellow in
tone, would give a satisfying sense of wholeness
and fairness which would immensely amend the
disagreeable surface and the sophisticated look or
the present smoke—attacked stone. If it were only

* “Carbonic Marino” is mentioned in the Fabric Roll of I253.

92

CARE AND REPAIR

made clean once more we might almost hope to
see again the pennywort which Gerarde found
growing over the entrance to the Poets’ Corneri"

These great national buildings, the Parthenon,
St. Mark’s, Reims, and Westminster, are much
more than works of art—they embody the souls of
ancient peoples, who, whether better and wiser or
not, were assuredly different from ourselves.

* See the vaults of the passage-ways opening on the east of Dean’s
Yard, whitewashed some six years ago. They were in a terrible state ;
now they are wholesome, yet the stone joints all show, and the ordinary
visitor would not know of the lime-whiting. The decay of the door
to the vestibule of the Chapter House must be arrested.

93

CHAPTER IV

FROM THE FOUNDATION TO
HENRY III

The Foundation of the Abbey: The Confessor’s Church: Norman
Buildings : The Lady Chapel.

E 1’ Eg/it: J: W ertmimter
Ki ”’4 en rtaume per.
“ French Life of the Confessor,” (. 1270.

THE origin of Westminster Abbey has been ob—
scured by such a mist of legend, backed by false
T/ze charters, that recent writers have for the
Foundation most part. waived discussmn of the
oft/16 subject. It 1s time that all.the documents
A556}! concerning the early. history of our

' Abbey should be subJected to a strict
critical examination by an expert?" Failing thisI
can only set down here in a tentative way the results
I have arrived at on such evidence as is already
made sure.

It is certain that there were buildings here before
the Confessor began his work, and that there was a
community at Westminster in the latter part of the
tenth century. The Chroniclers of the Abbey,

" Even the charters ofthe Confessor are said to be “ fabrications ”
(Sir J. H. Ramsay, “ Foundations of Eng,” p. 506); and the famous
charter of the Conqueror seems to contain legendary matter. Sir F.
Madden said that the monks of \Vestminster were addicted to the
fabrication of charters, and they had the Confessor’s seal in their pos—
session. It is extremely doubtful if any of the great charters of the
Abbey earlier than Henry I. are genuine. (AIM/54w]. feat, vol. xix.)
Bishop Stubbs seems to have held a similar View (Lectures).

9+

THE FOUNDATION OF THE ABBEY

however, push its origin back to the time of
Mellitus, the first Bishop of London. But, even
according to them, there was an interregnum in the
earlier part of the tenth century until it was
refounded by Dunstan,* who, under his own head-
ship, intrusted it to the care of the monk Wulsin,
who afterwards became Abbot. Wulsin still later
was made Bishop of Sherborne, and was canonised
after his deathsl“ He was succeeded at Westminster
by Aldsey, VVulnoth, and Edwyn—the last of whom
was Abbot while the Confessor’s church was in
progress, and during the first years of the Con—
queror’s reign.

External evidence begins only with the abbacy
of Wulsin, although the earlier legends were fortified
at last by a complete list of Abbots reaching back to
the seventh century“: W. of Malmesbury and R. de
Diceto mention the re-foundation of the Abbey by
Dunstan, but the great reputation of Dunstan as
the restorer of monastic life might well lead to the
almost spontaneous generation of the story. It is
difficult to fit the dates satisfactorily, and the way
he is brought in as a sort of over-lord to Wulsin
before the latter became full Abbot is suggestive,
and my own conclusion is that the Abbey was first
founded about 970, and that Wulsin was its first
Abbot.

One piece of evidence as to the non-existence of
the Abbey at an early time which has not been

”‘ Some accounts say while he was Bishop of London, others say
962, and 969.

T St. Wulsin, Bishop and Confessor. Jan. 8.

1 See list in Sporley’s M.S. and Scott’s “ Gleanings.”

THE FOUNDATION OF THE ABBEY

used in this connection, is that in Ethelweard’s
“Chronicle ” we find that the Danes in 893, crossing
the Thames on their way northwards from Farnham,
were besieged in the Isle of Thorney, the name
which we find in old charters and chronicles given
to the insulated site of the Abbey. If there had
been a monastic community there at this time it
could hardly have escaped notice ; we get, however,
an interesting confirmation as to the early name of
the site.

Extravagant claims are frequently made for the
antiquity of Westminster, and unsubstantial pre-
tensions (as I think) are advanced as to its inde-
pendence of London. The charters, ancient even
if forged, speak of it as West Monasterium outside
London; St. Peter’s outside the walls of London;
in the western part of London, &c.; and Fleete,
writing in 144.3, calls its site méurérma T/zorneia.
The Life of the Confessor, c. 1070, speaks of the
Abbey as “ St. Peter’s without the walls of London

. near the famous and opulent cit .” *6

The very name, the West Minster, relates the
Abbey to St. Paul’s Minster and the City, and
there seems to me considerable probability that its
lands, conterminous as they were with those of
London, were carved out of the original suburban
lands of the City. The boundaries of\Vestminster
are defined in a Saxon document embodied in a
doubtful Latin charter, dated 951, a date all allow
to be impossible. Mr. Stevenson, however, the

" In the “French Life,”c. 127o,u'e are told that the Confessor
was at Lomlort in his palace and went to St. Peter’s, which was near by.
\Vestminster is frequently spoken of as “ at London."

96

THE FOUNDATION OF THE ABBEY

great charter authority, thinks that the date 971
might be substituted, and that the charter might
be accepted.* If this were indeed so, it would
give us, I consider, the first valid mention of the
Abbey, and would, in fact, be its original pro-
vision of lands. In any case, the Saxon account
of boundaries is of the greatest interest.

As to Wulsin, or more properly Wulfsige, the
Abbot who became Bishop of Sherborne, there is
no doubt whatever. According to Bishop Stubbs’s
register he ruled that See from 992 to 1001, and
William of Malmesbury calls him ex—Abbot ot
Westminsterxi" We may suppose that he was
Abbot of Westminster from about 970 to 992.

For the next Abbot there is also independent
evidence in a charter of 997 attested by “ Elfwic,
Abbot of Westminster.”jfi We may date his rule
from 992 to 1017.

Of VVulfnoth, who then succeeded, we have the
record of his death, while Abbot of Westminster,
entered in the Saxon Chronicle under 104.9.
During his time we first hear of a connection
between the Abbey and. the Royal House, for
in 1040 Harold Harefoot was buried within its
precincts.§

*5 “ The Crawford Charters.”

T See his “Life of Dunstan” in Rolls Series (Stubbs). W. of
Malmesbury does not here mention Dunstan in connection with West-
minster, but in his collected “Lives of the Bishops” the story occurs
with the legend ofthe first foundation by Mellitus. All this must have
come from a Westminster source. According to Eadmer the chasuble
of Dunstan was preserved at Westminster.

1 Kemble’s Cod. Dip. 698. A valid charter not of Westminster.

§ Sax. Chron.

C 97

THE CONFESSOR’S CHU RCH

Edwyn, who succeeded Wulfnoth, died about
1071.

As to the first buildings, the writer who describes
the Confessor’s work almost directly after his
death, only tells us that those it superseded were
old and poor. There is in Westminster still one
relic of the Saxon age in the lid fitted to a Roman
sarcophagus which was found in 1869 under the
north green. It has a cross roughly carved on
it and now stands in the entry to the Chapter
House.

There are two early accounts of the Confessor’s
Church, one written not later than 1074., and the
other about the middle of the thirteenth

T/Ie .
. . century.* Certain fragments of the
Con 65507”! . - , .
foundations were found bv bcott 1n
C/mrc/z. 4

1866, as he mentions in his “ Recollec—
tions,” and all the evidence has been ably co—
ordinated by Mr. Micklethwaite in a paper in the
drc/zzeo/ogica/ yourmz/xl" The View in the Bayeux
Tapestry can hardly be taken as an authority except
as showing the palace in close proximity to the
church.

It was a large cross-church with a central tower
over the choir of the singers and an apse to the
east. The aisles were vaulted and the roofs covered
with lead. The Confessor’s work was to the east
of the older Saxon church, which remained, in
fact, as its nave. The remnants of three bases of
the arcade which separated the presbytery from its
aisle still exist under the mosaic floor. The posi—

* Dr. Luard, in Rolls Series. l March 189+.
98

THE CONFESSOR’S CHURCH

tion of the Cloister shows that the crossing must
have been where it is now.

The statement that the tower was above the
choir of the singers is evidence that the work was
carried on for one or two bays westward of the
crossing: “The centre line of the old church was

{WVE

  
 

 

 

\QVJI JL Jl ,JLAJA

Jar at" ’1! H:
a

FIG. 3+.—-Conjectural plan of the Confessor’s Church

the same as that of the present one, and the total
width west of the crossing is unchanged, but east
of the crossing the main space has been narrower.”
Mr. Micklethwaite further points out that what we
know of the old Lady Chapel, built in 1220 in ex—
tension of the Confessor’s church, goes to prove
that the early apse stood where the present one
does.

All are agreed that the Confessor built the
church after the manner of the architecture of
France. William of Malmesbury says it was of a
“new kind”* and “the first in England erected

* “ Lives ofthe Bishops.”
99

THE CONFESSOR’S CHURCH

in the fashion which now all follow at great
expense.”*

Ifwe seek for a direct prototype it is probable we
should look to Jumieges, a famous church founded
in 104.0 by Robert, who became Archbishop of
Canterbury, and who, W. of Malmesbury says,
was there buried in the church which he chiefly
had built at vast expensexl'

A comparison with Jumieges raises again a
point well discussed by Mr. Micklethwaite. \Vere
the aisles of the Confessor’s church of two storeys
as was inferred by Wren from the Latin description,
or was the phrase in question mere vague rhetoric?
On all the evidence we must, I believe, decide
that Wren’s reading was the right one :—(I)
Jumieges, we are told, “presents us, perhaps, with
the earliest example of the true triforium, a com—
plete second storey, capacious as the aisle below and
vaulted in a similar manner." (2) The Latin de—
scription of Westminster agrees with itself, for it
says that both “ above and below were chapels with
altars dedicated to the memory of apostles, martyrs,
confessors, and virgins.” (3) Such a form best
accounts for the remarkable triforium of the pre—
sent church with its chapels in two storeys, a thing
unique in mid-thirteenth—century architecture, but
general in France in the eleventh and twelfth cen-
turies. The Conqueror's own church, S. Stephen’s,
Caen, follows this type"; In England the idea that

* Chronicles. One might suppose that in writing this he had the
nearest cathedral—Gloucester—in mind.
’I‘ It was consecrated in 1067 at which time the nave was probably

completed. I So also the chapel in the Tower of London.
100

 

 

THE CONFESSOR’S CHURCH

the triforium storey was of great importance and to
be marked by exterior windows is common in
early Norman works as at Durham, Ely, Peter-
borough, Winchester, old St. Paul’s, Waltham
Abbey, &c. When Henry III. rebuilt the church
he retained this characteristic, which otherwise
cannot be accounted for.

It is also more probable than not that there were
chapels opening from the ambulatory as well, as
from the transepts. This was usual in French
churches earlier than the Confessor’s, and in
English churches built directly after the Conquest.
It would, I think, be impossible to point to a
Norman church having an ambulatory which had
not also radiating chapels. There must have also
been suitable access to the upper chapels.”-“ On
these grounds Iventure to revise the plan which
has been suggested for the older church to this
extent (Fig. 34.). I have also shortened the nave
by two bays. Had the Norman towers been in
the position of the present towers I cannot think
that they would have been destroyed in the
fifteenth century, or torn down to the height of
those west towers shown on Hollar’s print of the
west front. It must be admitted that the plan
has few fixed points. The Confessor’s building,
in any case, was a noble one amongst Norman
churches. As late as 1161, when Abbot Lawrence
wrote to the Pope to obtain Edward’s canonisation,

* At St. Ouen there is an early transeptal chapel in two stages,lo+6—
1126, and it was usual in Norman churches to have galleries across the
ends of the transepts communicating with such chapels. It was so at

Jumieges. The radiating chapels derive ultimately from St. Martin’s,Tours.
IOI

n l

I I l
I u ‘
I I

III
'.I

NORMAN BUILDINGS
he described it as a noble building which the King

had richly endowed and éeaz‘lirrime comumma'vitfi
The Confessor probably began his new choir
about 1055, and it was consecrated only a few days
before his death, when he was too ill to attend.
In the Saxon Chronicle, under the year 1065, we
read : “In this year was hallowed the Minster at

és'i‘Westminster, on Childermas Day (December 28).

:A‘ndz King Edward died on the eve of Twelfth

'32-9-Ma'ss and was buried on the Twelfth Mass Day

within the newly hallowed church.” His grave
was before the altar of St. Peter, and a few years
later Edith, his queen, was laid by his side. They,
says Gaimar, at “ VVestmonster furent posez en dous
sarcuz mult bien overez.” In a charter which
purports to be one given to the Abbey in 1067 by
the Conqueror, which may embody a true tradition,
however untrustworthy in itself, we have a very
curious reference to the Confessor’s “architect.”
It is a confirmation to the Abbey of certain pos—
sessions, amongst which are mentioned the land and
houses which Godwin, surnamed Great Syd, the
Master Came/Itan'm ‘1" gave with the reservation that
his son ZElfwin should enjoy them for life.

We do not know if any of the domestic buildings
of the Abbey were erected by the Confessor,
although the dormitory and its sub—
structure are frequently said to be part
of his work. The actual remains, how-
ever, of this part, and of the Refectory show that

N ormrm

Bid/dings.

* Robertson. Materials: Ilist. Becket.
'l‘ In the translation in the 29th Report of the Record Office this
102

 

pm.nan~(:r m .

 

NORMAN BUILDINGS

the buildings about the Cloister were of post—
Conquest work. Of the eastern range a charac-
teristic feature is found in the alternate use
of stones of two colours, as may be seen
about a door in the Dormitory, and a piece of
wall in the angle of the Little Cloister. (Figs.
354 and 35/2.) This latter portion, with its

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

FIG. 354.—Ancient

 

Door in Dormitory, ’;' ' i i '
now Westminster FIG. 355.—Ancient Masonry
School (r. 1100) in Little Cloister

diagonally placed square stones, is exactly like
some ancient walling once on Westminster Hall,
and, like that, I should date it about 1090—1 100.
Some of the arches of the under-croft have rem-
nants of painted decoration. (Fig. 36.) Several
caps of the old Cloister have been found, some of
which are preserved in the entry to the Chapter
House. Another, which doubtless belonged to the

word is given as Plasterer, but in the duplicate entry in the B.M.

charters he appears as “Godwin, called Great Syd, Ctmmmrim of
that church.”

103

NORMAN BUILDINGS

cloister, although it was found some distance awayfx‘
had an inscription on which the word Claustrum
and the names of Abbot Gilbert (1082 to 1121)
and William II. appearedrl"
The dormitory and Cloister may thus be dated
0. 1090-1100. Leland has a note taken from a
Chronicle of Malmesbury Abbey,
“ Anno D. 1110, inchoatum est
novum opus Westmonasterie.” He
adds that the King himself laid the
first stone. This probably refers to
the nave, and we may suppose that
the refectory was by this time com-
pleted. Of the nave of the church
several fragments have been found
F10. 36.—Norman which belonged to a work of the
painting in under- middle of the twelfth century. “ It
croft ofDormitory was of the same width as the present
nave, a good deal ofwhich is, in fact,
built on the old foundation.” At the west end were
bell—towers. The nave was completed about 1160.
The considerable remains, not often seen, of St.
Katherine’s, the chapel of the infirmary, to the east
of the little Cloister, are of delicate late Norman

 

 

 

work, almost transitional in character, which I'

should date about 1165-70. It was explored in
1871 on the removal of some buildings, and

" In the walls of the gate—tower of the palace, destroyed in 1807.
It was sold to Sir Gregory Page Turner, and should if possible be
re-discovered. It is illustrated in Brayley and Britton’s “Palace of
Westminster.”

'l‘ Scott, in his “ReCollections,” speaks of the discovery of a
“ compartment and numerous capitals of the Norman cloister.”
104

 

 

. ex-

 

NORMAN BUILDINGS

consists of three aisles, five bays long with columns
alternately round and octagonal, with elegantly
scalloped capitals and notched arches. The windows
have angle shafts, and arches beaded to the inside.
Eastward is a chancel with
a part of its altar still in
place, and there were two
other altars at the ends of
the aisles. The nave and
aisles of this chapel were
almost certainly continued
westward over part of the
present Little Cloister, and
included the infirmary
hall.* The wall which
now terminates the chapel
to the west was built
about 1340. (Figs. 37 and
38-) V E i 1 .
According to Acker— ‘5 i’ 33
man, Henry II. was a par— Fm. 37.—Plan of St. Katherine’s
ticular benefactor to V’Vest— . Chapel

minster, and the “New

Works” there. He says, citing “an MS. in the
Cottonian Library,” that the king, at the request
of Abbot Lawrence, repaired the oflices, which
had for the most part been consumed by fire.
The only exact record I find is in the Pipe Roll,
21 Hen II. and is of the payment of 40 shillings
to Alnoth pro opermzz/o rejécz‘orzo. This is at least
interesting, as giving us the name of the Kings
most famous master of the works at the Tower,

* An infirmary Cloister is mentioned in the thirteenth century.
to;

 

 

Fm. 38.———Detail ofAreade of
St. Katherine’s Chapel

NORMAN BUILDINGS

 

 

 

the Palace, and V’Vind-
sor. He is elsewhere
called Ingeniatorflie

Neale says that in the
time of Abbot Lawrence
stalls are mentioned as
being made for the
“ New Work.” This,
Scott supposed, applied
to the chapel of St.
Katherine, but it seems
more probable that it
was part ofa re-arrange-
ment of the church con—
sequent upon the com-
pletion ofthe nave and
the translation of the
Confessor’s body in
I 163, when, we are
told, it was taken out
of the earth by Thomas
of Canterbury and en-
shrined.

We may say that the
church was finished by
1163, and that the in—
firmary was built about
the same time. That the
chapel of St. Katherine
was the work of Abbot
Lawrence seems to be

“ He was working at the Palace from 9 to 2+ Hen. 11., and St.

Katherine’s may have been erected under his direction.

106

 

71w,» 5.5. V ”T'fl‘ .

my”

 

THE LADY CHAPEL

shown by the fact that his anniversary was cele—
brated there, and one of the altars of the chapel
was dedicated in honour of St. Lawrence} St.
Katherine’s was destroyed in the year 1571:)"

The nave altars of the church were dedi—
cated from the first, as later, in honour of Holy
Cross (centre), the Trinity (south), and the
Blessed Virgin (north). In the Golden Legend
we are told of the Confessor how he was praying
at the altar of the Trinity when he saw a vision ;
and the Virgin’s altar in the nave came to be called
“ Old St. Mary’s,” that is older than the chapel of
1220. Holy Cross was a usual early dedication
for the altar below the Nave Rood. We also hear
of a chapel of St. Nicholas, near which Egelvic,
Bishop of Durham, was buried in 1072;}:

Matthew Paris tells us that on Saturday, the vigil
of Pentecost, in the year 1220, was begun the New
T/ze Lad VYorl; of the chapel'of the Blessed
0/24 6/ y Virgin, of Wthh the lung (Henry 111.),

f) ' laid the first stone. This chapel was
built at the cost of the Abbey, and indulgences
were issued to subscribers. An order of the king’s
exists for the delivery to the Prior of the golden
spurs made for “our coronation, which we have

* See Customs, Bradshaw Society.

’f VVidmore, p. 142.

1 Stanley. As early as the IXth. century the plan of St. Gall
shows the Holy Cross altar in the middle of the nave. I have found
Holy Trinity altar mentioned before the rebuilding of the church as
the place where the Confessor saw in a vision the King of the Danes

drowned. (Cal. Charter Rolls, anno 1246.)
107

THE LADY CHAPEL

given for the New Work of the chapel of St.
Mary.”’*‘

The work went forward very slowly, for in
1233—4 a grant was made to the Abbot (Berkinge)
of twenty oaks for the work in the church and as
many for “the New Work of his chapel of St.
Mary.”-'l*- These oaks would have been required
for the roof, and below we shall find that the
chapel was not at first vaulted, but had a timber
roof. In 1243—4. the Keeper of the Mint was
ordered to have two altars of St. Adrian and St.
Michael made for the new chapel of St. Mary.
In 124.6 Abbot Berkinge died and was buried be—
fore the High Altar of the. chapel which he had
built.

In 1875 some foundations were discovered by
Mr. Wright, which seemed to show that the Lady
Chapel was a long, apsidal—ended building which
occupied the space now covered by the central area
of Henry VII.’s new Lady Chapel. Neale tells us
that when Henry VII.’s chapel was recased many
wrought members of the old chapel were found.
One capital ofa mullion and some fragments ofdog—
tooth moulding, now in the vestibule to the Chapter
House, may have belonged to the Lady Chapel.
In Abbot Ware’s “ Customs” mention is made of

twenty tapers on the beam before the altar, of

others “in the hands of the angels,";: and of two
at the feet of Abbot Berkinge. Peter of Spain,
the painter, some time before 1272, made two

* L. U. \Vickham Legg, “ Coron. Records," p. 56.

'l‘ Close Roll.

I On the pillars which would have supported the altar curtains.
108

THE LADY CHAPEL

pictures for the altar of St. Mary, for which the
large sum of J€80 was paid.’*

Already, before the rebuilding, the Confessor’s
feasts were splendidly celebrated. In 124.2 Henry
III. granted J(:20 (say J£4.00) a year for keeping up
four waX candles about the feretrum, in addition to
the old lights, and for providing at Christmas and

on the two feasts of St. Edward 300 wax candles
at eachri"

* “Gleanings,” p. 113. Jr Cal. Charter Rolls.

109

CHAPTER V

HENRY 111., HIS ARTISTS AND
THE DESIGN

Henry III. and his Artists: Sources of the Design: Reims: The
Ste. Chapelle : Amiens.

. chr} In: T/zird, uni/am of England King,
W120 t/zi; c/zurr/z émke, and after lzi; meid
Again I‘t’llt‘a'z’d into t/Ii: fair building
Now rater/z flare unit/1 did :0 grmt n t/zing.”
FAHYAN's Translation of Ancient Epitaph.

HENRY THE THIRD’s master passion was for building
and for collecting works of art—images, pictures,
iewels, relics, plate, and stuffs. London

Henry III. ~ . . . .
. was practlcally transformed 111 1115 re1gn
and lit: . - ,
. from the central spire or St. Pauls to
Armtr.

the gates of the City and the Tower.
Great works were carried on at most of the royal
castles and manors——\Vestminster, \Vinchester,
Windsor, Kennington, Clarendon, Gloucester,
Guildford, Woodstock, Dublin, and the rest. The
Confessor was Henry s special patron, and the king
seems l11rdly to have gone on a journey, or to ha\e
undertaken any serious matter, without ofiering
some gifts at the Westminster shrine. His charity
was as profuse as the extortion which made it
possible was constant. Again and again, as the
greater festivals came around, orders were issued
to fill the palace even to the kings and queens

chambers, with poor people, and to feast them for
days togethet. At one moment he ordeis that all
the gold to be had in London should be obtained

llo

 

«an: i

at!

HENRY III. AND HIS ARTISTS

for his use; at another a vestment, “the most
beautiful ever seen,” was to be bought; then,
again, 600 marks’ worth of jewelled rings and
brooches were to be purchased.

On the Abbey church he continuously showered
his gifts—silver vessels for the chrism; banners,
baudekins, and other hangings (one to be hung
opposite the organs) ; four silver candlesticks for the
shrine; a great silver crown to set wax candles
upon; twelve “obols de musc” to be attached to
the crucifix; a large cross for the nave, and two
cherubim to be placed on either hand; a crown
of the value of twenty pounds to be offered to
St. Edward; a cloth, 12 ft. by 6 ft., to be
broidered with pearls, representing images from the
Bible (in 1253) ; a precious jewel worth 60 or 100
marks ; and so on.

In 124.1 he seems to have begun a new golden
shrine for the Confessor, and from this time
expenses in connection with this great work con-
tinually occur. We may suppose that his intention
to rebuild the church dates from this time, although
active preparation does not seem to have been
made until 1243*“ In 1247 the king obtained a
portion of the Holy Blood, duly attested by the
Patriarch of Jerusalem, and Matthew Paris gives a
sketch of the procession when the king carried it
from St. Paul’s to the Abbey, just as St. Louis had
brought his Holy Thorns into Paris. (Fig. 39.)
Two or three years later a footprint, said to have
been made at the Ascension, was also sent to Henry,

* In 1246 he ordained by charter that he should be buried by the

Confessor’s side.
I 1 l

HENRY III. AND HIS ARTISTS

and was by him given to Westminster. Langtoft
and other chroniclers tell us that Henry built, at
his own cost, “ le overayne bele a Westminster.”
The artists whom he employed were the royal
masons and carpenters attached to the
palace, and it is owing to the fact that
the money for the work passed through
the king’s coffers that the bills for the
work have been preserved as Govern-
ment documents.

As to-day at a large country house
we may find an estate carpenter and
mason permanently engaged, so to the

 

FIG-39-— king’s palace were attached a chief

Henry III. and .
the Rem royal mason, carpenter, sm1th, and

painter, just as there were a chief

butler and cook ; and these officers followed one
another in unbroken succession. The oflice of
royal mason existed as a sinecure almost until to-
day. In the time of Charles I. it was still held
by a working mason, Nicholas Stone, who was
appointed in 1626 king’s mason and architect,“ as
Will Suthis had been.” A century later the painter—
architect, Kent, was appomted kingsmason. Under
the chief master— —mason or carpenter a body ot
iourneymen were permanently engaged, but at
times of special effort they were “pressed by royal
warrant to work at the kings wages, a custom
which has not very Ion” lapsed in the Royal

Navy."*"

At \Vestminster, when any serious work of

' For masons of the Household of Edward [1,, see llrayley and
llritlon’s “ Palace of Westminster."
I l 2

7 my: Mum

HENRY III. AND HIS ARTISTS

masonry was going forward, the master-mason was
likely to be in daily contact with the king, and
mention of exchanges of wine between Henry III.
and his mason suggests their intimate relations.
John of Gloucester, indeed, was king of masonry
in these realms.

When masonry was undertaken a mason had
charge of it, and, later, a carpenter was called in,
‘while a clerk kept the accounts. Henry III. 5
work at Westminster was usually conducted through
Odo, a goldsmith, and, later, his son Edward,
who acted as treasurers, paying for materials and
hiring workmen. These clerkly officials are some—
times called “keepers of the works” at West-
minster. The master workmen are also called
keepers of the works at times, and they then seem to
have also overlooked and guaranteed the accounts.*

The fabric accounts for Westminster are most
accurate and systematic. They were made up
weekly, and discriminate between payments for
wages, for “ task—work,” and for materials. They
usually specify every man’s trade, and distinguish
between the master—craftsman and the other work—
men so precisely that there is but little difficulty
or danger oferror in following the career of“ Master
Henry the king’s master—mason,” or “Master
Alexander the king’s carpenter.” In some cases I
have been able to trace back these great artists, the
architects of our Gothic monuments, to a time
when they were working as journeymen, much as

* Hudson Turner has called Edward the “ architect” of the church
. and Robert of Beverley a clerk of works, but this, as we shall see,
inverts their offices.

H I13

n..- .rrluflitéfi .

HENRY III. AND HIS ARTISTS

we can trace the antecedents of bishops to a time
when, as poor boys, they were apprenticed to
religion. as

In the poetic Life of the Confessor, written about
1270, we are told how he called together masons
and carpenters for the conduct of the work, and in
the original MS. at Cambridge there is a painted
illustration showing the craftsmen taking their
instructions from the king. (Fig. 65.) Their
dress, of course, is that of the time of Henry III.
A group of three stand forward to hear the king.
The first is a master-mason in official master’s
cap, wearing gloves and carrying a long levelling
“ straight-edge." Kneeling below him is the
carpenter with a coif on his head and bearing an
axe. Behind the master is another mason, who
bears a stone-axe and turns to pass on the instruc-
tions to the body of workers behind. It is virtually
a picture of Henry III.’s craftsmen at the Abbey—
let us say portraits of Robert de Beverley, Alexander
the carpenter, and the foreman of masons.

Matthew Paris also gives a second little sketch
relating to Westminster, which is interesting as a
memorial of Henry’s chief gifts to \Vestminster ; it
shows the church, the 'shrine, and the great bells.
(Fig. 40.)

The first royal mason I have found mentioned is

* There are probably nearly a hundred of these Fabric Rolls,
many of them 12 ft. to 20 ft. long. Most of these are at the Record
Oflice, calendered as \Vorks Q.R. I have also made use of a valu-
able MS. Calendar of Close Rolls at the same place. Other Rolls
are in the MS. Department of the British Museum. Several at the
Abbey I only know through the Calendar in the “Historic MSS.
Report,” vol. iv.
H4

 

 

SOURCES OF THE DESIGN

Radulphus “ Cementarius Regis,” who was working
in 1171 at Dover Castle, and in the next year at
Chilham. Two years before, in 1169, I find the
style “Magister” Robertus Cementarius. The
earliest London mason
I have found named is
Andrew, Cementarius at
St. Paul’s in I 127, where
he was doubtless the
master.

 

 

 

 

1“ 1236—7 the keeper Fm. 4o.—Church, Shrine and
of the works at the Bells from M. Paris

Palace of Westminster

was John of Waverley, mason; and two years
later the carpentry work of the palace was in the
hands of Master Alexander the carpenter, whom
we shall meet again working at the Abbey.

Up to about the year 1200 our early Gothic
work developed along with the Art of Normandy
S and of the French kingdom. After this

ources . .
r , /ze time there wasa serious set—back to the
3/ t progress of bullding 1n England, caused
by the general political and social ills
of the time—the loss of Normandy and Anjou,
the Pope’s Interdict, and the Barons’ War. Our
church at Westminster clearly shows a return of
Continental influence ; and, even more, a study of
particular French models. It was erected just at
the moment when French building art had attained
to European fame. Cologne Cathedral, the greatest
of French churches, although on German soil, was
begun only three years later than Westminster,
”5

Deng”.

 

l
a

SOURCES OF THE DESIGN

and, in Spain, the cathedrals of Toledo, Burgos, and
Leon, are all noble offshoots of the French School.

French Gothic Art of the middle ofthe thirteenth
century had been shaped by the tremendous experi—
mental force with which it was pushed forward to
constructive results such as English masons hardly
apprehended. It was the conscious aim of French
masons to make every member do its uttermost;
the result was structure of maximum tension.
Carlyle’s chance phrase, that Cologne Cathedral was
“ the supreme of earthly masonry,” well expresses
what the great Gothic School desired to attain to.

When Westminster was begun the choir of
Reims had been consecrated four years; the Sainte
Chapelle in Paris was well advanced, and it was
consecrated in 124.8; the nave of Amiens was
finished, its vast choir was just being begun, and
it was completed in the same year, I269, in which
Henry III.’s work at Westminster was consecrated.
Beauvais, the mightiest choir of them all, was
begun in 124.7 and finished in 1271, thus ex-
actly following V’Vestminter at an interval of two
years.

Gilbert Scott supposed that Henry 111., being
enamoured of the French type of Church, sent his
Master of the Works to visit the French cathedrals.
In “imitating” the great contemporary churches
of France, he thinks that he was especially in-
fluenced in planning the radiating apsidal chapels,
and in the tracery of the windows which follows
the bar—type first used at Reims. The arrange-
ment of the flying buttresses is, he also points out,

in'the French manner. Of the portals of the
116

 

REIMS

north transept he writes, that they are “the only
instance in which these glorious portals, so common
in France, were directly imitated in an English
church.” He shows, however, that the details are
typically English, except for the work of possibly
one French carver. G. G. Scott, junior, says, “it
is clearly the work of an English architect who
was well acquainted with Reims, Amiens, and
Beauvais.”

With all this I fully agree, except that for
Beauvais I would substitute Paris. And more
than this, I have no doubt that Reims
was the specific type which was followed
at Westminster. We may see a reason for this in
the fact that both are coronation churches; and
it may have been that the rebuilding of the
former led Henry III. to his undertaking at West—
minster. It is a remarkable fact that Reims is the
only Gothic cathedral church in France in which
the choir passes to the west of the crossing, and
includes the first bays of the structural nave exactly'
like the choir arrangement at Westminster.

When at ReimsI have been impressed by a sense
of its general resemblance to the so well-known
Westminster church. The most striking likeness
in detail is that one type of window, consisting of
two lights with a big rose above, combined into
tracery, is used throughout both churches, in the
aisles, around the chapels, and along the clerestories.
Our windows and the radiating chapels we may
speak of as copies of those at Reims. In both
Westminster and Reims the interior of a chapel

117

Reims.

REIMS

is made up of a wall-arcade with a wall—passage
above, and of a series of tall windows filling out
the rest of the wall space right up to the vault cells.
Besides the general resemblance, there are too
many coincidences of detail to be explained except
as the result of direct imitation; for example:
the planning of the buttresses; the narrow piers
between the windows threaded by the wall—passages;

 

 

Fro. 4L—Destroyed Church of St. Pharon at Meaux

the rib lying against the surface of the vault in the
position of a rere—arch to each window ; the stilted
form of the windows, whereby it was made possible
to obtain very large roses, in each case of similar
six—foiled form; the way in which the windows
{are associated with the buttresses on the outside.
and, within, are copied on the blank sides of the
chapels. The divisions between the chapels are
also much alike. At Reims the terminations of
these divisions against the ambulatory take the
form of half of one of the main piers of the choir
arcade, and Professor \Villis, in his Commentary on
Villars de Honnecourt, notes that this plan was
followed at \Vestminster and Beauvais. (Fig. 4.2.)
The continuous wall passage aloné,r the top of the
wall—arcade for the service of the altars of the
chapels at Westminster is exactly like that at
118

REIMS
Reims. (Fig. 59.) In the general planning 01

the apse and its chapels at Westminster the form
seems to be arrived at by combining the scheme of
Reims, which also had five chapels, with such plans
as that of Amiens and of St. Pharon at Meaux,
where the outside pair of apse chapels are thrown
to the west of the centre point of the apse much
as at Westminster.* (Fig. 4.1.) At Reims, as at
Westminster, a window in one of the apsidal
chapels on each side of the church tells in the
vista of the side aisles. (Fig. 59.) At both we
find similar oblong chapels at the springing of the
apse.

The pillars in both churches are of one general
form, made up of a central drum and four shafts,
although at Westminster the shafts are separated
from the core to suit the marble construction.
The bases, again, at \Vestminster, those at the east
of the apse especially, with their flattened roll and
the distinction between the projection for the main
base and for the lesser shafts, so characteristic of
French work, are copies of those around the choir
at Reims. (Fig. 4.2.) The highly developed
carved spurs to the bases are also of French
character. There is one to the right of the gate
entering the north ambulatory, which has a
vigorous carving of a lion attacking a horse, all in

polished marble. (Fig. 124..)

* This is not followed at Hayles Abbey, where the chevet (127!)
was Copied from Westminster except that it is closer to the Reims
prototype. To compare the chapels of Reims with those of Westminster
it is well to take V. 1e Duc’s volumes, which contain the interior and
exterior views, to the Abbey. ’

119

R ICIMS

At Reims, and at \Vestminster, the capitals ()fthe
piers were linked together with 21 system of iron ties

 

 

l“1<;..tz.— i’illitrs and hises at Reims .tnti \Vestmins:er

 

 

 

passingzieross at the springing of the urehes. “ :\t the
Cathedral of Reims,"s;1_\'s Viollet-le—Due, “the eon—
struetion or which was executed with great magni—
120

THE SAINTE CHAPELLE

ficence, they substituted for provisional ties in wood
placed under the springing stones of the arches,
hooks of iron to which were attached iron bars
having an eye at each end.” 'The hooks remain at
Reims, but the bars have been removed.

The vaulting ribs of the aisles follow a distinctly
French section, and there are other French mould—
ings in the church. Another method of construc—
tion which was adopted from the French is to be
found in the way that the clerestory windows are
brought towards the inside of the church, and not
set, as usual, in sloping jambs ; they were finished
with nearly rz'mz'lar pillars and mouldings both in—
side and out. The doubling of the tracery plane
in the triforium is also derived from French work.
At the moment when Westminster was built triforia
pierced c‘z—jour were all the rage. At St. Denis,
Amiens, Tours, Chartres (St. Pierre), and a dozen
other great churches we find a continuous band of
doubled tracery as here, but the outer plane is
glazed like the bays of our South Transept, which
form a continuation of the triforium.

A second chief foreign source for the forms of
the Westminster architecture is the Ste. Chapelle.
, Of ourse I u ' -
F/zt’Stc. “c s ppose all English tra
, ditions to have been known to the
(4/1(lPC’//L)o . .

master as well as the specml continental
influences.

St. Louis, having obtained the Crown of thorns
from the East, began the Ste. Chapelle to contain it
in 124.1. All this was instantly known in England,

and Matthew Paris records the very day the relic
121

THE SAINTE CHAPELLE

was received from Constantinople—March 20,
1241 and uses his best word—“ incomparable ”
for the new chapel. Henry III.’s artistic sympathies
with France is referred to in a contemporary ballad,
in which he is made to say, “Paris
is a great town, and in it is a
chapel which I would like to
carry oflr to London in a cart tout
draft.” *3 This chapel is the first
work in which an attempt was
made to transform the walls into
thin rigid props containing only
glass ; in its achievement the
possibilities of Gothic construc—
tion were practically exhausted,
and no other building has had
such influence except, perhaps,
Fm. +3.—l)iagrain IKCIIHS. .
of Chapter Home Scott pomted out the resemb—
Windows lance ofthe tour-light windows ot
the Chapter House to those in
St. Louis’ Chapel, and this is so evident that one set
must be a copy of the other. (Fig. 43.) In the Paris
example the cusps of the six—foil terminate in
bunches ot‘carving. This is the origin ot‘the rounded
ends of‘those at \Vestminster; indeed, in some ofthe
chapels of the apse several of the cusp-ends are also
carved. In the apse at the Ste. Chapelle the. heads
of the tracery are made of three uncontained trefoils
balanced on oneanother. (Fig. 11.) \\'e find asimilar
treatment in the earlier portion of the \Vestminster
cloister. (Fig. 4.2.) Didron, long ago, showed that

* J_ \Vright, Political songs.

 

 

122

AMIENS

the two types of windows at the Ste. Chapelle
were copied in the earliest portion of Cologne
Cathedral; and that they instantly became most
famous is shown by the numerous imitations of
them which sprang up in France. The clerestory
of Tours Cathedral, for instance, shows both
patterns used in the shafifefirelation as at Paris.

Uncontained trefoil heads and quatrefoils are
also found in the lateral wall-arcades at the Ste.
Chapelle, and the wall-arcade of the apse is of
cusped arches which may have set the type for
those throughout Westminster. The remarkable
triangular windows of the Westminster triforium
may have originated from those in the lower
chapel in Paris, although there are similar windows
in the west end of Amiens Cathedral.

The north portal of Westminster is not only, as
Scott pointed out, more like the west front of a
typical French church than anything
else we have to show in England, but
its design was, I believe, founded on specific study
of the then just completed front of Amiens. We
find there three similar steeply-gabled porches
standing out flux/z with the lower parts of the
dividing buttresses; the fronts of these buttresses
being divided in each case into two-arched re-
cesses for statues standing on corbels and ranging
with those in the central porch (in both cases the
twelve Apostles), thus making a continuous band
across the front. Above the lateral porches at
Amiens the west windows of the aisles are deeply
set in recesses like a similar curious arrangement

123

flmz’en 5 .

AMIENS

at Westminster, and still higher the external wall—
arcade of coupled lights runs right across the front
beneath the rose window,just as at our transept.

(Fig. 4.4..) The bay design of the interior, as will

 

FIG. ++.—Diagram of lower part of west front of
Amiens Cathedral

be shown below, is derived from Amiens; even
the square diaper which covers all the spandrels of
the arcades at Westminster seems to be taken from
the similar diaper which adorns the porches of the
French church. (Fig. 4.6.)

On the whole,l consider it to be certain that
the Westminster church was designed after a
careful study had been made of the cathedrals of
Reims and Amiens, and of the Ste. Chapelle, and
12+

AMIENS

that parts, like the apsidal chapels, are practically
copied from French prototypes. The old Rose

window, as will be shown on
another page, was almost ex—
actly like several French Roses.

We may readily make the
fullest allowance for French
influence at Westminster, for
so entirely is it translated into
the terms of English detail that
the result is triumphantly
English. It is a remarkable
thing, indeed, that this church,
which was so much influenced
by French facts, should, in spirit,
be one of the most English of
English buildings. This, per—
haps, is only to be felt by those
accustomed to read what is in
buildings and cannot easily be
demonstrated.

We have the testimony of
Viollet-le—Duc that the con—
struction of its vaults followed
a fashion quite distinct from
the general French tradition
of the time.

Considering the unity and
exquisite beauty of the com-
pleted church and its re—

 

 

 

 

 

fl.
1] l

|L__.—4
l9—‘l
lr—fi
lL——4
"—1

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

i/M

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

..___.__

Fro. 45.—Diagram of bay
of the interior, Amiens

semblance to French work, we might suppose that
it was the result of unfettered genius working on
these elements ; as a matter of fact, the walls overlie

125

AMIENS

the ancient foundations of the Confessor’s church
to such an extent that it is, as regards plan, rather
a rebuilding than a fresh departure. Its general
form, indeed, is so French partly because it was
rebuilt on early lines, for a French church hardly
ever developed like an English one by being drawn
out far to the east. Such conditions of planning
must have precluded any system of abstract pro-
portioning such as Scott looked for.

That Master Henry, who, as will be shown, was
the master mason at the Abbey from its commence-
ment, was an Englishman is proved sufficiently by
his work ; that he had no other name than Henry
goes to show that he was a London man.

 

Flu. +6.—l)iaper from the West
front, Amiens Cathedral

126

CHAPTER VI
POINTS OF CONSTRUCTION

Construction : The Original Forms : Course of the Work.

THE most singular characteristic of the church is
the way in which the chapels of the chevet are
carried up so as to form a second storey
on the triforium level. In many French
churches of the Gothic period there are
important triforium storeys, lighted by a second
row of windows over those of the aisles. Such a
triforium, however, where it passes around the
apse at the east end, usually follows the width of
the ambulatory only. I know of no parallel to the
scheme of Westminster, but the dignity attained
by the group of tall chapels is as impressive as it is
originalfi“

As a result of adapting a new church to the old
Cloister a remarkable contrivance was resorted to,
whereby, notwithstanding the limits imposed by
the Cloister, the South Transept might seem to
have double aisles like that to the North. The angle
ofthe Cloister occupies the lower halfof the western
aisle of the South Transept, but the upper half is
open to the church, forming thus a floor inter—
mediate between the ground level and the tri-
forium. (Fig. 11.) The great height of the
arcades made this possible. The height of the
ground arcade and the acute form of its arches
are only factors in the great interior height of

C amtruc—
tion.

"‘ At Valenciennes the transeptal chapels and that at the east end, the
middle one of three apsidal chapels, rose to the upper storey.

127

14...“: .u..-,;.A.:m_-M:._‘

 

 

1.
i

CONSTRUCTION

the building which much overpasses any other
English church. It is 30 ft. to the top of the
capitals, 45 to the apex of the arches, 48.3 to the
string under the triforium, and 63 to that under the
clerestory. In the presbytery it is 76.3 to the
springing of the vault, 86.6 to the
springing of the windows, 99 ft. to
the bosses of the vaulting, and just
exactly 100 ft. to the apex of the
interior vault surface?“
\ The presbytery floor is about 3 ft.
\ , \ above the level of the aisles and
\. -
<-' 7‘\ transepts. The normal width of
Fm. 4.7.——Vault at the bays is about 19 ft. from centre
Avesnicrs, near to centre. Th6 SldC bays Of the
Laval: 5. 1:80 presbytery are only about 17.0, and
the height is thus six times the
dimension. If the whole height be divided into
six parts, it will be found that the ground storey
occupies three parts, the triforium one part, and
the clerestory two parts. This relation of parts
so closely agrees with the Amiens bays that we
must suppose that it was derived from that
cathedral.

The Westminster vaults resemble those of France
in their height, but they follow, as said above,
a different scheme from that which was in general
use in France, although this scheme, which be—
came the favourite English fashion, was occa—
sionally resorted to by the French. (Fig. 47.)

In the \Vestminster system the courses of the
filling instead of being, as in French work, shaped

* See drawings in “Arch. Assoc. Sketch Book," ngl.

 

// ‘

l

\

\ I [/7

\\\

 

;/\

 

 

128

 

CONSTRUCTION

so that as they rise they work out parallel to the
ridge, are set across the web of the vault and
allowed to strike at the apex as they may against a
ridge rib, or a sort of ’
notched backbone. Al—
though in some of the
vaults so done there may
be a little shaping of the
courses, by this method so
much care is not neces— .
sary as there would be to
work them out exactly to
the ridge line. (Fig. 48.)
.The later deve10pments
brought about by this
method were, as Viollet—
le—Duc says, “no caprice

at "
an
0F question of taste, but i” ’Allll “'2?

tllC I‘lgOI‘OUS aPPlICatIOI] FIG. 48.;Diagram of Vault of
of a method followed out Ai51es at Westminster

to its deductions.” The

method of making the courses of the filling
fall on the diagonal ribs appears to have brought
about the English fashion of rebating the ribs;
and that, in turn, led to covering up our vaults
with a second layer, usually of concrete, which
bound all together. This second layer is found
at \Vestminster. It also led, quite naturally, to
a greater subdivision of the vault surfaces by
additional ribs, and over the choir we find that
the vault, which is, perhaps, not more than
, ten years later than that to the east, has deve-

loped them. Such vaults with additional ribs
I 129

 

’lv E'EE‘E; g

 

 

CONSTRUCTION

required also ridge ribs against which the inter-
mediates might abut. In the choir vault the ridge
rib is made much of, being carved throughout.
Ridge ribs appear also in the earlier vaults to
the east where they re—
ceive the ends of the
filling courses,which run
into them at an angle.
In the smaller bays of
the aisle there are no
ridge ribs, but such
support for the filling
courses was felt to be
desirable in the greater
. compartments. The fill—
ing is of chalk with
courses of harder stone
FIG. +9.—Relation of Vault to at lDtCI‘ValS.
Clerestory Windows The ClCI‘CStOI'y win-
dows are pushed high
up into the vaults (Fig. 49); they spring IO ft. above
the springing of the vaulting and consequently the
fillings of the vault, between the windows, are little
more than vertical strips of walling on the back of
the transverse ribs. This portion of the work is
jointed horizontally for about 16 ft.,and the sheafof
ribs is jointed horizontally for about 6 ft. above
the caps. The diagonal ribs in the presbytery seem
to “wind ” a little in plan, so that they diverge
quicker from one another than they would on a
normal course.
It should be noticed in the aisles that the trans-

verse members of the vault are much more sub-
13o

 

CONSTRUCTION

stantial than the diagonal ones. They are arches
rather than ribs. In the main vault of the presby—
tery there is a similar difference, but it is not so
marked, the transverse ribs being three inches
bigger.‘* The arches of the main arcade have

 

Lilllllllltllj

FIG. 50.—Diagonal and Transverse Ribs of Vault over Presbytery

a radius of at least twice the span. Noticq the
distortion of the arch leading from the South
Transept to the ambulatory caused by the desire
to make the apex centre with the triforium.

The sections of early mouldings were designed
within a general square bounding form ; late mould-
ings usually conform to a slanting plane. In the
mouldings of Westminster the groups of projecting
members seem generally to be included within
imaginary segments of circles, which satisfactorily
echo the roundness of the pillars. The section
of the great arches, however, approximate in their
lower order to the chamfer plane. (Fig. 51.)

* 15x15 ins. and 12 x12 ins. (See Fig. 50.)

CONSTRUCTION

Above some of the capitals there is a seating-
block from which the mouldings rise. It is not
used consistently throughout, but its proper mean-

’\

 

 

 

 

 

 

FIG. 51.—Section of Mouldings of Ground Arcade in Presbytery

ing may be thus explained. If we design an arch
section having deeply—indented hollows and bring
two of these together, as they would be at the
springing over a capital, then the bearing area of
stone may at this point seem dangerously weakened,
may, in fact, be less strong than the column be—
neath. Now a seating at the springing of the
arches will swallow up the hollows of the mouldings
until the arches have diverged far enough to be of
any desired sectional strength. That this feature

is not used throughout we may explain best by the
132

CONSTRUCTION

fact that portions of the work (like so many arches)
were done by “ task-work.” Some of the masters
thought this seating desirable and others did not.
In the triforium there are
variants of these seatings g
in carved super—capitals. :5 . 1
(Fig. 52-) ‘2 j ‘
Another interesting Iii/flit“; L \ . ..
feature of the construc— l‘ i,
tion is the very large scale '
of the traceried windows at ,

 

 

of the clerestory, aisles, a“;

and chapels, and the way

in which those of the 7,

ground floor occupy a

WhOIC compartment to FiG.52.—Super-Capitals of
the absorption of the Triforium

wall?6 In the exterior

re—entering angle, between pairs of adjoining
chapels on the north and the south sides of the
chevet, even the exterior jambs have disappeared,
and only the buttress remains, to which the glazing
is made fast. (Figs. 53 and 59.) In the same
faces of the chapels in the triforium storey, small
two-light windows take the place of the triangular
windows generally used in the triforium, but which
were too wide for this situation. From the inside
this change of window seems a not to be explained

* The lights in the end bays of the transepts must be 5 ft. wide;
the clerestory lights are 4 ft. I in. wide to the east, and 4ft. 6 in. in the
choir. The windows of the south aisle, which by reason of the Cloister
outside have to be made shorter than these to the north, are so contrived
that this difference is hardly noticeable.

133

 

     

    

n.'||' I:
I I ‘ . ‘ .
'.,’1,-,, um..u",‘.n ,.
',l'r Ilnm' I
J’/II.I.IHII”
u

 
    

v
I
l

   

,. \\»
" 'HHN’IIhu/“rhnV ‘
7H),! I
,, ...:u{;;;,';;:rum/Iv“'_/
Him. |“".l.l., \,,
'\‘,.u‘l,l.'llrl,” ! ,
I f.»

 
 
 
   
       
    

     

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

     

    
   

V‘m "“31,in ! ‘ ‘ —« " ,1
. 1“” ‘. .
VI‘NMHIHHJ‘N‘I— _ ._.

 

 

     
  

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

. I’H' ,MI’I'MES:
‘r “mtg/4...: H ,1 1 "
|..'|”'l":'”,|“| . ‘
‘Jlnlullwh‘flu MT- ' ‘ H i
;:'.'!::39....."z'r »- ~ "*7 I
u ;::|.|.Iu’:;|‘b.|l.l.ll‘ I" 1 l
‘ ' I,‘ mun... "'HHIH
w; '?¢"1»":11;:::::::; 'zi7f'.‘-~i""-‘ ‘ I '
_ . ‘ u l .n . ' V ’
”H ."..'.;1«"”,:,:1,:.,” "'“II‘URK/o‘“ ‘ I
_‘ "n-H‘ ' H ' I
1‘ ‘ m.wn7""|l' "||‘|”’l|“||";:, _‘ l
, 41¢! ‘>uu"”“"""~ "'u"“l'll"""
, I , 0 H“ ”M ‘f’ul'...’ 'WI . I l
1 1' -.|' 'l . . ‘
> 7‘ "L'Hlv'ul I'll-'5" I‘lz‘"||‘l"bnl;“flnl’ .
_ ‘ u:::::-~~::'~ With '.'v ' i ‘
* . ',‘m ”“1"" F‘hfln‘EI-MW ; J I V
"'[2'H'133'fiih ""M" M ' I
'l' I I M
\ h nun.""'n “mm“ \\\ “ "
.‘.';-.:I|“"‘.“‘"“ "\mum‘ ‘V
; Mum" ”'1' \u \\‘\\\ “ “ H ‘
_ ‘ “w \mw A\\\ ‘\‘\\ \m‘nl" '—
\ HIHI AHI‘W'H “ “‘ \\ \"‘ U ‘
. \ \\“‘ "W WWW“ ‘| ‘* "fl
, An “mm m\\\--\ \“ '1 ‘ '
u -‘\\‘..\\\‘ -‘\‘\\ \\\ E‘ L
E‘ ..\lu\:\‘..n.\r\\.=.“ y" “ HA‘ \‘i
- .

 

Fm. :3.——z\rr;mgc1ncnt of W Indows 1n :\p>1J.11C Mpg]:

CONSTRUCTION

caprice, but there are no such whims at Westminster.
(Fig. 53.) The way the windows of the South
Transept are grouped together into one composition
of a windowed wall is very advanced for the date.
(Fig. 6.) The six lancets below, the three couplets
of the middle stage, and the rose above, are all on
the way to run together and form one great traceried

 

Fxc. 54.—Plans of Main Piers : east and west of the crossing

window. This principle was being actively worked
out in Francein the middle ofthe thirteenth century.
In the transept ends the wall surface is entirely
occupied by windows and arcades. For an
ordinary bay the only plain wall spaces are the
strips by the clerestory Windows; all the rest is
covered with diapering. There are no other such
great squared rose windows as those of the West-
minster transepts in England. The foiled roses
of the ordinary windows are cut out of thin slab-
like stones, and inserted in grooves in the circles
in the early French fashion. (Cusped heads of
lights in the Cloister and Chapter House were
also separately inserted.) The leaded glazing was
attached to wood frames set in external rebates

I35

CONSTRUCTION

and hooked back to interior iron bars which pass
across the openings. The double plane of tracer
to the triforium is at once very beautiful, and very
rigid construction.

An interesting instance of the modification of a
form by practical work-shop reasoning may be
observed in the marble pillars ofthe choir west ofthe
crOssing. (Fig. 54.) To the east they are made up of

L.

 

Fro. 55.——Bronze band (full size)

a central drum and four small circular shafts ; to the
west there are eight shafts, four attached and four
free, and a stronger, richer pillar is thus obtained
out of the same amount of marble and with less
expenditure of labour. These same pillars have
bands of Norma, instead of marble, which are
moulded, but hardly more than an inch in thickness ;
they must be cast, I suppose. They keep the lead
in the joints from being squeezed out. All the
small marble shafts are seated on lead.

Where such shafts are grouped about the built—
up pillars of the great arcade, which are also of
marble, they are attached by moulded bands which
divide the height into sections not too long for

slender monoliths. These bands were built in
136

-wl.ue‘w ,.

CONSTRUCTION

with the columns, but the shafts were not put in
place until the general building work was com-
pleted and had settled. The beds of these bands
and the upper surface of the bases and lower
surface of the capitals were sunk out a quarter of
an inch or so, and the slender shafts being cut
exactly the right length, so that they would slip

 

 

 

 

 

FIG. 56.——Profiles of Capitals from S. Transept

readily into place, molten lead was run into the
beds at the top by means of a hole drilled in
each capital (Fig. 51) ; below, I suppose, through
the bands. The slender marble vaulting shafts in
lengths averaging about eight feet were fixed after
the walling had been done by means of iron cramps
leaded into the walls.

I have spoken of the variety in the way in which
the arches spring above the capitals. There is
throughout constant change in the smaller details
like the forms of the caps. Thus, in the row of four
in an upper stage of South Transept the profile is
different in every case. (Fig. 56.) In the arch orna-
mentation of the triforium at the end of the South

137

CONSTRUCTION

Transept the three bays have arches moulded,
carved, and diapered respectively, and this varia—

     
  
 
     
 

, 5:335: -

 

FIG. g7.—lluttrcss System 3. Side ofChoir

tion in groups of three is continued in the eastern

. limb. ()n the east side of the North Trunsept the
138

CONSTRUCTION

arches are carved alternately with giant “ dog—tooth”
a foot square, and with rosettes set over a moulding.

The flying buttresses are highly developed.
Owing to the fact that the buttresses of the south
side have to pass across the Cloister, they have to be
of enormous size. (Fig. 57.) From the outside
face of the buttress in the Cloister-green to the plane
of the clerestory is, measured horizontally, 50 ft.
There are first three tiers of fliers over the Cloister,
and two tiers above over the aisle, that is, five
fliers in all to each “archiboutant.” In the tri—
forium at the back of each of the bay-piers is
a shaft with a proper base above the floor. These
shafts are not carried to completion above, and it
is not at once evident what their meaning is. The
fliers of French buttresses usy’ .
the capitals of such shafts, and these were for the
same purpose. If my memory is not faulty, one or
two of them just come above the lead roof of the
triforium at present. (See Fig. 57.)

The transept ends are effectively buttressed: at
the south by the vaulted chapel of St. Faith and
the buttressing arch which passes across it: at the
north by the deep porches and the arcaded wall
above, which is of great thickness. Within the
church the whole construction was, from the first,
laced up with iron to an extent which is without
parallel. At Vezelay the high vaults had iron
transverse ties, the hooks for which still remain.
In William of Sens’ work, at Canterbury, the arcade
around the eastern transept is stayed with iron.
At \Vestminster there are not only continuous longi-
tudinal ties to the arcades, but others pass across the

I39

"v res‘ “b.“‘w 0n

CONSTRUCTION

aisles, so that in some perspectives four or five bars
may be seen crossing at different angles. (Fig. 5 .)
At the triforium there are
‘ two continuous iron bands
which pass along at the
. springings of the doubled
planes of tracery. Certain
rods which stand clear of
the glass at the back of the
windows of the chapels
are also, I believe, ancient
and continuous. Other
ties thread the end win—
dows high up in the aisles
of the North Transept.
The Chapter House had
eight rods passing from
the central stem to the ribs,
just like those in an um-
brella, but of these only
the hooks remain.
, It is certain that the
Fm. 58.—Diagram showing Iron lI‘On thS were'part Of the
Tie_bar50fthe Interior first construction. \Vren
speaks of the original
architect having tied the arches every way with
iron; but many of them, he says, had been
“ unhooked.” Some are shown in position in the
engraving in Sandford’s “ Burial of the Duke of
Albemarle" (1670). There are several of them
which are not attached by hooks, but are built into
the work directly, and some, or all, oft/me are not
mere square rods, but are slightly shaped, so that
1+0

 

 

 

 

 

 

ORIGINAL FORMS

they rise to a peak in the centre of the span ; these
are certainly of thirteenth-century workmanship.
(Fig. 62, 1111.)

The long Fabric Roll of 1253 shows that in that
year a large quantity of iron was brought from
Gloucester for the works; and in this year there
were no less than nineteen smiths at one time
engaged on the building. The shorter summary
for 1253, also at the Record Oflice, gives a special
item to the iron used for “nails and other pur—
poses.”—In V’” IX‘ jérrz' tenacz} de G/ouermz xxg.
In this, nearly three tons of iron, we must, I think,
have the material from which many of the ties
were made.

It is perhaps impossible to get a clear idea as to
the exact relation of the Lady Chapel of 1220 to
the c/zevel of 1245. The chapel must
have been considerably modified when,
in 1256 vaults took the place of the
wood roof. And as the plan of its apsidal ter—
mination seems most suitable for a vaulted structure,
it is possible that it was lengthened, or even com—
pletely rebuilt, at this time.

The arch and responds at the east of the c/zevez‘
seem to have been exactly like those opening
into the other radiating chapels (Fig. 59), and
I think there must have been an ante-chapel
somewhat as at present, which, on the triforium
stage, formed an eastern projection belonging
to the main structure. (Fig. 60.) At the
triforium level it is evident that the present
wall of the eastern bay is a late insertion, and in

141

Original

F arms.

 

 

 

 

 

“l;,"(.-~\"“ ). .5, r '
,l t 3) Add) Han oprldal Chapds, shown; the plsmgc along u'mdmh

ORIGINAL FORMS

the end walls of the two lateral chapels, which
come next to the centre, arches may be seen
which were once exactly like those between other
pairs of the triforium chapels, but which are now

 

 

 

F10. 60.—-Suggested relation of Apse and
Lady Chapel

walled up. IThis eastern triforium chapel was
swept away,I suppose, to make the open area at
the west of Henry VII. s chapel tor the sake of its
great west window. All the work connected with
this space is oflate date. The intermediate work of
Henry V.’s tomb complicates the problem. (Fig.6 I .)

1+5

ORIGINAL FORMS

The window over the reredos of Henr V.’s
chantry seems to be Henry VII.’s work, and
below there has been some modification in the
eastern piers which support the chantry. Only
the western half of these piers is Henry Vo’s
work, and the central
opening has been al-
tered. It looks as if
there had been a screen
here in Henry V.’s

 

work, and that the Lady

FIG. 6I.—Various works at entrance Chapel was entered

to Lady Chapel only by the two lateral
openingsfi“

The central lantern tower was probably designed
to rise not much above the ridge of the roof, some—
thing like the earlier parts of the central towers of
Wells and Salisbury. We shall see that this “ tower"
is mentioned as early as 1274.. The structure still
shows some provision for it in the squinch arches
made to let the parapet-walk pass the angles of the
tower. We have seen that the vault over the

* The ends of the wall passages which pass along the window-sills of
the chapels are blocked to the east by masonry. (Fig. 59.) That is,the
passage was not continued beyond these points, and therefore we may
be certain that there was never an eastern chapel of the same form as
the others, with only low openings to the Lady Chapel. (The cast
window in the north-east chapel has its sill some five feet higher up
than the others, and this seems to be the original arrangement, and is
evidence of some obstruction outside.) My supposition is that there
was a square eastern projection forming a chapel on the triforium floor,
and a vestibule to the Lady Chapel below : I cannot think that when
the Lady Chapel was much lower than at present there appeared an
awkward interval in the ring of chapels.
14+

THE COURSE OF THE WORKS

crossing was never built ; this can only mean that
it was intended to be at a higher level altogether.
I suppose the original intention was to have a low
lantern tower as at Laon, with pairs of windows on
each face, and a pyramidal roof above.

That the old choir of the “ Basilica” was de—
stroyed before the commencement of Henry III.’s
‘T/ C work is shown by the extreme accuracy

26 came .
of t/ze ofthe setting out of the plan throughout.
Work: lf a transverse View across the church

IS taken from St. John Baptists
chapel, it will be seen that the ridges of the vaults
and centres of the arches are so perfectly in line
that it is obvious that the setting out was done
with the most careful accuracy on a cleared site.
(Fig. 59.) The new work appears to have been
begun with the eastern and three northern bays of
the apse with the corresponding chapels. The bases
of the pillars here with deep hollows are those we
have spoken of as imitated from Reims, while
westward in the choir, as well as in the transepts,
a much simpler form for working in marble has
been substituted. To this same portion of the
apse, across the springings of the arches, and across
the aisles, are wooden ties, whereas throughout the
rest of this work iron ties occupy similar positions.
(Fig. 62.) It might be thought that the wooden ties
were comparativelyrecent stays but there has been no
reason for their insertion at any time subsequent to
the first erection of the tall pillars, and such wooden
ties were frequently used 111 the erection of French
w01ks. Moreover, a further proof of their being a

14-5

n .I

THE COURSE OF THE WORKS

part of the first scheme is to be seen in the capitals
of the columns between which they stretch. These
capitals are of a curiously plain profile, the bell not
being undercut as is the case in the neighbouring
capitals where the iron rods are used. After the
first marble bases were fixed it must have been easy
to see that the profile might be simplified without

 

FIG. 62,—Vari0us ties to the arches of the Chevet

harm, and it would have been equally apparent
that the capitals required improvement. The next
portion of the work comprised three bays on the
south side which have iron ties which pass l/zroug/z
the caps of the piers. Later it was found better to
build in only hooks to which the ties might be
attached afterwards. This third plan continues
throughout the first "work In the later work of
the nave no permanent ties were used.

An interesting modification in the marble work
was made in the piers immediately to the west of
the crossing as pointed out on p. 135.

A somewhat similar simplification of the marble
work is to be seen in the piers in the centre of the
bays of the triforium ot‘the North Transept, where

the shafts are also worked in beds.
1+6

THE COURSE OF THE WORKS

I know of course, that Mr. Micklethwaite, who
is almost an infallible authority on the Abbey, has
expressed the View that it was some time after the
beginning of the works in 124.5 when the east end
of the old church was pulled down ; that portions
were first built round about it outside, and that the

 

 

FIG. 63.—Diagram showing junction of the larger and later
diaper, with the earlier, on N. side of Presbytery

earliest of these parts was the North Transept. But
against this I would set not only the alternative
reading I propose, but the clear testimony of the
Chronicles and Fabric Rolls, and the evidence
afforded by the speed with which the work was
pressed on to completion. The extreme accuracy
of all the setting out points to the same con-
clusion. Since getting so far I have observed a
proof of this reading of the problem. In the first
and second bays of the presbytery on the north
side is to be seen what Mr. Vacher, on his care—
fully measured drawings, calls a “ mason’s muddle”
in the diapering above the great arches. To the
east the diaper is smaller, to the west it is bolder ;
the latter overlaps the former in such a way as to

II-7

855.2033: :2 x: JED? 2:0 Std 1293,. 2: .3 8:5 3:33.? :325m -146 .2..—
91::

23-003 003:0me oom\-oom\ 0m¢\:0n.n<

 

        

     

 

_ i,

   

            

     

  

    

3%.». $7.155. 75.. m.

at... :5. 55:“
a

      

         

 

_ Illll. -.-“
Yaw";

3X

         

. &

 

   

 

 

    

 

4 \vwxvvww \V . ,

«2.782 \wvax . A ,,
AAAAAAAQAN flC/mV/V \
4 an &

 

 

 

 

Emm< Mmhmzuzhmmb?

THE COURSE OF THE WORKS

show that it was a subsequent work. Now the
whole of the eastern limb of the church, except the
small portion at the end of the north side, is
covered with the earlier diapering. (Fig. 63.)
So also is the east side of the South Transept, but
the North Transept has the bolder diaper, which is
in continuation of that which overlaps the earlier
as just described. In the South Transept, more—
over, there are one or two of the early form of
capitals. The work began at the east end, the
south side of the presbytery followed, and the
South Transept, The North Transept would have
been delayed by the great portal.

The Plan, Fig. 3, and the Section on the
opposite page show the several stages of the works,
and there cannot be a doubt as to the correctness
of the dates assigned to the diH‘erent parts by Mr.
Micklethwaite, who has generously lent me these
diagrams.

1+9

CHAPTER VII
THE FIRST MASTERS

Master Henry of Westminster, 1244—1233 : MasterJohn of Gloucester,
1253—1262: Master Robert of Beverley, 1262—1280.

IN 1243—4 preparations were being made for the
rebuilding of the Confessor’s church. In this year

a mandate was addressed by the kingto
in“, Work the Sheriff of Kent to provide one

$316152}: hundred barges of grey stone for the
M52): works to be undertaken at \Vestminster,
mz'mter ofwhich W. de Haverhulle,the treasurer,

’ and Edward were keepersfi‘“ Edward
1244'— was son of Odo, the goldsmith, men—
1253' tioned above, and succeeded him as one

of the keepers of the King’s Works. In the
“ Chronicles of the Mayors and Sheriffs of London ”
we find William de “ Haverille" and Edward of
Westminster acting together four years later, when,
on a quarrel arising between the king and the City
authorities, the king took the City into his own
hand and entrusted it to the custody of these two.
This shows what manner of man was this Edward
of \Vestminster, whom Hudson Turner and \Villiam
Burges, without sufficient evidence, called the
architect “of the Abbey Churchxi' In 12.1.4 the
king ordered the same keepers to see that the
Knight’s Chamber in the Palace of \Vestminster
should be finished before Easter, even if they had

"‘ \Valpole. Flints or Ragstone for the foundations.

T He was smelter to the Exchequer, then treasurer, and is called
king’s clerk.
l 30

 

 

MASTER HENRY OF WESTMINSTER

to employ a thousand men.*’ This employment of
a thousand men is a characteristic exaggeration in
the king’s speech, of which there are many
examplesd“

The Sheriff of Kent in 1244—5 was instructed
to prevent stone being taken to London except for
the works ofWestminster. London
was to suffer a great deal on ac-
count of these same works I

In this year the Sheriff of York
was commanded to go “ with
Simon the carpenter and Henry
the mason, whom the king sends
with other experienced persons,”
to see how York Castle might be
fortified: This Henry, who was
sent on such an important com—
mission, was probably the king’s Fm.65.—Masons and
favourite master mason of the Carpenter, (I 1270.
time, and from what w1ll appear From MS “Lifcof
bClOW “’6 may say that It IS llkfily the Confessor”
that he was already engaged as
“architect” of the new Abbey church. The
king’s carpenter in charge of the works at
\Vindsor in this year was Master Simon, and I
find no other mason than this Henry mentioned
in the Close Rolls at this time; St. George’s
Chapel at Windsor was begun in 124.0, and he

 

* Close Rolls, 28 Henry III.

T In this year three keepers were ordered to hang the bells,
the king’s gift to the church—in the old west towers we may
suppose.

I Sharpe’s MS. Calendar of Close Rolls.

[,1

MASTER HENRY OF WESTMINSTER

may have been master there together with Simon
the carpenter.*

As to the beginning of actual building at the
Abbey church we have very exact information.
Under the year 124.5 Matthew of Paris writes that
the eastern part of the church, and the tower, were
pulled down, and Matthew of Westminster and
Rishanger give the very day. “ The king caused
the greater part of the Conventual Church of the
Blessed Peter to be pulled down, beginning on the
day week after the feast of the Apostles Peter and
Paul.” Work was therefore begun on July 6,
1245, directly after the annual feast of the patron
of the church, and the first step was the demolition
of the greater part of the Confessor’s building.
This point is of some consequence, as Mr. Mickle-
thwaite has endeavoured to show how the work
was in part conditioned by its walls being built,
portions at a time, outside the ancient work. \Ve
have further confirmation of the destruction of the
old church in the fact that the royal persons of
old buried by the altar appear at this time to have
been exhumed. In 1244—5 (29 Henry III.) it was
ordered that a cope should be ornamented with
needlework of gold found on the body of Queen

* The twu successors of Master Henry at \Vestminster were also
concurrently masters at Windsor. Master John of Gloucester is
mentioned in connection with the works there in 1255, and Master R.
de Beverley in 1260. As a possible set off to this reasoning, it may be
stated that in 124.8 certain work at \Vindsor was done by the council of
Thomas the mason and Simon the carpenter. In 1252 Thomas the
mason of Windsor and his wife received robes. He was evidently a
master, and may have been in charge from 124.0 to the CXClUSlOI] of
Master Henry.

152

 

MASTER HENRY OF WESTMINSTER

Edith, wife of St. Edward. Again, in 124.6, a new
abbot had to be elected, and Matthew of West—
minster tells us how Crokesley was chosen as being
agreeable to the king, on whose goodwill the work
at the then “ half-destroyed ” church depended.

The Constable of the Tower was in 1245—6
ordered to deliver stone, mortar, timber, &c., to
the marter of f/Zc’ (work: at Wertmimter, and to
Edward.* This master of the works other than
Edward must be the chief mason, and below we
shall find Henry the mason called by this title.
The short indentures, called Feet of Fines, of the
year 1246—7, give us an interesting piece of con-
tributory evidence as to the presence of Henry the
mason. Two messuages at Westminster were at
this time acquired by Master Henry, Cementarius,
and at the Record Office we may still see a copy
of the deed whereby the master mason of the
church took possession of his dwellingj“

At the Record Office there are also two Rolls of
Accounts of the Fabric at Westminster of the years
33—37 Henry 111.: The first of these is headed :
“ Receipts for the Fabric of the Church of St.
Peter, Westminster, XXXIII. year of King Henry,
Fourth Year from the Commencement ofthe Works ”
(1248—9). Similar accounts for the fifth, sixth,
seventh, and eighth years follow on the same
document, and the total receipts for these years is
given: for the fourth, ,£2063; for the fifth, £2600;
for the sixth, £24.15 ; for the seventh, J£2725 ; for
the eighth, £2042. And in addition there is a note

* Close Roll. Jr See Hardy and Page, Feet of Fines.
I Exchequer Works, Q.R. 466, 29 and 30.
I53

MASTER HENRY OF WESTMINSTER

on the back of the Roll of the total receipts for the
jzrrt five years of the works, amounting to [10, 751,
and we can consequently make up the total cost for
the first eight years of the work, 126., £17,933.

Early in the R011, that is, in the fourth year’s
account, occur the names of Domz'mu Edwm/m,
C/ericur, and Magz'rter Henricur, Cementarim.

Looking down this earliest account the following
details may be noted : In the fourth year “ Master
H.” answers for J(:60 received. Master Alexander
(carpenter) is seen to be engaged on the spire of
the belfry, and Master Odo (carpenter) is also
named. Master Alberic received £45 for “ task-
work ” on the cloister. Task—work means what we
call piece-work, and it is evident from the large
sum (worth, say, £1000) that he must have had
several assistants, and that he was carrying out a
contiact for the workmanship of those bans of the
cloiste1 which belong to the first w ork. \laster
Richard Paris was also paid 100s. for working
marble. John Sentori (St. Omer), a painter, is also
named.

In the fifth year Master Henry had 40 marks gix en
him ([26 13s. 4d.) for task- \xork, and Master
Alexander, carpenter, £106 13s. 4d. for timber.
In the sixth year (1250—51) john of St. Omer,
painter, and Peter (de Hispania, also a painter) are
named. In the seventh year 4.0 marks was again
paid to Master Henry for task—work. Of the
eighth year of the works (37 Henry 111.) there is
a separate short Roll entitled “ Account of Divers
Operations at the Church, Chapter House, Belfry,""3*

* Works, Q.R. +66, 30.
15+

MASTER HENRY OF WESTMINSTER

&c. In it occurs an entry mentioning “Master
John, with a carpenter and assistant at St. Alban’s,
working on the lectern.” We know from another
source that Master John of St. Omer, one of the
most famous painters of this time, was instructed in
124.9 to make a lectern for the new Chapter
House, like one at St. Albans, “ only more beauti—
ful if it might be.”* In our accounts we see
Master John executing the order. The lectern
which he was to emulate was probably the work of
Walter of Colchester, the “incomparable” artist of
St. Alban’s, whose praises are sung by Matthew of
Paris. We also find a payment for two images
made by task—work, 53s. 4d. These, it has been
suggestedfi" may be none other than the lovely
Annunciation Group which stands Within the door—
way of the Chapter House, which we know from
another payment for canvas to close its windows,
mentioned in this same account, was at this moment
being fitted up.

The South Transept of the church must have
been carried up with the Cloister, which, in fact,
forms part of it, and which we saw was in band in
1248—9. The whole body of the work must at
this time have been well advanced. In that same
year the independent belfry, which Stow tells us
had a tall leaded spire, was having this spire erected
by Alexander the carpenter and William the
plumber. Itstood on the north side of the church
on the site later occupied by the Guildhall. In
the account for 1253, twenty—four carpenters and
nine plumbers appear as busy at it, and it was pro-

* Close Roll, and Walpole. T Mr. E. S. Prior.
I55

MASTER HENRY OF WESTMINSTER

bably completed in this year, as a special item of
J€157, expenses for the belfry, appears on the
account.

While the bell-house was being finished its bells
were being cast. In 1249—50 a mandate was issued
to Edward to cause a bell to be cast larger than
those made the year before. Another order directs
that four bells should be made from the metal
which remained from the great bell. The next
year a bell answering to the great bell in tone, but
smaller, was to be made. In 1252—3 Edward was
commanded to cause the large new bell to be hung
and rung by the eve of the Feast of St. Edward.“'*
In 4.1 Hen. III. a payment was made for the
year 1254—5 to the Brethren of the Guild at
Westminster, appointed to ring the great bellsrl'
The great bells of Westminster must have been
amongst Henry III.’s most famous gifts to the
church, for in a marginal drawing of Matthew
Paris, in the British Museum copy of his work,
appears a rough representation of the new church,
the gold shrine, and the four great bells: (Fig. 4.0.)
All these works in progress simultaneously show
the energy with which the king pressed forward
his scheme. In 1249—50 the Sheriff of Kent was
instructed to order all persons having grey stone
for sale to carry it to Westminster. And in this
year the Pope sent the king an indulgence in
favour of any who should lend a helping hand
towards the church “of wonderful beauty” being
built by him.§

* Close Rolls, 3+ ‘\ 37 Henry III. 1‘ Issue Roll.

1' See also Stow’s account. § “Papal Letters,” Rolls Series.

156

MASTER HENRY OF WESTMINSTER

The next year the king issued a command that
the Sacristy should be built 120 feet long. A large
Sacristy was certainly required for the vast treasure
which Matthew of Westminster says was un—
equalled on this side of the Alps]? Can this
Sacristy be represented by foun— .. . _. .
dations discovered on the north
side of the choir P (Fig. 66.)

In this same year (1250-51),
the king commanded that 600 or
800 men should work at the
church, and in the next year a
mandate was addressed to “ Henry,
Master of the Works,” to expe—
dite the marble—works?“

In 1252—3 the king ordered
that timber should be obtained
for the roof of the new work of F
the church, and for the stalls
of the monks in the same; also
that a chapel should be made for the new work
of the shrine of St. Edward, the walls to be
of plaster of Paris painted with the history of
St. Edward, and with a lower chamber which was
to have the history of St. Eustace painted on it,
and, in the gable window, the story of Solomon
and Marculph. This chapel, together with the

workshop where the Confessor’s new golden shrine

-;

    

IG. 66.——Foundations
on the north side of
the Choir

* In the Flete MS., the Galilee of the Sacristy, called the Cellarium,
is mentioned in the “Life of Crokesley.” In 1251 the King gave by
charter to the Convent and the Sacristy the houses, with the wall of
the graveyard on the north, which should not be alienated from the
Sacristy. T Close Rolls, 34—36 Henry III.

IS7

MASTER HENRY OF WESTMINSTER

was being made, was probably in the palace, as
when, in 1269, the church was dedicated we are
told that the shrine was brought from the palace
0n the shoulders of the king, his brother and
others. We hear in the year 1307 of a Marculph’s
chamber in the palace.

The Fabric Roll, edited by Willis in Scott’s
“ Gleanings," gives minute particulars of =Fall that
was going on week by week in 1253* The
account for each week begins with the wages
paid ; for instance, in a single week we have : To
wages of 39 cutters of white stone, 15 marblers,
26 stone—layers, 32 carpenters,]ohn and his partner
at St. Alban’s (two painters), with an assistant, 13
polishers (of marble), 19 smiths, 14 glaziers, and
4. plumbers, together £15 108. 1d., an average of
IS. Iod. a week to each workman. To wages of 176
inferior workmen, with overseers and clerks, and
two horse— carts, [9 17s. 2d. ., about 9d. a week.

The name of Master Henry may be represented
on this Roll 1n the short heading which begins the
account of disbursements—Empm’zas Hem Fab —
that is, I suppose, disbursements paid out by
Master Henry on account of the fabricl The
name ofa Master Henry also occurs in connection
with the glass issued for the making of the windows.
Willis thought that this Henry was the glazier, but
there is no other evidence of this, and we do hear

* The onginal is at the Record Otlice. \Vorks Q.R. +67, 1

'I‘ The only other meaning I can imagine is that Henr. Fab.
means Henry the smith. lf Henry, the mason, were dead, Master Henry,
the smith, may have been the senior at the \xorks. In this case Master
John of Oxford, mentioned below, may now lmVe‘ been the mason.
158

MASTER HENRY OF WESTMINSTER

of Lawrence, the glazier. It seems likely that the
glass was handed out from the store to the master
of the works. Master Alberic is mentioned three
times in this Roll, and he was paid considerable
sums for “form pieces,” that is, tracery for the
windows, and other wrought stone work; and it
is noted on the back of the R011 that at a certain
time he had begun three windows “ by task.” In
the shorter Roll of this year mentioned above his
name appears also, and he is there said to have
been engaged on the entrance to the Chapter
House. It seems that we may definitely assign
the bays of- the Cloister leading to the Chapter
House, and the entrance of the latter to Master
Alberic?‘6

Bernard de Sea Osida was paid 14.8. 8d. for
588 ft. of asselars (squared stones) by task.
The price, confirmed by other instances, being
40 ft. for a shilling, and it follows that a mason
receiving wages of IS. 6d. to 23. wrought from
60 to 80 ft. in a week. This, of course, was
axe—faced work, such as we may see in the
interior of St. Faith’s Chapel, where we can trace
the notches and size of the tool used. Henry de
Chersaltoun was paid 26d. for 650 ft. of chalk in
the vault fillings (pendentia) wrought by task; and
Ade de Aldewyche and companions received 14.8.8d.
for 5500 ft. of the same. John Benet was paid
33. for three capitals, and Master William de Waz
received 155. 6d. for setting stone. Besides these

* We have seen that the system of task-work was largely made use
of, and Master Alberic seems to have been engaged in the execution of
such work from the beginning.

I59

MASTER HENRY OF WESTMINSTER

the names occur of Henry the smith, Jacob the
junctor (joiner), Roger and William the plumbers,
Lawrence the glazier, and many others.

In this year, in one week, as many as seventy-
eight white-stone cutters, and forty-nine marblers,
with fifteen polishers and fourteen setters were
engaged. The large number of marble workers
and polishers bring home to us how that the
Church was largely built of marble; the shafts,
mouldings, and even some of the carving being
highly polished. In this long Roll of 1253 are
some letters to John of Oxford from Robert de
Bremele at the marble quarry. I cannot decide
whether John was a clerk or a foreman. In the
palace accounts for 1259 the name of John of
Oxford, mason, occurs, but he was only receiving
ordinary wages.

From this time Master Henry disappears from
the accounts, and he was almost directly, as will
be shown, succeeded by another master. In look-
ing back over the references which I have given,
we seem to be justified in saying that he must
have been in charge of the work from its beginning
until about the end of 1253. At this time the
work was so far advanced that lVlaster Henry must
be considered as the architect of the building in all
its parts. It cannot be doubted that he, like his
successors, held the official position of Cementarius
Regis, king's mason.$6

* In an account of work at \Vim‘thtcr Castle, in 1258, a blaster
Ilcnry, Ccmcntarius, is mentioned ; but he is not net‘cssarily the same.

160

MASTER JOHN OF GLOUCESTER

In 1254—5 John of Gloucester was promised ten

“ librates” of land for his services to the king at
7716 Work GIOUCCStCr, WOOdStOCk, Westminster,
#1144387“ and elsewhere , and in the same year the
3,05” of king conceded to “ Master John of
Gloucester Gloucester, his mason,” (cementario
’ suo) all tolls and tallage for life. That

Km ’5 .
g he was actually 1n charge of works at
M45072, . . .
Westmlnster 18 shown by a mandate 1n
1254—62.

which John, the king’s mason, is com-
manded to roof the great sacristy (saEstarie) house
as soon as possible lest the timbers should be
damaged. Permission at the same time was given
to the keepers of the works to take oaks from the
king’s woods.*

John probably came from Gloucester to West-
minster, as, in the Close Roll for 1249—50, there is
the record of an order to the Sheriff of Gloucester
not to distrain John 1e Macun and others for wine
bought of the king.

In 1255—6 our mason lent to the Dean of St.
Martin’s le Grand some freestone for the works
there out of the stores of Westminsterxi“ In the
same year he was commanded to see to some defects
at the Tower. And there was an important man-
date issued to Edward of Westminster and Master
John of Gloucester, Cementarius Regis, that the
timber of the roofof St. Mary’s Chapel (that is, the
old Lady Chapel begun in 1220) “ which is to be
taken down and rebuilt in stone,” be given to St.
Martin’s. In this year, also, five casks of wine
were to have been returned to John of Gloucester,

* Close Roll. T Close Roll, 40 Henry III.
L 161

MASTER JOHN OF GLOUCESTER

mason, for the five which the king took at Oxford.
We have seen that John had been engaged at
Woodstock, and the record gives us a fascinating
glimpse of the king drinking the masons wine,
which we may suppose was good.

Alexander, the king’s carpenter, received in this
year twenty marks for the work at Westminster,
and in gthe year following, 1256—7, it was provided
that the king’s works should be overlooked and
expedited byJohn, the king’s mason, and Alexander,
the king’s carpenter, instead of by the sheriffs and
bailiffs. At this time John and Alexander received
furred robes of office twice a year. Odo, the car—
penter, and others also received furred robesf‘“

A Pipe Roll, also of 1256—7, records a payment
“ for marble bought for the church by the View
and testimony of Master John, mason, and Master
Alexander, carpenter, keepers of the work.”"l‘ The
entry occurs under Dorset. The marble was, of
course, Purbeck, and in an account, ten years
later, it is called “ Purbik.”

John, the king's mason, and Alexander, the
king’s carpenter, are mentioned in the Close Roll of
1257—9, as working at the church. So, also, was
William de VVantz, Cementarius, who received a
robe. This last must be the same as the \Villiam
de Waz named in the Fabric: Roll of 1253. He was
probably master of the stone-layers. At this time
(1258) the keepers of the works are Commanded
to deliver the remainder of the tiles of the Chapter
House to the Proctor of the Chapel of St. Dunstan

* Sharpe’s MS. Calendar of Close Rolls.

1‘ “ Gleanings,” p. 261.
162

MASTER JOHN OF GLOUCESTER

underneath the Dormitory. This entry fixes the
date of the beautiful tiles of the Chapter House,
and its general completion ; and, moreover, furnishes
us with the earliest known reference to this chapel.
In this year also, the important command is re—
corded in the Close Roll that Edward and the
Superior, and the Sacrist of the church, should
“take down the old church as far as the vestry
which is by the king’s seat (vestiarifi quod est juxta
sedem Rs.) so that it may be rebuilt as the work
begun requires.” Work on the altars in various
parts of the new fabric is also ordered. Both
these entries imply the substantial completion of
the first work, and the beginning of the bays to the
west of the crossing, which have always been
recognised as of slightly later date than the eastern
limb and transepts, but which were always assigned
to the time of Edward 1., until Mr. Mickle—
thwaite, arguing from internal evidence, assigned
them to an earlier date.

In the Close Roll of the same year is a mandate
to Master John of Gloucester, king’s mason, and
one of the keepers of the work, that five images
of kings cut in freestone, and a stone to support
an image of the Virgin, be given to the keepers of
the works of St. Martin’s, Londonfi‘

It appears from the report of the Historic MSS.
Commission (iv. p. 176) that this last is a duplicate
of one of eleven orders addressed by the king to
John of Gloucester, Edward of Westminster, and
Robert of Beverley, “ our masons and wardens of

"“ It is evident from these frequent references that St. Martin’s Ie

Grand was largely rebuilt by Henry III. at this time.
163

MASTER JOHN OF GLOUCESTER

our works,” in the years 1258—61, still preserved at
the Abbey. Amongst the other documents men—
tioned in the report is a letter from the Sheriff of
Lincoln regarding lead for the church, and addressed
to “ Master John le Mazun.” Another is a letter
from Richard le Wyte of Purbeck to Master Robert
of Beverley. An order of 1259, addressed to
Master John, Cementarius Regis, instructs him to
have prepared the king’s iron lectern for Master
William to paint. This is William, monk of
Westminster, spoken of on another occasion as the
king’s beloved painter.

The king, of course, consulted his master
mason and master carpenter, oflicers of his house—
hold as they were, on most of the royal works
going forward in the country , and some of them
would be “ designed” by this ideal‘ ‘firm of archi-
tects.’ In 1256—7 “ the gateway with a chimney '
and other works at Guildford Castle were wrought
“ by the View and counsel of Master John:3 of
Gloucester, our mason, and Master Alexander, our
carpenter.” A large part of this gateway still
stands in Quarry Street, Guildford, and at the back
we may still see part of, the thirteenth— —century fire-
place ordered by Henry 111. An order was issued
in 1258—9 that the new chapel at Woodstock
should be paved by the advice of Master John of
Gloucester, king’s masonf“

In 1260—1 an order was issued that the wages of
John of Gloucester, the king’s mason, and Alex-
ander, the king’s carpenter, should be doubled

“ Liberate Rolls. See Hudson Turner's “ Domestic Arch,”

Vul. i. ch. 5.

16+

MASTER JOHN OF GLOUCESTER

when travelling to make provision for the church.
Also that the iron lectern should be put together
and erected in the new Chapter Housefle In this
year, also, £4.10 were delivered to John, the king’s
mason, in respect of the works at Windsor.

We are even able to get some glimpses of the
private life of John the mason. He is mentioned
once in 1256—7 in conjunction with some property
in Southwarkrl“ In the same year our Master
John of Gloucester, mason, had premises consisting
of a house and curtilage in Westminster ; and four
little documents at the Record Oflice refer to this“?

In 1258 the king rewarded Master John with
gifts of houses for his praiseworthy services.

In 1260—1 the great mason died. In the same
year “ Alice, who was wife ofJohn of Gloucester,
king’s mason,” and Edward, his son, are mentioned,
and as late as 1266 the latter is still called “ son of
the mason.Ӥ

There are many variations in detail between the
second work of Henry III., begun in 1258, and the
portion further east. The choir piers have eight
shafts instead of four; the high vault has inter-
mediate ribs—an early instance—and in the span-
drels of the wall—arcade of the aisles are set very
beautiful shields of arms of some of Henry’s royal
contemporaries, and others of the great barons of
the kingdom. Amongst them is that of Simon
de Montfort. In the variations from the earlier
portion we may trace the influence of John of

* Close Rolls, 45 Henry III. T F. Lewis. Surrey Feet of Fines.
I Feet of Fines, London and Middlescx, Henry 111., N05. 377—80.
§ C. Roberts. Feet of Fines.

165

MASTER ROBERT DE BEVERLEY

Gloucester, for this must be reckoned as his
work.

While John of Gloucester and Alexander, the
carpenter, were conducting the works at the church
they also overlooked building operations

giggde at the neighbouring palace. There are
Beverle ’5 two Rolls of their accounts belonging to
Work y the year 1259* In the second of these
1 262—,- we find amongst the names ofthe masons
1280. working under John at the palace the

name of Robert de Beverley, the mason
who was to succeed him and carry Henry the
Third’s work at the Abbey to its close. In a
printed Issue Roll of this time (1259) particulars
are set out of certain “petty works ” at the palace,
like “cutting away for altering the king’s
chimney.” Robert de Beverley was receiving 38.
a. week in regard to these works, while ordinary
cutters and bedders received 2s. 2d. One of these
was named after his “ Fairwife.”

Before considering the mastership of Robert of
Beverley at the church, we may inquire what re-
mained to be done on the death of John of
Gloucester. We have seen that the structure of
the Chapter House was complete in 1253, and that
it was entirely finished, and floored, and the lectern
set up before 1260. The belFry was finished and
the bells ringing by 1254. \Vhen the Roll of
1253 opens thirty—two carpenters are shown as
being employed, and we have seen that an order
for timber for the roof of the church was given in

* +67, 2 and 3.
166

 

MASTER ROBERT DE BEVERLEY

that year, and that the stalls were being made for
the choir. It cannot be doubted that the masonry
of the first work—the eastern limb, transepts, and
crossing—was substantially complete when in
1255—6 the roof of the old Lady Chapel was
removed so that it might be vaulted in stone.
When, three years later, the monks were ordered
to throw down the old work as far as the king’s
seat (that is, his temporary seat in the Norman
nave) it is probable that considerable preparations
had already been made for the westward extension ;
indeed, little can have remained for Robert de
Beverley to do but to finish the scheme of Master
Henry and the preparations of Master John.
Considering the troubles the king was passing
through at this time the works must have suffered
some delay. In 1263 Master Robert de Beverley,
the king’s mason, and Master Odo, the carpenter,
were engaged in repairing the palace after a firef’e
Accounts for works at the church from 48 to 51
Henry III. are contained in the Pipe Rolls. Master
Robert of Beverley, Alexander the Carpenter, and
John of Spalding, were the keepers of the works.
Great timber for making the columns at the monks’
stalls is mentioned; also tiles for the lodges
of the workmen (ad domor opera?) The Pipe
Roll for 1267—8 opens with the statement that
the accounts are guaranteed by Master Robert de
Beverley, mason, and Brother Ralph the Convert
(some Jew clerk) put in the place of Alexander,
the carpenter, and John of Spalding (also a clerk .9),
by the king’s writ directed to Adam de Stratton,

=II “ Gage Rokewode,” P' 5'
167

MASTER ROBERT DE BEVERLEY

clerk, warden of the said worksfi‘S This entry
may have been occasioned by the death of Alexan—
der, the carpenter, to whom I have found no
further reference. The name of Alexander, the
carpenter, occurs in 1260—: in connection with
property at Knightsbridge, where we may suppose
he had his timber-yards? The roof wrought by
him still exists at the church. Wren spoke of it
as “framed in the bad Norman manner,” that is,
every rafter is braced with raking pieces and there
were no trusses with tie beams.

Other accounts for works at the church exist for
the years 1269— 70, 1270—71, and 1271—72, the
last being made up to November before the king
was buried, by Master Robert de Beverley, mason,
and by view of Adam de Stratton, clerk of the
Exchequer. This account includes some glazing
and paving, painting, and a clock made by task-
work. There was painting going forward continu-
ously from 1267. The account of 1269 mentions
painting of the figures in the church and in the
great chamber of the king. The windows, how-
ever, were not fully glazed, as canvas had been
bought to fill them. Adam de Stratton, the clerk
to the works, speculated in finance and honesty,
prospered, and fell.:f_

The choir was evidently almost completed before
the translation of the Confessor’s body into the new
shrine in 1269. In the Close Roll for that year

* “Gleanings,” p. 253. T Hardy and Page. Feet of Fines.
1 See Red Book of the Exchequer. A nearly complete list of the
clerks of the accounts at Westminster could easily be made from the

Calendars of Works Accounts.
168

MASTER ROBERT DE BEVERLEY

there is a letter inviting Llewellyn of Wales to
the Feast of the Translation of St. Edward in “the
new church of Westminster.” And we know that
by this time even the mosaic floor of the pres-
bytery had been laid down.

On October 13, 1269, the anniversary of the
first translation of the Confessor, he was enshrined
in the marvellous, but still incomplete, feretory of
gold, silver, and precious stones, beneath the new
structure which the king, at his own cost, had
built from the foundation, and in the presence of a
great concourse of prelates, barons, and commoners.
On this day the monks first celebrated the mysteries
within the new building.*

At the Record Office there are two small accounts
rendered by Robert de Beverley for works at West-
minster after the burial of Henry 111. (November
1272). They refer to the wages of several work—
men engaged on the tomb ofLord John of Windsor,
son of Edward 1., and include the wages of Master
Robert de Beverley and his companionsi" In 1272—3
“Master Robert of Beverley, the king’s mason,”
received a payment in respect of a grant of 6d. a
day, which he was to have for life by command of
Henry 111.3“,

In the Pipe Roll for 2 Edward 1. Master Robert’s
account appears for divers works at the palace and

* Wykes, and “Chronicles of the Reigns of Edwards 1. and 11.”
Rolls Series. After the death of Henry 111. no accounts are known

which refer to important structural work at the church for two
generations. Jr Works, OR. 471, 5 and 8.

I Issue Roll. In the patents for 56 Henry 111. I find Master R.
de Beverley appointed king’s carpenter (f) and principal viewer (aim)
of works.

169

MASTER ROBERT DE BEVERLEY

church preparatory to the Coronation of Edward
in the new church on August 19, 1274.. The
stage, set up in the choir for the king and queen is
mentioned, also an “alley” made from the Little
Hall to the church, along which the king and
queen marched. The choir of the church was
covered with a temporary wooden floor, and “the
new tower above the choir” was covered with
boards. The central lantern, which seems to have
been temporarily roofed for the occasion, was
never, as has been said, carried forward to com-
pletion. That Robert was regularly engaged at
the Abbey is made plain by an entry in the Book
of Customs of Abbot Ware. Here, amongst those
named as receiving a provision of wine from the
convent, are three of “special grace ”—the gold—
smith, Master R. de Fremlingham (the Abbey
plumber P), and Master R. de Beverley.

In 1274—5 Master Robert, the mason, was
keeper of the works at the Tower, and in the
next year we find him mentioned in the Patent
Rolls (4. Edward I.) as being paid for 300 lbs. ofwax
to make an image for the king, and 66s. 8d. for
making the said image. (\Vas this a temporary
wax effigy of Henry III. ?) In the Close Rolls for
1275 is an order that he should have 12d. a day
when staying in London and 16d. when journeying.
Again we find the king making him a gift of a
tun of wine.

In 1276 a Robert de Beverley and his wife
Cecilia were interested in the transfer of some
property at Pii‘ford, and as this was a manor be—

longing to \Vestminster there can be little doubt
170

MASTER ROBERT DE BEVERLEY

that this refers to our mason.* In the same year
Master Robert, called keeper of the king’s works,
was paid for materials required at the king’s Mews
at Charing; and several Rolls at the Record Ofiice
are accounts of works at the palace up to 1278— 9,
guaranteed by Master Robert. vi

During these first years of Edward’s reign the
great work in hand was the completion of the
Tower of London. In 1276 1000 marks was
issued towards completing the works, and in 1277
2000 marks. Doubtless much of the enclosure of
the outer ward with its towers is the work 01
Master Robert de Beverley. In 1278 he with
Brother John, of the Order of St. Thomas of Acre,
masters of the king’s works at the Tower, West—
minster, and the king’s Mews, were instructed to
audit the accounts of Giles de Audenard, the
king’s clerk. In January of this year the king
issued a mandamus for an inquisition to be held
“before Giles de Audenard, Master Robert de
Beverley, and the Aldermen of the City,” as to
whether any damage would arise if a part of the
city wall near Ludgate was pulled down, and a new
strong wall was built by Fleet Ditch. This was
done to provide room for the church and buildings
of the Blackfriars, and it seems probable that, as
the king and queen were chief benefactors to
this church, Robert, the most famous master of
his time, may have sat at the inquiry as architect
to the new Friary, and that the beautiful fragment
of these buildings, found and destroyed in 1900,
may have been his work. It seems probable, too,

* F Lewis. Surrey Fines. T Works, Q.R. 4,72, 6 A, B, E, &c.
171

MASTER ROBERT DE BEVERLEY

that he may have furnished the plan for Hayles
Abbey, built by Henry III.’s brother in 1271. ' It
was a copy of Westminster. '

I find our master mentioned again in 1279 and
then no moref’?‘ Some works at the church must
have been going on during the
whole time of his mastership.

I have not found Master
Odo, the carpenter, mentioned
after 1262—3, when he was
engaged on works at the palace
after the fire, and the keeper of
the Tower was ordered to
deliver to Odo, the king‘s
carpenter, the engine called

Fig. 67.—Head of a La), “ Truye,” to raise timbersl‘ In
Master, high up in N. 1273 the name of NIaster John
Tmnsept Hurley occurs in the royal ac—
counts (472, 6 A). He must

have been a member, as we shall see, of one of the
greatest families of carpenters of the Middle Ages.

I trace back a statement as to the completion, in
1285, of“ the work so far as the choir extends ”
through Wren and Stow, to Fabian, who may have
followed a tradition at the church. Possibly some
works, like glazing and fittings, were not completed
until this time. Indeed, in 1290, John of Bristol,
the king’s glazier, was paid £64. for making win-
dows in the church of Westminster.

 

“ Close Rolls, Edward I.

‘1' He must at this time have put the wood ceiling to the Painted
Chamber. The Chronicles are clear as to its having been burnt in
1262. (See “Lib. Antiq. Legibus and French Chronicle ot‘London.")
172

MASTER ROBERT DE BEVERLEY
Widmore (Appendix VI.), long ago, quoted a

record that the total cost of the works up to 1260—1
was nearly £30,000. (See also Historic MSS.
Report, IV.) This sum gives an average of about
£2000 a year, and we have seen that this was about
the rate of expenditure for the first eight years.
In 1254 a precept was issued that 3000 marks
(£2000) should be paid yearly from the Exchequerfi"
and in the Issue Roll for the year 1256—7 1 find
exactly this sum, 3000 marks, issued as annual
grant to the keepers of the work to be paid half-
yearly. This, then, was the annual rate of expendi-
ture for the first fifteen years, during which, as has
been shown, the great body of work was done.
After that the works may have been stopped for a
time, and the yearly expenditure was probably less,
——alth0ugh in 1267 and 1268 it was still large. We
may perhaps fairly estimate that the whole work of
Henry III. must have cost about £50,000,inc1u-
ding the shrine and altar. About a year before the
return of 1260—1 was made, the King must have
become frightened—it is an old story—at the costs,
for he ordered that it should be “ distinctly stated
whether the repair of the King’s houses was in-
cluded in the sum of £28,127.” Of course it was
not i

* VVidmore.

CHAPTER VIII
LATER KING’S MASONS

Master Richard Crundale: Master Michael of Canterbury: lVIaster
Richard of Witham: Master Walter of Canterbury: Master Thomas
of Canterbury : lVIaster William Ramsay, and others.

ROBERT DE BEVERLEY was succeeded, possibly at
once, by Richard Crundale or Crundel. From 1288

extensive works were going forward in

£212le the palace, and two MS. Rolls of this
Cram/ale time* were guaranteed by Master Richard
Kz'ng’: ’ Crundale, mason ‘(cementartus), and
M43072. Master Robert de Colebrook, carpenter.

In the second of these, a Master John
of Ledes, mason, and Master \Valter, the painter,
are mentioned. In 1290 Masters Richard and
Robert were still engaged on similar work, both
being in receipt of weekly wages. A Roger
and Thomas de Crundale are also mentioned,
as well as Master W. 1e Wythe and Richard
de Witham, all masonsxl‘ I find Master Richard
first mentioned in 1281, when he served on a
iury in the City, as also did Hugh de Canter—
bury, Lat/10mm (mason), and \Valter 1e Marblerfi;
This shows that our master was a citizen of
London.

Queen Alianor died in 1290, and we know from

° +67, 16 and 17.

1“ +68, l and 2. About this time some repairs at Tower Royal in
the City, to fit it for the queen's wardrobe, were done by Master
Radulphus, carpenter. \Vardrobe Accounts, British Museum.

I Dr. Sharpe’s Letter Book B.
l7+

MASTER RICHARD CRUNDALE

the full account?“ ,:
for the building of , __
her three tombs and _‘ -' I
the several crosses ’ ‘
erected to her me—
mory, that Rich—
ard Crundale had
charge of the most
important cross, and *3
also of the exquisite = ,.
tomb in the Abbey. - _:
From the general -- I;
resemblance of all
the crosses it seems i’ ’
likely that we owe
the scheme of all of
them to him, as
chief king’s mason.
The only authentic
representations of
the Queen’s Cross
at Charing,and that
on a very small
scale, are on Van
den Wyngaerde’s
View of London,
and on the so-called
Aggas Map. They

are, however,

 
   
  
 
  
  
  
 
   

 

 

 

 
    

- 2,“; ..
' $512

1:1. .3 A
ll

* Hudson Turner,
“Roxburghe Club" and
ril‘t/JM/ogia, xxix. Original , ,1 4..., ~ .7 _ .
in \Vardrobe Rolls at the ' I V l J
Record Office, Fm. 68,—Thc Queen’s Cross, Northampton.

Drawn by Mr. R. Webster [75

MASTER RICHARD CRUNDALE

enough to show that it closely resembled the crosses
at Waltham and Northampton, but it must have
been much larger, as J€300 was spent on it as
compared to £95 for the Waltham Cross.

In the Crowle Collection there is a drawing of
Charing Cross, which belonged to Dr. Combes, and
is referred to by Pennant and engraved by VVilkin-
son, but its authority seems somewhat doubtful.
The Cross stood, till 164.7, in the triangular space
where the statue of Charles II. now is, and formed
a beautiful outpost of the palace quarter.

“ . . . They wander about the towne,
Nor can find the way to Westminster
Now Charing Cross is downe.

. The Parliament to vote it down
Conceived it very fitting
For fear it should fall and kill them all
In the house as they were sitting.
They were told, God wot,
It had a plot.” ‘

The vote was in 164.3, but the Cross was not
entirely destroyed until a few years later.

The best description I can find of the Cross by
one whose eyes had seen it is this byjohn Norden: “i'
“ An old weather-beaten monument erected about
1290 by Edward I. Amongst all the crosses which
the kingc caused to be built at the places where
the queen 3 body rested, as she was brought trom
Haiby beside Lincoln, Charing Cross was the
most stately, though now defaced by antiquity.
Here he caused her picture to be shaped 1n stone
together with his own and her own arms.”

* Contemporary Poem in Percy Reliques.
T MS. Harl. 5 70 (1‘. 1600).
176

 

1

MASTER RICHARD CRUNDALE

The Crundales came,I suppose, from the village
of that name between Winchelsea and Ashford. In
the long lists of ordinary masons given in the Rolls
at this time Kentish names predominate, and a
Kentish school of masonry seems to have been in
the ascendant. The church in the king’s town of
Winchelsea is a typical example of early Edwardian
architecture as practised by R. Crundale, and may
quite possibly be his work.

The queen’s tomb in the Abbey is of Purbeck
marble, fitted together in slabs; it is, in fact, a carved
chest of marble. The surface of it is now rapidly
perishing. A cast at the Crystal Palace, taken
about fifty years ago, is some record of the forms of
the decoration ofone compartment. In the original
the beautiful shields of arms are suspended to the
branches of trees—oak, vine, maple, thorn, and one
with blossoms. Less than a century since some of
the gilding remained on its mouldings.* A wooden
tester was the work of Master Thomas de Hokyn-
tone ; the ironwork was wrought by Master
Thomas de Leighton ; the image was cast by
Master William Torel ; the basement was painted
by Master Walter of Durham.

The accounts for the tombs and crosses show that
Richard Crundale died about 1294., while Charing
Cross was still incomplete; his brother Roger finished
the work. Its statues were sculptured by Alexander of
Abingdon, “le imaginator,” who also wrought those
which still exist about the Waltham Cross, which,
itself, was the work of Nicholas Dyminge de Reyns,

>1= In the Cottingham Collection there was a cast of one of the

panels. It may be this from which the Crystal Palace cast was made up.
M 177

MASTER RICHARD CRUNDALE

assisted by Roger Crundale. This once exquisite
e work of art has been entirely renewed with the ex—

   
 

w

“\\\\\ \\\\\\\\\ .\~

          
 
 
   
  
      
      
     
 

\
\

     

\\
\\\\\\\\\\\

\\\\

\\ \\\\‘\
\\‘ \

\\\
3

xx};

\\\\\\ \.
\
\\

‘ \\§\\
\\

   

\\\‘;“
RR
\\§‘§‘
\\\§\

a .\

    

\~X\Ԥ

\\\\\1\\
_\t

\\ i
\\

\1
\\,\

:3}
\\\
\\\‘
\\ \\\\\\ \ \\"-

\\\\\\
\\

i \\ \
\\\\\\‘\
\\
\\\\-\\\V

\\\\«\\\\\

     
           
       

\g‘
\
fix

 

~ \\
\\\\
\\\\\_\\
\ \
\\\\\\\\\\§\\ \\
\\\\\\\.

\\\
\\\

\\

\\\\\\\
\\\\\\\\\\\
\\\\

   

FIG. 69. — Diagram
showing constructive

idea of Waltham

Cross

ception of the images and the lower
storey. It was first restored in 1833,
and fifty years later the work was
re-renewed. Early representations
of it may be found in Vertue’s en—
graving about I73o,and in Farmer’s
“ History of Waltham,” 1740.
There is a beautiful water-colour
drawing of it a century old at
South Kensington. These early
views show a large portion remain—
ing of the original stalk which
once carried the cross proper. This
rose with almost vertical sides, and
it shows that the first idea of all
these structures must have been
that ofa tall churchyard cross rising
out of a solid basement storey, with
open tabernacle work containing
the images and forming the second
stage, surrounding the lower part
of the stalk which ran down as a
solid core behind the statues. The
composition was thus quite diflrers
ent from the sort of model spire
VValtham Cross has been made
into. The original idea is still

obvious at the Geddington Cross, and, by com—
paring other later crosses at Winchester and else-
where, and the engraving of a most romantic cross
once at Gloucester, we may be sure that this was

178

 

in:

{‘5
t
a
E
_I.

MASTER RICHARD CRUNDALE

the general principle to which they all con—
formed.ӎ .

The Northampton cross was built by John de
Bello, or de la Bataille (Battle, Sussex), and John
Pabeham‘f, at a cost of £134. without the statues,
which were cut by William de Hibernia, who
received five marks (£3 63. 8d.) for each, a sum
which we may compare with that paid for the
statues at Westminster mentioned on p. 155. The
other crosses, now destroyed, were also wrought
by these masons, whose names we shall meet again
in the royal accounts. It seems probable that the
whole of the crosses were built by men of the
Westminster School, except that at Lincoln, which
was by Richard de Stow, who was probably the
same Stow who built the central tower of the
cathedral from 1307. This “ Queen’s Cross”
stood about a mile out of the City on the London
road.

John de la Bataille is possibly the John of Ledes
mentioned above, as, later, we shall meet a Master
Thomas de la Bataille of Ledes (in Kent). A John
de Bataille died in 1300, leaving shops in Newgate
Street and houses at St. AlbansgrL where once stood,

in the Market Place, an Alianor Cross, which was
destroyed in 1702.

* See Parker’s “ Gloss.,” vol. iii. ; “Crosses,” Figs. 4, 5, 6.
T EPabenham.

I Sharpe’s “ Calendar of Wills.”

I79

MASTER MICHAEL OF CANTERBURY

A second Alianor Cross in London was built in
Cheapside, at the bottom of Wood Street, by
Marter Michael of Canterbury. This cross
Mic/me] was entirely rebuilt in the late mediaayal
quanter— period, but fragments of it, includlng

some of the coats-of-arms, were found

210’, twenty or thirty years ago, and are now
£2430; in the Guildhall Museum. These frag—

ments are exactly like similar parts of
the other crosses.

In 1292 the king’s new chapel of St. Stephen
at Westminster was refoundedf“ Master Michael
of Canterbury was engaged on this work, concur—
rently with that of the Cheapside Cross. “ Accounts
of the expenses of the foundation of the Chapel of
St. Stephen” are given under the hands of John
Convers, the clerk, and Master Michael of Canter-
bury, Cementarius. This is a big bundle of
accounts, and as a large number of workmen are
mentioned the work must have been pushed on
rapidly. “ Master Michael paid for marble—stone,”
is entered in one place. “Michael, Apparitor,”
receiving 3s. 6d. a week, heads the weekly accounts.
Amongst those named as masons are \Villiam de
Hoo, William le Blound, Thomas de Crundale,
William de Ledes, and another called Pabenham. A
John ofSt. Omer was paid for working three capitals,
and Alexander was paid for marble. In the accounts
for the Queen’s Crosses we learn that \Villiam de
Hoo wrought the rim: (?) for the queen’s heart,
which found a resting—place in the church of the
Dominicans at Blackfriars.

" Chronicles Edward I. and Edward 11., Rolls Series.
180

MASTER MICHAEL OF CANTERBURY

Master Robert de Colebrook seems to have been
the carpenter in charge, for in 1294. a precept was
issued that Robert de Colebrook, the king’s
carpenter, should take from the forest of Pamber
(Hants) timber “for the king’s chapel at West—
minster, which the king is now causing to be
built.”*6 In the above account the name occurs
of another carpenter—Master John Beck. In this
Roll a distinction is made between the feast—days
of the king and of the masons. A similar arrange-
ment was made when the church was built.
Board “ ad ”IO/dd!” is mentioned, also “ma/actor”
for the “ [at/107mm”; *1 and in one place there is an
entry for “timber to make a lodge for Master
Michael and his masons.” The use of the word
lathomer for mason is of some interest, as it is one of
the first instances of the use of this word in English
accounts which I have seen. In France it is found
two generations before, in Italy still earlier, and is
ultimately derived from Constantinople. Master
Michael, in undertaking the work at St. Stephen’s
in 1292, must have succeeded Richard Crundale,
who died the same year, in the office of king’s
mason. About this same time certain other works
at the palace were under the charge of William
le Blound, Cementarius, and Master Robert de
Waltham, who certified the accounts.

The undercroft of St. Stephen’s Chapel, which
still exists, although terribly scraped and garnished,
must in the main be the work of Master Michael.
The chapel was continued until the great fire of

“ Close Roll.

”r Is the modern name Latimer derived from Lathomer—mason?
181

MASTER MICHAEL OF CANTERBURY

1298 at the palace, after which it does not seem
to have been resumed until Edward II. took
up the work and completed the lower chapel.fie
Mackenzie’s engravings are sufficient to show
that the under chapel—St. Mary in the Vaults
—in its present restored state, represents the forms
of the old work. As to how much, if any, is truly
original, covered up as it is with what they call
“decoration,” it is impossible to say. The door,
with its trellis of carving on a great roll—moulding,
and the vaulting ribs with their ribbon ornament,
are most strange in English work, and strangely
beautiful.

The wonderful tombs, on the north side of the
presbytery of the church, of Aveline (d. 1273) and
Edmund Crouchback, her husband (d. 1296),
resemble one another so closely (some of the
decorations are identical), that we must suppose
the former to have been delayed long after the
death of Aveline. They are both later in style
than Queen Alianor’s tomb of 1292, and they
closely resemble the tomb of Archbishop Peckham
at Canterbury. All these three have little statues of
weepers around the tomb proper, and are amongst
the earliest instances of this practice in England.

We may probably assign the two Abbey tombs
to Master Michael. The pinnacles and little
statues which adorned the gables were destroyed
by the erection of the trumpery stagings put up
for some coronation. “ Such havoc,” says Gough,
“does the public use of this venerated pile make
of its monuments in modern times.” Sandt‘ord

' See F. Mackenzie.
182

MASTER MICHAEL OF CANTERBURY

and Dart give valuable plates of the earlier state
of the tombs. The brackets which rise out of the

a: -
File“); U ’3) "’y
Y‘.‘ .:~ .

    

 

 

“ #mlllsge—‘m‘fw Walla '

ln—v

v.
I
—_-——-—f

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

FIG. 7o.——Tomb of Aymer de Valence

gables bore little statues of angels who carried can—
dlesticks.*“ The sculptures and mouldings were all

* See also the drawing of the Islip Roll.
183

MASTER RICHARD OF WYTHAM

decorated with raised gesso work, inlays of coloured
glass, gilding and painting.

The tomb of Aymer de Valence is, again, very
similar to that of Edmund Crouchback, but in its
sculpture it is the most exquisite of them all ; the
little figures of weepers are not to be matched in
England. The tomb of Aveline,I suppose, was
delayed, and it and that of her husband may be
dated 6‘. I300. The tomb of Aymer, on the other
hand, was, I should think, executed before his
death in 1326. Burges, indeed, thought that all
three might be the work of one artist.

We have above met with the names of Richard
de Wytham, who in 1290 was working under
M Crundale, and also ofjohn Pabenham,

cuter . -

. . who was the 506111! of the master at the
Ric/tardy N h C ‘ l 8 \I"
lI/yt/zam. .ort ampton ross. n 1.29 i. aster

Simon de Pabenham, possnbly his son,
and Master de \Vytham were reconciled at the
Guildhall as to certain abusive words which had
passed between them, and entered into an
agreement before the Mayor and Aldermen that
the one guilty of first renewing the quarrel
should give 1008. to the fabric of London
Bridge.”“

Master Simon lived until 1333, in which year
his will was proved. It shows that he lived near
Holborn, as he directs his tenement and shops in
St. Sepulchre’s to be sold to pay his debts and
legacies ; the rest, including other tenements, were
to remain the property of Alicia, his wife, and of

* Riley’s “ Memorials.” Masons awe quarrelsome !

18+

MASTER RICHARD OF WYTHAM

his daughters Alice and Roesia. The church of
St. Sepulchre’s was to benefit.‘*‘

Richard de Wytham, master mason, was in 1300
sworn as a “ Viewer ” “i" (oflicial mason) over build-
ings in the Cityj, In 1301 he made oath before
the Mayor, with reference to his duties as a mason,
not to make “ purplasters ”§ (encroachments) and
the like. It is quite clear that both he and Simon
de Pabenham were London masons, and we shall
find that most of the Westminster masons seem to
have had their shops in the City.

In 1307 Master Richard de Wytham, mason,
was “ assigned by the Treasurer to superintend and
direct the works of building, and to be Master at
the King’s Palace and the Tower” at wages of
7s. a week.”

An account of this date of expenses at the
palace, including St. Stephen’s and La Blanche
Chambre, begins “Magro Rico de Wighthm,
Cem.,” then follow a large number of masons-cutters
(cement. ent.), of whom I will only mention
William de VVightham, Roger of Tonebrigg, and
Simon de Rammeseyfl Among the layers. (cem.
cubit.) are named William de Pabenham, and
Henry de Pabenham,]ohn Brown, Robert de Ledes,
Ade and Richard de Radewelle, and Simon 1e
Mazonsone. Among the marblers (marmor.) are

* Sharpe’s “ Calendar of Wills,” vol. i. p. 400.

'1‘ At York they Were called searchers.

I Papworth says that he took up his mastership in this year
Probably the same event is referred to, See Appendix on “ City lVlasons."

§ Riley’s “ Liber Customarum.”

ll Britton and Braylcy’s Palace of Westminster.

{l British Museum, Add. 30,263.

185

MASTER RICHARD OF VVYTHAM

Nicholas de Corfe and William de White, who
may very well be the son of Robert White of
Corfe, who wrote about the marble of the Abbey
in 1272. Several men engaged in plastering and
white—washing are mentioned.*

In 1310 Master Richard de VVightham, mason
of London Bridge, was admitted to the freedom of
the City and sworn to the Commonalty, and paid
half a markxi'

In accounts of 1311—15 3". for works at the
Palace and the Tower we find the names of William
and Robert de Shere, Thomas de \Veldon, and john
de Whitewelle, four masons-cutters, cutting free-
strone (entalliand francapetr.). Also Richard de
Wayte and Matthew de Bruton,Maurice de Tothill
(receiving 6d. a day), Henry de Tischemersh, Hugh
de St. Alban’s, and Richard de Chaundeler (5d);
and John de Radewelle, Sec. (3d.). Hugo ofShrews—
bury, and others, are called wallers (muratori).
Adam de Corfe (marmorarius) was paid for marble;
he is probably the Adam, the marbler, who, in
1312, agreed for a new pavement in St. Paul’s. In
1331 Adam le Marbler died, leaving a tenement in
East Street, Corfe ; other houses were left to Hugh
Marbler. In a Roll at the Record Oflice§ Maurice
de Tothull, Richard de Maddelay, William de
Carlton, and John Radewelle lppear as worlxm0r on
some “ archiboutants,” and receiving 6d. a day.b

In 1315— 16 the masons or the 0City were in—
structed to elect six p1viors, experienced men, to

‘ lorchiand et dealbat. Compare our torching oftiles.

T Sharpe’s Letter Book D.

I British Museum Add. 17,361. § Q.R. +68, 20.
186

MASTER RICHARD OF WYTHAM

repair the pavements of the City. The election
was made by Master Michael le Maceoun, Simon
de Pabenham, Adam le Marberer, Walter de
Dipenhale, Robert Pavy, Hugh de Tichemers,
William le Hove, John Child, and others '(not
named), who chose six paviors (who are named).
In this entry we see the masons of the City acting
as an organised body, a Guild, and we meet with
several of our friends and show them to be London
citizens, and the most important masons at that
time in London. Robert Pavy lived by Leaden—
hall; he died in 1326, and left a shop to his son
Walter. From. a document of 1317 we find that
Adam, the marbler, lived in Farringdon V’Vard.’*
Walter, the marbler, in 1326, lived by the
Thames, close to St. Magnus’ Church; he died
in 1330.

In 1300 Robert Osekyn and John Wrytle, car—
penters, were sworn in as oflicial Carpenters of the
City. In the accounts of 1307 a large number of
carpenters appear engaged under Odo of Wylton
(succeeded by R. Osekyn) at the palace, and at the
end of the account Master R. Osekyn is called the
Master Carpenter. Richard Godfrey and John
Reed were the junctors. John Wrytle, carpenter,
died in 1305. In the accounts for the years
1311—15 Peter of Canterbury and John le Rooke

were the carpenters in charge.

* Letter Book E.

MASTER WALTER OF CANTERBURY

In 1322 we meet with the name of Walter of
Canterbury. From two Rolls oft324.~6*6 relating
to the king’s works at the Palace and

Master . . .
Walter (f the Tower, 1t 13 ev1dent that Master
Walter of Canterbury, Cementarius, was

Canter— . , . .

a’ur the lungs mason at this time; he was
)6, assisted by Master Thomas of Canter-

ngr

M bury, a mason whom we shall meet
4:072. . .

again. Master Thomas de la Bataille,
Cementarius de Ledes (probably the son of the
builder of the Northampton Cross) and Reginald
de Wihthum, Cementarius, are mentioned in this
account, also Walter Sparrow, who may be an
ancestor of another mason of this name who worked
at Westminster Hall at the end of the century.

In another account of similar works at the same
time? John de Rammeseye, Cementarius, is called
apparitor. Thomas of Canterbury, \Valter de Crun—
dale, masons, and Wm. of \Vinchester, carpen-
ter, are mentioned in this Roll. John de Ramsey
and his wife Agnes sold premises at Edmonton in
1327.1:

The lower chapel of St. Stephen’s was, Mac-
kenzie says, finished from 1320 to 1327. “’6 may
assign its completion to \Valter of Canterbury.

* Record Office, 469, 5—,“.
T +69, 6.

I Hardy and Price. Fines.

188

MASTER THOMAS OF CANTERBURY

In a MS. Roll of 1326')!“ we meet with the names
of Master Thomas of Canterbury, Cementarius,
and William de Hurley, carpenter. This

[£6622 0f Roll and another (469—10) endorsed
C ate “ chapel in the Palace of Westminster,
51:}, r- year 19," chiefly refers to a “ new a/ara”

. , between the new chapel and the Camera
$250; depz'cta. Master Thomas who had charge

' of the work was paid 33. a week. One
of the items is for robes—Magrfi Thom. de Cant.’
Cement’. pro roba sua XXs. The clerk to the
works, Robt. de Pypeshull, also received robes.
A William de Ramsey, probably a son of John,
was working as a mason. The next Roll (4.69, I I) is
endorsed Nova Cape/la ; it is that which has been
abstracted by Britton and Brayley and John T.
Smith, and refers to the beautiful upper chapel. It
begins—“ Monday, 27th day of May, fifth year [of
Ed. 111., i.e., 1332], Master Thomas of Canterbury
coming first to Westminster at the beginning of the
new chapel of St. Stephen, and drawing (iatramra)
on the moulds,” 6s. a week. Ordinary masons re-
ceived 6d. a day. A Roll of about the same date
(4.69, 15) mentions Master Walter de Hurley,
keeper of carpentry for the king’s works, Master
John de V’Vynton, plumber, and Thomas Broun,
cementarius.

I think we can trace from whence Master
Thomas, the mason, “ came to Westminster.” In
1332—3 (6 Ed. III.) Master Thomas of Canterbury
was paid £6 178. on account of work at the Guild-
hall. What were probably allowances for robes

* 468, 3, calendared I9 Edward I. instead ofII.
I89

MASTER THOMAS OF CANTERBURY

were paid—“ to Master William de Hurlee, carpen-
ter, 203., and to the aforesaid Master Thomas for
the same work, 205.” Now the Guildhall appears
to have been enlarged in 1326, when a grant of
timber and lead was made towards the works of
the hall and chapel. The work was completed in
I337.‘*‘ The western crypt has been thought to
belong to this time, but recent examination has
convinced me that it is contemporaneous with the
hall above, and the eastern crypt, from which it
differs only because of its lesser importance.

The upper chapel of St. Stephen’s was perhaps
the crest of the Gothic movement in England, a
work imaginative to fantasy, yet as a whole simple,
large, noble. From a wall-bench rose semi-pillars
of marble forming the bays. The lower stage was
a beautiful wall—arcade containing elaborate paint—
ings of angels ; above was a range of tall windows.
The ceiling was almost certainly of wood, possibly
something like that of Canterbury Chapter House.
The work throughout was painted in the fairest
colours, purfled with gilt gesso work, called
“ prints” in the accounts. Even the black polished
marble was spotted over with gilded discs of this
work, and other portions of the stone-work were
enriched with inlays of coloured glass laid over
foils. Both these methods of decoration are to
be found in the Ste. Chapelle, which certainly
also influenced the general design of our own
chapeL

This great work of Master Thomas has been
very fully illustrated by Carter, J. T. Smith, and

* Price. “ History of‘Guildhall."
190

MASTER THOMAS OF CANTERBURY

F. Mackenziefi“ Mackenzie’s suggestion of an
upper storey is quite inadmissible. What he makes
into a gallery was clearly the parapet gutter and
springing for the roofabove the main cornice. “1“ The
View ofthe chapel 1n Van den Wyngaerde’ 3 drawing
is conclusive as to its having had a fiattish roofand no
additional storey. This drawing, made about 1560,
carries us right back to the time of the suppression
ofthe chapel, which did not take place till the reign
of Edward VI. It was then handed over to the
House of Commons, probably without any large
injury to the structure, for Camden, in some notes on
the heraldry, was able to record the arms of England,

which “ bordured the windows” (MS. Lands. 874).

In the British Museum several carved stones and
some fragments of the paintings are preserved ;
there are also some casts in the Architectural
Museum. The former show what the brilliancy or
the colouring must have been. In 1333 Thomas
Bernak of Lambeth supplied worked stones for the
windows “ by agreement with the Master.” These
windows seem to have been in the Canterbury style,
and Master Thomas in agreeing for them doubtless
supplied some ofthe “ moulds” which he had drawn
out. The remarkable cresting of the wall-arcade
at St. Stephen’s bears a close resemblance to
similar details at Canterbury. These Canterbury
masters had both probably been trained at the
cathedral.

* See Carter’s “Specimens,” the Vetusta Mon., F. Mackenzie,
J. T. Smith’s “Westminster.” See also some drawings in Archer
Collection in British Museum.
T See also Britton and Brayley’s “ Palace."
191

WILLIAM RAMSEY, KING’S MASON

The name of Richard Lynne appears amongst the
setters. The will of Richard de Lynne, mason, of
St. Andrew’s, Castle Baynard, was proved in 1341.916
A Roll of 1337—9 shows that Master William
Hurle was carpenter, Master Walter Bury, smith,
Master Richard Canterbury and Thomas Atte—
Wyche, plumbers. Richard Canon, of Corfe, was
paid for marble, and William Canon worked at the
chapel. We know all about these Canons of
Corfe from the Exeter Cathedral accounts. In
1332 William Canon was paid for a large quantity
of wrought marble supplied for the cathedral by
his father and himself. In 1352 Master Edward
Canon, master stone-cutter, working on the stalls
of St. Stephen’s Chapel, was paid the large wage
of IS. 6d. a day.

Our mason, Thomas of Canterbury, in 1335,
became guardian for the children ofjohn de \Vyn—
cestre, whose will was proved in this year. 1' From
the R011 4.69, 15, we find that this Master Iohn de
Wynton was, from 1331, working with Thomas of
Canterbury at the palace, where bhe was in charge

of the plumbing.

We saw that a John Ramsey was working at
the Palace in 1322, and a William Ramsay in

. . 1326. The latter was master mason
William . .
Rams of the new Chapter House at St. Paul 5,

L’ . . . . .

- , y’ in which he showed h1mselt one of the

[{mgs . .
most advanced masters of the time. In

Maw”.

1332 the Dean and Chapter gave up
their garden on the south side of the Nave to
“‘ Sharpe’s “Calendar of Wills.” T Ibiu’.

192

MASTER RAMSEY, KING’S MASON

build a Chapter House and Cloisterfi“ Now in this
very year it was ordered by the Mayor and Alder—
men of London that “ Master William de Ramseye,
mason, who is master of the new works at St.
Paul’s, and is especially and assiduously giving his
whole attention to the business of the said church,
shall not be placed on juries or inquestsrl“

A portion of this work, uncovered some years
ago, is quite sufficient to show how delicate it was,
and we can well understand why Ramsey should
have been invited to complete St. Stephen’s Chapel,
which so much resembles it in style. I]:

In 1336 a Commission was appointed to inquire
into the state of repair of the Tower.§ Amongst
the names of the chief London carpenters, masons,
plumbers, glaziers, &c., who served on it, appear
those of the masons Peter de Tytemerssche,
William de Rameseye, Reginald de Wytham, and
Robert de Dippenhall.

In 1337 “William de Ramesey, king’s mason,”
was appointed chief mason at the Tower, and chief
surveyor of all the king’s works, as well in those
pertaining to the said office of mason as in those
in all castles on this side Trent, and also in all
things in the Tower. Master William de Hurle
was appointed in like manner to the office of
carpenter, and Master Walter 1e Fevre to the
office of smith. A week or two later, when these
appointments were confirmed, each in turn is called
“ chief surveyor” for his own art, and each was to

‘" Calendar St. Paul’s Doc. 1' Riley’s “ Memorials.”
I His name and that of Agnes, his daughter, appear on a deed at
St. Paul’s (Calendar). § Bayley’s “Tower.” Appendix I.
N 193

MASTER RAMSEY, KING’S MASON

“receive in his oflice a robe as befits his estate,”
yearly, and 12d. daily for his wages from the
Exchequer.*

In the next year a Westminster Roll,*l" endorsed
“Capella de Westmofi. anno. XI. [Ed. III.,] shows
that the work at St. Stephen s was under the ordina—
tion of“Master William de Ramsey,Master Cemen—
tarius to the king.” In 1344 Nicholas de Abyngdon,
Cementarius, and John de Ramsey,Cementarius, are
called apparitors for the work at St. Stephen’s and re-
ceived 3r. 6d. weekly [4.70, 13].: About five years
laterJohn Ramsey or “Johnle Mason" died. Hiswill,
proved in 134.9, devises to his wife Juliana and his
brother Nicholas some tenements in St. Michael‘s,
Cornhill; Master William Ramsey, his brother,
is mentioned.§ Nicholas de Rameseye supplied
three mouncells of plaster of Paris for repairs at
the palace in 1348, and thus appears to have been
a plasterer John Rameseye, marbler, mentionedin
1376, was probably of the same family H

In 1344. commissions were issued to William de
Hurle, king 8 carpenter, and William de Ramesey e,
the king's mason, to select workmen for \Vindsorfll

The first existing list of the Common Council
in London is of the year 34.7. In it Aldersgate

* Calendar of Patent Rolls. l0 Edward III.

1‘ Record Office, +70, 2.

I William Wayte and Robert \Vinchester were working at the
chapel at this time.

§ Sharpe’s “ Calendar of Wills.”

H Riley’s “ Memorials.”

{l Rymer, Feb. 26. A vault to a gate-tower at \Vindsor with lions’
heads in the bosses is so like that to the so-ealled Bloody Tower at
L union that both must be the work of one mason. possibly Ramsey.

19+

MASTER RAMSEY, KING’S MASON

Ward is represented by William de Rameseye.9K
Mr. Common Councillor Ramsey is the only
mason I know who attained official dignity. In
134.8 he bought property at Enfieldsj“

Our mason was, in the year 1332, a party to a
city romance. Robert Huberd, aged 14., a ward
of the city, and well—off, was by him and others
forcibly removed from the charge of his proper
guardian. On November 20 Master William de
Ramsey, junior, Christina, his wife, Thomas de
Chacombe, Master William de Ramsey, senior,
and Nicholas de Ramsey went to the house of
John Spray, the guardian, Without Aldersgate, and
abducted the said Robert, and caused him to be
married to Agnes, a daughter of William de
Ramsey, junior, in contempt of the mayor.
William, Christina, and Thomas were “ attached,”
but the others were not found. And the
said William, Christina, and Thomas pleaded not
guilty, and, as to the marriage, they put them-
selves on the county. Inasmuch as the marriage
could not be annulled it was adjudged that Robert
should choose whether he would remain with
\Villiam de Ramsey, whose daughter he had
married, or return to John Spray. He thereupon
chose to remain with the said William and his
wife, and John Spray prayed to be discharged from
the guardianship. But William de Ramsey pro-
duced sureties for the proper performance of his
duties as guardian. This high-handed proceeding
did not, as we have seen, interfere with our mason’s

distinguished career. And this bold way of dealing

“ Riley’s “ Memorials.” T Hardy and Page. Fines.
“)5

KING’S CARPENTERS

with affairs seems to fill out our conception of what
a mediaeval craftsman should be.

William de Ramsey was, in 1350, still “master
of masons’ work at the king’s chapel,” William
Hurle was the master carpenter, and
William Herland, another of the car-
d penters, received 3:. 6d. weekly wages}:

M artery
William

Hurle an , .
. - In the accounts for St. Stephens 1n
WWI/tam . .
1352, Master William Hurle, carpenter,
Her/am], . .
- - , lS seen to have been working on the
ngr . .
Car stalls at IS. a day. Master William
Herland, carpenter, accounts in this
pelzterr.

year for J(:10 spent in making the stalls.
He is called carpenter to the king, and guarantees
the accounts; he was receiving 45. 8d. weekly,
Master Hurle 4.5., and Richard Walton, foreman,
3:. 6d.'i"

Both the chiefcarpenters were engaged also on the
large building works carried on at \Vindsor under
Edward III. In 1344. William Hurle, the king’s
master carpenter, and William Ramsey, the king's
master mason, were commissioned to procure
workmen for Windsorj Continuing the work
then begun, William de Hurle and William de
Hurland, the carpenters, were in 1350 in charge,
William Sponlee being master of the stone hewers.
In 1358—9 Geoffrey de Carlton was keeper of all
the masons’ work at wages of 6d. a day.§ Geot’r‘rey

* Record Office, +70, 18, 19.

'1‘ Rolls, 4.71, 5 and 6, largely printed by J. T. Smith. I Rymer.

§ Tighe and Davis. In 1359 \Villiam Holland, John llerholte,
and John Havering were commissioned to obtain carpenters for Work at

396

KING’S CARPENTERS

may be a son of William Carlton who was working
at Westminster forty-five years before. In 1378
Geoffrey de Carlton was confirmed in the office of
Cementarius to the king at Windsor Castle, with
6d. daily wages and 20:. yearly for robe and shoes.’
Carlton was mason at Windsor while Wykeham
acted as “surveyor” for the king. Wykeham
had been appointed, with power to press masons,
in 1356. Chaucer became clerk to the works
with similar powers in 1389. They both repre-
sented the clerkly side of the building. Wykeham
was no more the architect at Windsor than he
was at Winchester, where Master Wynford was
master mason.

Sandwich; and similar orders were given to three masons. (Rymer.)
John Havering is mentioned again in 1371 ; also John Massingham and
Thomas Tilncy. The latter was granted a yearly pension for good
services rendered to the king. (Issue Roll.)

197

CHAPTER IX

FIRE, AND COMPLETION OF THE
NAVE

Fire and Rebuilding: New Cloister : lVIore King's Masons : Thc Nave.

IT is likely that Henry III. never contemplated
building more than the Chevet, the Choir, the
F‘ d Chapter House, and the Belfry. The
me an . . .

Re—éui/d— nave and the monastic bu1ld1ngs of the
ting. old church, the former not yet a century

old, were to rema1n as they were. The
king, therefore, saw his work practically complete
in all its beauty. The great bulk of the eastern
work rose high above the nave and Lady Chapel ;
the stone work was fair and sharp ; the lead roof
shone like silver; the window-glass gleamed against
the light like nets of sea—water or as if mixed of fire
and sky ; the royal doors, with their noble statues of
the Apostles, were daintily illuminated in colour and
gold. The greater part of the Cloister was of sturdy
Norman work, wood—roofed. The dormitory over
its cellars and the refectory were long ranges of
early Norman building, while the infirmary, which
backed close upon some of the palace buildings,
was of elegant transitional Norman. To complete
the picture we are to think of our Abbey as set
about with its farm buildings, granaries and mills,
and its orchards and fields. 80 it stood for a few
years only; and then an accident necessitated large
re—building works—works which form an interme-

diate Chapter in the history of the Abbey buildings.
198

FIRE AND RE—BUILDING

In 1298 there was a great fire at the palace, which
is mentioned by several chroniclers; only one of
these, however, in a MS. Chronicle of St. Mary of
Southwark in the British Museum,* gives facts
which, I believe, have not been made use of by
any historian of the Abbey. They are to the
effect that on March 29, 1298, was burnt the
little hall of the king at Westminster, also the
monk’s dormitory, refectory, infirmary, cellars,
and the abbot’s hall. These are exactly the
parts of the Abbey buildings which were altered
and rebuilt during the course of the fourteenth
century.

Directly after this fire a still worse thing befell
the monastery, for it became involved in the
robbery of the king’s treasury, and several of the
monks were imprisoned for two years. Matthew of
Westminster writes: “Edward, King of England,
had his Treasury plundered by a single robber in
England, for which ten monks of Westminster
were unjustly imprisoned”?

The patching up of the portions burnt must
have been at once done in a temporary way, but
the more substantial re—building consequent on the
fire was delayed for a generation, and then pro-
ceeded slowly. The dormitory would be first
repaired, and here we find some pretty two—light
Edwardian windows, of about 1300 taking the.
place ofthe old Norman lights. (Fig. 71.) Below

in the ranges of cellars there are also some doorways

* Faust. A. 8.
'l‘ The author who goes by the name ofMatthew of W., I should say
here and elsewhere.

I99

FIRE AND RE—BUILDING

of this time. In 1307 “divers houses within the
Abbey were roofed and repaired ” by Edward 11.;-6
The fire must have burst out from the
-.-,-..-,, dormitory and have injured the
west window of the Chapter
House which faces it. When
Scott renewed the Chapter House
he found that the west window
had originally been of four lights
, like the others, but more recently
" had been of five lights. “ It was
clear, from fragments of the
tracery found, that the window
had been renewed by Abbot
Byrcheston when he rebuilt the
, bays of the Cloister opposite to
i ”W the Chapter House entrance, and
. in the same style with them. He,
Fmi 7"7Edwardlan therefore, altered it from a four—
Wmdow in Norman . . ,,
opening to a five-light window .(c. 1350).
Scott, in his restoration, made
the “ style ” of the west window like to the others.

The west door of the infirmary chapel is also
of the work erected about 1350.

It has been said above that the earlier form of
the infirmary would have been a hall in continua-
tion of its chapel. Burnt in 1298, it was not
rebuilt in the old form, but as a series of small
lodgings surrounding a court, the present Little
Cloister. This was the work of Litlington, whose
arms are on the tower to the right of the entry
to the court. The refectory had its upper stage

  

 

  
    

, ”17-7—fo U,
///’//”'///’nul'

l4

* Braylcy and Britton.
200

NEW CLOISTER

rebuilt as at present, and a new timber roof rested
upon the fine corbels which jut out between the
windows.9E The abbot’s hall was also rebuilt, and
the Cloister was completed by Litlington, whose
monogram and arms appear on the bosses of the
southern range of vaults. Litlington also built or
rebuilt the kitchen and houses for the Sacrist and
Almoner, the Great Malt House, the Mill, occi-

The work of the new cloister was resumed
about 134.0. The portion in front of the Chapter
N House and completing the eastern walk

aw . . . . .
Cloister lS ev1dently work of thlS time. It IS
' known that Abbot Byrcheston (1344—
1349) was buried in front of the entrance to the
Chapter House, and the usual rule as to burials
would show that these bays of the Cloister were
built in his day. In I 345 an account acknowledges
120 marks received from the Abbot for making
a Cloister. No names of masons appear in the
extract given in “ Gleanings,” but an earlier account
of 134.2 shows that Walter le Bole, mason, was
paid J{:20 for repairs and making ‘of four windows
and one great pillar by special agreement ; also 603.
wages for making parapets; dress, boots, gloves
and food being found. It is evident that Bole was
a master, and he may have been responsible for
the pattern of the new portion of the Cloister,
which was not a royal work. The work belongs
to the Canterbury School of design, which at this

*‘ These corbcls do not space at the same intervals as the windows.
The windows seem to occupy the positions of the Norman openings.
1' See Sporley MS. and Widmore.
201

NEW CLOISTER

time was in the ascendant, and it is the last example
at the Abbey of the earlier and more romantic
fashion of mason craft. In 134.9 the will of
Walter Bole, mason, was proved at Guildhall ;
from it we learn that he lived in St. Andrew’s,
Castle Baynard.* This was the year of the Black
Death, when Abbot Byrcheston and twenty-six
monks of Westminster died of the plague. \Vhen
work was resumed in the south Cloister a great
gulf was overpast. On one side was the formative
age ofthe mediwval idea, on the other was the age
of decay. In art at least “the prosperity which
went before was never recurred.” “i"

In 1351—2 the south Cloister was in progress.
It is called “ the work of the Prior in the Cloister.”
Only three or four masons were employed at a
time at IS. 8d. and 23. a week. The master was
paid 26s. 8d. over his wages, and for his dress and
shoes 165. 4d. The name of this master is not
given in the extracts published in “Gleanings,”
but the fee of two marks was the regular one for
master masons at this time at Exeter Cathedral
and other places. In 1354. the same fee was paid
to the head mason, “ but nothing for his dress this
year because he refused to take it on account
of delay in its delivery ” (I don’t want any of your
robes !)

The foundations of the south walk were com-
pleted by a man and a boy during forty weeks of
1356. Most of the work up to this time must have
been in the preparation of the masonry, so that on
the removal of the Norman work it could be set

‘ Sharpe’s “\Vills." T Capgrave's “Chronicle."
202

MORE KING’S MASONS

up quickly. In 1357-8 one of the doorways in
the south walk was completed and the vaulting was
being erected—one “ bedder ” being hired to hasten
the work.

In 1366 three masons were employed at zs.
a week each, with “livery” of bread and ale.
The receipts and expenses for this year were
£45 4.3. 10d, and a note on the account reads
“and so they were equal, the Cloister being
finished.”

The king’s master mason, who succeeded

Master William Ramsey (see p. 196) seems to
have been John Box, who was working

More . I
King’: at the palace by task—work in 1353. n
Marom 1355 (28 Ed. III.) Master John Box,

Cementarius, was receiving 12d. a day,
and one Thomas of Gloucester “ apparitor ” 6d. a
day, on the king’s works at the Tower, Master
William Herland being the carpenter.* In other
Rolls of this and the following year concerned with
the palace and St. Stephen’s Chapel Thomas of
Gloucester appears alonefi" and he must have been
one of the best-known masons in London, for in
1356 certain articles touching the conduct of the
craft being under consideration, the Mayor caused
“the good folk of the trade” to be summoned
before him that he might best know how the trade
should be ordered : whereupon they selected twelve
of their number to represent them, viz. :

 

* Exchequer Accounts, 417, 11. 'l‘ 471, 9, 15, 16.

203

THE NAVE

Walter de Sallynge. Richard Joyce.
Richard de Sallynge. Symon de Bartone.
Thomas de Bredone. John de Estone.
John de Tyryngton. John Wylot.
Thos. de Gloucester. Thomas Hardegray.
Henry de Yevele. Richard de Cornwaylle.
On éeéa/f of M: M aron- On éeba/f of we
linear: or F marrow-7724mm. Layer: or Setters.

They agreed on eight articles, the first being
that “ Every man of the Trade ” might do either
branch of the work “ if he be perfectly skilful and
knowing in the same.”* In 1358—9 Thomas of
Gloucester was still working at the palace, and is
called “cementarius and apparitor working and
ordering mason’s work.” He was, I have no
doubt, the king’s chiefmason of the time. William
Herland was the carpenterri“

In 1362 Cardinal Langham gave £40 towards the
building of the body of the church: And a letter
T/ze Name is preserved of the time of his successor,

' Abbot Litlington (1362—1386), which
shows that a part of the ancient church by the
Cloister had been pulled down—probably part of
the south aisle—when the cloister was being
completed.

In 1388 the completion of the nave was under—
taken by Richard II. An account of his eleventh
year entitled “ The New Work of the Church of
Westminster” speaks of men being employed in
“breaking down the walls of the old church.” A fee
is entered for Master Yevele, chief mason, 1008. per

" Riley’s “ Memorials.”

1” Exchequer Accounts, +72, 4. I Stow.
304

THE NAVE

annum, and for his dress and furs, 155.” Another fee
of 13s. 4d. was paid to Robert Kentbury,* and
Thomas Padington received 10s. for a tunic. Six

ears later Henry Yevele was still chief mason, and
he probably remained in charge of the work until ,
close to the time of his death in 14.00. We may
look on him as the “ designer” of the nave and of
even the lower part of the West Front of which
the porch so closely resembles the porches of
Westminster Hall and Winchester Cathedral.
Yevele was the great master of the time, and during
a long life he did so much that it will be well to
give a separate account of him. The work was
carried forward slowly by ten or twelve masons for
several years. Pillars of marble for the nave—
arcade were wrought at Corfe at a cost of ,£40 each.
A new lodge for the masons was built in 1395.1"
Some of the bays of the nave must have been
finished by Richard 11., for the window to the
left of the western door into the Cloister had in
the glazing his badge of the white hart. A porch
was also built by Richard II. in front ofthe North
Transept, and this would also have been Yevele’s
work. The exterior of this fine porch is shown in
Hollar’s engraving, and its plan is in “ Dugdale.”

(See our Fig. 73.)

Richard II. by will (1399) left certain jewels to
the “Fabric of the Nave of St. Peter, Westminster,
by us begun”:

In the first year of Henry IV. Master William of

* He was under-master to Yevele, I suppose. In 1381 Robert
Kentbury held a croft at Westminster. Bentley’s Cartulary.
T Scott’s “Gleanings.” I Nichols’ “ Royal Wills.”
205

THE NAVE

Colchester was chief mason of the works of the
nave of the Abbey, receiving a fee of [008. a year
and his dress and furs. In 1413 (I Hen. V.)
William was still master mason of the new nave,

“ordering and surveying the work” for a yearly
fee of£10. john Russe and Richard Knappe were
paid for twenty— f—our small pieces of marble?6

This year Henry V. appointed (Sir) Richard
Whittington to receive 1000 marks a year, granted
by the king, for the completion of the church ; that
is, to act as keeper of the works; and a patent
was issued for pressing workmenxi"

In 14.15 John (F) Colchester, mason, was ordered
to press workmen for the king’s work at Harfleur,
and Simon Lewys and John Benet of Maidstone,
masons, were in this same year ordered to press
[00 masons for Henry V.’s expedition. Benet is
again mentioned in 14.18;}:

In 1416, on the recommendation of the king,
William Colchester became master mason at York
Cathedral, and I cannot say what immediately
happened at Westminster, although we know who
was kings mason about a dozen years after Col—
chester went to York, from an account of the
building of St. Stephen’s, \Valbrook. This church
was begun on May 11, 14.29, and hallowed on
St. Erkenwald’s Day, 1439, Robert Chichele,
grocer and alderman, brother to the Archbishop,
being the chief benefactor. Eight memorial stones
were laid by important people: one by Master
Thomas Mapilton, “the king 5 mason, then being

* “(11C1111111gs,p. 21+.
1‘ Ilist. IVISS. Report, \‘ol. iv. I Rymer.
206

THE NAVE

master mason of the said church work.” '* Master
Thomas Mapilton had been master of the works
at Durham Cathedral until 14.16, the year Colchester
went to York. Possibly the latter was sent awa
to make room for Mapilton. At York, Colchester
was looked on as an interloper, and a letter is in'
existence which explains that “ some masons, being
moved by envy, conspired against Master William
Colchester, appointed by the king’s patent, and
attacked him so that his life is in danger.”1'"

In 14.22 Henry V. died, and we know from an
Issue Roll that £23 65. 8d. was paid on account of
his tomb in the Abbey in the same year. To
Mapilton we probably owe the mason craft of
this tomb, and the beautiful chantry which sur-
mounts it.

From an almost contemporary Lifefl; it appears
that the king had seen to the devising of his tomb
before his death. “ His body was embalmed and
cired, and laid on a royal carriage, and an image
like to him was laid upon the corpse, open ; and
with divers banners, and horses covered with the
arms of England and France, St. Edward and St.
Edmund,§ and a great multitude of torches
and brought with great solemnity to Westminster
and worshipfully buried ; and after was laid on his

* “Transactions,” Lander: (1m! Miad/erex Ar‘t/m’o/ogim/ Satisfy, vol. v.
Thomas may have been the son of John Mapylton, marbler, of St.
Dunstan’s, Fleet Street, who died 14.07. Sharpe’s “ Wills.”

T Rayne, York Fabric Rolls.

I MS. Claud. A. 8. See also the King’s Will.

§ Similar arms can still be traced painted on the shields over the
altar of the chapel, and the images of the altar piece are the patrons of

England and France with Saints Edward and Edmund.
207

THE NAVE

tomb a royal image, like to himself, of silver
and gilt, which was made at the cost of Queen
Katharine. . . . He ordained by his life the place
of his sepulchre, where he is now buried, and every
day iii masses perpetually to be sungen in a fair
chapel over his sepulchre.” His will also provides
that the chantry should be a raised relic chapel with
two stairs, one for ascent, the other for descent.
The form of this chantry was, I believe, suggested
by the relic stage and its staircases in the Ste.
Chapelle, Paris, which the king would have known
so well.916

In a bill of 14.22 we appear to trace the very
arms made for the funeral. Thomas Daunt was
paid for these “scutcheons,” and 33s. 4d. for a
helmet and crest for the king, possibly those which
still exist.+

In 1431 the iron grate was made for the
chantry.

Possibly some of the tombs in the Abbey church,
also, like those of Lord Bourchier (I431) and
Phillipa of York (1431), may have been erected
under Mapilton’s influence.

We know for certain who was king’s mason
working at the Abbey about 14.48.

At a commission held to determine the place of
burial of Henry VI. evidence was given that about
twelve years before his death Henry VI. entered
St. Edward’s Chapel, and, having selected a place,

“ commanded a mason to be called to mark out the

*‘ There is not the least doubt that the effigy was silver. It is
mentioned again in the Suppression Inventory. See Stanley’s

“ Memorials " also. T Rymer.
208

THE NAVE

ground, whereupon, by the advice of the Abbot,
was called Thirsk, that time being master mason
in the making of the chapel of Henry V. [not yet
finished, or a mistake], which mason incontinently
came, and with his ‘pykkes’ marked out the said
sepulture. Thomas Fifelde of London, marbler, '
[aged] 66, proved that messengers came to the house
of John Essex, head marbler in S. Paul’s Churchyard
(with whom Thomas was apprentice) and desired
him to go to the king to make a tomb for him.
Whereupon John Essex sent for Thomas Stephens,
coppersmith, of Gutter Lane, and they went forth—
with to Westminster. On the next day Fifelde
heard his master and Thomas Stephens, sitting at
supper in the house of John Essex, say that they
had bargained with the king for his tomb and had
received 405. on account, of which they gave one
groat to deponent. But nothing was done because
of the great troubles which followed.” *6

Of John Essex, marbler, and Thomas Stephens,
coppersmith, we hear again as having, together with
William Austin, founder, made the tomb of the
Earl of \Varwickrf'

We may, perhaps, assign the beautiful screen
between the altar and the Confessor’s chapel at
Westminster to Thirske. The Confessor’s chapel
seems to have been rearranged in consequence of
the building of Henry V.’s chantry, and the
evidence of style points to the work belonging to
the reigns of Henry VI. or Edward IV.

Work at the nave was continued by Abbot

*‘ Stanley’s “ Memorials."

Jr See agreements in Dugdale’s “ Warwick.”
0 209

THE NAVE

Millyng, who is called “master of the works,”
in 14.69, when he acknowledged a debt of £37 to
the plumber (Hist. MSS. Comm. iv. p. 179).
Abbot Estney (1474—98) contributed largely to
the completion of the west end of the church, and
the great west window is his work.” “ In 14.84.

    

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

a 'E' .

FIG. 72.—Islip’s screen. West end of Nave Aisle

William Turnour is said to have been master mason
at the churchfl' but this I have not been able to
verify.

Abbot Islip, 1500—33, completed the west front
except the towers and the gable ; the latter remained
weather—boarded when \Vren reported, and the
former were not undertaken until 1740.

Some stone screens which were in the western bays
beneath the towers bore Islip’s rebus; they were

destroyed early in the last century.i§i (Fig. 72.)
* Keepe. '1” Papworth, in Diet. Archr. s.v., Westminster.

I See Gentleman’s Magazine, I808.
210

THE NAVE

The Abbot’s own chapelwas built during his life,and
is shown complete in the drawings of his funeral."’*“
In the description it is said that the mourners, “in
a place over the chapel of the defunct, found pre-
pared spiced bread, suckett, marmylite, and wine.
In the mean season they of the church did bury
the defunct in the chapel of his building. And
the four banners of Our Lady, St. Peter, St. Edward,

and St. Catherine were aflixed to irons.”

’" These drawings have now been published by the Society of
Antiquaries.

21!

CHAPTER X
A MASON AND A CARPENTER

Master Henry Yevele, King’s Mason, and Master Hugh Herland,
King’s Carpenter.

IN the list of the mason’s jury for the year 1356
we have seen the name of Henry de Yevele, mason—
M hewer. He was to become the great
aster .
Hem representative mason of the second half
y fthe fourteenth centur . A document
Yevele. O y . . .
of the year 1362 names MIStI‘C VVrlliam
Herland, chief carpenter, Henry Yevele, deviser of
masonry, and William of Wikham, clerkfzé In
1365 Yevele was master mason of the king’s works
at the Palace and the Tower, at a wage of Is.
a day. William of Winchester, Cementarius and
apparitor, received 6d.; Master \Villiam Herland,
master carpenter, Is.; and Hugh Herland, apparitor
of carpenter’s work, 6d.‘i“ In 1375 William Her—
land, the carpenter, died. From his will it
appears that he lived in the parish of St. Peter’s,
Paul’s Wharf, and was buried in the parish
churcthi
In 1371 Henry Yevele, Cementarius, was “ sent
to various parts to retain divers masons to be sent
in the retinue of the king (Edward III.) beyond
seas,” and money was delivered to him for the
wages of twenty—five masons receiving each 6d.

a day. William de V’Vynford, Cementarius, was

* 472, 10, and S. T 4.72, [6.
I Sharpe. “ Calendar of London Wills.”

MASTER HENRY YEVELE

sent on a similar mission?6 This Wynford was
to become the architect to William of Wyke-
ham at Winchester Cathedral and College. He is
mentioned in the bishop’s will, and his portrait is
painted on the glass of the east window of the
College chapel, together with the carpenter and
glazier of the same. He was rewarded by the king
by a gift of property at Windsor, and had probably
been the king’s mason there while Wykeham was
surveyor or clerk to the works.

In 1377 (1 Rich. II.) Yevele was directed by
patent to take masons and put them on the king’s
works at the Palace and the Tower, with power to
imprison the disobedient. In another patent of
1378 Yevele is called “ Director of the Works in
the Art of Masonry at the Palace and the Tower
in the late reign,” and a grant for life of 12d.
daily, made in 1370, is confirmed. In this same
year he and Master William Wynford were directed
to take masons and set them to work at South-
ampton. In 1381 Yevele was ordered to collect
masons for service in Brittany. The year before a
proposal was made to build a tower on each side of
the Thames so that a chain, stretched from one to
the other, might protect shipping. William VVal-
worth, John Northampton, Nicholas Twyford,
goldsmith—all important city people—and Henry
Yevele formed a committee for seeing to this workxl‘
About the same time Yevele designed the south
aisle of St. Dunstan’s in Thames Street. In an
agreement of 1381 between Lord Cobham and

* Devon’s Issue Roll. Was he the same as the William of Win-

chester above 3 T Riley’s “ Memorials.”
213

MASTER HEN RY YEVELE

Nicholas Typerton, mason, preserved in the British
Museum, Typerton undertakes to build the aisle
“selon la devyse de Master Henry Ivelighe.”
Here _we have an instance of one famous mason
directing the work carried out by another. Yevele
was also employed by Lord Cobham to overlook
the work of Thomas Wrewk and William Sharn—
dale at Cowling Castlef‘6

In 1383 Yevele was one of several surveyors for
making a bridge at Stroud. In the same year
Master William de Wynford, one of the masons
of the late king (Edward 111.), was granted £10
yearly out of the fee—farm of Guildford in lieu of
a patent, 46 Ed. 111., allowing him the like amount
out of the estate of John Brocas, knight. A grant
was also made to Hugh Herland, carpenter, “ verg—
ing on old age,” of 12d. daily, and a robe yearly.
At this time Hugh Herland was living on the
south side of Thames Street in the city.

In 1384 1 find that Yevele is still called a stone-
mason, and in the same year a ratification was
made of his estate in two shops in St. Mary Out—
Wich parish, late of John Totenham, carpenter, in
consideration of great services to the king. John
Totenham had been the city carpenter twenty
years before. (See Appendix.)

In 1388, as we have seen, and for many years
after, our master mason was directing the works at
the new nave of Westminster Abbey church,
which he probably designed.

In 1389 he was “handsomely rewarded” and

*1. G. Nichols, Lam/o); and M idd/vmr drrfia'o/agim/ Tray/marina,
vol. ii. 186;.

214

MASTER HENRY YEVELE

promised a yearly robe of esquire’s degree, and in
1390 he was exempted from being put on juries,
&c., in consideration of his being king’s mason
and surveyor of the works within the Palace of
Westminster, &c., and on account qf My great age.*
If he was now seventy he must
have been born in 1320 and have
been thirty—six when we first
found him holding a distin—
guished place amongst London
masons. or r.
In 1390 Yevele’s old pension
of a Is. a day was “cancelled 1“
because the king granted him ;,
the manors of Fremworth and l ‘ ‘
Vannes, in Kent.” ‘
Richard’s queen, Anne of
Bohemia, died in 1394., and the F10- 73-“Porch added
king at once set about making bibiq'bTitaenvseiptbffio—
the splendid tomb for her and Holly“)! 66' er
himself which stands on the
south side of the Confessor’s chapel. Two agree-
ments at the Record Oflice were published by
Rymer. In the first, Henry Yevele and Stephen
Lote undertake to make a tomb of marble like the
tomb of Edward III. (which it adjoins), and
according to a model bearing the seal of the
Treasurer of England, for £250, and ,C20 addi—
tional if it gave satisfaction. The other agreement
was with Nicholas Broker and Godfrey Prest in
regard to the bronze images for the same tomb.
From the resemblance of this tomb to that of
91" Cal. Patent Rolls.

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

215

MASTER H ENRY YEVELE

Edward III. ((1. 1377) there can be little doubt
that the marble work of that also was the work of
Yevele who, as we have seen, was master mason to
Edward III. The tomb of Archbishop Langham,
who died in 1376, is again, in many respects,
similar, and among the Westminster papers is pre—
served the receipt for 1520, given by Henry Yevele
and Stephen Lote, on account, for making this
tomb.9E

We are next to find Master Henry Yevele
directing (and designing) the mason- w—ork for the
reconstruction of Westminster Hall. A patent to
John Godmerestone was issued for these works in
1394., and in 1395 an agreement was made for the
execution of the great cornice and corbels under
the roof. This contract is printed by Rymer. The
following 18 its purport: Indenture made between
the king, on the one part, and Richard \Vashbourn
and john Swalwe, masons, on the other part. \Vit—
nesseth that the said masons undertake to make
well and loyally “a table” surmounting the ancient
walls of the Gram/e Sal/e, of Reigate stone, and to
put “marre-stone” (sea-stone= Caen) ou merrier sernz,
according to the purport of a Fourme e Ala/(lg,
made by counsel of Mastre Henry Yevele, and
delivered to the said masons by \Vatkin \Valdon,
his warden. And the said masons shall have 12d.
a foot of assize along the wall, and they shall make
26 souses (corbels) of matte—stone, and put them
in place as convenient, wrought according to the
purport of a “patron” shown to them by the
treasurer, taking for each twenty soldy by the survey

* Hist. MSS. Comm. iv. p. 179.

216

MASTER HUGH HERLAND
of Master Henry and Watkin. But the king will

find all necessary stone, lime, sand, scaffolds, and
gins, except hand—work, and the instruments by
which masons work at their art; finding also
harbourage for the masons and their compczzgnom.
Endorsed, L’Endenture fOZlC/Zdfit [es [Masons a’u Royfl‘k

A Roll of1395—6, now in the British Museumfi'

is the account of Master Hugh Herland, one of the
kin ’3 car enters, for a ments made

1134”” by gJohn pGodmeston,P dlerk to the

113*]: . .

Her/am! works, for the leparations at the great

' hall and St. Stephen’s Chapel. In this
account the task—work undertaken by VVashbourn
and Swallow is mentioned; also work done by
Robert Kentbury (whose name we have had be-
fore) and by Richard Smith.

An interesting description of the roof of the
Hall and “the beauty of the execution of this
unique work” is given by Viollet-le—Duc, who
points out that France has nothing of the same
epoch comparable comma [axe d6 comtructz'alz. Below
we shall find that Master Hugh Herland was in
1398 called carpenter and comptroller of the
works at Westminster Hall, and there cannot be
a doubt that he was the designer of the vast roof,
and that, even more than Yevele, he deserves the
name of architect to the hall. We have seen
that he was the descendant of a family of carpenters,
and that in I365 he was working as foreman under
his father, William, who died in 1375. A patent
of I Richard II. (1377) is addressed to “Master

9" For death and tomb of Yevele, see p. 219. T Add. Rolls 27,018.

217

MASTER HUGH HERLAND
Hugh Herland, one of the late king’s (Ed. III.)

carpenters, whom the king has retained”; and he
is granted “ IO marks yearly as in 40 Ed. III.”

In 1378 the Master of the Hospital at Stroud
was appointed “ chief surveyor and clerk” at
Rochester Castle (an office exactly like \Vykeham s
at Windsor). The work was to be done “ by the
survey and control of Master Hugh Herland, car—
penter, at 12d. daily wages.” In 1379 he was
appointed “one of the king’s master carpenters
during pleasure, with 12d. daily wages and a winter
robe yearly.” He seems to have been younger in
the service than Richard Swift, who was appointed
to be “ the king’s master carpenter” on the same
terms, in the year before, with a pension of
1003. 8d. yearly in addition. In this year also
Robert Franceys was made “one of the king’s
carpenters, constantly serving under the master of
the carpenters, at 6d. daily. Richard Swift and
Hugh Herland were commanded in 1381 to press
fifty carpenters for the king 5 service in Brittany ':

A Roll of 1398— —9 3 gives “ Particulars of the
account of John Godmeston, clerk of the works,
at the king’s great hall . . . by the sight and
testimony of Master Hugh Herland, chief carpen-
ter to the king and comptroller of the works.”
From the wages of the “ officers ” given at the end
of the Roll it is seen that Master Hugh received
18.21 day. A large number of carpenters were
engaged, but the masonry was done bv task-w ork.
John Swallow and \Villiam onrd were paid for
our windows in the side of the hall. Thomas

* Patents. 1‘ Record Otlice, 22 Rich. 11. +73, 11.
218

MASTER HUGH HERLAND

Wolvey for mason’s work in the two turrets, 20' ft.
of battlement work to the gable and the great
window in south gable. William Cleuddere worked
some pinnacles and four images. A stage for the
coronation of Henry IV. is included in the account.
In another Roll, a year later, Master Hugh Herland
still appears as “ head carpenter to the king” and
comptroller of the works?“

Thomas Wolvey we saw was doing work for the
new hall in 1398. Now Gough gives an inscrip—
tion from a tomb at St. Michael’s Church, St.
Albans, to “ Thomas Wolvey, latomus in arte . . .
to King Richard,” dated A.D. 1430. He appears to
have been the father of masons for two genera—
tions. Later another gravestone was placed in the
same church to Richard Wolvey, lathomus, the son
ofJohn, and to his wife, eight daughters, and ten
sons, of which Richard died in 14.90.

Master-mason Yevele, the designer of the stone—
work of the new hall, and Herland, the contriver
of the great roof, who had charge of the works,
must have been familiar acquaintances of Chaucer,
who, in 1390, was appointed Clericus Operatioum
of the Royal Palacesri“ Yevele must have been
very old when the hall was undertaken, hence the
close association with him of Watkin Waldon.
Yevele died in 14.00, and was buried in St. Magnus,
London Bridge. Stow, apparently quoting the
inscription on the tomb, writes : “ Henry Yevele,
Freemason to Edward 111., Richard II. and Henry
IV. who deceased in 14oo—his monument yet re-
maineth.” From his will it appears that he had

* +73, 13. 1‘ Patent, 13 Rich. II.
219

MASTER HUGH HERLAND

built his own tomb at St. Magnus. His property
he left to his wife Katherine on condition that she
employed two chaplains to celebrate in St. Magnus
at St. Mary’s altar, for the souls of Margaret, his
late wife, his parents Roger and Marion, King
Edward 111., Sir John Beauchamp, and others.
His executors were John Clifford, mason, Stephen
Lote, mason, and others. We have met Lote
before (p. 216). Clifford would almost seem to have
been a partner of Yevele’s, for they are both, with
Katherine, wife of the latter, parties to a deed in
1389. It seems probable that Yevele must have
worked for Sir John Beauchamp. Henry Yevele’s
will was proved in 14.00 ; in it he is called
“ masoun ” citizen and freeman, parishioner of St.
Magnus, London BridgeJJ-“i From a list of property
belonging to London Bridge we find that a tene—
ment held by Henry Yevele, mason, was situate
between the street on the east and the Oyster gate
on the west, and was subject to a charge of 5s.*i*
Perhaps the County Council will put up a tablet
to this distinguished citizen. Judging from his
work at Westminster Hall and from the nave of
Winchester Cathedral, erected by his associate
Wynford, Yevele practised in a big and bare style.
He must have been one of the influences at work in
transforming the art of 1350 into the “ Perpen—
dicular” of 1400. The Guildhall of London,
begun in 14.11, is manifestly built in Yevele’s
manner. We are usually told that the Perpendicular
style is especially a product of Gloucester, and it
*‘ Sharpe. “ Cal. of \Vills,” and Nichols.

'l‘ Chronicle of London Bridge.
220

MASTER HUGH HERLAND
does seem probable that the large work of applying

slight caring: there to the earlier building may have
influenced the turn the style took. On the other
hand, the Chapter House at St. Paul’s of 1332 seems
to have approximated very Closely to the Perpen-
dicular manner, so also did St. Stephen’s Chapel,
and I should expect the first word in fashions to
have been said by the King’s Masons of London.

221

CHAPTER XI
HENRY THE SEVENTH’S CHAPEL

Master Masons: Restoration : Sculpture : Construction : Bronze

Work : Glazing.

“ One aftfle Statdyert and Dzzilztiert [llama/152m 0f Europe 59%
for Me C kappa/l andfor t/zt’ Sepu/r/m'.”

BACON.

THE new Lady Chapel, built wholly in the six—
teenth century, and yet without any taint of the
Renaissance, witnesses well to the vi—
tality of our national forms of work-
manship before they were overborne by
the foreign fashions introduced by the king and
court.

As an exercise in architectural composition of
intentionally romantic cast, self—conscious, elaborate,
and artificial,it is awork ofextraordinary merit. The
planning of the wide nave, and aisles so narrow as to
be almost blocked by the fine Elizabethan tombsfié.
the very beautiful bending ofthe external wall into
a series of bay Windows, the marvellous skill of the
vaulting, which has been well analysed by Professor
Willis, and the profusion of finely arranged and
well-wrought sculptures, make a wonderful whole.

The foundation stone of this chapel was laid on
January 24., 1502, by the king. The inscription
on it is given by Holinshed. In 1509, im-
mediately before his death, the king drew up a
will giving details as to his intentions for the com-

Master
M (250715.

* One of which was taken by Stevens, I believe, as a type of his
Wellington Monument.
222

MASTER MASONS

pletion of the chapel, and mentioning “a plat
signed by our hands.” It is probable that the
structure was nearly completed by 1512, when
Torregiano began the noble bronze efl’igies of the
late king and queen, after an earlier scheme for
the tomb had been abandoned. In regard to this
earlier scheme a memorandum, dated 1509, at
the Record Office, referred to more fully below,
states that Robert Vertue, Robert Jenins, and John
Lebons, “the King’s III m"' masons, say that the
workmanship in the black touchstone and white
marble will cost,” &c. There can hardly be a
doubt that one of the king’s three master masons
who were so consulted as to the cost of the tomb
was the chief master engaged at the same time in
building the chapel. Robert Vertue was probably
father or brother of W. Vertue, who about this
time was working at Windsor, and Robert Jenins
was probably a son of the master mason at St.
George’s Chapel.

There are, indeed, so many relations between
Edward the Fourth’s work at Windsor and Henry
the Seventh’s Chapel at Westminster, that‘it may
be well to give a glance back to the earlier work.
In a MS. Roll of 1482-3 entitled “ The Chapel of
St. George, Windsor,” the name of Henry janyns
is given amongst the “ officers,” as principal cemen-
tczrz'ur, receiving J(:12 a year ; John Tresilian being
principal smith at £24 58.; and Thomas Chan-
cellor, clerk to the works, at £10. The mason,
carpenter, and clerks received gowns of officefl“

This Henry Janyns may very well be a son of

* Record Office. Exchequer Accounts, 4.96, 28.
223

MASTER MASONS

the Robert Janyns who, about 14.50, was the
master mason engaged in building the tower of
Merton College, Oxford. 7'6 This relation may be
significant, as the vault of Henry the Sevenths
Chapel 1s a developed copy of that of the Divinity
School, Oxford.

In 1505 an indenture was made with John
Hylmer and William Vertue, free-masons, by which
they agreed to vault the choir of St. George’s
Chapel, according to the roof of the body (nave) of
the same in seven severies, with archibotants out—
side and king’s beasts standing on them [these are
now lost], but the pendants of the vaults were to be
more pendant and hollower than those of the body,
[so they are.] John and William bound them-
selves to find all manner of stone and timber, and
all things necessary with carriage, and to finish the
work for J(I700 by Christmas 1508.“?

Robert Ellis and John Filles, carvers, did some
of the tabernacles of the stalls, ‘and Derrick van
Grobe and Giles Van Castel were engaged on the
imagery. In 1510 William Virtue was granted to
be master mason during pleasure at the Tower and
elsewhere, with 12d. a day and a robe like the suit
of Squires of the Household, as lately held by
Thomas Danyll.

At a later date (1516) we find that Master
Vertue and Henry Redmain were working together
at Eton on the work at the west side of the court,
including Lupton’s tower. They each received a
fee of 133. 4d. A plat, and a picture of the front,

" Accounts printed by Thorold Rogers, “ History of Prices,” vol. ii.

T Tighe and Davis.
224

MASTER MASONS

are mentioned. Humphrey Coke was the carpen—
ter. He, in 1509, was paid 6s. 8d. for figuring
the plat of the Cloister. He was made chief
carpenter 1n 1519.

In 1520 Vertue again received 105. for super—
vision of the “ New Work.” As Willis and Clark
suggest, he must be the same William Vertue who
vaulted the choir of St. George’s Chapel, 1505-8.
The same William Vertue in 1512 assisted William
Este, of Oxford, to build Corpus Christi College..26

We will now return to the master of Henr
the Seventh’s Chapel. In 1501, the year before the
foundation of the new chapel, Robert Vertue re—
ceived £40, in part payment of £100, for building
a new tower at the Tower of London. In 1503
J(:10 was advanced to him in part payment for
making a new “ plat” at Greenwich. There can
now be no doubt that the senior king’s mason who
was the designer of Henry the Seventh’s Palace of
Pleasaunce at Greenwich (a great mass of buildings
something like the early work at Hampton Court),
and who, as we have seen, was referred to in
regard to the cost of the tomb in the chapel some
years later, was also the architect of the chapel
itself.

From the household accounts of Henry VII.
from which the above facts are obtained, it is

apparent that the building of the chapel was

* Papworth. Este had been the master mason for the king’s works
at \Voodstock. He is mentioned in 14.95, and in 1501 he received £800
in full payment for the building of Woodstock. Britiyé Mummy. Add.
7099. Howrah/d Exp, H 7. W. Vertue and Henry Redmayne were
still king’s masons in 1519, and the former was working as late as 1526.

P 225

MASTER MASONS
pushed forward very rapidly. Dating from 1503

some J£3000 were quickly paid in instalments to
the Abbot on account, then £5000 followed “by
indenture,” as well as nearly another thousand. 2‘
Holinshed tells us that the total cost was J€14,000.

The king’s chief carpenters about this time were
Story, working at Greenwich in 14.98, and Thomas
Mauncy, who built new chambers at Westminster
Palace in 14.97, and rebuilt Baynard's Castle in the
City.

The agreement of style between the details of
masonry at Westminster and St. Georges Chapel
is very marked, and it is therefore interesting to
find a relationship between the masters engaged at
both places. The choir vault of Christ Church
and the gateway of Tom Quad at Oxford also have
affinities with Henry the Seventh's Chapel.

Among the Cottonian MSS. (.A.ug A. 2.) is
preserved a large drawing for a tomb which, it has
been shown, is probably a design for the tomb of
Henry VI. ., which was to have been placed in the
new chapel at \Vestminster. We may assign this
“ plat” to one of the Vertues. The tomb appears
to have been begun at \Vindsor, as in 1501-3
Master Esterfield was paid for “the king’s tomb
at Windsor,” and a further sum was paid to the
same for bringing it to Westminster. It has been
thought, as money was also advanced to Esterfield
for works at \Voking, that he was a mason ;-i* but
he was rather the king’s man of business:

* British Museum. Add. 7099. T Gough ; also Papworth.

I In the Household Accounts some entries relate to his borrowing
£100 for the king.
226

RESTORATION
Mr. A. Higgins has suggested that the work

sent to Westminster was the bronze grille of Henry
VII.’s tomb, that it was being made by Ester-
field, and that he might be a Fleming. It seems
improbable that the brazen grate can be other than ,
London work, and it is mentioned in the will of
1509 as incomplete. Widmore has said that the
Convent actually brought Henry VI’s. body from
Windsor in 1501. Be this as it may, the king,
who was first buried at Chertsey, and who,
Henry VII. hoped, would be made a saint and
become the chief relic of the new chapel, ulti-
mately found a modest resting-place at Windsor?‘

The exterior of our chapel was entirely renewed
in the early part of last century, so that, in fact, it
is now only a full-sized copy of itself.
The external stone-work seems to have
been decayed even in Wren’s day ;
he calls it a nice embroidered work perfected in
tender Caen stone. Amongst Mr. Lee’s drawings is
one of about 1700—20, which shows one of the bays
to a large scale when the niches were still inhabited
by the statues which were afterwards removed,
“ lest the Ministry should be injured.”"l" The
parapet is also shown, the original form of which
has been discussed. In the restoration of 1807—22
the whole exterior was renewed by Thomas
Gayfere, the Abbey mason, acting under Wyatt,

* In the Egerton Collection, 2358, is a book of building accounts for
Greenwich, the Tower, and Westminster in [500—2. Walter Martyn,
John Carter, and John Tracey are named as masons.

’r Dart. In 1712, as shown by the accounts for Wren’s restorations
now in the Bodleian.

Rertora—
z‘z‘on.

227

RESTORATION

the most famous restoring—away architect of his
time. In a series of articles in the Gent/eman’r

 

Fm. ”ML—Statue of St.
Anne, Henry Vllth
Chapel. Drawn by l\lr.
R. \Vcbstcr

Magazine, John Carter chronicled
the usual stupidities of such work.
The old surface was entirely
chopped away and replaced by a
copy of that which could not be
copied. Before this time it had
been terribly let down, as may
be seen in Carter's description of
its state, but more by neglect
than decay.

A full account of the proceed—
ings which led up to this under—
taking is given by Cottingham.
Gayfere, the mason, was ex—
amined and asked: “ Is the
masonry so totally decayed ex—
ternally that the whole must have
a new ashlaring ? ” “ Certainly
not,” he replied, “ as many parts
of the present work, particularly
on the north side, are nearly
perfect. . . . The flying but-
tresses are all very much decayed,
as are all the domes ofthe turrets,
which work must come down as
low as the canopies at least."
The House of Commons Com-

mittee then ordered that it should be restored to a
substantial state, but without removing the parts
which were not decayed, and without reworking
any of the old surfaces, which were to be retained.

228

SCULPTURE

The Dean, however, gave the order to proceed,
unless stopped by an injunction, “ as originally in-

tended.” Later there was another
inquiry as to why the directions of
the House of Commons had not
been carried into effect, but it was
now too late. The “ unwise proce—
dure,” says Neale, “ was fortunately
counteracted by theflrm/mr of the
Dean.” The result was, as William
Morris put it, “Mr. Wyatt managed
to take all the romance out of the
exterior of this most romantic

work of the late Middle Ages.”

Some record of the forty-eight
statues which stood about the pin—
nacles has been preserved

the copied names
carved on labels forming part of
their pedestals, of which a list has
been printed?" They comprised
Apostles, Evangelists, Prophets,
and Ancestors of the Virgin.
Amongst the Apostles were Paul
and Barnabas. Among the Pro—
phets, St. John Baptist and the
three companions of Daniel—
Misael, Ananias, and Azarias. The
last group is an interesting point in

Sculpture.

 

FIG. 75.——Statue of
St. George, Henry
VIIth Chapel.
Drawn by Mr. R.
Webster

iconography if it could be guaranteed to be original.
The statues of the interior, nearly a hundred in
* By Mr. Micklethwaite. Amfla’o/agia, xlvii.

229

CONSTRUCTION OF THE CHAPEL

all, form our largest assemblage of sculptured saints
after those on the west front of Wells. They are
generally in good preservation and are full of char—
acter. It is hard to imagine a finer congregation
of stone saints. At the east end is Christ, with the
Virgin and the Angel of the Annunciation directly
to the right and left; then come the Apostles and
the most popular saints of the time.*‘ Lawrence
Imber, image—maker, mentioned below, may have
sculptured some of these statues, and I find in a
Roll of 1500 for works at Westminster, &c., the
names of John Hudd, “ sculptor," Richard Codin—
ham, Robert Belamy, and Nicholas Delphyn. 'i
Some may have been ordered from Master
Drawswerd, the well- known image— —maker of
York.

In his will the king provided that the walls,
doors, windows, arches, vaults, and images should
“be painted, garnished, and adorned goodly and
rich.”

Notwithstanding the redundancy of ornament
with which the building 1s overlaid, both “ithout
and within, the essential structure itself
Cozzrtruc- . . - ,

18 of a very high order of construct1ve
110/: of 1/16.. . .

imagination. The counterpo1smg of the
C/zapel.

wide central span by the stout buttress—
flyers; the weighty pinnacled buttress—piers designed
as a series of complete octagonal turrets rising from
the ground , the bay- —fillings, which are mere
window-screens between these turrets, bent and

"‘ Sec Mr. Micklethwaitc’s admirable paper.

T British Museum. Egcrton MSS. 2359.
230

”a

CONSTRUCTION OF THE CHAPEL
bowed on plan (Fig. 76); and, above all, the

vault, are all extraordinary inventions.

The vault, which seems at first to be a question-
able tour-defame, combines conflicting excellences
with surprising skill. Perhaps the chief problem
of vaulting has been how to open out high Windows
in it while allowing the vault
itself to spring sufliciently low M
down on the walls. In the
church the'windows are pushed Fxc. 76,—Bay design,
high up into the vault, but Henry the seventh’s
the wall—ribs springing from Chapel
the same height as the great
transverse ribs leave only very acutely pointed
spaces for the windows. Here, in Henry VII.’s
Chapel, the spaces left are almost square the whole
way up. This is accomplished by springing the
vault—filling not from the angles next the walls but
from the main ribs, some distance in from the walls ;
and the spandrels of the main ribs, below this point,
being pierced, permit of the windows being seen
through these piercings in a raking view. The pen—
dants are immaterial to the principle of the vault,
and ifa diagram be made shearing them off in the
line ofthe big arches, and removing all the ornamen—
tation, the value of the solution offered by this
vault will be apparent. As geometry and stone-
cutting it is wonderful. The web of the vault is
only about 3%— inches thick. The constructive
scheme is much more clearly evident in the vault
of the Divinity School at Oxford ‘(6. 1480), as
there the great transverse arches are not hidden by

the vault web, and the pendants are much less pro-
231

BRONZE WORK

nounced. The likeness is so great, however, that
we must speak of the Westminster vault as a copy
of that at Oxford.

Figure 77, A is a diagram of the constructive idea
of the vault of Henry
VII.’s Chapel. In con—
sidering it, it is evident
that in its simplest terms
it is a cross—groined vault
over oblong compart—
ments, the curve of the
transverse penetrations
being segments of the
highest and central part
of the longitudinal vault.
The lower part of the
longitudinal vault be—
comes in this scheme a
series of arched wall—
spandrels. Now the vault

A R over the choir of Christ—
I’m. 77.—Diagram of Vault church, Oxford, is foun-

System, Henry VIIth’s Chapel ded d1T€Ct1y OI] tlHS SOIU‘

tion (Fig. 77 B). In this
the upper part of the arched ribs are hidden in
the vault surface as at Westminster.

 

 

 

 

 

The tomb—screen, or rather chantry, is an extra—
ordinarily beautiful work, one of the most masterly
Bra/12.8 pieces of.‘ metal. casting in‘ Europe. It
[Work is conceived With great frankness as a

' little building ot brass, all ot open-work
lattices, traceries, and brattishings, with turret—like

2;:

BRONZE WORK

projections at the corners, all the details sharp and
Vivid; and the inscriptions, badges of greyhounds
and red dragons, and images, are triumphs of skill.
“There they set up his monument, in a brazen
impalement which looks like work not of our.
moderns but of Bazaleelf‘f‘

In his will Henry VII. speaks of it as “ a grate
in manner of a closure of copper, and gilt, after the
fashion which we have begun, which we will by
our said executors be fully accomplished.”

In or about 1506 Lawrence Imber, Drawswerd
of York, and others, made estimates for the images
for Henry VII.’s tomb. The first—named probably
made the patterns for the existing bronze “ grate”
or “ closure,” with its statues of Apostles and saints,
which was begun before the king’s death, as the
estimate of the tomb sets out that he was to make
“ patrones ” in timber of the images which were to
be cast by Nicholas Ewen, and speaks of him as
“ the Imagere ” and carver. Thomas Drawswerd
was one of a famous York family of image—makers.
He is mentioned in the Cathedral Fabric Rolls of
14.98. He was Sheriff of York in 1505, M.P. in
1512, Mayor in 1515, and was still living in 1529.1"
About 1508 he carved the screens at Newark.

A copy of the original estimate in the British
Museum f of the proposed tomb which was never
executed in that form, is entitled “ An estimate of
the charge for making of a tomb for K. Hen. VII.
to be erected in his Chapel of Westminster, which
plott was afterwards disliked by K. Hen. VIII.

* Hacket. “ Life of Bishop Williams.”
T Rayne, in Surtees Society. I Harl, 297.
233

BRONZE WORK

and altered according as it now stands.”6 The
original at the Record Oflice is endorsed in the
hand of Henry VIII. himself: “A remembrance
of certain names and prices for making of a tomb.”ri"
The document reads: Lawrence Ymber, karver,
for making the patrones in timber. The Imagere
saith that the two images which be lying in the
tombe, and the kings image kneeling upon the
tombe—the workmanship perfectly done - 4 Lordes
images kneeling upon the tomb : 12 small images
in every side: will cost £64..

Mem. Drawswerd, Sheriff of York, for the
same, to make them as well as can be done,
&c. &c., J€36.

Humphrey Walker, founder, says how much fine
yellow metal would be required for the nineteen
images great and small.:

John Bell and John Maynard, painters, say that
the royal painting work in colours, and workman-
ship that shall be done, would cost . . .§

Robert Vertue, Robert jenins, and john Lebons,
the King’s III. master masons, say that the work-
manship of the black touchstone and the white

“ For Torregiano’s work. T Gairdner’s Cal. Hen. VIII.

I He was a gun founder, and was appointed gunner at the Tower
in 1509. In ISI',‘ he supplied iron shot (cast iron 3) for the Kings
artillery.

§ It is dillicult to think that the gilt bronze was to be picked out with
painting, but the effigy of Margeret of York, in the south aisle, has the
face and hands and the fur of the robe painted. The engraving in
Sandford shows that the angels at the foot carried banners, one of
England, and one of the red dragon of Wales. These bearings must
have been painted, and it seems from Mr. Higgins’ account that there
was painting on the efiigies.
23+

BRONZE WORK

marble stone for the said tomb after the manner of
the moulding of the patrone that Master Pageny
got made will cost £84 ; which will be delivered
ready wrought within one year.

Master Finche and Roger Thorney, merchants,
say that 100 ft. of touchstone for the ledge and
base, and 80 feet of white marble, will be enough
for the sides and ends.

It has been shown by Mr. Micklethwaite that
Pageny must be the English version of Paganino,
the name of an Italian artist who was at this time
engaged on a tomb at St. Denis.*

The design, whether specially prepared by
“ Pageny” or adapted from a model of his work
can be interpreted from the description. It was
to be of black and white marble about IO by 6 ft.;
around the sides were to be twelve small figures and
on the tomb full—sized efligies ofthe king and queen,
also the kneeling figure of the king attended by
four lords. To carve the models for these nineteen
figures of bronze, “great and small,” Lawrence
Ymber and Drawswerd of York were thought the
most able in the kingdom, and gave competitive
estimates for so doing. These estimates give the
original scheme for finishing the tomb in due rela-
tion to the grate begun in the king’s lifetimes?

Some of the small figures which still remain in
the niches of the grate are probably Ymber’s work.

* See for this, and all Renaissance work at the Abbey, Mr. A.
Higgins’ admirable paper in Arréa’o/ogim/ 7011777121, 1894. [have no
doubt that Torregiano’s noble effigy of Henry VII. was the original for
llolbein’s portrait, the cartoon for which is at Chatsworth.

T It is noted also that the wood pattern for a bronze effigy at
Ormskirk had been carved by John Hales.
235

BRONZE WORK

Manyof them are lost. Some were stolen 1n 1570,
and further damage seems to have been done in
164.3, when, it is said, “The stately screen of
copper richly gilt, set up by Henry VII. in his
chapel, was by order of the House reformed, that
is, broken down and sold to tinkers."* But this
is a great exaggeration. Mr. Burges spoke rather
slightingly of the little bronze images belonging
to the grate, but this opinion, I think, needs
revision. For their purpose they seem wonderfully
forceful, and not without grace. The St. George
at the west end is, perhaps, especially beautiful.
The others are the Confessor on the south and
St. James Major 011 the east, all in the upper range.
Below, on the south, are St. John the Evangelist
with the cup, and St. Bartholomew, carrying his
skin over his arm, also a prophet on the north.
The general arrangement was doubtless to have
the twelve Apostles occupying the whole east end
and the lower range on the south, with prophets
below to the north. The figures of the upper
range—north, west, and south—if we may judge
from St. George and the Confessor, and the indica—
tion of kings given on Sandford's engraving, were
national saints.

.The existing tomb of Henry VII. and of his
queen was the work of Torregiano, the Florentine,
who entered into a contract for the work in the
year 1512, to make “well, surely, cleanly, work-

‘ Quoted in Haines’ “ Brasses," p. cclv. In 1556 john Russell,
m' carpenter, was paid J{:10 for repairing “the house where the tomb
of copper standeth at \Vestminster, that the same may be more safely
kept” (Jupp. Carpenter’s Company).

230

GLAZING

manly, curiously, and substantially,” for the sum of
J£1500, a tomb of marble with “images, figures,
beasts, and other things, of copper gilt.” The
work seems to have been completed about
I 18.

5The tomb of Margaret of Richmond in the
south aisle ofthe chapel is also obviously by the same
artist, although in the accessories the style of an
English assistant is seen. This, indeed, is also the
case with the king’s tomb, in which the large rose,
with its supporters of a greyhound and a dragon,
at the north end, is clearly English work, as also
is, very probably, the coat—of—arms at the other
end}:é

The three portrait statues are truly magnificent
works of art, both in their design and modelling.
Although so splendid they are yet simple, quiet,
and serious, and the faces and hands are entirely
noble. While not so romantic and unapproachable
as the thirteenth—century statue of Queen Alianor,
these are altogether the. greatest sculptures ever

wrought in England.

The glazing of the chapel seems to have been of
“stories and images ” in brilliant colour above;
and of badges below. Sketches of some
of the latter are preserved in the
Powell Collection in the British Museum. Hatton
says that much of the glass of the western Window
was “ finely stained,” and those of the aisles were
“ painted with the fleur-de—lis, rose, and port-
cullis crowned.” Some fragments still remain,

"" Mr. St. John Hope.

G lazing.

237

GLAZING

especially in the tracery of the west window,
which is filled with roses, feathers, and other
badges.*

This glazing was almost certainly the work of
Bernard Flower, the most famous glazier of the
time. The design for it is mentioned in the king’s
will of1509.—VVe will that . . . the said chapel
be desked, and the windows glazed with stories,
images, arms, badges, and “ cognoissaunts,” as is by
us ready devised and in picture delivered to the
Prior of St. Bartholomew, master of the works of
the said chapel.

Now we find an account of Bernard Flower’s
which shows that he, with Andreano Andrew and
William Ashe, was doing a large quantity of glass
(“ of Normandy ) for Henry VII. at Westminster
and Greenwich from 1500 to 1502. lVloreover,
amongst seven contracts made for completing
King’s College Chapel in 1516 was one with
Galyon Hoon, Richard Bowde, Thomas Reve,
and James Nicholson, all glaziers of London, for
windows “after the form, manner, goodness,
curiosity, and cleanness of the windows of the
king’s new chapel at \Vestminster, after such
manner as one Bernard Flower, glazier, lately
deceased, by indenture stood to do.” They also
undertook to deliver to Francis \Villiamson, of
Southwark, and Simon Symonds, of \Vestminster,
good and true patrons, otherwise called valizmm,
for four upper windows of orient colours after the
manner of the king’s new chapel at \Vestminster,
and according to the manner done by Bernard

* Neale gives the fullest account of what remains.
2 38

STALLS

Flower.* The wooden stalls are very German in
feeling, and this may be accounted for by the influ-
ence of such carvers as Derrick van Grove and
Giles van Castel, who, as we saw above, were
engaged at St. George’s Chapelxi'" ,

The arrangement of these stalls and the position
of the king’s tomb have been changed as described
in “ Gleanings.” We have also to imagine the glow
of the windows and the first splendour of the gilt—
bronze chantry. Still, however, it must always
have been true as it is now, “that which most
gluts the beholder’s eye is the incomparable roof.”

* The glazing at Hampton Court for Henry VIII. after 1530 was
by the first named “ Galyon Hoon, the king’s glazier,” who glazed the
forty—eight lights of the great bay at 5d. a foot.

T Some of the carvings have been identified as copied from
engravings by Durer and other German artists.

239

CHAPTER XII
WESTMINSTER SCULPTORS

Image Makers : Westminster Sculptures : Master John of St. Albans :
Masters Alexander of Abingdon and William of Ireland: Master
Richard of Reading: Effigies: Hawkin of Lie'ge : Westminster Hall :
Henry VII.’s Chantry.

He made an image ofmtai/e,
So fair yet ”can am figure.
GOWER.

IT is impossible to divide ofi" those who practised
sculpture from ordinary free—masons. In Italy
Image NlCCOlO Pisano was a “stone-cutter”
Makers. equally expert in all the branches of

the craft. In France Jean de Sorgnoles
(I359)* was called “magon et ymageur.” In
England John Bell, mason, agreed, in 14.88, to serve
the Chapter of Durham for “all their works of
masonry with imagery and other,” being without
deceit, obedient, and buxom. And in the agree—
ment for the sculptured Jesse—tree reredos in St.
Cuthbert’s, Wells, made in 1470, John Stowell, free-
mason, undertook for forty pounds to execute
“the workmanship and masonry craft of a Jesse
front.”

Sculpture was also largely produced in shops,
and there was a class of image-workers and
marblers who made and distributed tombs just as
there was a class ofgoldsmiths who sold cups, or of
woodworkers who made chests and other furniture.
Besides “tailleurs d’images," who devoted them—

“ (iotlefmi : Dict. Old French,
:40

WESTMINSTER SCULPTURE

selves to carving images, there were even others
who were specially painters of sculpture.*

In this way sculpture of the highest excellence
was distributed, and when, in remote country
churches, tomb efligies of wimpled ladies and
mailed knights are found, which are almost exactly
like those of Aveline or Crouchback at Westmin-
ster, we cannot doubt that they were ordered from
London or some other important centrerl“

The marblers of Corfe, the alabaster men of
Nottingham, the masons of Barnack, and the
bronze—founders of London and Gloucester, did large
distributing trades. Gothic art, we must remember,
was not only wrought at buildings, but in all the
shops ofall the towns. I have not found any Guild of
London sculptors mentioned; they and the marblers
may have formed one fraternity. The earliest names
of London sculptors known to me are Thomas
the image-worker and Richard his son, in 1226.1:

At Westminster only the wreckage of the sculp—
ture which once adorned the church now remains

to us, and this is perishing day by day

esz‘mz’n— .
Zr almost unrecorded. Until about 1870
the carvings of the entrance to the
Sculpture.

Chapter House, preserved by their coat
of paint, were comparatively perfect, but in a
generation they have mouldered out of all form.
One of two angels which guarded a central figure
of the Virgin, less injured than the rest, is an

* See Etienne Bolicau. Regulations of the Crafts of Paris, c. 1250.
1‘ In the Paston Letters we have a record of the ordering ofa tomb.
I “ Liber Albus,” p, 26.

Q 24.x

WESTMINSTER SCULPTURE

extremely beautiful fragment. The sculpture of
the outer order of the great arch forms a tree of
Jesse. Jesse can still be seen at the bottom on the
left, and David with the harp next above. The
lowest figures on both sides are much alike,
probably the Royal line is figured on one side and
the Priestly line on the other.

The colouring of this door has been noticed on
page 4.2. From Malcolm we learn some further
particulars of the painting with which this door-
way was once adorned. The sculpture of the great
arch was gilt, the hollows being coloured black and
scarlet, the foliage of the tympanum was also gilt,
and the sub—arches were decorated with white
foliage on a red ground, and with gilt flowers.

Within the Chapter House the two magnificent
figures of the Virgin and the Angel of the Annun-
ciation, which stand, one on either side of the door,
are nowhere surpassed in effective action and ele-
vated expression, and may stand with any architec-
tural sculpture in the world. The angel formerly
had wings, which were fixed by morticesfi“ In the
short Roll of Accounts for 1253, two images
wrought by task—work for 53s. 4d. are mentioned,
and these may be the very imagessi‘ It is to be
noted that this account is headed “\Vork at the
Church, Chapter, and Belfry,” and everything goes
to prove that the Chapter House was being finished
in this year. The little figures set in the meander
of foliage up the jambs of the doorways are also
lovely, and even now large photographs would
record much of value and beauty. These figures

“ Scott’s “ Recollections.” T As suggested by Mr. E. 8. Prior.
2+2

WESTMINSTER SCULPTURE

are, I 'believe, the patriarchs. At the bottom
Adam seems to pluck a fruit; a little higher,
Tubal Cain or some other holds the symbol of
some craft, and still higher is Moses. ,

Around the interior great arch the figures are of
prophets. These belong to the cycle of subjects
which usually accompany the Virgin, and I have
no doubt that the centre of the tympanum once
contained her image. The destruction of the tym-
panum goes to confirm this. The Prophets are set
in a carved moulding entirely undercut, and when
examined closely are seen to be of great beauty.

In the church the noble angels swinging their
thuribles high up in the transepts are the most
important sculptures which remain. Two figures
on the intermediate arch spandrels on the south side
have not been explained.* Figures of Henry III.
and the Confessor stand in the window jambs of
the north transeptj“ and small half figures of angels
are carved in the soflites of the arches of the same
windows, and some of Cottingham’s casts of these
are now in the Architectural Museum. In the
catalogue of his collection twenty-four are described.
Each one held either a palm-branch, a crown, a
chalice, a quadrant, a sun-dial, or a musical instru—
ment, such as cymbals, dulcimer, bell, harp, Viol,
and reed—pipes. In St. Faith’s Chapel there are

some corbel-heads which are marvels of swift

"‘ The best suggestion that I can make is that the figure to the left
is the Confessor, and the figure to the right is the Pilgrim. It is possible
that it represents the giving back of the ring, and in that case the two
lost figures of the north transept would have been of the more usual
scene. Jr See Neale.

2+3

WESTMINSTER SCULPTURE

cutting. This chapel had been out of use and had
never had gas, that most destructive agent, burnt
in it until about eight years ago, and the stone-work
here is consequently very sharp and fresh. On the
north side, notice a lady’s head, with linen head—
dress, a smiling negro, and two grotesques. Also
on the south side, three heads in the recess, the
central one being very noble; the exaggerations
are just enough to make these heads tell in the
’ shade. High up in the North Transept forming a
corbel, above which stood an image, is a very
characteristic man’s head in good condition. It
looks like the portrait of a lay master, and may
very well represent John of Gloucester, mason, or
John of St. Alban’s, sculptor (Fig. 67). In the tri-
forium around the apse there are also some delight-
ful corbels designed as half figures. In a window
recess, recently opened out at the south end of
the muniment chamber, some heads and bosses
are perfectly preserved. One large head to the
right is of extraordinary beauty, and a boss of a
woman fighting a dragon is a master work. The
spandrels of the wall—arcade of the ground floor are
filled with foliage and figures. On the west side
of the North Transept are Michael and the Dragon,
an angel censing, a thorn-bush and deaf adders—all
very fine. In the north—east chapel of the North
Transept are others; one of St. Margaret. In
St. Paul’s Chapel there is some delicate figure
work behind the monuments, how delicate can be
seen from some fragments in a case in the Chapter
House ; one cf the groups seems to be of St. Anne

teaching the Virgin. In one of the south—east
2+4

MASTER JOHN

chapels is an angel with extended arms holding two
crowns. In the spandrels of the choir-arcades are
a fine series of coats of arms. The bosses of the
west aisle of the north transept have figures.

All the sculptures mentioned, with the exception
of the shields of arms, are comprised in the first
M work of Henry III., which was being

aster . ,

70/1”. finished about 1258—60. Now in I 257—8

John of St. Alban’s, “ sculptor of the
king’s images,” received a robe of office while work—
ing at Westminster along with Peter of Hispania,
the painter, and Alexander, the carpenterfi‘ In
John of St. Alban’s, therefore, we have the master
sculptor of these works of art. That there was a
school of sculpture at the Abbey at this time is
shown by the fact that the year after this John of
Gloucester, “ keeper of the works,” was to cause the
keepers ofthe works at St. Martin’s (le Grand) to re—
ceive five imagine: regum {7262'er z'nframa petm. Two
years later, again, the keeper of the work at Ludgate
was to have thirteen free stones from the king’s mason
at Westminster ad rat/[Mm]. images for the gate.

The accounts for the Alianor Crosses (1292—4)
show that the still—existing statues of the queen at
Master: Waltham were sculptured by Alexander
flkxmzder of Abingdon, [e zmczgmcztor, and those
121d at Northampton were by William of
EVz'I/z'am Ireland,and we even know that they cost

' £3 68. 8d. each (5 marks). These
statues are of great beauty, romantic yet so quiet,
"F Close Rolls.

3-4.5

MASTERS ALEXANDER AND WILLIAM

the crown of English Gothic sculpture. Funny
old images ! How few care for them, or know of
Alexander of Abingdon or William the Irishman,
the sculptors who wrought them. These same
sculptors cut the images for all the other, now
destroyed, crosses, so that we cannot doubt that they
belonged to the Westminster School of Artificers.
The Charing Cross figures were by Alexander, so
that he was probably the chief master sculptor
of his time. The name of Alexander, [6 imagour,
occurs twice in the City Letter Books, in 1305—12.*
Dr. Sharpe has been kind enough to inform me
that in the first case the sculptor enters into a bond
for a debt, and in the other promises to perform
work for the parson of Stanwell Church, as he had
undertaken by indenture. These agreements,
entered at Guildhall, show that Alexander was a
citizen of London, and that be supplied images
for country churches as mentioned above. The
Alianor Crosses were finished about 1295. In the
following year Edward Crouchback died, and it
may be that his efi’igy is the work of one of the
imagers named, although,judging from the style,
the erection of the tomb was delayed for several
years. The figure of Aveline, his wife, on another
tomb, closely resembles the queen’s statues.
Aveline was a great heiress; she was married in
1268, and died while a girl of twenty-one in 1273.
Her statue is terribly decayed; its memory is best
preserved in Stothard’s etchings. The sway and
draping of the body are exquisite. Her husband‘s

* See Sharpe’s “ Cal. of Wills,” i. p. 558. The Letter Books have

now been printed.

24,6

MASTER RICHARD

statue is in better preservation, and is an ideal
knight’s figure ; a lion at his feet is superb, and the
weepers are only surpassed by those on Aymer de
Valence’s tomb.

Three heads, a king and two abbots, on the
sedilia, being of wood and out of reach, are well
preserved, and very fine both in workmanship and
expression. They were carved about 1308. The
have never been carefully drawn or photographed.

Aymer de Valence died in 1323. His effigy is
perhaps even finer than that of Crouchback ; cer—
tainly the weepers are the most exquisite small
sculptures in England. They are of the gayest type,
and show close observation of character and gesture,
of the fashionable fall of mantles, and the proper
way to hold gloves, and are as vividly studied as
Tanagra figurines, and should be of much more
concern to us. There are casts of some of them in
the Soane Museum taken some hundred years since
when they were more perfectfl"

In 1324—5 certain “ imaginatori ” ofLondon were
paid for working images for the stone choir screen
at Exeter, but their work has disappeared.

In 1333 Master Richard of Reading was paid
£3 65. 8d. for making by task-work images of
St. Edward and the Pilgrim for the
Master , -_
. gable of St. Stephens Chapelri‘ In
ch/zard. . . .
1319 a R1chard of Reading, p0551bly
the same, was interested in some tenements at
* We may note here that an artist while making a crucifix for a
Yorkshire Abbey in the middle of the fourteenth century, had a naked
man, whom he strove to imitate, constantly before him. Jusserand’s

“ Lit. Hist. Eng,” p. 265. T J. T. Smith.
247

EFFIGIES

Westminster.9E In default of better evidence we
may assign the sculpture of Aymer de Valence’s
tomb to Master Richard.

The effigy ofjohn of Eltham (died in 1336) and
the bright little “weepers” in the “ hovels” or
“housings” around the tomb might, as it is of
alabaster, have been, like so much later sculpture
in this material, wrought at Nottingham. (The
image of Edward II. at Gloucester is, I think, by
the same sculptor.) There is a reference to
this tomb which I can hardly explain. In 1351
Edward III. wrote to the abbot that the body of
his brother, John Earl of Cornwall, should be moved
to some fitting place “ entre les roials ” agreeable to
the devise of the Queen—mother Isabella, places
being reserved for the King and his heirs. With
all its beauty, Prince John's tomb is just a little
shoppy and over—easy; but the extraordinarily
delicate tabernacle which once surmounted the
tomb must have given it the mystery it now lacksri"

This effigy, as it can so easily be examined, may
serve as an example of how the mediaeval sculptors,
E/f/qzl’r. being stone—cutters and not clay model—

‘ L lers, always filled their work out to the
full size of the original block. Notice how from
the practical point of view the angels at the head and
the beast at the foot were put in just to square out

* Hardy and Page. Middlesex Fines.

’l‘ Dart says it was of “delicate wrought spires and mason’s work,
intermixed and adorned with little images and angels.” The tomb
proper is remarkable, the alabaster being cut out so that what is left is

very thin ; the ground about the weepers was then pierced, and the whole

backed with dark stone. For canopy, see Sandford.
2+8

EFFIGIES
the block, and how all the points of high relief

come to one plane so that a drawing—board might
be firmly placed on the statue.*‘ So much for the
influence of workmanship on design. It is hardly
a paradox to say that everything may be traced to
that, as from another point of View all may be
traced to poetic instinct. And this 18 perfect art,
the long developed tradition which wholly inter-
penetrates the material conditions with spiritual
purpose.

From the side of thought, the little angels and
beasts have a pretty history. In early sculptures
Christ is represented as treading evil beasts under
foot, and on efiigies of bishops of the end of the
twelfth century the tip of the crosier is often
thrust into a dragon at the feet of the figure
With secular persons lions or dogs usually take the
place of the dragon, but the meaning is parallel;
the knight or lady tramples on the things of this
life. The angels at the head of the efl'lgies are not
merely smoothing the pillow of the dying, they
are there to bear away the soul. [n the illumina-
tion of the death of the Confessor at Cambridge
(6. 1270) two angels are shown receiving a little
figure which issues from the king’s mouth. At the
head of Aymer de Valence's image there is a little
figure supported by two angels; this was the
knight’s soul. Two sculptured angels wait by
Aveline’s pillow; but in a painting, once in the

trefoil of the gable above, they appeared again

* Crossing the legs of efiigies was done from the same practical reasons,
itgave more substance across the weakest point of the legs above the
ankles.

2+9

EFFIGIES

rising with the Aveline of the new life. The
typical tomb effigy thus suggested the passing of
the soul, and the putting underfoot of the things of
this life. St. Louis, when dying, had the Crown
of Thorns placed at his head and the crown of
France placed at his feet.

In 134.7 Thomas Chaucombe, [e ymagmarzm, of
London, died, and left to his son William all the
tools of his craft. And in the fatal year, 134.9,
John de Mymms,ymagz'n0ur, died and left tenements
in St. Mildred’s, Poultryfi" In 134.8 John Toft,
“mason, was carving at St. Stephen’s, at 6d.
a day; and from 1351 to 1358 William de Padring—
ton, ’mason, was working at St. Stephens. He
was paid for stones for an image of St. Stephen,
and for two images of men—at—arms, and 63. 8d.
each for making twenty angels by task—work ; also
£1. 63. 8d. for an image, in stone found by himself,
ofJohn le Wayte , also [:8 for making three kings
to stand in tabernacles; and £8 for making two
images of men- -at— arms; and A4. 85. for making
eleven images for the stalls.~’i" In the Archer
Collection at the British Museum is an excellent
drawing of a small sculptured head found at
St. Stephen’s, of the very finest type of this middle
period.

William de Lyndesey, a carver ofwooden images,
of London, was paid in 1367 for a “ table " (reredos)
with wooden images for the chapel in \Vindsor
Castle; he also received ten marks as a gift, a very
handsome 01164,”.

"‘ Sharpe’s “Cal. ofVVills.” T J. T. Smith. 1 Issue Roll.

250

HAWKIN OF LIEGE

The tomb and effigy of Queen Philippa, who
died in 1369, is wholly of black and white marble,
Hawéilz and the effigy is not in alabaster as often
0/. Liége stated. It resembles Flemish-work, and
. ' it has been found that Hawkin Liege of
France, was paid £133. 68. 8d. (200 marks) for the
work in 1367?“ This Hennequin de Liege was a
famous sculptor, working in Paris in the middle
of the fourteenth century ; he was a pupil of Jean
Pepin de Huy. It is said that only one other work
of his has been preserved, the statue of Blanche of
France at St. Denis, and he died before it was
completed. The combination of black and white
marble was at that time the popular fashion in
French tombsd'“

Ten years later railings were put to the tomb,
and John Orchard, “latoner” (not stonemason as
usually said, but bronze worker), was paid for
making six figures of angels for it.

Scott gives a good account of this tomb. The
white marble efligy, a portrait evidently, was
decorated with patterns in gold, coloured glass
jewels, and with beads on the head-dress. ML]. T.
Irvine “found that the little traceried windows in
the canopy over the head of the queen had had a
thick plate of deep blue grass placed behind them
as a sort of ground.” The weepers around the side
and their canopies had all been broken away where
exposed, but about 1850 Scott cut into the base of
Henry V.’s tomb “ and brought to light the whole
design, including two niche figures, and one exqui-

* 40 Edward III. Haukino Liege de Francia pro factura tombe

Philippe. 1‘ S. Lami, “ Diet. Sculpt. Franeais,” I898.
251

HAWKIN OF LIEGE

site little angel, one of the many which adorned
the tabernacle work.” He also found one of the
canopies, and other fragments “on the chimney-
piece of Mr. Cottingham’s office.” These, with
some other fragments which were at the Abbey,
were refixed in position, and Mr. Cundy, the Abbey
mason, made a restored model of one end with
figures by Mr. Philip and decorations by V’Villementfi‘
This model is now at South Kensington Museum,
and it shows the position of the little angel spoken
of above, which, in another place, Scott says had
wings of gilt metal. It was afterwards stolen, but
a cast had been made. What became of the cast?
The two weepers found by Scott still remain within
a protecting grating, one of a lady, with a hawk or
puppy in her hand, is, I think, uninjured—the
other has lost its head ; this was broken off while
opening out the work, and was afterwards stolen,
but a cast had been made from it by Scott, which
is probably the cast now in a case in the Chapter
House. If this head were found to fit,and the whole
were photographed, we should at least have a
record of two of these figures—they are, of course,
decaying while exposed to the air but undusted.
These figures had gilt patterns on their draperies,
the hair was gilt, the eyes were touched with blue,
the lips with redri“

All the coats of arms once beneath these figures
are tricked in the Lansdown MS. 874. Sandford’s

* “Recollections,” p. 16+.

1‘ These figures, now in utter darkness and never seen, should
probably be removed to a place where they might be protected under
glass.

252

HAWKIN OF LIEGE

engraving shows the queen’s hands and crown,
both now broken away. In Coney’s etching of
the chapel the iron railings, which protected the
tomb towards the ambulatory, appear. They came
from old St. Paul’s, as described in “ Gleanings.”
In the Tufton Street Museum is a standard so much
like these that I think it may be one of them.

It is evident that the tomb was commissioned
some years before the queen’s death, and was added
to in Edward’s last year. At this time Orchard
was also paid 203. for “ two images of alabaster,
placed upon a small marble tomb, for the infant
son and daughter of the queen.” This, it is well
known, must refer to the tomb of William of
Windsor and Blanche, in St. Edmund’s Chapel;
205. can hardly have paid for them; it probably
had reference to incidental expenses. There can
not be a doubt that these little figures were
wrought by the same hand which did a similar
small tomb in York Cathedral. Both are probably
Nottingham work.

Before 1368 Peter Macon, of Nottingham, made
a great alabaster “ table ” for the High Altar of the
chapel in Windsor Castle at a cost of J€200. It
was an elaborate reredos, and was carried in many
carts to Windsor from Nottingham. In 1376
Cardinal Langham died. We have seen that Yevele
the mason was concerned with the erection of
his tomb. The fine effigy of alabaster is also
probably Nottingham work. It is decorated with
inlays of blue glass, and was heightened with paint-
ing. The coats of arms on the tomb still show
colour and gilding. English alabaster work became

253

WESTMINSTER HALL

very fashionable in the fourteenth centuryfi“ In
1382 some large alabaster images were exported
from Southamptonfl" and a good deal of later work
is still to be found in France.

At Westminster Hall, in 1395—6, Robert Bras—
ington was sculpturing angels bearing shields, and
W John Wotton and William Hall were

est- . . .
”21.th also carvmg there. In 1398—9 Wllllam
Hall Cleuddere and John Aldw1ch were en—

' gaged there. The former sculptured
four images and some pinnacles. These images
may be four of the six kings which stood in niches,
three 011 each side‘of-the south window ; they are
shown in Sandford’s View of the Hall ; and from
Carter’s detailed etchings we can identify three of
them with as many large figures now in the Archi—
tectural Museum, Tufton Street. Of large scale,
and rough 1n treatment, they would just suit the
dim light where they were placed. They are
finished with a claw tool. The other three seem
to have been put back in the Hall, where, as far as
can be seen, two or three look old.

Henry the Fifth’s Chantry is adorned with several
statues. Above, in the reredos of the chapel of the
H ,5 Annunciation, are six figures in niches,

my“ d 1 bbl Ch t dg
C/zzmtry. an a sevent 1, pro a y ris as in e,

is destroyed. Right and left of its
empty niche are figures which together represent
the Annunciation. Next to these, again, are two
kings, the one to the right, Edward the Confessor
* Sec l‘lrrkmolng/l'd/ Yuan/(d, 190+. ’l‘ Rymer.
25+

HENRY V.’S CHANTRY

with the ring, and the one to the left, St. Edmund.
The two end figures are the patron saints of
England and France—St. George, a fine armed
knight, and St. Denis, carrying his head. At
the east end of Henry the Savant/2’: Chapel
the three central images are Christ with the
Virgin and Announcing Angel. The pair form—
ing the Annunciation so closely resembles the
similar subject in Henry the Fifth’s Chantry that
we may say that one was copied from the other.
It follows that the central figure was also probably
copied. On the western face of the chantry are
also several figures. Above, in the middle, two
kings holding buildings in their hands, are possibly
King Sebert, the mythical first founder of the
Church, and Henry 111.534 Below are two bishops
or mitred abbots (SS. Wulsin and Dunstan P) On
the staircases above the doors are two important
figures, one of whom is a king with his right hand
raised, and the other is an aged man with a wide
pilgrim’s hat hanging behind his head. These
must represent the Confessor giving his ring to St.
John disguised as a pilgrim. Other statues are of
deacons, one to the right, probably St. Stephen,
while on the left is a Virgin martyr, probably St.
Catharine. Facing north and south are two
ecclesiastics, and two pretty little figures, one St.
Barbaraxi'

None of the later tomb efligies are of special
mark. That of the Duchess of York in St. Ed-

* Or Henry III. and Henry V. himself, the latter as the builder of
the nave of the church
1‘ For Henry VII.’S Chapel, see p. 229.
255

HENRY V.’S CHANTRY

mund’s Chapel is the best. If we would see what
fine sculpture was still being wrought in the
middle of the fifteenth century we cannot do better
than examine the tomb of the Duchess of Clarence
and her two husbands in the south transeptal chapel
of Canterbury Cathedral. Here, by a refinement, or
a trick, the white linen kerchief of the lady, and the
robes of the angels, are finished white with a comb,
in contrast to the rest of the polished surfaces.
The alabaster effigies of Sir Giles Daubigny and
his wife (1507) in the Abbey are not nearly so fine,
but they were allprobably wrought at Nottingham.

The following alabaster men of Nottingham are
named from about 14.80 : Nicholas Godeman
(14.79), Nicholas Hill (14.91), Thomas Hill (1496—
1502),John Lingard (14.95), \Valter Hylton (1.1.96),
Richard Starky (1529).

 

Fm. 78.——Hcad in Triforium

256

CHAPTER XIII

PAINTERS OF THE WESTMINSTER
SCHOOL

IVIaster William : Master Walter: The Retable : Coronation Chair :
Tombs : Sedilia : Chapter House : Portrait of Richard II. : Apocalypse '

Series.

THE earliest London painter I have found named
is Henry, the painter, who lived about 1193 in
M J a stone built house belonging to St.

{.mi‘r ’ * Three ainters workin for

William. Paul S' P g

Henry III. about 124.0 were Master
William at St. Swithin’s, Winchester (to whom we
shall return below), Thomas, the painter, of Chert—
sey, who made images for Windsor in 1241, and
Master Nigel, painter, working at Winchester
Castle in 124.5.

Three other painters, of whom the names are
well—known, are heard of a few years later. These
are John of St. Omer, Peter of Hispania, and
William of Florence. The first seems to have
been a Frenchman, the second a Spaniard, and the
third an Italian. The gathering together of so many
painters shows what a culture-centre Westminster
must have been at this time, and we shall be as
justified in speaking of the School of Westminster
as of the School of Siena.

In 1249 John of St. Omer was commissioned to
execute an important piece of work for our church.
He was then ordered by the king to make a
lectern for the new Chapter House like one at St.

*‘ Cal. St. Paul’s Documents.
R 257

A ‘

r] E?

44
A.
:1

l"

     
   
    

. ' ‘ K -: ' I ‘
_ ..
., . ' . I .
. ‘ -.]‘l .': ' ,":~r_-v ‘ {14“. _
‘ ‘ , >2 4 . 1' . 1/ A
' ‘ wpmu.‘ .L.‘ , .. ‘%;o‘ .- .‘x v .42. 1 .7 , ,
' ‘ M 4m - * .l 2:. " ., I , . . A I
a w *lw ‘1‘ u 1 . h __‘ __>_ w, - 4
, . , ' g , _ ' . ..... . , _.—
,. :- ‘ :‘Ina. '. . <-
‘ , . ‘4' ‘ . .1 \\
, 4 .

W?

m?»

it

5?

\53
€1-
35?

v W 'I PM
J «h m. ,

‘q‘ w;l-l~'u
I ' I ,I u I y . 1'

~23

\\“ x

 

 

ILI‘ IL" "Li‘sl‘fvrqf //
T‘ L’. ’,,"n' [I
F‘Wéfisi‘
‘ I
n .‘ P?!“ H —
I v .4 '
j \

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

   

, 4
N4 Mug-Van ‘

‘
v

 

Fm. 7g.—l‘uintcd Altar—pica of St. Faith‘s Chapel.

MASTER WILLIAM

Alban’s, only better if it could be. In the
Fabric Roll of 1253 we find that he was then still
engaged at St. Alban’s with a carpenter and assis—
tantfi“ In 1272 he painted the king’s wardrobe,
and his name occurs so late as 1293.

Peter of Spain’s name also appears in the Roll of
1253 as engaged on work for the church, and
at some time before 1272 he painted two “ tables”
for the altar of the Lady Chapel. In 1260 “ Peter,
the king’s painter,” received a robe of office.

William of Florence was engaged at the king’s
castle of Guildford from 1259, and in 1278 he was
addressed as “ keeper of the works and our
painter.”

The most famous of these early painters of the
Westminster School was the other Master William
named above, who is frequently mentioned in the
orders and rolls of Henry 111., from about 1240
to 1280. He is called “ Master William, a monk
of Westminster” and “ Our beloved Painter.” 1.

In 1256 he is referred to as Master William,
lately of Winchester.§ In 1251 the king ordered
that Master William should paint the newly—built
Cloisters at Windsor with the Apostles. A head of
a king of remarkable early work still exists there,
and has been protected by glass ; this we may,
I think, assign to Master William.

*‘ Mr. Page is surely in error when he says that over one hundred
men Were engaged on this work. The documents to which he refers are
concerned with the Westminster dunk, and the work at St. Alban’s was
only an item. Arc/zzeo/ogizz, lviii. 1' Close Rolls.

1 See Walpole, Rokewode, Hudson Turner, and “ Gleanings.”

§ He had been made painter of St. Swithin’s while it was in the
King’s hands.

259

    
  
       
    
  

MASTER WILLIAM

There is in the chapel of St. Faith, at the Abbey,
an altar—piece evidently painted about 1260-65 as
its first decoration. (Fig. 79.) On the left, in the
attitude in which the artist or donor of a work
was usually represented, is a small figure of a
kneeling Benedictine monk ;
this is most probably Master
William, at once the painter
and the donor. (Fig. 80.)
He was paid for work at
Westminster Palace in 1256,

       
  

, $1115”’i‘fiii“u .
', ,1“ 4.; 4111111". ii

       
 
  

{ "i/fl

. ' I .’ ‘5‘ , 1t

‘1' ’v M.) ."l 511,311,113, ‘\“

H’i‘ 31,1111 it‘llimli ’11 «(fining 1.13;, f _ .Y
" ' " ‘ I'lhw‘f .
"'i‘ll will .

‘ imp”: iii :11
l Willa.

lip"

  
 

 
  
      
 

  

‘1‘"?1111511113117511%"? {.iiillifs'ilzii'». , and in I 2 59 John, the king s
'""1’i’llifijliii/"f?ailii‘illlfflliilii1'11l mason, was commanded to
'g I i I", , ""U'”, 9' . .
‘5 . . Illiv‘éifizgl’llgmfiiyfil take “ to the house in which
y . ,, i".ll""vr ll ,‘ {VI in " ‘ ‘A‘f ' ' ° .
\Wflx “W ,., William, the king’s painter,

works,” the Cross of the
donor, at side of painting Infinnary ,Of,the ‘Abbeyfie .
Fig. 79 The painting of St. Faith
is the most remarkable
early Gothic wall-painting now remaining to us.
Within a painted niche stands a female figure in
a swaying attitude, gracefully draped, and more
than tall. The colour, when it can occasionally he
seen on a summer afternoon, is beautiful; her
mantle ofrose-purple is lined with miniver; the face
is quiet but full of passion, and the hands are well
drawn. She holds a book and a gridiron, and wears
a crown, emblems of the rule, trials, and reward
of faith. Beneath, in small panels (eight-pointed
interlocking—squares in form), were other paintings ;
on the central panel the Crucifixion with figures of
Mary and John. From the praying monk, and

* Close Rolls, +3 Henry 111., M. 12.

FIG. 80.—l’aintcd figure of

260

MASTER WALTER

slanting up towards the saint’s figure, is inscribed
a prayer. The painting, which is done with swift,
sweeping touches, is in true tempera, and it has
never received the attention it deserves.*

Master William was succeeded by an equally
celebrated artist, Master Walter of Durham, also
Warner king’s painter to Henry 111., who, from
Walter. 1262, decorated the famous Painted
Chamber of the palacerf‘ He was still
working for Edward I. at the beginning of the
fourteenth century. In the accounts for the burial
of Alianor we find that he painted the tester over
her tomb in the church about 1292.7; The paint-
ing on the basement of the same tomb, of which a
mere stain still exists, must also be this master’s
work. It showed, in the middle, a closed tomb, with
a group of mourners at the left, and at the right
a knight (Edward I P) kneeling before the Virgin
and the Holy Child. Without a clue it would be
impossible now to decipher more than the shadowy
forms of four figures on the left, but such a clue is
supplied by a drawing of the knight by Kerrich
in the British Museum. Dart also described it
nearly two centuries ago : “ There yet appears,” he
says, “a sepulchre, at the foot of which are two
monks ;§ at the head is a knight, armed, and a

* Such tempera is entirely diEerent from the coarse distemper work of
ordinary wall-paintings. Eggs, wine, oil, and varnish are mentioned
with the colours in accounts for some of Master William’s work. I have
also seen marble dust mentioned, possibly for the grounds.

1’ I have given an account of this in the Burlington Magazine, 1905-

I flrrnwo/ogin, xxix.

§ The others were then hidden by a tomb.
261

MASTER WALTER

woman with a child in her arms.” Kerrich was
an accurate draughtsman, and his drawing shows
that the kneeling knight was a beautiful figure ; his
chain-mail was partly covered by a surcoat with

 

 

 

'I-R-T'lfi Q. “ 77 7 fl 7"-
WA 3 .x u » A x“ .x . _
C\:‘\\M§“l\\ O _ ‘ \ > K \ ". \\_

7/”

, 4/ / r, , ,/
1/ ,4 I / ,“fl/[lrfl' ,, g], .
HM 4:"

, {If} V /

i 1

/, , ,
-/ 3 {474/ 5, / r
’63 ,, h ”I

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

FIG. 81.-—Painting on the Tomb of Queen Alianor

broad green and white vertical stripes crossed by a
66ml of scarlet. On taking a copy of this drawing
to Westminsterl found that the figure could still in
great measure be traced ; moreover, it was evident
that the “ woman with the child ” was seated on a

low throne, and was the Virgin holding the Christ

Child towards the knight. This I have found con—
firmed by another, rougher sketch in the Powell
Collection in the British Museum, which shows the
Virgin and Child clearly, with a note appended:
“ What I have here set down I could vouch for per-

sonally.” As Burges pointed out, the group at the
262

THE RETABLE

foot of the tomb was of secular persons. The
scarlet hood of one, and a row of buttons on the
sleeve of another, can still be seen. The meaning,

I think, must be that the king, (in his habit of a

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

FIG. 82.—Continuation of the last

crusader?) prays to the Virgin for the soul of
Alianor, while all kinds of people mourned at her
tomb. A contemporary writer says of her:
“Anglicorum omnium amatrix.” I have made a
restoration from all the evidence in Figs. 81 and 82.

The most beautiful thirteenth-century painting
in England is the Westminster altar retable now
T/ze in the Jerusalem Chamber. It is de—

corated with glass inlays and jewels,
Rc’l‘rlé/e‘. . .
and 18 made to resemble a piece of

enamelled gold-work. From some ornamental
263

THE RETABLE

borders imitated from Cufic writing which occur
on it, and which are frequently found in French
work,I had thought that we must suppose that
this altar-piece was brought from France, but Mr.
S. C. Cockerell has recently shown that similar
ornaments are found in the Winchester Bible,

which is certainly of Eng-

ZJL£°221tLg lish work, and much earlier

, than the retable?‘6 If we
FIG. 83.—“Cufic decoration ” . .
from an English MS. Bible, once get OVCY thls PW":

Corpus College, Cambridge there are so many resemb—

lances between it and the
work of Master Walter at the Painted Chamber
that we may fairly assign it to this master—
thus, the curious flat bosses of the ceiling were
similar to the boss-like forms on the retable ; and
in the Chamber inlays of glass and spandrels of blue
glass, like those of the retable, were represented.
On the ceiling, as on the retable, larger brooch—
shaped bosses alternated with smaller ones, and
when we are told that the ceiling of the Chamber
was painted in compartments,l suspect that the
forms of the interlocking squares of the retable
were copied there, and it is probable that the
bosses were set with coloured glass like the retable.
We may at least say with certainty that the altar-
piece was known to the master of the Painted
Chamber.

In the middle panel of the retable stands Christ
in majesty holding the universe in His hand.
Right and left are the Virgin and St. John, each

* A specimen of this kind of decoration from a book at Cambridge

is shown in Fig. 83.
26+

THE CORONATION CHAIR

holding a palm branch. Hers must be that which
was brought to her at the announcement of her
death, and his that of martyrdom. The small
intermediate panels contain beautifully executed
miniatures of the miracles. One of the end panels
represents St. Peter, the other is destroyed, and
may have represented the Confessor—or possibly
St. Paul. The field between the panels which
contain the paintings is filled with pieces of blue
glass with branches of vine and oak raised on it in
gilt gesso. In other places strips of glass are inlaid
over painting upon gold which results in a close
imitation of enamel, and the frame is set with
imitation gems. The background of the central
tabernacle is a true mosaic of little morsels of glass
of two colours shaped into octagons and squares.
Amongst the gesso diapers on the columns there is
one of lions and eagles set in interlocking squares,
which is identical with the decoration on the sur—
coat of Edmund Crouchback’s efiigy, and this
supports the theory of the Westminster origin of
the work. See also Fig. 85.

From the wardrobe accounts of 1300—1 we learn
that the Coronation Chair was the work of Master
Walter, the “ king’s painter” to Ed—

T/ze . . .

. ward I. A close examination still shows
Coromztzon .
C/zaz'r that the whole surface was covered With

flat gesso gilt upon which patterns
were embroidered, as it were, by lines of punched
dots. It was drawn and described by Carter. On
the “back” was the seated figure of a king.

Burges had the fragment of this, which was all that
265

THE CORONATION CHAIR

remained a generation since, carefully drawn. The
engraving in “ Gleanings ” shows that the feet of
the king rested on a lion. (Fig. 84.) The subject re—
presented must have been
Edward I. himself or the
Confessor. The rest of the
chair inside and behind
was patterned with pricked
diapers and foliage, much
of which, I find, has sur—
vived even the last var—
nishing; two or three
more varnishings, however,
will obliterate it. Inside
the dexter arm is a diaper
enclosing animals ; the op—
5-" , posite surface is covered
‘32:: ‘73: with a beautiful pattern
of birds amongst oak fo-
liage, “redbreasts, and
falcons,” Carter says. This
and the diaper were figured
by Burges, but the pattern
is much larger than I
had supposed from his
woodcut, which is only a fourth or fifth of full
size.’*

The four narrow panels outside the sinister arm
are covered with designs of thorn, ivy, vine, and
possibly maple, and similar work filled the panels
behind. The little spandrels between the cusped

GA 0

5!

arm

 

 

Fm. 8+.-Al{cst0mtion of painting
on Coronation Chair

* The full-size drawings prepared for Burges belong to the Society
of Antiquarics.

266

TOMBS

heads of these panels and the tracery of the gable
behind were evidently filled with inlays of glass.
Carter fortunately drew one of these, and says:
“ The spandrels were decorated with small sprays
painted on a metal ground [gold or silver foil] and
covered with glass, as may “-

yet be seen in three or four fl)” ‘J 3W1 ll'liillsQ‘izi‘f'f‘;

‘5 l '\, (11’ -‘
places.” And there was WE {} i .0/ f \ “Lu/ggi‘fg;
;.‘ t l 55 ‘:J3 ‘ 3 f“:
‘1 - \

   
    

    
   
    

1

i! .
a:

similar decoration on the

, 9:11? ’ \ s. . .,
front face of the gable. g-“ a“ tiff-i7? .l\
Early in last century the 7,: \%,<Ԥlll :I/
“ old crockets and turrets ‘ j W Vé’fi
at the back were sawn off,” 3 _ lily/{.92. "

 

 

in preparation for a coro— .
nation.* The lions beneath
the chair are modern.

 

 

 

 

 

The three remarkable ,
tombs on the north side of »,.—
T077255. the presbytery '

were probably
decorated early in the four-
teenth century. Aveline’s .
tomb was entirely COVCI‘Cd FIG. 85.——Gesso decoratlon on

. . . . . the Jamb of the tomb of
w1th gildlng and pa1nt1ng. Aveline
(Figs. 85, 86 and 87.) The
carvings and weepers were gilt, and the image was
fully painted. There are yet some traces of painting
on the pillow, being arms set in lozenges, painted
in transparent lacquer colours over a gold ground,
giving the effect of translucent enamel, which
I have not seen elsewhere. The tomb of her

* Neale, ii. 304.

 

267

1-51.... I 1.9..

A» 3— “—3 In M.
1:3 z? .. .I fiefiIL .

      
 

. .su.iaasuII-fls...ss§iE§

  

     

\ 3 ‘1‘ I}! W.

—
— lira: 5—555—155—55J
’ a

           

    

. agar/II
r... .32?

 

        
  

.IIJII'L: r II '.x . I. ¢ 4 III, III . 'L-I"¥Iv‘
a .—=I-.-I.I==.—I==.= it: n: . . . . . : 1 I u.

     

33%? . I IIIIIIflLallflrr
I..===.=—===.=-..-,— .5: == -.==..=. ====.===—=I-==.

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

.Iintcd decoration on

__p

I

8—

FIG. 86.—Dccor;uion

tomb. From

I of :‘n'clinc‘s

mu]

of Arch-moulding

c'h‘fl.‘

v

/ vc‘tmm 31911.77.

()8

.,
a

TOMBS

husband, Edmund, was still more splendid, for
large use was made of enamel—like patterns painted
on gold, recessed in little panels, and covered with
glass. Many of the patterns can still be seen, but
several years ago only one tiny morsel of glass, half
an inch big, remained. The
figure was not only painted,
but the drapery was diapered

all over with a delicate pat—

  
  
 

       
  
 

? ’” ”31de
I I 1" '.

( ‘ All/ll?" ,.

. xf

I
1
r

   
   
  

i“:

  

tern. This effigy and the (it"s; 41/, iii
neighbouring one of Aymer, : i,if‘%fidf2
have now no shields; it is {$5}?!
possible that they were ori— {iii}

ginally separate works of
enamel like the shield of
William de Valence. The
mouldings of the architec-
tural framework of Edmund’s “on in gesso from Crouch-
tomb were simply covered back's tomb
with raised gesso patterns
and armorial bearings alternating with roses. Dart
says that the ground of the pediment was blue set
with fleurs—de—lys. The inside of the canopy
proper was “ a sky set with stars.” The mouldings
and sculptures of the tomb proper were entirely
gilt ; the hollows and recesses were coloured bright
red and green. The shields above the weepers
have the bearings modelled in gesso. (Fig. 88.)
The outer basement had a painting of a row of
knights holding banners of which a small coloured
engraving was published by Carter. Stothard’s
original drawings of the tombs are now in the
British Museum, and amongst them I have found
269

FIG. 88.—Small Shield with

TOMBS

outlines of these figures, accurate as photographs.$26

(Fig. 89.) .
Stothard has published admirable coloured en—

   

 
 

llili:

 
 

i: g? ,

     

‘3}: .

    

l
”i

 

 

 

 

 

FIG. 89.—Part of painting from basement of Crouchback’s tomb

gravings ot the effigies of Aveline, Crouchback,
and Aymer de Valence. Some further particulars
as to the latter appear in a drawing in the Powell

"‘ Comparing the heraldic coats as shown by both artists, one or two of
them can be identified. 1 is Red with a saltire ; 2, Paly red and white
with :1 Bend ; 3, Red with a white Cross ; +, Cheeky a canton ermine
(Drcux); 5, Blue a Lion rampant gold or silver with a red Bend
over all; 6, Checky blue and white a red Fess (Cliflbrd); 7, Gules a
Cross pateé (Albemarle).

27o

THE SEDI LIA

Collection. Not only was the tunic barred with
blue, but it had the red martlets of Valence ; and
the pillow was covered with lozenges bearing the
Valence and Chastillon arms.

The seats of the priests on the south of the
presbytery are of wood, but they were decorated
in harmon with the o osite tombs.

T/ze . y . PP
Serif/2'4 (Fig. 90.) The trefofls of the gable
' fronts were set Wltll red glass over
a gold ground; the spandrels were plated With
blue glass on silver foil. The mouldings and
carving were gilt, parts being burnished. The
hollows were bright scarlet.‘* The corbel heads
were set with imitation jewels. In the large
panels—four within and four facing the ambu-
latory—there were originally eight large figures.
The four on the outside represented, as we
know from early descriptions, Sebert and St.
Peter, and the Confessor giving his ring to St.
Johnsl' Traces of the figure of the Confessor, with
his extended hand holding the ring, can still be
seen, but the others have been destroyed: On the

* See Ayloffe, in “ Vetusta Monumenta,” I780. The original
drawings for this account, dated 1775, are at the Society of Antiquaries.

“l Dart.

I A rough engraving of the figure of the Confessor is given by Dart,
and a better version by Malcolm. At first sight it seems to have dis-
appeared, but on closer examination the upper part of the figure can be
made out and traces can be followed down to the feet, which come down to
the bottom of the panel. The head, with its long white beard, is fine ;
the hands are gloved; the left holds a sceptre, the uplifted right the ring ;
the tunic is green, the mantle (purple, [ think) is fur lined. A copy
could still be made by an expert.

271

THE SEDILIA

inside were two kings, an abbot or bishop, and
another figure now destroyed. The kings are still
in fair preservation, and are, in every way, remark-
able works, and most probably represent Henry III.
and Edward I., the latter of whom died the year

‘
g!
a!

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

ANCIENT ENCLOSURE NEAI THE HIGH ALTAI. OF THE ABBEY CHURCH.

FIG. 90.——The Sedilia in 1821. After Harding

before the sedilia were erected in 1308. These
figures were very carefully drawn by G. P. Harding
in 1821. They are about 8 ft. high, and their
heads and hands are very well drawn. Both have
their mantles lined with fur and both wear gloves.
One is an old man, grey bearded, the other younger
and beardless. The red background to the younger
king is powdered with little heraldic leopards,

which proves him to be an English king, and I
272

r 111/
u. I

\ffiqykcc
s. ‘.

m‘rawfifiqefw

xt

 

 

75.

Drawn in I 7

Z!

i

MIN/15”!“

i1

FIG. 91.-——Figure from Scd

0)

F.“ I

[fa-{[1]

//

THE SEDILIA

think a then recent one. The other king, to the
left, bears a type of sceptre, which seems to suggest
that he was a builder (compare Of’fa in Nero D. 5).
As the other two founders—Sebert and the Con~
fessor—were painted outside, we may confidently

call this King Henry III. (Fig. 91.) The accounts

 

“

FIG. 92.—l)ainting on Soflitc of arch above Sebert’s tomb

of the Painted Chamber in the palace show that
Master Thomas, son of \Valter, the painter, was
working there with him in 1307; and as \Valter

was now a very old man, we may, with proba—
bility, give the credit for the sedilia to \Iaster
Thomas, who appears to h ave succeeded his father
as king’s painter.

In an account at the British Nluseum for work
at St. Stephen’s and “La Blanche Chambre,"
Master Thomas of \Vestminster is called “painter
to the works. " ’3“ lVlI Pave has recentlv show 11 that
a Master Walter, 21 painter, livinor in Bowgate,

"‘ Add. 30263.
37+

OTHER PAINTERS

St. Albans, had, as next door neighbour, one
Thomas, the painter (living in 1290); these he
suggests are Walter and his son who painted at
Westminster. This Thomas, he says, died early
in the fourteenth century. This coincidence is
remarkable and the theory possiblefiie

Master William seems to have received as much
as 2s. a day, Master Walter received 13., and his
son, while working under him as assistant, had 6d.
Painting stood just on a level with the other arts,
from masonry to tailoring, but I believe they did
not then laugh at tailors.

In the Roll for Works at the Painted Chamber,
1292—4, the name of Richard de Stokwell appears
Ot/zer as working under Master Walter, and

. receiving 6d. a davd“ I find him men—
Pamz‘err. . . . I. .
tioned again in a W111 of 1338. In this
year he was one of eight “ best men,” of his ward
of Cripplegate, appointed to “ patrol the City day
and night to preserve the King’s Peace.” 1: In
1349 he died.§

In 1274 Master Stephen, the king’s painter,
redecorated Westminster Hall. Towards the end
of the XIIIth century Abbot John de Northwold,
of Bury St. Edmund’s (1279—1301), “ had the
choir made and painted by the hands of a certain
monk of his, John Wodecroft, a painter of our
Lord the King."H

John Albon was king’s painter to Edward II. in

* Arr/M’a/agia, lviii. l” Rokewode.
1 Letter Book F. § Sharpe’s “Wills.”
ll Dr. M. R. James. “ The Abbey of St. Edmund.”
275

CHAPTER HOUSE
1326, when he painted a book of heraldry for the

king. He seems to have been a persona gram to
the foolish king, for in this same year yak de St.
A/éon, peyntr [6 R01, danced before the king on a
table and made him very greatly laugh.

John, a canon of St. Katherine’s by the Tower,
“the king's picture painter '" (Edward III’s.),was
paid in 1354. and 1366 for painting “tables” of
images for the chapel at V’Vindsorfi“

William Burdon, the painter, and his assistants
were painting and gilding the Rose Tower at
Windsor in 1366 at Is. a day, and the next year
William de Burden, “the kings painter,” was
working on a costly “great tablet for the altar
in the chapel. i This must be the reredos men-
tioned on another page (p. 253).

The paintings next in order are those which
filled the eastern stalls of the Chapter House, and
C/ of which only some fine heads now

lapter " d lso a record of the
Home remam, an a”

general compos1t10n made when they
were first discovered about a century ago. The
paintings belonged to the period when important
decorations were being painted in St. Stephen’s
Chapel under the direction of Master Hugh of St.
Albans, kings painter. They are particularly
interesting in that the heads, which are remarkablv
fine, show distinct Italian influence. The subiect

was Christ as Judge surrounded by adoring angels

These paintings “ere fully described be \lr.

\Valler in 1873.111 the centre was Christ se1ted

‘ Issue Roll. 'f lighe and Davis.
276

CHAPTER HOUSE ‘

on the celestial globe, blue spotted with stars, His
feet resting on the lesser globe of the earth; a
crimson robe was draped about Him, and With
raised hand He called attention to His wounds.
Above, four angels’ heads appeared over a curtain
which they lifted behind Christ. Right and left
were two standing angels in white. The one on
the proper right held a T cross, nails, and the
spear—the one on the left, the scourge and reed with
the sponge. In the compartment on the proper
right of the centre was a cherubin with siX wings,
with extended hand holding a crown, and another
object in the other hand from which depended two
strings, probably a seal. His feet were on the sun,
or a rayed wheel, which flamed about them. The
cherubin on the left was similar, but held two
crowns, and the feathers of his wings were in-
scribed with the names of beatitudes. The two
outer bays were filled by rows of adoring angels,
and similar angels filled up the background of the
three central bays. These paintings were only
discovered in 1801. An attempt has been made to
preserve them, but since “treatment” they have
almost entirely perished, and we have no copies of
them except Carter’s small sketch which shows the
general composition. They have been well de-
scribed by Sir Charles Eastlake, who assigned them
to the middle of the fourteenth century ; and J. T.
Smith says that he was persuaded that they were
executed by the same artists Who painted St.
Stephen’s Chapel. A few years ago I was able to
read parts of the inscriptions on the plumes of the
wings of the angel on the right—Simplicitas,

277

PORTRAIT OF RICHARD II., ETC.

Humilitas, &c. The nimbuses are gilt and pat-
terned with thick black lines. The mantle of Christ
was bordered with a pattern in gold and had a clasp
of gilt gesso.

We next come to that extraordinary work,
the portrait of Richard II. now hanging in
Portrait 0/ the prfisbytery. ThlS p1cture used,
Ric/Ian] as we ave seen on p. 24, to occupy
II. (96. a place at the back of the east stall in the

southern row. We have Just said that
the kings of the sedilia were probably Henry III.
and Edward I., and this judgment seems to be
confirmed by the position in the choir of this
portrait of Richard II. This painting, and another
on the tester of his queen’s tomb, is referred to in
the Issue Roll 19 Richard 11. thus: “To Master
Peter, Sacrist of the Church of the Blessed Peter,
Westminster. In money paid him by the hand of
John Haxey in discharge of J(:20 which the Lord
King commanded to be paid to him,as well for paint—
ing the covering of the tomb of Anne, late Queen
ofEngland, buried within the said church, as for the
removal of a tomb near the tomb ofthe said queen ;
also for painting the said tomb so removed, and for
the picture of a certain image portrayed in the
similitude of a king in the choir of the church.”’:*
The contrgfizcte of this entry has been translated in
“ Gleanings," “to correspond with another placed
opposite," but, as Mr. St.]ohn Hope has suggested
to me, it must be the Latin form of the word can—

* Pro pictura uniusymaginis ad similitudinem unius regis contrefacte

in choro ecclesire. Issue, l’clls, 19 Richard II.
278

PORTRAIT OF RICHARD II., ETC.

trqflzz't used of a portrait, and which, as we see on
p. 290, appears in a contract for the images of
Richard’s tomb. In the album ofVillars de Honne-
court we find a drawing of a lion which the artist
says was contrcfaz'z‘ a 7);]:

The most considerable painter I can find named
as working in London at this time was Herebrecht
of Cologne, “ citizen of London and painter,” who,
in 1398, was engaged in painting a splendid altar-
piece for St. Paul’s, where he was still engaged in
1403* It is possible that he was the painter of
the portrait. It is a magnificent work in design,
execution, and deep, full colour. It was painted
on a patterned background of raised and gilt gesso—
work, which unfortunately was restored away when
the picture was cleaned by experts. It must be
the finest fourteenth-century portrait existing in
Europe. Fortunately there is preserved at the
South Kensington Art Library a photograph of
this precious work before the decorated background
was removed-l- (See note on p. 283.)

The canopy over the tomb of Richard has also a
background of gilt gesso-work, and there can hardly
be a doubt that it is by the same hand. The sub—
jects are Christ in Majesty, the Coronation of the
Virgin, and two pairs of angels supporting shields
of arms. It is in every way a remarkable work.
(Figs. 93 and 94..)

On the blank wall in the south triforium, by
the muniment room, is a large, rough, distemper
painting of the badge of Richard II., a white hart,
now much defaced.

* Cal. St. Paul’s Documents. T Mr. E. F. Strange showed me this.
279

PORTRAIT OF RICHARD II., ETC.

An account is preserved at the Abbey for the
making of Abbot Littlington’s great missal, a

av

'r'w" v.,~ ..-‘ '~
:5? 3936. r . '

, ' hm.” ' VW‘FEIV
, N [3; Meal
w tau )‘vfirl'l! _-i ”bill": "if; .
, iiilii'l‘liiwui ”l: “1 a" 'r/ it'll-ii ii, I, ’

v
V r
4 ”A,

1.

V“

f

v
a:

v
32

. ‘1 823.10.

5'3
1:0
0‘
of
48” "
U
’9‘.
W

e- 7%

Lil
FL?” WWW

O

x».
‘I

g}:
”as?

. m ., .
t”
I‘ If
.fi‘h U
' «56"351.

- 5...

 

 

 

 

<5"???
, . , ii

 

 

 

FIG. 93.——Onc-half of Canopy over tomb of Richard II.

beautiful illuminated book now exhibited in the
Chapter House. Thomas Preston received £4,

28o

. ._. 52,-; «a,
, M13 “I

PORTRAIT OF RICHARD IL, ETC.

and 203. worth of Cloth for two years’ labour in
writing the missal. The large illuminated letters

 

-.- s

 

. if. V . ' 1’

IX

 

 

 

 

FIG. 94.—Othcr halfof Canopy over tomb of Richard II.

cost no less than J(:22, the whole cost being
J(:34. 14.8. 7d. It was completed in 1384..

281

APOCALYPSE SERIES

Several works painted in the church, at the end
of the fourteenth century and later, are named
in a document given in the Appendix of Stanley’s
“ Memorials.”*

Brother John of Northampton in the time of
Edward IV., caused the series from the Apocalypse,
still existing in the Chapter House, to
be painted. These paintings are ar—
ranged in bands in the wall-arcade with
great decorative skill, and the general colour is quite
beautiful. The inscribed labels between the pictures
are written on paper and; stuck to the wall. The
series shows us St. John in Patmos and prostrate
before the vision of the Majesty. \Ve see him
writing his messages to the churches, which are
represented as seven buildings. An angel stands in
the door of each one. Christ is represented between
the golden candlesticks, a sword in His mouth, and
the Elders cast down their crowns. The heads of
the arches contain pretty half figures of angels : at
the bottom of each panel animals were painted, such
as the dromedary, camel, and reindeer; this last
has faded very much, or has been washed out Since
I made a sketch from it ten or twelve years ago.
According to Mr. \Valler‘s paper on these paint-
ings,*l' animals were formerly visible inscribed:
reynder, ro, wild ass, tame ass, dromedary, kameyl,
lyon ; and on the riser of the top step were
creatures of the sea.

Some still later paintings, which once decorated

Apaca—
[ypre Series.

* Third Edition.
’r London and Middlesex Archaeological Society, 1873.

to
CC
(0

APOCALYPSE SERIES

Islip’s Chapel, are shown on the Roll on which the
ceremonies of his burial are depicted. In the upper
chapel was a large Crucifixion with the Doom
above. According to Weever : “ In the Chapel of
St. Erasmus” (so he calls it), “where he (Islip)
lieth buried, upon the wall over his tomb, was the
picture of Christ on the Cross seeming to give
counsel to mankind” (in Latin verses which are
given).

“ Under was the picture of the Abbot” praying

thus in old poetry:

En cruce qui pendis Islip miserere Johannis
Sanguine perfuso reparasti quem pretioso.

* Weever, “from old MS.”

Norm—Some years ago Mr. S. C. Cockerell mentioned to me that
he thought that the Portrait of Richard II. might be by Andrien
Beauneven, of Valenciennes, painter to Charles V., who Froissart said
painted in England as well as in France. Some drawings, which Mr.
Roger Fry has recently shown are probably from his hand, are so like
the portrait in style that I am now prepared to accept Mr. Cockerell’s
suggestion.

I have spoken on p. 276 of Italian influence in paintings executed
by, or in the time of, Master Hugh. Now in French inventories of
this time paintings of Lombardy are mentioned as precious things, and
I find in the will of our master, “ Hugh l’ayntour,” that in 1361 he left
a splendid North Italian painting (unam tabulam de VII peces de
Lumbardy) which had cost him £20. (Sharpe’s ; Wills.)

283

CHAPTER XIV
METAL WORKERS AND GLAZIERS

Bronze Founders: Goldsmiths: ilacksmiths: Plumbers and other
Craftsmen: Glaziers.

THE bronze efligies of Henry III. and Alianor of
Castile, which lie on their tombs on the north side
B of the Confessor’s Chapel, are the most
‘ronze b I lGothi c l t resin the church
faunderr. ea-uti u cs u p u
or in England ; indeed, of the efligy 01
Alianor especially, it may be questioned from the
mere concurrence of three accidents—the sub—
iect, a beautiful queen; the moment, the very
apogee of Gothic art ; and the noble material, gilt
bronze—whether all Europe can show such another.
The figures were both being made in 1291 by
MasterWilliam Torel, goldsmith of London.* From
an entry in the Close Roll of this year we can tell
the very day when the model was approved and
the casting ordered for the statue of the kingpi“
There were two other similar images of the queen
placed at Blackfriars and at Lincoln, and Torel
seems to have received £113 65. 8d. for the
three.
VVykes has recorded how Henry III. was first
buried in the old tomb ofthe Confessor. His body

* “Gleanings,” p. 148. It is possible that the queen’s efiigy was
begun during her lifetime. I/iitl. p. 15+.

1‘ Order to deliver to \Villiam Torel, the maker of the laton effigy
(imagini: . . . ([3 [(111010) of the late king, the necessaries for making it.
And to pay Willi;.m Sprot and John de \Vare, for obtaining the
metal required. Cal. Close Rolls.
28+

BRONZE FOUNDERS

was probably translated into the new tomb in 1292,
as in that year his heart was given to the Abbey of
Fontevrault. Some years ago, when the back of
the bronze plate on which the figure ofthe king lies

 

FIG. 95.—Part of Bronze Effigy of Henry III.
From Vellum M omzmenta

was examined, three small figures were found
scratched on the metal with the graver ; slight, yet
done with a master’s power. (Fig. 96.) On the
right was a veiled queen, and a smaller figure of
a nun, their hands uplifted in entreaty, and ap-

proaching a single figure on the left, incomplete
285

BRONZE FOUNDERS

but dignified. This queen, it seems to me, must
be Henry’s widow, Eleanor of Provence, with
one of her nuns of Amesbury, praying to the
Virgin. (Fig. 96.) The queen did not die
until June 1291. She had taken the veil (in

 

 

FIG. 96.—Figures engraved beneath Effigy of Henry III.

1284.) at the same time as Mary, a daughter
of Edward 1., who we miy suppose to be repre-
sented with her grandmother. I have tound a
reference to Master \Villiam Torel twelve years
later than when he was engaged on the effigies.
In 1303 the king’s treasury at \Vestminster having
been robbed, an inquiry was instituted by several

juries, on one of which served \Villiam Torel, who
286

BRONZE FOUNDERS

gave evidence that he had purchased of the accused,
Richard Podlicote, two ruby rings?!e

Over the head of the Queen’s efligy is a canopy
from which two pinnacles have been broken off, and
from marks on the “ table”
it is evident that there were
once small side-shafts, from
which the arch of the canopy
seemed to spring. A seal of
Alianor is so much like her
tomb in the design of the
figure, the shields hung on a
tree, and other points, that I
cannot doubt that it is also
the work ofTorel. (Fig. 97.)
In any case, we may say with
certainty that the design of
the effigy was influenced by
the seal. In both the right Fm. 97__Sea1 onueen
hand of the queen holds a Alianor
sceptre, the left the mantle
strap ; in both castles and lions are set on the field,
and there is much resemblance between the
canopies.

In the monumental inscription which surrounds
the efligy there used to be a lacuna caused by the
angle of Henry V.’s chantry which covers it.

 

* The final verdict of the aldermen of London on this great case
was that the sacristan and two monks contrived the burglary. That
John Albon, “ mazun,” his man, and Podlicote broke into the treasury.
The last was found, “seized ” with coronets, cups, &c., of the value of
£2200. The sacristan had a bowl of “unknown value.” William
Torcl, Thomas de Frowick, and others bought objects in good faith.
Letter Book C.

287

BRONZE FOUNDERS

Some years ago enough of this was cut away to
reveal the hidden portion, of which a plaster cast
was taken and placed in the Chapter House. The
whole reads :
+ ICI : GIST : ALIANOR : IADIS : REYNE : DE ENGLE-
TERRE : FEMME : AL REY : EDEWARD : FIZ : LER [EY :
HENRY : EFYLLE : ALREY : DE : ESPAYGNE : ECONTASSE :
DE :] PVNTIFI DEL : ALME : DELI : DEV : PVR : SA :
PITE : EYT : MERCI : AMEN :

Around the hems of her tunic and mantle, and

 

 

 

 

 

 

FIG. 98. Part of inscription from tomb of Henry III.

on the strap or the latter, are small cavities which,
it is thought, must have been filled with gems, and
this is confirmed by an account for an earlier silver
statue of the Princess Katharine, which has dis—
appeared, for which precious stones were provided}:

The bronze statue of Edward III. is next in time.

* These efligies are probably the earliest ever cast in England. We
may note that they were the work ofa goldsmith, not a bronze founder.
There is an earlier reference to two bronze lions in 12.1.5, when
Henry III. ordered Edward, his clerk, who had said that such would be
only a little more costly than marble to have two brass leopards made
to be placed on each side of the king’s seat in the palace. In the
fourteenth century the bronze founders formed an important craft. In
1347 Roger le latoner is mentioned, and in 1365 John de Lincoln
and Robert in the Lane, founders, were sworn “ t0 surrey the mistery "
Letter Book 1‘}.

288

BRONZE FOUNDERS

The king died in 1377, and we have seen that in
this year John Orchard, “latoner” (bronze—worker),
provided some little figures for Queen Philippa’s
tomb. From the form of the accounts it is clear
that he was at this time in the royal service, and, as
the handsome efligy of the Black Prince (d. I 376),at
Canterbury, must have been in hand at this moment,
it is probably the work of Orchard. That his effigy
should be of “laton” is directed in the prince’s
will of I 376. The effigy ofEdward 111. may also be
Orchard’s work ; certainly the enamelled shields of
both tombs are by the same artist. Edward III.’s
efiigy is inferior to that of his son, but that may
be only in consequence of its being less costly. I
find that in 1377 John Orchard and Richard Rook,
of Knightsbridge, acquired a house and garden
in Tothill Street, close to the Abbey gates, doubt—
less so as to be near work going on in the palace
workshops?!“ The effigy of Edward III. is acknow-
ledged by all to be a portrait. The bronze weepers
which remain on the south side are also obviously
likenesses. Those of the north side are lost, but
the Lansdowne MS., 874., gives the arms of the
enamelled shields which were once beneath them.
Pretty little angels on the margin of the “table,”
on which the figure rests, should not escape notice.
The figures of angels supplied for the queen’s
tomb may have been from the same mould.

The next bronze effigies which were placed in
the church are those of Richard II. and Anne, his
queen. The queen died in 1394, and was buried
“ on the feast of St. Anne next following with

* Bentley’s Cartulary.
r 289

BRONZE FOUNDERS

great honour and solemnity.” Twenty pounds’
worth of black cloth was bought abroad, which
was probably used for hangings.* The temporary
“herce” was covered with “gold cloths," which
were sold afterwards for no less than £66 13s. 4d.
The king soon set about erecting a costly tomb
for her and for himself. We learn from a document
extracted in Bentley’s Cartulary that Nicholas and
Godfrey, of Wood Street, began to make the
“ mould and imagines ” in 1394.. In 1395 a con—
tract was signed with Nicholas Broker and Godfrey
Prest, citizens and coppersmiths of London, for
two gilt images crowned and clasping their right
hands together and holding sceptres with their left
hands. One cozlfrefilz'l‘ [e corps of the king and
the other of the queen. The “table" on which
they were to be placed was to be fretted with
fleurs—de-lys, lions, eagles, and leopards. There
were to be tabernacles, called “ hovels" or “gablitz,”
over the heads of the images, and two lions at the
feet of the king, with an eagle and leopard at the
feet of the queen. Also there should be twelve
images of gilt metal of saints such as should be
named by the king, and eight angels around the
tomb. Also engraved “ escriptures" and enamelled
shields of arms. All should be performed in two
ears according to a “ patron" which Nicholas and
Godfrey had shown, and the king should pay them
J€4.00 i (say, J£5000). The eight angels spoken of

"‘ Roger Elys, chandler, supplied a great store of candles.
'1' See Neale. There is a minutely accurate half full-sized drawing
of the statues by Hollis now at the Deanery. And good electrotypcs of

all the bronze images are at the National Portrait Gallery.
290

-a

BRONZE FOUNDERS

must have been on the “table ” in two strips of
tabernacle work like the angels of Edward III.’s
tomb. Their engraved nimbuses may still be seen.
The eagle at the foot of the queen is shown by
Sandford. The garments of the king and queen
are covered with minute engraved patterns and the
letters R. and A. Precious stones were set down
the centre of the queen’s bodice and there is a very
pretty brooch on her left shoulder.

In Dr. Sharpe’s Calendar we have the will of
Nicholas Broker, coppersmith, who died in 1426.
Another bronze efligy—maker of this time was
William Godezer, coppersmith, of London, who,
in 14.12, was paid for an image of the queen’s
mother placed over her tomb in the King’s College
at Leicester.9E

In 14.54 an agreement was made for the splendid
bronze efligy of Richard Beauchamp at Warwick
with London artists. William Austen, founder, was
to provide the bronze images according to patterns,
Thomas Stevens, coppersmith, executed the plate
(and probablythe patterns), and Bartholomew Lamb—
spring, Dutchman, goldsmith, did the polishing,
the gilding, and the enamelled escutcheons; John
Essex, marbler, wrought the slab, and the rest of
the tomb was by John Bourde, of Corfe, marbelerfi"
who engaged to supply marble “ as well coloured as
any in England,” and all according to a “ portraic-

* Issue Roll. All bronze images in England, we may conclude,
Were London work. We hear of another at the Greyfriars at Stamford,
“ a goodly image of copper-gilt laid upon marble,” of Dame Blanche of
Lancaster: “It is very beautiful.” See Gasquet, vol. i. p. 46.1..

“l“ Dugdale’s “ Warwick.”

291

BRONZE FOUNDERS

ture delivered to him—probably by Essex. We
have before met with Stevens and Essex about
144.8 (see p. 209). Stevens lived in Gutter Lane
and seems to have left descendants in the business,
for, in 14.91, John Stevens, coppersmith, was paid
for making a gilt helmet and target for the installa—
tion of a Knight of the Garterfi‘

One other mediaaval bronze figure in the church
has not yet been mentioned. This is the remark—
able enamelled efligyof William de Valence (d. I 296).
Burges showed that it was probably of Limoges
work. It is not cast, but is of sheet metal, beaten up
and attached to a wood core. There is now in the
mediaeval room of the Louvre an effigy of similar
workmanship and age, but without any enamels
remaining on it. This is the statue of Blanche of
Champagne (d. 1283) executed at Limoges. The
thin bronze sheeting over the wood model is
applied in many pieces; the face and wimple is
in one, the pillow, which has sunk patterns for
enamel, is in two. It is so much like the V’Vest-
minster efl’igy that both probably came from one
workshop. In the Wallace Collection are some
small images attached to enamelled plates ; similar
figuies were once fixed to the sides of the Valence
tomb. Several small enamelled coats ot arms, V‘\ hich
we1e placed under these weepers, remain; a record ot
others, which have disappeared, 1s given in Lans-
downe MS. 874 4. I cannot think that this splendid
tomb of the half—brother of Henry III. can
originally have been situated anywhere else than

“The bronze work of Henry \'Il.’s Chapel is considered in

Chapter XI.
29?,

GOLDSMITHS

in the Confessor’s chapel near the tombs of his
children. It may have given place to the tomb of

Philippa or that of Edward III.

The goldsmith’s craft was the best regarded and
best rewarded of the Middle Ages. A large pro—
Go/(l— portion of the Lord Mayors of London
were goldsmiths. Most of them seem
to have dealt in money, and the richest
were the bankers of the time. In Domesday we
hear of the goldsmith to Edward the Confessor, one
Teodric, who held Kennington ; and from this
time onwards records of goldsmiths are so numerous
that it will be impossible to deal with them here.
I must limit myself to some account of the golden
shrine, the great treasure and palladium of the
church, and to the goldsmiths of the time when
it was made. Under the year 124.1 Matthew
Paris says that the king caused a shrine of pure
gold and precious jewels to be made. Burges cites
an account which shows that the wooden shrine or
basis for the gold was supplied in this year, and £258
was spent in “the work of St. Edward’s shrine.”
In 1244. an image of the Virgin, with an emerald
and ruby, was given by the queen. In 1245
Edward, the clerk, was ordered to go to Wood—
stock to show the king the image of the Confessor,
probably for one of the pillars by the shrine. In 125 I
a cameo was to be sought for the shrine. In 1255
a precious jewel, worth 60 or 100 marks, was to be
bought, and in 1260 other precious stones were set in
it. The designer of this golden coffin may have been
Odo the goldsmith, so frequently mentioned from

293

mzz't/zr.

GOLDSMITHS

c. 1226;”? Henry III.’s favourite man of business. Or
it may have been Edward, his son, or perhaps, most
probably, Richard Abel. Later we know with
certainty that the work was in the hands of William
of Gloucester, who, in 1256, was called “king’s
goldsmith,” and in 1257 was put in charge of the
Mint at wages of 28. a day for self and clerks. Odo,
I think, died about the time the shrine was begun,
as in 1239 his son, Edward, was associated with
him, and later Edward’s name alone occurs.
Edward was “ keeper of the shrine ” from its com-
mencement, but he is styled “the king’s beloved
clerk,” and I cannot say if he practised his father's
art. I am inclined to think not, for in 1243
Richard Abel, goldsmith, was appointed master at
the Mint, possibly in succession to Odo ; the year
before he was paid J(:12 for gold claspsxl“

In 1256 a mandate was issued to \Villiam of
Gloucester to take all the money he could get out
of the King 8 Jewry to buy gold for the king, and
it seems likely that this was tor the shrine.

In 1269 the work was so far completed that it
then received the body of the saint, but the king
went 011 adding to it till death stayed his hand.

An account bot the last year of Henry III. (127 )
has been printed in “Gleanings, ;: in which the
executors of William of Gloucester set out the
amounts of money received in connection with the
frontal, a silver image for the tomb of the Princess
Katharine, and the work on the “feretrum” of
St. Edward. It is retrospective, going back to
1256, and such large sums are involved that it is

* Issue Roll. T Mid. I l’. 112
29+

GOLDSMITHS

no wonder to find that auditors were appointed by
patent (1 Edward I.) to hold an enquiry as to “ the
great sums of money” expended on the frontal,
the image, and the shrine, as shown in the account
of the late William of Gloucester.

From a list of precious images andjewels belong—
ing to the work drawn up in 1267, and printed in
“Gleanings,”* we get the best idea of the shrine.
The gold images were: 1. Of St. Edmund, king,
with a crown, having two great sapphires, &c.,
and worth £86; 2. A king, with a ruby on his
breast, £48 ; 3. A king, with a flower in his hand,
and a great garnet on his breast and other stones
and pearls, £56 ; 4.. A king, similar, £52 ; 5. A
king, with a sapphire on his breast, £59 ; 6. Five
angels of gold, £30; 7. The Blessed Virgin and
her Son, set with rubies, emeralds, sapphires, and
garnets, £200 ; 8. An image of a king, holding a
feretrum, set with precious stones, in his hand, and
having an enamelled and jewelled crown, £103;
9. A king, holding a cameo in one hand and a
sceptre in the other, £100 ; IO. An image of
St. Peter, holding a church in one hand and keys
in the other, trampling on Nero, who had a big
sapphire on his breast, £100; II. A Majesty,
£200 ; 12. Many great jewels and cameos.

The general form of the shrine must have re-
sembled that shown in the Cambridge “Life of the
Confessor,” figured by Scott, who assigns it the date
of 124.5, but it is,I think, much nearer the Style of
1270, and may have been written at the time of
the translation, 1269. Although it refers to the

* P. 1+1.
295

GOLDSMITHS

earlier shrine it probably represents the work of
Henry 111.95 A symbol rather than an illustration
of the shrine from the margin of the British
Museum copy of Matthew Paris is shown in Fig. 4..
The Majesty and the Virgin would have occupied
the gabled ends and the images of kings the sides.
One of the kings we are told was St. Edmund,
and we may be sure that the rest, as would be
most appropriate, were English sainted kings, with
the exception of the most costly one, that holding
the model of the shrine itself, which must have
been Henry III. St. Peter trampling on Nero
appeared as the patron of the church. In an
interesting contemporary account of how the
Citizens of London were treated by the king on
the occasion of the translation in 1269, the shrine
is described as “a 611527101, adorned with purest
gold and precious stones.”"i“ It must have been of
quite unbelievable splendour, and if we take into
account the valuation in 1267 of £2555 for the
images alone, and consider the time it was in pro—
gress, we may venture to say that it could not have
cost less than J€60,000 0r £80,000 of our money.
We have seen that the bronze efligy of Henry III.
was made by William Torel about 1291. Other
celebrated goldsmiths of. the time were Master
Adam, William de Farringdon, Thos. de Frowick,
and Gregory Rokesley. In the accounts for the
burial of Queen Alianor the name of Master

* Even if the earlier date could be proved to be right, the new
shrine was already well advanced in 12.5. Seeing how the miniature
agrees with the description, we may accept it as a picture of it.

'1‘ Liber de Ant. Legibus.

296

GOLDSMITHS

Adam, the queen’s goldsmith, occurs, as having
made a golden angel to hold her heart for the church
of the Blackfriars. The design of the present
Coronation Chair seems to be traceable to the same
Adam. The account of the year 1300 for the _
chair is headed Account of. Adam,the King’s Gold—

smith ; from it it appears that the chair was intended
to be cast in bronze, but this was given up, and a
chair of wood was made similar to it, costing Ioos.

Before this time Adam was working with VVil—
liam de Farringdon on the gold shrine of St. Thomas
at Canterbury. An account of 1284. 9" shows that
“ Dom. William de Farndon ” was then remaking
the shrine, apparently at the cost of Edward I. ;
13 lbs. of gold was supplied for three images of
St. Edward, the Pilgrim, and St. George on his
horseri“ Gold for covering the feretrum and divers
pinnacles are mentioned, also precious stones and
crystal. The pinnacles were the work of “Ade
Aurifaber.” William de Farringdon is called king’s
goldsmith in 1285; he probably succeeded William
de Gloucester, and Adam probably followed him
in the ofl'ice.

William de Farringdon died in 1293.: He was
alderman of the City Ward, to which he gave his
name. It must be as a “ Baron” of London that
he was styled as above. The Wardrobe Rolls at
the Record Office contain accounts of Adam,
the king’s goldsmith, for some plate bought by
him in Paris for Edward I. in 1298.§ There are

”“ Wardrobe, 372, II, at Record Office.
1‘ The two national saints so early I
I Sharpe’s “ Wills.” § Exch. Ward, 355, 23 and 24.
297

GOLDSMITHS

also two accounts for objects supplied by him in
1296 and 1300.

The former of these‘ii‘ gives a very long list of
romantic works, including a gold crown, a circle of
gold “ a fines emer-
auds,” and several
“ chapeaux ” of
gold,some of which
were “ amayllés de
clar color ” (these
were the fashion-
able garlands of the
time). Also “ une
cloche de argent ”
and “ une nascele a
ensenz.”"l"

Gregory Rokes—
ley was chief assay
master, M.P. in
1284., Lord Mayor several times. He lived in hlilk
Street “at a rent ofzos. a year; such were the rents
of those times,” says Stow—and he died in 1291.:

Thos. de Frowick was waran of the Goldsmiths
and Alderman in 1279. He made a golden crown
for Margaret, the second queen of Edward I., and
her beautiful seal may be his work.§

\Valter de Croxon, goldsmith, in 1237 made the
Exchequer Seal of Henry III.

 

Fm. 99.—Seal of Henry III.

 

* Middlesex Chancery, 15, [6.

1‘ Compare an account of Master Adam’s given in Miss Strickland's
Life of Alianor in her “ Queens of I‘inglant.
I See his Will, in Sharpe’s Calendar.

§ See Fig. 316 in “ Boutell’s Heraldry," small edition.

\

295

V)

GLAZIERS

The glazing was going forward at the church as
early as 1253. In this year’s accounts we find that
white and coloured glass was issued
from the stores for certain windows
which were to be done by task—work. White
work was to be done at 4d. a foot, coloured at
8d. Some of this glass was purchased from
Lawrence, glazier, and Richard Borser.*

In the triforium of the church are three or four
large pieces of“ grisaille glass” set with morsels of
bright blue, red, and yellow. (Figs. 100 and
101.) Twenty years ago they were nearly intact,
they were removed from the most eastern window
of St. Nicholas’ Chapel, and Mr. Wright told me,
I believe, that other fragments are still in place.
It would be just these windows that were put
in hand in 1253, and these fragments are enough
to give us a clue to the first scheme of glazing.
The completion of the glazing for the work of
Henry III. is probably recorded in 1290, when
J€64. (say ,51200) was paid to “John of Bristol,
king’s glazier, for making glass windows in the
Church ofVVestminster.”’§‘ Thewindows in question
were probably those in the clerestory of the choir.
In the present East windows, where many diverse
fragments have been gathered together, there are
some white quarrys, each decorated with a vine
leaf of about this date. Also some early coats
of arms. (Figs. 103 and 104..) A MS. in the
British Museum, by William Fox, 1744., contains a
description of these arms and the windows

Glaziers.

* In 1242 one Edward was the master glazier at Windsor.
T flir/M’o/agia, xxix.

299

GLAZIERS

generally. One of the coats is of Provence, or,f0ur
pale: gal/ex, and he explains that, “the glass being

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

.I i’- i ’2
i |i' \ / 0 1 i
\ .
u I .
, r A £7 , g i
l 'zq
t 3 ‘a j / ‘ ‘ .' .
n?" ,_ i
i ‘ V Y
,1
r i
E ° '1 5
a r\
g l '
‘ ” £4? 1
x .’ 0
i I \ ,L p .
. ’ i‘ \ I I
'1'. I 1
.‘ . - 4V / ”‘,
r \ ‘ r $ .
. it {7' /. \ “ .
i I l/\ T: l ’/
l i 7 i_‘\ K \
3 / ,~, 1' ( N
i‘ 1' t i: . i it in. x :: if "i '
{i ,1 _- \ 3. _\ .1. '
, 2r , . . ‘ ' .
€43 ’ i ‘ ' Qt?
, /’ ‘L ' 1
M a; \ “7.1 f \
7.} - ' ‘ '1
" . ".. 3") . \r, ‘ \
~ €123} ~ / .: 6? e;
A a. i ‘Y: .3
ii . , a 12):" ' $5) \N‘ 'I/
'4 ® ‘ ‘ /‘ i 'i Q
, $6. w ,
,‘I .- . . ( T ' .zt ‘ l
. . j ' ‘ . g o
I" l 0 V k ".
I $1}: ‘35: ' “3ft LP
\

 

Fm. loo. , Ancient glazing of Apsidal Chapels

broken, what looks like a fess is because it is not
replaced again properly.” In the Powell Collection
(L‘. 1810) is a drawing of the arms in the first light
on the right, which shows that it was the crowned

"300

GLAZIERS

lion of Cornwall with the bezanty bordure, but it
was placed in the window in a reversed way.
These coats of Henry III.’s wife and brother can
only belong to the early work. In the MS.
Lansdowne, 874., is given a series of thirteen early

    

 

 

y i ..; ,,

FIG. IOI.— Ancient glazing of Apsidal Chapels

coats which must have come from the glazing.
They are Castile and Leon, England, Ponthieu,
Edward the Confessor, England with label of five
points and lieurs de lys, Provence, Castile and Leon,
Ponthieu, Clare, De Lacy Earl of Lincoln, Ger-
many, Cornwall, England. Now Sandford says,
that the arms of Henry III. “are yet standing
in several windows in the Abbey” ; and of the coat
of Castile and Leon, he says, “I have seen those
arms in the window in the west side of the north

cross.” These arms were probably set on the
301

GLAZIERS

grisaille glass at the bottom of the lights of the
ground floor. Dart mentions the arms of England,
Provence, and Leon and Castile in this situation,
and we know that the
windows in Salisbury
Chapter House, which is
practically a copyof\Vest—
minster Chapter House,
followed such a scheme.
\Ve must suppose that the
East windows and Roses
of the transepts, at least,
would have had pictured
glass of the highest scale
ot’colour sapphire,ruby,
and emerald. The fine
early panels in Jerusalem
Chamber may come from
the church.
Hollar’s large Vl€\V ot‘
the interior shows three
Fm. 102.—Border oflast tiers of three small figures
in each light, eighteen
figures in all, filling the East windows, and this
may represent the orininal. He could hardly
have invented anythingr so accurately in style.
Hollar also shows the windows divided up with
two vertical irons as well as by the horizontal bars.
This is found in some unaltered windows in the
nave, and may be the original torm.
At the palace in 1307 Nlaster \Villiam de
Horkyle was the glazier. The glazing of St.

Stephen’s Chapel was undertaken in I 352 by john
30:

 

 

GLAZIERS

de Chester, John Athlard, John Lincoln, Hugh
Lichfield, Symon de Lynne, and John Linton ; all
masters, drawing and painting on “ white tables”
(cartoons) for Is. a day. Eleven

          
 

 

     
 

others were painting the glass at ,fififgfiwg’i‘g'
7d. a day; and fourteen were .$\§”fi;flli
breaking and jointing the glass ‘ \\\‘§£”’,2
at 6d.* I”:

The windows of the nave of the
church seem to have been filled by
Richard II. and later benefactors

. . . Fm. Io3.——Coat-of—
With Single figures to each light. Arms of Earl of
Hatton (1708) says: “The win— comm”, From
dows were doubtless well adorned east window
with stained glass painted with
various portraits, ofwhich there yet remain such at
the east and west ends, and many Wit/18 rout/z side in t/ze

g upper range, westward fram the

crow roof, and in the south-west
i window below is the portrait of
l Edward the Confessor.” The
windows of the nave were “ finely

u painted but now ruined.” The

story of the Confessor giving the
ring to the pilgrim filled the
window of the south aisle next
to that above the west door to

Cloister, with a legend beneathxi"
Another of the south windows contained a

Fm. lo+.-—A fragment
from east windows

* See accounts printed by J. T. Smith.

T Rex cui nil aliud presto fuit accipe dixit
Annulum et ex digito detrahit ille suo.
Dart 2 the legend quoted from Caxton.
303

GLAZIERS

picture (“ portraiture,” says Sandford) of Richard II.
with his badge, a white hart couchant, gorged
with a coronet and chained under a tree.

The present pleasant—looking old windows at
the east end have as a basis large fifteenth—century
figures, one of which is certainly the Confessor,
for the uplifted hand with ring still exists. This is
in the left light of the centre window, and the com-
panion light must be the pilgrim. These windows
are a patchwork of old and semi-modern glass,
‘but quite interesting. Some of these late windows
may have been the work of William Burgh, glazier,
who filled the great window of Westminster
Hall with “flourished glass" in the last year of
Richard II. 1399. John Pruddle, or Prudde, of
Westminster, was another famous glazier, who is
named in the Eton accounts in 1445—6 as chief
glazier to the king. About 14.50 Prudde glazed
the Beauchamp Chapel at \Varwick.* About the
same time he supplied glass for Greenwich Palace
“ flourished with marguerites, hawthorn buds, and
daisies,” the flowers of Henry VI. and his queenxi“

In 14.33 (19 Henry VI.) john Prudde was ap—
pointed to “the office of glazier of our works," to
hold it, “ as Roger Gloucestre,” had held it, “ with a
shed called the glazier's lodge, standing upon the
west side within our palace of \Vestminster."f
This is a particularly interesting notice of the palace
workshops, another of which, “the Plumbery," I
have found mentioned.

* Dugdale. ‘1‘ Hastead’s Hist. Kent.
I “ Domestic. Architecture in the Middle Ages,” I. p. 76.

30+

SMITHS

Henry, the smith, is mentioned in the Roll of
1253. In the palace account for 1259 Master
Henry Lewis, smith, appears, receiving
the large remuneration of 3s. a week.
The smith, indeed, seems to have been better paid
than other craftsmen. Henry de Lewis died in
1291, and left to his wife and daughters houses in
London and Lewis.”“ He was work-
ing up to the end, for in 1290 he
was paid for ironwork to the tomb of
Henry Illxl“

The only specimens of the iron—
work of this tomb which now exist
are some pretty little leaf—shaped
cramps which fix the porphyry slabs.
I would suggest that the beautiful
early ironwork on the door in S. F‘G°‘°5'—Name
George’s Chapel, Windsor, may also :ifkpfvizgg;
be his work. The chapel was begun
6. 124.0. I have found stamped here and there on
the ornaments the name Gilebertus. (Fig. 105.)
Now 21 Gilbert de Tile, bailiflf of Windsor, was in
1256 ordered to pay five marks to William, the
painter, who was decorating the chapel, and it
seems possible that this door was a present from
the bailiff, who at this time may have been keeper
of the works.

The beautiful iron grate to the tomb of Queen
Alianor, which is of similar work but later in
style, was the work of Thomas de Leighton, who
in 1294. received for it £12, and 208. extra for its
carriage and for his own and assistants’ time while

* Sharpe’s “ Calendar of Wills.” 1‘ “ Gleanings,” p. 1+8.
U 305

512212415.

 

SMITHS

in London fixing it. It has been pointed out that
the ironwork on the west door of Leighton Buzzard
Church is similar}?

In the first year of Edward II. (1307) a grant
was made to Master James de Lewesham, the king’s
smith, of 8d. a day for his wages so long as he
shall remain “in office"? We find him in the
accounts of this time engaged at the Tower and
the palace. In 1316 David at Hope was king’s
smith at Westminsterj In 1326 I find John Cole,
Fame [6 Roy, mentioned (Stow M88. 559). Master
Walter Bury, smith, working at the palace in the
years I33I—37, was in 1338 appointed as chief
smith and chief surveyor for all the king’s works :
he was to receive in his office a robe such as
befitted his estate yearly and 12d. daily for his
wages.§ Master Andrew was the next smith of
whom we have record; he was working at the
palace in 1352. In I362 Andrew, the king’s
smith at the Tower, died. He seems to have lived
in Old Jewry.“ In 1371 Peter Bromley, late black—
smith (retired), was granted Ioos. yearly for his
good servicesll The most important piece of
ironwork at the Abbey of a later date is the grate of
Henry V.’s tomb, and the finest example in England
is the tomb screen of Edward IV. at \Vindsor. “’6
have seen that the former was the work of Roger
Jolmson of London, smith, who, in 1.1.31, was
ordered to arrest (press) smiths to complete the
ironwork ofthe tomb of the late king.9H

"" “ Gleanings," p. ()0.
'l‘ Issue Roll. I HIM. § Patents.

ll Sharpe’s “ Calendar or \Vills,” (I Issue Roll. ” Rymer.
306

SMITHS

The Windsor screen is rather locksmith’s than
blacksmith’s work. The general design seems to
be an adaptation of the stone front of Henry V.’s
chantry at Westminster. The bronze grille of
Henry VII.’s tomb was in turn influenced by the
Windsor ironwork. In the Lansdown MS. 874
(c. 1610) I find a sketch of the Windsor screen
with a note: “ Edward IV. is buried in this place.”

We have seen that John Tresilian was principal
smith at St. George’s Chapel in 1482—3, and
received £24 55. as against ’(:12 paid to the mason,
and there can be little doubt that the suggestion *
which has been made that he was at this time
engaged on the splendid iron tomb screen of
Edward IV.’s tomb is correctri“ Sandford gives a
good engraving of it in its original place, and says
that the king (d. 14.83) “lies in the new chapel
whose foundation himself had laid under a monu-
ment of steel polished and gilt representing a pair
of gates between two towers all of curious trans-
parent workmanship, in the north arch near to the
High Altar.”

The articles of the “whole company of the craft
of blacksmiths” assembling at St. Thomas of Acres
in the Brotherhood of St. Loys in 14.34. consisting
of 68 (named) members has been printed.jj

”" Tight: and Davis.

1‘ The locksmiths were a distinct craft. Ihave found mentioned
Lawrence Hereford :ermizzr, working at the palace in 1314. Another
is John Wylde, lockyer, in 1373.

1 London and Middlesex Archaeological Society, vol. iv.

307

PLUMBERS AND OTHER CRAFTSMEN

In the Fabric Roll of 1249 we find that a

William was then plumber ; and in 1253 William

and R0 er, lumbers, were en 3 ed

P/uméer: by task-aorkpon the belfry. Iii ghe

and other f h G . d

Crag/95mm. palace account or 1259Jo n ovair an

Wllllam le Strand are said to have been

paid “ for founding and laying eight fothers of lead

by task” at 5s. a fother. When paid otherwise
they had 4d. a day.

The joiners were at an early time a distinct
craft from the carpenters ; we have seen on p. 160
that Jacob, the junctor, probably wrought the
stalls of the church in 1253. In 1307 Richard
Godfrey and John Reed, junctors, were working at
the palace, and the same account which names
them”“ gives remarkably full references to trades-
men : Master John was plasterer, and William and

John of Oxford tilersri“

* British Museum. Add. 30, 263.
T In the Pipe Roll accounts for the church in 48—51 Hen. III.
planer appears as well as lime. This must have been plaster of Paris.

308

CHAPTER XV
THE MOSAIC WORKERS

“It 1'; tradden, worn, and dirtied ; yet 2': it not a national
treasure; w/mz it i: guite dertl‘oyed am we rfiow rue/J
anotfier ? ” MALCOLM.

The Presbytery Pavement : Tomb of John and Katherine : Tombs of
John and Margaret de Valence: The Confessor’s Shrine: Tomb of
Henry III. : Floor of the Confessor’s Chapel.

THE Italian mosaics in the church are in every way
remarkable. There are in all siX works, and it is
doubtful if the art of the Roman Cos-

;716 5 [er mati School can be more conveniently
Pres )’ 3’ studied in any other place. Hardly can
cz'vemem‘.

one of them be matched this side of the
Alps. From the contemporary descriptions of
other works and from the Romances we gather that
such work was known as open moraz’cum,* or in
French, d’or murz'é.

The pavement of the presbytery is accurately
engraved in “Gleanings.” An inscription inlaid
into the marble bands may still in part be traced.
It stated that the floor was the work of Odericus of
Rome in 1268. The legend was printed in full by
Camden in 1600 ; and there is in the British
Museum a copy made about 14.60 by the monk,
Richard Sporley, in his MS. Lives of the Abbotsri“

This writer adds a much needed explanation of an

* Symon Simeonis, a traveller from England, thus describes the
decorations of St. Mark’s early in the fourteenth century.
T MS. Claud, A. 8.
309

THE PRESBYTERY PAVEMENT

enigmatical part of the inscription. From this
copy and the evidence of the pavement itself it is
clear that the inscription was not continuous as
usually printed (rag. “ Gleanings ”), but was divided
into three parts, disposed (a) on the great square;
(5) around the quatrefoil within the diagonal square;
(6) around the central circle. Ihave verified the
following points: (a) began on the east side of
the great square; (5) was on a continuous strip
of brass, only the matrix of which remains ;* (c)
was around the inner circle. As this follows in
order from the outside to the centre, and as (a)
begins in front of the altar with the usual sign
+ I shall print the lines as arranged on the pave—
ment although the MS. puts (a) last. This first
part can be wholly verified from the pavement
and Scott’s illustrationsrl“

+ : XPI : MILLENO : BICENTENO : DUODENO : CVM :
SEXAGENO : SVBDVCTVS : QVATUOR : ANNOI TERTIVS :
HENRICVS : REX : VRBS : ODERICVS : ET : ABBAS : HOS :
COMPEGERE : PORPHYREOS : LAPIDES.

We should understand from these verses begin—
ning “ XPI Milleno,” says Sporley, Anno Domini
one thousand two hundred and sixty—eight ; Henry
the Third being the king, and Odericus the cemen-
tarius; Richard de Ware, abbot, brought the
porphyry and divers jaspers and marbles of Thaso
from Rome. The next section (é) has entirely dis—
appeared. I print it as given by VVidmore, from
the Sporley MS. :

’ A groove exists around the parallelogram on the north side under
which Abbot Ware was buried. The panel on the south had no such
inscription. 'l‘ The beginning + XPI is at the north-east angle.
310

THE PRESBYTERY PAVEMENT

SI : LECTOR : POSITA : PRUDENTER : CVNCTA :
REVOLVAT : HIC : FINEM :PRIMI IMOBILIS : INVENIET :
SEPES : TRINA : CANES : ET: EQUOS : HOMINESQUE :
SUBADDAS : CERVOS : ET : CORVOS : AQUILAS : IM-
MANIA : CETE : MVNDVM : QUODQUE : SEQUENS :
PEREUNTES : TRIPLICAT : ANNOS

From these five verses in the other quadrangle
may be known the time of the end of the world :
Three Hedges means 3 years; a Dog 9; Horse
27; Man 81; Stag 243; Raven 729; Eagle
2187; Whale 6561; the World 19,683.

This curious account I find confirmed in a copy
of the verses made only thirty or forty years after
the pavement was laid, in the MS. Arundel 30, at
the Herald’s College, written with numbers thus :

27 81
Sepes trima : Cagnes 86 Equos : hoiesq’ sb addas

243 729 2187 6561 19683
Cervos 56 Corvos : Aquilas Immania Cete Mundfi
qdq’ sedns pEuntes tplicat annos.

I find the whole five lines again at the beginning
of a short chronology printed in the Rolls
edition of Rishanger, and written apparently in
I 31 1339

As is well known, animals were by medimval
writers thought to live to a great age, and such
a chronological scheme as this of the pavement
was part of the folk-lore of most countries from

Italy to Ireland. Under the title, “ The Legend of

* This follows the reading Sips: trima as in the last copy, and may
be taken as the right text. The Primum moéi/e was the flint/z or outer
revolving sphere ofthe universe. Its revolution was evidently thought
to coincide in time with the flint/1 progression of the legend (the world).
In Mediatival Chronicles, I 11.1). = 5199 A.M.

31 1

THE PRESBYTERY PAVEMENT
the Oldest Animals” Mr. Whitley Stokes pub-

lished several variations nearly twenty years ago in
the alccza/emyf‘e The Irish form (fifteenth century)
was perhaps the most like the Westminster
inscription. It read : A year for the stake, three
years for the field, three times the field the hound ;
three times the hound, the horse, on through man,
stag, ousel, eagle, salmon, yew, the world.

We now come to part (c) of the inscription, of
which the last two words can still be traced
on the floor:

SPHIERICUS : ARCHETYPVM : GLOBVS : HIC : MON-
STRAT : MICROCOSMVM
From this verse about the round stone in the
middle of the floor, says Sporley, we are to learn
that it resembles the globe of the spheres because
it has the four colours of the Elements—fire, air,
water, earth—and is a microcosm of the universe.
Isuppose from this that the central stone was of
porphyry, which might be supposed to combine
the colours red, white, blue, and brown. There
cannot be a doubt that the mosaic pavement on
which the Ambassadors stand in Holbein’s cele—
brated picture in the National Gallery represents
this pavement as noticed independently by Miss
Harvey and myself. I believe it was selected by
Holbein because it symbolised Time, on which
death throws its recurring shadow, as in the
picture the skull forms the gnomon to the dial of
the pavement. The central disc on the paintintr

D
has a pattern which is found on one of the discs of

* 1889. It is traced back to Hesiod, the Mahabarata, and old Buddhist

forms.
312

THE PRESBYTERY PAVEMENT

mosaic in the Confessor’s chapel. About 1866
the steps before the altar were put back further
eastward and a strip here was restored, Scott says,

 

FIG. 106.——Brass letters existing in the Presbytery
pavement

from old fragmentsi“ Pieces on the north and
south sides were also laid down at the same time.
I have no doubt that the original was just a square
made up on the sides with plain paving.

The mosaic is in good preservation notwithstand—
ing rough usage. A century ago, when Malcolm

* “ Recollections.”

313

TOMB OF JOHN AND KATHERINE

protested against people being admitted to this
floor, only eleven of the brass letters remained—
R,E,M,N,T,A, around

the centre and OE,

NO, E, on the sides of
i the great square. Now
"i still fewer of the actual
letters exist. (Fig. 106.)
The interlacing pattern
‘ of one of the circle
fillings on the left is
distinctly Arabic. It
is well known ho‘v
Arabic art influenced

 

Fm. 107,—Pattern of one of the V . _ _ .
small circles in pavement (/OSInatl VVOI‘k In SICIIV

and South Italy, and
here we get a direct touch of the Orient???

(Fig. 107.)

The mosaic tomb in the south ambulatory is
now usually called that of Katherine, daughter of
Tom/2 0/. Henry III. A Pipe Roll entry of
a * 12'6— notes a )a'ment to Master
fob/111ml 3 7 l —l

. Simon of \Vell for going to \Vest—

[(11 Z‘ /Ic’)‘/l1c’, . . . “ S
12 2 mlnster With his tools to make a tomb
7 ' for the Princess Katherine. As this is

entered under Dorset and Somerset, and is associated
with a payment for l’urbeck marble, it is probable
that Simon was a marbler from Corrie, and Dean
Stanley suggested that “ \Vell ” is \Veal near Cone.
Stow calls the mosaic tomb the tomb of the
*‘ The pavement was drawn full-size by Talman. lilo. Dart says

the drawing was gl\Cil to the Antiquariex

31+

TOMB OF JOHN AND KATHERINE
children of Henry III. and Edward I. “in

number 9.” Speed (1632) gives the names of
Richard, john ((1. 1250), Henry (d. 1260), and
Katherine, children of Henry III., and of John,
Henry, Alphonso, and Eleanor, children ofEdward I.
The last four, he adds, had their “portraits”
painted above the tomb.
Vestiges of these paintings
(which are shown in Dart’s l
engraving, 1723) can still be '
traced. Keepe (1683) says
the tomb enclosed the bones
of the children of Henry III.
and that it was 'set up by
Edward I. for his children.
According to Matthew of Fm 108 —Pattern of“)
Westminster, Alphonso was " 'Oftoimb p
in 1284. laid with his before

buried brothers and sisters “ near the feretrum of
St. Edward,” enclosed in “marble, porphyry, and
thaso.” This describes our tomb, but says that it
was near the shrine, and we get from this a clue to a
complicated history. In the accounts for the tomb
of Richard II. an item appears for removing a $07726
to make room for that of the king, and for pazhz‘zkzg
done to it when so removed.’25 Now an examina-
tion of the lower arch above the mosaic tomb will
show that the deep recess was formed for it at the
end of the fourteenth century, and the painting
above it, as shown by Dart, was clearly of the same
date. It is evident that the tomb was not made
for the position it now occupies. At its east end

* See above, p. 278.

   

315

TOMB OF JOHN AND KATHERINE

part of the mosaic is buried, and at the west hidden
mosaic may be felt. This tomb, then, was first
erected in the Confessor’s chapel and was removed
to a position opposite by Richard II. Nor is this,
I believe, the only tomb which has been removed,
as said above the enamelled effigy of William de
Valence must,I feel sure, like the grave slabs of
his children (as we shall see) have once occupied a
place in the Confessor’s chapel.

At the Record Office there are two small
accounts rendered by Robert of Beverley “ for
works at Westminster after the burial of the king ”
(Henry III., 1272), being wages of several work-
men engaged on the tomb of DmJohn de V’Vyndsor?E6
In the printed Issue Rolls, 1272—3, is the corre-
sponding entry ofa payment to Master Robert of
J(:16 16$. 45d. (a large sum) for the wages of divers
workmen engaged on the tomb of Prince John for
16 weeks (a long time). Alphonso, we have seen,
was buried in the tomb ofhis brother in 1284., and
the tomb was described as made of marbles and
porphyry. The time of the making of John’s
tomb is between the dates of the mosaics of the
presbytery floor and the shrine. The argument
seems conclusive that the tomb at present existing
is that made for Prince John in 1272. He was
only four years old, and Alphonso died at the age
of twelve.

My reading of this complicated story is this:
Katherine dying a dozen years before the conse—
cration of the king’s new work was buried in the
nave, or more probably in St. Katherine’s Chapel.

* Exchequer Works, Q.R. +71, 8.
316

JOHN AND MARGARET DE VALENCE

According to Strype, a brass image is mentioned
in connection with her tomb, and in 1259 a lectern
at the altar and tomé of Katherine was made. The
original tomb, made in 1257, cannot be our mosaic
tomb, for at that time the mosaic workers were not
engaged in the church. In 1272 a new tomb of
mosaic in the style then in favour was made for
Prince John, and Katherine’s body was translated
into the same tomb in the newly consecrated work.
The silver image for the tomb of Katherine men—
tioned in the account for 1272 may have been
prepared in view of this translation. In or about
1394. this tomb was removed from the position
coveted by Richard II., the up recess where it
now stands was prepared, and its low arch is awork
of this date. The mosaic tomb is most probably
complete, and the side hidden in the wall must be
still in its first splendour.

Close in front of Henry V.’s chantry there are
two grave-slabs, one of which has been found, by
‘ cutting away the step, to be orna-
Tomérq/ mented with mosaic and brass. Dart
70/172 and k f’ h . h d d
Mar arez‘ spea s o it as aVing .a a cross, an
g in a good light the matrix of the arm of

de Valence, . . . .
a plain cross was recently still Visible,
1277‘ 15 in. from the head of the slab, as well
as a trace of the upper limb between two shield-
shaped cavities. These shields, like the cross, must
have been of metal. A portion of the foot and
shaft of the cross remains, protected by the step ;
also four brass letters on each side—L A M E and
RLEA. This portion has been illustrated by
317

JOHN AND MARGARET DE VALENCE

Boutell, who shows also the traces of three other
letters on the north side, thus—VIILAME : The
vestiges of the first letters were still Visible ten

years ago when I studied this tomb, the third
appeared to be L, and the whole V]VILLAME.

(Fig. 109.)
Camden has preserved the tradition that the

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

FIG. tog—Tombs of John and Margaret

two slabs cover John, son of William de Valence,
and Margaret his daughter. Stow also mentions
their tombs, but the validity of the ascription has
been doubted?

I find in the Rolls edition of “iV'Iatthew of
Westminster” that John, eldest son of \Villiam de
Valencia, was buried at \Vestminster by the side of
his sister Margaret in 1277. In the Sporley MS.
we find that \Villiam established 160 masses for
his son in the church ; and in two old lists of the

" Dart, and “Gleanings,”
318

THE CONFESSOR’S SHRINE

tombs (summarised below), which evidently date
back to the days before the desolation of dissolution,
the two tombs situated between the Confessor’s
shrine and the tomb of Henry V. are said to be
those of John and Margaret. As in 1277 Peter,
the mosaic worker, would have been alread

engaged on his work for the shrine which he signed
two years later, we may ascribe this work to him.

The name William comes in such a position as
would suit an inscription following the usual for—
mula, Ici gist Iohan fitzGuillame. . . . The
other letters, R. L. E. A. I cannot explain. Bou—
tell’ 3 suggestion that it was part of De Va[rlea]nce
is impossible.*

I had looked on the slab of Margaret as quite
plain, until one day noticing the marks of brass
rivets on it I felt back under the step of the
chantry, when I found the stem and base of a brass
cross still in position, also the matrices of two
border lines of brass and some letters of an inscrip-
tion, some of which are still in place. This slab
extends 2 ft. 3 in. under the step, and as both are

otherwise similar this dimension gives the size of
the other as well.

The marble and mosaic basement of the shrine
bears an original inscription and date (now mostly
T/ze hidden by plaster) which records the

. , fact that it was wrought by one Peter
Cozy‘euors .

. of Rome. (Fig. 110.) A copy of the

S/zrme. . . .
1nscr1pt1on has been kept, and the
plaster having fallen away at the east end traces
* London and Middlesex Archaeological Society, vol. i.
319

 

 

 

1'29 ' , ‘ ' ., gauamsams

 

I (A .' mg
Lu'x'tzéxmfl \

        
 

,LAVDZB‘VSN MEROSM rim?

   
 

   
  
  

 

mwmfc;:n3rs3§

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

‘,
A
l

   

. v“ ‘. I - l '
i 4 i . , .
4' ‘I (H ‘f‘qbrg'l 3 \ M i um'ww ,\ l . ,.

Fm. IIo.—Onc.h;ilf of S. side ofthe Marble and Mosaic Basement of the Shrine.
Vertues' engraving. The inscription is of the time of Abbot Feckenham

From

 

 

THE CONFESSOR’S SHRINE

of it may there be seen which agree with the
written copies. These copies, however, differ
among themselves in the important particular of
the date, Widmore and Neale writing Jexczgeno
where others write septuageno. In “ Gleanings ” the
latter is given, but the date of 1269 is retained in
the commentary upon it. The only original
authority appears to be Sporley’s MS. (6. 14.60)
which gives the word as septuageno.
(1.) + ANNO : MILENO : DOMINI : CVM . SEPTVA—
GENO : ET :
(2.) B18 : CENTENO : CVM : COMPLETO : QVASI :
DENo : HOC : 0va : EST : FACTVM : QVOD :
PETRVS :
(3.) DVXIT : IN : ACTVM : ROMANVS : CIVIS : HOMO:
(4.) CAVSAM : NOSCERE : SI : VIS : REX : FVIT :
HENRICVS : SANCTI : PRESENTIS : AMICVS.
The third part as here printed represents the
portion now exposed, which, filling the east end, is
sufficient to show that the inscription began on the
west front and followed right around much as
printed above. A close inspection shows that it
was inlaid in mosaic, of which only the matrices of
the tesserm now remain. The letters were inlaid
in bigger pieces than the mosaic ground in which
they were inserted. (Fig. I I I.) The Sporley MS.
speaks of the inscription as of coloured and gilt
stones, and at the south-west corner one upright
stroke remains formed of pieces of dark blue glass,
and this is sufiicient to show the material and
method of execution. The smaller tesserae of the
background must have been gilt, and we learn from

Vertue that, when in 174.1 some of the parts now
x 321

THE CONFESSOR’S SHRINE

exposed came to light, it was “ of glass, yellow like
gold, cut, and set in.” Within two months, how-
ever, it was all picked outfi“ The inscription,
therefore, was formed of bars of blue glass set in
gold mosaicsi“ The inscription is really a memorial
to Henry III. after his death in 1272.

When the shrine was destroyed by Henry VIII.

 

U,
\y’ .

Sgt!

 

FIG. III.7~rRestoration ofpart of inscription on Basement of Shrine

the marble base was pulled down and the Con—
fessor was buried on its site. The marble work
was set up again by Abbot Feckenham in 1557,:
and it was then repaired with plaster painted to
imitate the mosaic. A new inscription was painted
over the old one, which begins and ends with
cyphers of the letters I[OHN]F. A[BBOT]. (Fig.
112.) The wooden structure which now represents
the shrine proper was then made. It was decorated
with inlays of glass painted at the back. Hardly a
foot of the original mosaic of the basement remains,

* Jrr/M'zv/ngirz, \‘ol. i.

’l‘ About ten years after 1279 three marble columns, costing +6s 8th
were made and placed around the shrine. These may have been isolated,
something like those at the St. Alban’s shrine, and may have supported
lights. “Gleanings,” p. 136.

I See Mr. Micklethwaite in l’roc. Soc. Antqu 1895.
)

,
u

3

THE CONFESSOR’S SHRINE

but some of the patterns may be traced by their
imprint in the cement. (Fig. 113.)

Broken fragments of the marble-work are from
time to time found. Scott refixed a portion of the
architrave, and only last year a piece -
was discovered.

In Italy two or three dozen in-
scribed works of the Cosmati school of
marble-workers are known, and the 1710.112..—
signature Czivz'r Romanm is frequently Monogram
found. Cavaliere Boni, in a study of
the subject, describes the Westminster shrine—base
as the work of one of the most skilful of the
Roman Marmorarii.

The construction of the marble basement is in
slab—work, forming a series of
i \ stall—like recesses in which the
~/ people knelt. There is only
, a slab of about 5 or 6 in.
thick down the centre which
. , separates the Opposite recesses.

<|\ (Fig. 114..) The transverse
dividing slabs are about the
l ‘ same thickness, and other
’ pieces are added on to the face.
’ The trefoil heads are cut out
ofslabs, and the arched soffites
behind them are formed by
inclining two thin pieces cut
to a curve. The small writhing shafts at the
angles of all the recesses are separately inserted. In
the decoration one pattern of guilloche is used on
the north side and another on the south, and these
323

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

Fro. II3.—Mosaic pattern
restored

THE CONFESSOR’S SH RINE

two patterns meet in the centre of the east
end.

When the marble—work was refixed under
Abbot Feckenham a change was made in the dis—
position of the slab-work above the trefoil heads

@

  

[Tl

mw-W “mam-1 ‘ . .. ‘
V " , ‘ ““3 .
,m 11 1. \\»\‘ 1“ 1

FIG. 114..~—l’lan of Basement of Shrine

of the recesses, the slab of the east end formerly

overlapped the side slabs thus— E |— Now,

the ends of the slab to the east being broken, the
slabs to the north and south are made to lap over it
thus— EJT . This throws the pattern out
of centre down the sides, and at the west end there
are gaps of 211, in. against the reredos slab, which
gaps are filled up by plaster.

The facts as to the west end are not so certain.
Scotts says he “ exposed the marks show 1n<T where the
alt 11 had been fixed, andc came to the conclusion that
the pillais weie formerly detached The retabu-
lum occupies its proper position, exceptingr that it
had been lirted 3 in. above its oriorinal level, a tact
3,4

THE CONFESSOR’S SHRINE

proved by its intercepting the space required for
the completion of theinscriptions. The retabulum
being decorated with mosaic, and the edges left
plain, it follows that the latter must have been
more or less concealed. I judge that the detached
pillars must have been
placed close to them. I
opened the ground round
the I'zalf-éuried pillar: at
the west end, and found
them to agree in [wig/z! with
those at the east.”* Scott’s
View as to the position of
the reredos is confirmed
by the spacing of the in—
scription, which neces—
sarily began on the west
front, as shown above, but
I do not think that the
spiral columns stood close 11
to its edges as he suggeStS' FIG. 115.—Part of West end of
There are in these edges Basement ofShrine
certain deep holes, and
these, it seems to me, were for the attachment or
vertical casing pieces other than the columns. In
Scott’s “ Recollections” he says many things had
come to light since the publication of “ Gleanings ”;
amongst them were “ some fragments belonging to
the shrine of St. Edward, 6.81, a piece of the return
of the cornice by its western end over the reredos.”
Scott had this fragment fixed in place, it was a
piece of the “architrave " member ranging with

\V
1/

I: Gd

1

C.

 

 

 

thjoijc

 

 

“$40 o /%

“ Gleanings,” p. 59.
325

 

l
l

TOMB OF HENRY III.

the inscription. It jarred out about a foot from the
south end of the reredos, and it had sinkings for
mosaic on the front, back, and end. (Fig. 115.)
A projection of the architrave was called for in any
case, for the reredos slab is 3 in. or 4. in. too wide
to fit under the architrave
member without additional
projections. The great pro—
jection of the piece would not
only allow of the additional
pilaster pieces at the ends of
the reredos,as suggested above,
but it seems possible also that
— the projections may have been
FIG- 116-— Restoration of long enough to rest also on the
one Of the Patterns spiral columns. In that case
the images of the Confessor
and the pilgrim—beggar would
have stood above. If there was not room for this
the columns and figures would have stood free,
possibly nearer the front of the altar. The altar
itself would have supported the reredos.*

 

 

 

 

of Mosaic. Tomb 0

Henry III.

When Henry III. died, Edward I. was still in
the East. The king was buried before the Great
Tomb of Altar of the church. In 1280, accord-
Henr ‘11] mg to Rishanger, a contemporary,~

)’ ' Edward I. brought precrous stones of
jasper, a’e part/Eur Gal/foam}, to beautify his fathers
tomb, that is, the present tomb of mosaic, which
was probably begun in this year after the com-

* The fragment has again been removed to allow of recent alterations

to the shrine-base, and it now rests, I believe, on the eastern cornice.

326

 

 

FLOOR OF THE CONFESSOR’S CHAPEL

pletion of the work at the shrine. The bronze
efligy, we know for certain, was not completed till
1291. Mosaic and effigy together, the tomb is
surpassingly beautiful. “11 gist a Westmonster
entombé richment.” 3* T — — — -

flvflWflg

The avemen o i he / V 3 Y1
chapel Isnust haire fbetten @@ OAK;

oor 0 ornamented : I

21:00; 3fl©§ff

with its mo-
, saic af er he a
fluor‘ king’st toItnb REL/17g) :@<jS

C lzclpel.

was in place, "

for the pattern is ar- Sflgfill©fg

ranged to stop short of [7/ V x V
h h

:Oabm‘aa °“ : @EQJEL
. pattern 0

this floor is applied quite MOI/EEC

lfl'CSPCCthC Of the )Olnt- FIG. II7.—Pattern of Mosaic floor‘
lng Of the Slabs “HQ in the Confessor’s Chapel
which it is inserted.

This marble basis is very irregular, and applying
an “ all-over ” pattern to it in this way seems to be
the most natural and direct manner of dealing with
such a floor. I cannot think that Burges’s sugges—
tion that it was prepared before laying is possible ;
nor can Ibelieve that, as he supposed, this is an
English work, for the patterns which fill the circles,
based mostly on hexagons, have a distinctly Oriental
complexionri" The pattern is, in fact, a variation of

* Langtoft.
T There is great variety in these roundels, some two hundred, nearly
all difl‘erent. (See Fig. 18.)
37-7

 

.‘wz'Jx'.-._< an, e.

FLOOR OF THE CONFESSOR’S CHAPEL

that on the tomb of Katherine, similar inter-locking
circular bands being arranged on a hexagonal setting—
out instead of on squares. (Figs. 108 and I 17.)
In the printed extract from the Pipe Roll of
1267—8 we find that pavior-masons were then
laying a pavement before the feretrum.* I suppose

 

 

that the marble slabs were then laid in preparation
for the consecration of the next year, and that the
mosaic was cut in about 1285 after the completion
of Henry III.’s tomb.

The square of mosaic at Canterbury is so
different in style that it may well be English work.

Old St. Paul’s must have had a similar floor in a
part of the choir, where might be seen “ a parcel
of pavement of black marble spotted with green
similar to some at \Vestminster.”*i‘

* On looking at the original roll I find this appears as a separate
entry—at in :tipmr/i: yeah/(7 a‘menmriorum, &c., and it seems more
probable that it refers to the Roman masons laying the Presbytery floor.

T Harrison. “ Description of England.”

328

 

 

 

CHAPTER XVI
THE TOMBS AND CHAPELS

“ He regflyd Kyng [721' yen:
14m! to Westmymtre men hymn bare.”
ROBERT OF GLOUCESTER on Henry III.

Kings’ Efligies and Royal Epitaphs : Records of Tombs : The Abbots’
Graves : The Chapels.

IN‘ the twelfth and thirteenth centuries persons of
distinction were carried to their graves exposed to
Kiflg!’ View, and dressed in oflicral robes after
E figic’s havrng been embalmed. Of Henry II.

' we are told by Matthew Paris that
the manner of his burial was thus: “He was
clothed in royal robes, his crown upon his head,
white gloves on his hands, boots of gold—work
(embroidery) upon his legs, gilt spurs upon his
heels, a great rich ring upon his finger, his sceptre
in his hand, his sword by his side, and his face
uncovered and all bare.”

Queen Alianor was embalmed and carried to
her grave attired in regal dress, with crown and
sceptre, but her brow and breast were signed with
the cross in dust.gs

In I774. the tomb of Edward I. was opened,
and the body was found covered by a crimson silk
tunic with a jewelled orphrey, over which was a
mantle of crimson satin fastened over the left shoulder
with a great broochrl“ The hands seemed to have

* “Chronicles Reigns Edward I. and IL,” Rolls Series. Eleanor
of Provence was embalmed and not buried for months.

T The gold and jewels were imitations.
329

KINGS’ EFFIGIES

been covered with gloves, and the king held in his
right hand the sceptre with the cross 2 ft. 6 in.
long. In his left hand he held the rod with
the dove, which was 5ft. long, the top having a
tuft of oak leaves enamelled green, and a ball sur-
mounted by a dove of white enamel. On his head
was a crown with trefoil fleurons.

At a later time an efligy resting on the coffin repre—

 

FIG. Il().—lit11‘i;tl of Queen of Charles \i. of lirance.
From a contemporary 315.

sented the real figure. A tomb efligy is a permanent
representation of a body as it was borne to the tomb.
The efiigy of Henry ll. at Fontevrault not only
shows the king as described above, but the slab on
which he rests is carved into a representation of
the bier on which he was borne to the tomb;

l l

* Since writing the above, 1 find a similar observation matte in the
notes to Stothard‘s “ Etiigies.“ " It appears that the tomb of Henri H.
was literally a representation of the deceased king, it :2
i\'or can we. HitlluttL supposing such “as the ran. '1, otherwise

3 30

 

KINGS’ EFFIGIES

Burges has argued that neither the effigy of
Henry 111. nor that of Queen Alianor can be
accepted as a portrait, but this can only be true
in a very limited sense. They may have been,
and were, idealised into types, but to suppose that
likeness was not aimed at is surely absurd, and we
have it on record in the account for the king’s
image that it was made ad rzmz'lz'z‘udzhem regz'r Heizrz'cz'.
It is urged that Alianor was over fifty when she
died. Miss Strickland says forty—seven, and Alianor
was famous for beauty; Gough cites Langtoft as
saying that the sculptors of her time made their
figures of the Virgin in the likeness of the queen?‘
The sculptors of the time, indeed, were imitating
nature in all their carvings. When we find portraits
of vine and maple, oak and thorn, it is most unlikely
that the king and queen were mere impersonal
images. Such sculptures as these were never carved
“out of people’s heads.” The efligy of Queen
Philippa and all later royal statues are admitted to
be portraits.

The metal head and the casing of the figure of
Henry the Fifth have been destroyed. How-
ever, in the two groups representing his Coronation,
sculptured above on the sides of the chantry, his
head is so recognisably like that engraved by
Sandford from a picture then at Whitehall, that
there is no doubt of these being portraits; probably
the most authentic which exist, for the paintings

for the singular coincidences between the effigy of King john on the lid
of his coffin and the body within it, when discovered a few years ago.”
At the Abbey some funeral efligies—one as early as Edward Ill. it is
thought—are preserved. ”“ I cannot find the passage.

331

ROYAL EPITAPHS

may have been done subsequently from the tomb
effigy.

The bronze of Henry VII. is, I think, the original
from which Holbein drew his cartoon now at
Chatsworth.

Not only the effigies but the small figures or
weepers standing around some of the tombs were
at least intended to be portraits. Those of the tomb
of Edward III. are obviously in the likeness of the
persons whose arms are placed below, and a
medizeval document indexed in Bentley’s Cartulary
says that they were images of all the king’s sons
and daughters. A list seems also to have been
made of the weepers around Queen Philippa’s tomb.
There cannot be a doubt that, although the arms
once painted on the shields around John of Eltham’s
tomb have been obliterated, these figures represent
Edward 11., Queen Isabella, Edward 111., and other

royal relations.

Notwithstanding the many volumes which con—
tain collections of the epitaphs, a critic-.11 account of
Royal those Wthh were original or medizeval
Epz'tczp/zs. has never been given:

The usual authoritles are, a tract by
Camden,* first published in 1600, \Veever’s col—
lection, 1631, and Keepe’s, 1683. Camden’s tract
seems to have been sold in the church, and was, in
fact, the first guide book 1 to it.

The epitaphs of the abbots were collected by
Flete, c. 1450, for his MS. “ Lives of the Abbots,”

* “ Rt‘gc’x,” &c.
'1‘ Brenchley Rye. “Travellers in England.”
332

 

ROYAL EPITAPHS

now in the Abbey library; they are also given in
the Sporley MS. at the British Museum, which
also contains the inscriptions from the shrine and
mosaic floor. They were printed by Widmore,
1751. A part of Camden’s collection must have
been transcribed from Sporley’s or a similar MS.

Skelton, the poet, it is said, “collected the
epitaphs of such of our kings, princes, and nobles
as then lay buried in the Abbey,” but Widmore,
failing to find this account, raised doubts as to its
ever having had an existence.* Weever, however,
seems to have used a different MS. from those now
known. He gives epitaphs of Queen Matilda,
Abbot Islip, and others, not now obtainable from
other sources, and he refers to a Cottonian MS.
“ wherein are divers funeral collections and other
inscriptions gathered about the time of the Dis—
solution.”

Again, it has been too hastily assumed that such
of the inscriptions as were not monumental but
“written on tablets” were not ancient. Dean
Stanley says that Skelton, while in sanctuary, wrote
“ the doggerel epitaphs which were hung over the
royal tombs.” Keepe, indeed, tells us that “two
ancient tablets in writing, with many verses written
by Skelton,” were suspended at the tomb of
Henry VII. These, however, were signed by the
poet with his titles of laureate and king’s orator,
and they were oflicial eulogies which belonged to
the tomb from the time of its completion, and
themselves become evidence of an ancient custom.
They were dated 1512, and as the poet died in I529,

* See Widmore’s account of writers on the Abbey.

333

ROYAL EPITAPHS

his verses must belong to the old order of things. He
represented the king’s versifiers, who, as Warton
pointed out, can be traced back to the thirteenth
century.

A famous church in the MiddleAges was crowded
with inscriptions on walls, monuments, glass, pic-
tures, and many hanging tablets. A church was
in every way a thing to be read.

In old St. Paul’s a table of its dimensions hung
from the fourteenth century. A short chronicle
was placed there about 1432, and Dugdale gives
several epitaphs written on tablets, and two or three
ancient ones appear in his plates. They were
framed panels with sheets of parchment nailed to
them. In 1351 John Holegh, citizen, made a
bequest to Bow Church, and a record of it was to
be “written on parchment and placed upon a
tablet fixed at the foot of the image” which he
gave. One remarkable example which still exists
is a fifteenth—century account of Glastonbury Abbey,
being three or four tablets hinged together.

At Westminster most of the longer epitaphs of
the abbots must have been on tablets ; some shorter
inscriptions are distinguished as “cut in stone.”
At Henry V.’s chantry there was a tablet giving
directions as to the masses. Caxton (c. 1475) tells
us that the epitaph of Chaucer, buried before the
chapel of S. Benedict, was written on a “table”
hanging to a pillar?“ Another tablet which hung
by Sebert’s tomb is described by Dart as “some

* Prologue to Boethius : “ The body lieth . . . to face the chapel
of St. Benet, by whose sepultureis written on a table hanging on a pillar
his epitaphy. . . .” It was by Stephen Surigonus, poet laureate, and
was thirty lines long.

334

 

.... >A—um.«9i,, , .

ROYAL EPITAPHS

writing not legible, in parchment, framed,I sup—
pose placed there at the time of translating the
body.” Now these same verses, which are printed
by Keepe and others, I find given in the Chronicle
of Richard of Cirencester, a monk at the Abbey at
the latter end of the fourteenth century??? '

With all this before us we are prepared to
believe that the royal epitaphs on tablets, of
which this last was practically one, may also go back
to the fourteenth or even to the thirteenth cen—
tury. Of one of these royal epitaphs we have
direct early evidence.

Matilda, queen of Henry I. (d. 1118), was
buried in the old church and reinterred at the side
of the Confessor’s shrine. Now the fifteenth—
century Register Book of Holy Trinity, Aldgatefi"
gives her epitaph “on a table which hung over
her grave.” _

Hz'c jdcez‘ domimz Mari/d :ecédcz 56716 Regina
flng/Er . . .

Here lies the lady Maud, the Queen of the
English, once wife of Henry I. and mother of
Maud the Empress, who died the first day of May
in the year of grace I I 18, of whose goodness and
probity, if we should go about to tell all, the day
would be too short, &c. It may very well be that
it is to this epitaph that Langtoft refers—

“ If any one will witten of her story
At Westminster it is written readily.”

In Keepe’s time most of the royal tombs still
had their “ tables” by them. It has been objected
that dates given on these epitaphs were not accurate,

* Rolls Series. T Libel“ Trinitatis.
33.5

ROYAL EPITAPHS

but close examination shows that these wrong
dates did not belong to the tablets.

In Keepe’s Collection there are no less than four
inscriptions given in connection with some of the
tombs which he distinguishes by differences in his
type. The tomb of Henry III., for instance, had
(I) the monumental and existing inscription in
French “ round the verge” ; (2) a three-line Latin
epitaph in verse “ on a table” (printed in italic) ;
(3) a short inscription giving a wrong date (printed
in Roman) ; (4.) English verses translating the
Latin table (printed in black-letter).

The inscription (3) which contains the wrong
date is one of a series which were painted on the
royal tombs ; they agree in ending in short mottoes
and giving dates in figures.

Vestiges of these inscriptions are still discoverable
on the shrine, on the tombs of Edward I., Alianor,
Henry V., &c., and they must all, like that on the
shrine, be the work of Abbot Feckenham.

The English verses (4) are given in Fabyan’s
Chronicle (1516) as translations made by himself
of “ tables hanging on the tombs.” Fabyan wrote
his Chronicle about 14.94 and died in I5I3. In
the fifteenth century, therefore, there were a series
of written “ Epitaphies " at the tombs, which were
interesting enough to be transcribed and translated
into “ Ballad Royal.”

Later the English versions made by Fabyan
were also placed at the tombs to explain the
originals.

The tablet epitaph on Henry III. “in monkish

rymes” (Camden) is one of those printed by
336

 

W4.

. W‘Qz’iv;

.. q, 9—,..__.. .

ROYAL EPITAPHS

Fabyan. It appropriately referred to the rebuilding
of the church, and is, I have no doubt, authentic :
Tertivs Henricvs iacet hic pietatis amicvs
Ecclesiam stravit istam qvam post renovavit
Reddet ei mvnvs qvi regnat trinvs et vnvs.
The epitaph of Alianor, which Sandford says
was on “ a tablet of wood hanging in an iron
chain,” contained the words :

Foemina consilio prudens pia prole beata
Auxit amicitiis auxit honore virum.”‘=

Of Edward I. a part of the epitaph which
Fabyan says was hung out over the tomb ran :

Corde leopardus invictus et absque pavore
Ad rixam tardus discretus et eucharis ore.

Fabyan quotes some lines on Edward, which are
also given by the Continuator of Matthew of west-
minster as by another “ verse—maker,” and in subse—
quent works these appear at the end of the long
inscription. Another “large epitaph in prose”
on Edward I. is given in Camden’s “ Remains” ; it
was “affixed at the altar of St. Edward, near his
tomb.”

Camden gives the epitaph of Henry the Fifthxl“
Sandford, Keepe, and others have printed the long
epitaphs on tablets at the tombs of Philippa and
Richard II.

If ancient inscriptions have been neglected much
has been made of one of the modern ones. The
legend painted on the tomb of Edward I. which

* The monumental inscription from Alianor’s tomb has been given
on p. 288. By some oversight the excellent Deanery guide says that

that of Henry III.’s tomb no longer exists. T “ Remains.”

Y 337

ROYAL EPITAPHS

contained the epithet Scottorum Mal/em and the
motto Pactum Serve belongs to the series of in-
scriptions painted on the monuments in the time
of Feckenham, each of which ended in such a
motto. It is impossible to say from the general
character of these mottoes whether this one, which
Bishop Stubbs tells us Edward “took for his
motto,” and which Mr. York Powell thought so
characteristic, was even selected to apply to the
king, and was not merely a sentiment addressed
to the reader.9K

The tomb itself is quite a puzzle, being a simple
chest of black marble absolutely without adorn-
ment or engraved inscription. It must show either
the austerity of Edward I. or the neglect of his
son. I incline to the View that it was prepared by
himself.

Langtoft, who brings his Chronicle down to
the death of Edward 1., says that he was buried :—
“AWestmonster,in toumbe de marhre ben polye.”

Miss Strickland translates from \Villiam of \Vor-
cester the original epitaph once at the tomb of
Queen Katherine in the Lady Chapel.

Death, daring spoiler of the world, has laid
W’ithin this tomb the noble clay that shrined
Queen Katherine’s soul ; from the French king derived

Of our fifth Harry wife ; . . .

The long monumental inscription, once on the
tomb of William de Valence, half—brother to Henry
III., is also given by Camden, and Keepe says it was

* I am assuming that the tomb is the only authority for the associa-
tion with Edward; the words part/(m 55m: Mmzm occur in a poem,

r. 1260. Wright’s Political Songs.
333

 

 

 

 

RECORDS OF TOMBS

around the verge of the tomb, and of “Saxon
letters,” that is, what we call Lombardio. Sandford
describes, and gives the inscriptions from the tombs
of the infant Margaret of York (I472) and of
Elizabeth Tudor (14.95). The existing inscriptions
on the tombs of Edward 111., Richard II., and
others may be found in most collections. In all
these epitaphs we have a considerable number of
historical documents, which deserve careful scrutiny
and editing. The heraldry of the tombs, referred
to in an appendix, also needs critical examination
from the historical point of View.

Our knowledge of the Abbey tombs seems at
first to be merely traditional, but there has been, I
R a’ . believe, a continuity of record. There

ecor s of . . . .

T077215; 18 now exhibited in the Chapter House

' a fragment of a schedule of the tombs in
the writing of Camden. It is obvious from internal
evidence that it must be a transcript from an old
record written in the first case before the building
of Henry Vll.’s Chapel. The list of tombs in the
Abbey given by Stow is also, as will be shown,
based on such an authority which may still some-
where exist in its entirety.*“

The following salient points are extracted from
Camden’s fragment, which is in Latin, and entitled
“ Corpora que tumulantur ecclesia mon. Beati Petri
Westmonasterii ”'1" :

* In the indices of the Hist. MSS. Comm. I have seen more than

one List of Burials at Westminster.
T Or rather from a similar list printed in a single sheet at the British
Museum, under a slightly different title, “ Corpora Sepulta Beati . . .”
339

RECORDS OF TOMBS

Imprimis, KING’S CHAPEL. In the midst
the feretrum of Edward the Confessor ; on the left
Edith his wife; on the right Matilda, wife of
Henry I. Item, on north (south) of the altar of
the feretory, Margaret, daughter of Edward IV.
On south (north) Edward and Elizabeth, children of
Henry VII. [Tomb of this Edward not usually
mentioned, (1. 1499.]

Between the feretory and the tomb of Henry V.
John and Margaret, son and daughter of William
de Valentia.

HIGH ALTAR, on the right \Valter \Venlock,
Abbot.

S. ANDREW’S CHAPEL. Abbot Kirton in
the midst.

S. MICHAEL’S, the next chapel, \Villiam
Trussel under image of S. George. [Trussel,
according to Stanley, was first Speaker of Parlia-
ment. Fabyan speaks of him as the procurator of
Parliament under Edward II. who pronounced the
deposition of the king. Is it not possible that the
foliated cross still in this chapel may be Trussel’s
memorial P]

S. JOHN EVANGELIST, the next chapel;
John Harpendon at the corner; Abbot Estney at
his feet. [Both brasses now in ambulatory : these
tombs formerly made the screen of the chapel. See
Dart ; also drawing in Islip Roll.]

[ISLIP.] In the next chapel John Islip [d. 1533 ,
who built and adorned it ; also Hugh Vaughan and
his wife Anne.

S. MARY THE LITTLE, S. jo/m Baptist [as
correction], Thomas Vaughan. At the left of the
340

i
l ,
!

 

”imam , - .

 

 

RECORDS OF TOMBS

altar Abbot Fascet [1500], and at his feet Bishop
Thos. Routall [1523]. In the next, t/ze mme [as
correction], chapel of St. John Baptist, William
Colchester and Thos. Millying, Abbots [these
corrections show some double dedication; the
abbots’ tombs are certainly in their original posi—
tions, forming the screens—see next section].

S. PAUL. Between the door and altar L.
Robeshart ; under the pavement Michael, Bishop of
S. Asaph; under the second steps of the door
Rudolph chaplain to the Bishop of Carlisle. On
the north, by the wall, in marble, Peter Calhan,
citizen, A.D. MCCCLVIII.

S. MARYS. [The Lady Chapel] In the
middle, Katherine, wife of Henry V. On left of
altar, Katherine, daughter of Duchess of Norfolk.
On right, William Atclyffe, secretary to Edward IV.
To the north, Thos. de Wells and William
Stoner.

S. ERASMUS. Ann, daughter of Duke of
Norfolk. [Henry VII. is not mentioned in Lady
Chapel ; moreover, Katherine’s coffin was removed
for the works at the new chapel, and never put
back. The chapel of S. Erasmus must also be the
old chapel attached to Lady Chapel. Ann was
daughter—in-law to Edward IV. and Elizabeth
Woodville, its foundress]

[AMBULATORY] Outside the south entrance
to the chapel of S. Mary—Richard Harowden,
Abbot. Outside the door of S. NICHOLAS, in
the pavement, Walter Hungerford, son of Edward
Hungerford. . . of Edward III. . . . John
Beverley with Amica [Buxtal, his wife. Matrices

341

RECORDS OF TOMBS

of their brasses are still outside S. Edmund’s
Chapel] . . . Hugo [de Bohun: see below] . . .

[Abbot Harowden’s grave seems to be certainly
identifiable with that usually assigned to Berkynge.
Stanley had the name of Harowden inserted in S.
John Baptist’s chapel close by Bishop Routall’s tomb,
because a pastoral staff and sandals were in 1879
found under that tomb. They are now in the
Chapter House. It was supposed by Stanley and
others that Bishop Routall’s tomb had been brought
to this place about 1600, and hence that the remains
could not belong to the bishop—but why Harowden
in any case? Routall’s tomb must have occupied
its present position from 1524. (blocking original
entrance), the new entry to S. Paul’s being made
at or before the time of his burial through what is
now called S. Erasmus chapel—see next section]

The other list of tombs of which I have Spoken
is in the handwriting of Stow, and is in the Har-
leian Collection (544.). It seems to be based on
the same source as the last, for it follows the same
order, and again omits Henry VII. It is given in
inventory form like the last, with its “imprimis ”
and “ item,” and is evidently translated from a Latin
original from which some words have been carried
over. In this case also I make use of only a small
part of this valuable document to compare with
the other.

Imprimis, 7716 S/zrz'ne 9/ St. Eduard : Queen
Maud on the right, Queen Editha on left.

Item, on right side ofthe altar lVlargaret,d-aughter
of Edward 1V. On the left Elizabeth, d. of
Henry VII. At the end of the shrine Henry V.,
3+2

 

 

 

RECORDS OF TOMBS

and John and Margaret, children of William de
Valence. On the pavement by Edward III.
Thomas ofWoodstock, his son. St. Mz'c/Iael’s C/zapel,
William Trussel; St. Mary #26 Little, Sir Thos.
Vaughan ; St. :‘7’0/172 Evangelist, Sir John Hampden
[Harpendon]; St. Paul’s, Sir Lewis Robsart, Sir
Giles Daubigny in the midst ; Our Lady’: C/zapel.
In the middle lyeth Queen Katherine: John, Vis—
count Wells, Katherine, daughter of the Duchess
of Norfolk.

St. Erasmus. Anne, daughter of the Duke of
Norfolk, Sir Thos. Hungerford. St. Nicholas. In
the little tomb lieth Hugh and [Mary], son and
daughter of Humphrey de Bohun and Elizabeth
his wife ; Philippa, Duchess of York, &c. &c.
Outside the chapel, Walter Hungerford, son of
Edward Hungerford, Sir John Beverley, or Burley,
and Anne his wife. Sir John Golofer lyeth by
Richard 11.

Sf. T/zomai. William and Blanche, children of
Edward 111., John of Eltham and William de
Valence, Eleanor de Bohun, Humphrey Bourchier,
Bernard Brocas.

“ There resteth the bones of the children of King
Edward I. and Henry 111. in number nine. At the
entrance to the same: Robert and William Browne,
Esquires,” &c. &c. [This last paragraph is written
as if the tomb of the children of Edward I. was in
the chapel rather than near “the entrance to the
same,” but that must be a mistake of transcription.

The tomb of the young De Bohuns was, we here
see, in St. Nicholas’s, and we seem to bejustified in

supposing that the Hugo of the former list refers
343

THE ABBOTS’ GRAVES

to this tomb. Hugh died 1304., Mary, 1305.
Camden, in “ Reges,” says the tomb of Hugh and
Mary was in St. John Baptist’s, on the left, and
Keepe’s account leaves no doubt that the tomb on
the north side of this chapel is that which was
pointed out as theirs. Except that it looks too
early in style there is nothing against supposing
that it had been shifted to this place. It is owing
to a misplacing of his notes that in his printed
survey Stow makes Chaucer to have been buried in
the Cloister instead of before St. Benet’s Chapel, as
Caxton says. This mistake, however, is frequently
repeated even to—day.

The greater number of the tombs of the abbots
have disappeared, and in regard to them we are in
T/ze [“50“, the main dependent on Flete s and
Sporley 3 M88. From the latter* the
notes within brackets are taken.

1049-72. Edwin [buried in the cloisters.]

1072—76. Galfridus.

1076—81. Vitalis [south side of Cloister, under a
5mall Jlab of white marble at tlzefi’c’t of German]

1082—1121. Gislebertus [south side of Cloister,
at‘fi’et 0f Vitalis, in a tomé of alacl‘ marble upon wlzic/z
is lurk~ image, will: a partaral My? 5112‘ no mare, and his
epitaph cut in the marble]

1121—40. Herebert [south side of Cloister, under
a flat slab, near the bell].

I 140—59. Gervase [south side of Cloister, under a
small black mar/)le #0116 at l/ze jéct 9f [I'll/1am (/6
Human]

Graver.

“ Claud. A. 8.
3H

 

THE ABBOTS’ GRAVES

1159—75. Lawrence. This abbot obtained the
right to wear the mitre, but he died before the
grant arrived* [South side of Cloister, under a
white mare/e stone, wit/z lzis image wit/20a! a mz'z‘re at
t/zefeez‘ qf Gz’léert, and his epitaph cut in the marble].

1175—91. Walter [south side of Cloister, near
the bell].

1191~Izoo. William Postard [south side of
Cloister, near the bell].

1200—14. Radulphus [in nave].

1214—22. William de Humez [south side of
Cloister at t/ze bead of Ger‘vase, under a mare/e stone,
wit/z Izzs image sculptured in pontg'flccz/z'éus].

It is evident from the above descriptions that five
of the tombs formed a group, three had efl‘igies, and
two were slabs. They were in this order, the
capitals representing efligies.

LAWRENCE,II75. GILBERT,1121. Vitalis,1082. Gervase, 1159. HUMEZ,1222.
Effigy in white, Effigy in black, Small white Small black Effigy with
no mitre. no mitre. slab. slab. mitre.

Now there are in the south walk of the Cloister
three early efligies, but the names derived from the
MS. have been applied to them so variously that
attempts at proper identification have been given up.
Keepe, in 1633, rightly names three tombs in this
order—Lawrence, Gilbert, Vitalis. The third
name he gives to “ a plain white marble stone here—
tofore covered with plates of brass.” It is certain that
this does not describe the third cfigy, which now
bears the name of Vitalis. He, however, makes
the mistake of assigning the immense black slab,
which covers the monks who died in the plague, to

* R. de Diceto, in Rolls Series.
345

THE ABBOTS’ GRA V ES

Gervase. Dart, 1723, on his plan, put the three
names—Lawrence, Gilbert, Vitalis—to the three
existing efl'igies. In his text, however, he corrects
this, and puts Humez for Vitalis as “ the western—
most ofthe three.” The names which were cut on
the efligies about 174.0 follow Dart’s plan instead
of his text. Hence most of the confusion.‘26

When we find that the MS. (c. 1460) describes
three effigies which not only correspond to those
now existing in proper order, but that these agree
perfectly in style with the dates which fit the
names given in the MS., there seems to be suffi—
cient proof that they represent the abbots as now
follows in order from east to west :

Lawrence, 1175, the most eastern efligy, in hard
white shelly oolite, large, much worn, no mitre.

Gi/éert, 1121, middle efligy, low relief in black
marble, plainly the oldest in st\le, and almost
certainly imported from Tournav, - right hand holds
staff, no mitre, traces of a book in left hand; his
epitaph spoke of his lea1ning 111 the seven arts, and
some of his works still exist.

William {/6 Humez, 1222, western effigy, hard
whitish oolite, high relief, much worn, with mitre
and fully vested ; right hand blesses, staff lies across
body, it must have been held in left hand. The
engravings of Dart and Gough confirm some of
the points above suggested from an examination of

“ It is curious that Keepe should overlook the third cfigy, but in his
MS. collection in my possession he speaks of three. \Vidmore pointed
out that the effigy inscribed Vitalis is Humez. One source ofthe con-
fusion is that Camden’s, the earliest printed list, does not mention
Humez at all, nor does Dingley.

3+6

 

 

THE ABBOTS’ GRAVES
the tombs. Lawrence seems to have had his
hands clasped on his breast. The tombs of Vitalis
and Gervase seem to be lost. Sandford (1683) says
that the epitaph of Gervase was in “ Saxon letters,
nearly defaced,” in black marble, and he prints it
in what we call Lombardic capitals. Widmore

says that he saw the name _ ,

ABBS WALTERIVS on the

   
 
 

1'7““

k .

n Wu“

wall of the south Cloister, and
only the other day for the
first time I noticed not far
from the ref'ectory door on
the second course above the
seat the letters ABB 3 inches high and in the
style of the thirteenth century. (Fig. 120.)
1222—46. Rzk/zardde Berézhge [was buried before
the middle altar of the Lady Chapel under an orna—
mental marble tomb. In the time of William of
Colchester, a flat slab with a brass was substituted].
A reason for this alteration may be found in the
making of Queen Katherine’s tomb in the centre
of the old chapel.* Keepe says that when
Henry VII.’s Chapel was built his slab was put
at the foot of the steps of the same. Dart identifies
it with the matrix of a brass on the right, but, as
has been shown, this is Harowden's tomb. The
ancient slab right in the centre also has traces of a
brass,1'" and that must be Berkinge’s tomb—slab.

‘\\

/

 

"1n HW‘F-‘iv'

FIG. 120.—On S. wall
of Cloister

* At the inquiry made in 1498 as to the burial-place of Henry VI.
it was reported that he once “went into the Lady Chapel and there
beheld the tomb of Queen Katherine,” which it was suggested should be
put “ somedele lower,” and his own tomb put éeiu'et/z it and [/25 altar.

1‘ Cf. Neale.

347

THE ABBOTS’ GRAVES

1246—58. Ric/lard Crater/6y. Matthew of West—
minster tells us that he was authorised to celebrate
mass like a pontifff‘ and that he dedicated a chapel
of St. Edmund near the north door of the church.
[He was buried in the chapel of
St. Edmund, which he had made,
but later, when that was destroyed
at the building of the new nave, he
was reinterred in the chapel of
St. Nicholas, under a large slab with
his figure, but was again shifted in
the time of Henry VI.] In 1866
an abbot’s coffin was found under
the High Altar, and it is possible,
as Stanley suggests, that this was
Crokesley’s last resting-place.

12 58—6. P/zi/z'p dc Lewz'r/zam.

. , 1259—83. Richard de Ware.

FIG.121.—Abb0t [He was buried under the porphyry

Ware. From his floor on the north side by A. de

seal Valence] This agrees exactly with

the parallelogram of mosaic on the

north side, which shows evidence ofhaving had a

strip of (presumably inscribed) brass around it ; and
under it a coffin was found in 1866.

1283—1308. \Valter de \Venlock. [He was
buried close to the High Altar, outside the south
door to the feretory, under an ornamental slab]
This situation is exactly in front of the sedilia,
which were probably his work.

1308—15. Richard de Kedyngton [was buried

 

* The indult of 1246 entitling him to give episcopal blessing exists.
“ Papal Letters,” Rolls Series.
348

 

 

THE ABBOTS’ GRAVES

before the Great Altar in the lower pavement, near
the Paschal candle, towards the south, under a slab
with his image in pontyfca/z'éu: engraved in brass].

1315—33. William de Curtlington [was buried
before the altar of S. Benedict, south side of
church, near Sir J. Shoreditch, under a slab with
his image in pontificals engraved in brass].

1333—44.. Thomas Henley [was buried by the
Paschal candle, but on the north side]. On the
north side of the centre of crossing a tomb has been
found. See Stanley’s “Memorials,” Ist edition.

1344—49. Simon Byrcheston [was buried in the
Cloister before the entance to the Chapter House,
by the door to the dormitory, under amarble slab.]
This part ofthe Cloister is almost certainly his work.
Dart says he saw the coffin-shaped slab here.

1349—62. Simon Langham [tomb of alabaster,
by the altar of S. Benedict]. Still existing.

1362—86. Nicholas de Litlington [buried before
the altar of S. Blase, under an ornamental slab:
end qf Spar/6y MS. C/czud. A. 8.] Widmore seems
to have seen the tomb, now unidentifiable.

1386—1420. William de Colchester. Efi-igy
still exists in chapel of St. John Baptist, the
letters W and C on pillow.

1420—40. Richard Harowden : buried outside
south entrance to Henry VII.’s Chapel. The large
slab with vestiges of a brass, usually said to be
Berkinge’s must be his (see p. 24.2 above.)

1440—62. Edmund Kyrton, buried in S. An-
drew’s Chapel. Matrix of his brass still remains.
See Dart, Gough, and Harding for brass.

1462—69. George Norwich.

3+9

THE CHAPELS

1469—74.. Thomas Millying: buried in chapel
of St. John Baptist. Keepe says the tomb was
removed on the erection here of the Exeter monu-
ment, and suggests that the coffin now above
Fascet’s tomb may be his, but this coffin is of the
thirteenth century.

1474—98. John Estney : buried in chapel of
St. John Evangelist. Brass now in north ambu-
latory.

1498—1500. George Fascet : tomb still in chapel
of St. John Baptist.

1500—33. John Islip: buried in the lower
chapel, built by himself, as represented on the Roll
at the Society of Antiquaries.ale

As now named the chapels may be traced back
through Dugdale and Caman to the XVIth century.
7716 Then in the lists of tombs just given we
find Little St. Mary‘s and S. Thomas‘s
named. The former was, we saw, asso—
ciated with S. John Baptist’s, and the \Vill of
Eleanor Bohun (before 1399) which directs that she
shall be buried “in the Chapel of S. Edmund
King and of S. Thomas of Canterbury ” (near the
body of her husband it proceeds) shows conclu—
sively that S. Edmund was a second dedication
of S. Thomas’s.

The “ Customs,” of Abbot Ware, mentions the
following chapels or altars: I. The Lady Chapel ;
2. St. Katherine's or the Infirmary Chapel; 3. S.
Faith’s, in charge of the Revestrar; 4.. Quire altar;

C dupe/5.

* For some particulars of elections of abbots see “Papal Letters,"
Rolls Series“ and Historical MSS., Report IV.
350

 

THE CHAPELS

5. Holy Cross altar; 6. S. Paul’s and the Crucifix
on the Pulpitum; 7. Old S. Mary’s; 8. Trinity ;
9. S. Benedict’s ; 10. St. Dunstan’s; II. St. Law-
rence. From many references we know that 2 was
dedicated to S. Katherine before Henry III. rebuilt
the church ; 3 is evidently the vestry, and the ancient
altar there still has a thirteenth—century painting of
8. Faith above it ; 4. was the Matins altar under
the lantern (see p. 21); 5 the Nave altar (see
p. 26) ; 6 afterwards Jesus altar above ; 7 “ by the
north door” (see p. 26); 8 Nave, south altar (see
p. 26). Caxton says that the Confessor here saw the
Vision at this altar (Golden Legend) ; 9 as at
present ; 10 St. Dunstan’s is the chapel under the
dormitory (see p. 162) ; St. Lawrence was probably
a side altar in the Infirmary Chapel.

There was an altar of St. Mary in the chapel of
the Infirmary, and this and St. Lawrence were
probably the altars at the ends of the side aisles.
At the great altar of St. Katherine’s were images of
the Virgin, St. John, and St. Katherine.

In the latter half of the fourteenth century the
several apsidal, transeptal, and other chapels were
refurnished and enclosed with new screens. Accord—
ing to a document given in Stanley’s “ Memorials,”*‘
William Sonwell fitted the chapel of St. John the
Evangelist, and Mary of St. Paul dedicated the
alabaster image of the Virgin in the same place.
Richard Merston, prior, fitted the altar of St. Blase.
Thomas Peverel gave the screen of St. Thomas’,
the painting at the altar of St. Benedict, the image
of St. Mary at the foot of the tomb of Cardinal

* Third Edition.
35I

THE CHAPELS

Langham, and the altar of St. Nicholas. John
Palmer had the screen and all that belongs to the
altar of St. Andrew made in the time of Edward
III., and Edward Kirton renewed it. Roger
Kirton and John Savary gave the altar of St.
Michael St. Martin and All Saints and its screen.
Brother Richard of Cirencester (the Chronicler)
gave the painting at the altar of St. Helen’s and the

 

 

 

FIG. 122.—Cresting of Screen of Chapel of St. Andrew

image of St. Mary. And J. Morton gave the
screen of the Trinity altar and the picture of St.
Katherine.

The chapels and altars mentioned here are: I.
St. Michael St. Martin and All Saints; II. St.
John Evangelist; III. St. Blase; IV. St. Helen;
V. St. Katherine ; VI. Trinity ; VII. St. Thomas ;
VIII. St. Benedict; IX. St. Nicholas; X. St.
Andrew.

The names of altars in the middle of the
fifteenth century may be found also in an MS. at
the British Museum, being a list of the masses at
the several altars. I. The great altar; II. St.
Trinity; III. Holy Cross; IV. Chapel of St.
Mary ; V. Chapel of the same name by the north

352

 

 

THE CHAPELS

door; VI. St. John Baptist ; VII. St. John Evan—
gelist; VIII. St. Paul; IX. St. Andrew; X. St.
Thomas the Martyr ; XI. The altar at the Shrine of
St. Edward; XII. St. Dunstan ; XIII. St. Martin;
XIV. St. Nicholas ; XV. St. Blase ; XVI. St.
Benedict ; XVII. Chapel of St. Katherine ; XVIII.
Chapel of St. Anne ; XIX. St. Helen. [IX. as at pre—
sent; XIII. the St. Michael St. Martin and All Saints
of the last list, the present St. Michael; XV. St.
Blase was in the south-west corner of south transept
enclosed by a screen ; XVIII. probably the St.
Anne by the almonry of Stow; XIX. a note in
Leland shows that St. Helen’s was in the nave, and
from an agreement made in 1298 between the
monastery and Master William Wendone regarding
a priest to sing at the altars of Holy Cross and St.
Helen we may suppose that they were together.]*
The Suppression Inventory mentions : I. St.

Andrew’s; II. St. Michael’s; III. St. Nicholas’;
IV. St. Edward’s; V. King Henry V.’s; VI. St.
Edmund’s; VII. Lady Margaret’s; VIII. St.
John Evangelist ; IX. St. John Baptist ; X. Jesus
Chapel beneath; XI. Jesus Chapel above; XII.
St. Paul’s. [V. is Henry V.’s Chantry, otherwise
Chapel of the Annunciation ; VII. In Henry VII.’s
Chapel ; X. and XI. the Nave and Rood-loft altars]
In the Inventory of Church Goods, (Ex. Q.R.
1032), the last are called the Jesus Chapel and Rood
Chapel. When Henry VII.’s Chapel was built
its high altar retained its dedication to the Virgin.
The Chantry altar at the king’s tomb was St.
Saviour’s. The chapels round about were also
* Heme. “Black Book of the Exchequer,” p. 228.
Z 353

THE CHAPELS .5»;

prepared for altars, seven in all; for the probable
dedications ofthese, see Mr. Micklethwaite’s descrip-
tion of the statues in drc/za’ologz'a xlvii.

In the time of Edward IV. a chapel of St.
Erasmus had been built against the older Lady
Chapel, and both were destroyed by Henry VII.
Mr. Micklethwaite has suggestedi‘ that a recess
made in the time of Richard II. between the chapels
of the Evangelist and Baptist for a precious image,
or “object of high value,” was enlarged by Islip to

. r
///4/ //
. z
/

:aancrufi g, arafinuiig

Pm. 123.——Inscription over door of Chapel

\\
\\\\

/

\\\\‘\\\\

\
\§\\

take the place of the destroyed chapel of St.
Erasmus. We have seen that lVlary of St. Paul,
wife of Aymer de Valence, gave an alabaster image
of the Virgin to the Evangelist's Chapel. Her
will shows that she died in 1377. She left to the
Abbot and Convent of \Vestminster, for the main-
tenance of a chantry—priest in the chapel near the
tomb of her husband, a sum of money ; also a gold
cross with gold stand set with emeralds, which
William de Valence had brought from the Holy
Land, two images of St. Peter and St. Andrew, a
gold chalice, and two tapestries of her husband‘s
arms.

\Ve have seen also that the present chapel of St.
john Baptist, which is next to the Evangelist‘s
Chapel, was associated with a chapel called Little

* sift/Heal!) 11:, xliv.
54

D )

 

THE CHAPELS

St. Mary 1n such a way that some confusion arose
between them. I would suggest on this that the
recess formed “about 1380” just at the back of
the altar of St. John Evangelist was made to con—
tain Mary of St. Paul’s image of the Virgin and
other gifts, and from the image it may have come
to be called Little St. Mary’s. It is significant
that on the boss of the vault was carved the
Assumption of the Virgin. The image in the
niche had “rays from its head painted on the wall.”
This shows, I think, that the figure here was one
of the Virgin.

At the time that it was enlarged by Abbot
Islip the piece of alabaster tabernacle—work which
probably contained an image of St. Erasmus and
came from the older chapel of that name, was set
up over the entrance. About 1524 Bishop Routall’s
tomb was built, blocking up the old door into St.
John Baptist’s Chapel, and the little chapel was
altered once more into a passage way, as at
present.* I do not think that Little St. Mary’s
ever became the Chapel of St Erasmus; the
inscription over the door referred more probably
to the statue. VVeever and other old writers speak
of Islip s Chapel as that of St. Erasmus.

Islip s own two— —storey chapel took up the eastern
half of what had been the Evangelist’s Chapel.
Above, on its east wall, are vestiges of the early
tracery which once panelled it, like that in St.

Benedicts Chapel opposite. It was cut away to
take the painting shown on the Islip Roll drawing

* Poole’s suggestion as to Routall’s tomb is not justified by the

evidence. Lond. and Midx. Archaeol. Soc., vol. vi.
4-1-
333

THE CHAPELS

of this chapel, which gives an accurate representa-
tion of several features which are now lost. In the
niches of the front, for instance, are shown fiVe
images of St. John Evangelist, St. Peter, Christ,
the Baptist, and St. Giles.

There seem never to have been any chapels in
the eastern aisle of the South Transept. This aisle
must have formed the usual approach for the kings
from the palace through the small door called the
“ postern ” in the south—east corner of this transept.
\Vhen the earliest plans of the church were made
the gates of the ambulatorv were in the position
they now occupv, those to the south being one bit}
further east than those to the north. \Ve Can
carry this arrangement back to medimval days bv
the evidence of the pa\ing which tollmxx this
a1rangement, and it is probably original.

 

Fm. 12+ —From Marble base
N.\V. angle ofCrossing

 

 

APPENDIX

WHAT IS GOTHIC ARCHITECTURE?

THE word Gothic is found applied to post-Roman, pre-Renais-
sance building, by Raphael. It is now taken to mean the
lVIediaeval architecture of Western Europe, although some writers,
while accepting this use, try at the same time to give it a narrower
meaning of their own. Some have seen in it the architecture of
pointed arches, or of traceried windows, or of ribbed vaults, or of
buttressesf"

The word “Gothic ” might be given to any of these by any
writer ; but while the equation, Gothic=Medixval, stands, any
other limitation, save by time and place, is based on misunder-
standing.

Thus,Roman architecture is the architecture ofthe Roman civil-
isation. One age has seen in it the true, the revealed architecture
of antiquity—another the architecture of “orders ”—another of
coarse copying of Greece—another of engineering construction—
another of modernism. These things may be characteristic, and
one of them may be the chief characteristic, but it would be a
misapprehension to “ define” Roman architecture by any of
them.

If Roman architecture consisted in such externals as these we
could easily be Roman architects ourselves. If buttresses were
the signature of Gothic, then we have this architecture with us
to-day. But surely Gothic architecture was not merely an affair
of such “ features” as these; there was a Gothic life, and there
had to be Gothic tool-strokes and Gothic mortar. There must
have been ideas in this art which have even yet never been
guessed at.

It is a mistake, then, and leads to much confusion, while
accepting the generic meaning of the word “ Gothic,” to make it
fit some other narrower meaning. It is our business to measure
phenomena, not to shape and cut them down to fit our foot-
rules. Gothic architecture means the art of building of Western
Europe in the Middle Ages. We also get narrow definitions
given to the word “architecture,” so that the meaning proposed

+5 See Mr. Bond’s fine volume, which calls for notice because it
is so important and the most recent pronouncement on Gothic
architecture in England.

4--
33/

APPENDIX

to be given to Gothic architecture works out something like this :
Projects for buttressed buildings.‘

Applying the buttress test, it is said that we may include such
things as the Eleanor Crosses as Gothic, but that is surely a mis-
take, for these have no true buttresses, but only carved models of
buttresses, and such Gothic as that would be only skin-deep.
While Westminster Abbey was building Henry III. erected a
great belfry, opposite its north front. It was a strong stunted
tower, over 70 feet square, with never a break, and most admir-
ably fitted for its work of carrying a great oscillating bell-cage.
Was the church Gothic, and the belfry, built together with it,
not Gothic? Was Gothic art, by its essence, unfitted to deal
with belfries and town palaces and castles E Are the magnificent
flat fronts of Louvain, Bruges and Ypres not Gothic? Are
Conway and Coucy not Gothic?

This buttress View of Gothic art not only confines itself to
churches, but it is a side-elevation view even of them. It does
little to explain the west fronts of Amiens or Reims, nothing to
explain Rouen and Lyons, Lichfield and I’eterborough. l\Ir.
Bond, after having worked down his definition to the point that
“ Gothic architecture is the art of erecting buttressed buildings,"
and that “the universal element in Gothic is . . . the buttress,"
adds to his definition the words, “also of doing work which
possesses the chief characteristics of building so constructed."
This saving clause just sponges out the definition into such
vagueness that, after all, we may, as we must, call anything
Gothic which is medizeval. But the idea that the thing Gothic
can be driven into definitions narrower than its whole field, leads
to curious pitfalls of reasoning.

But is the use of buttresses the chief characteristic of
Medireval Building? Ido not think that it is even this. The
development of buttresses followed on the developed use of the
ribbed vault, on the concurrent growth of the window, and on
the increasing display of stained glass. As to this last, if we take
the most perfectly adjusted works, like the Ste. Chapelle, or St.
Urbain at Troyes, we find that the stained glass gives one
dominating reason for the far—projecting exterior buttresses.
Had it not been for the stained-glass ideal, which necessitated that
the plane of the glass should be kept near the inmr surface of the
bearing masonry, so that its imagery should not be hid in a raking
view, we can hardly conceive that the windows would not have been

* Bond, pp. 2 and II.

J

a
5

.5\

 

APPENDIX

put flush with the outer face of the buttresseswhich would have
disappeared, and that, instead of them, we should have had large
respond-piersin the interior, and thereby gained greater space with
equal structural outlay.

The buttress was never an end in itself, in one sense it was
only a symptom, but of course its use did react on the possibilities
within the reach of the true controlling ideal of the medixval
masons, and great flying buttresses are perhaps the most specialised
features of High Gothic. The controlling ideal was not the
vault merely, or the window, or, least of all, the buttress—but
all of these, and more than all, together. It was the ideal of the
most energetic construction. It was the endeavour after that
ultimate “ proportion ” conditioned by exploring the most that
may be done by balancing stones one upon another. This
is what Morris named organic building. It is what the old
masons’ books seem to mean by geometry, that is, the laws
of structure. It is what Villars de Honnecourt called bonm‘
IIZU§0flfl€I‘i€. Gothic architecture was the art of the craftsmens’
guilds.

TRACERIED WINDOWS.

It was Scott’s view that the Westminster windows were the
earliest of their kind in England. Mr. Bond, while admitting
that we followed France in this particular, claims that im-
portant windows at Binham, old St. Paul’s, and Netley were
anterior to those at Westminster. Geometrical tracery of this
kind, he says, came into use “not later than 1240 in Binham,
Netley, and old St. Paul's.” The Presbytery of old St. Paul’s, he
savs, was consecrated in 1240. From Hollar’s etchings we know
that the eastern limb of the Cathedral had fine traceried windows
of three, four, and five lights, which look almost Decorated in
type. Can such windows have been built before 124.0 E Turn-
ing to Dugdale we find that, at St. Paul’s, a new choir, together
with a central steeple, was begun in 1221 and perfected in 1240.
The choir-stalls were being made in 1236. Can one suppOSe
that such windows were built about 1230 i I think not. Now
Dugdale tells how a great extension of the Cathedral was begun
in 1256, covering the ground of St. Faith’s Church, and called in
a contemporary document, “the new work at the head of the
church.” The main brunt, he says, of this work was over by
1283, but it was not till 1312 that the pavement of this new
work was made. There is no distinction to be observed in the

359

APPENDIX

windows of the eastern limb of St. Paul’s, and we must suppose
that they all belong to the period 1256- 83.

As to the east window of Netley, which Mr. Bond says was
begun in 1239, there seems to be evidence, 011 the illustration
given on his p. 4.71, that it was an insertion, and Mr. St. John
Hope tells me that he noted many years ago that it had been cut
into earlier work. The windows at Winchester Hall are also
inserted.

Now for Binham. Its west window is a very fine work
of eight lights having cuspcd heads, as well as developed tracery,
which I think we should all date, on its merits, as built about
1260—70, and Mr Bond remarks how closely it resembles the
east window of Lincoln, which he dates after 1256, and before
1288, and supposes may have been derived from Binham—yet its
lights are mum/ml. Of Binham, lVIatthew of Paris says that Prior
Richard, 1226—44, built the front of the church to the roof. Are
we compelled to think that this great window in an out—of—the—
way Priory is earlier than the windows of \Vestminster? I do
not think so. The front may have been rebuilt after the time of
Matthew of Paris or, more likely, it may not be the ”'45! Front
which was in question. At the time IVIatthew of Paris wrote it
was the custom to call the east end of a church the front, and,
within a few lines, in the poetic description of \Vestminster,
written C. 1270, we find these two phrases : Of the apsevJ‘ Le
frunt vers orient fait rund ” ; of the Chapter House—“ Cloistre
i fait, chapter a frunt vers orient vousé et rund.”

THE INFLUENCE OF \VESTMINSTER.

The work at \Vestminster exercised an enormous influence
upon subsequent buildings in England. Its erection marks the
close of the lancet, and the opening of the geometrical period.

Of direct imitations the most complete, as regards the plan, at
least, was Hayles Abbey, the foundations of which have lately
been uncovered. The chevet of this church was begun in 1271,
and as it was built at the cost of the brother of Henry 111., it is
likely, I think, that Robert de Beverley, the mason at \Vest-
minster at this time, may have given a draft for it. The radiat-
ing chapels at the not far- distant Abbey of Tewkesbury were
probably, 1n turn, derived f1om Hailes. Tewkesbury also con-
tains some “ triangular” windows like those in the nave of \Vest-
minster, and similar windows ,clearly derived from our Abbey, are
to be found at Lichfield and Heref.o1d
6o
3

 

APPENDIX

The eastern wall of the great new work begun at St. Paul’s
in 1256 was, as already remarked, modelled on the transept ends
of Westminster. A similar great extension at Lincoln, begun
about the same time, shows in its splendid sculptured south porch,
the finest now in England, a study of the north portal at the
Abbey. At Lincoln the tympanum is filled by a very noble
Majesty in a quatrefoil, beneath which is sculptured the separation
of the just and the unjust,a subject which we have independently
shown probably filled the Westminster tympanum.

The west door of Lichfield seems, in turn, to derive from
Lincoln.

This last of the series has on each hand of the Majesty an
angel, one carries the cross and the other a spear. Amiens,
which stands at the head of the series, has also two angels carrying
the cross and spear. If we turn back to Lincoln we find on the
cast of the unrestored Majesty now at South Kensington two
angels the hands of which are broken, but they obviously held
instruments of the Passion ; the action of Christ who points to His
wounds requires as much, although by an unhappy restoration the
angels now carry censers. At Westminster too we may conclude
that there were similar angels.

At Salisbury the Cloister and Chapter House were evidently
inspired by those at Westminster. In the Chapter House, even
minute points, like the carved extensions of the capitals of the
stalls back to the wall, may be traced to this source.

Minor instances of affiliation are too numerous to mention;
two of the most striking are parts of the west front of
Dunstable, and the well-known case of Stone Church, Kent.

ARCH TIES.

In old schools of architecture the use of iron and wood ties
for binding arches was quite general. The most important
Byzantine buildings—S. Sophia, Constantinople, and S. Demetrius,
Salonika—have such ties throughout. Of the early flrabir school,
the Dome of the Rock and the Aksa mosque have a series of ties
at the springing of the arches. In Lombard buildings we find
iron ties used even across external porch arches. At Borgo San
Donnino the tie is shaped like that shown in Fig. 62. Our text
sufficiently speaks of Got/zit tie-bars in France and England.
The Dean’s porch at Lincoln has an external tie-bar. In Italy
ties continued to be used through the Mediazval and Renaissance
periods.

361

APPENDIX

MEDUEVAL “ARCHITECTS.”

Of France we are told that “this word did not come into use
aintil the sixteenth century. Before then they only knew of the
2'master oft/1e works, the master qf war/ts of masonry or of carpentry.
iIt was these who drew the plans, made the estimate and bought
‘materials. . . . The mason Raymond du Temple, who rebuilt
the Louvre in 1365, was called maitre dt‘S matures {If maganm’rie (Ir
gmonseigneur [e rai.” His son Jean was “master of works of
5:,masonry to the church of Paris.” “The word architect first
'appears in 1510.” * That is in a professional sense ; it is
occasionally found before that time used in a somewhat rhetorical
way in documents written in Latin.

One of the great features of medixval civilisation was the
winning ofa position for the crafts. In the earlier Middle Ages
I suspect that persons of the order of prefects of palaces sacristans
of abbeys,_and the like, bad to know a good deal about the prac-
tice of building, and prepared the rough outlines of schemes, calling
on servile labour for the customary execution of the same; this
customary execution must have included all that we call style.
Yet neither those who ordered or those who wrought thought of
that. The position occupied today by many an active steward,
estate agent, factor, or clerk of works represents very well the
conditions as to direction of works.

At the beginning of our enquiry it seems likely that we find
such a person in Alnoth, the “ingeniator” (p. 105); although
there is no reason why he should not have been a mason by
training, I am not convinced that so he was.

We get an interesting indication of a transitional stage in the
naming in 1237 of an early master of Henry lII.’s,]ohn of
Waverley, mason (p. 115), as “brother.” In 1231 an important
work hadjust been completed at the Cistercian Abbey of\Vavc.rley,
and it seems probable that John had been in charge. The early part
of the thirteenth century was the central moment of change in
England from monastic to lay art. h‘laster John is, I think, the
last monastic mason we hear of in connection with the king’s
work ; but a generation later h/Iaster \Villiam of \Vestminster was
the king’s chief painter, and the most famous artist of the time
was Walter ofColchester, a monk ofSt. Albans. As late as c. 129::
a monk of Bury was painter to Edward I. (p. 275). The lay
masters more and more took the place of the monastic artists, and

* A. Franklin, “ Dict. Hist. des Arts," 1903.
362

 

APPENDIX

only the two mentioned above have I found named in the West-
minster accounts.

In this generation much has been made of Elyas of Dereham
as a supposititious architect,just as in the last generation much
was said of William of Wykeham, but it may be questioned
whether one more than the other was a true master builder. Ely as
was canon of Salisbury at the time the new Cathedral was begun,
and before that time had been keeper of the works for Henry III.
at Winchester. He doubtless had a good deal of experience of
building and a very pretty taste, and may from the employing
side have had a good deal to do with the “ design ” of Salisbury,
just as HenryIII. probably had a good deal to say on the “design”
of \Vestminster, but that he was in a special sense an architect
has been too readily accepted on Walpole’s identification of him
with Elyas, ingeniatar at the Tower, in 1209 it was said ; but, as
Brailey has pointed out, the date should be 1199, 10 R. I.
instead of 10 John.

As Elyas of Dereham lived until 1245 and Elyas was a common
name, the identification is most unlikely to be true.

MASONS AND CARPENTERS TO THE CITY.

It was the-custom to appoint ofi‘icial masons and carpenters as
surveyors to report on questions of encroachment, party—walls,
and the like.

In the middle of the fourteenth century there were two of
each trade. In 1300—1 Richard de Wytham was sworn as
surveyor of stone party-walls and of work proper to a mason, and
Robert Osekin and John Writele, carpenters, were sworn to
survey work in their trade.ale Writele died in 1305.

In 1309 Master Reginald de Swafham was sworn as surveyor
of tenements “as far as pertained to the trade of a carpenter,
according to the custom of the city.”T Master Reginald died
in 1314. The year before Master Simon de Pabenham and
Master Alexander de Canterbury, mason, and Master Robert
de Northampton, carpenter, were “sworn to make partition of
tenements in the city,” and acted with the Chamberlain in such a
survey. Some years later, in 1320, Adam de Rothynge held the
office. He and Katherine his wife lived in St. Martin’s-in-the-
Vintry. In 1325 John de Totenham was sworn in his place?!

* Dr. Sharpe’s Letter Book C.
1‘ Letter Book E. I Mid.

U)
C\
'JJ

APPENDIX

Forty years later a John de Totenham (perhaps a son) was city
carpenter. In 1363 he and Richard de “SaIOpia,” carpenters, and
Richard de Salynge (see p. 196) and Richard at Cherche, masons,
were sworn as surveyors.

In 1367 the same carpenters, with Richard at Cherche and
Thomas Barnet, masons, were “sworn in full hustings.”

In 1369 the sworn carpenters were Richard “ Shropshire ” and
Thomas Frant, and the sworn masons as last. In the next year
the same four petitioned to be made free from taxes, as their pre-
decessors in oflice had been for a hundred years. This was granted,
as long as they remained in oflice.*

The number of names in this list, prepared on independent
lines, of masons and carpenters whom we have found connected
with the works at Westminster shows that in our enquiry as to
those works we have become acquainted with many of the best
craftsmen of the city in the Middle Ages.

FREEMASONS AND GUILDS.

Fresh explanations of the meaning of freemason are frequently
being made. The two latest that I have seen are that the name
took its rise from untaxed imported stone, or from masons of free
condition. The evidence, however, points to the name being
derived from free—working stone,1‘ and it was applied to the
hewers in distinction to the setters or wallers. In the \Vest—
minster accounts of 1253 this distinction between the white~stone
cutters and layers already exists. See also our p. 20.1..

Several seals of craftsmen of Middle Ang have been preserved.
The earliest mason’s seal I have found is that of \Valter Dixy of
Barnwell (Cambs.). It is appended to a deed of 1312, and has
the device of a mallet between a moon and a star, and about it S
[igillum] VVAL'I‘ER LE MASON. There is no certain record of the
establishment of the NIasons’ Guild in London, but it was in
existence, and received an official grant of arms in 14.73. The
arms were a pair of compasses on a chevron between three castles,
a coat which is sometimes found on masons’ tombs; recently I
saw one such mason described a “ gentleman of coat armour.”

In certain returns made in 1376 as to the numbers and members

* Letter Book G.
'l‘ Skeat gives free cutting as the meaning of frecstone. In 1332 I
find Liéera Petra (Freestone) mentioned, and in 1311 Franc-a Perm.

36+

 

APPENDIX

of the several guilds returnable to the Common Council, the
masons are said to be entitled to four and the freemasons to two.

We have seen them acting together as a corporation in the years
1315 and 1356 ; and as far back as we can trace the title
“master” it seems that we may infer some sort of guild which
conferred that mastership. In the fifteenth century there were
yearly congregations of masters. In late days there was a
separate marblers’ guild.

The carpenters of London received a charter of incorporation in
17 Hen. IV. The names of the wardens of the guild are known
from 1438, and the names of the masters from 14.57. (See Jupp‘s
“ Carpenters’ Company.”)

The joiners are found acting as a corporation in 1309. (See
Riley’s “ Memorials.”) For the whole company of the black-
smiths see our p. 307. For the Painters’ Guild see end note.

A MASON’S RECIPE.

In the Pipe Roll account for 1269—70 an item occurs for wax
and pitch for making cement, and similar items occur more than
once in the accounts for the Palace. In one instance, in 1324—7,
601bs. of pitch were bought for cement, and 100 Flanders tiles to
be pulverised for the same cement. In the book of Villars de
Honnecourt we have a recipe for such a cement given in full :

“Take lime and pounded pagan (Roman) tile in equal quantities,
adding a little more of the latter until its colour predominates.
Moisten the cement with oil, and with it you can make a vessel
(tank) that will hold water.” Willis compares this with the
“ Mastic de dilh,” whatever that may be. The recipe given by
Villars is, I suppose, derived from .the East, where, from early
days, they have used a waterproof cement made of unslaked lime,
crushed brick, filaments of cotton for binding, and linseed oil.
Pliny mentions quicklime and oil used together.

MS. COLLECTION OF HERALDRY, 1680.

This volume, from the Phillipps Collection, is entitled “ The
History of St. Peter’s, or Westminster Abbey, continued, being
the eleventh and twelth chapters thereof. . . MDCLXXX.”
Written in another hand is “Exlibris Stephani Bateman,
Interioris Templi, I698.” Collation with H. Keepe’s “Monas-
terium,” published in 1683, shows that the two have much

365

APPENDIX

in common,as well in exact similarity of passages as in the scope
and the order of arrangement. Keepe, who was of the Inner
Temple, and died in 1688, had “ projected a splendid edition ” of
his Westminster Collections parallel to Dugdale’s St. Paul’s, but
he failed in getting it taken up, and had to content himself with
the small volume?“ I have no doubt that my heraldic lVIS.
formed part of this Collection.

The inscription on the screen before the Chapel of St. Andrew’s
is given as follows:

'

lloc Tibi Memoria Sacriste Kyrton et ora Sibi post elega succcdant Celica Regna

|
Ut fecit Spina Rosam Profert in Dca Mariz'ii EstoFlos Florum, Mortis Medicina Rear:

 

Hoc opus is Fecit et Sic Ornando Percgit. M : etrn Cent : Sexta Septem Ten-t.

I.H.S. on aROSh.

HERALDRY.

The heraldry of the church would form a magnificent “roll of
arms” of the best period. The English coat on the chapter house
tiles is dated, as we have shown, c. 1258. The sculptured set of
shields in the choir aisles are of incomparable excellence, and are
of about the same period. The tombs of Alianor, of \Villiam de
Valence, and of Edmund Crouchback furnish a long series of
shields designed at just the turn of the thirteenth century. Those
on tombs of Aymer de Valence, John of Eltham, Queen Philippa,
and Edward 1H,, all of the fourteenth century, are also models of
heraldic style. The inimitable quality of these old charges came
first from the spirit in which they were devised for a purpose, and
from their perfect adjustments of drawing developed by frequent
repetition. The beasts are marvels of fancy, and have little
relation to the waddling lions and boiled eagles of modern
blazons.

The carved shields of the choir aisles were eight in number on
each side, and they reached as far as Henry III.’s work extended.
After the nave was completed the series was continued in painting
to the west end, all being coats of the period of Henry III.
Above these, and above the carved shields, the names of those
who once bore them were painted. See those of the two west
bays on the south side. This was done, I think, by Abbot
Feckcnham, who painth so many inscriptions in the Confessor’s

* Dict. Nat. Biog.
306

 

APPENDIX

Chapel, and the painted arms of the nave may have been done
at the same time. Keepe took his identifications of the shields
from these inscriptions in “ancient English letters.”

Two of the sculptured shields, those of Scotland and de Bohun,
were displaced early in the eighteenth century, and are lost ; the
rest are preserved, even when shouldered out of their places by
intruding monuments. The series includes the shields of the
great barons of the kingdom at a most interesting moment. So
far as I have been able to trace them, they were all living about
1255, and many of them signed the Provisions of Oxford in 1259.
The shields cannot refer to a period later than this when the
barons were in revolt. In 1265 Simon de Montford, whose arms
are on the north side, was slain. The sixteen early shields (two
in each bay) as traditionally assigned were :

The Empire 1 King Edward
or Germany First Bay the Confessor
5. Louis of 2 Henry III.
France of England
N — — —— -—~— —- —— ~ —- —— —— —— — S
O Richd. de Clare ‘ 3 ~i‘Alexander III. 0
R E. of Gloucester Second Bay of Scotland U
T Roger Bigod 4 Provence for T
H E. of Norfolk Queen of H. III. H
Simon de Montford 5 Roger de Quincey
S E. of Leicester Third Bay E. of Winchester S
1 John de Warrenne 6 Henry de Lacy I
D E. of Surrey E. of Lincoln D
E — — —~ —— — -- -- — ~— — —— —— E
l'Humph. de Bohun 7 Richard Earl of
E. of Hereford Fourth Bay Cornwall
Will. de Fortibus 8 R. Earl of
E. of Albemarle Rothesay

Why is not the coat of Castile and Leon here, since Edward
married Alianor in 1253? Why is there no coat for Edward
himself? Why does Germany appear as well as Cornwall, since
Richard of Cornwall was himself elected Emperor in 1257 P On
consideration of these points, I am inclined to refer back the
choice of these arms to a still earlier period, and to suggest that
they represent those who were in some way associated with the
building of the new work in 1245 or 1258. (See bottom ofp. I 56.)

367

APPENDIX

The earliest drawings I have seen of these shields are those in
a heraldic MS. by Joseph Holland, dated 1585. They are there
said to be “of benefactors towards the building of part of the
said church.”

Many early coats of arms which have disappeared from the
tombs are tricked in the Collection of the “ Lancaster Herald”
(Lansd. M88. 874). First comes a series undescribed, which
were probably in the windows; then those on the screen in St.
Andrew’s Chapel, also undescribed, but I identify them from my
own MS., where they are also drawn ; then follow the arms on
the tombs of Crouchback, of William de Valence, of Aymer de
Valence, of Edward III., and of Queen Philippa, also those on
many of the later monuments. In the Powell Collection at the
British Museum some of the shields are more carefully drawn.

SEALS.

The earliest abbey seal is found on documents of the time of
Abbot Herbert, c. I 130. In an oval, St. Peter, keys in hand, sits
on a throne, his feet resting on a prostrate figure which must
represent Nero. After the canonisation of the Confessor, 1169,
a new seal was made, which appears on documents dated from
120I to 1537. This is round ; St. Peter, in mitre and pallium,
keys in one hand, crozier in the other, is figured as before with his
feet on Nero. The reverse shows the Confessor enthroned, holding
a sceptre and a church in his hands, and with a prostrate figure,
who must represent the King of the Danes, under his feet. A late
impression ofthis seal (Egerton Charters, 361) is still beautifullv
sharp, and shows it to have been a very fine work ; the St. Peter
is especially noble. The earliest existing personal seal is that of
Abbot Ware. A pointed oval with a beautiful figure ofa mitred
abbot, on either side of whom are heads of the Confessor and the
Pilgrim. There is another seal of Harowden, with SS. Peter,
John and Katharine in niches, the abbot praying below. A
somewhat similar seal belonged to Islip. The seals of the
sacristan,]ohn Amundisham (1454),and the Chamberlain, Thomas
Brown (1509), are also preserved. They show St. Peter and the
Confessor in tabernacles. The tombs of these two monks are in
the North Ambulatory.

L»)

 

APPENDIX

THE CORONATION STONE.

From the sixteenth century, at least, this mysterious stone has
been shown as Jacob’s Pillow. L. von Wide], who visited the
Church in 1584—5, says, “ In the choir a chair was shown to us
in which all the English kings were crowned. In this chair is
enclosed a stone on which Jacob is said to have rested. On one
sepulchre there was a sword twelve spans long, and of mighty
weight, which belonged to King Ilwardus ” [Edward III.].*

Volumes of matter have been written on this stone. In 1324.
Robert Bruce appealed to Edward II. that the Scots might have
restored to them the celebrated stone which King Edward, senior,
had placed near the tomb of St. Edward. Scota, the daughter of
Pharaoh, had brought it from Egypt, and gave her name to the
land which was before called Albania [Albion], and Moses had
foretold that victory should follow the stone.'l'

Edward II. refused to give up what his father had taken as the
best token of his victory, although an agreement was entered
into in 1328 that it should be restored. The prophecy of Moses
must be a reference to the well-known lines given by Fordun, c.
1388, as to the stone having “ such a fatal destiny that, wherever
it should be found, there should Scottish men reign.”

It has been said that, according to Irish traditions, this stone is
Lia Fail, the stone of Fate or Virtues, “ now in the throne upon
which is proclaimed the King of the Saxons.” I But this does not
appear to be the fact. Yet comparison with the Irish stone fully
explains the legends which gather around the stone now at West-
minster. We are told that the Lia Fail had the magic property of
uttering a human cry when touched by the rightful King of Erin.§

In an Irish version of Giraldus Cambrensis, which has some
additional matter, is told how “ the king [Henry II.] left Ireland
and went to the city of St. David ; and there happened to be on
the north side of the church a stone, called the Speaking Stone,
like unto the Lia Fail which is in Tara, ten foot in length . . .
A dead body was brought to the Speaking Stone, and it spake
thereunder . . . Merlin promised that that stone would speak
under him who should conquer Ireland. The king went to it;
but it did not speak under him, so he was displeased.”

* Royal Hist. Soc. Trans., vol. ix. N.S.

Jr Chrons. Eds. I. and IL, Rolls Series.

I Nutt’s “ Studies in the Holy Grail,” p. 184..

§ See Squire, “ Mythology of the British Islands,” p. 71.
2 A

369

APPENDIX

Mr. Whitley Stokes, who edits this fragment, remarks that the
Lia Fail, or Stone of Ireland, was evidently still at Tara when
the passage was written in the fifteenth century, and refers to
O’Curry’slectures (p. 618) for the Irish legends.‘ It is clear that
in Ireland, in Wales, and in Scotland, there was said to be a
prophetic stone, with the guardianship of which the welfare of the
ruler was bound up. The Coronation Stone is the Speaking
Stone of Scone.

Ifa similar legend had become attached to London Stone in
Cannon Street, that would well account for the curious scene
reported of Jack Cade by Shakespeare. Perhaps, however, know—
ing the legend of the Coronation Stone, the Pretender only for the
moment applied it to the City Stone.

HOLBEIN AND BLAKE IN THE ABBEY.

In the portraits of Henry VII. and Henry VIII., once at
Whitehall, of which the finished cartoon is preserved at Chats-
worth, the head of Henry VII. so closely resembles that of
Torregiano’s effigy of the king that I have no doubt that Holbein
studied the statue for his purpose.

Miss Mary Hervey, in her interesting book on Holbein’s famous
picture of the flmbassadors at the National Gallery, pointed out, as
said on p. 312, that the mosaic floor_on which the ambassadors seem
to stand is a representation of that at the Abbey. Accepting this
fact, we may reach a fuller interpretation of the picture. The
inscription on the pavement itself stated that it contained a com-
putation of the term of the world’s existence—“ containing a
discourse of the world’s continuance,” as VVeever puts it. Now
Holbein’s picture was painted in London in 1533, and at this
time, when the traditions of the Abbey were unbroken, we cannot
doubt that the wonderful prophetic pavement was pointed out to
every v151tor.

We may assume that Holbein consciously made use of this as
a symbol of Time on which to stand his two ambassadors, who
were engaged on the affairs which make history, in this great
culminating year of the break with Rome and Anne Boleyn’s
divorce. The mysterious picture itself, it is evident, requires
supplementary explanation, and the one which seems to stand out
by itself by the statement of the facts, falls in perfectly with the

* “ Eng. Hist. Review,” 1904..
37°

 

APPENDIX

fashion of the time, shown in such works as Durer’s Melancholia
and Holbein’s own Dance ofDeat/z.

On the mosaic ofTime a double-staged table carries the several
instruments of science and art. On the upper stage they are
mostly astronomical, and here is a celestial globe. Below are
books, a musical instrument, compasses, and a terrestrial globe.
The stand with its contents, against which the ambassadors lean,
forms a symbol of human knowledge. Right in front, above the
floor, is a curious distorted skull, which is set at an angle to the
pavement, like that of a gnomon to a dial. Death throws its shadow
on Time, and it is not without reason that its shadow is out of
relation to the others in the picture.

In the summer of 1775 tapestries which had covered the tombs
of the Presbytery were removed, and the paintings on these tombs
and the sedilia were at once copied for, and published by, Sir Joseph
Aylofi'e. These copies are now in the library of the Society of
Antiquaries, and are of such a character that they could have been
drawn only by two men then in England, John Carter and William
Blake ; and it is to the latter, I think, that we may assign them.
Blake was apprenticed to Basire, the engraver, from 1771 to 1778
(age 14—21). In 1773 he was sent by his master to draw in the
Abbey, and for years he was engaged in drawing “all the medimval
tombs.” “In the winter the youth helped to engrave selections
from these Abbey studies . . . the prentice work as assistant to
Basire of these years may be traced under Basire’s name in
Archzeologia, &c. . . . In the Sepulchral Monuments (Gough,
I796) occurs a capital engraving of Queen Philippa from her
monument, with the inscription: Basin: delineatxit, for which,
as in many other cases, we may safely read IV. B/a/ae.” * Now,
the drawings ofwhich we have spoken are signed: “Basire, 1775.”
And the engravings from these drawings are signed: “J. Basire

del. et sc., 1780.”

PRESERVATION OF THE CHURCH.

My last word must be on this most important of all considera-
tions in regard to the fabric, and I venture here to set down
a summary of the conclusions I have reached.

1. Not one more monument or memorial window should be
erected. A single one, in every case, seems a small matter, but
the cumulative result of even those set up in the last generation

* Gilchrist’s “ Life of Blake.”
37I

APPENDIX

is disastrous. All compromises on this question are vain. Little
marble discs and busts seem to disfigure the interior almost more
than great statues in court dress. Hardly can the student
protect himself from these new distractions. One cannot see the
church for the monuments, nor the monuments for the sombre
stained glass, nor the stained glass for the soot. There must
surely comea revulsion in favour of daylight ; as it is, an enormous
quantity of gas, that most destructive agent, has to be burned.
My friend, Mr. S. C. Cockerell, has suggested to me that the best
form ofa memorial would be to cut names on the pavement slabs
of the nave and cloister. I feel that the inclusion in such a list,
ever growing longer in due sequence, would be a finer thing in
itself, and the list more interesting to follow, than any addition
of disparate and scattered monuments. ‘

2. The church, within and without, should be kept continu-
ously in the most perfect repair. As to this, it may be pointed
out that the fissure on the west side of the north transept,
which has existed for twenty years, must be harmful to the body
of the wall. As Mr. Morris says in his little volume on the care
of the church: “You cannot restore it, you can preserve it.
The structural stability having been secured, the Abbey should
be kept clean, and otherwise not be touched at all." This keep-
ing clean would be one factor in preservation, for the film of
matter which collects over all surfaces exposed in London is very
destructive. I must here repeat what I have said as to the
necessity of putting a protective skin of lime-wash over the whole
exterior stone-work. Examination of ancient masonry like the
west front and sculptures of Wells Cathedral, and the rich south
porch of Lincoln, shows that in the lVIiddle Ages it was cus-
tomary so to protect masonry. Of course, if the church were
whitened all at once it would seem somewhat shocking, but there
is no need of this, if it were done gradually and with a yellow
toned wash; and the portions done would soon recover their
mellowness. The various textures would appear through the film
with even enhanced value ; compare the vaulted passages entering
east from Dean’s Yard.

3. Whatever we do, much will necessarily decay—paintings,
carvings, pavements, are quickly fading and wearing away from
sight and memory; and a part of any general scheme of preservation
must include the recording of all these things, beginning with
those that are likely to be most fugitive, the last traces of painting
especially. For instance, the thirteenth-century figure of St.
Faith has never yet been copied. To restore these things is to
372

 

 

”flfie—fl7fi ., ' I

    

, ”may; 41-; .

 

 

APPENDIX

substitute a copy for what remains of an original, but to copy it is
to preserve a faithful record of it, while leaving the original
untouched, which will carry on its interest until it fades to a mere
shadow. Which will the next generation most thank us for?
Even valuable manuscript sources for the history of the church

yet remain unpublished, such as “Fabric Rolls,” and “Flete’s
Lives of the Abbots.”

FINAL NOTES

THE CONFESSOR’S CHURCH (p.101).

Mr. Bond gives with reserve a class of plans having ambulatories
but no chapels, and instances St. Bartholomew’s, Smithfield,and
Worcester. Remains of chapels at the former still exist, and there
is evidence, I believe, for those at Worcester.

VAULTING WITH INTERMEDIATE RIBS (p. 129).

The choir vaults of Westminster may be the earliest in Eng-
land with subdivided cells. The choir vault at Lincoln, I am
convinced, is not of St. Hugh’s work, and is not so much a step
towards Subdivided vaults as an attempt to make all the compart-
ments harmonise with the first (sexpartite) bay in having six half
ribs. The vault of Lichfleld, south transept, which is also men-
tioned as an early example of this type, is much later than the
transept itself. At Amiens the church of St. Anne, as well as the
cathedral, has a vault of this kind.

THE SHRINE (p. 293).

In 1242 a mandate was issued that Edward, the King’s Clerk,
should have money for the shrine, and for the liveries of the gold-

smiths working on it, and for the marble work. This last must
have been set aside.

THE DORMITORY (p. 199).

This building was again burnt in 27 Hen. VI. The present roof
must be part of the repairs.

373

APPENDIX

KING’S CARPENTERS (p. 208).

In 1438 John Goulding, disposer and surveyor of the King’s
works at the Palace and the Tower : also John Whattley.

GLASS-MA KING (p. 304).
Thos. Glaswryghte mentioned I 355.

PAINTERS AND THEIR GUILD (p. 275).

Master Adam, the Painter, is mentioned in 1312 and 13! ;
(Letter Books E and D). Amongst the names ofthose sworn in
1328 into the divers Misteries of London, for the government and
instruction of the same, were the painters Robt. le Davv, Henrv
de Denecoumbe, William de l’orkle, and Richard de Stockweil

(Letter Book E).

374

 

GENERAL INDEX

ABBEY buildings
5542

Abbey Church. Date of building,
1, 152; dimensions, 2, 127, 128;
best View of interior, 4; paint—
ing of interior, 29, 3o; lighting
0f: 10: ”a 19: 21) 34: 35, 109;
rose decoration in, 49 fi ;
pageants at, 34, 35; history of,
94 ff; foundation of, 96; cost
of works, 153, 154, 173; state
at death of Henry III., 198;
fire at, 199; re-building after
fire, 199 ff ; sculpture at, 241 if;
windows of, 303 H; influence of,

and precincts,

3

Abbots, 95 fl ; abbots’
344 fi; abbots’ seals, 368

Alianor Crosses, 174 if, 245

Altars, 11, 14, 26, 107, 108; high
altar, 15; frontal of, 16; re—
table of, 263

Amiens, likeness to Westminster,
79, 85, 123 E, 128

Architects, mediaeval, 362

Arch ornament, 137, I38

graves,

BELFRY, 56 ff, 155
Bells, 56 fi, 114, 156
Buttresses, 78, 80, 84, 86, 87, I 39

CHAPELS, construction of, 127;
identification of, 350 H; various
chapels, 29, 32, 244, 283, 355;
chapel of St. Faith, 29, 55, 243,
244, 260; chapel of St. Kathe-
rine, 104 H

Lady Chapel (old), 107, 141 if,
161; Lady Chapel (Henry
VII.), 14, 222 fi; sculptures
of, 229 if; construction of,
230 ff; screen of, 232;

 

Chapels —(contimmd)
glazing of, 237 ff; painting
in, 259
Chapter House, painting of, 30,
47, 276, 282; vestibule of, 42;
description of, 43 fl; roof of,
44; vaulting of, 44, 45; sculp—
tures of, 45, 46, 155, 241 if;
arcade of, 46; tiles of, 47,
48, 75, I63; lectern for, 155,

257

Chevet, 87, 141 ff

Choir, 23; stalls of, 23; tapestries
in, 24, 25 ; exterior of, 89

Cloister, 37 E, 42, 155, 159, 201 ff

Confessor and Pilgrim, Story of,
56; representations of, 10, 25,
48, 56, 247, 255, 271, 303

Confessor’s Chapel, 9 ff; altar of
relics in, II, 14; mosaic floor of,
14, 327 if; screen of, 20, 21;
shrine in, 169, 293—296; mosaic
basement of, 319 ff

Confessor’s Church, 98 fi’, 373

Coronation Chair, 18 ; painting of,
265 3; design of, 297

Coronation Stage and Crossing, 21,
22, 23

Coronation Stone, 369 E

Course of Henry III.’s work, 145 E,
166, 167

DORMITORY, 55, 373

ELEANOR Crosses (we Alianor)

Epitaphs, Royal, 332 fi

FABRIC Accounts, 113, 114 (note),
373

Freemasons, 36

French Influence, 73 H, 79, 85, 99,
100, 115 ft

375

GENERAL INDEX

GLASS, 29; in cloister, 37, 38; 299 11

Gifts of Edward I., 10; Henry
III., 10, 110, 111, 114, 156;
Richard II., 10, 205

Gothic Architecture, 357

Guilds, 364,

HERALDRY, 6, 301, 364, 365-368

JUMIficEs, Likeness of Confessor’s ‘

Church to, 100
KING’S Mason and Carpenter, 112 f1

LANTERN, 90, 91, 144

MISSAL, Abbot Litlington’s, 280 if
Mouldings, 131 if

NAVE, 27; chapels in, 28; exterior
of, 88; completion of, 201,;
windows, of, 303

Norman buildings, 102 fi'

ORGANS, 26, 27

PAINTING, 29, 30-34; of altar panel,
15; 0f Sedilia panels, 19; in
Cloister, 37; of Chapter House,
42, 47 ; 0f portrait of Richard 11.,
24, 278 if; of retable, 263

Paving of Henry III.’s work, 29;
mosaic pavement, 309 11, 370

Pear trees, planted near church, 2

Pillars, I36 11

Presbytery, 18; mosaic floor in.
18, 309 11; tombs in, 18, 19;
Sedilia in, 19; tomb of Sebert
in, 19; painting of, 19, 30

Preservation of Church, 372

Pulpitum, 26

REFECTORY, 55

Reims, likeness of Westminster to,
73, 116 ff

Repair, 91 if

376

 

Restoration, 63 11, 72, 76 11, 227 E,
372

Retable, 263 11

Rood, 16; nave mod, 26, 27

Rose decoration, 49—54

SACRIS’I‘Y, 157

Sainte Chapelle, influence of, 121 if,
190, 208

Sanctuary, 57, 58, 59, 65

Screens, of Confessor’s Chapel, 20,
21, 209; of Henry V1135 Chapel,
232; colouring on screens, 31,
32

, Seals, 287, 248, 368

Sedilia, 19, 247, 271 11
Shrine of Confessor, 9 11, 169, 293—
296; mosaic basement of, 319 ff;

373

Trsrrns, 14, 16, 19, 22, 177
Tics, iron, I39 11; wooden, [4.5, 361
Tomb of Alianor, 11, 14, 30, 3+, 35,
177, 237, 261 11, 28+, 286,
237, 305» 33I
Aveline, 182, 184, 246, 249,
267, 270
Bishop Colehester, 30
Edward Crouchback, 182, 2+6,
269, 270
Edgitha, 10
Edward 1., 11, 329, 338
Edward 111., 11, 288, 289, 332
John of Eltham, 2+8
Henry 111., 11, 284 if, 326, 327,
331
and Chantry of Henry V., 14,
32, 207 ; sculptures of, 25.1, if;
iron grate of, 306, 331
Henry \'1., 226
Henry \'II., 236, 332
Princess Katherine, 30, 288,
294, 31+ Ff
Queen Katherine, 3.1.7
Cardinal Langham, 30, 216, 253
Matilda, 10

 

GENERAL INDEX

Tomb of Philippa, 11, 14, 30525118,
1 h 33', 3327 371
Richard II. and Anne, II, I4,
215 if, 279, 289 ff
Margaret of Richmond, 237
Sir Ludovic Robsart, 33
Sebert, 19
Aymer de Valence, 184, 247,
John and Margaret de Valence,
317 ff
William de Valence, 292, 316
Duchess of York, 32
Tombs of Abbots, 344 ff
Tombs, painting of, 30, 370;
efligies of, 329 if; records of,
339 ff
Transepts. North transept, re—
mains of, 64; porches of, 65, 81
fl ; evidences as to original forms,

66 fig Rose of, 68 ff, 72 if, 302 ;

 

Transepts—(contirzued)
gable of, 76 fl; sculptures in,
244. South transept, Rose of,
73, 75, 85 ; description of, 86,
87: 155

VAULTING, of Chapter House, 44 PE ;
of Abbey, 128 if; of Henry VII.’s
Chapel, 231, 232, 373

WAGES, I 58

West Front, 90

Westminster, description of, 60—62

Westminster Hall, 61, 216, 217, 254,
304

Westminster Palace, St. Stephen’s
Chapel in, 61, 181, 182, 188, 189,
190, I91, 276

Whitewash, 92, 372

Windsor, St. George’s Chapel at,
223 if, 305, 307

Wren, Sir Christopher, 68 fi‘, 80

377

INDEX OF CRAFTSMEN

K.M. =King's Mason ; K.P. =King’s Painter, &c.

MASON S

ABYNGDON, Nicholas de, 194
Aldewyche, Ade de, I 59
Alberic, 185

Albon, John, 287

Andrew, 115

BARTON, Thos., 364

Bartone, Simon de, 204

Battle, John, 179

Battle, Thomas, 188

Bell, John (mason and sculptor), 24o

Benet, John, 159, 206

Beverley, Robert de, K.M., 113
(note), 114, 152 (nott), 163—173

Blound, William lo, 180, 181

Bole, Walter le, 201, 202

Box, John, K.M., 203

Bredone, Thomas de, 204

Broun, Thomas, 189

Brown, John, 185

Bruton, Matthew de, 186

CANTERBURY, Alexander of, 363

Canterbury, Hugh of, 174

Canterbury, Michael of, 180 ff,
187

Canterbury, Thomas of, K.M., 188,
189—192

Canterbury, Walter of, K.M., 188

Carlton, Geofirey dc, K.M., I96

Carlton, William de, 186

Carter, John, 227 (note)

Chaundeler, Richard de, 186

Cherche, Richard at, 364

Chersaltoun, Henry de, 159

Child, John, 187

Cleuddere, William
sculptor), 219, 254

Clifford, John, 220'

378

(mason and

 

Colchester, John, 206

Colchester, William of, K.M., 206
Cornwaylle, Richard de, 204
Crundale, Richard, K.M., 174—179
Crundale, Roger, 174, 177, I78
Crundale, Thomas, 174, 180
Crundale, \Valter, 188

DIPENHALE, Walter de, 187
Dippenhall, Robert de, 193
Dixy, Walter, 364

Dyminge, dc Reyns, Nicholas, 177

Esroxr, John de, 204

GAYFERE, Thomas, 227 ff

Gloucester, John of, K.M., 113, 152
(um), 161‘166, 244, 245

Gloucester, Thomas of, 203, 204

HARDEGRAY, Thomas, 204
l’loo (or Hove), \Villiam de, 180, 187
llylmer, John, 224

JANYNS (Jenins), Henry, 223
Jenins, Robert, K.M., 22;, 234
Joyce, Richard, 204

KEN'I‘BL‘RY, Robert, 205, 217

LEBONS, John, K.M., 223, 234
Ledes, William of, 180
l.ewys, Simon, 206

Lote, Stephen, 215, 220
Lynne, Richard, 192

MACON, Peter, 253

Maddelay, Richard de, 186
Mapilton, Thomas, K.M., 206—208
Martyn, Walter, 227 (note)
Mazonsone, Simon 1e, 185

 

INDEX OF CRAFTSMEN

OXFORD, John of, 158 (note), 160

PABENHAM, Henry de, 185

Pabenham, John de, 179, 180 (?),
184

Pabenham, Simon de, 184, 185, I87,
363

Pabenham, William de, 185

Padington, Thomas, 205

Padrington, W’illiam de (mason and
sculptor), 25o

Pavy, Robert, 187

RADEWELLE, Ade de, 185
Radewelle, John de, 186
Radewelle, Richard de, 185
Radelphus, K.l\/l., 115

Ramsey (de Rammeseye), John, 189,

I94

Ramsey, Nicholas, 194

Ramsey, Simon, 185

Ramsey, William, K.M., I89, 192—
196

Redmain, Henry, 224, 225

Robertus, 115

Rothynge, Adam de, 363

ST. ALBANS, Hugh of, 186
St. Omer, John of, I54, 155
St. Osida, Bernard de, 159
Sallynge, Richard de, 204, 364
Sallynge, Walter de, 204
Shere, Robert de, 186
Sherc, William de, 186
Shorndale, William, 214
Shrewsbury, Hugo de, 186
Smith, Richard, 217
Sparrow, Walter, 188
Sponlee, William, 196
Stone, Nicholas, K.M., 112
Stow, Richard de, 179
Stowell, John (mason and sculptor),
240
Swallow (Swalwe), John, 216 if
Suthis, Will, K.M., 112

 

THIRSK, 209
Thomas, 174, 180
Tischemersh, Henry, 186
Tischemersh, Hugh, 187
Toft, John (mason and sculptor),
250
Tonebrigg, Roger de, 185
Tothill, Maurice de, 186
Tracey, John, 227 (note)
Tumour, William, 210
Typerton, Nicholas, 214
Tyryngton, John de, 204
Tytemerssche, Peter de, 193

VERTUE, Robert, K.M., 223, 225,
226, 234
Vertue, William, 224, 225, 226

WASHBOURNE, Richard, 216, 217

Waverley, John of, 115, 362

VVayte, Richard de, 186

Waz (or Wantz), William de, 159,
I62

Weldon, Thomas de, 186

Westminster, Henry of, K.M., 113,
126, 150—160

Whitewelle, John de, 186

Wightham, William de, 185

Wihthum, Reginald, 188, 193

Witham, Richard de, K.M., 174,
I84 ff, 363

Wolvey, John, 219

Wolvey, Thomas, 219

Wrewk, Thomas, 214

Wylot, John, 204

Wynford, William de, 212 ff

Wythe, William 1e, I74

YEVELE, Henry, K.M., 204, 205,
212—217, 253

MARBLERS AND MOSAIC
WORKERS

BOURDE, John, 291
379

INDEX OF

CANON, of Corfe, Edward, 192
Canon, of Corfe, Richard, 192
Canon, of Corfe, William, 192
Corfe, Adam of, 186, I87
Corfe, Nicholas of, 186

Essex, John, 209, 291
FIFELDE, Thomas, 209
KNAPPE, Richard, 206
MARBLER, Hugh, 186

ODERICUS (of Rome) (mosaic worker),
310

PARIS, Richard, 154
Peter (of Rome) (mosaic worker),

319

RAMSEY, John, 194.
Russe, John, 206

WALTER LE MARBLER, 174, 187,
3640)

Well, Simon of, 31.4r

White, William de, 186

SCULPTORS

ABINGDON, Alexander of, 177 H,
245 E
Aldwich, John, 254.

BELAMY, Robert, 230
Bell, John, 2.1.0
Brasington, Robert, 254

CASTEL, Giles van, 22+, 239
Chaucombe, Thomas, 250
Cleuddcre, William, 219, 25.1.
Codinham, Richard, 230

DELPHYN, Nicholas, 230
Drawswerd, 230, 2 33, 234f
38o

CRAFTSMEN

1
i

l
l,
l
1
l

ELLrs, Robert, 224
FILLES, John, 224r

GODEMAN, Nicholas, 256

. Grobe, Derrick van, 224, 239

HrLL, Thomas, 256
Hudd, John, 230
llylton, \Valter, 256

j IRELAND, William of, 179, 24,3

Iafior, Hawkin de, 251
Lingard, John, 256
Lyndcsay, William de, 250
MYMMS, John de, 250

PADRING'I'ON, William de, 250

READING, Richard de, 247, 243
Richard, 241

ST. ALBANS, John of, KS , 2H, :45

i Starky, Richard, 256
: Stowell, John, 240

‘ TrioMAs, 2+1
, 'l‘oft, John, 250

'l‘orrcgiano, 236, 237
\\ orrox, 2 54.
YMBER, Lawrence, 230, 233, 235,, 235

CARPENTERS
ALEXANDER, K.C., 113 Ff, 15+ ff, 162,
16.1., 166, 163, 245

BECK, John, 1 81

CANTERBURY, Peter of, 187
Coke, Humphrey, 225
Colebrook, Robert de, 17.1., 181

 

INDEX OF CRAFTSMEN

FRANT, Thomas, 364
GOULDING, John, K.C., 374

HERLAND, Hugh, K.C., 212,
217—21

Herland, William, 196, 203,
212

Hokyntone, Thomas de, 177

Hurley, John, 172

Hurley, \Valter, 189

Hurley, William, K.C., 189,

192, 193, 194, I96

214,

204,

190,

MAUNCY, Thomas, 226
NORTHAMPTON, Robert Of, 363
OSEKYN, Robert, 187, 363
ROOKE, John le, 187
SALOPIA, Richard de, 364
Simon, 151, 152 (note)

Story, 226

Swafham, Reginald de, 363
Swift, Richard, K.C., 218
TOTENHAM, John, 214, 363

WALTON, Richard, 196

Whattley, John, K.C., 374
Winchester, William de, 188, 212
Wrytle, John, 187, 363

Wynton, Odo de, 154, 167, 172, 187

YFORD, William, 218

JOINERS
GODFREY, Richard, 187, 308

JACOB, 23, 160, 308
REED, John, 187, 308

 

PAINTERS

ADAM, 37+
Albon, John, K.P., 257, 276

BEAUNEVEU, Andrieu, 283
Burdon, William, K.P., 276

CHERTSEY, Thomas of, 257
Cologne, Herebrecht of, 279

DAVY, Robert le, 374

Denecoumbe, Henry de, 374

Durham, Walter of, K.P., 174, 177,
261, 264, 275

FLORENCE,William of, K.P., 257, 259
HENRY, 257

MAYNARD, John, 234

NIGEL, 257

PAGANINO (Pageny), 235
Porkle, \Villiam de, 374

SPAIN, Peter of, 154, 245, 257, 259

St. Albans, Hugh Of, K.P., 276

St. Omer (Sentori), John of, I54,
I55’ 257

Stephen, K.P., 275

Stokwell, Richard de, 275, 374

WESTMINSTER, Thomas of, 274, 275
William, K.P., 164, 257, 259 ff, 275
Wodecroft, John, K.P., 275

GLAZIERS

ANDREW, Andreano, 238
Ashe, William, 238
Athlord, John, 303

BORSER, Richard, 299
Bowde, Richard, 238
381

INDEX OF CRAFTSMEN

Bristol, John of, I72, 299
Burgh, William, 304

CHESTER, John de, 303
FLOWER, Bernard, 238
GLASWRYGHTE, Thomas, 374

HOON, Galyon, 238, 239 (note)
Horkyle, William de, 302

LAWRENCE, 159, 160, 299
Lichfield, Hugh, 303
Lincoln, John, 303
Lynne, Simon de, 303
Lynton, John, 303
NICHOLSON, James, 238
PRUDDLE, John, 304
REEVE, Thomas, 238

SYMONDS, Simon, 238

WILLIAMSON, Francis, 238

GOLDSMITHS

ABEL, Richard, 294.
Adam, K.G., 296, 297

CROXON, Walter dc, 298
FARRINGDON,William dc, K.G., 296,
Frggvick, Thomas de, 296, 298
GLOUCESTER, William of, K.G., 294
LAMBSPRING, Bartholomew, 291
ODO, 113, 293

ROKESLEY, 296, 298
382

 

TEODRIC, 293

Torel, William, 177, 284, 286, 287,
296

Twyford, Nicholas, 213

BRONZE WORKERS AND
FOUNDERS

AUSTEN (or Austin), William, 209,
291

BROKER, Nicholas, 21;, 290, 291

‘ Em, Nicholas, 23;

GODEZER, William, 291
Govair, John, 308

LANE, Robert in the, 288
Lincoln, John dc, 288

ORCHARD, John, 251, 253, 289
PREST, Godfrey, 215, 290

ROGER, 288
ROok, Richard, 281)

STEPHENS, Thomas, 209, 291, 292
Strand, “111mm lo, 308

WALKER, llumphrcy, :34.

PI l'M BERS
A’I'I‘DVYCHE, Thomas, 192
CANTERBURY, Richard, 192
FREMLINGHAM, R. do, 170
ROGER, I60, 308

\ViLLIAM, 308
Wynton, John de, 189, 192

i
S
é
l

 

INDEX OF

SMITHS

ANDREW, 306

BROMLEY, Peter, 306
Bury, Walter, 192, 306

COLE, John, K.S., 306
FEVRE, Walter 1e, 193
HENRY, 160

JOHNSON, Roger, 306

LEICHTON, Thomas de, 305
Lewesham, James de, K.S., 306
Lewis, Henry de, 305

 

CRAFTSMEN

TRESILIAN, John, 223, 307

OTHER CRAFTSMEN, &c.'

ADE, Dealbator, 92
Alnoth, Ingeniator, 105 ff, 362

DEREHAM, Elyas of, 363

EDWARD, son Of Odo, Treasurer and
Clerk, 113, 150 if, 156, 161, 163,
294

JOHN, plasterer, 308

OXFORD, John of, tiler, 308
Oxford, William, tiler, 308

PRESTON, Thomas, scribe, 280

Primed by BALLANTVNE é: Co. LIMITED
Tavistock Street, London

 

 

 

{FILE )m’aw F.2ii'l'll‘1llr

 

 

 

 

q
"o
h

n.

 

 

 

 

 

RETURN ENVIRONMENTAL DESIGN LIBRARY
TO—b 210 Wurster Hall

LOAN PERIOD I

QUARTER
4

2

 

642- 4818
3

r. . - all mean dame stumped below, or
on the date no which renewed.

Renewed books are subject to immediate tee-.11.

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

£27231“: Malian
LIFER 1 Z 19-67 I“ 5 \G‘IZ—nfi
DEC 3 1957 R BL f WEEK AFTER
[JAR 11988 , FALL Um M 3,5
uCT 1 8 1968 moo
JUL, ‘0' I "
All!‘ (g4 ant-,4
NOV 9 1969 REE" L‘ "’°_r _
we ENVI ass
DEC ‘1 13m 1 “
DEC 7 '7 M3. 39393
r: a I “~35
LD ”fignfi $51976 U _Gen_enll.ibrgry .
(k‘7763810)4'76 valves-31w: .
REC’D LB 0331 .0 flaw-*0

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

.‘-| u.. 1

.1 1
11.1 . 11

 
    
   

  

       
         
   
  
      
    

    

       

11111111111 .11 ‘ ,',",'
1111111 .11 1,11, .
1 1.11 1.11. 'I’, ’ ’
11II‘1-1111 "11"' .’ 1
.1 1'1. 1 . 1 1 1
0-1»! 11"! 111 _ 11 .
4-0111'11111-10- """"'"1'""""' 1 - .1"'1111 ‘
ID'O'I.10~1I ‘5'. ,I11-111111I1 11 1 1 1 '1"'
111-0111111111p11-.V1.11I'V'111.1I1,1.I11,1 - 1111 .
. I1Vp1111'1 III~111111I11 .11..
111 11,111111- 1.1 I
I... "11,”, 1,111.1 1
11I1I"'1I1I11'11I1'11 1'111111I1. 1I1.. 1 11.. .
I'1"11""""""" I , . 11"11
1 11.1. I. 1 1 1 . 1

                

 

    
     
     
 

     
        
       
 
 

 

 

 

   

  
     
 
  
 
   
  

   

     

 
 
  

 

    

 

       
 
 
 
 
 
  
   
   
   
  
 
 
   

          

   
  

     

   

   

     
      
            
 
   
      
  
     
 
     
  
     
 
     
 
  

             
 

    

 

 

 
     
 
 

 

 

  
    
    
 
 

   

 
    

     

    
    
 
 

     

 
 
     
   
   
 
     
   
   
   
 
 

 

    

      

    
    
 
    
   
    
    

 

  
 

 
    
  

   

      
   
   
      
 
 
  
   

 

 

 

 

 

 

    
 
  

     

111- . -
I: .1111,11,1111111.111111111111.. 1 ' "I '
' V“11|ll 1511 11.11, 1 1 ’ I '
,f """'""""1'1""".1-'"" . I .
a . - 11111 1 . 1, 1
1 11111111., I1V1111V1"1111V1- , .
’3‘ ‘ 1 . 1 1
- ""',"I."‘ 1. ,11, 1’
1 1 . 1 .1
1
1
,
111 1:111 11,, , , . 1
1' ~11111'111111111 113.11 111.111.1 "111'" 1. _ 1
11 1.1~111I\I1111<r.111r)-1--1I111.11:1,.1,11, 1 ,111 1 1 - .
”’1 ""H'" 10111110-11III111I111411111111 . 1..' .
"1' . '1‘I1"' IIIVI ' .' 1' r '
' 1’ I l. 1 -- ,4) ..V
1'I. 1 1
.11- I. 1
1., , . 1
111, » 1
,1'11 '- 1
1 , 1.
1'11'1 .' v
I 1 1
‘1'! 1|
" 1 I 1
'11'1"'1 1. . 1 1. 1
11 (”1171111111111
'3, 1.1111,I1111III11'I1'11 1V 1
I ' .1 ‘ .
11. 1 .1 1 .
' .1 I
'1 111 1..
" 1 I '1
1'. . 1 1
1 11 1'1 1 1
- "'""",".“""1""" 11, 1
11.11.1111 """"'.""' . 1 .
111 I 1 .
1 1.1 1
. .. . .
‘ 11 1 111 ' . 1 ‘
- ' 1 1.1.11.1'1 111 1 1 1 . . I ‘
‘.‘ 1111111111111 ,1 1 , .111111. 1 1
V1.1V ‘.1 . 1 . V ’
1 1 . , . 1
1.1III‘111. ' 1‘ 1 I. . . I ' ’
’1111111111111r-‘1I1o'1VI1V11111111. ,. . V ’
1111- ,', . .
1 -1'1II'111;) 1. 1 " '
" 1111111111 1 1, .. 1
-11III1 11 1 1 , - ‘ 1 ‘ .
HV'11‘I'1 "111"'""""""' 1'1 1111,. 1 1 1 1 '1
V"“,r|' 1111.1'11I ,I111. 11 .1111 1 I.
L\'|11 111-11I,I1».11111111 11,1,11 - 1 . VI
111 11111-11I1111"r111111-11111. 1, 1 .. 1 .
_'. 1111111111111II11III1'I111-1l.111 .V . 1 , ..
. "1IIHI111'1111111111I1 111 1 - ..
.1, ‘11 11I111I11.1111111111111111111 ..1. .
{I w 1- 1111 111 . , . , . 1 1
1'1 ‘ ' "'l“|'(l“')'l. | I 11, 1 "
1 111111-1111 1_1 IIIII 1111-11111 1 . 1. 1. _
1,1 I'VIVI . .1;1111111,,1 1 . 1 ' ’ . .
1 4 I11 1 1'1;, . , .., 1 1- , 1 .
., "1'1""1'1'1-"1'11 ., huVII1111111'11'1:'1I111111.-I.11I1.V.1II '. 1 1 ,1 - .
. 1. I ' I111-111-11111 I1-1'1I.:1~-. I I 1 .
~I111"1H1111111111111111111I111111111 ""'11'"I"1"'"""" 11 . 11. _. . ~ 1-
' 1 ""W‘ 1 111.11’11;111I111V 11 1-1- 1 I
1'1111II-1V11111111, 1 I 1 1 . 11 .1 .
I 111 .11111V 1,1 1.1 1.1 , 1
1 '1‘ Q1 11‘
1 , _ 1 1
1 ’1’.
‘ I111'1"1"1'1"1
n1 11111-11I ' I
5- "111-1 I-11I1'4111111,.11‘1IV111111111I1 '
,I i'fiu'lfl'L'WPHI'"1""1'1'1'1'1"1' 1 1"1"1"'1"I' . 1 1
- 11- 1. .. ,1 1.1-
'V'"""",," '11-1-"1' 11'11111"111 11. . 1‘
1 ‘ lil1111 '.
VI1I‘111I1'M I 11.
H01«11|."1':'11,11111III 11I111I11111I1:1
15V '1"'1""' M1.1111111111-1111111111111111111111. . 1 11
,1 ,..1 1.11.11, 1. .11. 1 .' 1 .1
111 1‘ .
11""’11111111'V'1-1I111. I‘ '
I 1'0U1III11I1-1111111v11II111111.11I1. -
, 1 h11I11111I1I1’1Vp1111111111111111;1V--. ..
I I 1111 II. 1.1 1.1
""11111.1'11'1'1111.‘1.1'1‘1V'1'1'1',..1..1
I‘VV,1II111111|.1'\1I"III1 1 1 o_ .
11111111111111.11111'1 I '
‘1‘]. 11 1.
,1 . . .1
11111 .111 ‘1, -
1I|,11"11'1-11111 .'1 I . V
1 . 1 1
.1. ,
1 1 I .1 1. ~ .
1 1I ”'31" 11 1"1'1'1"|~' 1,1. l 1'11'1; n- "'1 -11. . 1 1
'ID" ‘I1,|l"10|l 1 1 1 1 . VI
1 "1‘11111‘1..111.‘11.'." ,11V,11 ..
1111 11 1 1. '."
I.
I1 . ~ ' 11 1 , 11 ' '
1111111111.11111111111111V11 1111111111111 1111 1H11111I111I11 I" ,
411.111,“... 111,1111111I """"1' 1I1V. 1111.1 1 ' "4
I1 1111111111111111111.'11,1111'VVVV111.1111111.1.1,11,11,.~11'. " .
I11111111-11111111111111111 111. 1111111111'W1111111I11111V11 ‘
11111111111111.1111,”11111111111111 1-1111'I1II11111 ..111.,,, 11
MIMI-11111111.11.111VV11 111."-1.1"1V1111I1111111I11I111111.1, . ,
.11 I.'VI'111111 ;I II 1.111.11|'I - _
1 1.
.1 , ,‘
M '11'1'1"""""""‘ .
1'1II'"11"' '1'.' "'1.1"'.-" . .1
1III lI . . . n'. 1
1111'1I1I1|.VV1111.I111I111111IIII11 1 1 1.1
1.111,‘11I . I1 '11 1111 1 .11 1... 11".‘1'1‘.'1‘ ’1V"1..1'1. .. 1 1
111"11:1.1.V,.. H""'1'1""1.""'"""' I1~1I 1I 1111111111111. 1. .
1‘" '1'1' I11'II1I1I 1"19 1 1 ‘ " 1 '
1 I“ .1I 1 1 In; 111. 1.1111
1 >1111111I1I-II-1111111'11'"I1111111111111, 11.111'1‘1'11..1.111.1 1 - .'
111.1111,1,.111111..111,.1I1I1.1.11p1..1»11111',VH1111111..VV111111.11.I 1.1111111-111' ‘
4 11- (111111“ 11111 111 "'1' 1.1111,,11.1111I 1
11111111II1WIIIU111 1HIVVVVVI11-11-11I1_|1V‘V11 1,111.11 11. 111-1 I.
“"'*7"‘ WIIIWI‘I “III """"':11"" 1 111111 ‘ ‘~'
”111111111111111111"'1I11'»II"1I11111'11 I.111~. ,1 1 1, .11 1.
1111.!1V11I,111II11IIIII1II'I111191111111111.1111VV11‘V’, 1.
.11-11M111111111'111.\II1II,.'1'1 -
OVVV1111-I'VV11111111 1.1 .
11111 1111.. ,1 1
'1"1|11111.1111111 1 .
1"‘"""""1"' '.
. 1, .
31:1’1'. 11 A
.111
1111» .111‘11111111111.M11 11. .. .
11111111.II11I111I111..111,1..1I1111 '11 .'
1111 11111111 '1 ‘ , 1 1
1I111I11'11II111'11111111111111111 """""'”'1" a I
11.11.11 1V1111111 V 1
'|"""1"1' 1. 1.
1 1 .
1’ ‘
1' 11'1.
1.11
. » ' . 1 1 11.1I'11.1.V11 "1'1
111.111 '11 1 1, 11 1. 1111;1«1
11+,- 1I1.“:I111I.1*1....,1.1...11.... ~ . "' 1~ 1.. 'I.‘I
.‘5‘\.rl “12.111.11.11 H-v-VIIuVuII -1.1.~. 1.1.V11
”yh‘n§"I-II 1 '1""".' 1 11.1
run-I

31.13:“..-