Archaeological Journal/Volume 3/The Cross-legged Effigy at Horsted Keynes, Sussex
THE CROSS-LEGGED EFFIGY AT HORSTED KEYNES, SUSSEX.
WITH SOME REMARKS ON EARLY EFFIGIES OF DIMINUTIVE DIMENSIONS.
The interesting little effigy at Horsted Keynes, which, inclusive of the lion at the feet, is not more than 2 feet 3 inches long, lies in the wall on the north side of the chancel, under an Early English trefoil-headed recess, with chamfered edges, 2 feet 10 inches in length, and about 2 feet and a-half from the floor. The church itself, which was originally cruciform, is an Early English structure; and lancet windows still light both sides of the chancel. For some time this effigy lay on a window-sill in the south transept; but, as it exactly fits this recess, which, unless it was made to serve the purpose of an Easter sepulchre, seems to have had no other assignable use, and as the parts of the effigy most effectually protected by the recess are those which are best preserved, and no other appropriate place for it appears, in all probability it was originally placed where it now lies, and had not long been removed. It is of a fine grained oolite or a sandstone, more likely the latter, closely resembling Caen stone in colour and was, it is evident, carefully executed, but has suffered both from time and ill-usage, although less than might have been expected. The effigy and the slab on which it rests are apparently one piece of stone. Until recently the whole was moveable but it is now fixed. Possibly it was moveable in order to allow the recess to be used at Easter for the sepulchre.
It represents a cross-legged knight, such as is commonly miscalled a Templar, of the latter part of the reign of Henry III., or the beginning of that of Edward I., in the military costume of the time. As the mail does not appear to have been executed in sculpture, it was probably painted on the stone; for though no trace of colour has been discovered on it, the parts best protected where mail would have been apparent, namely, portions of the head, neck, and arms on the inner side, are remarkably smooth. If any remains of colour exist there, the light is very unfavourable for the discovery of them[1].
The knight is habited in a capuchon, which covers the head and neck, and somewhat overlaps the hauberk and surcote, like a small early camail; a hauberk with the stiff folds of the sleeves above the elbows strongly shewn; a surcote thin at the shoulders, moderately full about the breast, reaching nearly halfway between the knee and the ankle, open in front from a little below the sword-belt downwards, and falling thence in large folds on both sides, so as to discover the thigh of the left leg which crosses over the right, but the outline of this opening and the left leg are very rough from decay or ill-usage. The surcote is confined at the waist by a belt fastened with a buckle. The general costume and style of the figure leave no doubt in my mind of the capuchon and hauberk having once borne indications of mail either chiselled or painted. There is no shield or guige, nor was there ever any. The sword-belt passes obliquely over the hips, as is usual in effigies of the period, and it is attached to the scabbard at two places, so as to give the sword a slanting direction. The handle of the sword and the lower half of the scabbard are gone. The details of the sword-belt and the attachments of it to the scabbard are very good, and resemble what are found in some of the earliest brasses. The hands must have been brought together on the breast in an attitude of devotion; but these and the greater part of the fore-arms are broken off and have disappeared. The left leg, which, as before noticed, crosses over the right, is a good deal worn away at places, so that the form of it is much injured. The legs and feet no doubt once appeared in chausses of mail, though no trace of mail can be discovered on them. The point of the spur on the left foot is broken, but what remains of it, together with that on the right foot, which is not in complete relief, shews they were single pointed spurs with angular shanks; whether each was fastened by one strap or more I could not satisfactorily ascertain. The head rests on two cushions; the upper one lozenge-shaped, the lower rectangular. I have stated that a capuchon covers the head, but there is reason to believe that over the upper part of this was originally represented a coif of mail (coiffe de mailles) or a coif of plate, (coiffe de fer, or cerveilliere;) for the part of the head which such a defence would have covered, is larger in proportion than is usually the case where there is a capuchon only; in addition to which the capuchon is narrower from just below the temples. This is hardly apparent to the eye for want of a good light, but may be readily perceived by passing the fingers lightly over either side of the head. The details of the coif may have been executed in colour only. It was hardly practicable to shew this in the sketch: the place however where the contraction of the capuchon appears to commence is indicated by a faint line. The peculiarity just described, the mode in which the sword-belt is attached to the scabbard, and the fact of the capuchon being separate from the hauberk, overlapping it and the surcote, have influenced my judgment respecting the age of this effigy, and have induced me to place it a few years later than I otherwise should. As the probable date of it, and of the recess in which it lies, corresponds so nearly with that of the church, I am disposed to think it was commemorative of the founder, or a considerable benefactor, whether buried there or not, and that it was executed soon after the erection of the church. The deceased might have assumed the cross under Prince Edward, soon after the termination of the barons' war.
Diminutive effigies, like that at Horsted Keynes, in which the proportions are those of a man, are sometimes supposed to represent children, but I think without good reason.
An effigy is, primâ facie, to be considered as representing that, to which, having regard to the costume and general appearance, it bears most resemblance, irrespectively of its size; for it is unreasonable from size alone to infer that it was not intended for a full-grown person.
Thus, a small effigy, apparently of a knight or priest, is to be taken as representing an adult; for till a certain age knighthood and priests' orders were not usually conferred; and we have no reason a priori to expect to meet with an effigy of a child attired as a knight or priest.
If there be any instance of an effigy in which the features and proportions, or if the features be wanting, the proportions, are those of a child, while the habit is that of a knight, priest, monk, or nun, it presents a curious subject for enquiry; it is, however, surely to be regarded as an exception to the rule, and not as proving a general practice, so much at variance with what we know of the usages of the thirteenth and fourteenth centuries; especially as, a little later, small representations of grown-up persons on brasses were very common, and there is no good reason why the same practice should not have prevailed in stone.
The story of the boy-bishop at Salisbury cathedral needs confirmation.
Lysons describes the little effigy at Haccombe, Devon, as measuring 2 ft. 2 in. long, in armour, without a helmet. But I learn from the notes of a friend, who has had an opportunity of examining this figure, that instead of being in armour he wears close hose and a tight-fitting jupon, fastened all down in front.
The effigies of the two sons of Edward III., William of Hatfield and William of Windsor, on their tombs in York minster and Westminster abbey, are in a civil costume, which we may without difficulty imagine to have been worn by princes verging towards youth. But the former is said to have died at eight years of age: the age of the latter I have not been able to ascertain.
As to civil costume, I would remark that the boy, the youth, and the man may have been attired very much alike in the thirteenth and fourteenth centuries; and, seeing the early age at which girls married, they, with some slight differences, probably dressed as women at a time when we now should call them children: hence perhaps the effigy said to represent Blanch, daughter of Edward III., is in the costume of an adult female, although if she died in 1340, she must have been a mere child.
Any child dying under puberty would, probably, be spoken of by the early writers as dying young, or even as dying an infant.
Mere infants were represented swaddled, especially on brasses. Stothard has given an example of a lady of the thirteenth century holding a child in her arms, but there is nothing worthy of notice in the dress[2], and the character of the little figure is precisely that of a child.
Why full-grown persons should have been represented by such diminutive effigies it may be difficult to discover. As in the case of brasses, in all probability economy sometimes of means, and sometimes of space, may have been occasionally influential. But as these effigies occur where economy is not likely to have been much considered, another motive must be sought. It seems not unreasonable to surmise that they were placed, with something of conventional propriety, where a portion only of the remains was deposited, and as the full-sized coffin or grave in other cases determined the magnitude of the effigy, so the small receptacle for the heart, or some portion of the remains, led to a proportionate commemorative effigy. I have stated that the hands of the Horsted knight were brought together on the breast. It is by no means improbable they may have supported a heart, as in some other examples.
Small effigies once introduced in this manner, it may have led to their being made simply commemorative in churches where it was wished to honour the founder or some great benefactor, though no part of his remains was there interred; but I am not prepared with any evidence of this.
An instance may be cited of two full-sized monumental effigies of a bishop; namely, Peter de Aquablanca, bishop of Hereford, one of them being in his cathedral, the other in the church of his native place, Aiguebelle, in Savoy, where, according to Godwin, his heart had been deposited[3].
I have not been able to meet with any well-authenticated case of a diminutive effigy placed over the grave of an adult.
The example of the effigy of a young female at Gayton, Northamptonshire, is not quite satisfactory[4]. I do not refer to brasses; they are common: and stone effigies considerably under life-size are not rare.
The following examples of diminutive effigies may be emumerated: Mapouder, Dorset,—cross-legged effigy 2 ft. long, engraved in Hutchins's Dorset, iii. 278. Tenbury, Gloucestershire,—cross-legged effigy in mailed armour, 4 ft. long, represented as holding a heart. Ayot St. Lawrence, Herts,—effigy 2 ft. 3 in. long, supposed to have held a heart between the hands, now broken. Bottesford, Leicestershire—effigy 22 in. long, Nichols, ii. 23. Dartington, Devon,—an ecclesiastic, 2 ft. 8 in. long. Other instances may be found at Little Easton, Essex (Gough), Cobberly, Gloucestershire, Anstey, Herts., and Long Wittenham, Berks. An interesting little effigy of white marble, now preserved in the abbey church of St. Denis, near Paris, represents Blanche d'Artois, grand-daughter of Louis VIII., who espoused, in 1269, Henry, king of Navarre, and, after his death, Edmond, earl of Lancaster, brother of Edward I. She died A.D. 1302, and was buried in Paris: her heart being deposited in the choir of the conventual church of the Minoresses at Nogent l'Artault, in Champagne, founded by her. On the destruction of that establishment, the effigy, which measures about 2 ft. in length, was preserved, and subsequently placed amongst the royal memorials at St. Denis. W. S. W.
- ↑ It is very probable that the figure had undergone some process of cleaning, several years since, which obliterated the traces of mail, and other more minute details.
- ↑ This singular monument is at Scarcliffe, Derbyshire.
- ↑ See Mr. Kerrich's account of this curious monument, Archæologia, xviii. p. 188, plate xi. In like manner there were duplicate effigies of King Richard I. at Fontevrault and Rouen; and triplicates of Queen Eleanor at Westminster, Lincoln, and Black Friars, London.
- ↑ See Baker's Northamptonshire. This figure probably represents Matilda, daughter of Thomas de Gayton. It measures about 2 ft. in length.