Hostname: page-component-cd9895bd7-hc48f Total loading time: 0 Render date: 2024-12-25T18:29:50.848Z Has data issue: false hasContentIssue false
  • English
  • Français

The care of the royal tombs in english cathedrals in the nineteenth and twentieth centuries: the case of the effigy of King John at Worcester

Published online by Cambridge University Press:  11 May 2009

S D Church
S D Church*
Affiliation:
Stephen Church, School of History, Faculty of Arts and Humanities, University of East Anglia, Norwich NR4 7TJ, UK.
Get access Rights & Permissions [Opens in a new window]

Abstract

The medieval history of the celebrated tomb of King John at Worcester is now well known. The works of Charles Alfred Stothard at the beginning of the nineteenth century, of William St John Hope in the early years of the twentieth century, and that of Jane Martindale at the end of that century, are highlights along the road of our understanding of the royal effigy in its medieval context. But all the while this work of comprehension was going on, those who had a duty of care over the tomb were engaged in a battle to offload that responsibility. The authorities at Worcester were not alone in wondering who should carry the burden of caring for royal monuments in English cathedrals. As early as 1841, the question of the care of royal tombs in Westminster Abbey had come under Parliamentary scrutiny. The deans and chapters at Canterbury and at Gloucester also sought government subvention for the care of the royal tombs in their cathedrals. The history of this debate about the care of royal sepulchral monuments forms the wider framework for the main theme of this article, which is an examination in detail of the ways in which King John’s tomb at Worcester was treated between 1872 and 1930. It reveals a remarkable story in which a catalogue of disastrous decisions came to give us the tomb and effigy as we have them today. The article concludes with a short discussion of the introduction of the 1990 Care of Cathedrals Measure which established the structures that currently exist (with subsequent amendments) for the preservation of Anglican cathedral churches in use.

Résumé

L’historique médiéval de la célèbre tombe du roi Jean à Worcester est bien connu à l’heure actuelle. Les travaux de Charles Alfred Stothard au début du dix-neuvième siècle, de William St John Hope au début du vingtième siècle, et ceux de Jane Martindale à la fin de ce siècle, représentent d’importants jalons sur le chemin de nos connaissances concernant l’effigie royale dans son contexte médiéval. Mais pendant que cet effort de compréhension se produisait, ceux qui étaient responsables de l’entretien de la tombe faisaient de leur mieux pour se décharger de leurs responsabilités. Les autorités de Worcester n’étaient pas les seules à se demander qui devait se charger du fardeau de l’entretien des monuments royaux dans les cathédrales anglaises. Dès 1841, le parlement avait étudié la question de l’entretien des tombes royales de l’abbaye de Westminster. Les doyens et les chapitres des cathédrales de Canterbury et de Gloucester avaient également essayé d’obtenir des subventions pour l’entretien des tombes royales dans leurs propres cathédrales. L’historique de ces débats concernant l’entretien des monuments funéraires royaux forme la structure générale du thème principal de cet article, lequel étudie dans le détail la manière dont fut traitée la tombe du roi Jean à Worcester entre 1872 et 1930. Il révèle une remarquable histoire dans laquelle toute une série de décisions désastreuses nous ont légué la tombe et l’effigie telles que nous les avons à l’heure actuelle. Cet article se termine par une brève discussion concernant l’introduction des mesures de 1990 sur l’Entretien des Cathédrales, lesquelles ont établi les structures existant à l’heure actuelle (avec des amendements ultérieurs) pour la conservation des cathédrales anglicanes qui sont encore des lieux de culte.

Zusammenfassung

Die mittelalterliche Geschichte des berühmten Grabmals des Königs John aus Worcester ist weit bekannt. Die Werke von Charles Alfred Stothard zu Beginn des neunzehnten Jahrhunderts, William St John Hope im frühen zwanzigsten Jahrhundert, und die von Jane Martindale am Ende dieses Jahrhunderts bilden die Höhepunkte, die zu unserem Verständnis der königlichen Statue in ihrem mittelalterlichen Kontext beitragen. Aber währendman versuchte Verständnis zu finden, beteiligten sich die, die eine Obhutspflicht hatten an einem Streit, sich dieser Pflicht zu entledigen. Die Behörden in Worcester waren nicht die Einzigen, die sich fragten, wer die Last der königlichen Denkmalspflege in Kathedralen tragen sollte. Bereits 1841 fiel die Frage der königlichen Grabmalspflege in der Westminster Abtei unter eine genaue Prüfung des Parlamentes. Der Dekan und Domstift in Canterbury und Gloucester ersuchten Staatsubventionen, um die königlichen Grabmäler zu pflegen. Der Hintergrund der Debatte über die königliche Grabmalspflege bildet die Rahmenhandlung für das Hauptthema dieses Artikels, eine ausführliche Studie über die Art wie man mit dem Grabmal des Königs John in der Zeit zwischen den Jahren 1872 und 1930 umging. Es enthüllt die bemerkenswerte Geschichte einer Anhäufung von verheerenden Fehlern die dazu führten, das der Grabstein und die Statue uns in der Form wie sie heute besteht uns überliefert wurde. Der Artikel schließt mit einer kurzen Diskussion über die Einführung des Care of Cathedreal Measure im Jahr 1990, der ein aktuell gültiges (mit einigen nachträglichen Änderungen) Rahmenwerk bildet für die Erhaltung von Anglikanischen Kathedralen.

Type
Original Article
Information
The Antiquaries Journal , Volume 89 , September 2009 , pp. 365 - 387
Copyright
Copyright © The Society of Antiquaries of London 2009

Access options

Get access to the full version of this content by using one of the access options below. (Log in options will check for institutional or personal access. Content may require purchase if you do not have access.)

References

Binski, P 1986. The Painted Chamber at Westminster, London: Society of Antiquaries of LondonGoogle Scholar
Bloxam, M 1862. Gent’s Mag, 216, 422–428Google Scholar
Bloxam, M 1863. ‘The architectural history of the cathedral of Worcester’, Archaeol J, 20, 99–104Google Scholar
Boulting, N 1976. ‘The law’s delays: conservationist legislation in the British Isles’, in Fawcett (ed) 1976 15–34Google Scholar
Britton, J, 1814–15. The Cathedral Antiquities of England, London: Longman, Hurst, Rees, Orme and BrownGoogle Scholar
The British Imperial Calendar and Civil Service List (BIC), published annually from 1809Google Scholar
Care of Cathedrals Measure: a measure passed by the General Synod of the Church of England and laid before both Houses of Parliament, 1990. Accessed through House of Commons Parliamentary Papers Online at 〈http://parlipapers.chadwyck.co.uk/home.do〉Google Scholar
The Continuing Care of Churches and Cathedrals: report of the Faculty Jurisdiction Commission 1984. General Synod Papers 629, LondonGoogle Scholar
Crook, J 1999. ‘The “Rufus Tomb” in Winchester Cathedral’, Antiq J, 79, 187–212CrossRefGoogle Scholar
Ede, W Moore 1925. Worcester Cathedral: its monuments and their stories, WorcesterGoogle Scholar
Fawcett, J 1976. ‘A restoration tragedy: cathedrals in the eighteenth and nineteenth centuries’, in Fawcett (ed), 1976 75–115Google Scholar
Fawcett, J (ed) 1976. The Future of the Past: attitudes to conservation, 1174–1974, London: Thames and HudsonGoogle Scholar
General Synod of the Church of England, November Group of Sessions 1977, Report of Proceedings, 1977, vol 8, no. 3Google Scholar
General Synod of the Church of England, July Group Sessions 1984, Report of Proceedings, 1984, vol 15, no. 2Google Scholar
Historic Building Council for England: Annual Report 1981/82, 1982/83. Accessed through House of Commons Parliamentary Papers Online at 〈http://parlipapers.chadwyck.co.uk/home.do〉Google Scholar
Hope, W H St John, 1907. ‘On the funeral effigies of the kings and queens of England, with special reference to those in the abbey church of Westminster with a note on the Westminster tradition of identification by the Very Reverend Joseph Armitage Robinson, Dean of Westminster’, Archaeologia, 60, 517–570CrossRefGoogle Scholar
Jackson, C P K 1880. Our Ancient Monuments and the Land Around Them, London: Elliot StockGoogle Scholar
Jordan, W J 1980. ‘Sir George Gilbert Scott R.A., Surveyor to Westminster Abbey 1849–1878’, Architect Hist, 23, 60–85 and 188–90CrossRefGoogle Scholar
Kelly ’s Post Office London Directory, 1870Google Scholar
Kenworthy-Browne, J 2006. ‘Plaster casts for the Crystal Palace, Sydenham’, Sculpture J, 15, 173–198CrossRefGoogle Scholar
Keyte, O nd [c 1993]. The Annals of a Century: Bridgeman’s of Lichfield 1878–1978, AldridgeGoogle Scholar
Knowles, R 1998. ‘French excursions: Charles Alfred Stothard and the monumental effigies of France’, Church Monuments, 13, 45–69Google Scholar
Lewis, E 2007. ‘Drawings of antiquities in the Society’s albums c 1750–1860’, Antiq J, 87, 365–386CrossRefGoogle Scholar
Lewis, M 2007. ‘The mystery of Charles Stothard, FSA, and the Bayeux Tapestry fragment’, Antiq J, 87, 400–406CrossRefGoogle Scholar
Lockett, R B 1978. ‘The Victorian restoration of Worcester cathedral’, in Medieval Art and Architecture at Worcester Cathedral, London: Brit Archaeol Ass Conference Trans i (ed G Popper), 161–85Google Scholar
Park, D 1997. ‘Survey of the medieval and later polychromy of Worcester Cathedral: a report for the Dean and Chapter’, Conservation of Wall Painting Department, Courtauld Institute of Art, University of London, Nov 1997Google Scholar
Pevsner, N 1976. ‘Scrape and anti-scrape’ in Fawcett (ed), 1976 34–53Google Scholar
Report of the Environment Select Committee, Session 1986–7: Historic Buildings and Ancient Monuments, 1987. Accessed through House of Commons Parliamentary Papers Online at 〈http://parlipapers.chadwyck.co.uk/home.do〉Google Scholar
Report of the Select Committee on National Monuments and Works of Art, 1841, Session 1 (416). Accessed through House of Commons Parliamentary Papers Online at 〈http://parlipapers.chadwyck.co.uk/home.do〉Google Scholar
Report of the Sepulchral Monuments Committee, 1872 (Command Paper 558). Accessed through House of Commons Parliamentary Papers Online at 〈http://parlipapers.chadwyck.co.uk/home.do〉Google Scholar
Robinson, J M 1979. The Wyatts: an architectural dynasty, Oxford: Oxford University PressGoogle Scholar
Saunders, A D 1983. ‘A century of ancient monuments legislation, 1882–1982’, Antiq J, 63, 11–33CrossRefGoogle Scholar
Stothard, C A 1817. The Monumental Effigies of Great Britain, London: J McCreeryGoogle Scholar
Strange, E F 1900. The Cathedral Church of Worcester: a description of the fabric and a brief history of the episcopal see, London: Bell’s Cathedral SeriesGoogle Scholar
Wild, C 1823. An Illustration of the Architecture and Sculpture of the Cathedral Church of Worcester, LondonGoogle Scholar
Wilson, D 2006. ‘Roubiliac, the Earl of Pembroke, and the Chancellor’s discretion: preservation of the nation’s heritage by the consistory courts of the Church of England’, Church Monuments, 21, 141–184Google Scholar
Wilson, J M 1914. ‘Was the effigy of King John in Worcester Cathedral originally coloured or gilt?’, Worcestershire Archaeol Soc, 23, 1–14Google Scholar