« PreviousContinue »
cular panels, containing trefoils and quatrefoils studded with dog-tooth mouldings and carved bosses, features we are familiar with in such buildings as the transepts at Beverley, the west front at Peterborough, &c., and which must have come from the grand early English west front of Guisbrough Priory church. About thirty years ago, the end of the tomb was brought back from Hardwick by the late Admiral Chaloner, and placed in the Priory ruins at Guisbrough.
In considering the date to which the erection of this cenotaph must be referred, what appeared to be a very ingenious clue must be discarded. In two neighbouring spandrels on the Scotch side are carved what were taken to represent a purse or glove with a nail or some similar sharp-pointed instrument directed against it. These were not unnaturally regarded as a rebus on the name of Pursglove, the last Prior of Guisbrough before the Reformation. A friend has pointed out that the spandrels on this side are filled with devices which relate to the Passion, and that the purse is the purse for containing the thirty pieces of silver, and the so-called glove is really the Sacred Hand with an awl piercing it. This seems proved by the occurrence in the next spandrel of a representation of the Sacred Foot, which has erroneously been described as a boot. Still, though this clue must be given up, there is, I venture to think, another of a like nature, which is more trustworthy. On each side and on the end still preserved is found a representation of a cock, standing on a perch, which very much resembles in form a handreel.15 It must be admitted that in the case where it occurs on the South or Annandale side its primary reference may be to the Passion, but in the two other cases no such allusion can be detected. Is not this device a rebus on the name of Cockerell, i.e., Cock and Reel, Prior Pursglove's immediate predecessor, who was elected in the year 1519, and was still Prior in 1534, though he had retired before 1537.16 If this conjecture is well founded, the period within which this monument must have been erected is confined within the period 1519 to 1534, the time during which James Cockerell was Prior of Guisbrough. This hypothesis is practically converted into a certainty by the occurrence on the English side of an escallop shell in a spandrel immediately adjoining
15 A representation of a haudreel is given in Turner's Domestic Architecture,
vol. iii. p. 130.
16 Guisbrough Chart., ii. p. xlv.
the one containing a cock and reel. The shell refers to the Prior's patron saint (St. James), from whose shrine at Compostela it was usual for pilgrims to bring home shells. as memorials of their visit there. The figure with a staff opposite the cock on the reel at the original east end of the monument seems to confirm this conjecture." This date at first sight may appear inconsistent with the style of the monument, which is apparently much earlier. A more lengthened inspection will show that while the general characteristics belong to an earlier style, some of the details are very late, almost Renaissance. This is especially true of the end in the Priory ruin, where the grouping of the Monks or Canons is arranged with great felicity, and in a manner suggestive of foreign workmanship. The object of the monument—the glorification of the house of Bruce, and more especially of the Scottish branch, makes it very probable that it is of Scotch design and workmanship.18 Perhaps traces of resemblance to French work may be detected in it; yet, even if so, it is not the less likely to be really Scotch notwithstanding, as a moment's recollection of the intimate connection of Scotland and France at this time would serve to remind one, when the reigning sovereign of Scotland chose both his wives from the princesses of the latter country, and his only child became the wife of Francis II. of France.
The next problem to be considered is the person to whom the erection of this cenotaph may with probability be attributed. As has been shown above, it was almost certainly raised between the years 1519 and 1534, by a person of Scotch nationality, and one to whom the memory of the Bruces was a special subject of pride. The great cost renders it certain that only a person of considerable wealth could have afforded to pay for such a sumptuous memorial to ancestors, all of whom had been long dead. Flodden,
17 His predecessor, John Whitby, died in Jerusalem on Sept. 5, 1505, when on a pilgrimage to the Holy Land (Ibid., and the Pylgrymage of Sir Richard Guylforde, Camden Soc., p. x.).
18 The Scotch character of the design is indicated by the revival of 12th and 13th century features in a 16th century monument. The trefoil-headed niches and arcade are like Early English work, and the pedestals on which the subordinate figures stand are carved like incipient Early English or Transitional
capitals, while on the other hand the shallow tracery at the backs of the niches is of the very latest Perpendicular character. It is well known to students of architecture that the Perpendicular style is purely English. In Scotland during the same period they were working at the same time an adaptation of the French Flamboyant, and copying the earlier native styles. This renders it very difficult for a novice to date Gothic work in Scotland, and has led to much confusion.
fought in 1513, with all its bitter memories, had so envenomed the relations between the two countries that it is in the highest degree improbable that any one who was only Scotch or English, could have been concerned in its erection. A Scotchman would not have cared to enrich an English Priory with so sumptuous a monument, nor an Englishman to glorify a family, which on one side at least were Scotch, and rebels. The Annandale line, it appears from Dugdale, occupied the southern or more honourable side, as well as having the smaller niches filled with the evangelists, who must be regarded as more important personages than the four Latin doctors occupying similar positions between the knights of the Skelton branch. Both these facts tend to prove that the monument was more particularly dedicated to the memory of the Scotch line.
Mary Tudor, daughter of Henry VII., wife of James IV. of Scotland, who was killed at Flodden, and mother of James V., seems to be the person who answers all these requirements. English by birth and Scotch by marriage, she had an interest in both nations. In this monument she may very well have wished to show that the same was true of her husband's ancestors, who were descended from one who was the progenitor, not only of the Royal House of Scotland, but also of a line of Barons who ever remained faithful to the English crown. This also accounts for the Annandale branch being placed in the more honourable position. The Tudor, or double rose," on the shield in the spandrel above the figure of Our Lady and Child, on the Skelton side, may be taken as a proof of this theory. It is quite conceivable that during one of her visits to York the Queen may have had her attention drawn to the fact that numerous members of the Bruce family were buried in the Priory church at Guisbrough. Possibly the Prior, or some other high official in the house, who had come to York to pay his respects to the King's sister was her informant. The house being under the invocation of the Virgin, the Queen's patron saint, would be another title to her favour. We know as a fact that the Queen was no fewer than three times in that city. First in July, 1503, when she passed through on her way to Edinburgh, to consummate her marriage
19" Tudor Rose. An heraldic rose, quarterly gu, and arg.; or a white heraldic
rose, charged upon a red one." The rese here given resembles the latter one.