Hostname: page-component-586b7cd67f-2plfb Total loading time: 0 Render date: 2024-11-23T22:30:56.791Z Has data issue: false hasContentIssue false
  • English
  • Français

The Westminster Abbey Sanctuary Pavement

Published online by Cambridge University Press:  17 July 2017

Steven H. Wander
Steven H. Wander*
Affiliation:
University of California Irvine
Get access Rights & Permissions [Opens in a new window]

Extract

In 1245 King Henry III undertook the reconstruction of Westminster Abbey. In addition to transforming the Romanesque basilica of Edward the Confessor and erecting an octagonal chapter house, he provided for a mosaic pavement in the sanctuary. The pavement is centrally located within the church (Fig. 1). It lies in the first bay east of the crossing, occupying nearly the entire length and rather less of the bay's width. Directly before it, now separated by a pair of steps, is the high altar. A detail of the northeast corner reveals its present state of preservation (Fig. 2). In spite of frequent restoration numerous mosaic tesserae are either missing or damaged; and the solitary letter E in the border is one of the last survivors from the extensive verse inscription that once accompanied the pavement. To appreciate the pavement's former splendor, one must turn to older depictions, in particular an early nineteenth-century aquatint by J. White (Fig. 3). Although mosaic patterns are occasionally simplified and the remaining bronze letters of the inscription omitted, the engraving provides a reasonable impression of the overall design. A large central disk is surrounded by four intertwining circles. These are in turn inscribed in a square whose sides devolve into another set of four circles. A second square, with its sides rather than its corners now facing the cardinal points, encloses the configuration. The guilloche which appears along three sides of the square originally enframed the entire composition. The missing portion of the eastern side was destroyed in 1706 when the altar designed for the Royal Chapel in the Palace at Whitehall was installed in the Abbey choir and only later restored around 1866 by George Gilbert Scott. Although the pavement is today the mere shadow of its former self, no one can doubt that originally it was an extraordinary creation. Its richness of design and prominence of position alone suggest that it held an important place in the king's plans for the rebuilding of Westminster Abbey. It is therefore surprising to find that the sanctuary pavement and its inscription have not yet been subjected to a thorough analytical examination.

Type
Articles
Information
Traditio , Volume 34 , 1978 , pp. 137 - 156
Copyright
Copyright © 1978 New York, Fordham University Press 

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

1 Nearly all Westminster Abbey guidebooks mention the sanctuary pavement. The most significant discussions, either because of their antiquity or thoroughness, are located in William Camden, Rees, reginae, nobiles, & alij in Ecclesia Collegiata B. Petri Westmonasterij sepulti, vsque ad annum reparatae salutis 1600 (London 1600) no pagination; Valens Arithmaeus, Mausoléa regum, reginarum, dynastarum, nobilium, sumtuosissima, artificiosissima, magnificentissima, Londini Anglorum, in occidentali urbis angulo structa (Frankfurt/Oder 1618) 57–58; John Weever, Ancient Fvnerall Monuments within the Vnited Monarchie of Great Britaine, Ireland, and the Islands adiacent (London 1631) 485–486; Henry Keepe, Monumenta Westmonasteriensia (London 1683) 31–32; Jodocus Crull, The Antiquities of St. Peters, or the Abbey Church of Westminster (London 1711) 8–9; John Dart, Westmonasterium or the History and Antiquities of the Abbey Church of St. Peters Westminster… a Survey of the Church and Cloysters taken in the Year 1723 (London 1742) I 62 and II 22 (printed page 18); Richard Widmore, An History of the Church of St. Peter, Westminster (London 1751) 72–73; James Peller Malcolm, Londinium redivivum; or, An Antient History and Modern Description of London (London 1802) I 89–93; Rudolph Ackermann, The History of the Abbey Church of St. Peter's, Westminster, Its Antiquities and Monuments (London 1812) I 166–167 and II 17–20; William Dugdale, Monasticon Anglicanum, edd. John Caley Henry Ellis, and Bulkeley Bandinel (London 1817) 273; Edward W. Brayley and John P. Neale, The History and Antiquities of the Abbey Church of St. Peter, Westminster (London 1823) II 39–43; W. Burges, ‘The Mosaic Pavements,’ in George Gilbert Scott, Gleanings from Westminster Abbey (Oxford and London 1863) 97–103; William R. Lethaby, Westminster Abbey and the Kings' Craftsmen (London 1906) 309–314; John Flete, The History of Westminster Abbey, ed. J. Armitage Robinson (Notes and Documents Relating to Westminster Abbey 2; Cambridge 1909) 113–115; Royal Commission on Historical Monuments (England), Westminster Abbey (An Inventory of the Historical Monuments in London 1; London 1924) 8 and 25–26; William R. Lethaby, Westminster Abbey Re-examined (London 1925) 217–225; and Jocelyn Perkins, Westminster Abbey Its Worship and Ornaments (Alcuin Club Collections 33; Oxford and London 1938) I 18–29.Google Scholar

2 The aquatint appears in color in Ackermann, , History pl. A (facing II 18) with the caution that ‘with all its accuracy, it may not be able to give, with respect to its colours, an adequate representation of what it was; or, from its present faded condition, of what it is’ (ibid. II 19); for a detailed verbal description of the colors of the pavement, see Malcolm, , Londinium redivium 89–90. To assess the accuracy of White's rendering of the mosaic patterns, the engraving should be compared to the diagram of the pavement from the Royal Commission Inventory where a portion of each section of mosaic tesserae is carefully delineated (Fig. 4).Google Scholar

3 Queen Anne's warrant of 21 February 1705/6, which sent this altar from the stores at Hampton Court to Westminster Abbey, appears in Ackermann, , History I 314 appendix no. xiv; and in Brayley, and Neale, , History II 43. Apparently workmen at the Abbey might have done the pavement more damage were it not for the ‘Influence of the Lord Oxford, and the care of the then Bishop of Rochester’ (Dart, , Westmonasterium II 22). It is claimed that these restored portions follow the original faithfully: ‘The mosaic pavement of the sanctuary has been restored, where it had been shortened eastward, the old matrices having been found and refilled. A concrete, containing chips of glass mosaic, was found under the altar pavement’ (Scott, George Gilbert, Personal and Professional Recollections [London 1879] 286). The most comprehensive attempt to distinguish the pavement's ancient and modern marble work occurs in Lethaby, , Re-examined 220–224.Google Scholar

For a detailed account of the history of this classical altar commissioned by James II, designed by Wren Christopher, executed by Gibbons Grinling and Quellin Arnold, and completed before the end of 1686, see Perkins, Westminster Abbey 65–82. For a view of the altar in the choir of Abbey Westminster, see Ackermann, History pl. 7 (facing II 15) or Brayley and Neale, History pl. xlii (facing II 38).

4 In 1925 Lethaby noted that ‘around the central disc six letters [in capitals] now remain of the words, MoNsTrAt aRchEtypum. Of the straight band on the north side there only exists a letter of lapidEs; and O and E remain on the east side [from millenO and duodEno]. Most of the straight band on the east can be read from the indents beginning + Xri, and the important line containing the names is still certain on the west — Tercius Henricus Rex, Urbs, Odoricus et Abbas’ (Re-examined 218–219). About one detail Lethaby was mistaken. Today from the verses on the straight bands, not three, as Lethaby remarked, but ‘five letters remain’ (Royal Commission, Westminster Abbey 25). Over a century ago these same five letters were extant: ‘O and E only remain on the Eastern side, N O [from sexageNO] on the South, none on the West, and E on the North’ (Malcolm, , Londinium redivivum 90). The eleven letters extant in the early nineteenth century were printed in italics in the edition of the inscription from Brayley, and Neale, , History II 40.Google Scholar

According to Dart, John Talman prepared a measured drawing of the pavement which he presented to the Society of Antiquaries (Westmonasterium I 62). Lethaby searched for this drawing but was unable to ‘discover if it now exists’ (Re-examined 220; and Craftsmen 314). Although unnoticed, several sheets of sketches for this project are to be found in the Victoria and Albert Museum, London (92.D.60: E157–1940, E166–1940, E173–1940, E174–1940, E177–1940, and E182–1940). These drawings, of which one is inscribed ‘begun at Ransworth June 17, 1707 & ended ibid: Aug: 14 eod[em]: ano,’ do not show any other than the eleven letters recorded in the early nineteenth century.

5 Flete, , History 113. In this edition Robinson mentions the variant readings between Flete's History and the British Library and College of Arms manuscripts discussed below.Google Scholar

6 Like Flete, Sporley was a monk of Westminster Abbey; and as he admitted, he excerpted passages from Flete's history for his compilation: ‘Sequitur compilatio de omnibus abbatibus huius ecclesie Westm. succedentibus predictum abbatem Alfricum, excerpta de quodam laudabili opere fratris Johannis Flete nuper prioris ecclesie predicte’ (Flete, , History 31). As Robinson notes, ‘Sporley's extracts, comprising as they do the chief part of Flete's book, are frequently of value in controlling the text of the Westminster MS, when other evidence is lacking’ (ibid. 31). For the careers of both writers see Pearce, E. H., The Monks of Westminster (Notes and Documents Relating to Westminster Abbey 5; Cambridge 1916) 137–138 and 143.Google Scholar

7 Lethaby mentions both these texts and prints that from MS Arundel 30 (Craftsmen 311). It should be pointed out that Rishanger's version was not written in 1311, as Lethaby states, but in the thirteen-hundred-eleventh year, that is, 1310. For this text and its date see Rishanger, William, Annates regum Angliae in Chronica et annales , ed. Riley, H. T. (Rolls Series 28; London 1865) II 424 and xxxvi n. 3.Google Scholar

8 Keepe, , Monumenta Westmonasteriensia 32; Crull, , Antiquities 9; Dart, , Westmonasterium II 22; and Widmore, , History 72. Cf. Camden, William, Britannia: Or, a Chorographical Description of the Flourishing Kingdoms of England, Scotland, and Ireland, and the Islands Adjacent , trans. Gough, Richard (London 1789) II 24; Malcolm, , Londinium redivivum 90; Ackermann, , History I 166; Brayley, and Neale, , History II 40; Burges, , ‘Mosaic Pavements’ 100; Lethaby, , Craftsmen 312; and Perkins, , Westminster Abbey 20. This misprint is now so deeply ingrained in Westminster Abbey scholarship that the central figure of the pavement can be described as ‘a microcosm of the universe’ even in the exemplary archival and historical study of Colvin, Howard M., ed., The History of the King's Works: The Middle Ages (London 1963) I 147.Google Scholar

Macrocosmum does appear in the earliest publications of the inscription (Camden, Reges; Arithmaeus, Mausoléa regum 57; and Weever, Ancient Fvnerall Monuments 485). This reading recurs in Dugdale, Monasticon Anglicanum 273 note h; and in Robinson's edition of the text (Flete, History 113). Afterward, in two instances where this verse is discussed apart from the rest of the text, the correct reading of macrocosmum is given (Royal Commission, Westminster Abbey 25; and Noppen John George, Westminster Abbey and its Ancient Art [London 1926] 71). It should be emphasized, however, that despite these later instances where macrocosmum appears, the existence of this misreading in the literature has until now gone unnoted.

9 Even though Richard Sporley correctly interprets the date as anno domini millesimo ducentesimo sexagesimo octavo (Fig. 6) in the earliest surviving explanation of the inscription (Flete, , History 114), the unusual method for computing the year has led some later scholars to err. In the first printed edition of the text the date is given as anno salutis 1260 (Camden, , Reges). This dating is repeated by Arithmaeus, , Mausoléa regum 57; Keepe, , Monumenta Westmonasteriensia 32; and Crull, , Antiquities 9. The year was understood to be 1272 by Dart, , Westmonasterium II 22; and by Malcolm, , Londinium redivivum 91. Although Widmore notes that the pavement was finished in 1268, he avoids specifying the meaning of these verses and instead says that ‘the poet seems to have been under some difficulty to express the time’ (Widmore, , History 73). Ackermann is thus led to believe that ‘the poet seems to have had some difficulty in making his numbers give a clear account of his dates’ (Ackermann, , History I 167). The date of 1268 reappears in the translation of these lines from Brayley, and Neale, , History II 40.Google Scholar

10 From surviving indents Lethaby observed that the artist's name was Odoricus; ‘this is usually given as Odericus, but the second vowel was certainly O’ (Lethaby, , Re-examined 219 and fig. 130).Google Scholar

11 This document in translation is printed in Lethaby, , Re-examined 224; and Calendar of the Patent Rolls 1266–1272 338. For the Latin text see Public Record Office, C/66/87 membrane 17: ‘Et nos praefato abbati teneamur in quinquaginta libris tam pro pavimento quod detulit secuni a curia Romae ad opus nostrum ponendum in ecclesia nostra Westmonasterii coram magno altari nostro ibidem.’ Google Scholar

12 Along with his explanation of the verses that includes the identification of Odoricus, Sporley records ‘Scriptura versuum in literis lapideis et deauratis per circuitum feretri sancti Edwardi seorsum talis est: Anno milleno domini cum septuageno / et bis centeno cum completo quasi deno, / hoc opus est factum quod Petrus duxit in actum, / Romanus civis. homo, causam noscere si vis, / rex fuit Henricus, sancti presentis amicus’ (Flete, , History 114).Google Scholar

13 See Lethaby, , Re-examined 226–232, where the documentary and artistic evidence is carefully sifted. For the dating of the tomb of Pope Clement IV see White, John, Art and Architecture in Italy: 1250–1400 (Harmondsworth, 1966) 57, where the alternative explanation is given that Pietro Oderisi is possibly identical both with the Odericus [sic] who in 1268 signed the inlaid marble pavement of the sanctuary in Westminster Abbey, and with the “Petrus civis Romanus” who signed the now largely dismembered shrine of St Edward the Confessor, probably in 1269.' Google Scholar

14 For an illustration of the marble floor of Francesca Romana, S. and remarks on additional pavements with similar designs in Crisogono, S. in Rome, Pisa Cathedral, and the choir of Frediano, S. in Lucca, see Kier, Ililtrud. Der mittelalterliche Schmuckfussboden (Die Kunstdenkmäler des Rheinlandes Beiheft 14; Düsseldorf 1970) 32 and fig. 351. For an illustration of the pavement in Crisogono, S. in Rome, see Hermanin, Federico, L'arte in Roma dal sec. VIII al XIV (di Roma, Storia 27; Bologna 1945) pl. XIV 1. Italian marble work with similar design motifs includes the central portal of the Duomo at Cività Castellana, the altar screen in Andrea, S. in Flumine at Ponzano, the altar front in Prassede, S. at Rome, the altar of Sacro Speco in Subiaco, the ambone in Maria, S. in Castello at Tarquinia, the pulpit of Andrea, S. in Orvieto, the tomb of the Savelli family in Maria, S. in Aracoeli at Rome, and pavements in Maria, S. in Cosmedin at Rome, in the Duomo crypt at Anagni, and in the Badia at Farfa Sabina (Hutton, Edward, The Cosmati [London 1950] pls. 18, 22, 24A, 25, 35, 36, 52, 54, 60, and 61).Google Scholar

15 The mineralogical content of the pavement has been variously described. It was first described as ‘lapides illos porphyriticos, jaspides, et marmora de Thaso’ (Flete, , History 113). The first printed account stated that the pavement consisted of ‘lapillis Ophiticis, Thasijs Porphyrijs &c.’ (Camden, , Reges). Seventeenth- and eighteenth-century authors mention ‘the Jasper, the Porphyry, the Lydian, the Touch, the Alabaster and the Serpentine stones’ (Keepe, , Momimenta Westmonasteriensia 32. Cf. Crull, , Antiquities 9; and Dart, , Westmonasterium II 22). To the preceding list was soon added lapis lazuli (Malcolm, , Londinium redivivum 89; Ackermann, , History II 18; and Brayley, and Neale, , History II 41). Burges re-examined this question in detail; and in addition to noting the substitution of Purbeck marble for cipollino, he listed the constituents of the pavement as porphyry, serpentine, palombino, other marbles such as Rosso Antico and Bianco Nero, and glass mosaic (‘Mosaic Pavements’ 97–100 and 103). According to Burges, blue glass mosaic had been mistaken for lapis lazuli. Later writers mention that ‘the materials of the pavement are Purbeck marble with panels of porphyry, serpentine, Palombino and other marbles and mosaics of marble and glass’ (Royal Commission, Westminster Abbey 25); and ‘the floor was, in fact, of red and green porphyry and glass mosaic’ (Lethaby, , Re-examined 217).Google Scholar

16 Although the letters of both these two and the next three lines of text have vanished without trace from the sanctuary floor, their position on the pavement can still be determined. The discovery of two brass diamonds in situ revealed that this portion of the inscription ‘was on the strip round about the four circles next to the big central circle’ (Lethaby, , Re-examined 219). The same conclusion had been reached over a century before, apparently from more extensive remains of the letter indents: ‘the five upper lines were included in the bands involving the contiguous small circles’ (Brayley, and Neale, , History 41). Nevertheless, a generation later the position of these verses was in question. It was felt that ‘the place of the first four lines is exceedingly doubtful’ and that only ‘the fifth and sixth lines ran round the centre circle and its surrounding satellites’ (Burges, , ‘Mosaic Pavements’ 100). There is no evidence, it seems, for the later suggestion that these verses were ‘probably on a brass fillet, in the border of the diagonal square, but this has entirely disappeared’ (Royal Commission, Westminster Abbey 25).Google Scholar

The pair of well-worn and slightly irregular brass diamonds on the eastern edge of the northern intertwined circle measure approximately 1.6 cm. long by 1.2 cm. wide, duplicating in shape and size (within a millimeter) the brass diamonds found both around the central roundel and along the outer square. This formal similarity between all the brass diamonds, which were used to separate words, suggests that all three sets of verses were of the same date and manufacture even if those lines written along the intertwining circles were set into a thin band (approximately 4.5 cm. wide) of beeswax and pine resin. I would like to thank Blair John for communicating to me the results of a chemical analysis performed at the Victoria and Albert Museum and at the National Gallery in London. The more generously spaced verses around the central globe and along the outer square were set directly into stone on bands measuring approximately 10.2 cm. and 12.4 cm. wide respectively. For a discussion of the Lombardic brass letters of the sanctuary pavement, see Badham Sally, Blair John, and Emmerson Robin, Specimens of Lettering from English Monumental Brasses (London 1976) 1 and figs. 1–2 and 5–12.

17 Thorndike, Lynn, ed., The ‘Sphere’ of Sacrobosco and its Commentators (Chicago 1949) 118.Google Scholar

18 Thorndike, , ‘Sphere’ 278: ‘Sed primus motus primi mobilis motu suo et sua influentia rapit secum omnes inferiores ab oriente in occidentem.’ Google Scholar

19 Baur, Ludwig, ed., Die philosophischen Werke des Robert Grosseteste, Bischofs von Lincoln (Beitrage zur Geschichte der Philosophic des Mittelalters 9; Münster 1912) 549.Google Scholar

20 Sporley, Richard offers this explanation: ‘Intellectus autem quinque versuum in quadrangulis talis est. Si lector posita etc.: sic nota quod primum mobile dicitur proprie mundus iste, cujus aetatem sive finem scriptor ex quadam imaginatione sua per incrementum numeri triplicati dicit aestimandum, sic: Sepes trina: i.e. trium annorum, sepes: hoc est sepes semel facta perdurabit ad tres annos. canis perdurabit ad tres sepes, i.e. ad ix annos. equus perdurabit ad tres canes, i.e. per xxvii annos. homo perdurabit ad tres equos, i.e. per lxxxi annos. cervus perdurabit ad tres homines, i.e. per ccxliii annos. corvus perdurabit ad tres cervos, i.e. per dccxxix annos. aquila perdurabit ad tres corvos, i.e. per iimclxxxvii annos. cete grande perdurabit ad tres aquilas, i.e. per vimdlxi annos. mundus perdurabit ad triacete grandia, i.e. per xixmdclxxxiii annos. et ita ab origine mundi usque ad finem ejusdem secundum imaginationem istius scriptoris erunt in toto praedicti anni’ (Flete, , History 114). In MS Arundel 30 the scribe has written above each member of the series its computed age (Lethaby, , Craftsmen 311).Google Scholar

21 Throughout the thirteenth century there was considerable speculation about the date of the world's end. Attention focused specifically on the arrival of the Antichrist, whose appearance, it was believed, marked the first in a series of cataclysmic events culminating in the Last Judgment. In the Additamenta to the Chronica Majora Matthew Paris records these frequently recited verses: ‘His quoque temporibus propter terribiles rumores hujusmodi celebriter hi versus, Antichristi adventum nuntiantes, recitabantur: Cum fuerint anni transacti mille ducenti / Et quinquaginta post partum Virginis almae, / Tunc Antichristus nascetur daemone plenus’ (Paris, Matthew, Chronica Majora, ed. Luard, H. R. [Rolls Series 57; London 1882] VI 80). Even so great a luminary as Roger Bacon was not above pursuing the question: ‘I do not wish in this matter to be presumptuous, but I know that if the Church should be willing to consider the sacred text and prophecies, also the prophecies of the Sibyl and of Merlin, Aquila, Seston, Joachim, and many others, moreover the histories and the books of philosophers, and should order a study of the paths of astronomy, it would gain some idea of greater certainty regarding the time of Antichrist’ (Burke, R. B., ed., The Opus Majus of Roger Bacon [Philadelphia 1928] I 290). In addition, it is specifically recorded that Henry III responded to such prophecies. In 1249 after having heard a rumor predicting the Day of Judgment on the feast of Saint Lambert (September 17), the king along with many nobles held a vigil and spent the preceding night fasting and in prayer (Annates monasterii de Waverleia in Annates monastici , ed. Luard, H. R. [Rolls Series 36; London 1864–69] II 341–42).Google Scholar

One important aspect of this speculation about the date of the world's end, the prophecies arising in the circle of Joachim of Flora, has been discussed in detail by Bloomfield M. W. and Reeves M. E., ‘The Penetration of Joachism into Northern Europe,’ Speculum 29 (1954) 772–793; and Reeves Marjorie, The Influence of Prophecy in the Later Middle Ages: A Study of Joachimism (Oxford 1969) especially 37–58.

22 Such multiplying of the ages of animals was noted in an exchange of correspondence from Stokes, Whitley, Lethaby, W. R., Meyer, Kuno, et al., entitled ‘The Legend of the Oldest Animals,’ The Academy 34 (July–December 1888) 241–242, 258, 274, 291, 356; and 35 (January–June 1880) 60 and 71. The tradition was again discussed by Hull, E., ‘The Hawk of Achill or the Legend of the Oldest Animals,’ Folk-Lore 43 (1932) 376–409; I would like to thank Thomas, D. Professor Hill of Cornell University for bringing this article to my attention. A fragment from Hesiod, which later classical authors mention, states that ‘A chattering crow lives out nine generations of aged men, but a stag's life is four times a crow's, and a raven's life makes three stags old, while the phoenix outlives nine ravens, but we, the rich-haired Nymphs, daughters of Zeus the aegis-holder, outlive ten phoenixes’ (Hesiod, , The Precepts of Chiron fragment 3, ed. Evelyn-White, Hugh G., The Homeric Hymns and Homerica [Loeb Classical Library; Cambridge 1959] 74–75; cf. Plutarch, , De defectu oraculorum 415.11, ed. Babbitt, Frank Cole, Moralia [Loeb Classical Library; Cambridge 1962] V 380–381; Pliny, , Naturalis historia 7.48.153, ed. Rackham, H. [Loeb Classical Library; Cambridge 1942] II 608–609; and Ausonius, , De aetatibus animantium: Hesiodion , ed. Evelyn-While, Hugh G. [Loeb Classical Library; Cambridge 1919] I 172–175. For related references, see also Frazer, J. G., ed., Pausanias's Description of Greece [London 1913] IV 217–218). von Zweler, Reinmar, the thirteenth-century German poet, triples the ages of the three-year fence of the field, the hound, and the horse to determine the active life span of man: ‘Swenne ein vluorzûn driu jâr gestàt / unt daz ein hunt des zûnes alter driu verslizzen hât, / wirt danne ein ros drî stunt als alt alsô der hunt, dêst alt genuoc. / Wirt danne ein man drî stunt als alt / alsò daz ros, seht, der ist allen wìben gar ze kalt’ (Roethe, Gustav, ed. Die Gedichte Reinmars von Zweter [Leipzig 1887] 501 no. 182; cf. Heinrich, Friedrich von der Hagen, , ed., Minnesinger: Deutsche Liederdichter des zwölften, dreizehnten und vierzehnten Jahrhunderts [Leipzig 1838] I 210 no. 183). Reinmar's source may have been a more extensive series such as is found in later German literature (See Agricola, Johann, Sybenhundert und fünfftzig teütscher Sprichwörtter [Hagenow 1534] and reprinted as Die Sprichwörtersammlungen , ed. Gilman, S. L. [Ausgaben deutscher Literatur des xv. bis xviii. Jahrhunderts; Berlin 1971] I 473–474 no. 661; and Henisch, Georg, Teütsche Sprach und Weissheit: Thesaurus linguae et sapientiae Germanicae [Augsburg 1616] 1.1350, and reprinted in fascsimile [Documenta Linguistica: Quellen zur Geschichte der deutschen Sprache des 15. bis 20. Jahrhunderts; Hildesheim 1973]; and the late fifteenth-century Liederbuch der Clara Hätzlerin , ed. Haltaus, Carl [Bibliothek der gesammten deutschen National-Literatur 18; Quedlinburg and Leipzig 1840] lxix no. 14. Additional late medieval examples from manuscripts and early printed texts have been collected by Goedeke, Karl, ed., Pamphilus Gengenbach [Hanover 1856; reprinted Amsterdam 1966] 562–564; and by Wackernagel, Wilhelm, ‘EΠEA ΠTEPOENTA,’ in Kleinere Schriften [Leipzig 1874] III 186. See also The Demaundes Joyous [1511] in Kemble, John M., ed., The Dialogue of Salomon and Saturnus [London 1848; reprinted New York 1974] 290–291 no. 49). There are other examples of such tripling of the ages of animals in Portuguese, Spanish, Italian, and Breton; but none so closely resemble the Westminster lines as a number of Old Irish lyrics found in Stokes, Whitley, ed., Lives of Saints from the Book of Lismore (Anecdota Oxoniensia, Mediaeval and Modern Series 5; Oxford 1890) xli; Atkinson, R., ed. The Book of Ballymote (Dublin 1887) 14a; Dublin, MS, Trinity College 1337 (H.3.18) 35; MSS London, British Library Egerton 118 fol. 51r, and 133 fol. 229r .Google Scholar

23 Stokes, , Book of Lismore xli.Google Scholar

24 Preeuntis has previously been understood as an adjective modifying either annos or mundum and translated in such phrases as ‘the foregoing years’ and ‘the years of the passing earth’ (Brayley, and Neale, , History II 40; and Hull, , ‘Hawk of Achill’ 376). In order to express the idea of tripling, however, it must be an adjectival noun in the genitive case so that ‘whatever follows triples the years of the foregoing [member of the series].’ Google Scholar

25 Brayley, and Neale, , History II 40; and Hull, , ‘Hawk of Achill’ 376.Google Scholar

26 Brayley, and Neale, , History II 10: ‘This spherical globe shews the original Microcosm’; Hull, ‘Hawk of Achill’ 376: ‘The spherical globe shows the archetypal microcosm’; and Noppen, , Westminster Abbey 71: ‘This spherical globe shows the archetypal universe.’ Google Scholar

Sporley Richard explains that ‘intcllectus illius versus in medio dicti pavimenti per circuitum unius lapidis rotundi, qui sic incipit: Sphericus etc. sphericus globus: sive lapis iste rotundus habens in se colores quattuor elementorum hujus mundi, videlicet ignis aeris aquae et terrae. monstrat: i.e. declarat in se. macrocosmum: i.e. majorem mundum. archetypum: i.e. figurativum principalem. microcosmus enim dicitur minor mundus, sc. homo; macrocosmus dicitur major mundus, iste videlicet in quo nos habitamus’ (Flete, History 114). According to Sporley, the spherical globe showing the macrocosm contained the colors of the four elements of the universe. If this original globe were still in place, it might be possible to determine the accuracy of his observation. Unfortunately, ‘the eye of the great centre circle has also a very modern look’ (Burges, ‘Mosaic Pavements’ 101). Despite the loss of the central roundel, its original appearance may perhaps be preserved in the early sixteenth-century painting of The Ambassadors by Hans Holbein the Younger in the National Gallery in London (Hervey Mary F. S., Holbein's Ambassadors [London 1900] 225–227; Lethaby, Craftsmen 312; and Lethaby, Re-examined 221–222). In this work the central disk of the painted marble floor contains a six-pointed star formed by two interpenetrating equilateral triangles, the Magen David; and this may have been the original disposition of the Westminster design. On the other hand, ‘it is possible that the Confessor's pavement was the source from which the pattern was taken’ (Lethaby, Re-examined 222). Whether such a geometric figure existed in the center of the sanctuary pavement does not seem to affect Sporley's interpretation. His observation cannot now be substantiated; and, in my opinion, his explanation remains problematic. His explication of the cosmological terms macrocosmum and archetypum consists of little more than a series of catchphrases that ignores their relationship both to each other and to the finis primi mobilis while at the same time introducing such extraneous elements as the microcosmum. In addition, the explanation that he does offer is not sanctioned by the text of the inscription. Instead of rooting his interpretation in the possible meaning of the verse, Sporley skirts the issue; and his explanation remains diffuse and obscure.

27 ‘Creatio mundi quinque modis scribitur: uno quo ante tempora saecularia immensitas mundi in mente divina concipitur, quae conceptio archetypus mundus dicitur…. Secundo cum ad exemplar archetypi, hic sensibilis mundus in materia creatur’; Augustodunensis, Honorius, De imagine mundi (PL 172.121). Cf. de Insulis, Alanus, Liber in distinctionibus dictionum theologicalium (PL 210.866): ‘Dicitur sapientia Dei juxta quam mundus factus est, quae a prophetis dicitur archetypus mundus. quasi principalis mundi figura.’ Thirteenth-century cosmographers also recognized this unique relationship between the archetypal and sensible worlds; see Thorndike. ‘Sphere’ 80, 153, 248, 253, and 286.Google Scholar

28 Usually related to the microcosm rather than to the archetypal world, the macrocosm is described in a twelfth- or early thirteenth-century manuscript from Prüferring (MS Vienna, Nationalbibliothek 12600 fol. 29r): ‘Macrocosmus constat ex quatuor elementis: igne, aere, aqua et terra. Sic et microcosmos, id est, homo, constat ex isdem quatuor elementis: igne, aere, aqua, et terra’; see Saxl, Fritz, Verzeichnis astrologischer und mythologischer illustrierter Handschriften des lateinischen Mittelalters 2: Die Handschriften der National-Bibliothek in Wien (Sb. Akad. Heidelberg 16; 1925–1926) 40–41, 162, and pl. 13; and Boeckler, Albert, Die Regensburg–Prüfeninger Buchmalerei des XII. und XIII. Jahrhunderts (Munich 1924) 72–76. For the relationship between the microcosm and macrocosm, see also Saxl, Fritz, ‘Macrocosm and Microcosm in Mediaeval Pictures,’ in Lectures (London 1957) I 58–72; and Allers, R., ‘Microcosmus: From Anaximandros to Paracelsus,’ Traditio 2 (1944) 319–407.Google Scholar

29 For this miniature see Beer, Ellen J., Die Rose der Kathedrale von Lausanne (Berner Schriften zur Kunst 6; Bern, 1952) 44–45 and pl. 54; d'Alverny, M.-Th., ‘Le Cosmos symbolique du xiie siècle,’ Archives d'histoire doctrinale et littéraire du moyen âge 20 (1953) 78–79; and von Einem, Herbert, Der Mainzer Kopf mit der Binde (Arbeitsgemeinschaft für Forschung des Landes Nordrhein-Westfalen, Geisteswissenschaften 37; Cologne and Opladen 1955) 25 and pl. 25.Google Scholar

30 For a detailed study of this manuscript and its illustrations see d'Alverny, , ‘Cosmos symbolique’ 31–81.Google Scholar

31 Thorndike, , ‘Sphere’ 120.Google Scholar

32 Time and space were considered the first two categories necessary for the organization of creation, and it is noteworthy that these two concepts are as implicit in the Westminster sanctuary pavement as their personifications are explicit on the miniature page (Fig. 8) from the Clauis physicae: see d'Alverny, , ‘Cosmos symbolique’ 60–64.Google Scholar

33 In its attempt to depict the cosmos schematically, the Westminster pavement is not unusual. Medieval choir pavements frequently exhibit cosmological cycles, but generally such themes as the months of the year, the zodiac, or the seasons were preferred. See Kier, , Der mittelalterliche Schmuckfussbeden 69–72.Google Scholar

34 Note 11, supra. Google Scholar

35 The exact location of the Confessor's original grave has never been determined by modern excavation, but it is known to have been in front of the high altar; see Barlow, Frank, Edward the Confessor (Berkeley and Los Angeles 1970) 254 and 263–264.Google Scholar

36 See Powicke, F. M., King Henry III and the Lord Edward (Oxford 1947) especially II 569–575; Barlow, , Edward the Confessor 284; and my dissertation ‘ Abbey, Westminster: A Case Study in the Meaning of Medieval Architecture’ (Stanford University 1975) especially 45–69.Google Scholar

37 Calendar of the Close Rolls 1247–1251 4. See also the elaborate instructions he left for the celebration of the saint's feast when the possibility arose that he might be away from Westminster; Close Rolls 1254–1256 222.Google Scholar

38 Patent Rolls 1266–1272 135–140.Google Scholar

39 See Tristram, E. W., English Medieval Wall Painting: The Thirteenth Century (Oxford 1950) especially I 56 and 70–76; and Tanner, L. E., ‘Some Representations of St. Edward the Confessor in Westminster Abbey and Elsewhere,’ Journal of the British Archaeological Association series 3, 15 (1952) 1–12.Google Scholar

40 Henry III commissioned a leather box for this statue in 1240; Calendar of the Liberate Rolls 1226–1240 478.Google Scholar

41 Close Rolls 1251–1253 486.Google Scholar

42 Liberate Rolls 1251–1260 509; see also Close Rolls 1259–1261 243 and 258.Google Scholar

43 Wykes, Thomas, Chronicon , in Annates monastici IV 136–137. See also Annates monasterii de Waverleia 336–337; and Calendar of the Charter Rolls 1226–1257 244 and 268.Google Scholar

44 Paris, Matthew, Historia Anglorum, ed. Madden, F. (Rolls Series 44; London 1866) II 454–455. Cf. Lehmann-Brockhaus, Otto, Lateinische Schriftquellen zur Kunst in England, Wales und Schottland vom Jahre 901 bis zum Jahre 1307 (Munich 1955–1960) II 119–120 nos. 2713–2714. For the shrine see most recently O'Neilly, J. G. and Tanner, L. E., ‘The Shrine of St. Edward the Confessor,’ Archaeologia 100 (1966) 129–154. It should be pointed out that the Confessor's shrine, like the sanctuary pavement, was decorated with Cosmati marble work, establishing at the very least a significant visual relationship between the two.Google Scholar

45 Various accounts of the Confessor's translation are assembled in Lehmann-Brockhaus, , Lateinische Schriftquellen II 165–166 nos. 2818–2821.Google Scholar

46 Wykes, , Chronicon 252–253. Other chroniclers mention only that the king was buried ante magnum altare. See Annates monasterii de Waverleia 378; Annates monasterii de Wintonia in Annates monastici II 112; Annates prioratus de Wigornia in Annates monastici IV 461; and [Fitz-Thedmar, Arnold], Cronica maiorum et vicecomitum Londoniarum , ed. Stapleton, T. (Camden Society 31; London 1846) 153. See also the letter from the English nobility to the Lord Edward informing him of his father's death and burial before the high altar; Rymer, Thomas, Foedera, conventions, literae, et cujuscunque generis acta publica, inter reges Angliae et alios quosvis imperatores, reges, pontifices, principes, vel communitates 3 (London 1745) 1.2.124.Google Scholar

47 See the royal charter still preserved in Abbey, Westminster (Westminster Abbey Muniments 6318A), which appears in Stanley, Arthur P., Historical Memorials of Westminster Abbey 2 (London 1868) 569. An imperfect copy of this document survives in the Public Record Office (Charter Rolls 1226–1257 306).Google Scholar

48 Rishanger, , along with later chroniclers, mentions that in 1280 Edward I purchased marble for the tomb of Henry III: ‘Eodem anno [1280], Edwardus, Rex Angliae, de lapidibus pretiosis jaspidum, quos secum attulerat de partibus Gallicanis, paternum sepulcrum, apud Westmonasterium, fecit plurimum honorari’ (Rishanger, , Chronica et annates 96; cf. Eulogium (historiarum sive temporis): Chronicon ab orbe condito usque ad annum Domini 1366 , ed. Haydon, F. S. [Rolls Series 9; London 1863] III 145; Walsingham, Thomas, Historia Anglicana , ed. Riley, H. T. [Rolls Series 28; London 1863] I 1.20; and Walsingham, Thomas, Ypodigma Neustriae , ed. Riley, H. T. [Rolls Series 28; London 1876] VII 173. Lehmann-Brockhaus, , Lateinische Schriftquellen II 170–171 no. 2843). Only in 1290, however, is the king's translation to this new tomb recorded: ‘Dominus rex [Edwardus I] regem, patrem suum [Henricum III], apud Westmonasterium intumulatum, nocte Dominicae Ascensionis [10 May 1290], subito et inopinate amoveri fecit, et in loco excelsiore, iuxta Eadwardum, S. collocari’ (Florence of Worcester, Chronicon ex chronicis , ed. Thorpe, Benjamin [English Historical Society; London 1849] II 242–213; cf. Annates Londonienses in Chronicles of the Reigns of Edward I. and Edward II. , ed. Stubbs, W. [Rolls Series 76; London 1882] I 98; and de Oxenedes, John, Chronica , ed. Ellis, H. [Rolls Series 13; London 1859] 253. Lehmann-Brockhaus, , Lateinische Schriftquellen II 177 no. 2866). In 1291 William Torel's bronze effigy of King Henry III was nearing completion: ‘Order to deliver to William Torel, maker of the latten effigy (imaginis… de latuno) of the late king, the necessaries for making the effigy, for which things he shall render account before the treasurer and barons of the exchequer’ (Close Rolls 1288–1296 171). In the same year de Pocey, Margareta, Abbess of Fontevrault, came to England to receive for her convent, the traditional Plantagenet necropolis, the heart of King Henry III (Westminster Abbey Muniments 6318B; published in Ernest Pearce, H., Walter de Wenlok Abbot of Westminster [London 1920] 127).Google Scholar

Although suggestive, the indulgences from 1287 in the Domesday Chartulary (London, Westminster Abbey Muniments, Hook 11 fol. 398V), mentioning the faithful ‘qui ad tumulum quondam illustris regis Angliae henricus accesserint,’ do not prove that ‘before 1287 his body was removed to the magnificent tomb which the piety of his son had raised for him’; certainly it is untrue that ‘no record remains of the actual translation of the King's body to his new tomb but the occasion was notable for the indulgences which were granted’ (West lake Herbert F., Westminster Abbey [London 1923] II 460 and n. 19).

49 Flete, , History 113: ‘ex quibus [lapidibus] ipsi operarii coram magno altari Westmonasterii mirandi operis fecerunt pavimentum: in cujus latere boreali dicto abbati sub opere praedicto decentissimam composuerunt ipso praecipiente sepulturam’ (italics mine).Google Scholar

50 Flete, , History 115: ‘Abbas Richardus de Wara qui requiescit / hic portat lapides quos hue portavit ab urbe.’ Google Scholar

51 ‘Porphyrites in Aegypto est rubens, candidis intervenientibus punctis. Nominis eius causa quod rubeat [ut] purpura’: Isidore, , Etymologiae 16.5.5., ed. Lindsay, W. M. (Oxford 1911). Cf. Pliny, , Naturalis historia 36.11.57, ed. Eichholz, D. E. (Loeb Classical Library; Cambridge 1962) X 44; Vincent of Beauvais, Speculum quadruplex 1.8.17 (Douai 1624) I 501–502: and Magnus, Albertus, Book of Minerals, 1.2.3, ed. Wyckoff, D. (Oxford 1967) 45.Google Scholar

In the twelfth century Master Gregorius described the vases in front of the Pantheon in Rome, which were of different materials, as ‘conche et vasa alia miranda de marmore porfirico’ (James M. R., ‘Magister Gregorius de Mirabilibus Urbis Romae,’ English Historical Review 32 [1917] 550). From this single instance, however, it does not seem warranted to assume that ‘we know from Magister Gregorius that in Rome at that time all hard stones, including basalt and granite, were regarded as porphyry’ (Deer Josef. The Dynastic Porphyry Tombs of the Norman Period in Sicily [Dumbarton Oaks Studies 5; Cambridge 1959] 152).

52 Magnus, Albertus, Book of Minerals 44 n. 1.Google Scholar

53 Delbrueck, Richard, Antike Porphyrwerke (Berlin and Leipzig 1932) vii and 27.Google Scholar

54 See Deér, , Dynastic Porphyry Tombs especially 146–152.Google Scholar

55 Deér, , Dynastic Porphyry Tombs 1.Google Scholar

56 These were precisely the sentiments which motivated King Louis VI of France to request burial near Saint Denis, ; see Suger, , Vie de Louis VI le Gros , ed. Waquet, H. (Paris 1029) 284–287.Google Scholar

57 La Estoire de Seint Aedward le Rei in Lives of Edward the Confessor, ed. Luard, H. R. (Rolls Series 3; London 1858) 181 line 82.Google Scholar

* I would like to express my appreciation for a Grant-in-aid for Recent Recipients of the Ph.D. from the American Council of Learned Societies and a research grant from the Graduate Council of the University of California at Irvine which enabled me to complete the research for this study. I am grateful to Lewis, Suzanne Professors and Langmuir, Gavin I. of Stanford University and Emerson Brown of Vanderbilt University for many helpful suggestions. Special thanks are due MacMichael, N. H. Mr., Keeper of the Muniments at Abbey, Westminster, and Foster, J. P. Mr., Surveyor of the Fabric of Westminster Abbey, for the opportunity to examine the sanctuary pavement.Google Scholar