Chapter IV: Part 4

FIG. 18.
The Cross at Waltham, from a photograph by the Author, 1908.
]

In the course of time the citizens of London seem to have lost interest in the cross and its significance, and it is only necessary to refer to the pages of John Stow, published in 1603, to sympathize with this worthy’s indignation at the desecration which the cross had suffered even in his time. It had been partly restored on several occasions subsequent to the time of John Hatherley, including various re-gildings and re-burnishings in honour of various important royal functions, but in the year 1581 “diuers Juries” of the citizens having considered that it stood in the “highway to the let of carriages,” so much prejudice was aroused that on the night of 21st June a band of roughs destroyed the lowest images round the cross. These, however, were images totally different from those originally on the cross, and included one of the Virgin Mary. In the year 1595, according to Stow, this image “was againe fastened and repaired, and the yeare next following a new misshapen son born out of time all naked was laid in her arms.”

Later the cross was further desecrated by the addition of an alabaster image of Diana, which served the noble purpose of a water conduit for the benefit of the citizens. Attempts were made by certain members of Queen Elizabeth’s court to bring home to the Mayor and citizens the desecration of the cross which had been permitted. But shortly after Christmas, 1600, “the image of Our Lady was again defaced by plucking off her crown and almost her head, taking from her her naked child and stabbing her in the breast, &c.”[50]

Footnote 50:

Stow, John. “A Survey of London,” Edition of C. L. Kingsford, 1908.

The cross by this time could only have presented a remote resemblance to the original work. The new statues which found a resting place on it had no reference to its original purpose. During the religious and political turmoils which followed, the crosses both at Chepe and Charing formed the subject of numerous political lampoons, which are interesting as giving some idea of the frenzy of destruction which possessed the extreme political sects. It can hardly, therefore, have been considered a matter of regret when the last scene of all was enacted.

The cross, mutilated and desecrated beyond recognition, was completely destroyed on 2nd May, 1643. The Parliament deputed a certain Robert Harlowe to do this work, who went with a troop of horse and two companies of foot, and carried it out completely. “At the fall of the top cross drums beat, trumpets blew, and multitudes of caps were thrown into the air, and a great shout of people with joy”; so runs a contemporary account.[51]

Footnote 51:

Walford. “Old and New London,” i, p. 334.

The history of the cross in Chepe is important as giving an indication of the gradual process of decay which seriously damaged the crosses, long before the desecrating hands of political fanatics mutilated and finally destroyed the remaining fragments.

CHARING.

The cross at Charing was the work of Richard de Crundale. He was responsible for the design of this cross, but his design no doubt influenced the ideas of the other builders, for we know that much of the finer work of the other crosses was executed under his observation. Most of the statues of the Queen were carved near Charing, and many of the ornaments so frequently referred to as the “virgæ, capita et annuli,” were also made by the Westminster artists. The cross was built approximately on the plot of ground now occupied by the statue of Charles I, facing the great thoroughfare now known as “Charing Cross.”

Richard Crundale himself died in 1293, and Roger Crundale came from Waltham to carry on his work. Nearly £700 can be traced as being paid to the Crundales for their work at Charing, but this sum obviously includes work done and materials supplied for other crosses. The finer materials used in the construction of the crosses, such as Caen stone, Purbeck stone and marble, seem to have been distributed to the other crosses by way of Charing. Considerable additional sums of money are mentioned as being paid to merchants of stone, such as William Canon, Robert Blunt, and others who brought the stone from Corfe, and Henry Mauger who supplied stone from Caen. Alexander of Abingdon, the “Imaginator,” carved the statues of the Queen for Charing; William of Ireland, also working at Charing, carved the statues of the Queen which found their way to the crosses built by John Battle and Richard Stowe; while Ralph of Chichester carved much of the fine stonework for the crosses.

Unfortunately no adequate idea can now be obtained of Charing Cross. It is admitted, however, to have been the finest of the series; but it must have been subject to the same vicissitudes as its neighbour in Chepe, and the sketches which exist, purporting to be Charing Cross, can only have been obtained from the mutilated structure which survived to the middle of the seventeenth century. The drawing in the Crowle Collection of the British Museum, which has been reproduced by Wilkinson, is one of these. The suggestion of the cross in van den Wyngaerde’s view of London gives, perhaps, a better idea of its probable appearance.[52] John Norden’s account is that of an eye witness, and tells of its condition about the year 1590. He speaks of it as “an old weather-beaten monument erected about 1290 by Edward I. Amongst all the crosses which the King caused to be built ... Charing Cross was most stately, though now defaced by antiquity.”[53]

Footnote 52:

_Vide_ fig. 1.

Footnote 53:

John Norden. MS. Harl. 570 (_circ._ 1593), quoted by Lethaby; cf.
“Speculum Britanniæ, the first parte,” 1593, p. 45, and the maps of
London.

FIG. 19.
The fragments of two panels of the Cross in Chepe, City of London, now
in the Guildhall Museum. The panels show the heraldic bearings of
England, and of Castile and Leon, with portions of moulding. These
relics are probably portions of the Cross as restored by John
Hatherley in the fifteenth century. From a drawing by Mr. J. C.
Hallinan.
]

Charing Cross suffered many indignities in the Parliamentary period. After many years of neglect, it was sentenced by Parliament to be taken down in 1643. An old rhyme mentions the event:—

“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,
It made them so hard-hearted,
To give command it should not stand,
But be taken down and carted.”

Lilly,[54] writing in 1715, says that part of the stones were employed in paving the front of Whitehall, whilst some other stones were made into knife hafts and other articles which, when polished, looked like marble.

Footnote 54:

Lilly, “Observations on the Life of King Charles I.” _cf._ Edward
Walford, “Old and New London,” iii, pp. 123 _et seq._

The cross in the forecourt of the South Eastern Railway station at Charing Cross was erected from the designs of the late Mr. Edward Middleton Barry in 1864-1865, and is the result of his own desire to have the opportunity of reproducing the Eleanor memorial at Charing. Mr. Barry was a learned as well as a distinguished architect, and visited Northampton and Waltham Crosses many times before deciding on the design of the monument he proposed to erect. It is well worthy of careful study as expressing the ideas formed by a conscientious artist and student of the appearance of the old cross; especially it shows the desire to give the idea of the original builders, and to avoid the travesties of construction which have not infrequently been erected purporting to be after the fashion of an Eleanor Cross. Unhappily the motive which renders the crosses at Geddington, Northampton and Waltham so entirely appropriate, and which adds so much to their interest, cannot be transferred to the new site.[55]

Footnote 55:

The author is indebted for information respecting Mr. Barry’s cross to
Mr. T. Harrison Myres, of Preston, who was one of Mr. Barry’s pupils
in 1864, and afterwards his confidential clerk.

BLACKFRIARS, LONDON.

It was a custom of the time for devout persons to desire that the heart should be removed after death, and taken to some peculiarly holy place. Queen Eleanor had taken special interest in the community of the Black Friars, and especially in the Church which they had just built in London. By her own special request her heart was to be taken to this church, and Edward took special pains that a tomb should be erected worthy of containing this relic.

There is little knowledge of the design for this monument. A certain John le Convers seems to have been a clerk dealing with the payments, while Adam, a well-known goldsmith of the time, and much in the confidence of the King and Queen, was asked to make an angel to support the casket containing the heart. In addition to this figure, which was of metal and gilt as were Torel’s great effigies, statues ornamented the tomb. These were no doubt of the same design as those erected in other places. They were the work of Alexander the “Imaginator” and Dyminge de Legeri, and very probably of the same character as those at Lincoln. Alexander also constructed certain iron work around this monument. William de Suffolk made three small images in metal for the Blackfriars tomb.

One of the most interesting features of the monument were the paintings by Walter of Durham. This artist received the large sum of £46 13s. 4d., according to the Queen’s accounts, for his work at Blackfriars. Part of the stonework, consisting of a _crista_, perhaps an ornamented stone canopy, was built by William de Hoo.

All traces of the tomb disappeared at the time of the dissolution of the monasteries. The responsibility for the final act of destruction seems to rest on the shoulders of the same Sir Thomas Cawarden into whose clutches there also fell the Church and possessions of St. Mary Roncevall.

WESTMINSTER.

On the tomb at Westminster a special amount of care was devoted by the artists and workmen employed by Edward. The design was that of a large chest formed by slabs of Purbeck marble, in which was placed the body, and the top of the chest was arranged to support the bronze-gilt effigy of the Queen.

The tomb itself seems to have been designed by Richard Crundale, and the work was completed by himself and his brother Roger. Under their supervision the stone chest was ornamented with the characteristic decorated carving of the period, and with the shields bearing the arms which are so prominent on all the Eleanor memorials. Walter of Durham was employed to decorate the tomb with paintings, while Thomas de Leighton, a skilful worker in metal, made the iron grille protecting the effigy. The perishable part of the stonework is unfortunately fast disappearing, and faint shadows only of the paintings may be observed.

FIG. 20.
The public or “Great” Seal of Queen Eleanor.
Size 3-5/8 in. x 2-3/8 in.
From the impression in the British Museum.
]

Legend:—
_Obverse_, ALIANORA DEI GRACIA REGINA ANGLI(E)
_Reverse_, (ALI)ANORA DEI GRA DNA HYBERNIE DUCISSA ACQUI(T)ANNIE

The chief glory, however, of the tomb still remains, namely, the great bronze effigy of the Queen, the work of William Torel, goldsmith and citizen of London. Torel designed and cast not only the effigy at Westminster, but the replica which reposed on the tomb at Lincoln. Records remain of enormous quantities of wax and of metal supplied to Torel for this purpose. The effigies appear to have been cast in one mould, and the work must have been difficult to execute. After their completion the bronze castings were gilt, and special reference is made to the purchase of gold florins for this purpose. These coins appear to have come from abroad, and were obtained from the merchants of “Luka” and others. The figure shown is of so noble a design that the wish arises that it might be regarded as a portrait of the Queen. The evidence, however, seems to be complete that the effigy represents Torel’s ideal of a queen’s statue; nevertheless it remains to this day perhaps the most remarkable example of a statue in metal dating from the early “decorated” period of English art (fig. 12). Special financial provision was made for the purpose of the religious services at Queen Eleanor’s tomb, including gifts of land and money to the Abbey, the proper employment of which was subsequently the source of much discussion in the chapter.[56]

Footnote 56:

History of Westminster Abbey, by John Flete: edited by J. Armitage
Robinson, D.D., Cambridge, 1909.

The anniversary service in memory of the Queen took place on November 29, the eve of St. Andrew’s Day, and was continued up to the time of the dissolution of the Benedictine community.

To obtain an idea of the appearance of this monument, it must be recollected that not only was the tomb itself formed of finely decorated stonework, but was surrounded with elaborate paintings, while the great gilt effigy of the Queen was studded with the jewellery and enamels which Edward gathered from the East and abroad. These he lavished with the utmost profusion in decorating this, perhaps the principal, monument to his wife.[57]

Footnote 57:

This tomb, and its ancient glory have been so well described that it
is not necessary to enter into greater detail in this place. The
reader is advised to go and study so much of it as remains. In
addition to the references given it will be of interest to read the
accounts given by Mrs. Murray Smith, “Westminster Abbey, its Story and
Associations, 1906,” and Dean Stanley’s “Historical Memorials of
Westminster Abbey,” 1869.

During the history of the next three hundred years, references are made to the magnificence of the tomb and of the religious celebrations in memory of the Queen. A distinguished foreign visitor to the Church in the fourteenth century describes how “the radiant lights like the glory of the starry sky exhilarated the souls of the beholders with joyousness.”

------------------------------------

BIBLIOGRAPHY.

Information respecting Eleanor of Castile and her Memorials is widely scattered. Examination of the references will give an excellent introduction to the study of the social history of an interesting period. The attempt to do this cannot be made in this place, but the following references will indicate the sources from which these notes are derived, and afford the writer an opportunity of expressing his great obligation to the work of others on the subject.

(1) THE EARLY CHRONICLES, especially—

_Rishanger, William of_, at St. Albans; Rolls Series, by H. T.
Riley.

_Wykes, Thomas_, Monk of Osney; Rolls Series, by Luard.

_Hemingburgh, Walter of_; English Historical Society. H. C.
Hamilton.

_Dunstable, Annals of_; Rolls Series, by Luard.

_Walsingham, Thomas of_, a St. Albans Monk, writing in the
fifteenth century, quotes the earlier Chronicles in the
_Historia Anglicana_; Rolls Series, by Riley.

(2) General historical information may be referred to in:—

_Rymer_, “Fœdera,” Record Edition.

_Gough, Henry_, “Itinerary of King Edward I.”

_Ramsey, Sir J. H._, “Dawn of the Constitution,” a careful
detailed account of the period.

(3) SPECIAL REFERENCES:—

“Liberationes factæ per Executores Dominæ Alianoræ Consortis
Edwardis Regis Angliæ primi.”

These Rolls have the following reference numbers in the Record
Office;—

“King’s Exchequer Accounts, 352/27, 353/1, 353/9, 353/19”, and
have been transcribed with a most useful introduction in the
volume entitled “Manners and Household Expenses of England,”
presented to the Roxburghe Club by Beriah Botfield, 1841, edited
by T. Hudson Turner. A photograph showing a specimen of these
Rolls may be seen in the Souvenir of the St. Albans Pageant,
1907.

“Vetusta Monumenta.” Plates vii, xii, xiii, xiv, xv, xvi, xvii, and corresponding letterpress.

_Hunter, Rev. Joseph_, “On the Death of Eleanor of Castile,”
“Archæologia,” vol. xxix, page 167, 1842.

_Abel, John_, “Memorials of Queen Eleanor,” published by the
author, 1864.

_Scott, George Gilbert_, “Gleanings from Westminster Abbey,”
Oxford and London, 1863.

_Lethaby, W. R._, “Westminster Abbey and the King’s Craftsmen,”
London, 1906, gives much original and suggestive information.

------------------------------------------------------------------------

● Transcriber’s Notes:
○ Missing or obscured punctuation was silently corrected.
○ Typographical errors were silently corrected.
○ Inconsistent spelling and hyphenation were made consistent only
when a predominant form was found in this book.
○ Text that:
was in italics is enclosed by underscores (_italics_);
was in bold by is enclosed by “equal” signs (=bold=).
○ The use of a caret (^) before a letter, or letters, shows that the
following letter or letters was intended to be a superscript, as
in S^t Bartholomew or 10^{th} Century.