VIII.—Some Further Aspects of the Iconography of St. Thomas of Canterbury

Tancred Borenius

doi:10.1017/S0261340900005397

VIII.—Some Further Aspects of the Iconography of St. Thomas of Canterbury

Published online by Cambridge University Press: 19 July 2011

Tancred Borenius

Article contents

Extract
References

Get access

Extract

In addressing you, as I have the honour to do to-night, for the third time in four years, on the subject of the iconography of St. Thomas Becket, I am fully conscious of the risk I am running of becoming repetitious; but I venture to hope that, when you have heard what I have to say, you will agree that the new material which I am privileged to lay before you is of a nature which justifies my claiming your attention once more in this connexion.

Type: Research Article
Information: Archaeologia , Volume 83 , 1933 , pp. 171 - 186

DOI: https://doi.org/10.1017/S0261340900005397 [Opens in a new window]
Copyright: Copyright © The Society of Antiquaries of London 1933

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

^{page 171 note 1} Compare Archaeologia, vol. lxxix (1929), pp. 29–54Google Scholar; a n d vol. lxxxi (1931), pp. 19–32.

^{page 171 note 2} Compare Julius von Schlosser, ‘Portraiture’, in Mitteilungen des österreichischen Instituts für Geschichtsforschung, Ergänzungsband XI, 1929, p. 882.

^{page 172 note 1} Reproduced in Archaeologia, vol. lxxix, pl. ix, fig. i ; and in my book St. Thomas Becket in Art (London, 1932)Google Scholar, pl. 11, fig. 1.

^{page 172 note 2} The chasuble is red, the dalmatic blue, the alb pinkish ; the mitre is golden.

^{page 172 note 3} James, Montague R., The Western Manuscripts in the Library of Trinity College, Cambridge, vol. i (1900), pp. 180–94Google Scholar.

^{page 172 note 4} Compare, for instance, the reproduction occurring in the illustrated edition of Green's, J. R.Short History of the English People, vol. i, 1892, p. 202Google Scholar.

^{page 173 note 1} Harris, John, The History of Kent, London, 1719, p. 132Google Scholar.

^{page 173 note 2} The Gentleman's Magazine, vol. lix, 1789, pt. i, pp. 334 and 420. See also ibid., March, 1810, pl. 11, p. 209.

^{page 173 note 3} Hasted, Edward, The History and Topographical Survey of the County of Kent, Canterbury, 1790, vol. iii, p. 258Google Scholar.

^{page 173 note 4} Cozens, Zachariah, A Tour Through the Isle of Thanet, London, 1793, p. 253Google Scholar and plate v.

^{page 173 note 5} On the architectural features of this edifice, compare Turner, T. Hudson, Some Account of Domestic Architecture in England, Oxford, 1851, p. 150Google Scholar sq., who rightly remarks that the bas-relief is ‘rather earlier in character’ than the main part of the building, as now existing, which is of the thirteenth century.

^{page 174 note 1} Sir Charles Igglesden, A Saunter through Kent, vol. xii (n.d.), p. 10.

^{page 174 note 2} Reproduced in Prior, and Gardner, , An Account of Medieval Figure-Sculpture in England, Cambridge, 1912, fig. 159, p. 174Google Scholar.

^{page 175 note 1} Reproduced in Borenius, St. Thomas Becket in Art, pl. n, fig. 3.

^{page 175 note 2} Reproduced ibid., pi. XLIII, fig. 1; and in Archaeologia, vol. lxxix, pl. xxii, fig. 3.

^{page 175 note 3} Reproduced in The Times, Feb. 8, 1933.

^{page 176 note 1} For a photograph of this fresco I am indebted to Dr. Giuseppe Gerola of Trent.

^{page 176 note 2} Compare Galante, Gennaro Aspero, Guida Sacra della Città di Napoli, Naples, 1872, pp. 320–1Google Scholar.

The church was restored in 1832. Two eighteenth-century paintings relating to St. Thomas Becket are to be found in it: one (formerly above the high altar) represents the Madonna with St. Thomas Becket and Thomas Aquinas ; the other St. Thomas Becket alone.

^{page 176 note 3} Compare Brown, J. Wood, The Dominican Church of Santa Maria Novella at Florence, Edinburgh, 1902, p. 121Google Scholar sq.

^{page 176 note 4} Compare Borenius, St. Thomas Becket in Art, pp. 86–7.

^{page 177 note 1} For the loan of a reproduction of the Anagni chasse I am indebted to Dom Roger Hudleston.

^{page 177 note 2} Cole, William, A Journal of my Journey to Paris in the year 1765, ed. Stokes, F. G., London, 1931. p. 151Google Scholar.

^{page 177 note 3} See Vidler, Leopold A., in Sussex Archaeological Collections, vol. lxxiii, 1932, p. 97Google Scholar.

^{page 177 note 4} See H. B. Walters, Church Bells of Wiltshire, fig. 91, p. 126. Block reproduced by permission.

^{page 178 note 1} The Development of the Legend of Thomas Becket, p. 302.

^{page 177 note 2} I am much beholden to Herr F. A Martens, of Rostock University, for his good offices in this connexion.

^{page 177 note 3} The significance of the torse has been pointed out to me by the Rev. E. E. Dorling, F.S.A.

^{page 180 note 1} Since I am on the subject of Germany, it may be mentioned that the name of St. Thomas of Canterbury occurs in a South German calendar (Eichstätt) as far back as 1198; and I have often wondered whether a connexion could be traced between the Patron of the Brewers' Company in London and beer-brewing in Munich. I am assured, however, by a specialist on the latter subject, Kommerzienrat F. Sedlmayr, that no such connexion exists. There is a ‘Thomas bräu’ in Munich, but it only dates from the last century and uses in its label a bust profile of St. Thomas the Apostle. Mr. A. Dru calls my attention to a sculptured effigy of St. Thomas Becket, forming part of the great Baroque High Altar of the Cathedral of Gurk in Carinthia, the work of the Gurk wood-carver Michael Hoenell, dating from 1626–32. It shows St. Thomas with a biretta on his head, holding a palm branch and a patriarchal cross.

^{page 180 note 2} Archaeologia, vol. lxxxi, p. 27; St. Thomas Becket in Art, p. 81.

^{page 180 note 3} J. Hutchins, The History and Antiquities of the County of Dorset, ed. Shipp and Hodson, vol. ii (1863), p. 694.

^{page 181 note 1} This example has very kindly been brought to my notice by Mr. Charles R. Beard.

^{page 181 note 2} Compare on this the priory which was suppressed after the Hundred Years War, the estates going to the endowment of the College of St. Mary at Eton, V.C.H., Somerset, vol. ii, p. 169.

^{page 181 note 3} It was he who insulted Becket at Northampton in 1164 by commandeering his lodgings.

^{page 182 note 1} See Harris, H. A., in the Proceedings of the Suffolk Institute of Archaeology and Natural History, vol. xix, 1927, pp. 297–9Google Scholar and pl. 1 (the block here reproduced by permission). The Rev. Christopher Woodforde has kindly called my attention to this painting; I am also indebted to him for information concerning the Harpley stained-glass effigy and the subjects described by Gervase Holies.

^{page 183 note 1} Compare Mason, A. J., A Guide to the Ancient Glass in Canterbury Cathedral, Canterbury, 1925, p. 56Google Scholar.

^{page 183 note 2} Paul A. Brown, op. cit., p. 218.

^{page 184 note 1} See Cole's, R. E. G. edition of Gervase Holles's notes, Lincolnshire Records Society, vol. i, 1911, pp. 110, 114, 124Google Scholar.

^{page 185 note 1} These facts have been ascertained for me by Mr. Robert Birley.

^{page 185 note 2} An interesting episode of the Marian reaction has lately been pointed out by the Rev. C. Eveleigh Woodruff: the office of St. Thomas Becket was restored to the service-books of Canterbury cathedral in 1555–6 (see Archaeologia Cantiana, vol. xliv, p. 25).

Article contents

VIII.—Some Further Aspects of the Iconography of St. Thomas of Canterbury

Extract

Access options

References

Save article to Kindle

Save article to Dropbox

Save article to Google Drive

Reply to: Submit a response

Your details

You have entered the maximum number of contributors

Conflicting interests