ABSTRACT an Examination of Women's Piety As Depicted In

ABSTRACT

An Examination of Women’s Piety as Depicted in Medieval and Early Modern Stained Glass

Annelise A. Henley, M.A.

Mentor: Beth Allison Barr, Ph.D.

This thesis explores the impact of gender and religious piety on expressions of women’s agency in Late Medieval and Early Modern England. Chapter One introduces

Oxfordshire stained glass as the area of inquiry, with the Corpus Vitrearum Medii Aevi

(CVMA) database serving as the primary source reference. Both the Centre for Medieval

Studies at the University of York and the British Academy collaborate on this database.

The next three chapters investigate portrayals of donors, biblical figures, and non-biblical figures. Each chapter demonstrates that depictions of women and men generally remain uniform across time. That said, the chapters also show that depictions of women changed in ways that images of men did not. Changes reveal that gender forced Late Medieval and

Early Modern women to be creative with their religious expressions, while piety provided women an internalized outlet to express their agency within the church.

An Examination of Women's Piety as Depicted in Medieval and Early Modern Stained Glass

Annelise A. Henley, B.A.

A Thesis

Approved by the Department of History

Kimberly R. Kellison, Ph.D., Chairperson

Submitted to the Graduate Faculty of Baylor University in Partial Fulfillment of the Requirements for the Degree of Master of Arts

Approved by the Thesis Committee

Beth Allison Barr, Ph.D., Chairperson

Joseph Stubenrauch, Ph.D.

Christopher Rios, Ph.D.

Accepted by the Graduate School August 2016

J. Larry Lyon, Ph.D., Dean

Page bearing signatures is kept on file in the Graduate School.

TABLE OF CONTENTS

LIST OF FIGURES ...... vi

LIST OF TABLES ...... ix

ACKNOWLEDGMENTS ...... x

DEDICATION ...... xi

CHAPTER ONE ...... 1 Introduction ...... 1 Stained Glass as a Subject of Inquiry ...... 1 Sources ...... 4 The Glass and its Historical Context ...... 12 Categories and Purpose ...... 16

CHAPTER TWO ...... 23 Lay Piety in Oxfordshire as depicted in Stained Glass Donor Portraits ...... 23 Introduction...... 23 Donor Windows in Oxfordshire ...... 25 Donors and Piety ...... 45 Conclusion ...... 48

CHAPTER THREE ...... 49 Same Stories, Different Lessons: Depictions of Biblical Women in Oxfordshire Stained Glass, 1250-1529 ...... 49 Introduction...... 49 Overview of Biblical Women in Oxfordshire Stained Glass ...... 50 The Virgin Mary ...... 51 Saint Anne, Mary Magdalen, and Other Biblical Women ...... 76 Conclusion ...... 87

CHAPTER FOUR ...... 88 Violence, Gender, and the Function of Non-biblical Saints in the Medieval Church .. 88 Introduction...... 88 Dragon Killers: Gender and Physical Power ...... 90

Gender in Narrative Windows ...... 108 Fluctuating Fame: Popularity of Non-Biblical Saints across Centuries ...... 122 Conclusion ...... 125

CHAPTER FIVE ...... 127 Conclusion ...... 127 Women and Gender in Oxfordshire Stained Glass ...... 127 Looking Forward ...... 129

APPENDIX A ...... 132 Tables of Stained Glass Figures in Oxfordshire ...... 132

BIBLIOGRAPHY ...... 150

LIST OF FIGURES

Figure 1.1. Male and female figures in Oxfordshire stained glass ...... 19

Figure 1.2. Male biblical, non-biblical, and donor figures in Oxfordshire ...... 20

Figure 1.3. Female biblical, non-biblical, and donor figures in Oxfordshire...... 20

Figure 2.1. Merton College, Henry de Mamesfield ...... 26

Figure 2.2. Dorchester, Radulphus de Tiave...... 29

Figure 2.3. Newington, Donor Priest ...... 32

Figure 2.4. Balliol College, Lady Compton ...... 35

Figure 2.5. Balliol College, William Compton ...... 36

Figure 2.6. Waterperry, Anonymous Woman ...... 39

Figure 2.7. Waterperry, Anonymous Man ...... 39

Figure 2.8. Waterperry, Fitz-Ellis ...... 40

Figure 2.9. Waterperry, Margaret Fitz-Ellis ...... 41

Figure 2.10. Waterperry, Isobel Curzon ...... 42

Figure 2.11. Waterperry, Walter Curzon ...... 43

Figure 3.1. St Michael’s Church, Virgin and Child ...... 53

Figure 3.2. Dorchester, Annunciation ...... 54

Figure 3.3. Dorchester, Virgin and Child ...... 56

Figure 3.4. Stanton, St John, Funeral of the Virgin ...... 57

Figure 3.5. Stanton, St John, Detail of the Funeral of the Virgin ...... 58

Figure 3.6. Beckley, Assumption of the Virgin ...... 60

Figure 3.7. Beckley, Assumption of the Virgin ...... 61

Figure 3.8. Beckley, Coronation of the Virgin ...... 62

Figure 3.9. New College, Virgin at the Crucifixion ...... 63

Figure 3.10. Brightwell Baldwin, Annunciation ...... 65

Figure 3.11. Combe, Virgin in Majesty ...... 66

Figure 3.12. All Souls College, Virgin and Child...... 67

Figure 3.13. Marsh Baldon, Virgin at the Crucifixion ...... 68

Figure 3.14. Balliol College, Virgin and Child ...... 71

Figure 3.15. Waterperry, Virgin and Child ...... 72

Figure 3.16. Marsh Baldon, Saint Anne ...... 77

Figure 3.17. Beckley, Saint Anne ...... 78

Figure 3.18. All Souls College, Saint Anne ...... 79

Figure 3.19. Kidlington, Saint Anne ...... 80

Figure 3.20. All Souls College, Mary Magdalen ...... 81

Figure 3.21. New College, Eve ...... 83

Figure 4.1. Dorchester, Saint Michael ...... 92

Figure 4.2. Balliol College, Saint Michael ...... 93

Figure 4.3. Burford, Saint George ...... 95

Figure 4.4. Kelmscott, Saint George ...... 96

Figure 4.5. Binsey, Saint Margaret ...... 100

Figure 4.6. Oriel College, Saint Margaret...... 102

Figure 4.7. Balliol College, Saint Margaret ...... 104

Figure 4.8. Christ Church Cathederal, Early Saint Catherine ...... 109

vii

Figure 4.9. Christ Church Cathederal, Later Saint Catherine ...... 110

Figure 4.10. Balliol College, Detail of Saint Catherine ...... 112

Figure 4.11. Balliol College, Second Detail of Saint Catherine ...... 113

Figure 4.12. Dorchester, Saint Birinius ...... 115

Figure 4.13. Christ Church Cathedral, Saint Martin ...... 116

Figure 4.14. Christ Church Cathedral, Becket Window ...... 117

Figure 4.15. Christ Church Cathedral, Saint Augustine ...... 118

viii

LIST OF TABLES

Table A.1. Male figures by century...... 132

Table A.2. Female figures by century...... 139

Table A.3. Male biblical figures by century...... 141

Table A.4. Female biblical figures by century...... 145

Table A.5. Non-biblical male figures by century...... 147

Table A.6. Non-biblical female figures by century...... 149

ACKNOWLEDGMENTS

Thanks to Dr. Beth Allison Barr for overseeing this project, as well as for providing encouragement and direction. I am grateful to the members of the Corpus

Vitrearum Medii Aevi (CVMA) team who provided photographs and information, as well as to photographers Rex Harris and Jean McCreanor for the use of their photographs.

Also, thanks to Drs. Chris Rios and Joseph Stubenrauch for serving on the defense committee.

DEDICATION

To Floyd, Dorothy, Jeannette, and James.

CHAPTER ONE

Introduction

Stained Glass as a Subject of Inquiry

Brightly glittering, brilliantly colored stained glass windows captivate imaginations of churchgoers with dazzling and ever-changing beauty. Viewers find glass used as ornamentation in churches and chapels like Sainte-Chappelle, Notre Dame, and

Westminster Abbey. Artisans, architects, and churchgoers alike appreciate the beauty of glass which seems to come alive in the light of flickering candles, or with the rising of the sun. In the Medieval and Early Modern eras, creating even a single stained glass window involved technically challenging labor and costly materials; a great number of individuals involved themselves in a successful window installation. These people embraced the costs as decorative glass brought many rewards. Viewers might recognize the donors who contributed to the glazing process, as their portraits often appeared in donated glass or inscriptions or plaques bearing their names placed beneath the windows.

This earthly recognition was at least equaled if not exceeded by the spiritual elevation that glass provided those within the walls of the church. Glass set churches and colleges apart from regular buildings; it was an essential component of the performance aspect of church, creating a reverential atmosphere and boosting those within church walls to a higher plane of being. In Spiritual Seeing, H. Kessler describes how material, color, and ornament could create this spiritual transcendence.1 He describes the earthy,

1 Herbert Kessler, Spiritual Seeing: Picturing God’s Invisibility in Medieval Art (Philadelphia: University of Pennsylvania Press, 2000), 1. Kessler examines the development of Christian art from its

1 mundane characteristics of rough stone and wood. Artists added brightly colored paints and stones to these natural materials, and also used bright bronze, heavily veined marbles, gold, and clear stone (glass) to both dazzle viewers and elevate subject matter.2 Without delving too deeply into the topic of medieval vision theory and the physicality of vision, suffice it to say that ornamentation used in medieval churches served as a “window on to another world (quite literally.)”3 To many medieval viewers, stained glass and the physical church allowed a communion with God and the saints unachievable in other contexts.

Until recently, however, most academics relegated all but the most breathtaking examples of stained glass to tiny textbook sub-sections or footnotes within discussions of studies of major arts, like painting or architecture.4 Like many other so-called minor arts, the study of stained glass was carried out by only a small few for far too long. Fortunately the 1980s and 1990s saw a surge of interest in redefining what constitutes “major” and

earliest beginnings up to the Carolingian period. He explores medieval views on how vision works, and what images meant to medieval viewers. He relies on a vast array of sources; from ivories, to wall paintings, to manuscripts. One chapter is devoted to the theological implications of a glazing scheme at St. Denis. He argues convincingly that medieval art was experiential, and in most cases, served a deeper purpose than beautification.

2 Ibid., 147.

3 Ibid., 148.

4 For an extensive exploration of stained glass historiography up to the present day see essay: Michael Cothren,“Some Personal Reflections on American Modern and Postmodern Historiographies of Gothic Stained Glass.” in Colum Hourihane, ed., From Minor to Major: The Minor Arts in Medieval Art History (Princeton; University Park, PA: Index of Christian Art, Princeton University, 2012), 255. He argues that both modern and postmodern textbooks that make mention of Gothic stained glass (up to the present time, 2012) do so insufficiently. Additionally, when stained glass is included in textbooks, Cothren asserts that both its form and function is poorly interpreted. He also provides a lengthy bibliography. The book that this essay is a part of is a compilation of similar essays on different media, like tapestries or ivories.

“minor” art. 5 Simultaneously, an international effort to photograph, catalogue, and restore old glass regained momentum, and scholarly interest in the field blossomed. Since that time, historians have published books and articles on the topic with more regularity.6

Though academic interest in stained glass has increased in recent years, the subject of women as depicted in glass has rarely been a topic of choice. Most books and articles written on English stained glass are technical (focusing on production or installation of glass in churches, or on glass conservation), or are concerned with the iconographic or narrative function of the glass. There are also a growing number of studies of patrons (the donors who funded the creation of glass and other church beautification/maintenance projects.) Though often harder to identify in church records,

Medieval and Early Modern women as patrons of glass feature in many of these scholarly undertakings.7

That being said, there are very few (if any) explicit explorations of the ways that womanhood was presented to late Medieval and Early Modern viewers via stained glass windows. As Christine Peters points out in Patterns of Piety, there is often a gulf between

5 See Herbert L. Kessler, “On the State of Medieval Art History,” The Art Bulletin 70, no. 2 (1988): 166–87; Hourihane, From Minor to Major; Herbert Kessler, Seeing Medieval Art (Rethinking the Middle Ages), 1st edition (Peterborough, Ont. ; Orchard Park, NY: University of Toronto Press, Higher Education Division, 2004); Conrad Rudolph, ed., A Companion to Medieval Art: Romanesque and Gothic in Northern Europe, 1st edition (Malden, Mass: Wiley-Blackwell, 2009).

6 Some of the most significant recent works for this thesis include Richard Marks, Stained Glass in England during the Middle Ages (Routledge, 2006); June Osborne, Stained Glass in England, Rev Sub edition (Dover, NH: Sutton Pub Ltd, 1993); Peter A. Newton, The County of Oxford: A Catalogue of Medieval Stained Glass (London: Oxford University Press, 1979); Madeline Caviness, Paintings on Glass: Studies in Romanesque and Gothic Monumental Art (Brookfield, VT: Ashgate Publishing Company, 1997). Other significant recent works include various CVMA Great Britain publications and the online magazine, vidimus.org.

7 See Caviness, Paintings on Glass; Sarah Salih, “Review of Women’s Space: Patronage, Place and Gender in the Medieval Church. Edited by Virginia Cheffo Raguin and Sarah Stanbury. New York: State University of New York Press, 2005.,” The Journal of English and Germanic Philology 107, no. 3 (July 1, 2008): 389–91; June McCash, The Cultural Patronage of Medieval Women (Athens: University of Georgia Press, 1996).

3 the way that women’s religious practices were depicted at the time, and the way that female piety was actually experienced.8 Additionally, there are no attempts to categorize the types of women depicted in windows nor are there attempts to make broader claims about how the depictions of women in glass may have changed over time.9

Thus, women depicted in glass across England still have much to teach us about gender and piety. Studying women depicted in stained glass can reveal more about the idealized vision of female piety that existed, about how women’s relationship with their faith actually played out through their actions as donors, and about how that relationship changed over time. This project aims to explore all three of these areas. In so doing, it will argue that stained glass is not only a valuable historical medium, but also reinforces some of the same shifting attitudes towards women and female piety that can be seen in other media across the Reformation era.

Sources

For this project, one catalog provides the bulk of primary source material: the

CVMA database. The CVMA database includes images of every stained glass window

(theoretically) in every building of many counties in England. Fifty one counties have entries archived online, though they vary in completeness.10 Additionally, entries often

8 Christine Peters, Patterns of Piety: Women, Gender, and Religion in Late Medieval and Reformation England (Cambridge University Press, 2003), 41.

9 In her book, Larissa Tracy categorizes the women of the Gilte Legende into four types: virgins, mothers, repentant sinners, and transvestites. She then examines how important the women in each category were to both male and female readers. Most importantly, she tries to understand what the different types of saints exemplars were used for—as teaching tools, or as examples to follow. Larissa Tracy, Women of the Gilte Legende: A Selection of Middle English Saints Lives (Suffolk, UK: D.S. Brewer, 2003).

10 “Corpus Vitrearum Medii Aevi: Medieval Stained Glass in Great Britain,” Online Stained Glass Archive, http://www.cvma.ac.uk/index.html.

4 include dates and the location of the glass photographed. It is searchable by county and town. The database also has a limited advanced search feature. The CVMA has ties to the

Centre for Medieval Studies at the University of York, and is a British Academy research project. Members of the CVMA in Great Britain “…aim to publish all medieval stained glass in Great Britain to 1540.”11 As of 2016, authors working with the CVMA published four monographs, eight other volumes, eight summary catalogues, and many other articles through Oxford University Press. Other studies are in the works; so far twelve counties are either totally covered or are in progress. Some publications focus on the glass in whole counties, while others focus on points of interest. Largely due to the activities of the CVMA, more books and articles on the topic of stained glass have been published within the last thirty years than in all the preceding decades.

A second resource for primary source material utilized throughout this thesis is the Internet photo-sharing website, Flickr.12 Sometimes, photos on the CVMA website are not of the best quality. They might be low-resolution, poorly lit, or taken at a bad angle.

In these cases or in instances where the CVMA has yet to document a church, Flickr is an invaluable resource. There are several professional photographers on the site who make it their mission to photograph churches and colleges across England. Photographers Rex

Harris and Jean McCreanor both agreed to allow use of their photographs in this thesis.

Their photographs are referenced throughout, and links to their respective pages are below.

11 Ibid.

12 “Flickr,” Flickr, n.d., https://www.flickr.com/. For Rex Harris’s page, see https://www.flickr.com/photos/sheepdog_rex/ and for Jean McCreanor’s, see https://www.flickr.com/photos/52219527@N00.

As noted, studies centering on English stained glass were carried out by only a handful of disciplined individuals up until a few decades ago. Early secondary source material was produced by scholars like John Dolbel le Couteur, Mary A. Green, Frederik

S. Eden, and Phillip Nelson, all of which books on stained glass in the late 19th and early

20th centuries.13 They also complied lists of ancient stained and painted glass in England.

Green’s contributions went largely unrecognized (she was the first woman scholar published in the field.) Because Nelson, le Couteur, and Eden all had interests outside the field of stained glass, their academic careers flourished apart from their research into stained glass. Each of these early scholars followed a similar formula in publishing their research about stained glass: a description of the process of making glass was followed by a description of the windows in question—be it all the glass of England, the glass of a whole county, or the glass of a single college. Particularly meticulous authors might compile a “complete” list of all the known glass in the area. Indeed, it is clear how much the CVMA has changed the field.

Despite their shortcomings, early works on stained glass still have value for modern researchers. Both Eden’s little 1913 book, Ancient Stained and Painted Glass, and Nelson’s book Ancient Painted Glass in England, 1170-1500 have been helpful resources for this project.14 All the illustrations in Ancient Glass were drawn by Eden

13 Each of these people are featured in a series of articles on “Vidimus,” the online stained glass journal. See issues 70-73 online at vidimus.org/issues. Issue 71 describes how Green’s contributions were not recognized in her lifetime—indeed, little is known about her or her work to this day. She did not begin working on stained glass until the last twenty or so years of her life in the late 1920s and 1930s.

14 Philip Nelson, Ancient Painted Glass in England 1170-1500 (London: Methuen, 1913); Philip Nelson, Ancient Painted Glass in England 1170-1500: Philip Nelson, MD., CH.B., FSA. (Cornell University Library, 2009); F. Sydney Eden, Ancient Stained and Painted Glass (Cambridge University Press, 1913), http://archive.org/details/ancientstainedpa00edenuoft; F. Sydney Eden, Ancient Stained and Painted Glass, 2nd ed. (Cambridge University Press, 2013). Methuen originally published Nelson’s work

6 himself and are remarkably accurate when compared to photographs that are available online to scholars today. By comparing the early renditions of the stained glass with the modern pictures, I could confirm the historical veracity of the images. Moreover, Eden divided his study of the images into chronological sections differentiated by style. His subdivisions have generally proven to be an accurate guide to stylistic changes. He identifies four periods relevant to this paper: Norman and Early English Styles (1050-

1272), The Decorated Style (1272-1377), The Perpendicular Style (1377-1547), and the

Renaissance (1547-1603.) It is remarkable how little Eden’s employed subdivisions have shifted during the last century of historical study, though the names he used have changed. This book was reprinted in 2013 by Cambridge University Press—a testament to its continued usefulness.

Phillip Nelson published a work in 1913 titled Ancient Painted Glass in England,

1170-1500. Nelson goes deeper in his book than Eden; Nelson explores not only the stylistic differences between chronological periods, but also the different subjects portrayed and the different types of glass used. Nelson even foreshadows the implementation of color theories in his sections about glass color and transparency. He makes a valiant attempt at compiling a stained glass catalogue including as much English glass as possible (although the list is still incomplete). The catalogue is divided by county, and each church has its own listing. The list includes a general date for the glass, the glass position, and often a description of the subject of the glass (saints, flowers, heraldry, etc.) Considering the laborious methods he must have had to employ in

in 1913; Cornell University press printed it in 2009. Eden’s book was reprinted in 2013 by Cambridge University press.

7 compiling this information more than a century ago, this list is quite impressive. Like

Eden’s work, this book was republished in 2009 by Cornell University.

Some scholarship continued on stained glass during the latter twentieth-century; it persisted in the same vein that Eden and Nelson had already established. For example, E.

Liddall Armitage published Stained Glass: History, Technology, and Practice in 1959.15

This two hundred page book offers much the same information contained in Eden’s little work, with occasional updates reflecting the discovery of new stained glass panels. There are other works of scholarship from the mid-century that are very similar.16

Research sponsored by English churches and colleges interested in promoting their glass also produced a limited number of publications. In 1949, F.E. Hutchinson wrote a sixty-seven page exploration of the glass at All Souls College, Oxford.17 This book is extremely interesting; one can tell that the author spent a great deal of time combing through records and bringing new information to light. Not only does he explain the iconography and the commissioning of the windows, he also explores why particular subjects attracted the commissioners on a personal level. Unusually, he includes photographs of the major windows of the college (most books included only hand- drawings or watercolors.) There are other short books like this one that focus on the stained glass of one area; usually these projects were sponsored by the colleges or chapels

15 E. Liddall Armitage, Stained Glass: History, Technology and Practice, 1st U.S. edition (Leonard Hill Books Limited, 1959).

16 For example, Hugh Arnold, Stained Glass of the Middle Ages in England and France (Edinburgh: R. & R. Clark, Limited, 1955), http://www.gutenberg.org/ebooks/41370.

17 Francis Ernest Hutchinson, Medieval Glass at All Souls College: A History and Description, Based upon the Notes of the Late G. M. Rushforth (London: Faber and Faber, 1949).

8 they examined.18 Although of high quality, these publications focused on very small sets of glass. For example, Hugh Arnold wrote a book on the glass at Balliol College, while

Christopher Woodforde wrote one on the glass at New College.

Thankfully, the recent surge in research on stained glass has produced both intellectually stimulating and broad-spanning studies. One important book, however, conforms more to the old formula: June Osborne’s Stained Glass in England.19 Osborne’s book is arranged like Nelson’s: she explores glass from each time period, and at the end, provides a Gazetteer of all the known glass in England. Though her catalogue lacks detail in some entries it provides an important outline to stained glass collections across the country.20 Arguably the most important books to this project are Richard Marks’s Stained

Glass in England During the Middle Ages, and Peter Newton’s catalogue of medieval stained glass in Oxford.21 Marks breaks from the formulaic presentation of stained glass, beginning his work with an exploration of English donors, glazing techniques, domestically made glass, and iconography. Then, he proceeds with a chronological survey. Like Eden, he differentiates between four periods. He identifies a period lasting from 1175-1250, the era of “Decorated Style” (1250-1350), the “International Style”

(1350-1450), and the End of the Middle Ages to the Reformation and after. The similarities between Eden’s and Mark’s timelines are striking. Newton’s book is a

18 For example, see: Hugh Arnold, The Glass in Balliol College Chapel, 1915; Christopher Woodforde, The Stained Glass of New College, Oxford (London: Oxford University Press, 1951).

19 Osborne, Stained Glass in England.

20 Osborne’s gazetteer lists churches by county; she provides dates for the glass as well as the glazier, and sometimes a description of the glass’s subject. More detail about the subject depicted in the glass would be useful in most of her entries, but the list is nonetheless very helpful.

21 Peter A. Newton, The County of Oxford; Richard Marks, Stained Glass in England During the Middle Ages (Toronto: University of Toronto Press, 1993).

9 detailed survey of the glass of Oxfordshire county which includes church-by-church descriptions of glass. Altogether, this new research combined with the CMVA database has opened the field for future studies of stained glass.

Although catalogues, descriptions, and the images of stained glass themselves are critical resources for modern researchers, theoretical studies have also proved essential for this project. In their essays on stained glass studies, Michael Cothran and Elizabeth

Pastan explored the functional aspect of stained glass—whether it existed for purely decorative purposes, or it played a role as an instrument of teaching. 22 This has helped in thinking about how stained glass would have been perceived by contemporary viewers as well as how it was intended by the original donors and artists. In a similar fashion,

Kessler’s Seeing Medieval Art: Rethinking the Middle Ages shows that many medieval viewers believed that seeing physical representations of spiritual things (like paintings of saints, statues, ivories, etc.) allowed them to physically interact with spiritual actualities.

Spiritual Seeing: Picturing God’s Invisibility in Medieval Art explores the development of Christian imagery.23 Kessler too explores the function of stained glass in churches, although in much greater detail than Pastan and Cothran. Stained glass is not the primary medium he studies (he most frequently references wall paintings and altarpieces), but he does explore Suger’s glass at St Denis in depth.24 Kessler argues that,

“[the glass at St Denis] does what words often fail to do and art does so well: It makes

22 Hourihane, From Minor to Major; Rudolph, A Companion to Medieval Art.

23 Kessler, Spiritual Seeing: Picturing God’s Invisibility in Medieval Art.

24 The Basilica of St Denis is in Paris; it is one of the first Gothic churches. Abbot Suger was a historian and patron of Gothic art. He undertook the rebuilding of St Denis in the early 12th century, and installed a brilliant glazing scheme in the Gothic building he created. Many scholars devote studies to the theologically complex glass at St Denis, including Kessler.

10 doctrine visible and theology come alive.”25 He, I think, makes the most convincing case that stained glass often functions both as a teaching tool and a way to help viewers “enter the realms of paradise that are above.”26 Of course, the fact that Kessler mostly focused on one of the most complete, theologically advanced, and resplendent glazing schemes left in Europe suggests that his argument doesn’t necessarily apply to English stained glass. Despite this, his understanding and explanations of the experience of medieval

“seeing,” his knowledgeable examination of the development of Christian imagery, and the possibility of applying some of his St Denis arguments to English Glass make this book indispensable.

Research that incorporates both gender and art have also provided a helpful foundation for better understanding stained glass across the Reformation era. Christine

Peters’ Patterns of Piety, Caroline Walker Bynum’s Holy Feast and Holy Fast: The

Religious Significance of Food to Medieval Women, and June McCash’s Cultural

Patronage of Medieval Women are three such historical studies.27 As noted, Peters shows that art does not necessarily reflect reality for medieval women. Caroline Walker Bynum explores the relationship between women, religion, and food; she contends that food in all its various forms held a special significance for women in the medieval period. One of her arguments is that men and women related to and experienced food differently.

Because women had fewer forms of control over their lives than men did, food became

25 Kessler, Spiritual Seeing: Picturing God’s Invisibility in Medieval Art, 205.

26 Ibid., 148.

27 Christine Peters, Patterns of Piety: Women, Gender and Religion in Late Medieval and Reformation England (Cambridge: Cambridge University Press, 2009); Caroline Walker Bynum, Holy Feast and Holy Fast: The Religious Significance of Food to Medieval Women (Berkeley: University of California Press, 1988); June McCash, The Cultural Patronage of Medieval Women (Athens: Georgia University Press, 1996).

11 an avenue for female power and sanctification.28 Bynum’s understanding of female manipulation of food and eating as a means to a religious end is similar to McCash’s explanation of female patronage. McCash argues that medieval women had to be more creative about finding ways to leave bequests to churches and religious institutions than men did. McCash examines several women patrons, from powerful noblewomen to a group of women who combined their efforts to become patrons.29 Together, these three arguments show that women faced greater obstacles to expressing their piety and had to resort to methods different from their male counterparts in order to show their devotion.

Because of this, artists present women’s piety differently than men’s.

Overall, the field of stained glass is established but generally lacks the depth and intense case-by-case scrutiny of other art-historical fields. Because of the lack of historical record in many places, scholars face many challenges when studying stained glass. Similarly, those studying female piety often approach their field in creative ways to understand women who left few written records behind. This project takes an understudied medium and applies it to a study of female piety in an attempt to further understand both women’s piety as well as an important art. The next section describes the specific glass chosen for this project and also provides broader historical context.

The Glass and its Historical Context

Even with the help of secondary scholarship, diving into a study on the stained glass of the entirety of England would be too great a task in the time available. Therefore, in this project, only glass located in the county of Oxfordshire is considered. This county

28 Bynum, Holy Feast and Holy Fast.

29 June McCash, The Cultural Patronage of Medieval Women.

12 was chosen for a number of reasons. First, it is one county with most of its glass available for viewing on the CVMA website; an important consideration for someone working remotely. Second, there are several collections in the county—especially in Oxford—that have well-studied glass. Marks, Osborne, and Newton all completed studies that reference some of the glass here, and even Nelson’s 1913 catalogue has a great deal of useful descriptive information. Thirdly, Oxford was a center of glass-painting in the fourteenth century, meaning that many places in the county hold high-quality glass.30

These three reasons make it an excellent place to focus the project.

Many events and people shaped the history of this region and likely impacted the imagery reflected in stained glass windows. Three of the most important for this paper are events which had theological implications, including the arrival of the Black Death, the life of John Wycliffe and the development of Lollardy, and a shift to a Christocentric form of piety. This section provides a short outline of the impact that these events may have had on the art created by men and women who lived through them, as argued by a number of scholars.

The Black Death arrived in Oxfordshire in 1348.31 The impact of the disease that wiped out between one third and one half of the county’s population cannot be ignored.32

Few churches were built in the city of Oxford during the hundred years following the

30 Sarah Brown and David O’Connor, Glass Painters (Toronto: University of Toronto Press, 1991), 19.

31 Oxfordshire Architectural and Historical Society, “Oxfordshire Local History: The Later Middle Ages Archives,” Oxfordshire History, accessed June 10, 2016, http://oxfordshirelocalhistory.modhist.ox.ac.uk/oxfordshire-history/the-later-middle-ages/.

32 Ibid.

13 outbreak, and little restoration was done on the existing buildings.33 The lack of restoration and upkeep would have meant that broken stained glass windows were not as likely to be repaired or replaced. The Black Death also profoundly impacted lay piety.

Kevin Madigan notes that the explosion of popular piety was evidenced by the massive

“number of masses recited, requested, and paid for in the period ca. 1350-1500.”34

Madigan argues that the conception of the church as primarily an intercessor was definitely amplified as a consequence of the Black Death. He also suggests that the church served as an incubator for mysticism along with its role as intercessor during this period. The Black Death, he argues, intensified beliefs and pious practices that were already taking root in the medieval world.35 These theological changes influenced the stories chosen for depiction in art, including stained glass.36

The Black Death was not the only major incident to influence the region. In the mid-to late fourteenth century, the teachings of John Wycliffe of Balliol College in

Oxford began to spread. The Catholic Church deemed Wycliffe’s philosophy heretical; despite this, his teachings inspired many followers. These followers, known as Lollards, adhered to Wycliffe’s heretical lessons and developed them “in ways probably not imagined by their originator.”37 The influence of Lollardy is debated, but it is clear that

33 “Medieval Oxford,” British History Online, accessed June 10, 2016, http://www.british- history.ac.uk/vch/oxon/vol4/pp3-73.

34 Kevin Madigan, Medieval Christianity: A New History, First Edition (New Haven: Yale University Press, 2015), 418.

35 Ibid.

36 For an exploration of which stories were most popular during which periods, see Marks, Stained Glass in England During the Middle Ages p 48.

37 Madigan, Medieval Christianity, 394.

14 many people were familiar with Lollard ideas.38 In her book about the imagery used in art showing the seven sacraments, Ann Eljenholm Nichols argues that Lollardy directly impacted the production of art and images. Around 1450, she writes, the number of representations of seven sacrament art increased in response to Lollard repudiation of the sacraments. This art reached greater levels of theological sophistication than ever before.

She notes that the creation of seven sacramental fonts wasn’t just a singular assertion of orthodoxy, but was rather played out as a heated conversation between the orthodox church and heterodox groups.39 The art produced in response to the Lollard movement that originated in Oxfordshire shows that the clergy deemed visual instruction a legitimate method of educating the laity. Undoubtedly, the clergy used images like the ones found in stained glass to steer the laity towards appropriate beliefs. In this way, heretical teachings likely influenced the production process of stained glass.

The shift to a Christocentric form of piety was a third significant movement that impacted the art created in Oxfordshire and across England. Chrsitine Peters explains that early medieval men and women focused their devotion on the Virgin mother and the infant Christ.40 Contrastingly, late medieval men and women focused on the adult

Christ.41 She also writes that “...as Christocentric devotion grew stronger, the intercession of the saints could be seen as an irrelevant distraction to true devotion, seriously reducing

38 Ibid.

39 Ann Eljenholm Nichols, Seeable Signs: The Iconography of the Seven Sacraments, 1350-1544, Reprint edition (Woodbridge, Suffolk, UK ; Rochester, NY, USA: Boydell Press, 1997).

40 Peters, Patterns of Piety, 96.

41 Ibid.

15 their role in popular piety.”42 In other words, as Christocentric piety became further entrenched, the Cult of the Saints began to lose its foothold on the medieval laity. The full impact of the shift to Christocentric piety on stained glass is discussed more extensively in the third chapter, but the glass in Oxfordshire clearly shows that this movement was significant. The theological changes inspired by the Black Death, heretical Lollard teachings, and the Christocentric piety influenced the creation of art and altered the focus of medieval images. In the following section appears a description of the methods employed as well as a deeper explanation of the purpose of this study.

Categories and Purpose

In current academic scholarship, the categories of class and gender (as well as the ideas those categories encompass and what they actually signify) have become highly significant.43 In her pioneering Gender and the Politics of History, Joan W. Scott argues powerfully that using gender as a category partially illuminates “...not only the history of relations between the sexes, but also all or most history whatever its specific topic...”44

She does not suggest that gender offers a “universal explanation” for everything, but that it provides new avenues for scholarship. These new avenues open the door for scholars to

“rethink” history.45 Most importantly, they allow us to tackle the concept of women’s agency. Applying Scott’s fascination with gender as a category to stained glass allows us

42 Ibid., 99.

43 Race is also a significant category. However, in this paper, race plays only a very small role. Almost every person depicted in stained glass is white, and most patrons were white and would be what we consider upper-middle to upper class.

44 Joan Wallach Scott, Gender and the Politics of History, Revised edition (New York: Columbia University Press, 1999), 19.

45 Ibid.

16 to begin to rethink history in the ways she suggests, but gender alone does not explain many of the trends visible in stained glass.

Combining gender as a category with two others brings us closer to understanding medieval women’s agency. The first is class. Class is an ever-present element that must be taken into account. After all, most donors who funded the creation of stained glass were wealthy people.46 The wealthiest groups, like kings and church officials, are overrepresented. Less-affluent people, like merchants and lower peerage, appear with less frequency. This fact holds true for both men and women. At the same time, the images produced by these privileged few were displayed for all who attended church services.

We can formulate a reasonable hypothesis which windows less-affluent or non-clerical individuals would have seen most often, based on placement within the churches and chapels, helping us understand the idealized religious experience espoused to commoners. Like gender, class is important for understanding women’s agency because it allows us to separate out the experiences of different types of people. A poor woman could not express agency in the same ways that a wealthy one could, simply because of her economic status.

The final category used in conjunction with gender and class is religious piety.

Phyllis Mack argues in “Religion, Feminism, and the Problem of Agency: Reflections on

Eighteenth Century Quakerism” that agency doesn’t necessarily look the way some scholars expect‐ it to.47 Mack suggests that autonomy and agency are not synonymous.

Instead, agency can exist without autonomy. Self-sacrifice, pain, ecstasy, redemption—

46 Marks, Stained Glass in England During the Middle Ages.

47 Phyllis Mack, “Religion, Feminism, and the Problem of Agency: Reflections on Eighteenth Century Quakerism,” Signs 29, no. 1 (2003): 176, doi:10.1086/375679. ‐ 17 these words and others are included in Mack’s understanding of agency.48 She asserts that piety is a legitimate avenue for the expression of agency, even if it involves submission of one’s will.

Piety can take many forms. In the initial stages of the project, I divided religious women depicted in glass into two types: “actively pious” and “passively pious.” Upon further consideration, however, these two designations did not capture the spirit of what they were meant to encompass. The word “passive,” which I used to categorize prayerful, penitent women, seemed to imply a phlegmatic, passionless brand of piety. Comparing these so-called “passively pious” women to “actively pious” ones implied that the former were the opposite of active, which is simply not the case. These terms did not work.

Eventually, I adopted better classifications: in this paper, women depicted in stained glass are classified as either externally pious, or as internally pious. Throughout the thesis, when I use the words ‘external piety,’ I mean that people manifest their devotion and allegiance to the Christian faith in an active, visible way. These people claim spiritual authority and devotional power. For example, acts of external piety might include preaching, suffering torture due to the faith, or converting unbelievers. Acts of internal piety, on the other hand, are less loud but no less meaningful. Prayer and kneeling in supplication are two examples of pious acts that fall into this category.

A second categorical distinction that has been useful in separating different types of people for this project has been to classify figures as either biblical or non-biblical.

These categories are straightforward. Characters who appear in the Bible, like Christ,

Mary Magdalene, or the Apostles, are biblical. Others who do not show up in Bible

48 Ibid, 153.

18 stories, like Saint Catherine, Saint George, or Saint Birinius, are non-biblical. Men and women whose stories are directly tied to biblical characters, like Saint Anne (mother of the Virgin Mary) are included in the biblical classification, even though they may or may not actually appear in modern protestant translations of the Bible. Figures 1.1, 1.2, and

1.3 show a numerical breakdown of images relying on the categories of biblical, non- biblical, and donor in Oxfordshire stained glass. The Figures are a visual representation of the information found in the tables in Appendix A. Figure 1.1 shows how many stained glass men and women still exist, by century. The percentages along the side indicate the proportion of the glass shows male versus female characters. For example, in the sixteenth century, we see that a little over forty percent of the figures in Oxfordshire are female. Figures 1.2.and 1.3 provide a breakdown of the characters referenced in

Figure 1.1.

100% 3 31 33 19 90% 24 80% 125 70% 106 60% 28 50% 40% 30% 20% 10% 0% 13th Century 14th Century 15th Century 16th Century Men Women

Figure 1.1. Male and female figures in Oxfordshire stained glass.

140

120

100

Number of Figures Number 40

0 13th Century 14th Century 15th Century 16th Century Donors 12 2 5 3 Non-Biblical Figures 7 24 43 6 Biblical Figures 3 80 77 19

Figure 1.2. Male biblical, non-biblical, and donor figures in Oxfordshire.

20 Number of Figures Number

0 13th Century 14th Century 15th Century 16th Century Donors 1 1 1 3 Non-Biblical Figures 0 9 30 9 Biblical Figures 2 22 22 7

Figure 1.3. Female biblical, non-biblical, and donor figures in Oxfordshire.

Here, readers can see that characters are classified as donors, non-biblical figures, or as biblical figures. The bottom half of the chart shows how many of each type there were, and the top half (the bars) provide a visual indication of how popular each type of figure was in each century.

Overall, the thesis explores the impact of gender and religious piety on depictions of women. How did these drawn women express agency? In what ways did their expressions of agency change over time, and what did the changes look like compared to pictures of men? Chapter Two of the thesis explores laymen and women donors in

Oxfordshire in greater detail. It demonstrates that even as a woman’s role as mother became more important and the significance of family to religious piety increased, female donors’ overall position in the spiritual hierarchy remained the same. Here, men and women assert their piety in similar ways throughout centuries. However, economic class prevents women from being as well-represented as men—especially in earlier centuries.

Gender manifests itself in the constant presence of a husband or children in female portraits. In these windows, women show a degree of the submissive form of agency outlined by Mack. The biblical women depicted in glass in Oxfordshire are the focus of the third chapter; the shift in the ways that biblical women like the Virgin Mary, Mary

Magdalene, and Saint Anne were depicted is the core of the inquiry. Expressions of piety change for these women in ways that expressions do not change for men. Biblical women become internally pious and concerned with motherhood and repentance as centuries progress. The fourth chapter focuses on non-biblical figures. Some questions explored in this chapter include: How were women expected to deal with the Devil and violence?

How were images of non-biblical women saints used in the Medieval and Early Modern

21 church? These windows show that artists always depicted women’s piety as more internal than men’s, and did increasingly as centuries progressed. The concluding chapter ties all these ideas together. It describes how stained glass stresses internal forms of piety for women, especially towards the approach of the Reformation. For women, internalized expressions of piety—i.e., agency—became the norm while externalized expressions were circumvented.

CHAPTER TWO

Lay Piety in Oxfordshire as depicted in Stained Glass Donor Portraits

Introduction

Representations of lay piety come in many forms: laypeople can be found in memorial carvings, wall paintings, sculptures, and in various other decorations.1 In stained glass, as well as in these other media, lay people most often appear as donors.

Bequests to the church stipulating that a memorial of some sort be erected in a donor’s honor were not uncommon in the Middle Ages or in the Early Modern era. As in the study of changing depictions of female saints, changing portraits of donors can help scholars better understand the complicated relationship between men, women, and the church during these periods. In all these windows, depictions of piety remain generally the same. Though women’s relationship with the family receives more emphasis in later windows, continuity is more evident in these windows than is change.

There are roughly ten groups of donor portrait windows left in Oxfordshire at eight different locations, and there is a great deal that scholars can glean from them, both in terms of change and continuity between the Medieval and Early Modern eras.2 At first

1 One notable ornamentation that is not discussed in this paper is armorial, or heraldic, stained glass depicting coats of arms and shields. There is an overwhelming abundance of this type of glass from Oxfordshire; all of it is explored in a book by E. A. Greening Lamborn, titled The Armorial Glass of the Oxfordshire Diocese (Oxford: Oxford University Press, 1949.) As Greening Lamborn notes, armorial glass was often installed as a show of solidarity between different families, to commemorate marriages, or to mark special friendships. As he explains, the purpose of its installation was not to demonstrate appropriate approaches to or forms of piety, and therefore it is not exceedingly relevant to the scope of this paper.

2 Images of glass referred to in this thesis are included throughout. Detailed descriptions of all windows in this paper not in Oxford proper can be found in Peter A. Newton, The County of Oxford; Osborne, Stained Glass in England. The pages of reference for each window’s description in Newton’s

23 glance, donor portraits from the thirteenth and fourteenth centuries and later portraits from the fifteenth and sixteenth centuries appear to be vastly different, and it is hard to imagine that they have anything in common beyond being bits of glass donated to the church by a wealthy person. Most notably, earlier portraits almost always feature single men—monks, canons, or wealthy nobles—and later portraits often include the donors’ entire families. Women appearing along with their husbands and children in these later portraits indicates an increased emphasis on family and the female role as pious mother

(and the increased importance of the role of the father.)

However, a comparison of early donor portraits to later ones also reveals a great deal of continuity that can be easily overlooked if one focuses on the style of glazing or the absence of families in earlier portraits. In the donor portraits in Oxfordshire, for example, the donors are almost always presented in the same pose: kneeling, gaze uplifted, with hands clasped prayerfully. The fact that this presentation did not dramatically change over time, even though the subjects included did, is surprising— especially when one considers the shifting portrayals of other figures like the Virgin or saints.3

Two more points of continuity that go hand in hand are the enduring charity of donors and the donors’ need to be recognized for this charity. Across centuries, making offerings to the church was a priority for many. Bequeathing portions of wealth to the

book will be noted, if available. All descriptions in this paper are my own words, written after having looked at the windows in an online database at http://www.cvma.ac.uk/index.html or by searching for photos of the windows on Flickr or in reference books (unless otherwise noted.)

3 See Chapter Three for a discussion of how pictures of the Virgin and Mary Magdalene change dramatically—from depicting external “active” piety to the more internalized piety. The fact that they (and other saints) changed from early centuries to later ones really highlights the fact that there is so much consistency in portrayals of donors across centuries.

24 church was considered virtuous, and would lead to spiritual reward. Additionally, as

Richard Marks notes, “Donors and patrons…may have been primarily concerned with the salvation of their souls through good works, but they expected their philanthropy to be suitably acknowledged and made known to present and future generations...”4 Ideas about virtue, death, and spiritual sanctification compelled many to leave legacies both for the sake of their own souls, and also for the sake of their progeny.

This essay demonstrates that several aspects of Christian faith changed for laypeople, both male and female, over the years. However, it also shows that in some ways, these changes were nuanced; they did not always result in the dramatic disturbances in Christian culture that one might imagine. For women, it seems, the nature of their role in the family changed. However, women’s constant presence and devotion depicted in these windows should serve as a reminder to viewers that in some ways, faith and Christian piety trump the limitations of gender. Because their sex never excluded them from the religious act of donation or charity, women’s depictions in the donor windows does not really shift from the Medieval to the Early Modern period.

Donor Windows in Oxfordshire

Understanding typical styles of glazing, typical subjects, and the stories behind each set of windows makes comparing all of the windows and drawing broad conclusions more manageable. Four churches have sets of donor windows that feature only men; the other four churches all exhibit women and sometimes children as well.

4 Marks, Stained Glass in England During the Middle Ages, 7.

Merton College Chapel in Oxford houses the oldest of the donor portraits still remaining in Oxfordshire (see figure 2.1). 5 These portraits also have the distinction of being the most “vainglorious” of all donor portraits, perhaps in the entirety of England.6

Figure 2.1. Merton College, Henry de Mamesfield. Source: Rex Harris, Merton College, Oxford. Henry de Mamesfeld Flanks Central Figures in North and South Windows, Photograph, February 19, 2010, https://www.flickr.com/photos/sheepdog_rex/4376044659/.

5 Only one of Henry’s portraits is shown here; all the others are very similar (though not quite identical) and can be viewed on the CVMA website.

6 Ibid, p 16.

Henry de Mamesfield, who was then Chancellor of Oxford University and would later become Dean of Lincoln, paid to have no fewer than twenty four glazed portraits of himself included in the chancel!7 This repetition is certainly unique, but perhaps not surprising considering the early date of the glass, which was completed and installed around 1295. According to Phillip Nelson, who wrote a book describing stained glass from different periods, figures of donors did not appear in glazed panels until the fourteenth century (a period he defines as “Mid-Gothic.”)8 Though this date seems a bit late for English glass overall, it is roughly applicable in Oxfordshire, with the de

Mamesfield portraits appearing right at the turn of the century.

In each portrait, de Mamesfield kneels under a short (and very flat-looking) canopy and gazes upwards, prayerfully submitting himself to other spiritual authorities.

Most of his portraits flank portraits of saints or other spiritually significant people, like bishops. A banner with the inscription ‘Henricus de Mamesfield me fecit’ (Henry de

Mamesfield made me) accompanies each.9 The colors of the glass are reminiscent of glass from earlier periods, with a deep blue background and de Mamesfield’s dark red robes being the predominant color focal points of many of the portraits. These dark, rich colors contributed to the creation of the darker atmosphere preferred in early church design.10 However, greens, yellows, and opaque whites also appear in the de Mamesfield

7 Brown and David O’Connor, Glass Painters, 31. Appendix C, Figure C.1.

8 Nelson, Ancient Painted Glass in England, 22. Though this book is old and very outdated in some sections, it is often a helpful reference for understanding broad stylistic trends in stained glass. It was reprinted in 2009 by Cornell University Press, an indication of its continued usefulness.

9It is important to note that de Mamesfield did not literally make the windows, but rather, simply paid for them. Donors, rather than artists, were given credit for “making” windows in the Middle Ages. See Brown and David O’Connor, Glass Painters, 31.

10 Osborne, Stained Glass in England, 14–25.

27 portraits. These colors were used more frequently in later glazing, as the paler colors were more transparent and allowed for more light to pass through. The canopy, which is quite ornate, is not very tall and is also very flat, as previously noted. Later canopies are similarly detailed, but tend to be much taller and more three-dimensional looking. The colors and the style of the canopy would put the de Mamesfield portraits in a transitional period of glazing—not quite as fully developed stylistically as glazing from the fourteenth century, but more advanced in terms of color and subject matter than glazing from the rest of the thirteenth century. The red and white leafy border and the beautiful leafy design on the blue background behind the canopy are also very typical; foliage features in the earliest English glass and appears even in some of the latest. The repetition of these portraits evidences the importance devotion and piety to men. Charitable giving was important to this man—so important that he spent a small fortune having himself featured over and over again.

A similar but significantly less pretentious donor portrait exists in the east chancel window at Dorchester Abbey of St Peter and St Paul: the figure of a monk, referred to variously as ‘Ralph de Tew,’ ‘Radulfus de Tiave’ and ‘Radulphus de Tiwe’ (see figure

2.2). 11 The glass is dated to 1320, and though it is currently located in the chancel, the glass monk is not in his original location. The monk, several figures of saints, and a handful of armorial shields were pieced together and placed in the chancel in 1814 by a restorer named Colonel Kennett. 12 Despite this rearrangement, it can be deduced that the glass would not have been seen often by parishioners, if ever at all. This is because a

11 Nelson, Ancient Painted Glass in England, 162.

12 'Parishes: Dorchester', in A History of the County of Oxford: Volume 7, Dorchester and Thame Hundreds, ed. Mary Lobel (London: Victoria County History, 1962), pp. 39-64

Figure 2.2. Dorchester, Radulphus de Tiave. Source: Rex Harris, Dorchester-on-Thames, Oxfordshire, Photograph, February 24, 2011, https://www.flickr.com/photos/sheepdog_rex/5478037007/in/photolist- 9m5nxV.

separate “People’s Chapel” was constructed in 1340, and even when services were held in the abbey church, the parish used only the nave area. In fact, the gates between the nave and the choir often remained locked, physically separating those areas belonging to the parish and those belonging to the convent.13 This means that de Tiwe’s portrait would

13 'Houses of Augustinian canons: The abbey of Dorchester,' in A History of the County of Oxford: Volume 2, ed. William Page (London: Victoria County History, 1907), 87-90.

29 have been seen most frequently by other members of the order, until the abbey’s dissolution in 1536.14

De Tiwe’s portrait is a fine example of glazing from the early fourteenth century; it has features that are both reminiscent of thirteenth century glazing and similar to glazing completed later in the fourteenth and early fifteenth centuries. As noted previously, figures as subjects in glazing can be considered a fourteenth century convention.15 Additionally, the pane is composed of primarily deep blue and dark red glass (typical choices for twelfth or thirteenth century glazing), but lighter yellow, chartreuse, brown, and flesh tones complete the composition—lighter colors often favored by later glaziers. 16 Like in the de Mamesfield portraits, the canopy, though very flat, is not particularly tall. De Tiwe himself, robed in blue, kneels on both knees with his hands clasped in a prayerful pose. He gazes upwards. To this viewer, de Tiwe appears to be somewhat elderly because of the saggy lines on his cheeks, and the lines that could indicate wrinkles on his neck and knuckles.

The similarities between the de Mamesfield portraits and de Tiwe’s portrait are obvious, and speak to the very slow development of new styles of glazing. In a quarter century, hardly any new developments in either style or technique are apparent. By itself, this portrait is not exceptional. Nor is De Tiwe’s bequest to the church, or his stipulation that a stained glass window be placed for him. As will be explored later, however, when taken in context with the other portraits, de Tiwe and de Mamesfield form the foundation

14 'Parishes: Dorchester', in A History of the County of Oxford: Volume 7, pp. 39-64, paragraph 74.

15 Nelson, Ancient Painted Glass in England, 22.

16 Ibid, 7.

30 for being able to see both continuity and change in portraits of donors in stained glass.

The similarities in glazing here show a consistency that stretches beyond ideological boundaries. Not only does the convention of charitable piety remain the same, its very presentation stays unchanged as well.

Similar to the two previous sets of panels in subject but much later in date are the partial portraits of two donor priests at Newington, St Giles (see figure 2.3). The priests’ panels are currently located in the north part of the chancel, and date from sometime in the late fifteenth century. Though both the ‘County Lists of Ancient Glass’ compiled by

Nelson and the CVMA website only list one singular priest, there are actually two.17 The second is referenced in Osborne’s ‘Gazetteer,’ where she notes that there were “donor priests” (plural) located at St Giles, and also in Newton’s extensive volume.18 One of the men is very difficult to locate, as the only bit left of him is his kneeling torso, so it is no surprise that he is sometimes missed out in catalogs. The other unidentified priest is dressed in a grey amice, and his portrait is drastically different from both the de

Mamesfield and de Tiwe portraits and also from all the other donor portraits in

Oxfordshire. Because his bottom half is missing, it’s hard to tell whether he kneels or stands. Newton conjectures that he was originally kneeling at a prayer desk.19 Unlike almost every other donor, however, the donor priest is not clasping his hands in the standard fashion, nor is he gazing upwards to a higher heavenly authority. Rather, his gaze is straight off to the side, and his hands are hardly touching one another.

17 Nelson, Ancient Painted Glass, p 164.

18 Osborne, Stained Glass in England, 204.

19 Peter A. Newton, The County of Oxford, 134–135.

Figure 2.3. Newington, Donor Priest. Source: Rex Harris, Newington, Oxfordshire. Chancel, North Window, with Much of Its Original Glass, Detail - Donor Figure., November 23, 2012, https://www.flickr.com/photos/sheepdog_rex/8211008111/in/album-72157632083675046/.

It could be that the glazier was just a really questionable artist, and tried and utterly failed to add some perspective to the typical palms-together position. This probably is not the case though, judging from the successful use of three-dimensionality in both the draped parts of the priest’s robe and in his collar, and also the very competent modeling of the priest’s face. Rather, it makes more sense that the hands are actually meant to convey something different. The colors of this piece of glass are now very drab due to corrosion and lichen damage, which is visible in the image, but originally it would

32 have mostly been bright white, yellow, and red. The absence of blue glass is to be expected from a later piece like this one.

When compared to earlier donor portraits already discussed, this donor priest’s portrait highlights many of the stylistic changes that occurred between the late thirteenth/early fourteenth centuries and the late fifteenth century. The different use of colors, the more sophisticated three-dimensionality, and the absence of a canopy are all changes that appear in later glazing. Additionally, this donor portrait illustrates the fact that there is an exception to every rule—just because most donor portraits conform to a very consistent pattern doesn’t mean that they all do. Even though we cannot determine whether a prayer table was actually included in the original glazing, the priest’s unique body posture sets him apart from the other donors in Oxfordshire. The stylistic differences here show us that medieval men and women did not live in a vacuum. As their artistic styles and decorative preferences evolved, however, their ideology regarding piety and charitable living did not. The ideological continuity exhibited in this stained glass contrasts with the changing designs of the period.

At Horley St Ethelreda in Oxfordshire there are two further portraits of well-to-do men which conform to the typical format of kneeling and praying. Henry Rumsworth and

Robert Gilbert were successive prebendaries of Sutton-cum-Buckingham in Lincoln and rectors at Horley.20 Their portraits were completed in the early fifteenth century. Newton notes that though the windows were installed around the same time period, they were probably executed by different glaziers.21 The awkward, out of proportion left hand on

20 Ibid., 114–115.

21 Ibid.

33 the Robert Gilbert panel is either the mark of an incompetent artist or a later repair. These two men are comparable to the Henry de Mamesfield portraits. Again, men donated money to display their charitable piety—to establish their goodness and validity as members of the church. As we have seen, this form of piety was embraced and used consistently by members of the clergy and noblemen alike.

The other three churches in Oxfordshire that have stained glass donor portraits are in Oxford, Heythrop, and Waterperry. Churches in each of these areas contain depictions of female stained glass donors. In Oxford, the donor portraits are located at Balliol

College Chapel; the history and context of the glass at Balliol is explored elsewhere in the thesis. The donor portraits are of Sir Compton, his wife, and their sons and daughter

(see figures 2.4 and 2.5). 22 The windows are currently located on the north side of the chapel and date from around 1529.23 Today, Lady Compton and her daughter appear in a

Nativity scene with the Virgin and the infant Jesus, while Sir Compton and his sons appear on their own in a different window. However, due to the haphazard restoration and shuffling of glass that took place at Balliol, it is impossible to know where the

Compton figures originally appeared, or in which scenes they were arranged.

Additionally, no one is certain that the woman and daughter in the back of the adoration scene are actually Sir Compton’s wife and daughter. However, they are most likely candidates.24

22 Lady Compton’s and her daughter’s heads are visible on the right-hand side of the photo, just above the middle.

23 “Balliol College,” in An Inventory of the Historical Monuments in the City of Oxford (London: His Majesty’s Stationery Office, 1939), 21–23.

24 Arnold, The Glass in Balliol College Chapel.

Figure 2.4. Balliol College, Lady Compton. Source: Rex Harris, Balliol College, Oxford: Chapel - Virgin Adoring the Child with 2 Inserted C16 Heads, Photograph, February 10, 2010, https://www.flickr.com/photos/sheepdog_rex/4346699542/. Image cropped for detail.

The glazing is very beautiful, and typical of the period. Sir Compton and his sons kneel with hands clasped and gazes uplifted. The bodies of the wife and daughter are missing, but even in the narrative scene they are presented in today, their gazes are also uplifted. The fact that all the Comptons’ faces are delicately and sensitively drawn, and the wide range of vibrant colors employed in the glazing indicate that the panels come from a later period than the portraits examined earlier (even if the use of a narrative scene wasn’t already a dead giveaway.)

Though the glass is not in its original position, it is still possible to theorize about its original arrangement, to some extent. Sir Compton and his sons face right, and Lady

Compton and her daughter face to the left. It is likely that they originally faced towards

35 one another, in separate panes of glass. This positioning would be consistent with all the other sets of donor panels featuring families in Oxfordshire. The inclusion of the wife and daughter in these windows suggests that for women, too, piety and charitable giving were valid and perfectly acceptable expressions of agency.

Figure 2.5 Balliol College, William Compton. Source: Rex Harris, Balliol College, Oxford: Chapel - Remains of Several Windows, Mainly C16 - Sir William Compton and His 2 Sons, 1530 (inscription below Does Not Belong to This), Photograph, February 9, 2010, https://www.flickr.com/photos/sheepdog_rex/4346670148/.

The next church under consideration is St Nicholas in Heythrop. This church houses an especially unique donor window, completed around 1522 in honor of John

Ashfield and his family, as stipulated in his will.25 The window is interesting because directly below it rests a tombchest that has brass figurines of the Ashfield family decorating the top. Both the tombchest and the windows are inscribed with the same memorial to John. The fusion of two different artistic mediums into one large memorial—bronze effigies on the tombchest and stained glass—is unique, and does not appear to occur elsewhere in the country. Originally, the window was located on the south-east side of the building, and also included images of various saints. Unfortunately, the windows were damaged beyond repair in an explosion during the Second World

War.26

As the Compton family probably was, the Ashfield family is segregated by gender into separate window panes. The males face right, and the females face left. All of the four daughters’ faces are missing, but the mother’s face remains, beautifully drawn.27 Her gaze appears to be raised slightly, and she kneels. Her hands are missing, though they have been semi-replaced.28 Her husband, whose hands also appear to be missing, also gazes upwards. Note that the children in the Ashfield family windows and in the

Compton family windows are all depicted as being much smaller in size than their parents. This is a typical presentation for this period. Nelson wrote of glazing during this time: “…glass used in windows became light in colour, lively, and soft, the general effect

25 Peter A. Newton, The County of Oxford, 109.

26 A. P. Baggs, et al., 'Parishes: Heythrop', in A History of the County of Oxford: Volume 11, Wootton Hundred (Northern Part), ed. Alan Crossley (London: Victoria County History, 1983), 131-143, paragraph 61.

27 The four daughters faces were removed for restoration after the war, lost, and then found again in the 1960s. They are kept in a museum at Woodstock. See Newton, Corpus Vitrearum Medii Aevi Great Britain, Volume I, p 109.

28 Ibid.

37 being mellow and silvery.”29 Based on the remnants left of this glass, this statement appears quite true.

The final church included in this study is St Mary at Waterperry. This building actually has portraits of three different families: families from the fourteenth, fifteenth, and sixteenth centuries, respectively. From the mid- fourteenth century is a pair of donors, one male and one female (see figures 2.6 and 2.7). They are located on the north side of the building. The second pair of donors, from the fifteenth century, are a husband and wife and a young female—probably a daughter or granddaughter (see figures 2.8 and

2.9). The final set of donors is a very large family, including a man and his eight sons and a woman and her seven daughters, dating from the early sixteenth century (see figures

2.10 and 2.11).30

The mid-fourteenth century man and woman donors are unidentified.31 They are flat and their faces lack character. They, like de Tiwe and de Mamesfield, are in an extremely stiff kneeling position. Readers might be surprised at a woman donor being depicted as early as the mid-1300s, but she is not the only female donor depicted in

Oxfordshire this early. It is unfortunate that we know neither her nor her male counterpart’s names.

29 Nelson, Ancient Painted Glass in England, 30.

30 Figure 2.10 is the newly restored version of the female panel. Early restorers created rather unattractive faces for Isobel and one of her daughters, and one daughter was completely missing. For the newly restored window, artists uses the faces of the other daughters to draw the faces of the mother and the missing girls--a method which has a nice effect.

31 Osborne, Stained Glass in England, 212.

Figure 2.6. Waterperry, Anonymous Woman. Source: Rex Harris, Waterperry, Oxfordshire: Nave, North Window - Donor Figure of a Woman, Early C14, Photograph, February 13, 2013, https://www.flickr.com/photos/sheepdog_rex/8471508478/.

Figure 2.7. Waterperry, Anonymous Man. Source: Rex Harris, Waterperry, Oxfordshire: Nave, North Window - Donor Figure of a Man, Early C14, Photograph, February 13, 2013, https://www.flickr.com/photos/sheepdog_rex/8471407242/

On the north side of the chancel are the fifteenth century donor figures. The portraits are of Robert Fitz-Ellis and his wife Margaret, along with a daughter or granddaughter. Compared to the unidentified couple, (and frankly with every other donor examined in this paper) the Fitz-Ellis group is dressed in gaudy attire. Margaret has golden rings on every finger, and a valuable piece of jewelry at her neck. The young girl is also wearing rings, a necklace, and also sports a pearl-encrusted headpiece. Robert, on the other hand, is dressed in a suit of armor. He has a bright silver sword swinging down

Figure 2.8. Waterperry, Fitz-Ellis. Source: Rex Harris, Waterperry, Oxfordshire: Nave, North Window - Robert Fitz-Ellis, between 1461-69, Incomplete and Restored, Photograph, February 13, 2013, https://www.flickr.com/photos/sheepdog_rex/8470325995/.

40 at his side, and the delicate spurs of his boots are a detail one cannot miss. Though the young girl is a bit cross-eyed, their faces and bodies overall are much more lifelike than

Figure 2.9. Waterperry, Margaret Fitz-Ellis. Source: Rex Harris, Waterperry, Oxfordshire: Nave, North Window-Margaret Fitz-Ellis and Daughter Margery or Grand-Daughter Sibyl, Photograph, February 13, 2013, https://www.flickr.com/photos/sheepdog_rex/8471415784/.

the portraits of the unnamed donors. Here, perhaps more than in other places, the earthly rewards of charitable piety come to mind. As many people who came to church would see the Fitz-Ellis family looking splendid. Being shown as a beautiful, pious people shows that the Fitz-Ellis family felt the importance of making a donation to the church.

Whether this portrait, or any others in this chapter, was donated out of either earthly or spiritual motivations is beside the point. In reality, these portraits have almost everything in common with all of the other depictions of pious charity in this chapter.

In perhaps the most interesting set of panels examined for this project, Isobel

Saunders Curzon and her seven daughters are presented opposite her husband and eight sons on the south side of the building. Saunders and three of her daughters are portrayed with large, pregnant-looking bellies and more elaborate gowns. Surprisingly, the women do not mirror the men—the women do not kneel. Rather, they stand. Perhaps the women are permitted to stand because of Isobel’s very large stomach.

Figure 2.10. Waterperry, Isobel Curzon. Source: Rex Harris, Waterperry, Oxfordshire: South Aisle, South Window - Walter Curson, d1527, Wife Isabel and Children : Detail, Photograph, accessed May 5, 2016, https://www.flickr.com/photos/sheepdog_rex/8471484490/

Figure 2.11. Waterperry, Walter Curzon. Source: Rex Harris, Waterperry, Oxfordshire: South Aisle, South Window - Walter Curson, d1527, Wife Isabel and Children : Detail, Photograph, accessed May 5, 2016, https://www.flickr.com/photos/sheepdog_rex/8471484490/.

The arrangement of the figures on both the men’s and the women’s sides is interesting. On the men’s panel, the father is largest and set apart. Then, there is one son

(presumably the eldest) kneeling behind him, also set apart from the group. The remaining seven sons are huddled together, kneeling in rows of two and three. On the women’s panel, the mother parallels the father—being large and set apart. However, the daughters are arranged in neat rows, of three, two, and two, and their heads all come in a straight line. They, unlike the sons, do not appear huddled. The larger, finely dressed, bigger-bellied daughters take the first row, and the other daughters are arranged in twos behind them. Perhaps, the age of the eldest son is what helps him be set apart from the

43 group, while for the daughters, both their advanced ages and their apparent fertility set them off from the other sisters.

The portraits of the Curzons are the culmination of the stylistic progression that began with the unnamed donors above and continued with the Fitz-Ellis family. Their clothes are richer in color, though simpler in style than the Fitz-Ellis adornments. The stylistic progression of facial details and other fine elements is obvious when comparing the three sets of portraits. But, even though the stylistic changes are self-evident, the physical position of all the donors at Waterperry does not shift. Of course, the donors’ bodies become less stiff and more natural from the early portraits to the later ones. It is undeniable though, that every single donor depicted at Waterperry has his or her hands palms-together and an uplifted gaze. Additionally, besides Isobel and daughters, everyone is kneeling. Depictions of both masculine and feminine piety do not change— from the earliest portraits to the latest.

There is one final donor panel from Oxfordshire for readers to consider, though it is no longer held in the county.32 It is the oldest intact donor window originating in

England, and dates to the end of the thirteenth century.33 It most likely came from the

Franciscan church in Oxford. The window shows Beatrix van Valkenburg, wife of

Richard, Earl of Cornwall.34 Comparing van Valkeburg’s portrait to the portrait of Henry de Mamesfield, which is just a few years younger, shows many similarities. Though the van Valkenburg panel is not quite as detailed and she is not canopied, the colors, style,

32 The panel is currently in the Burrell collection in Glasgow.

33 Marks, Stained Glass in England During the Middle Ages. Kindle Locations 985-988.

34 Ibid. Appendix C, Figure C.15.

44 and positioning of Henry and Beatrix are comparable. The fact that she is depicted alone is very unique in England, and is probably due to the fact that she was buried at the

Franciscan church in Oxford and her high social status. Despite the uniqueness of the situation, her presence as a singular woman cannot be overlooked

Donors and Piety

What are we to make of all this information? What questions can we begin to answer about laypeople and their piety, based on stained glass donor portraits? Firstly, it appears that there is a great deal of sameness about the donors across time. Secondly, and contrastingly, it is apparent that something regarding women’s relationship with the family changes from the early centuries to the later ones.

Questions about understanding how changing portrayals of female donors impacted or reflected women’s situations within the church are explored in works by several scholars, including in Christine Peters’ book, Patterns of Piety. She writes that the increased numbers of donor women depicted as mothers and with children at the approach of the Reformation is misleading to people who view this change as evidence that women somehow lost a bit of “active agency” and took on a form of piety that could be seen as more internal and reflective. Rather, she points out that “groups of women could pay for stained glass windows...” and did do so at some churches outside the scope of this paper.35 Besides, women and men made their donations to the church as a couple, and many times, women were the ones assuring that donations were followed through with (that windows were actually installed) as they often outlived their husbands.

Moreover, women made many donations to the church that we have no visual record of,

35 Peters, Patterns of Piety, 41.

45 simply because most women had less means to make significant donations than did their husbands.36 A few other scholars, working in areas outside the field of stained glass or outside England, have also noted women’s previously overlooked roles in the creation of artwork and in church donations, echoing Peters’ arguments.37 The “family hierarchy” that is presented visually is not representative, Peters argues, of what women’s experiences actually would have been. Essentially, she argues that more stays the same in this area for women than changes from the Medieval era to the Early Modern period.

Her evidence is sound—women did make many donations that are conspicuously missing from the visual record, and they did exert a certain amount of influence over the creation and donation of many sets of donor panels. Much more does stay the same for women than changes. However, the changes that do occur are significant. The fact that women hardly appear at all in the earliest donor portraits, as Marks points out in his book, demonstrates this point.38 If women did not experience some change in roles, why would there be a chronological progression of portraits, like we have in Oxfordshire, depicting first women alone with their husbands, followed by portraits of husbands and wives with their most important children, followed by portraits of husbands and wives with many children? Simultaneously, why would we move from having very, very few depictions of women to having many? It is apparent to this viewer that the importance of family grows

36 Ibid, 42.

37 See, for example, June McCash, The Cultural Patronage of Medieval Women (University of Georgia Press, 1996.) or Sarah Salih, ‘Review of Women’s Space: Patronage, Place and Gender in the Medieval Church.’ The Journal of English and Germanic Philology 107, no. 3 (July 1, 2008): 389–91.

38 Marks, Stained Glass in England During the Middle Ages, 41. Note that Beatrix van Valkenburg is a very rare example of a woman depicted alone.

46 as time progresses, and because of this change, women’s important role as mother is emphasized.

Peters’s argument that women experienced more continuity than change is sound.

As noted above, it appears that there is a great deal of sameness in these donor portraits across time. All but two of the donors depicted in Oxfordshire conform to a formulaic physical presentation, no matter what period the donor is from. The grey monk at

Newington, whose hands are out of place, and Isobel Saunders Curzon, who stands with her daughters at Waterperry rather than kneels, are the exceptions to this rule in

Oxfordshire. Submissive and prayerful piety is the chain that links all these portraits.

Prayerful and submissive giving is the main theme throughout, no matter the time period, and comparing the earliest woman to the latest—comparing Beatrix to Isobel—makes this continuity unmistakable.

The reasons behind the unchanging nature of this formulaic presentation could be legion. To suggest but one, perhaps artists found a way to communicate submissive and prayerful giving and did not feel the need to alter this message in later centuries. In an exploration of medieval wills, Eamon Duffy notes that “The formulaic character of most late medieval wills offers evidence not of shallowness, but of overwhelming social consensus in religious convictions and priorities.”39 Perhaps the case is the same for the formulaic presentation of donor portraits. Across centuries, charity and the giving away of wealth is a virtue extolled in saints’ tales and in tales of important pious figures. It doesn’t seem surprising that this virtue—free and submissive giving—is reflected in donor portraits. As demonstrated in the previous chapters, depictions of women saints

39 Eamon Duffy, The Stripping of the Altars: Traditional Religion in England, 1400-1580, 2nd Edition (Yale University Press, 2005), 355.

47 and other important characters shifted from the medieval era to the Early Modern period, indicating that opinions regarding women saints changed over the centuries.

Contrastingly, depictions of donors in portraiture stayed roughly the same, demonstrating that opinions regarding donor piety did not.

Conclusion

From the oldest donor portraits at Merton College Chapel to the newest at Balliol

College Chapel both continuity and change are evident in Oxfordshire glazing. Changes in depictions of women’s piety are definitely more complicated than they appear at first glance, whether one agrees more with Peters or with Marks on the issue of changing women’s roles. The evidence for the enduring legacy of the importance of submissive and prayerful giving, on the other hand, is more straightforward. Understanding how and why the trends exemplified in the glass exist is important for understanding lay piety in general, and for better understanding piety specific to women.

CHAPTER THREE

Same Stories, Different Lessons: Depictions of Biblical Women in Oxfordshire Stained Glass, 1250-1529

Introduction

In this third chapter, biblical characters assume the spotlight. There are almost two hundred and fifty surviving biblical figures in Oxfordshire; these windows account for nearly sixty percent of the medieval stained glass left in the county.1 Obviously, biblical themes and characters were of great importance in medieval decorating schemes.

The windows show which Bible characters medieval men and women favored during different periods. The windows also demonstrate how medieval men and women might alter the fine details of Bible stories in order to convey ideas that spoke to their own cultural moments. Most importantly for this thesis, however, the stained glass of

Oxfordshire demonstrates that although women remained important to church audiences and patrons from the late medieval to early modern, what was deemed appropriate piety for these stained female images shifted across the Reformation era. While the medieval glass presented women demonstrating their piety in active ways, the early modern glass presents women as more internally pious. In short, the biblical figures in Oxfordshire stained glass show the slow silencing of medieval women’s loud, defiant, physical actions into the quiet and still images of early modern women.

1 See Appendix B, Figures B.1 and B.3.

Overview of Biblical Women in Oxfordshire Stained Glass

The Virgin Mary was, of course, the most beloved and popular female figure painted on glass in all of medieval England. In Oxfordshire alone, there are at least thirty- seven surviving stained glass depictions of the Virgin Mary that date from the thirteenth-sixteenth centuries. The second most popular glass woman in this county was Catherine—she only has eight surviving windows.2 Many scholars trace how and why her popularity blossomed from the early to late medieval periods. Examining stained glass provides a new way to explore her broad and ever-growing appeal during these periods, and especially what her image reveals about female piety and even women’s religious experiences.3 Like every saint’s tale, the ultimate focus of Mary’s story is Christ. In Mary’s case, however, He plays an even more significant role. He is not merely her Savior—Jesus is also her son.

Because of the Virgin’s unique relationship with Christ, the imagery used to portray

Jesus’s life is crucial for comprehending images of Mary herself. Overall, we will see that portrayals of Mary—including her relationship to her son—shifted from the late medieval to early modern era.

Though the Virgin was wildly popular in late medieval England, she was not the only Biblical woman whose reputation shifted during the period. Two other biblical women also appeared with relative frequency: Mary Magdalene and St. Anne. Mary

Magdalen, the penitent sinner and preacher, captivated the late medieval consciousness almost as much as the Virgin Mary.4 In the fourteenth and fifteenth centuries, she appears

2 See Appendix A, Table A.2.

3 Marks, Stained Glass in England during the Middle Ages, 70.

4 For an extensive exploration of Mary Magdalen’s shifting popularity, see Katherine Jansen, The Making of the Magdalen: Preaching and Popular Devotion in the Later Middle Ages (Princeton: Princeton University Press, 2001).

50 in an increasing number of stained glass windows. On the other hand, Saint Anne (the mother of Virgin Mary in apocryphal works) seems to have diminished in popularity by the sixteenth century.5 Oxfordshire glass shows us not only how frequently donors commissioned windows of these women, but also what the donors thought of them. How did the donors expect Mary Magdalen to be portrayed in earlier centuries compared to later ones? How did their expectations of Saint Anne change? Understanding the fluctuations in expectations for and the popularity of biblical women contributes to an understanding of shifting medieval opinions of women and their role in the church.

The Virgin Mary

The images in existing Oxfordshire windows support the claim that the Virgin

Mary was always the most popular woman depicted in stained glass, and that her popularity continued to increase exponentially in the fourteenth and fifteenth centuries.

Widows of the Virgin also demonstrate that as time moves forward, her role in the

Christian story changes. In early windows, the Virgin’s role as Christ’s mother seems to be emphasized. In fourteenth and fifteenth century windows, however, there is more attention devoted to the entirety of Mary’s life. Sixteenth century windows demonstrate a seeming return to an emphasis on the Virgin’s motherhood.

The cyclical nature of medieval men and women’s fascination with Mary’s role in the spiritual realm contrasts sharply with their changing understanding of Christ’s. As

Mary’s motherhood is re-emphasized in the sixteenth century windows, we see new images of Christ—praying in the garden, resurrecting, displaying his wounds, wearing a

5As noted in Chapter One, I included women who appear in apocryphal stories in this category because their stories are directly tied to the stories of biblical characters. Saint Anne, for example, was the mother of the Virgin.

51 crown of thorns, ascending, being cradled by his mother (both as an infant and in a pieta), in majesty, and being crucified. This varied imagery stands out when compared to earlier windows, which mostly display the themes of crucifixion, wounds of Christ, and Christus

Rex. Here, we will explore a handful of the Oxfordshire windows that clearly indicate the broader application of this type of imagery, in addition to the ideological bents usage of this imagery could denote.

The earliest image of the Virgin Mary in Oxfordshire stained glass represents her as the Mother of God (Theotokos). This only surviving one thirteenth century depiction of the Virgin is an enthroned Virgin and Child at Saint Michael’s Church, Oxford (see figure 3.1). Both Mary’s and the infant Jesus’s faces are difficult to make out, but they appear to gaze lovingly at one another. Mary sits on a bench-like throne, wears a simple crown, and has a red halo. She balances a haloed baby Jesus on her left knee; he reaches his tiny hand up towards her face. This one window can hardly be considered representative of the imagery used to depict the Virgin for the entire thirteenth century.

However, the fact remains that this is the only window of the Virgin left in this area from this period; its focus on the Virgin’s position as Theotokos is obvious and undeniable.

From the fourteenth century, a host of windows survive. Descriptions of a select few provide evidence for the overall variety of these images in displaying the life of

Mary.6 For example, the Annunciation window at Dorchester represents the other annunciation scenes in Oxfordshire stained glass.7 Similarly, windows showing the

6 See Appendix A, Table A.4. All images of the Virgin are listed on this table, and each has a designation of what type of scene she appears in.

7 For general explorations of Annunciation iconography, see David M. Robb, “The Iconography of the Annunciation in the Fourteenth and Fifteenth Centuries,” The Art Bulletin 18, no. 4 (December 1936): 480–526; Laura Saetveit Miles, “The Origins and Development of the Virgin Mary’s Book at the Annunciation,” Speculum 89, no. 3 (July 2014): 632–69, doi:10.1017/S0038713414000748. Robb argues

Virgin and child, the Assumption, the coronation of the Virgin, and Mary at Christ’s crucifixion are reiterated many times in many different churches with similar themes. The only unique window from this century portraying Mary’s life is one depicting Mary’s funeral at Stanton, St. John.

Figure 3.1. St Michael’s Church, Virgin and Child. Source: Rex Harris, St Michael at the Northgate, Oxford: Chancel, East Window, Virgin and Child, Photograph, February 23, 2012, https://www.flickr.com/photos/sheepdog_rex/6777691466/.

that in fourteenth and fifteenth century images, the setting is more significant than the poses the figures make or the symbols used in the work (he mostly explores French and Italian examples.) Saetveit argues that the Virgin’s book (which is often a symbol used in Annunciation scenes) is significant well before the fourteenth and fifteenth centuries, and is not as closely tied to ideas of women reading early on. Rather, the book is significant because it is a symbol used to identify the Virgin as a pious person to emulate. Her prayerful devotion was an exemplar for mendicants and enclosed women well before her reading became a hot topic.

In general, late medieval stained glass in Oxfordshire portrays Mary not only as mother but as a relatable woman whose life experiences would have been familiar to medieval viewers. The beautiful Annunciation window at Dorchester emphasizes God communicating with Mary and Mary accepting her divine pregnancy (see figure 3.2).

Figure 3.2. Dorchester, Annunciation. Source: Rex Harris, Dorchester-on-Thames, Oxfordshire: Chancel, East Window, Glass of c1320 : Detail - Annunciation, Photograph, February 24, 2011, https://www.flickr.com/photos/sheepdog_rex/5478036277/.

The window shows a barefooted and haloed Gabriel standing before a worshipful

Mary.8 He flourishes a scroll bearing an inscription of a Hail Mary. Meanwhile, she stands with her hands stretched out before her, right palm up in reverence. She holds a small book in her left hand. A white lily separates the two figures. Both the book and the lily are typical symbols associated with images of the Annunciation; the lily symbolizes virginity and purity, the book emphasizes Mary’s piety.9 The focus of this window is

Mary and the revelation of God’s announcement.

Likewise, the window showing the Virgin and Child at Dorchester includes important iconographic symbols (see figure 3.3). 10 The Virgin sits facing forwards on a short throne. She holds an apple in her right hand, and cradles the infant Christ with her left. The baby Jesus reaches up his right hand towards his mother, gesturing a blessing.

The simple and highly structured pose that glaziers employed in this window is very common, though the image of the Virgin holding the apple is less so in the stained glass of Oxfordshire. Typically, the apple reminds viewers of the fact that Christ is the new

Adam, and Mary the new Eve.11 This window, like the early window at Saint Michael’s

8 Peter A. Newton, The County of Oxford, 79. Newton makes no mention of the book in Mary’s hand, but it is plainly visible. The book is also a reference to some versions of the Annunciation story, in which the Virgin is reading her psalter when Gabriel appears.

9 Laura Saetveit Miles, “The Origins and Development of the Virgin Mary’s Book at the Annunciation,” Speculum 89, no. 3 (July 2014): 632–69, doi:10.1017/S0038713414000748. Miles argues that the symbolism of the book changed, and discussions of the symbol became more contentious and gender-focused for late medieval viewers. This, she suggests, is perhaps why other scholars argue that the phenomenon arose in the later Middle Ages. However, she assures readers, early medieval mendicants and artists saw Mary and her book as an example of living a secluded and literate life, rather than as a contentious female reader.

10 Peter A. Newton, The County of Oxford, 81. Newton notes that the Virgin is holding an apple, and Jesus is holding a bird. However, I do not see any bird in pictures of the window.

11 Jennifer Meagher, “Food and Drink in European Painting, 1400–1800,” The Metropolitan Museum of Art’s Heilbrunn Timeline of Art History, May 2009, http://www.metmuseum.org/toah/hd/food/hd_food.htm.

Church, Oxford, reminds viewers of the Mary’s motherhood. But, with the emphasis on the apple, it also shows Mary’s role as the new Eve and hence how she individually contributes to the salvific plan.

Figure 3.3. Dorchester, Virgin and Child. Source: Rex Harris, Dorchester-on-Thames, Oxfordshire: Chancel, East Window, Glass of c1320 : Detail - Virgin and Child, Photograph, February 24, 2011, https://www.flickr.com/photos/sheepdog_rex/5478640008/. Image cropped for detail.

The most unique window pertaining to the Virgin from the fourteenth century is at Stanton, St John (see figures 3.4 and 3.5).12 Here, the Virgin is not actually shown.

Rather, two apostles carry her casket, while a Jew attempts to knock it over. The Jew is shown twice: first with his hands pushing at the casket, second laying on the ground below the casket.

Figure 3.4. Stanton, St John, Funeral of the Virgin. Source: Rex Harris, Stanton St John, Oxfordshire: Chancel, South Window, with C13 and C14 Panels Set on Modern Background of Imitation C13 Quarries : Detail - Miracle of the Jew Who Tried to Overturn the Bier at the Funeral of the Virgin, Late C13, Photograph, August 7, 2009, https://www.flickr.com/photos/sheepdog_rex/3803877744/.

12 Osborne, Stained Glass in England, 212; Peter A. Newton, The County of Oxford, 189. Osborne dates this window as late thirteenth century, while Newton suggests the early fourteenth.

Figure 3.5. Stanton, St John, Detail of the Funeral of the Virgin. Source: Rex Harris, Stanton St John, Oxfordshire: Chancel, South Window, with C13 and C14 Panels Set on Modern Background of Imitation C13 Quarries : Detail - Miracle of the Jew Who Tried to Overturn the Bier at the Funeral of the Virgin, Late C13, Photograph, May 11, 2012, https://www.flickr.com/photos/sheepdog_rex/7180944576/.

The story of the Jew at Mary’s funeral originated in De Transitu Beatae Mariae, but was repeated in Jacob de Voragine’s Legenda Sanctorum.13 In the story, a Jewish man tries to overturn the Virgin’s casket. Unfortunately, his hands become stuck to the coffin as soon as he touches it. The man begs St Peter for help; as soon as St Peter converts the man, the new believer’s hands become unstuck. Newton notes that images of

13 Peter A. Newton, The County of Oxford, 189; Roger Rosewell, “Spin Doctoring in Fifteenth- Century Stained Glass: Review,” Vidimus, no. 22 (October 2008), http://vidimus.org/issues/issue- 22/books/.

58 this story are quite rare before the late thirteenth and early fourteenth centuries.14 This window especially highlights the fourteenth century proclivity to portray aspects of the

Virgin’s life (in this case, death) other than her with her newly born or newly crucified son. Here, the Virgin inspires a Jew’s conversion. She, rather than her holy child, is the stimulus for salvation.

At Beckley, there are three fourteenth century windows that also embody the themes and imagery used in windows across Oxfordshire—windows that show that all the details of Mary’s life are important, not just those pertaining directly to her son. There are two Assumption of the Virgin windows, and a widow displaying the Coronation of the Virgin. The Assumption involved the Virgin Mary ascending into Heaven, usually carried up by angels. The Coronation of the Virgin involved the recognition of Mary as divine intercessor to Christ and as Theotokos. She usually sits on a throne to Christ’s left as he places a crown on her head. The earliest of the three, an Assumption image, dates to the early fourteenth century (see figure 3.6).15 Mary floats, suspended in a field of red glass. Her toes dangle down into a swath of sapphire blue. Four angels lift the mandorla that encapsulates the Virgin, while two more angels fly above.16

14 Peter A. Newton, The County of Oxford, 189.

15 Ibid., 29-31.

16 A mandorla is a pointed oval motiff that is commonly used to enclose Jesus and sometimes other biblical figures in Christian art. See “Mandorla,” Encyclopedia Britannica, 2016, http://www.britannica.com/topic/mandorla.

Figure 3.6. Beckley, Assumption of the Virgin. Rex Harris, Beckley, Oxfordshire: Chancel, South Window, by Hardman, c1869, with C14 Glass in Tracery : Detail - Assumption of the Virgin, 1300-10, Photograph, May 11, 2012, https://www.flickr.com/photos/sheepdog_rex/7180834202/.

The other window that shows the Assumption dates a bit later—to the second quarter of the fourteenth century (see figure 3.7).17 Like in the earlier window, four angels lift the Virgin into the sky. This time, however, they lift her in a sheet rather than in a mandorla. The Hand of God can be seen floating in the uppermost portion of the window. Interestingly, the Virgin extends her right hand back down towards Earth. She hands her blessed girdle to St Thomas, who reaches up to her from below. This

17 Peter A. Newton, The County of Oxford, 30.

60 demonstrates her individual significance, as she is capable of acting as a divine intercessor.

Figure 3.7. Beckley, Assumption of the Virgin. Source: Rex Harris, Beckley, Oxfordshire: East Window, : Detail - Assumption of the Virgin and St Thomas Receiving Her Girdle, 1325-50, Photograph, May 11, 2012, https://www.flickr.com/photos/sheepdog_rex/7180830004/.

In the Coronation window, which also dates to the second quarter of the fourteenth century, the Virgin sits to the right of adult Jesus (see figure 3.8).18 Mary lifts

18 Ibid., 29.

61 her hands to her breast. She casts her eyes downwards away from Christ’s face. Jesus lifts a crown to her head with his right hand. Both figures are turned inwards, so that their legs are intertwined.

Figure 3.8. Beckley, Coronation of the Virgin. Source: Rex Harris, Beckley, Oxfordshire: East Window, by Hardman, with C14 Glass in Tracery : Detail - Coronation of the Virgin, 1325-50, Photograph, May 11, 2012, https://www.flickr.com/photos/sheepdog_rex/7180828058/.

The window designer has left off the nimbus from both figures. The glazier also failed to draw the figures’ heads in proportion to their bodies and to one another: Christ’s

62 head is much too small, and Mary’s is rather too large. They are also both a bit cockeyed.

That said, this window has an air of intimacy that is not present in others. The closeness of Virgin and her grown child is poignant, and demonstrates the Virgin’s importance. She does not sit below or in a lower pane of glass than her son. Rather, she sits at his side.

Here, the Virgin is on the same spiritual plane as Christ. She is almost divine.

A final window that is representative of fourteenth century Oxfordshire Virgin window-imagery is a scene from Christ’s Crucifixion at New College, Oxford (see figure

3.9).19 Though the panel that actually depicted the crucifix is missing, panes with St John the Evangelist and the Virgin Mary survive. The Virgin faces right. Her head is bowed

Figure 3.9. New College, Virgin at the Crucifixion. Source: Rex Harris, New College, Oxford: Antechapel - S Aisle, E Window. Virgin, Remains of a Crucifix Panel, and St John the Evangelist., Photograph, December 1, 2009, https://www.flickr.com/photos/sheepdog_rex/4153621922/. Image cropped for detail.

19 Christopher Woodforde, The Stained Glass of New College, Oxford, 78; Osborne, Stained Glass in England, 208. Newton notes that the glass is extremely corroded; so much so, that the Virgin’s nimbus is completely opaque and almost impossible to detect in photographs.

63 and covered. The glazier of this window was more accomplished at drawing sensitive faces than the glaziers at Beckley. Mary looks grieved. Even the color palette is muted; the window is done in a deep carnelian, with muted blues, whites, greens, and browns comprising the canopy and draperies.

The fifteenth century Virgin shares many similarities with her fourteenth century counterpart. In the fifteenth century, we see Mary in majesty, with her newborn, and in

Assumption and Annunciation images. At first glance, the Virgin Annunciate at

Brightwell Baldwin might appear to signal startling changes to the imagery associated with Mary (see figure 3.10).20 In this mid-fifteenth century window, Mary appears facing forward. Her right hand is raised, and she holds a bunch of roses in her left. A dove

(representing the Holy Spirit) flutters around her head. In the foreground, a pot brimming with tall, white lilies sits. Mary does not offer even a hint of a smile, and she looks downwards. The little book, which appears in the Annunciation scene at Dorchester, is nowhere to be seen. However, the absence of the symbolic book is not to be overanalyzed. The book appears in other fifteenth century Virgin panels in Oxfordshire, and might only left out here as a result of a restoration.21 Even if the book never appeared in this particular window, its absence is not that surprising, nor is its absence here suggestive of changing attitudes towards women and reading. This window is quite simple in design, with only a few elements that allow it to be identified as an

Annunciation panel in the first place (namely, the pot of lilies and the dove.) Gabriel does not even appear here—only the Holy Spirit, who reminds readers of the Immaculate

20Peter A. Newton, The County of Oxford, 41.

21 For example, see the 1433 Virgin in Majesty in the north transept window at St Peter-in-the- East, Oxford.

Conception. The window’s simple design and the appearance of the book in other panels signal that this window is an anomaly. This Annunciation scene emphasizes the Virgin

Mary’s importance. She is the sole figure in this story.

Figure 3.10. Brightwell Baldwin, Annunciation. Source: Rex Harris, Brightwell Baldwin, Oxfordshire: Stone Chapel, North Window, Saint Paul and the Virgin Annunciate (much Restored), C15 : Detail, Photograph, February 14, 2011, https://www.flickr.com/photos/sheepdog_rex/5445541147/.

Windows at of the Virgin in Majesty at Combe, of the Virgin with Child at All

Souls College, and of the Crucifixion at Marsh Baldon are more representative of

65 fifteenth century glass that the window at Brightwell Baldwin (see figures 3.11, 3.12, and

3.13). At Combe, the enthroned Virgin and Christ form the pinnacle of a group of tracery lights.22 She sits to Christ’s left and bows her head towards him. He raises his hand in blessing. These two figures are “...the most important of the series, the focal point of the whole tracery of the largest window in the church...”23

Figure 3.11. Combe, Virgin in Majesty. Source: Rex Harris, Combe, Oxfordshire: Chancel East Window - Christ and Virgin in Majesty Flanked by Cherubim and Censing Angels, C15 (restored)., Photograph, October 27, 2009, https://www.flickr.com/photos/sheepdog_rex/4054614251/. Image cropped for detail.

22 Peter A. Newton, The County of Oxford, 71.

23 Ibid.

At All Souls College, the Virgin stands holding her infant son under an ornate canopy.24 She has flowing, curled hair and a lovely face. In one hand, she holds a staff.

The Christ child holds a little round sphere—the orb of sovereignty.25

Figure 3.12. All Souls College, Virgin and Child. Source: Rex Harris, All Souls College, Oxford: Antechapel. East Window on North Side, by John Glazier, 1440’sDetail : Virgin and Child, Photograph, September 9, 2012, https://www.flickr.com/photos/sheepdog_rex/8051748098/.

24 Hutchinson, Medieval Glass at All Souls College, 28. Hutchinson notes that Mary’s girdle hangs down her waist. The girdle is not visible in the photographs that I have seen. The staff, he writes, is Mary’s scepter which denotes that she is Queen of Heaven.

25 Ibid.

The Crucifixion window at Marsh Baldon displays the most sedate color palette of all the window panels explored thus far.26 It is a drab brown, and white, and yellow.

Christ is missing from the set, but Mary still stands with her head bowed in grief and a hand to her breast. Interestingly, she carries her little book in her right hand. The book is more commonly incorporated in Annunciation scenes, but its presence here reiterates the symbol’s widespread usage, and the emphasis on the Virgin Mary’s piety.

Figure 3.13. Marsh Baldon, Virgin at the Crucifixion. Source: Rex Harris, Marsh Baldon, Oxfordshire: Chancel, East Window, Detail - Virgin Mary (thought to Be Part of a Crucifixion Scene), Photograph, February 26, 2011, https://www.flickr.com/photos/sheepdog_rex/5478908276/.

26 Peter A. Newton, The County of Oxford, 144.

This sampling of the many Marian windows shows how diverse her character and role was during these periods. The Virgin’s main role is that of mother—she is the holiest of all mothers, and is often shown carrying her infant son. But she engages with viewers in many other ways as well. She bequeaths her blessed girdle to St Thomas as she is lifted into heaven, her death is the stimulus for the conversion of a Jew, and she carries her book to her throne in Heaven as well as to Christ’s crucifixion and her Annunciation.27

The Virgin’s activities in sixteenth century windows diverge sharply from the medieval windows. Instead of portraying the Virgin in a variety of scenes throughout her life, as do the fourteenth- and fifteenth-century windows, the five extant sixteenth- century windows in Oxfordshire display her only as a mother. Four of the five are at

Balliol College Chapel; the fifth is at Waterperry. Overall, the glass at Balliol College has had a rough existence, which explains the current state of the broken and incomplete windows.28 Though much of the glass in the chapel can be dated to the sixteenth and early seventeenth centuries, most of the glass that includes pictures of the Virgin has been dated to somewhere around 1530.29 Each window is missing pieces, but together, they paint a portrait which suggests a shift from the medieval portrayals.

Two new scenes present themselves for the first time in Oxfordshire stained glass in the sixteenth century: the Pieta (which shows the Virgin Mary cradling Christ after his

27 Girdles were used to help medieval women in childbirth.

28 See Arnold, The Glass in Balliol College Chapel. for a complete exploration of the chapel glass. He explains that in a 1912 chapel “redecorating” scheme, one window was simply cut in two—one half placed to the left of a door, the other to the right. It is estimated that a little under half of the original glass was just thrown out altogether. Additionally, before the building’s remodel, destructive attempts had been made to restore the glass. Several window fragments were either squished together into new windows or used to repair and restore others.

29 Ibid., 1–2.

Crucifixion), and the Nativity of Christ. Both scenes are at Balliol, and both are composite windows; they are also both images in which the emphasis is on the adoration of Christ, not so much the Virgin herself.30 In the Pieta, the Virgin’s face is mostly gone, but it is apparent from the tilt of her head and the angle of her body that her intended focus is that of Christ’s body sprawled across her lap. There are no iconographic symbols in the patchwork composite window; none are needed to identify this image. The entire focus of the window as it is portrayed today is on the grief of a mother for her dead son.

Conversely, most of the Nativity scene is sixteenth-century glass.31 The Virgin bows over the manger and her newborn child. A dazzling beam of starlight shines from above and perfectly illuminates the face of the holy infant. A small, pudgy-faced cherub hovers over the makeshift cradle. The focus, like with the Pieta, is on the regard of a mother for her son—not on Mary herself.

The other three scenes are variations on themes that exist in earlier Oxfordshire glazing schemes. The Virgin who once was part of a Crucifixion scene now stands alone at Balliol. She looks very much like the Virgin Mary at New College, Oxford and at

Marsh Baldon. Hands are clasped over her breast, and her head is covered. The panel looks to have been restored at some point, since the Virgin’s hands are almost bigger than

30 A composite window is not complete. It is a window made up of fragments, pieced together by restorers. Some fragments are very large or have symbols on them that allow for their identification; other fragments are very small and unidentifiable. Some composite windows look like proper scenes; other composite windows look like modern-day abstract paintings. Many composite windows were put together in before the 20th century—before restorers bothered trying to keep like glass together. Because of this, composite panes often have fragments from different centuries all in the same panel.

31 Refer to figure 2.4. Arnold, The Glass in Balliol College Chapel, 11. The only part of the panel that is not original is the upper-middle right side, where fragments (the heads) of two donor women were inserted during a restoration.

70 her head.32 But the grief of a mother for her son is still unmistakably visible. Likewise, the Virgin with Christ child at Balliol focuses on Mary’s maternal adoration (see figure

3.14). She does not hold a scepter (like the medieval image at All Souls), nor an apple

(like the medieval image at Dorchester), nor a girdle, or a book. She holds nothing but the infant. The emphasis is clear. The window focuses on Mary’s role as mother of Jesus.

Figure 3.14. Balliol College, Virgin and Child. Source: Rex Harris, Balliol College, Oxford: Chapel - Seven Figures, All c1529-30, from Different Windows - Virgin and Child, Photograph, February 9, 2010, https://www.flickr.com/photos/sheepdog_rex/4346676556/.

32 Ibid., 6–7.

The final depiction of Mary is also a Virgin with child, at Waterperry (see figure

3.15).33 This figure dates to 1527.34 Mary’s head and feet are missing, but her hands and

Jesus survive. Although the emphasis is still on Mary as the mother of Jesus, this image does bring in some familiar medieval imagery. Mary holds Christ with her left hand, but an apple with her right.

Figure 3.15. Waterperry, Virgin and Child. Source: Rex Harris, Waterperry, Oxfordshire: South Aisle, South Window Detail - Central Panel with Incomplete Virgin and Child, Photograph, February 13, 2013, https://www.flickr.com/photos/sheepdog_rex/8471470826/.

33 Peter A. Newton, The County of Oxford, 206.

34 Ibid.

Overall, in these sixteenth century scenes involving Mary, Christ is the sole focal point. Instead of allowing Mary to have a multifaceted role in the spiritual realm, including emphasizing her role as a divine intercessor, she is mostly pigeonholed into the role of adoring mother. This is the only role portrayed by Mary in the sixteenth-century glass. In fact, the glazier of the Nativity scene went to the trouble of including a divinely orchestrated star beam to literally spotlight baby Jesus for viewers. The Virgin Mary, in comparison, fades into the shadows of this panel.

To summarize the images of Mary from Oxfordshire, she shifts from playing a varied role to being emphasized only as a mother. From the thirteenth century, one window survives—an image of the Virgin and child. In the fourteenth and fifteenth- century glass, Mary does many more things in the thirty surviving windows. We see her role in the Annunciation, the Crucifixion, and as the adoring mother, but we also see her assumption into heaven, her coronation as Queen of Heaven, her role as divine intercessor, and even her involvement in the conversion of a heretic through her own funeral. In the medieval Annunciation images, she carries her little book and she appears with symbols like the apple and her girdle. The windows from the sixteenth century, however, bring us full circle. These images are reminiscent of the thirteenth century window—perhaps not in style, but certainly in content. The five windows all depict the

Virgin with Christ and focus on Mary mostly as a mother. The diversity of action so proudly evinced in fourteenth and fifteenth century windows seems to have fallen out of favor by the sixteenth century, as the later stained glass emphasized the Virgin’s primary role as mother and de-emphasized her other activities.

It is interesting to note that as Mary’s role in late medieval stained glass became increasingly homogeneous, Christ’s roles followed an opposite trend. Pre-sixteenth century windows featuring Jesus mostly consisted of Christ’s Crucifixion, Christ in

Majesty, and the showing of wounds. The sixteenth century, however, saw the sudden appearance of images of Christ in the garden, being resurrected, Ecce Homo (images of

Christ crowned in thorns and sometimes showing crucifixion wounds), and in a Pieta in addition to the Crucifixion, Passion, and Majesty images.35

These simultaneous changes work well with Christine Peters’s argument: that piety became more focused on the divinity of Christ and the humanity of saints (not miracle-wielding divines) by the early modern era.36 This shift in focus, Peters suggests, irreparably damaged the cult of the saints and set the stage for Reformation-era ideas. In the glass, we see Mary engaging in fewer and fewer miraculous activities by the sixteenth century. Instead, she becomes more human—a mother. At the same time, Christ becomes more miraculous and active than in the earlier medieval glass. Changes in the stained glass of Oxfordshire thus support Christine Peter’s thesis about the rise of Christocentric piety in early modern England.

Peters, though, takes her argument a step further. She writes: “The paradox of the humanisation of the divine was an intensification of the sense of human inferiority and fallibility combined with an appreciation of the extent of divine mercy.”37 This sense of human inferiority, she argues, escalated so much that gender ceased to be as important in

35 See Appendix A, Table A.3.

36 Peters, Patterns of Piety, 345.

37 Ibid.

74 the minds of fifteenth and sixteenth century men and women. Christocentric piety

“...reduced the significance of gendered patterns of devotion.”38 Peters suggests that later images of the Virgin Mary become less gendered.39 Sixteenth century images in which the Virgin Mary engages with the adult Christ (Crucifixion, Pieta, etc.) appealed to both men and women in their humanity, she says. Earlier images, she posits, were more gendered because they tended to focus on the mother/infant child relationship.

However, based on Oxfordshire stained glass, this part of Peters’s argument doesn’t fit the evidence. I would suggest that sixteenth century window images of the

Virgin are more gender-focused than fourteenth and fifteenth century windows. As noted, in the existing sixteenth century windows, the Virgin Mary is always shown with her son.

Yes, her humanity is more apparent. She grieves at Crucifixion, she cradles her adult son in Pietas, she is not included in the divine starbeam in the Nativity scene at Balliol. That does not diminish the fact that in all of these activities, her singular role is as mother. In fourteenth and fifteenth century windows the Virgin Mary acts. Sometimes her actions take place outside the presence of Christ and focus on the broader community of both male and female parishioners. Thus the shifting patterns in stained glass at Oxfordshire only partially support Peters’s argument. The windows explored in the following section also provide further evidence for the continued significance of gender to late medieval churchgoers.

38 Ibid., 347.

39 Ibid., 346.

Saint Anne, Mary Magdalen, and Other Biblical Women

Saint Anne and Mary Magdalen are the second most popular female biblical characters in Oxfordshire stained glass. Saint Anne was most popular in the fourteenth and fifteenth centuries, while Mary Magdalen’s popularity peaked in the fifteenth and sixteenth. The county’s stained glass reveals deeper trends than this, however. The image of a penitent sinner—of woman ready for redemption, like Eve or Mary Magdalen— became more common by the late fifteenth and early sixteenth centuries. The usage of other stories which were not so easily manipulated into moralizing tales (like Saint

Anne’s) slowly faded out. Images of women who desperately needed Christ’s redemption replaced images of externally pious, active women as the Reformation approached.

Besides this, the general presentation of penitent women like Eve and Mary Magdalen changed in ways that images of externally pious women did not: repentant women become narrative in the late fifteenth and early sixteenth centuries, while images of externally pious biblical figures remained non-narrative in nature. Overall, biblical women appear consistently across centuries, but the particular women chosen shifts as does the context in which these women were portrayed.

The windows of Saint Anne all look very similar. She appears in a fourteenth century window at Marsh Baldon, and in fifteenth century windows at Beckley, All Souls

College, and Kidlington (see figures 3.16, 3.17, 3.18, and 3.19). In the Marsh Baldon window, Saint Anne holds a closed book in her left hand.40 A little Virgin Mary holds up an open book to Anne, who uses her right hand to point to the page. At Beckley, the

40 Peter A. Newton, The County of Oxford, 144–145.

76 scene is similar.41 The adolescent Virgin holds open a book, and her mother points to the page. The Virgin and her mother have softer facial expressions here; both look vaguely happy and content.

Figure 3.16. Marsh Baldon, Saint Anne. Source: Rex Harris, Marsh Baldon, Oxfordshire: Chancel, East Window, Detail - St Anne Teaching the Virgin to Read, C14, Photograph, February 24, 2011, https://www.flickr.com/photos/sheepdog_rex/5478901962/.

41 Ibid., 31–32.

Figure 3.17. Beckley, Saint Anne. Source: Rex Harris, Beckley, Oxfordshire: Nave, North Window, C15 - St Anne Teaching Virgin to Read, Photograph, May 11, 2012, https://www.flickr.com/photos/sheepdog_rex/7180805654/.

The window at All Souls is just the same, as is the window at Kidlington.42

Though the clothes and style of painting changes, the formulaic presentation of the Virgin and St Anne does not change at all as time progresses. Saint Anne doesn’t even change head coverings.

42 Ibid., 129; Hutchinson, Medieval Glass at All Souls College.

Portrayals of Mary Magdalen, on the other hand, do change over time. There are three fifteenth century windows of her: at All Souls College, New College, and at

Burford. In all three of these windows, Mary Magdalen holds a pot of spikenard, which

F.E. Hutchinson identifies as “...her almost invariable emblem” (see figure 3.20).43

Figure 3.18. All Souls College, Saint Anne. Source: Rex Harris, All Souls College, Oxford: Antechapel. East Windows on North Side, by John Glazier, 1440’s., Photograph, September 9, 2012, https://www.flickr.com/photos/sheepdog_rex/8051746112/in/photolist-dgvhY7-dgviAQ-dgvibt-dgvjc5- dgviDz-dPWP1v-phvREF-igR8Fb-pi5Rfs-nzgBqa-5YPN2g-6Ld8wd-2966KM-dBvEm5-bq652Y-gLp3H1- bq6537-pi5Rfh-iSpU9y-e3yKs2.

43 Mary Magdalen is the central figure. Salome is on the left; Anastasia on the right. Peter A. Newton, The County of Oxford, 54-55; Hutchinson, Medieval Glass at All Souls College, 30; Christopher Woodforde, The Stained Glass of New College, Oxford, 86–87.

Figure 3.19. Kidlington, Saint Anne. Source: Rex Harris, Kidlington, Oxfordshire: Chancel, East Window - Detail - Composite C15 Figures of St Anne Teaching the Virgin to Read, Photograph, August 20, 2012, https://www.flickr.com/photos/sheepdog_rex/7823676524/. Image cropped for detail.

That identification might hold true in these fifteenth century windows, but it does not apply to one of the two different sixteenth century windows at Balliol College

Chapel. In this window, a Crucifixion scene unfolds.44 Here, Mary Magdalen’s

44 Arnold, The Glass in Balliol College Chapel, p 8. Arnold notes that the glazier loosely copied sketches by Albrecht Durer (a famous, fifteenth century German painter/printmaker) for many of the windows at Balliol, including this one. Saint John, for example, is presented in almost the same way that Durer portrayed him. Arnold also notes that Mary Magdalen did not appear in the Durer drawing. This means that the glazier inserted the Magdalen at the request of the donor, or perhaps of his own volition. The insertion is interesting in this context; it is apparent that the Magdalen’s position and actions were contrived independently of the rest of the design, and that her inclusion in the Crucifixion scene was deemed necessary and important.

80 expression contrasts with the more reserved reaction of Saint John. The middle-aged

Magdalen clings to the wood as she prostrates herself at the Cross. She looks up towards

Christ—but looks no higher than His feet. Saint John, on the other hand, stands with his hands clasped at the foot of the Cross, head bowed. In the second window at Balliol

College, a younger-looking Mary Magdalen visits Christ’s tomb.45

Figure 3.20. All Souls College, Mary Magdalen. Source: Rex Harris, All Souls College, Oxford: Antechapel. East Windows on North Side, by John Glazier, 1440’s. Lower Tier : St Mary Salome, St Mary Magdalene, and St Anastasia. Restorations by Clayton and Bell in 1876-9 Are Very Difficult to Detect, Photograph, September 9, 2012, https://www.flickr.com/photos/sheepdog_rex/8051760333/.

45 Ibid., 12.

Here, she carries her faithful pot of spikenard, but there is an important difference.

Though most of the window does not exist anymore (the Magdalen is a free-standing figure these days), Arnold suggests that she was once a figure in a narrative scene like the

Crucifixion scene—a design which is wildly different from the still, canopied presentations we see earlier.

Other biblical women featured in Oxfordshire stained glass include Eve, Mary of

Egypt, Martha, Mary Cleopas, Mary Salome, and Elizabeth. Of these figures, only Eve survives in more than one window. She appears at New College (fifteenth century) and

South Leigh (sixteenth century.) Like the sixteenth century Magdalen windows, the Eve fragments at South Leigh were once part of a narrative panel.46 The bits of surviving glass include the partial heads of Adam and Eve, as well as a spade and a part of a spindle. The iconography of this scene is “standard,” according to Newton, though this glass at South Leigh is the only example of an Adam and Eve narrative panel in the county.47 The older Eve window at New College, on the other hand, is more complete

(see figure 3.21).48 Both she and Adam stand motionless under canopies; she spins, and he holds a long spade.

So, in general, we see more images of Mary Magdalen and fewer images of Saint

Anne at the approach of the sixteenth century. Additionally, the fifteenth century seems to be a peak for diversity amongst biblical women, though the fourteenth also saw a larger variety of women than the thirteenth or sixteenth centuries. The presentation of

46 Peter A. Newton, The County of Oxford, 173–174.

47 Ibid., 174; Christine Peters, Patterns of Piety: Women, Gender and Religion in Late Medieval and Reformation England (Cambridge: Cambridge University Press, 2009), 132.

48 Christopher Woodforde, The Stained Glass of New College, Oxford, 67.

82 women like the Magdalen and Eve also becomes less formulaic and more narrative as centuries progress, though presentations of women like Saint Anne remain unchanged.

Figure 3.21. New College, Eve. Source: Rex Harris, New College, Oxford: Antechapel - N Aisle, W Window. Adam and Eve., Photograph, December 1, 2009, https://www.flickr.com/photos/sheepdog_rex/4152806767/.

The fluctuating iconographic presentations of biblical women in Oxfordshire might seem less random when understood in light of an argument made by Peters. She

83 suggests that medieval men and women in later centuries shifted away from rigid understandings of gender roles, due to an increasingly Christocentric form of piety.49

Because of their looser approach to gender roles and a greater focus on individual responsibility, late medieval men and women were less apt to judge the sins of women like Mary Magdalen or Eve. Instead of mentally relegating these women to “the pit,” as it were, the late medieval viewer would be inclined to contextualize the sin, devotion, and ultimate redemption of these women. Context, Peters argues, allows for “...the possibility of two interpretations...” In other words, even if a medieval viewer still wholeheartedly believed Eve’s consummate culpability for the Fall, the fact that another person would have the option of disagreeing is significant.50

Shifting understandings of the relationship between gender and sin explain why portrayals of women like Eve and the Magdalen change while Saint Anne’s remains constant. Mary Magdalen’s story relies heavily on her reputation as a sinful woman. She was seen as the epitome of womanly weakness: a vain, lustful prostitute.51 Similarly, Eve was seen as both the mother of all men, and the mother of all sin.52 Their failings were the focus of earlier medieval thought. In windows, they stand still and unmoving—as if they do not want to draw more attention to themselves than absolutely necessary. It is apparent that donors did not feel the need to spend more money on narrative-type panels featuring these women. In later medieval thought, however, the possibility of redemption

49 Peters, Patterns of Piety, 151.

50 Ibid.

51 Jansen, The Making of the Magdalen: Preaching and Popular Devotion in the Later Middle Ages, pp 58, 239.

52 Ibid, 58.

84 through penance offers hope to the doomed sinner. Eve and the Magdalen come alive in these later windows; Mary Magdalen pursues Christ, devotedly following him to the foot of the Cross and to his tomb. Similarly, Eve spins her wool while Adam digs. Though the iconography of spinning did have a negative connotation as being punishment for original sin, the imagery also held positive connotations, including humbleness and virtue.53

Conversely, the story of Saint Anne does not rely on her reputation as a sinful woman. In fact, her reputation is quite the opposite—she is the revered mother of England’s favorite

Christian female. The imagery did not have to change for Saint Anne, because the medieval understanding of her role in the Christian story did not shift.

This argument alone does not account for why window images of Saint Anne disappear in the sixteenth century, while pictures of the Magdalen become more common. Blending Peters’s line of reasoning with Jansen’s argument in The Making of the Magdalen explains this trend. Jansen contends that the late Middle Ages saw the development of Mary Magdalen’s vita, which was employed by preachers and clerics as a moralizing tale that both encouraged listeners to do penance and offered a message of hope.54 More importantly, it provided male teachers an opportunity to create a message that allowed them to control women and their actions.55 Mary Magdalen, Jansen writes, became an exemplar of “perfect penance” and confession.56 It is easy to imagine that the

53 Julia Bolton Holloway and Constance S. Wright, Equally in God’s Image: Women in the Middle Ages (New York: Peter Lang Publishing, 1990), 32.

54 Jansen, The Making of the Magdalen: Preaching and Popular Devotion in the Later Middle Ages, 168–196.

55 Ibid., 184.

56 Jansen, The Making of the Magdalen: Preaching and Popular Devotion in the Later Middle Ages, chapter 7.

85 stories of Mary Magdalen and of Eve were easier to manipulate into penitent sinner- narratives, than would be the story of a woman like Saint Anne. This shift towards portraying penitential women rather than externally pious ones reflects changes in attitudes towards women and their piety. The windows show that by the sixteenth century, the brand of active piety demonstrated by Saint Anne was no longer acceptable for women to imitate. Rather, the windows endorsed a repentance-focused sort of piety.

It is interesting to note that emphasis on the motherhood of women like Saint

Anne (mother of the Virgin Mary), Mary Cleopas (mother of James the Less), or Mary

Salome (mother of James and John) did not increase as time passed. One might have thought that the rising importance of the family hierarchy and emphasis on holy motherhood (exemplars like Saint Elizabeth, for example) would have been reflected in the lives of these biblical women as well. Possibly, images of these women as mothers were less popular because motherhood appeared frequently enough in donor portraits and non-biblical saint images.57 Another explanation could be that the cult of the saints (as previously noted) took precedence over these biblical women. The stories of biblical women were less popular in general by the fifteenth and sixteenth centuries than stories of non-biblical saints. For whatever reason, their stories did not appeal to a broad enough audience for them to be emphasized in stained glass.

57 Remember from the previous chapter that images of donor women and their children begin to appear with much more frequency in the fifteenth and sixteenth centuries.

Conclusion

Peters grants that gender was not “unimportant in structuring late medieval experience.”58 However, she contends that gender was an “optional extra” in late medieval thinking.59 Hopefully it is apparent to readers that gender was, in fact, still a significant factor in determining the likability of certain saints in the late medieval period.

As time progressed, certain stories danced in and out of favor. Undoubtedly, late medieval men and women had different concerns than their earlier counterparts.

Realizations about both the unattainable divinity of Christ and the humanity of adored saints took its toll on late medieval ideology. The development of Christocentric piety, however, does not mean that those men and women abandoned their opinions about appropriate gender roles or the church hierarchy. Perhaps women like Saint Anne, Mary of Egypt, Martha, and Mary Salome fell out of favor not because their gender was no longer significant but rather because their stories were not easy to weave into penitential, quiet, devout narratives.

The sixteenth century depictions of the Virgin Mary, Mary Magdalen, and even

Eve were narrative. They were meant to be used as exemplars; they were meant to be inspiration to late medieval viewers. The next chapter will show the extent to which gender was important to medieval viewers by providing further evidence for the trend of slowly silencing the loud, defiant, physical actions of women saints in the sixteenth century.

58 Peters, Patterns of Piety, 346.

59 Ibid.

CHAPTER FOUR

Violence, Gender, and the Function of Non-biblical Saints in the Medieval Church

Introduction

There is a popular children’s game wherein two seemingly identical images are presented side by side. However, upon closer observation, subtle differences between the images become apparent. The point of the game is to notice as many differences between the images as possible. For example, the first image might show a man holding a baseball bat, while the second might show him holding a baseball bat-shaped snake. This simple children’s game shows that sometimes, it is subtle differences between images that are the most significant. After all, a picture of a man holding a baseball bat tells quite a different story than one of a man holding a snake!

In a similar way, images of parallel subjects in stained glass illuminate differences between masculine and feminine piety that might remain hidden otherwise. Though the differences are often more nuanced, they are still observable. In this section of the thesis,

I compare images of non-biblical men to similar images of non-biblical women to see what discrepancies might exist between depictions of the two sexes. The differences, I believe, speak to the complicated and changing mindsets regarding gender that prevailed from the Medieval to the Early Modern period. They reveal several trends that are crucial to understanding this thesis.

First, these windows reveal that there were indeed different expectations for expressions of male and female piety, a finding that further validates the work of many

88 scholars.1 For example, windows featuring Saints George or Michael conquering their devilish dragons are almost always appreciably different from windows that feature Saint

Margaret conquering a dragon. These different expectations remained consistent across centuries. Based on the windows, it would seem that though both male and female bodies could be acted upon violently, typically only men expressed piety through purely violent acts.

Second, the way that non-biblical saints were portrayed physically changed as well. We see several male saints actually performing miracles or pious deeds in both early and late windows. However, in early windows, we do not see any narrative scenes with non-biblical women. In later windows, though, women were shown personally performing pious or miraculous deeds. In other words, windows showing women like

Saint Catherine or other female saints generally become more lively and narrative in nature as the centuries progress, while images of male saints like Birinus and Alban were often narrative to begin with. That said, the increasing narrative nature of female panels most definitely did not correlate with an increase in portrayals of feminine acts of physical power or physical ability. Rather, the later narrative panels depicting these female saints tend to highlight the women’s piety and constant reliance on God for strength.

Perhaps most importantly, however, the windows analyzed here show that the figures included in windows varied over the centuries not only by type (biblical versus non-biblical), but also by gender. Types favored for each gender shifted independently

1 See for example, Christine Peters, Women in Early Modern Britain, 1450-1640 (New York: Palgrave Macmillan, 2004), 132; Peters, Patterns of Piety, 195; Tracy, Women of the Gilte Legende: A Selection of Middle English Saints Lives, 6, 20–21.

89 from one another. In the previous chapter, it is noted that usage of both male and female non-biblical figures increased from the thirteenth to fifteenth century, with an especially sharp uptick in usage in the fifteenth. In this chapter, we explore this trend, as well as the fact that usage of male non-biblical figures dropped compared to usage of non-biblical female figures in the sixteenth century. Similarly, usage of male non-biblical figures was never as high proportionally as usage of female non-biblical figures.

The first two factors—consistency in portrayals of female aversion to violence across time, and consistency in portrayals of non-narrative, internalized female piety across time—suggest that internalized forms of spirituality and piety for women did not suddenly spring forth at the Reformation. Rather, these forms of piety were deemed appropriate from the thirteenth century. However, the third trend—a steady shift towards using these internally pious images more frequently in the fifteenth and sixteenth centuries—implies that this internalized form of piety for women became entrenched, required, and necessary for women to engage in acts of religious piety as the Reformation approached. Overall, the consistencies in imagery reflect the fact that ideas and opinions did not change dramatically or rapidly. The changes, on the other hand, show that the transformations that did occur had repercussions for women and their spiritual lives.

Dragon Killers: Gender and Physical Power

In Oxfordshire glass, there are many opportunities to examine similarities and differences between expressions of masculine and feminine piety amongst non-biblical figures. Margaret and George allow for especially fruitful examinations of violence, since their legends involve a struggle with and the slaying of a dragon. Though the Archangel

Michael is a character in the Bible, he is also included here, since he fights a dragon as

90 well. To Medieval and Early Modern viewers, the dragon symbolized the Devil— struggling with and slaying such a beast represented the conquering of evil and death.2 In

Oxfordshire, scholars have identified the existence of roughly three depictions of St

Michael, five of St George, and six of St Margaret.3 There are a number of dragons woven throughout the grisailles and backgrounds of other windows, but they only interact with these three characters.

The three windows featuring St Michael are located at North Leigh, St Mary, at

Dorchester Abbey of Saints Peter and Paul, and at Balliol College Chapel. The window at

Dorchester is early fourteenth century, while the extremely fragmented window at North

Leigh dates to 1440 (see figure 4.1).4 In fact, all that remains of the window there is a bit of the head of a six-legged monster.5 Though that window doesn’t reveal much, the window at Dorchester proves more interesting. In this window, we see a canopied

Michael towering over his prey, forcefully impaling the dragon with a tall cross-staff.6

The dragon itself is writhing and its whole body is a deep, bloody, crimson color. It appears to be wrapped around Michael’s legs with the bulk of its body and tail on

Michael’s right, and its slender, snake-like head rearing back on his left. The dragon is just as finely detailed as St Michael; Michael’s curly golden hair and feathery wings

2 Benton, Janetta Reobld Benton, The Medieval Menagerie: Animals in the Art of the Middle Ages (New York: Abbeville Press Publishers, 1992); Heather Gilderdale, “Panel of the Month: Saint George at St George’s Church, Kelmscott, Oxfordshire,” ed. Tim Ayres, Vidimus, no. 1 (November 2006), http://vidimus.org/issues/issue-01/panel-of-the-month/.

3 See the gazette and notes in Osborne, Stained Glass in England; Marks, Stained Glass in England during the Middle Ages; Peter A. Newton, The County of Oxford.

4 Peter A. Newton, The County of Oxford, 79.

5 Peter A. Newton, The County of Oxford, 169.

6 Ibid. Newton notes that the image of the cross-staff, rather than a spear, is uncommon, but not unheard of.

91 contrast with the dragon’s scales and sharp, bared teeth. It is clear in this image that both characters are important, but there is no doubt left to the viewer’s imagination about who the victor of this battle is: Michael has defeated the dragon.

Figure 4.1. Dorchester, Saint Michael. Source. Rex Harris, Dorchester-on-Thames, Oxfordshire: Michael, Photograph, February 24, 2011, https://www.flickr.com/photos/sheepdog_rex/5478036675/.

In the third image of Saint Michael, he wields a sword (which appears fragmented in the composite panel) and stands at the edge of a giant pool of blood. This window, originally installed in Balliol College in 1529, suffered damage and was restored (see

92 figure 4.2).7 Because of this, the dragon is no longer a part of the composition. However, it is clear that the dragon was once at his feet, as is evidenced by the tiny bit of what appears to be a tail and other glass still remaining. This panel conforms beautifully to sixteenth century stylistic norms. The feathers in his wings, the ornate tunic and headpiece, and the fashionable hairstyle are all indicative of this.8

Figure 4.2. Balliol College, Saint Michael. Source: Rex Harris, Balliol College, Oxford: Chapel - St Michael, Photograph, February 9, 2010, https://www.flickr.com/photos/sheepdog_rex/4345944653/.

7 Arnold, The Glass in Balliol College Chapel.

8 Arnold, Stained Glass of the Middle Ages in England and France.

Additionally, this panel is quite dramatic and narrative. The narrative nature of the panel contrasts with the stilted depiction at Dorchester. There, Michael is turned mostly towards the front and the actual killing of the dragon seems to have already occurred.

Here, Michael’s arm is still lifted. He stands with shoulders bent slightly forward. Here, the artist rendered the moment immediately before Michael delivers the kill shot to Satan masquerading as the dragon.

Overall, the images of Saint Michael show a triumphant conqueror, reliant on his own strength. This is not surprising; after all, Saint Michael kills the dragon in the story.

However, it is important to consider the Saint Michael images because they contrast so sharply with images of a female dragon-slayer. The differences show that artists consistently portrayed women and men committing violent acts in the name of God differently.

Of the five windows that once depicted St George in Oxfordshire, only three are useful for this chapter: the windows at Burford St John the Baptist, at Kelmscott, and at

Merton College Chapel. The other two windows in Adderbury and in Hardwick are considered here but, as reasons will be made clear, are not significant for this thesis.

The St George window at Burford dates to somewhere between 1450 and 1475

(see figure 4.3).9 The stance that George takes in this window is similar to St Michael’s stance at Dorchester; George stands and spears a dragon that is under his feet. Unlike

Michael who appears robed, George wears ornate armor; a typical presentation for a late fifteenth-century knight.10 He also has an impressive beard and looks rather angry

9 Peter A. Newton, The County of Oxford, 54.

10 Heather Gilderdale, “Panel of the Month: Saint George at St George’s Church, Kelmscott, Oxfordshire.”

(contrasting with the very passive face of Saint Michael.) The jumbled glass (caused by damage and restoration) makes clear identification difficult, but either a horse is mixed into the imagery or the dragon originally had horse-like legs.

Figure 4.3. Burford, Saint George. Source: Rex Harris, Burford, Oxfordshire, Photograph, January 31, 2011, https://www.flickr.com/photos/sheepdog_rex/5408355705/. Image cropped for detail.

George’s stance appears more impressive in the mid-fifteenth century window at

Kelmscott (see figure 4.4).11 Here, the triumphant conqueror sits high on a horse and

11 Peter A. Newton, The County of Oxford, 124. Newton guesses at the date based on the look of the armor and on the dates of similar surrounding windows.

95 spears the dragon from a safe perch. Though the horseback pose employed here is more impressive than a normal standing pose, George does not have the same striking presence in this window that he does in others. This is perhaps because he is so small in comparison to the dragon and his horse; together, the dragon and George’s mount take up three quarters of the composition.

Figure 4.4. Kelmscott, Saint George. Source: Rex Harris, Kelmscott, Oxfordshire: George, Photograph, July 1, 2009, https://www.flickr.com/photos/sheepdog_rex/3742861493/. Image cropped for detail.

Though this window was restored in 1975—George got a new right foot and the dragon got part of his head back—the composition is original.12 To this viewer, it looks

12 Ibid.

96 like the composition’s designer wanted to really emphasize the powerful dragon in this battle. Again, George is armored, but he lacks the beard that he had at Burford.

The final useful (at least to this thesis) depiction of Saint George is at Merton

College Chapel in Oxford.13 This window is early fifteenth century, and is part of a grouping of several male saints. Saint George is quite stoic in this depiction, but also a very skilled warrior. He is so skilled, in fact, that he doesn’t even have to look at the dragon while spearing the beast. George stands with one foot forward and he gazes off and up to the left. His right hand rests on his sheathed sword. Beneath his feet is a dog- sized dragon. The dragon sits on its belly with its head lifted up in the air. George nonchalantly spears the dragon through the mouth with the spear in his left hand. The saint does not deign to look at his conquered enemy. In this composition, the emphasis is entirely focused on the power and victory of the saint, rather than on his struggle with the devil. Like in the Saint Michael images and in the other images of Saint George, this man exudes a power that is paralleled in images from the medieval through the Early Modern eras.

The last two images of St. George are not as clearly useful to this thesis. One is at

Adderbury St Mary the Virgin.14 The figure is half-length, turned to face the left, and is wearing armor. He has a sword and a shield, and one hand was once raised in a blessing or in greeting. However, it is impossible to be certain of the identity of this saint, because there are no identifying features other than the armor, and the glass is only partially complete. Scholars like Newton think this is probably a depiction of Saint George,

13 Tim Ayers, The Medieval Stained Glass of Merton College, Oxford, Slp edition (Oxford: British Academy, 2013).

14 Peter A. Newton, The County of Oxford, 21.

97 primarily because of the armor.15 However, there are other figures who might have been shown wearing armor. It is also impossible to know if a slain dragon once sprawled at the figure’s feet. Without the dragon or a positive identification, this figure offers less insight than the previous three images.

The fifth and final figure from Hardwick, St Mary dates to sometime before

1660.16 This window is the least useful for the purposes of this paper, because it no longer exists. However, scholar P. Newton located a description of the glass in a manuscript from 1660:

“In the chancell in the Northe Windowe is a person of St George, with glory round the head with yellow haire, cloathed in Green and Purple, with a pastoral staffe killing a redd dragon.”17

That said, Newton also writes, “The north window [identification of] St George is suspect. A figure in green and purple garments, presumably not in armour, killing a dragon with a pastoral staff is more likely to have been a St Catherine.”18 Newton’s suggestion that the window might have depicted Saint Catherine is intriguing. It is surprising that he didn’t propose Margaret as a possibility, since windows featuring

Margaret with a dragon are significantly more common than windows featuring

Catherine and a dragon. In fact, there aren’t any windows in Oxfordshire depicting such a scene. Additionally, Margaret is commonly depicted with a cross-staff. At any rate, the window is gone now. It is impossible to determine whether the author of the manuscript incorrectly identified Saint Catherine/Margaret, or if he/she was privy to more

15 Ibid.

16 Ibid, 105-107.

17 Ibid, 105.

18 Ibid, 106.

98 information that might confirm George’s identity. The surviving and clearly identifiable images of St. George and St. Michael, however, show these saints as valiant heroes who successfully (and violently) kill their dragons.

Fortunately, there are some definite depictions of Saint Margaret that provide clear comparison with the pictures of Saints Michael and George. However, the depictions of Saint Margaret differ in some significant ways. In all of the existing windows of Saint Michael and Saint George we see the two males either in the act of killing the dragon, or we see them towering over a recently deceased dragon. Moreover, they always look directly towards the vanquished dragon (with the exception of the depiction of Saint George at Merton College.) Contrastingly, the images of Saint

Margaret are less likely to involve violence. Furthermore, she always looks to her cross- staff or out towards the viewer rather than at the dragon (with the possible exception of the window at Binsey.) Thus St. Margaret seems both less violent and less directly engaged with the violent act of dragon killing.

At Begbroke, St Michael, Saint Margaret is hidden among a crowd of other saintly men and women on a small sixteenth century Flemish roundel.19 In the center of the window, the Virgin is crowned by the Trinity. Forty-five saints are crowded around the margins of the roundel, identifiable by their unique iconography. There is no dragon here—Margaret is distinguished only by her cross-staff. Margaret, along with her forty- five companions, gazes directly out towards the viewer. Again, Saint Margaret’s cross- staff and her gaze are the focus of this work. Nothing about this window suggests that

Saint Margaret ever slayed a dragon.

19 Ibid, 34.

Similarly, at Binsey there is a composite figure made up of glass from the second quarter of the fifteenth century (see figure 4.5).20 Though it is hard to tell, this is probably an image of Saint Margaret as well. The window is lichen-encrusted, the figure’s head is split, and the glass was accidentally installed inside out by an early restorer.21 However, the woman is nimbed, and there is a cross-staff painted on the same bit of glass as part of her face. The nimbus combined with the cross-staff and the fact that this is a woman make it highly likely that this is a depiction of Saint Margaret. Interestingly, Saint

Margaret’s gaze is downcast in this window. Since we have only fragments, it is impossible to know definitely if she once looked at a dragon.

Figure 4.5. Binsey, Saint Margaret. Source: Rex Harris, St Margaret’s, Binsey, Oxford, Photograph, September 8, 2012, https://www.flickr.com/photos/sheepdog_rex/8027745387/.

20 Ibid, 37.

21 Peter A. Newton, The County of Oxford, 37; Osborne, Stained Glass in England, 200.

100

Saint Margaret once appeared in a North window at All Souls College as well.

However, the glass was lost—likely, it was thrown out when the chapel was redecorated in 1716.22 That said, Saint Margaret was glazed by the same person who glazed all the other windows in this chapel, and thus it is highly likely that she is portrayed in a way consistent with the portrayal with the other female saints there.23 If she looks like the other saints in this cohort, she is probably standing under a canopy and gazing straight out towards the viewer. The window definitely would not be narrative in nature, and would likely not include an image of the dragon.

Of all of the depictions of Saint Margaret in Oxfordshire, the circa 1350 window that features her at Christ Church Cathedral in Oxford looks the most similar to the depictions of Saints Michael and George.24 The window is part of a pair; Margaret’s counterpart is Saint Catherine. In this beautiful window, Margaret wears dark green robes trimmed with gold. The trim matches her golden hair and cross-staff. She tramples the diminutive, crimson-winged dragon under her feet, and sticks her staff through its open mouth. She bows her head slightly and looks directly at the cross on her staff rather than her prey. She is no victim here: here, she conquers. Even so, Saint Margaret’s fixed gaze at the Cross reminds viewers that Margaret does not look to herself for strength, but rather to Christ.

22 Hutchinson, Medieval Glass at All Souls College, 16.

23 All the figures at All Souls are canopied, standing, and identifiable by an iconographic cue. For example, Saint Catherine holds a miniature wheel and Saint Anne has a small book. See Figures 3.12 or 3.19 for a general idea of how most figures look.

24 Osborne, Stained Glass in England, 205.

101

An early sixteenth century window at Oriel College in Oxford looks very much like the window at Christ Church Cathedral (see figure 4.6).25 Margaret stands in the same pose, and wears robes of a deep greenish-blue trimmed with gold. The little dragon at her feet looks straight up at her as she pierces it through the mouth with her staff. She does not, however, return its gaze. Instead, she looks to the cross at the top of her staff. She does not bow her head at all. It is almost as if she transfixed herself with the staff, rather than the dragon.

Figure 4.6. Oriel College, Saint Margaret. Source: Rex Harris, Oriel College Chapel, Oxford, Photograph, February 19, 2014, https://www.flickr.com/photos/sheepdog_rex/12637264465/.

25 Ibid., 208.

102

In part of a larger series of female saints at Burford, Saint John the Baptist, there is a tracery panel of Saint Margaret. The series dates to the fifteenth century, and includes the Virgin, Mary Magdalen, Barbara, and an unidentified woman.26 The window is a composite panel, but it is still easy to see Margaret standing over the small dragon at her feet and impaling it through the mouth. Here again, Margaret appears to gaze at the top of her cross-staff (which is just below eye-level) rather than at the dying dragon at her feet.

Again, Margaret looks to Christ for her salvation. She has no misconceptions about the origins of her strength.

A final depiction of Saint Margaret and the dragon remains at Balliol (see figure

4.7).27 This is one of the most beautiful depictions of Saint Margaret in Oxfordshire, and is by far the most extraordinary and detailed depiction of her dragon. In the window

Margaret stands or sits calmly, and looks very serene as the dragon rests at her feet.28 The green dragon looks more like a beloved pet pony than a crafty foe. Its tail snakes up the side of the image, and curls around towards Margaret’s shoulder. Margaret doesn’t look like a dragon-killer; in fact, her cross-staff doesn’t even appear to be touching the dragon.

The beast certainly doesn’t have its head thrown back in defeated agony as it does in most other windows. Instead, the dragon looks off to the left, while Saint Margaret gazes out towards the viewer.

26 Peter A. Newton, The County of Oxford, 51, 56.

27 Arnold, The Glass in Balliol College Chapel.

28 It’s hard to tell whether she sits or stands because her legs aren’t around anymore, and lots of draperied glass fills the place where they used to be.

103

Figure 4.7. Balliol College, Saint Margaret. Source: Rex Harris, Balliol College, Oxford: Chapel - Seven Figures, St Margaret, Photograph, February 9, 2010, https://www.flickr.com/photos/sheepdog_rex/4345941975/.

Though the differences between the Saints George and Michael portraits and the

Saint Margaret portrait might seem negligible to some, they tell much about medieval understandings of the male and female piety. Is it mere coincidence that in only one of the Oxfordshire windows Margaret looks towards the dragon while she dispatches him?29

29 She probably looks to the dragon in the window at Binsey, c 1550.

104

Perhaps. Or perhaps, Margaret’s consistent gaze towards the cross, rather than towards the dragon, embodies a trend noted by scholar Larissa Tracy.

Through her comparison of late medieval saint stories with early modern tales,

Tracy argues that a shift occurs in narratives about female saints that exemplifies submissive behavior in women and de-emphasizes martyrdom.30 Early women saints (like

Christina, Dorothy, Margaret, and Paula) were noted for their noble births as well as physical beauty.31 They sacrificed beauty and comfort for their faiths, and often suffered physical torture and gruesome deaths. In later years, Tracy writes, the church was more liable to highlight women like Saint Elizabeth. Instead of becoming an actual martyr,

Elizabeth sacrifices her marriage, relationship with her children, and her noble status in order to claim neo-virginity and a relationship with God.32

In her description of Saint Margaret, Tracy highlights Saint Margaret’s power and unique abilities. She writes: “it is her [Margaret’s] strength of will and devotion that allows her to triumph, and though she is a women, she is given the power, through her speech and actions, to defeat her foe.”33 In the version of Saint Margaret’s story found in

Caxton’s Golden Legend, we read:

“And thenne appyered an horryble dragon, and assayled her, and wold haue deuoured her, but she made the signe of the crosse, and anon he vanyssyd away. And in another place it is sayde that he swolowed her in to his bely, she makyng the signe of the crosse. And the bely brake a sondre and so she yssued out all hool

30 Tracy, Women of the Gilte Legende: A Selection of Middle English Saints Lives.

31 Ibid., 8.

32 Ibid., 12.

33 Ibid., 40.

105

and sound. This swolowyng an brekyng of the bely of the dragon is said that it is apocryfum.”34

There is no denying that Margaret relies entirely on Christ for her strength to defeat the dragon, both in the Oxfordshire windows and in this story. This teller of this tale relates that Margaret doesn’t even physically touch the dragon—she merely appeals to Christ and the dragon poofs away. The window-makers also emphasize this point by only allowing her to look towards the symbol of her Savior. Her sheer force of will and devotion is enough to send Satan away.

Saint Margaret’s story, of course, does not end with her defeat of the dragon. In the next section of the story, she confronts Satan again. This time, Satan takes on the form of a man. Somewhat surprisingly, we read that “She [Margaret] caught hym by the hede, and threwe hym to the ground, & sette her ryght fote on his necke saying Lye styl thou fende vnder the feet of a woman.”35 Yes, you read that correctly! In the story,

Margaret slams Satan to the ground and stomps on his head. Tracy rightly points out

Margaret’s defiance in this story—the physicality of which is unrivaled by almost all other women saint stories.36

It seems striking that this element of physicality, which is so prominent in the apocryphal tale, is almost completely absent in the Oxfordshire windows featuring

Margaret. Whatever we make of the Margaret window at Binsey, the rest of the

Oxfordshire glass depicting Margaret definitely shows us a difference between

34 William Caxton, The Golden Legend (London: Kelmscott Press, Hammersmith, 1892), 617, http://college.holycross.edu/projects/kempe/related/st_margaret/sm617.htm.

35 William Caxton, The Golden Legend.

36 Tracy, Women of the Gilte Legende: A Selection of Middle English Saints Lives, 40.

106 expectations for men and women. Male saints looked at their conquered prey while women looked away from the violence.

Glaziers were clearly capable of depicting physical struggles between a person and a dragon. The men with dragons—Saints Michael and George—trample dragons with horses, impale dragons through the mouth, and swing swords and spears at their quarry.

They defeat their demons without staring towards God in their moment of violence or triumph. At Balliol, for example, Saint Michael freed himself from his tormentor with a vigorous swing of his sword. We also know that glaziers often used the same cartoon over and over again to depict similar scenes.37 So why did the glazier at Balliol College

(who created both the Saint Michael and Saint Margaret windows there) not simply use the same cartoon for both the Saint Margaret and Saint Michael windows? Surely it would have been easier. Instead, we see a window in which the dragon rests calmly at

Margaret’s feet. Margaret’s less physical defiance at Balliol College is highlighted not only by her gaze, but also by the activity of her male counterpart.

Comparing Margaret window panels with other panels which depict Saint

Michael and Saint George highlights Margaret’s reliance on Christ’s power. The fact that

Margaret is not depicted in the same way as the men suggests that someone—perhaps the glaziers, or perhaps the patrons of the glass—believed that women and men ought to interact differently with dragons. Over the course of several centuries, glaziers and glass patrons in Oxfordshire consistently chose to emphasize this dependence on Christ rather than Margaret’s uniquely vocal and acutely physical encounter with Satan. Margaret was

37 Marks, Stained Glass in England during the Middle Ages, 33. For example, see the identical Virgin and Child windows in Fladbury and Warndon (Marks, Plate 1) p 103. A cartoon is a sketch that is used to plan how a window will look before the window is constructed. These sketches were shared and passed around, which means that many design elements were copied and repeated many times.

107 more likely to be depicted gazing at her cross-staff than to be looking at the dragon.

Perhaps her gaze towards the cross rather than at her prey is a reminder to viewers that women—who might be mere “tendre virgynes”—ought to look to Christ for their strength and power.38 Margaret’s consistent gaze towards Christ suggests that she is fully dependent on him to overcome her dragon.

Gender in Narrative Windows

Though the presentation of feminine reliance on Christ did not change as centuries progressed, the stylistic format of windows featuring women did. By comparing male and female presentation in windows we see how glaziers chose to present non- biblical male and female saints. Glaziers could either create narrative windows, or they could produce non-narrative windows that relied on iconography to convey a story. Saint

Catherine is an excellent woman to focus this part of the study on, as she appears in

Oxfordshire windows from three different centuries. We will also consider the other female saints, like Barbara, Etheldreda, and Frideswide. Comparing all these windows to windows of male saints that span that span the Reformation era demonstrates that women were presented differently to viewers in a clear progression from exclusively biblical women to including non-biblical women. Men do not follow this pattern. Specifically, there are no narrative scenes of non-biblical female saints until the sixteenth century.

However, there are a number of narrative scenes depicting male saints dating back to the early thirteenth century. This pattern indicates that, though internally pious female exemplars always existed, there was a shift towards including more examples of these quieter women in stained glass windows as the Reformation approached. This shift shows

38 Tracy, Women of the Gilte Legende: A Selection of Middle English Saints Lives, 42.

108 that images of women exhibiting internalized piety gained popularity during the fifteenth and sixteenth centuries, indicating a shift towards a more internalized form of feminine piety generally.

The earliest depictions of Saint Catherine in Oxfordshire are at Christ Church

Cathedral.39 The two windows are fourteenth century, but were not installed at the same time. In one mid-fourteenth century window, Catherine holds a miniature wheel in her right hand (see figure 4.8). She is turned three-quarters left and looks at her wheel. In her left hand, she holds a sword with the tip pointed towards the ground. She is canopied, crowned, and has a name banner. The banner emphasizes her identity.

Figure 4.8. Christ Church Cathedral, Early Saint Catherine. Source: Rex Harris, Christ Church Cathedral, Oxford: Catherine, Photograph, October 26, 2011, https://www.flickr.com/photos/sheepdog_rex/6283599070/.

39 Osborne, Stained Glass in England, 205.

109

The other window, which is possibly a little later but still fourteenth century, is very similar (see figure 4.9). Here, Catherine is also canopied and holding a miniature wheel and a sword tip downwards. She is facing towards an image of the Virgin and

Child, but her gaze is focused on the wheel in her hand.

Figure 4.9. Christ Church Cathederal, Later Saint Catherine. Source: Rex Harris, Christ Church Cathedral, Oxford - St Catherine, Photograph, October 26, 2011, https://www.flickr.com/photos/sheepdog_rex/6283051647/.

In a fifteenth century window at All Souls, Catherine is depicted holding the instruments of her martyrdom.40 She, like all the other figures, stands under an ornate

40 Hutchinson, Medieval Glass at All Souls College, 33.

110 canopy. There is a name banner directly beneath her figure, which further emphasizes her identity, much like the Catherine windows at Christ Church Cathedral. Note that in all of the windows of Catherine examined thus far, she is a stationary figure. These windows are unmoving portraits. In these windows, Catherine does not act. Rather, she alludes to her actions by holding objects that serve to remind viewers of her story.

Contrastingly, an impressively large set of six window panels feature Saint

Catherine’s martyrdom. The windows date to 1529, and are located at Balliol College

(see figures 4. 10 and 4.11).41 Each of the panels illustrates a different scene: Catherine before the wheel, scourged, beheaded, imprisoned, enthroned, and being buried by angels. Apparently, the glazier of these panels was familiar with Albrecht Dürer’s engravings, because all the panels are based in Dürer’s style.42 However, all of the depictions of Catherine are original; nothing was directly copied from Dürer, which allows for a close examination of the glazier’s (or commissioner’s) personal interpretation of Saint Catherine’s martyrdom.43

In the first, Catherine kneels and clasps her hands, praying to God as she faces the wheel which is meant to torture her. In the second, the scourge, Catherine’s hands are bound behind her back, but her head appears to be reverently turned downward. In the third scene, Catherine kneels atop a grassy hill beneath the shade of a stand of trees: hands bound, breast heaving. Behind her stands the executioner. He holds his sword at the ready. Her eyes are covered, but her lips are parted; she makes a final plea to God.

41 Arnold, The Glass in Balliol College Chapel.

42 Ibid., 7–8. Albrecht Dürer was a late fifteenth/early sixteenth century German painter/printmaker. His prints were internationally renowned, and would have been accessible to English artists during this period.

43 Arnold, The Glass in Balliol College Chapel.

111

Figure 4.10. Balliol College, Detail of Saint Catherine. Source: Rex Harris, Balliol College, Oxford: Chapel - Scenes from Legend of St Katherine, 1529. From Left : Breaking of the Wheels; St Katherine Bound to a Column and Scourged; and Decapitation of St Katherine, Photograph, February 9, 2010, https://www.flickr.com/photos/sheepdog_rex/4346719422/. Image cropped for detail.

In the fourth, Catherine is shown converting a noblewoman during her imprisonment (possibly Faustina, wife of the Emperor who had Catherine imprisoned.) In the fifth, she is enthroned in heavenly glory, and in the sixth, her lifeless body is placed into a coffin by angels.

These gorgeous narrative panels are shockingly different from the earlier, stilted portraits of Catherine in the other chapels. Those early Catherine portraits have many, many parallels with windows featuring other non-biblical women saints in Oxfordshire.

In fact, all of the other windows in Oxfordshire featuring non-biblical saintly women are formatted as a portrait with iconographic symbolism. Saints Agnes and Lucy at Minster

Lovell, the large cohort of women at All Souls College, and St Ebbe at St Ebbe’s in

112

Oxford, among others, fit into this formulaic format. Even Saint Margaret, whose windows we examined earlier, conforms to this type. Though her windows tend to be more dramatic in nature due to the frequent presence of the dragon, the windows are not narrative. Margaret does not slay the dragon in an animated way, like Saint Michael at

Balliol does.

Figure 4.11. Balliol College, Second Detail of Saint Catherine. Source: Rex Harris, Balliol College, Oxford: Chapel - Six Scenes from Legend of St Katherine, 1529, From Left : St Katherine Converting the Empress; St Katherine Enthroned; and St Katherine Buried by 3 Angels on Mount Sinai, Photograph, February 9, 2010, https://www.flickr.com/photos/sheepdog_rex/4346716750/.

113 Many windows that show male saints also follow the non-narrative format. In fact, most do. However, there are a handful of narrative panels that date back as far as the thirteenth century that show male saints performing miracles, pious deeds, or receiving recognition rather than merely having them stand and hold an iconographic object. These windows include Saint Birinius at Dorchester, and Saint Martin the Beggar, Saint

Thomas Becket, and Saint Augustine all at Christ Church Cathedral (see figure 4.12).44

The Saint Birinius window is very early, possibly dating to around 1250.45 In the window, a crowd of men stand and kneel before Birinius, who accepts a crozier from a kneeling archbishop. The whole group is canopied, and all of their bodies are in stiff positions. That said, this panel feels livelier than a typical thirteenth century window because of its narrative nature. The window tells a story, using a large cast of characters and poses to achieve that goal. Five men stand and lift their hands in prayer. The archbishop kneels with a bowed head and lifts up the crozier. Birinius accepts it and gazes towards the praying men.

The three early fourteenth century windows at Christ Church Cathedral in Oxford are all located in the traceries of the East window in the Chapel of Saint Lucy.46 All three have richly saturated red and blue geometric backgrounds, giving the windows a glittering aura. In the first tracery light, Saint Martin sits on a prancing horse (see figure

4.13). The horse and Martin’s legs face left, while the saint twists his upper body around

44 Note that the three windows at Christ Church Cathedral are not in the same chapel as the Saint Catherine window located there mentioned earlier. The dates of the windows are also different. They were not made or installed at the same time.

45 Peter A. Newton, The County of Oxford, 84. The way that the robes cling to the body suggests to Newton that this window is no earlier than the mid-thirteenth century.

46 Osborne, Stained Glass in England, 204.

114 to face right. On the far right side of the panel, a bearded beggar stretches his hand up towards Saint Martin and grasps the hem of the saint’s cloak. Using his right hand,

Martin saws off a piece of his robe to clothe the barefooted beggar.

Figure 4.12. Dorchester, Saint Birinius. Source: Rex Harris, Dorchester-on-Thames, Oxfordshire: St Birinus Preaching, Photograph, February 24, 2011, https://www.flickr.com/photos/sheepdog_rex/5478636964/.

115

Figure 4.13. Christ Church Cathedral, Saint Martin. Source: Rex Harris, Christ Church Cathedral, Oxford: Martin the Beggar, Photograph, January 1, 2013, https://www.flickr.com/photos/sheepdog_rex/8339033262/. Image cropped for detail.

The second tracery light shows the martyrdom of Saint Thomas of Becket (see figure 4.14). The saint’s face was knocked out and replaced with clear glass (probably to save from breaking the whole window when Henry VIII ordered the removal of all images of this saint.)47 This panel is very dramatic: a crowd of four menacing soldiers bandy swords at the back of Becket’s head. Becket himself kneels in the center of the window. He faces a church authority, who pushes back against the raised swords with his

47 Osborne, Stained Glass in England, 204.

116 cross staff. This window depicts a very tense moment; the story is full of action and power.

Figure 4.14. Christ Church Cathedral, Becket Window. Source: Rex Harris, Christ Church Cathedral, Oxford: Becket, Photograph, January 1, 2013, https://www.flickr.com/photos/sheepdog_rex/8337965811/. Image cropped for detail.

The third and final narrative tracery light explored here shows Saint Augustine preaching to a crowd of men (see figure 4.15).48 Augustine looks fabulous standing in his forest green cloak and golden cap in the middle of the window. He dominates the scene and it is obvious that he is preaching to (rather than blessing) the crowd. His right hand is raised in gesticulation. The glass is somewhat corroded, but it also looks like his lips might be parted as he speaks. The group of around ten men kneel at his feet and look

48 Ibid.

117 towards him admiringly, with the exception of one naughty fellow who appears to have fallen asleep!49

Figure 4.15. Christ Church Cathedral, Saint Augustine. Source: Rex Harris, Christ Church Cathedral, Oxford: Augustine, Photograph, January 1, 2013, https://www.flickr.com/photos/sheepdog_rex/8337974175/. Image cropped for detail.

All these panels force us to ask a question: why were female non-biblical saints not portrayed in narrative scenes like their male counterparts were during the thirteenth through fifteenth centuries? We know from the previous chapter that biblical women, like the Virgin Mary and Mary Magdalene, appear in narrative scenes very early on and with

49 This man sits in the bottom to the immediate left of Augustine’s feet, facing the opposite direction of all the other listeners. His eyes are closed and his head rests in his hand.

118 increasing frequency over the centuries. Why are women whose stories originate outside the Bible portrayed differently from biblical women?

There are many possible answers to this question. First, it is completely plausible—but unlikely—that narrative windows featuring non-biblical, female saints used to exist but have since all been destroyed. Since there would have been fewer windows of women to begin with, the loss of even one narrative panel featuring women will have had a big impact on our understanding of the way that these women were presented. This explanation would hold more sway if we had an earlier example of a narrative cycle showing a woman engaging in some aspect of Christian life. The fact that there are no examples of this phenomenon from the early or intermediate periods is suspicious. One would think that at least one earlier window would survive in the whole county, if such a window ever existed.

A second possibility is Christine Peters’s explanation, which was explored in the chapter involving patrons of stained glass. Peters argues that women are less represented in the medieval arts because of women’s lack of resources.50 Specifically, she discusses women’s representation in stained glass donor portraits. Despite the lack of representation of women, Peters believes that women did contribute to the creation and installation of these type of panels. Presumably, her argument could also be applied to narrative and non-narrative panels. Narrative panels were consistently more expensive to create than single-portrait windows.51 If narrative panels were more expensive, it is more likely that they would be paid for by men or male fraternities, since men had access to

50 Peters, Patterns of Piety, 41–42.

51 Marks, Stained Glass in England during the Middle Ages, 48–49.

119 greater funds. Just as women usually lacked access to resources that would allow them to be featured in donor portraits, perhaps they were often unable to amass the funds to have narrative panels made.

Though Peters’s explanation fits to some degree, it does not work as well when considered along with the arguments of scholars like Larissa Tracy and Richard Marks.

In her interpretive chapter on many women saints’ lives, Tracy points out that male ecclesiastics were the ones perpetuating stories about women saints, for a wide variety of reasons. It is through a male pen that we typically hear the female “voice” in these stories.52 Some motivations that Tracy cites for the perpetuation of these stories include:

“example, entertainment, education, and…authority.”53 Similarly, Marks notes that a primary function of medieval stained glass was to educate a “largely illiterate laity.”54 He cites the Ignorantia Sacerdotum, a decree which ordered clerics to familiarize their charges with Christian doctrines like charity, mercy, sin, the Commandments, etc.55

Clerics did not rely on words alone to teach church doctrine; they enhanced their teachings with visual aids like fonts, wall paintings, and stained glass.

Tracy shows that one reason for writing the stories of women saints was to educate women. Simultaneously, the stories further entrenched a patriarchal hierarchy.

Perhaps most importantly for this argument, however, she points out that male ecclesiastics did not abhor or avoid discussing female saints. Marks demonstrates that a primary function of stained glass was to educate church-goers. Based on these two

52 Tracy, Women of the Gilte Legende: A Selection of Middle English Saints Lives, 108.

53 Ibid., 126.

54 Marks, Stained Glass in England during the Middle Ages, 78.

55 Ibid.

120 arguments, wouldn’t male donors and artists be likely to make narrative images of non- biblical women, just as they perpetuated stories about the same women? Even if women did not have access to resources, like Peters argues, it would make sense for there to be more narrative panels featuring non-biblical women.

A prime example of a man choosing to have a window of a female saint made can be found at All Souls College. Roger Keyes was supervisor of the college’s buildings when the college installed a large glazing scheme.56 One woman saint included in the scheme is Sativola—a local saint venerated exclusively in glass here, at Eton and Exeter, and in Devonshire.57 How did such a little-known virgin saint come to be included in the chapel windows? Apparently, Roger Keyes spent a deal of time in Exeter and became familiar with St Sativola’s story there. He felt it worthy of inclusion in the chapel, and there she rests to this day.58

Though male donors apparently had no problem creating non-narrative windows for these female figures, the discrepancy between the number of narrative windows depicting men and those depicting women remains. Perhaps those creating windows preferred to provide examples of male stories to educate the laity, rather than female ones. Perhaps women lacked the resources to have windows made, leading to a lack of female representation. Perhaps all the windows featuring virgin saints and other non- biblical women have been lost or broken over time. Whatever the reason for the lack of narrative windows featuring non-biblical women, it is apparent that that there is a gap in

56 Hutchinson, Medieval Glass at All Souls College, 36.

57 Ibid., 34.

58 Ibid., 34–37.

121 the images—that there was a difference between male and female representation in the

Medieval and Early Modern church. Viewers would understand that figures in narrative windows were examples to follow—exemplars, whereas figures in non-narrative windows were intercessors—people to keep in mind in times of need. Overall, the gap could indicate that externally pious women were not generally seen as appropriate models for imitation, since they appear in very few non-narrative windows. In other words, it shows that medieval and Early Modern donors and artists preferred men to exhibit loud, physically powerful piety, and preferred for women to exhibit quiet, internalized piety.

Fluctuating Fame: Popularity of Non-Biblical Saints across Centuries

The first section of this chapter shows that glaziers emphasized women’s reliance on Christ’s power in stained glass, rather than the women’s own personal strength throughout the medieval and Early Modern periods. The second section demonstrates that for non-biblical saints, gender is correlated to a certain type of presentation— iconographic or narrative for males, and only iconographic for women until the sixteenth century. This final section reveals the connection between the first two by pointing to broader trends in Oxfordshire stained glass.

Overall, men always outnumber women in Oxfordshire stained glass, no matter what century.59 That said, the numbers of men compared to women begin to even out a bit in the fifteenth century and continue to level out up into the sixteenth. In the fifteenth century, we also see widespread inclusion of non-biblical figures in stained glass windows.60 Somewhat surprisingly, more non-biblical women figures are used

59 Appendix B, Figure B. 1.

60 See Appendix B, Figures B. 2. And B.3.

122

(proportionally) than are male-non-biblical figures in both the fifteenth and sixteenth centuries. In the sixteenth century, this difference becomes even more pronounced. In fact, by that time, there are more non-biblical women than non-biblical men.61 This significant change demonstrates both the growing popularity of the cult of the saints, and also the growing popularity of women intercessors like Saints Catherine or Margaret.

So even though non-biblical women are less likely to be shown in a narrative format until the sixteenth century, the usage of female non-biblical figures grows to steadily outstrip usage of male non-biblical figures from the thirteenth to the sixteenth centuries.62 Another surprise comes from the fact that in the fifteenth and sixteenth centuries there is a dramatic shift from usage of primarily biblical women saints to usage of primarily non-biblical women saints. In fourteenth century Oxfordshire, we know of nine non-biblical women figures and twenty-two biblical figures. In the fifteenth century, we also have twenty-two biblical figures. However, the number of non-biblical women figures jumped to thirty in the fifteenth century—a complete reversal of popularity. The trend continued into the sixteenth century, where we have nine non-biblical female figures and only seven biblical ones.63 This shift parallels one outlined by Eamon Duffy.

In his chapter on the cult of the saints, he explains that the popularity of virgin saints significantly increased in the fifteenth century.64 To demonstrate this trend, he pays

61 There are nine non-biblical women and only six non-biblical men that date to the sixteenth century. See Appendix B, Figures B.1., B.2., and B.3.

62 See Appendix B, Figure B.3.

63 Appendix B, Figure B.3.

64 Eamon Duffy, Stripping of the Altars, 171.

123 special attention to rood screens and other devotional images. It is apparent from this study that stained glass is another medium in which this trend is evident.

What could explain the shift towards emphasizing and including non-biblical women saints in glazing schemes in the fifteenth century? As noted earlier, Tracy argues that these women saints gained popularity and were used for a variety of reasons, including both entertainment and education. 65 Duffy argues that entertainment and education were but two of many reasons why these women gained popularity.66 He argues that, first and foremost, these spectacular women were popular because of their perceived abilities to help people in their spiritual and physical endeavors. “These virgin saints and their male counterparts,” he writes, “were invoked by the prosperous and pious...not as exemplars calling away from marriage and money-making, nor as patterns of perpetual chastity or defiant disobedience...but as the helpers...as protectresses...”67

When Duffy’s argument is applied to the trends we see in Oxfordshire stained glass, pieces of the complex puzzle of medieval understandings of piety begin to fall together. If virgin saints were primarily popular because of their abilities to help in times of trouble (as Duffy argues), it makes sense that their stories are not drawn out in narrative stained glass panels. Rather, we see a plethora of devotional images that rely on simple iconographic cues to alert the viewer to the identity of the saint (Catherine’s wheel, Margaret’s dragon, Anne’s book, etc.) There was no need for narrative panels of these women—devotional images were sufficient. This also explains why we see

65 Tracy, Women of the Gilte Legende: A Selection of Middle English Saints Lives, 108.

66 Eamon Duffy, Stripping of the Altars, 174.

67 Ibid., 176–177.

124 narrative panels of biblical women, like Mary Magdalene, and not women like Margaret and Catherine. Though both Margaret and Catherine were wildly popular—especially in the fourteenth and fifteenth centuries—images of these women were not meant to serve as exemplars or to educate laity on correct doctrine. Rather, they were meant to inspire veneration, charity, and appeals for help from those in need.

Conclusion

This chapter demonstrates that a study of stained glass offers many insights into medieval understandings of piety and the importance and functions of particular saints.

First, the glass clearly shows us that different forms of piety were expected of men and women. Men, like Saint Michael and Saint George, were expected to rely on their own physical prowess in ways that women, like Saint Margaret, were not. Male piety was physical and external, while female piety was spiritual and internal. This fact remained the same from the medieval through the Early Modern periods. Second, the windows show that there were differences between portrayals of male and female non-biblical saints. Non-biblical women saints were rarely featured in narrative panels, while their male counterparts were. Finally, the glass further proves the massive popularity non- biblical women saints in the fourteenth, and especially the fifteenth centuries. This popularity understood in tandem with the fact that non-biblical women were usually featured in non-narrative panels provides further evidence for the argument that these non-biblical women saints were not primarily venerated because of their violent, defiant, and fantastic stories. They were not meant to be exemplars. Rather, these women were popular because they were great intercessors—they were helpers, and they provided spiritual and/or physical aid in times of need. The use of non-biblical women figures as

125 exemplars steadily increased as the Reformation approached, indicating that internalized forms of piety became ever more important to women over time.

126

CHAPTER FIVE

Conclusion

Women and Gender in Oxfordshire Stained Glass

Overall, this thesis shows that depictions of women’s piety remained largely the same over time, though there was some degree of change. Across the medieval and Early

Modern periods, women in glass engaged viewers on the merits of their good deeds and piety. Women were depicted as important, as good, as essential. This continuity contrasts with the changes in expectations for women’s piety. As the Reformation drew closer, glaziers and donors chose to emphasize internal forms of piety for women. Because of this, by the sixteenth century, there are few examples of female figures exhibiting forms of external, active piety. We see few women inspiring the conversion of unbelievers, teaching the Gospel, or performing miracles. Rather, later stained glass women exercise agency in different ways. They express agency through motherhood, through acts of penance, and with acts of submission.

The second chapter demonstrates that glass gained a focus on motherhood in later centuries, as children became more commonplace in windows showing husbands and wives. Men continued to be pictured alone; for women, this is rarely the case. At the same time, it emphasizes the continuity that is reflected in the submissive kneeling position taken by almost all donors in Oxfordshire. Reverent supplication is the always the appropriate form of piety exhibited by all figures—both male and female.

127

The glass explored in the third chapter of this thesis demonstrates that medieval donors and glaziers chose to display certain types of biblical characters during specific cultural moments. In fourteenth and fifteenth century windows, they chose a wide variety of busy, externally pious men and women to incorporate into glazing schemes. In the sixteenth, they chose more often to depict women known for their repentance from sin and their deep devotion to Christ. In this century, the drawn biblical women move away from spiritually authoritative, externally pious roles, and take on the duties of motherhood, internalized piety, and repentance. The emphasis on internalized piety is visually apparent in the narrative nature of these penitential images, which contrast with the non-narrative format of earlier images of externally pious women.

The fourth chapter demonstrates that donors and glaziers were less likely to portray externally pious women in ways that highlighted their spiritual authority. Women like Saint Anne, Saint Margaret, and Saint Catherine were most often presented in non- narrative formats. This contrasts with the way that women like the Virgin Mary, Mary

Magdalen, and Eve were portrayed, especially in the sixteenth century. The choice to represent non-biblical women differently from biblical women shows an inclination downplay the external piety of independent women, and to stress penitential piety instead—especially towards the end of the fifteenth and beginning of the sixteenth centuries. This chapter also shows continuity in imagery, in that women (like Saint

Margaret) consistently look directly to Christ for spiritual authority, unlike men who often do not.

Though many historians have conducted studies on the changing iconography of the Annunciation, on shifts to Christocentric piety, on the amazingly large number of

128 saints incorporated into fourteenth and fifteenth century medieval art, this thesis helps us dig a bit deeper into all these areas at once. Exploring the stained glass of Oxfordshire gives us an opportunity to see the subjects that medieval men and women thought were the most important. It also allows us to see why subjects were chosen, and how those choices changed over time.

Looking Forward

As noted in the introduction, this examination was not exhaustive. Even as I conducted this work, new windows with exciting subjects were discovered in previously forgotten corners of unkempt churches. Every day, photographers upload newer, brighter, higher quality photographs of glass to the Internet—making the study of stained glass easier to conduct than ever before. Perhaps, someday, a meticulous scholar will create a volume like Newton’s catalogue of for every county in England.

Newton’s catalogue is an excellent list of surviving glass, but this thesis demonstrates the ways that such a list can be utilized to its full potential. What questions can be answered by looking at stained glass? Some further questions that the glass in

Oxfordshire might speak to include: What was the intended function of stained glass— decorative or didactic? Did the placement of certain types of figures within an architectural setting change over time? During which periods were locally known saints most included in glazing schemes? The list of questions could go on.

Though women and feminine piety were the focus of this thesis, this work hopefully inspires readers to think of stained glass as a legitimate medium that can offer insights into a variety of topics. Some of these might include medieval patronage, fashion, or family life. Most importantly, however, the study of stained glass provides

129 answers and evidence for a number of unanswered questions about medieval life and the development of modern Christianity.

130

APPENDIX

131

APPENDIX A

Tables of Stained Glass Figures in Oxfordshire

The following are tables of the existing stained glass figures in Oxfordshire. They are divided by sex. Generally, only figures which are still in existence are included (i.e., this does not include figures that were described in church records but later lost.) The charts were compiled using the Newton and Osborne surveys, as well as various surveys of stained glass in the city of Oxford and the CVMA website.1 I do not have any illusions that the charts are perfect records of existing glass—I am bound to have missed figures along the way. However, they were compiled to the best of my ability, and to my knowledge, are accurate. The first two tables give an overall picture of the glass figures in Oxfordshire. The following four show figures divided out by type—biblical versus non-biblical—as well as sex.

Table A.1. Male figures by century.

13th Century 14th Century 15th Century 16th Century

1. Birinus at 1. Deacon Saint 1. Male saint at 1. Bishop saint at Dorchester at Cassington Combe Brightwell Baldwin 2. Michael at S 2. Deacon Saint 2. Male saint at 2. Giles at Michaels at Cassington Combe Standlake Church in Oxford 3. Hugh at S 3. Monastic 3. Bishop saint at 3. Chad at Michaels Saint at Burford Yarnton Church in Dorchester Oxford

1 Peter A. Newton, The County of Oxford; Osborne, Stained Glass in England; Ayers, The Medieval Stained Glass of Merton College, Oxford; Hutchinson, Medieval Glass at All Souls College; Arnold, The Glass in Balliol College Chapel; Marks, Stained Glass in England During the Middle Ages; Christopher Woodforde, The Stained Glass of New College, Oxford; Kenneth Harrison, An Illustrated Guide to the Windows of King’s College Chapel Cambridge (Cambridge: King’s College, 1953).

132

13th Century 14th Century 15th Century 16th Century

4. Edmund at S 4. Bishop at 4. Christopher at 4. Richard at Michaels Dorchester Burford Balliol Church in Oxford 5. Michael at S 5. Archbishop 5. Christopher at 5. Lawrence at Michael at the saint at Yarnton Balliol N Gate Chinnor 6. Nicholas at S 6. Bishop saint at 6. Christopher at 6. Osmund at Michael at the Chinnor Heythrop Standlake N Gate 7. Edmund of 7. Christopher at 7. Cosmas at 7. Christ Abington at S Beckley Minster Lovell Crucifixion at Michael at the Heythrop N Gate 8. James at 8. Lawrence at 8. Dominican saint 8. Christ Stanton Dorchester at Minster Crucifixion at Harcourt Lovell Westwell 9. 9. Peter at 9. Lawrence at 9. Giles at Ewelme 9. Christ North Chinnor displaying Moreton wounds at Crowmarsh Gifford 10. Paul at North 10. Leonard at 10. Ignatius at 10. Matthew at Moreton Drayton St. Waterstock Heythrop Leonard 11. Henry de 11. Michael at 11. Nicholas at 11. Mark at Mamesfield Dorchester Yarnton Heythrop at Merton College 12. 12. Henry de 12. Michael 12. Edmund King 12. Luke at Mamesfield (probably) at and Martyr at Heythrop at Merton Brightwell Minster Lovell College Baldwin 13. 13. Henry de 13. Alban at 13. Edward the 13. Burford (not Mamesfield Chinnor Confessor at sure of date) at Merton College 14. 14. Henry de 14. Edmund King 14. George at 14. John at Mamesfield and Martyr at Kelmscott Heythrop at Merton Dorchester College 15. 15. Henry de 15. George at 15. George at 15. Thomas at Mamesfield Adderbury Burford Yarnton at Merton College 16. 16. Henry de 16. Blaise at CCC 16. Thomas Becket 16. Christ, Mamesfield at Yarnton Passion at at Merton Balliol College 17. 17. Henry de 17. Cuthbert at 17. Ethelbert at All 17. Christ, Mamesfield CCC Souls Ascension at at Merton Balliol College

133

13th Century 14th Century 15th Century 16th Century

18. 18. Henry de 18. Martin of 18. Edward the 18. Christ, Garden Mamesfield Tours at CCC Confessor at All at Balliol at Merton Souls College 19. 19. Henry de 19. Thomas of 19. Edw. Martyr at 19. Pilate at Mamesfield Canterbury at All Souls Balliol at Merton CCC College 20. 20. Henry de 20. Augustine at 20. Edmund the 20. Christ, Mamesfield CCC king at All Souls Resurrection at Merton at Balliol College 21. 21. Henry de 21. Nicholas at 21. Oswadus at All 21. Christ, Ecce Mamesfield Merton CC Souls Homo at at Merton Balliol College 22. 22. Henry de 22. Lawrence at 22. Constantine at 22. Christ, Pieta at Mamesfield Merton CC All Souls Balliol at Merton College 23. 23. Henry de 23. Male Saint 23. Arthurus at All 23. Christ, Mamesfield Merton Ante- Souls Crowning at at Merton Chapel Balliol College 24. 24. Henry de 24. George at 24. Dunstanus at All 24. Christ, Mamesfield New College Souls procession at at Merton Balliol College 25. Jonah at 25. Aug. Anglorum 25. Christ, Dorchester at All Souls scourging at Balliol 26. Thomas at 26. Anslem at All 26. Judas at Beckley Souls Balliol 27. Christ at 27. Unknown at All 27. 27. John Dorchester Souls Ashfield at Heythrop

28. Christ at 28. Edmund at All 28. 28. William Aston Rowant Souls Compton at Balliol 29. Christ 29. Alphegus at All 29. 29. Walter Crucifixion at Souls Curzon at Horspath Waterperry 30. Christ 30. Odo arch. Cant 30. 30. Michael at Crucifixion at at All Souls Balliol Kidlington 31. Christ 31. Augustus of Crucifixion at Hippo at All Asthall Souls

134

13th Century 14th Century 15th Century 16th Century

32. Christ 32. Jeronomus at All Crucifixion at Souls Brightwell Baldwin 33. Christ in 33. Ambrosius at Majesty at All Souls Ducklington 34. Christ in 34. Gregorius at All Majesty at Souls Sandford S Martin 35. Christ 35. Placidus at displaying Trinity C wounds at Library Chinnor 36. Christ 36. William of York displaying at Trinity C wounds at Library Lower Heyford 37. Trinity at 37. Benedict at Dorchester Trinity C Library 38. Christ, frontal 38. Gregory at head at Trinity C Cassington Library 39. Christ, frontal 39. Thomas of head at Lower Canterbury at Heyford Trinity C Library 40. Christ, frontal 40. Augustine at head at Trinity C Tadmarton Library 41. Christ, frontal 41. Dunstan at head at Toot Trinity C Baldon Library 42. Matthew 42. Becket 1 at Oriel symbol at C in Oxford South Newington 43. Mark symbol 43. Becket 2 at Oriel at South C in Oxford Newington 44. Luke symbol 44. Adam at South at South Leigh Newington 45. John symbol 45. Daniel at at South Minster Lovell Newington 46. James Major 46. Ezekiel at at Beckley Minster Lovell 47. Peter at 47. Ezekiel at Mapledurham Burford

135

13th Century 14th Century 15th Century 16th Century

48. Paul at 48. Christ in Mapledurham Majesty at Combe 49. Peter (head) at 49. Christ at Aston Ewelme Rowant 50. Paul (head) at 50. Christ Ewelme Crucifixion at Brightwell Baldwin 51. Andrew 51. Christ (name Crucifixion at inscription) at Marsh Baldon Cogges 52. John the 52. Christ Baptist at Crucifixion at Hardwick Horspath 53. Peter as Pope 53. Christ at Dorchester Crucifixion at Hardwick 54. Peter at 54. Christ Merton CC displaying wounds at Hardwick 55. Andrew at 55. Trinity at Merton CC Kidlington 56. John at 56. Trinity at Merton CC Newington 57. James at 57. Christ, frontal Merton CC head at Yarnton 58. Paul at Merton 58. Mark w Lion at CC Ewelme 59. John Minor at 59. Matthew at Merton CC Ewelme 60. Stephen at 60. Luke at Ewelme Merton CC 61. Christ, 61. John at Ewelme Crucifixion at Merton ante- Chapel 62. John at 62. Matthew symbol Merton at Hampton College ante- Poyle Chapel 63. Jonas at New 63. Mark symbol at College Hampton Poyle 64. Joel at New 64. Luke symbol at College Hampton Poyle 65. Amos at New 65. John symbol at College Hampton Poyle 66. Micah at New 66. Matthew symbol College at Burford 67. Adam at New 67. Mark symbol at College Burford

136

13th Century 14th Century 15th Century 16th Century

68. Seth at New 68. Luke symbol at College Burford 69. Enoch at New 69. John symbol at College Burford 70. Hosea at New 70. Matthew symbol College at North Aston 71. Habakkuk at 71. Mark symbol at New College North Aston 72. Isaiah at New 72. Luke symbol at College North Aston 73. Baruch at 73. John symbol at New College North Aston 74. Methuselah at 74. Matthew symbol New College at Great Rollright 75. Noah at New 75. Mark symbol at College Great Rollright 76. Abraham at 76. Luke symbol at New College Great Rollright 77. Isaac at New 77. John symbol at College Great Rollright 78. Zephaniah at 78. Matthew symbol New College at Stonesfield 79. Daniel at New 79. Mark symbol at College Stonesfield 80. Jeremiah at 80. Luke symbol at New College Stonesfield 81. Obadiah at 81. John symbol at New College Stonesfield 82. Jacob at New 82. James Major College 83. Judas at New 83. Jude at Yarnton College 84. Moses at New 84. Thomas at College Eynsham 85. Aaron at New 85. Thomas at College Yarnton 86. Christ, 86. James Major at Crucifixion Combe (1/4) at New College 87. John, 87. James Major at Crucifixion at Burford New College 88. Christ, 88. Andrew at Crucifixion Ewelme (2/4) at New College 89. Christ, 89. John the Baptist Crucifixion at Yarnton (3/4) at New College

137

13th Century 14th Century 15th Century 16th Century

90. Christ, 90. John the Baptist Crucifixion at Burford (4/4)at New College 91. Christ at New 91. Stephen at College Mapledurham 92. Peter at New 92. Apostle at College Burford 93. Andrew at 93. Isaac at Minster New College Lovell 94. James Major 94. David at Minster at New Lovell College 95. John at New 95. Peter at All College Souls 96. Thomas at 96. Andrew at All New College Souls 97. James Minor 97. James Major at at New All Souls College 98. Phillip at New 98. John at All College Souls 99. Bartholomew 99. Thomas at All at New Souls College 100. Jude at New 100. James Minor at College All Souls 101. Simon at New 101. Phillip at All College Souls 102. Mathias at 102. Bartholomew at New College All Souls 103. Matthew at 103. Jude at All Souls New College 104. George 104. Simon at All (shield) at Souls New College 105. Radulphus de 105. Mathias at All Tiave at Souls Dorchester 106. Donor Male at 106. Matthew at All Waterperry Souls 107. Christ, Crucifixion at S Michael’s Church, Oxford 108. Christ, Crowned at S Peters’-in- the-East, Oxford 109. Peter at S Peters’-in-the- East, Oxford

138

13th Century 14th Century 15th Century 16th Century

110. Paul at S Peters’-in-the- East, Oxford 111. Christ, Crucifixion at S Peters’-in-the- East, Oxford 112. Matthew at S Peters’-in-the- East, Oxford 113. Mark at S Peters’-in-the- East, Oxford 114. Luke at S Peters’-in-the- East, Oxford 115. John at S Peters’-in-the- East, Oxford 116. John the Baptist at Trinity College, Oxford 117. Matthew at Trinity College, Oxford 118. Mark at Trinity College, Oxford 119. Luke at Trinity College, Oxford 120. John at Trinity College, Oxford 121. Henry Rumworth at Horyley 122. Robert Gilbert at Horley 123. Donor Priest at Newington 124. Robert Fit-Ellis at Waterperry

Table A.2. Female figures by century.

13th Century 14th Century 15th Century 16th Century

1. Beatrix van 1. Female Saint 1. Barbara at 1. Agnes at Minster Valkenburg at Binsey Burford Lovell 2. Virgin at S 2. Catherine at 2. Barbara at 2. Veronica at Michaels Christ Mapledurham Balliol Church, Church Oxford Cathedral (CCC) (1/2)

139

13th Century 14th Century 15th Century 16th Century

3. Margaret at 3. Lucy at Minster 3. Catherine at CCC Lovell Balliol (1/6) 4. Frideswide at 4. Margaret at 4. Catherine at CCC Burford Balliol (2/6) 5. Catherine at 5. Sitha (Zita) of 5. Catherine at CCC (2/2) Lucca Balliol (3/6) 6. Benedictine 6. Female Saint at 6. Catherine at Abbess Saint Binsey Balliol (4/6) 1 at Merton 7. Benedictine 7. Female Saint at 7. Catherine at Abbess Saint Burford Balliol (5/6) 2 at Merton 8. Etheldreda at 8. Female Saint 8. Catherine at New College (crowned) at Balliol (6/6) Burford 9. Mary of 9. Female Saint 9. Margaret at Oriel Egypt at New (crowned) at C Oxford College Cropredy 10. Anne at 10. Female Saint at 10. Virgin seated, Marsh Ewelme holding Christ Baldon Child at Waterperry 11. Virgin 11. Female Saint 11. Virgin, Annunciate at (crowned) at Crucifixion at Dorchester Horspath Balliol 12. Virgin 12. Female Saint at 12. Magdalene, Annunciate at Horspath Crucifixion at Brightwell Balliol Baldwin 13. Virgin seated, 13. Female Saint at 13. Virgin w Christ holding Shiplake Child at Balliol Christ Child at Charlton- on-Otmoor 14. Virgin seated, 14. Female Saint at 14. Magdalene at the holding Shiplake Tomb at Balliol Christ Child at Dorchester 15. Virgin seated, 15. Female Saint at 15. Virgin at Balliol holding Yarnton Christ Child at South Stoke 16. Virgin 16. Female Saint at 16. Virgin, Pieta at Funeral at Yarnton Balliol Stanton S John 17. Virgin 17. Etheldreda at All 17. John Ashfield’s Assumption Souls wife at Heythrop at Beckley 18. Virgin 18. Katrina at All 18. Lady Compton at Assumption Souls Balliol at Beckley

140

13th Century 14th Century 15th Century 16th Century

19. Virgin 19. Sativola at All 19. Isobel Saunders- Coronation at Souls Curzon at Beckley Waterperry

20. Virgin, 20. Winifreda at All Crucifixion at Souls Marsh Baldon 21. Virgin w 21. Agnes at All Christ Child Souls at Christ Church Cathedral (CCC) 22. Virgin 22. Agatha at All Annunciate at Souls (1/2) CCC 23. Virgin at 23. Cuthberga at All Merton CC Souls 24. Virgin, 24. Margareta at All Crucifixion at Souls at Merton College ante- Chapel 25. Virgin and 25. Fridswyd at All Christ Child Souls at Merton College ante- Chapel 26. Eve at New 26. Agatha at All College Souls (2/2) 27. Virgin, 27. Helena at All Crucifixion at Souls New College 28. Virgin, 28. Anastasia at All Coronation at Souls New College 29. Martha at 29. Anna at All Souls New College 30. Maria Jacobi 30. Ebbe at S Ebbe, at New Oxford College 31. Female 31. Eve at South Donor at Leigh Waterperry 32. Margaret Fitz- Ellis

Table A.3. Male biblical figures by century.

13th Century 14th Century 15th Century 16th Century

141

13th Century 14th Century 15th Century 16th Century

1. James at 1. Jonah at Dorchester 1. Adam at South 1. Christ Stanton Leigh Crucifixion Harcourt at Heythrop 2. Peter at North 2. Thomas at Beckley 2. Daniel at 2. Christ Moreton Minster Lovell Crucifixion at Westwell 3. Paul at North 3. Christ at Dorchester 3. Ezekiel at 3. Christ Ecce Moreton Minster Lovell Homo Crowmarsh Gifford 4. Christ at Aston 4. Ezekiel at 4. Matthew at Rowant Burford Heythrop 5. Christ Crucifixion at 5. Christ in Majesty 5. Mark at Horspath at Combe Heythrop 6. Christ Crucifixion at 6. Christ at Aston 6. Luke at Kidlington Rowant Heythrop 7. Christ Crucifixion at 7. Christ 7. John at Asthall Crucifixion at Heythrop Brightwell Baldwin 8. Christ Crucifixion at 8. Christ 8. Thomas at Brightwell Baldwin Crucifixion at Yarnton Marsh Baldon 9. Christ in Majesty at 9. Christ 9. Christ, Ducklington Crucifixion at Passion at Horspath Balliol 10. Christ in Majesty at 10. Christ 10. Christ, Sandford S Martin Crucifixion at Ascension at Hardwick Balliol 11. Christ displaying 11. Christ displaying 11. Christ, wounds at Chinnor wounds at Garden at Hardwick Balliol 12. Christ displaying 12. Trinity at 12. Pilate at wounds at Lower Kidlington Balliol Heyford 13. Trinity at Dorchester 13. Trinity at 13. Christ, Newington Resurrection at Balliol 14. Christ, frontal head 14. Christ, frontal 14. Christ, Ecce at Cassington head at Yarnton Homo at Balliol 15. Christ, frontal head 15. Mark w Lion at 15. Christ, Pieta at Lower Heyford Ewelme at Balliol 16. Christ, frontal head 16. Matthew at 16. Christ, at Tadmarton Ewelme Crowning at Balliol 17. Christ, frontal head 17. Luke at Ewelme 17. Christ, at Toot Baldon procession at Balliol 18. Matthew symbol at 18. John at Ewelme 18. Christ, South Newington scourging at Balliol

142

13th Century 14th Century 15th Century 16th Century

19. Mark symbol at 19. Matthew symbol 19. Judas at South Newington at Hampton Balliol Poyle 20. Luke symbol at 20. Mark symbol at South Newington Hampton Poyle 21. John symbol at 21. Luke symbol at South Newington Hampton Poyle 22. James Major at 22. John symbol at Beckley Hampton Poyle 23. Peter at 23. Matthew symbol Mapledurham at Burford 24. Paul at 24. Mark symbol at Mapledurham Burford 25. Peter (head) at 25. Luke symbol at Ewelme Burford 26. Paul (head) at 26. John symbol at Ewelme Burford 27. Andrew (name 27. Matthew symbol inscription) at at North Aston Cogges 28. John the Baptist at 28. Mark symbol at Hardwick North Aston 29. Peter as Pope at 29. Luke symbol at Dorchester North Aston

30. Peter at Merton CC 30. John symbol at North Aston 31. Andrew at Merton 31. Matthew symbol CC at Great Rollright 32. John at Merton CC 32. Mark symbol at Great Rollright 33. James at Merton CC 33. Luke symbol at Great Rollright 34. Paul at Merton CC 34. John symbol at Great Rollright 35. John Minor at 35. Matthew symbol Merton CC at Stonesfield 36. Stephen at Merton 36. Mark symbol at CC Stonesfield 37. Christ, Crucifixion 37. Luke symbol at at Merton College Stonesfield ante-Chapel 38. John at Merton 38. John symbol at College ante-Chapel Stonesfield 39. Jonas at New 39. James Major College 40. Joel at New College 40. Jude at Yarnton 41. Amos at New 41. Thomas at College Eynsham 42. Micah at New 42. Thomas at College Yarnton

143

13th Century 14th Century 15th Century 16th Century

43. Adam at New 43. James Major at College Combe 44. Seth at New College 44. James Major at Burford 45. Enoch at New 45. Andrew at College Ewelme 46. Hosea at New 46. John the Baptist College at Yarnton 47. Habakkuk at New 47. John the Baptist College at Burford 48. Isaiah at New 48. Stephen at College Mapledurham 49. Baruch at New 49. Apostle at College Burford 50. Methuselah at New 50. Isaac at Minster College Lovell 51. Noah at New 51. David at Minster College Lovell 52. Abraham at New 52. Peter at All College Souls 53. Isaac at New 53. Andrew at All College Souls 54. Zephaniah at New 54. James Major at College All Souls 55. Daniel at New 55. John at All Souls College 56. Jeremiah at New 56. Thomas at All College Souls 57. Obadiah at New 57. James Minor at College All Souls 58. Jacob at New 58. Phillip at All College Souls 59. Judas at New 59. Bartholomew at College All Souls 60. Moses at New 60. Jude at All Souls College 61. Aaron at New 61. Simon at All College Souls 62. Christ, Crucifixion 62. Mathias at All (1/4) at New Souls College 63. John, Crucifixion at 63. Matthew at All New College Souls 64. Christ, Crucifixion 64. Christ, (2/4) at New Crucifixion at S College Michael’s Church, Oxford 65. Christ, Crucifixion 65. Christ, Crowned (3/4) at New at S Peters’-in- College the-East, Oxford 66. Christ, Crucifixion 66. Peter at S (4/4) at New Peters’-in-the- College East, Oxford

144

13th Century 14th Century 15th Century 16th Century

67. Christ at New 67. Paul at S Peters’- College in-the-East, Oxford 68. Peter at New 68. Christ, College Crucifixion at S Peters’-in-the- East, Oxford 69. Andrew at New 69. Matthew at S College Peters’-in-the- East, Oxford 70. James Major at New 70. Mark at S College Peters’-in-the- East, Oxford 71. John at New College 71. Luke at S Peters’-in-the- East, Oxford 72. Thomas at New 72. John at S College Peters’-in-the- East, Oxford 73. James Minor at New 73. John the Baptist College at Trinity College, Oxford 74. Phillip at New 74. Matthew at College Trinity College, Oxford 75. Bartholomew at 75. Mark at Trinity New College College, Oxford 76. Jude at New College 76. Luke at Trinity College, Oxford 77. Simon at New 77. John at Trinity College College, Oxford 78. Mathias at New College 79. Matthew at New College 80. George (shield) at New College

Table A.4. Female biblical figures by century.

13th Century 14th Century 15th Century 16th Century 1. Virgin at S 1. Anne at Marsh Baldon 1. Eve at South Leigh 1. Virgin seated, Michaels holding Christ Church, Child at Oxford Waterperry 2. Virgin Annunciate at 2. Anne at Beckley 2. Virgin, Dorchester Crucifixion at Balliol 3. Virgin Annunciate at 3. Anne at Kidlington 3. Magdalene, Brightwell Baldwin Crucifixion at Balliol

145

13th Century 14th Century 15th Century 16th Century

4. Virgin seated, holding 4. Virgin Annunciate at 4. Virgin w Christ Christ Child at Brightwell Baldwin Child at Balliol Charlton-on-Otmoor 5. Virgin seated, holding 5. Virgin Annunciate at 5. Magdalene at Christ Child at Brightwell Baldwin the Tomb at Dorchester Balliol 6. Virgin seated, holding 6. Virgin Annunciate at 6. Virgin at Christ Child at South Burford Balliol Stoke 7. Virgin Funeral at 7. Virgin Annunciate at 7. Virgin, Pieta at Stanton S John Chastleton Balliol 8. Virgin Assumption at 8. Virgin Annunciate at Beckley Newington 9. Virgin Assumption at 9. Virgin Annunciate at Beckley Alkerton 10. Virgin Coronation at 10. Virgin Annunciate at Beckley Yarnton 11. Virgin, Crucifixion at 11. Virgin suckling Christ Marsh Baldon Child at Yarnton 12. Virgin w Christ Child 12. Virgin Assumption at at Christ Church Newington Cathedral (CCC) 13. Virgin Annunciate at 13. Virgin in Majesty at CCC Combe 14. Virgin at Merton CC 14. Mary Magdalen at Burford 15. Virgin, Crucifixion at 15. Anne at All Souls at Merton College ante- Chapel 16. Virgin and Christ Child 16. Virgin at All Souls at Merton College ante- Chapel 17. Eve at New College 17. Virgin w Christ Child at All Souls 18. Virgin, Crucifixion at 18. Mary Cleopas at All New College Souls 19. Virgin, Coronation at 19. Mary Salome at All New College Souls 20. Martha at New College 20. Mary Magdalene at All Souls 21. Maria Jacobi at New 21. Elizabeth at All Souls College 22. Virgin at S Peters’-in- the-East, Oxford

146

Table A.5. Non-biblical male figures by century.

13th Century 14th Century 15th Century 16th Century 1. Birinus at 1. Deacon Saint at 1. Male saint at Combe 1. Bishop saint at Dorchester Cassington Brightwell Baldwin

13th Century 14th Century 15th Century 16th Century 2. Michael at S 2. Deacon Saint at 2. Male saint at Combe 2. Giles at Standlake Michaels Church Cassington in Oxford 3. Hugh at S 3. Monastic Saint at 3. Bishop saint at 3. Chad at Yarnton Michaels Church Dorchester Burford in Oxford 4. Edmund at S 4. Bishop at 4. Christopher at Burford 4. Richard at Balliol Michaels Church Dorchester in Oxford 5. Michael at S 5. Archbishop saint 5. Christopher at 5. Lawrence at Balliol Michael at the N at Chinnor Yarnton Gate 6. Nicholas at S 6. Bishop saint at 6. Christopher at 6. Osmund at Standlake Michael at the N Chinnor Heythrop Gate 7. Edmund of 7. Christopher at 7. Cosmas at Minster Abington at S Beckley Lovell Michael at the N Gate 8. Lawrence at 8. Dominican saint at Dorchester Minster Lovell 9. Lawrence at 9. Giles at Ewelme Chinnor 10. Leonard at 10. Ignatius at Waterstock Drayton St Leonard 11. Michael at 11. Nicholas at Yarnton Dorchester 12. Michael 12. Edmund King and (probably) at Martyr at Minster Brightwell Lovell Baldwin 13. Alban at Chinnor 13. Edward the Confessor Burford (not sure of at date) 14. Edmund King and 14. George at Kelmscott Martyr at Dorchester 15. George at 15. George at Burford Adderbury 16. Blaise at CCC 16. Thomas Becket at Yarnton 17. Cuthbert at CCC 17. Ethelbert at All Souls 18. Martin of Tours at 18. Edward the Confessor CCC at All Souls 19. Thomas of 19. Edw. Martyr at All Canterbury at Souls CCC

147

13th Century 14th Century 15th Century 16th Century 20. Augustine at CCC 20. Edmund the king at All Souls 21. Nicholas at 21. Oswadus at All Souls Merton CC 22. Lawrence at 22. Constantine at All Merton CC Souls

23. Male Saint Merton 23. Arthurus at All Souls Ante-Chapel 24. George at New 24. Dunstanus at All College Souls 25. Aug. Anglorum at All Souls 26. Anslem at All Souls 27. Unknown at All Souls 28. Edmund at All Souls 29. Alphegus at All Souls 30. Odo arch. Cant at All Souls 31. Augustus of Hippo at All Souls 32. Jeronomus at All Souls 33. Ambrosius at All Souls 34. Gregorius at All Souls 35. Placidus at Trinity C Library 36. William of York at Trinity C Library 37. Benedict at Trinity C Library 38. Gregory at Trinity C Library 39. Thomas of Canterbury at Trinity C Library 40. Augustine at Trinity C Library 41. Dunstan at Trinity C Library 42. Becket 1 at Oriel C in Oxford 43. Becket 2 at Oriel C in Oxford

148

Table A.6. Non-biblical female figures by century.

14th Century 15th Century 16th Century

1. Female Saint at 1. Barbara at Burford 1. Margaret at Balliol Binsey 2. Catherine at Christ 2. Barbara at Mapledurham 2. Veronica at Balliol Church Cathedral (CCC) (1/2) 3. Margaret at CCC 3. Lucy at Minster Lovell 3. Catherine at Balliol (1/6) 4. Frideswide at CCC 4. Margaret at Burford 4. Catherine at Balliol (2/6) 14th Century 15th Century 16th Century

5. Catherine at CCC 5. Sitha (Zita) of Lucca at 5. Catherine at Balliol (2/2) Mapledurham (3/6) 6. Benedictine Abbess 6. Female Saint at Binsey 6. Catherine at Balliol Saint 1 at Merton (4/6) 7. Benedictine Abbess 7. Female Saint at Burford 7. Catherine at Balliol Saint 2 at Merton (5/6)

8. Etheldreda at New 8. Female Saint (crowned) at 8. Catherine at Balliol College Burford (6/6) 9. Mary of Egypt at 9. Female Saint (crowned) at 9. Margaret at Oriel C New College Cropredy Oxford 10. Female Saint at Ewelme 11. Female Saint (crowned) at Horspath 12. Female Saint at Horspath 13. Female Saint at Shiplake 14. Female Saint at Shiplake 15. Female Saint at Yarnton 16. Female Saint at Yarnton 17. Etheldreda at All Souls 18. Katrina at All Souls 19. Sativola at All Souls 20. Winifreda at All Souls 21. Agnes at All Souls 22. Agatha at All Souls (1/2) 23. Cuthberga at All Souls 24. Margareta at All Souls 25. Frideswide at All Souls 26. Agatha at All Souls (2/2) 27. Helena at All Souls 28. Anastasia at All Souls 29. Anna at All Souls 30. Ebbe at S Ebbe, Oxford 31. Agnes at Minster Lovell

149

BIBLIOGRAPHY

Anderson, M. D. Drama and Imagery in English Medieval Churches. Cambridge, UK: Cambridge University Press, 2013.

Armitage, E. Liddall. Stained Glass: History, Technology and Practice. 1st U.S. edition. Leonard Hill Books Limited, 1959.

Arnold, Hugh. Stained Glass of the Middle Ages in England and France. Edinburgh: R. & R. Clark, Limited, 1955. http://www.gutenberg.org/ebooks/41370.

———. The Glass in Balliol College Chapel, 1915.

Ayers, Tim. The Medieval Stained Glass of Merton College, Oxford. Slp edition. Oxford: British Academy, 2013.

“Balliol College.” In An Inventory of the Historical Monuments in the City of Oxford. London: His Majesty’s Stationery Office, 1939.

Benton, Janetta Reobld Benton. The Medieval Menagerie: Animals in the Art of the Middle Ages. New York: Abbeville Press Publishers, 1992.

Brown, Sarah, and David O’Connor. Glass Painters. Toronto: University of Toronto Press, 1991.

Bynum, Caroline Walker. Holy Feast and Holy Fast: The Religious Significance of Food to Medieval Women. Berkeley: University of California Press, 1988.

Caviness, Madeline. Paintings on Glass: Studies in Romanesque and Gothic Monumental Art. Brookfield, VT: Ashgate Publishing Company, 1997.

Christopher Woodforde. The Stained Glass of New College, Oxford. London: Oxford University Press, 1951.

“Corpus Vitrearum Medii Aevi: Medieval Stained Glass in Great Britain.” Online Stained Glass Archive, n.d. http://www.cvma.ac.uk/index.html.

Cowen, Painton. English Stained Glass. London: Thames & Hudson, 2008.

Eamon Duffy. The Stripping of the Altars: Traditional Religion in England, 1400-1580. 2nd Edition. Yale University Press, 2005.

150

Eden, F. Sydney. Ancient Stained and Painted Glass. Cambridge University Press, 1913. http://archive.org/details/ancientstainedpa00edenuoft.

———. Ancient Stained and Painted Glass. 2nd ed. Cambridge University Press, 2013.

“Flickr.” Flickr, n.d. https://www.flickr.com/.

Heather Gilderdale. “Panel of the Month: Saint George at St George’s Church, Kelmscott, Oxfordshire.” Edited by Tim Ayres. Vidimus, no. 1 (November 2006). http://vidimus.org/issues/issue-01/panel-of-the-month/.

Holloway, Julia Bolton, and Constance S. Wright. Equally in God’s Image: Women in the Middle Ages. New York: Peter Lang Publishing, 1990.

Hourihane, Colum, ed. From Minor to Major: The Minor Arts in Medieval Art History. Princeton; University Park, PA: Index of Christian Art, Princeton University, 2012.

Hutchinson, Francis Ernest. Medieval Glass at All Souls College: A History and Description, Based upon the Notes of the Late G. M. Rushforth. London: Faber and Faber, 1949.

Jansen, Katherine. The Making of the Magdalen: Preaching and Popular Devotion in the Later Middle Ages. Princeton: Princeton University Press, 2001.

June McCash. The Cultural Patronage of Medieval Women. Athens: University of Georgia Press, 1996.

Kenneth Harrison. An Illustrated Guide to the Windows of King’s College Chapel Cambridge. Cambridge: King’s College, 1953.

Kessler, Herbert. Seeing Medieval Art (Rethinking the Middle Ages). 1st edition. Peterborough, Ont. ; Orchard Park, NY: University of Toronto Press, Higher Education Division, 2004.

Kessler, Herbert. Spiritual Seeing: Picturing God’s Invisibility in Medieval Art. Philadelphia: University of Pennsylvania Press, 2000.

Kessler, Herbert. “On the State of Medieval Art History.” The Art Bulletin 70, no. 2 (1988): 166–87.

Mack, Phyllis. “Religion, Feminism, and the Problem of Agency: Reflections on Eighteenth Century Quakerism.” Signs 29, no. 1 (2003): 149–77. doi:10.1086/375679. ‐

151

Madigan, Kevin. Medieval Christianity: A New History. First Edition edition. New Haven: Yale University Press, 2015.

“Mandorla.” Encyclopedia Britannica, 2016. http://www.britannica.com/topic/mandorla.

Marks, Richard. Stained Glass in England During the Middle Ages. Toronto: University of Toronto Press, 1993.

———. Stained Glass in England during the Middle Ages. Routledge, 2006.

———. The Medieval Stained Glass of Northamptonshire. Oxford: Oxford University Press, 1998.

Meagher, Jennifer. “Food and Drink in European Painting, 1400–1800.” The Metropolitan Museum of Art’s Heilbrunn Timeline of Art History, May 2009. http://www.metmuseum.org/toah/hd/food/hd_food.htm.

“Medieval Oxford.” British History Online. Accessed June 10, 2016. http://www.british- history.ac.uk/vch/oxon/vol4/pp3-73.

Miles, Laura Saetveit. “The Origins and Development of the Virgin Mary’s Book at the Annunciation.” Speculum 89, no. 3 (July 2014): 632–69. doi:10.1017/S0038713414000748.

Nelson, Philip. Ancient Painted Glass in England 1170-1500. London: Methuen, 1913.

———. Ancient Painted Glass in England 1170-1500: Philip Nelson, MD., CH.B., FSA. Cornell University Library, 2009.

Nichols, Ann Eljenholm. Seeable Signs: The Iconography of the Seven Sacraments, 1350-1544. Reprint edition. Woodbridge, Suffolk, UK ; Rochester, NY, USA: Boydell Press, 1997.

Osborne, June. Stained Glass in England. Rev Sub edition. Dover, NH: Sutton Pub Ltd, 1993.

Oxfordshire Architectural and Historical Society. “Oxfordshire Local History: The Later Middle Ages Archives.” Oxfordshire History. Accessed June 10, 2016. http://oxfordshirelocalhistory.modhist.ox.ac.uk/oxfordshire-history/the-later- middle-ages/.

Peter A. Newton. The County of Oxford: A Catalogue of Medieval Stained Glass. London: Oxford University Press, 1979.

Peters, Christine. Patterns of Piety: Women, Gender and Religion in Late Medieval and Reformation England. Cambridge: Cambridge University Press, 2009.

152

———. Women in Early Modern Britain, 1450-1640. New York: Palgrave Macmillan, 2004.

Robb, David M. “The Iconography of the Annunciation in the Fourteenth and Fifteenth Centuries.” The Art Bulletin 18, no. 4 (December 1936): 480–526.

Rosewell, Roger. “Spin Doctoring in Fifteenth-Century Stained Glass: Review.” Vidimus, no. 22 (October 2008). http://vidimus.org/issues/issue-22/books/.

Rudolph, Conrad, ed. A Companion to Medieval Art: Romanesque and Gothic in Northern Europe. 1st edition. Malden, Mass: Wiley-Blackwell, 2009.

Salih, Sarah. “Review of Women’s Space: Patronage, Place and Gender in the Medieval Church. Edited by Virginia Cheffo Raguin and Sarah Stanbury. New York: State University of New York Press, 2005.” The Journal of English and Germanic Philology 107, no. 3 (July 1, 2008): 389–91.

Scott, Joan Wallach. Gender and the Politics of History. Revised edition. New York: Columbia University Press, 1999.

Tracy, Larissa. Women of the Gilte Legende: A Selection of Middle English Saints Lives. Suffolk, UK: D.S. Brewer, 2003.

William Caxton. The Golden Legend. London: Kelmscott Press, Hammersmith, 1892. http://college.holycross.edu/projects/kempe/related/st_margaret/sm617.htm.

153