« PreviousContinue »
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.
with James IV., which had been solemnized by proxy at the royal palace at Richmond, on the 25th January, in the preceding year (? 1502-3). The late Mr. Davies has given a very full and interesting account of this visit in an earlier volume of the Journal.20 She again passed through York in April, 1517, on her way to London; and for the third and last time in May of the following year, as she was returning to Scotland, where she remained till the year of her death, 1541. If a guess is permissible on this point I should be inclined to suggest that the idea of this monument arose at one of the last two visits, possibly as a memorial of her husband, whose body had been brought to England after Flodden, and buried at Richmond, in Surrey.
From the description attached to the drawing in Dugdale, it appears that the Skelton, or English line, occupied the north side, the Scotch, or Annandale, the south, at the west end was found the King, and at the east the group of Prior and Canons.
It may fairly be assumed that the figure of the Prior was meant to represent an actual person. There are two persons, either of whom we may, with a fair show of reason, suppose to be commemorated, the founder, Robert Bruce, or his brother, William, the first Prior, who is said to have been buried in the Chapter House. The former supposition appears the more probable of the two, as if he does not appear here, no representation of him occurs anywhere else on the monument, and he was not likely to have been entirely overlooked.
We now come to the consideration of a very important problem connected with this singular monument, namely, the character of the armour the knights are seen to be wearing, and the time at which such was in use. It has been suggested that the figures of the knights were copied directly from sculptured or other effigies of the same persons lying in the Priory Church, and that the armour represented had
20 Yorkshire Archæol. and Top. Journal, vii. 305-329. I think Mr. Davies must have made a slip in saying that Mary Tudor was married in the January of the preceding year. It is hardly likely she would have remained eighteenth months before proceeding north. Most probably the date is 1502, which as the year then did not commence until March 25th, would answer to 1503 according to our
modern system of computation.
Under the drawing of the side containing the Scotch Barons is this inscription: Tumuli perpulchri in Ecclesia (olim Conventuali) deGisburne nuperrime existentis latus australe." Under the English side, Ejusdem Tumuli facies altera." The royal end is placed at the west. The other end is not given.
long been disused at the date to which the erection of the monument must be assigned. However interesting such a fact would have been, could it have been carried to demonstration, it must, I think, be abandoned. There is a peculiar family likeness amongst the whole of the ten figures in the matter of their armament, and the whole of the armour is of a late type, none of it earlier than about the middle of the 15th century. The chief characteristics of 13th and 14th century armour, such as the coif de mailles, the hauberk of mail, the chausses of mail, the loose surcoat, or the jupon, are conspicuous by their absence; nor is any early plate armour seen. It is also clear that the sculptor was one who was not familiar with armour, even that worn in his own time, to anything like a minute degree, and he was certainly far behind, in skill of execution, the majority of those who wrought the life-sized effigies with which we are familiar. There are some anomalies in the details which it is difficult to account for in any other way, and it is not always possible to say what was intended to be represented, when they are of a nondescript character. There is also a stiffness and monotony about the attitudes of the ten men which is not pleasing, and is in strong contrast to the freedom and almost life-like pose of the weepers on the sides of some earlier tombs, such as that of Lord John Nevill in the nave of Durham Cathedral. It will be noticed that not only is the position of all the figures alike, but all on one side of the tomb wear the shield in the same way, so also the swords are all alike and hang in the same manner on all the figures on one side of the tomb. The only relief from this sameness is the turn of the head in a few cases.
The first knight on the original north or Skelton side wears earlier armour than any of the others. His head is enclosed in a round topped helmet or casque. The vizor is raised to show the features as it is in all cases. His neck is protected by a collar or gorget of mail indented. On the shoulders are pauldrons of overlapping plates. On the upper parts of the arms are rerebraces, on the elbows coudières or coutes, and on the lower parts of the arms vambraces. On the hands are gauntlets. The body armour consists of a cuirass with taces attached of the form known as almayne rivets, behind which is seen the skirt or apron of mail. Cuisses cover the thighs, and jambes the legs, while the knees are
protected by genouillières with plates attached to them above and below. Sabatouns are worn on the feet. The sword is suspended from a hip belt and hangs on the sinister side, while on the dexter side is seen the miséricorde or small dagger by which the sword was at this time generally supplemented. In front of the breast is seen the shield, supported with both hands, with the blue lion rampant of Bruce 22 thereon, but in this particular case differenced with a label of three points. The difference enables us to assign the figure to Adam de Brus I., son of the founder. The valuable pedigree of the family of Bruce, which Dugdale 23 copied from a parchment roll then in Pontefract Castle, states that he survived his father, and did not die until the 13th of the kalends of April, 1167, 8 Henry II., when he was buried at Guisbrough. There is undoubtedly an error here, as the regnal year and the year of Our Lord do not agree. The compiler of the pedigree seems to have confounded this Adam de Brus with his son and successor of the same name, whose obit was undoubtedly kept on the 13th of the kalends of April.24 It is almost certain that even if he did. outlive his father, it must have been by a very short time, as there is no confirmation by him of any of his father's gifts to Guisbrough. The presence of the label on the shield tends to prove the same thing, which is further confirmed by an entry in the Hexham Book, stating that he died in 1143. He married Agnes, daughter of Stephen, Earl of Albemarle, who is said to have married as her second husband, William de Romara, created Earl of Lincoln in 6 Stephen.26
The next large niche is filled by a figure representing Adam de Brus II., and here occur some of the curious
22 Piers de Brus, d'argent ove ung leon rampand d'azure (Nicolas' Roll of Arms, temp. Hen. iii., p. 6). Surtees in his history of Durham (vol. i., plate 7) gives an engraving of the seal of Peter de Brus I. The original is amongst the manuscripts of the Dean and Chapter of Durham (4 ta. S va. Spec. No. 4), attached to a grant of land at Hartlepool to the Prior and Convent of Durham. The seal, circular, 28 inches in diameter, bears a knight in mail with drawn sword, helmet square topped, shield held close to the body, and charged with a lion rampant + SIGILLVM PETRI DE BRVS. Dodsworth (xcv., 58) says of a seal of Peter de Brus III., attached to a
deed dated 1256, that it bore "a lion ramp" (Guisbrough Chart. ii., 326).
Monasticon Anglicanumn, vi., 267. 24 Atkinson's History of Cleveland, ii., 25, quoting Collect. Topograph. et Gen., iv. 261.
25 Vol. i., p. 146 (Surtees Soc.). The father is said to have died the year before (Ibid. i. 141).
26 Dodsworth MSS., ii. 57, and cxliv., 22. In both places Dodsworth cites his authority, a Coram Rege Roll for Michaelmas Term, 4 Edw. I. (1276), on which was entered a suit about the possessions of Avelina, daughter and heiress of William de Fortibus, Earl of Albemarle,