Edward was well aware that he had both the men and the materials for the
accomplishment of this great design. Although the King was unable to
devote much of his time to artistic matters, he could not have been the
son of his father without having a cultivated taste and a competent
knowledge of the arts and crafts of the time. His father, Henry III,
however much he failed as a ruler in an age when the power of the King
was the main factor of good government, was an enthusiastic lover of art
and a patron of artists. It was during the reign of Henry, and largely
owing to his influence, that perhaps the most remarkable development of
Early English architecture took place. His principal work, to which he
gave himself with the utmost devotion, and, indeed, with little
consideration of other and more important duties, was the rebuilding and
decorating of the Abbey Church at Westminster. For the carrying out of
his designs he had gradually fostered a school of architects, sculptors,
painters, and other artists in Westminster unrivalled in England. This
Westminster School of Art not only produced a great part of the
magnificent edifice of the Abbey Church, but was directly engaged in the
construction of many other great churches and buildings. Its influence,
however, was still wider. From it trained and skilled men travelled
throughout Britain, imparting the knowledge of structure and artistic
design, while artists and students came to learn the Westminster methods
from the ends of the land.
There is, however, a good deal of evidence to show that Edward inherited
the collecting proclivities of his father, and was encouraged in this
amiable failing by Eleanor. He spent very large sums of money in buying
gold and silver plate, jewellery, carvings and embroideries. Records
remain not only of his own possessions, but of the lavish way in which
he and the Queen presented such works of art to religious houses which
they visited from time to time, and in which they took special interest.
An example may be found in the accounts of the Queen’s executors, where
we find that a certain Brother Nicholas received the sum of £10 for
bringing jewels, and, apparently, other works of art, from Acre to
England for the Queen’s service.[39]
Footnote 39:
_Cf._ “Liberationes factae per Executores,” &c., _Item_, fratri
Nicholao de Acon, pro cariagio diversarum rerum et jocalium, ad opus
Reginae de Acon usque in Angliam, x li.
In the year 1290 and for some time before, the King’s master mason at
Westminster was a certain Master Richard Crundale, or, as he was usually
called in the Rolls containing the accounts of Queen Eleanor’s
executors, “Magister Ricardus de Crundale, Cimentarius.” Richard
Crundale was the direct successor of such great architects and builders
as Master Henry of Westminster, Master John of Gloucester, and Master
Robert of Beverley, who had been successively the King’s architects, and
to whom we owe the beautiful designs and the excellent workmanship of
Westminster Abbey. Crundale succeeded Robert of Beverley, and had
apparently been in charge of the work at the Abbey for about ten years
at this date. To him the King entrusted the building of the cross at
Charing, and also the construction of the beautiful tomb in the Abbey
Church, but it can hardly be doubted that it is to him we owe the
suggestion of designs for many of the other crosses, and it is at any
rate clear that the influence of the Westminster School is shown both in
their planning and in the selection of the architects and builders who
carried out the work.
The accounts of the executors show that, in addition to the work for the
cross at Charing and the tomb in the Abbey, the statues of the Queen
which found places in all the crosses, and much of the decorative stone
carving, were made at Westminster under the eye of Richard Crundale.
In association with Crundale, there were at work in Westminster two
sculptors (“Imaginatores”) of renown, namely—Alexander of Abingdon, and
William of Ireland; these were the men who carved the statues. Ralph of
Chichester carved much of the decorative stone work. The painter who
decorated the tombs had also a high reputation in his time—Master Walter
of Durham. Master William Torel, a citizen of London and goldsmith, had
the good fortune to be chosen to mould and cast the metal effigies of
the Queen, which found their places on the tombs at Westminster and
Lincoln. His work was carried out in material of more durable character,
and his reputation as an accomplished craftsman in metal rests firmly on
the evidence of one of the most perfect remaining examples of mediæval
art. Another worker in metal, Master Thomas de Leighton, has left
evidence of his skill in the fine iron grille over the Queen’s tomb. The
executry accounts tell us also of the men employed by Crundale to bring
the stone and Purbeck marble from Corfe, Caen, and other places, and the
names of others associated with the works at Westminster are still
preserved.
The actual cost of the erection of the Cross at Charing is difficult to
tell. The accounts show that large sums were received by Richard
Crundale, amounting to some £700, but this sum no doubt represents work
for other memorials to the Queen, and not alone for those at
Westminster. It is also evident that the executry accounts were not
complete, so that an exact calculation of the cost is no longer
possible.[40] Unfortunately Richard Crundale died before the completion
of the Queen’s memorials, and was succeeded in 1293 by Roger Crundale,
under whose care the work was completed.
Footnote 40:
To obtain some idea of the cost of the memorials, money at the end of
the thirteenth century may be considered to have possessed thirteen
times its present purchasing value.
The cross in the City of London at the west end of Chepe was entrusted
to Michael of Canterbury, a member of the Westminster School, and
subsequently the successor of the Crundales as the King’s master mason
in Westminster. This distinguished architect was engaged in rebuilding
the Chapel of St. Stephen’s at Westminster while working on the cross at
Chepe. Of the exact plan of the “Cheapside” Cross little or nothing is
known, but there can be little doubt that it conformed in essential
details to the plan determined on by Richard Crundale. We know, however,
that Michael of Canterbury undertook the construction of Chepe Cross for
the sum of £300, and the executry accounts show payments to the extent
of £226 13s. 4d. This gives us the closest indication we can now obtain
of the actual money spent in building the crosses. It is generally
recognized that the cross at Charing was the finest and most elaborate
of the series, but Chepe Cross, situated as it was in the City of
London, must have also been a noble example of artistic work; probably
the crosses in country places were on less magnificent a scale.
The cross at Waltham was constructed by Roger Crundale and a certain
Dyminge de Legeri, sometimes called de Reyns. Roger Crundale was
obviously a member of the Westminster School, and there is little doubt
that he was Richard Crundale’s brother. Dyminge de Legeri may have been
a foreigner, but his work was held in high appreciation, for he not only
helped in the construction of Waltham Cross, but was employed in making
the sculptured tomb at Lincoln.
The building of the five Midland Eleanor Crosses—namely, at St. Albans,
Dunstable, Woburn, Stony Stratford and Northampton—is of special
interest, inasmuch as the work was entrusted to what seems to have been
the mediæval representative of a firm of architects and builders in
Northampton. The most prominent member of the firm was a certain
Johannes de Bello, or de la Bataille, in whose name most of the payments
are made out, but with him was one scarcely less important, namely,
Simon de Pabeham (Pabenham). These two builders were also of the
Westminster School, and appear later in connection with works at
Westminster itself. At this time, however, they were working at
Northampton as their centre. Nearly £400 was noted as being paid to John
Battle, but we can form little opinion as to how the money was
distributed. The cross at Northampton, a beautiful example of Battle’s
handiwork, still exists.
[Illustration:
FIG. 13.
The Cross at Geddington in the eighteenth century. Published by the
Society of Antiquaries: drawn by Schnebbelie, engraved by Basire:
_Vetusta Monumenta_, iii, plate xiv, 1791.
]
We know nothing of the architects or builders of the crosses at
Geddington, Stamford, or Grantham. The cross at Geddington remains the
most perfectly preserved example of the whole series. This cross is
remarkable, as it shows a completely different plan from those already
mentioned. Indeed its scheme of construction differs to such an extent
from the others that it is not probable that Crundale had any part in
its design. It is also noteworthy that no mention is made of these three
crosses in the executry accounts. If arrangements for building them had
been made at Westminster, we should have had evidence of it in the
executry rolls. It is probable, therefore, that in the Geddington Cross,
the only one of the three remaining, we see the work of some other
master. The influence of the builders of Lincoln Cathedral may have made
itself felt so far as Geddington, on the border of John Battle’s
territory. It is, however, very tempting to make the suggestion that the
cross at Geddington—possibly also those, long since destroyed, at
Stamford and Grantham—owe their origin to foreign artists. Those places
we may regard as having been in the Queen’s own country. On her marriage
it is specially mentioned that she received in dowry important
possessions in Grantham, Stamford, Tickhill, and the Peak. At the time
of her death we know that there were Spaniards in her household, and it
may be that the very unusual and striking design of Geddington Cross
owes its origin to a Spanish rather than to an English artist.
At Lincoln, the rebuilding of the Cathedral had given rise to a local
school of art, influenced no doubt by, but independent of, the greater
school at Westminster. The master builder of this school at the time was
Richard de Stowe, sometimes called “de Gaynisburgh,” evidently a man of
local birth and training, whose tombstone is still to be seen in the
cloisters of Lincoln Minster. To him was entrusted the erection of the
cross at Lincoln, but some finer decorative work was done by the
Westminster artists. William of Ireland furnished the statues and the
ornaments so frequently mentioned in the accounts as the “virgæ, capita
et annuli,” and special mention is made of payments to him for their
carriage to Lincoln.
The construction of the tomb over the remains of Eleanor in the
Cathedral was entrusted to Dyminge de Legeri, with whom was especially
associated Alexander of Abingdon. This tomb for long supported a replica
of Torel’s effigy of the Queen at Westminster made by that artist’s own
hands.
The monument constructed to contain the heart of the Queen in the Church
of the Black Friars in London, must have been elaborately beautiful.
Walter of Durham expended his utmost art in its decoration, and in
addition special effigies of the Queen were placed on this monument,
which were made by Alexander of Abingdon, Dyminge de Legeri, and William
of Suffolk.
Richard Crundale’s design for the Memorial Cross consisted of a solid
pillar, surmounted by a cross, following in principle the more ancient
crosses existing throughout the land; but with his greater skill in
construction and more developed artistic feeling the simple column was
surrounded with new architectural features.
The area on which the cross stood was covered with stone pavement, on
this pavement a smaller platform, attained by a varying number of steps,
was built, from this platform arose the cross proper. The architectural
decorations surrounding the column were arranged in three stages. The
first stage presented three, six, or eight faces, arranged in panels; in
these panels were carved shields, emblazoned with the Queen’s heraldic
bearings, giving the coats of England, Castile and Leon, and
Ponthieu.[41] The second stage consisted of a platform for displaying
the statues of the Queen, the number of statues corresponding to the
faces of the cross—three, four, or more, as the case might be.
Protecting the statues was arranged an elaborate system of
“tabernacles,” giving to the passer-by the impression of a shrine. The
third stage showed the continuation of the solid column, probably in
most cases surmounted by a cross. The whole of the monument was
ornamented with the decorations characteristic of Early English
decorated architecture. The work was done at the best period of this
school, and shows how beautifully the artistic ideas of the time could
be utilised for monumental purposes.
Footnote 41:
For England, three lions passant, guardant; Castile and Leon,
quarterly; for Ponthieu, three bendlets within a bordure.