for in the first volume of his magnificent Sepulchral Monuments he says: "WILLIAM COURTNEY, archbishop of Canterbury, who died 1396, has in his cathedral, at the foot of the Black Prince, an altar-tomb adorned on each side with nine arches, and over each side two blank shields. On it his figure pontifically habited, with his mitre and crosier, an animal at his feet, and two angels at his head..... He had bequeathed his body to the cathedral of Exeter, whereof he had been prebend; but on his death-bed declaring himself unworthy to lie in his own or any other cathedral or collegiate church, directed by a codicil that he should be deposited in the churchyard of his collegiate church of Maidstone, in the place pointed out to John Boteler his esquire. But Mr Somner says, it appeared by a leiger book of Canterbury, that the king being at Canterbury when he was to be buried overruled this his appointment, and ordered his body to be interred there. Weever and Holland give a long epitaph for him in brass, with his effigy, on a large slab still remaining in the middle of the chancel at Maidstone, in which the word en is the only proof that his bequest was fulfilled here. I rather think it alludes to his intention, without implying that it was fulfilled. It celebrates his comely person, corpore valde decens, and the figure in Dart's Canterbury expresses as much."* Rev. SAMUEL DENNE in 1788 was the first to go into the question in a thorough manner, and in a letter of that date addressed to Richard Gough, and read before the Society of Antiquaries, he argues the case for the Maidstone site with great ability. It will only be necessary here to give a few short extracts from it, so as to shew what his conclusions on the subject were. He says: "... if Courtney was buried at Maidstone, to which notion I incline, he certainly lies under a gravestone in the middle of the chancel. "Whether Courtney was buried here, or in his cathedral, is a controverted question; and as it may fairly be deemed a collateral subject, I will beg leave to trouble the Society with a fuller examination of it than it seems to have hitherto had.† "... there are no grounds for imagining that the tomb-stone at Maidstone was not coeval with that event [the death of Courtenay]. As the monument at Canterbury is not known to have had an inscription, there is in this point no room for a comparison; we may, however, contrast the two monuments. That in Canterbury cathedral differs not at all from many cenotaphs, whereas this in Maidstone chancel is prima facie a very grave stone, without bearing any resemblance to a cenotaph. It is a flat stone raised but little above the pavement, and, as far as can be traced, was not ever more * Gough's Sepulchral Monuments (1786), vol. i., pp. 154, 155. elevated..... And its being not uncommon to erect in the same church where a person is interred a monument remote from the stone that covers the grave, this was a reason for my inclining to an opinion that the stalls in Maidstone chancel might have been of the sepulchral class. A memorial of the archbishop they [viz., the tombstone and stalls] certainly are; and as a piece of architecture, both with respect to style and execution, they are superior to the monument in Canterbury cathedral, which, on the authority of a monk of Christ-church, has acquired the appellation of the primate's tomb; but, after what I have written, may I venture to term it Courtney's cenotaph ?"* Dr. ANDREW KIPPIS in 1789 says: "Archbishop Courtney died, July the 31st 1396, at Maidstone in Kent, and was buried in the Cathedral Church of Canterbury, under a monument of alabaster, on the South side, near the tomb of Thomas Becket, and at the feet of the Black Prince; the King, who was then going to marry the King of France's daughter, being present, with several of his nobles, at the funeral solemnity."+ Rev. SAMUEL DENNE had in 1794, in conjunction with his brother the Rev. John Denne, taken the opportunity of the stone in Maidstone Church being raised to examine the ground underneath it, and having found some bones which he considered to be those of Courtenay, wrote, under date March 14 of the same year, a letter to Mr. Richard Gough, from which the following is an extract: "As from the stone's being raised. . . . you will not be surprised that curiosity should prompt to a deeper search, with the view of ascertaining whether the archbishop was really there deposited, as the inscription, aided by tradition, strongly implies; and it was the united opinion of the examiners, founded on what they saw, that this was the case; and, consequently, that the tale of the body's having been conveyed to Canterbury by the King's command was fabricated by the monks of the priory of Christchurch, for the purpose of supporting as they conceived the credit and dignity of that cathedral."‡ RICHARD GOUGH was converted from his former opinion. on the subject by the above letter, and in 1796 we find him writing as follows: Cenotaphs are not unfrequent among us. ... Archbishop Courtney, who has a monument in his Cathedral, was really buried in his collegiate church of Maidstone; where his remains, only a few bones, were seen lately."§ * Archæologia (1792), vol. x., pp. 282, 283. + Biographia Britannica, by Andrew Kippis, D.D. (1789), vol. iv., p. 357. Gough's Sepulchral Monuments (1796), vol. ii., part 2, p. cxxxvii. § Ibid., p. cxxxvi. Rev. JAMES DALLAWAY in 1807 evades the subject, and in speaking of Courtenay's monument merely states : "That which adjoins, of Archbishop Courtenay, who died in 1396, is elegantly carved in alabaster."* EDWARD WEDLAKE BRAYLEY in 1807, when writing of Courtenay, said : "He died in July, 1396, at his Palace at Maidstone, where also he appears to have been buried; though some historians affirm that he was interred in the Cathedral at Canterbury, by the King's command."+ And when describing the Trinity Chapel, he wrote: "The Cenotaph of ARCHBISHOP COURTENEY is under the adjoining arch, eastward from the monument of the Black Prince, and consists of a richly ornamented tomb in the pointed style, on which lies the figure of the Prelate, in pontificalibus, with his pall and pastoral staff, and his hands raised in the attitude of prayer.. There has been much argument used as to the fact, whether Archbishop Courteney was buried at Canterbury, or at Maidstone; yet, after the manner in which this question has been considered by the late Rev. S. Denne, in the Tenth volume of the Archæologia, but little doubt can remain of the real place of his interment being at Maidstone."+ And when describing All Saints', Maidstone, he decides the matter as follows: "He [ARCHBISHOP COURTENEY] was himself buried in the middle of the chancel, in a grave between five and six feet deep, where his skeleton was found in the year 1794, in consequence of a search made by the late Rev. Samuel Denne. This discovery terminated the contention which had long been carried on among antiquaries respecting the real burial-place of Courteney, and which, through the artifice of a Monk of Christ Church, in making a false entry in an antient Manuscript, had been frequently affirmed to have been in Canterbury Cathedral."§ WILLIAM WOOLNOTH in 1816 says: "The humility of Courtney, and his attachment to a favourite residence, induced him to give directions in his last moments that he should be buried at Maidstone; which desire, a late discovery of his remains (of which there is an account in Gough's work) proves to have been complied with. The monks of Christchurch, whether *Wild's Twelve Perspective Views, etc. (1807), p. 15. The Beauties of England and Wales (1808), vol. viii., p. 808. out of respect for his character, or in order to assume the credit of possessing his remains, erected a costly cenotaph to his memory at the foot of the Black Prince in the Trinity Chapel." JOHN BRITTON in 1821 gives his verdict the same way, as follows: "The cenotaph for Archbishop COURTNEY, who was buried at Maidstone, is placed under an arch to the eastward of the monument of the Black Prince."+ WILLIAM HENRY IRELAND in 1828, when describing the Trinity Chapel, says : "The next monument, eastward, is that of. Archbishop Courtney, who died in 1396, with his effigies in alabaster, arrayed in pontificalibus. Many have contended, the present is only a cenotaph, and that the archbishop lies buried in Maidstone church, but the supposition appears void of foundation."‡ And later on, in 1829, when speaking of Courtenay in connection with All Saints', Maidstone, he says: "The archbishop died at his palace at Maidstone in 1396, who, at the commencement of his will, directed that his body should be interred in the cathedral church of Exeter, where he had formerly been a prebend; but that having changed his mind in this respect, conceiving that his remains were unworthy of burial in his metropolitical or any other cathedral or collegiate church, he ordered that he should be interred in the churchyard of his collegiate church. at Maidstone, in the place designed for John Boteler, his esquire, However, it appears by the ledger book of Christ church, Canterbury, that King Richard II., happening to be then at Canterbury, commanded his body to be there entombed, where he lies, under a monument of alabaster, at the feet of Edward the Black Prince; such being the opinion of Somner, Godwin, M. Parker, and Camden, whereas Weever conceives that he was buried in the chancel of Maidstone church."§ SAMUEL LEWIS in 1840, when describing Canterbury Cathedral, says: "In the arches surrounding the chapel of the Holy Trinity [is] the cenotaph of Archbishop Courteney, with a recumbent figure of that prelate in his pontificals."|| * Woolnoth's Canterbury Cathedral (1816), p. 90. + Britton's Canterbury Cathedral (1821), p. 68. Ireland's History of Kent (1828), vol. i., p. 192. § 1bid. (1829), vol. iii., p. 649. Lewis's Topographical Dictionary (1840), vol. i., p. 451. JOHN WHICHCORD, jun., in 1845, when describing the monuments in the chancel of All Saints', says :: "In the centre of the chancel, inlaid in a slab of Bethersden marble, was a superb brass of Courtney, the founder of the church and college, who was buried here, according to his will, in the tomb prepared for his esquire, John Botteler. . . . . He died at his palace at Maidstone, in July 1396,... . As will be seen in the Archbishop's will. . . . the place of burial appointed by him was the cathedral church of Exeter, but whilst lying on his death-bed, by a codicil, he directed the interment of his body in this church. For a long time it was supposed he had been interred at Canterbury; a monument to his memory existing there, in the Trinity Chapel, having his effigy in pontifical dress, lying at full length upon it; Weever, however, distinctly mentions the slab in Maidstone Church as covering the place of his burial, and here his body was found a few years ago, upon examination for that object.' Rev. R. WILLIS in 1845, in his List of the Burial Places of the Archbishops of Canterbury, gives :— "1396 William Courtney. to the south."t Near the shrine of Thomas à Becket Rev. BEALE POSTE in 1847, in his History of the College of All Saints', Maidstone, argued the case against the Maidstone claims with great ability, and says: "Respecting Courtney's actual place of interment, a great uncertainty still prevails. The codicil of his own will would incline us to look for the place of sepulture in the church-yard, he directing there to be deposited in the spot pointed out to his esquire, John Botelere (in cimeterio ecclesiae collegiate de Maydeston, loco designato Johanni Botelere, armigero suo). But if he were buried at Maidstone, this point was certainly overruled by his executors, from the circumstance of his monument being in the high chancel. There is also a monument erected to him in Canterbury Cathedral, though without inscription, a particular in which several of the tombs of the prelates buried there are deficient. It might be thought that the monument at Canterbury was a mere memorial or cenotaph erected in his honour. There appears to be, however, testimony of rather a conclusive nature, as to his burial in that metropolitan edifice. Somner, Godwin, Bishop, Parker, and Camden assert it, while Weever dissents. The evidence which has influenced the above writers is an entry in one of the ancient leiger books or registers of Christ Church, Canterbury, that the King, happening to be in that city when his death became known, specifically commanded that he should be buried in the Cathedral there. The above account is further corroborated by the concluding part or Whichcord's All Saints' Church, Maidstone (1845), pp. 18, 19. + Willis's Canterbury Cathedral (1845), p. 134. |