Sheriff Hutton: further debate P. W. HAMMOND AND W. E. HAMPTON

WE FEEL sure that Society members are beginning to feel that they have had a surfeit of articles on the tomb in Sheriff Hutton church; for this reason we will be as brief as possible. The issues involved in this problem are indeed clear cut in some ways, as stated in the last Ricardian,l although the authors of that article seem not to understand fully what those issues are. We hope in this article to clarify some points which others too may have found unclear, on the grounds that the repetition of old theories is sometimes better than the manufacture of new ones from no evidence. The long description of the tomb in our previous article2 we felt to be far from irrelevant since when conducting a debate we felt it best for everyone to be clear what was being talked about, and we will begin again with some remarks on the tomb itself. First we may say that Chambers Dictionary is perhaps not the best source to use to define a technical term such as ‘altar tomb.’3 Our source was the somewhat more knowledgeable art historian and scholar Erwin Panofsky. His definitions of altar and table tombs are as follows: ‘These may be divided, very roughly, into two classes different in form as well as content: the freestanding rumba (or table tomb), occasionally surmounted by a canopy; and the tomb attached to—or, even more often, recessed into—the wall, a form which I shall designate by the French term enfeu in preference to the not always accurate English term “altar tomb”." It is clear that Panofsky has no doubt that such tombs as we described did exist.5 Concerning the construction of the tomb, we do not accept that because of the vicissitudes which it has undergone it is impossible to discuss whether it was originally three- or four-sided. The balance of the evidence just does not indicate a free-standing tomb.6 Medieval tomb construction may not be fully understood but artistic canons have not changed to the extent that an artist or designer would have produced a free-standing, four-sided tomb chest whose end panels had projections on one vertical edge only. There is no question that these are the remains of buttresses. Where is the corresponding projection on the other side? It cannot have been cut off, the end panels are the same width as the top panel, and the shields on them are central. This vertical projection can only mean that the tomb has always been three sided. Routh and Knowles produce no evidence contrary to this view, the presence or absence of a chamfered edge along the top of the panels is irrelevant" So far as the metal studs on the front panel are concerned, it is difficult to see what else they could be for other than to hold an inscription. We did not of course say that the Sheriff Hu'tton tomb could not date from early in the fifteenth century because of this probable metal inscription; we said that these inscriptions were rather more common towards the end of the century. This remains true, and is one of the minor pieces of evidence we used to build up our case for a later

346 dating.“ On the state of the tomb, whether or not it was in pieces, we did of course explicitly accept that it was probably dismantled during the Civil Wars. 9 Similarly, we cannot see why a tomb of inferior workmanship cannot also be elaborately carvedlo —the two are not incompatible. Concerning the style of the effigy, we will be brief. As we said previously, we believe that it is compatible with a date in the 14805. This has been disputed by Dr Robin Emmerson, who says that in his opinion the sleeve shape, very full with a narrow wrist, would mean that the effigy should date from not later than 1470. He goes on to say that by the 14705 English brasses and effigies consistently show narrow sleeves of more even width, and that gathering into pleats at the shoulder seam (as apparently occurs here), is datable to after c.1455. He would also date the two brasses we cited to somewhat earlier than we did.“ However, while not disputing his general conclusions, we do feel that medieval costume is extremely difficult to date precisely, and would say that it is easier to be confident over the date of brasses than of alabaster effigies, as Dr. Emmerson himself agrees. For example, sleeves of types ranging from narrow to full with various cuffs may be found in manuscripts dating from the last two decades of the fifteenth century, and it seems to us that the sleeves on the effigy may reasonably be said to be one of these types, or a version of it.'2 One interesting possibility is that if the effigy was carved in ceremonial robes as Prince of Wales the costume might be expected to be of a type where conventional dating techniques would fail; as has been pointed out elsewhere the coronation robes had by this time become rather archaic.” We now come to the question of the head covering of the effigy. As we said, our recent examination seems to show that this looks very like a coronet. As Routh and Knowles admit such an early observer as Torre thought that it could be.M In our opinion it looks indeed as if it could be a coronet with a turned up ermine edge; similar to that which Edward V then Prince of Wales is shown as wearing in a drawing of 1477." If this is so, then for the reasons stated in our previous article it cannot be the tomb of an unlanded infant. However we accepted that Dodsworth described it as a cap of maintenance (not just a cap,[6 which is important), and it is of course possible that it was just this, and not a combination of cap and coronet, nor just a coronet. If the curious headgear worn by Edward of Lancaster in the ‘Beauchamp Pageant’ is indeed a cap of maintenance,” then the effigy in Sheriff Hutton could have been wearing one of that type. It does not alter our arguments, which can be, and were meant to be, applied to both coronet and cap of maintenance; the two were probably rarely separated in contemporary theory and practice. As we said, the cap of maintenance symbolised dominion: the person here commemorated had power of lordship while he lived. '8 Dodsworth was obviously quite aware of this, and of the significance of his description. He was a conscientious antiquary and a close associate of Dugdale (Garter King of Arms), and would not have used the phrase loosely. The cap of maintenance was originally a cap with which new Dukes only were invested with their rank (hence Dugdale’s interpretation of it as a ‘ducal cap’), although it was extended to Marquesses by Edward IV. The ducal cap seems usually to have been encircled by a coronet, and this may be what we have here, and what Edward V and Edward of Lancaster were wearing (see above).

347 There is some evidence that lower ranks (down to, but no lower than, knights), used it on seals.I9 but it was officially limited to the monarch and to dukes; Edward of Middleham was of course Duke of Cornwall.20 However this may be, no one used it who did not have official dignity, and in no circumstances would it (any more than a coronet) be used on the effigy of anyone who had no power of lordship, much less a young, barely known infant. What lordship did Ralph (possibly Salisbury’s ninth child) hold? Even his elder brother Thomas, killed at Wakefield, was only a simple knight. As we said before, these matters were not treated lightly in the Middle Ages. Similar remarks apply to the cross of St. George on the tomb. We beg to differ over whether anything can be gained by ruminating over the significance of this.“ It is just not good enough to dismiss it as being of little significance. The cross of St. George was a potent symbol in England in the Middle Ages, and we do not believe that it would, or could, have been used merely to show that the occupant of the tomb was related to someone who could have used it as a Knight of the Garter. It is not in fact a particularly common symbol on tombs. We can deal fairly briefly with the criticisms of our account of the heraldry on the tomb and in the glass. We do not dispute that Todd, Gill and Torre saw a coat of arms in the window which they described as ‘part of the Royal Arms of England’ or ‘two old coats’, ‘gules 3 lions of England or’;22 what we do dispute is that their evidence can be used to prove that the arms of Gloucester were in the window. Torre, for example, could mean that a shield showing the arms used by the Kings of England before 1340 was present. One would expect him to say ‘quarterings’ if he had meant part of a larger shield, ‘coats’ would normally be used for the whole shield. Torre’s second ‘coat’ could have been France, but equally well may not have been, it could have been anything.23 Even allowing that Torre et al saw part of France and England quarterly they did not blazon the arms of Gloucester, and while it can be assumed that what they saw was the bottom half of such a coat (which would not show the label)“ we must point out that this assumption cannot be proved, the coat in the window could equally well have been the plain arms of England. such coats are not uncommon. One might indeed be surprised not to find the arms of England in a window at Sheriff Hutton. In that other great Neville church at Staindrop were found at one time England and France quarterly, the same with a Beaufort border, and England with a plain label of Holland, as well as various Neville coats.25 Since the labels and the border would have been separatelyleaded these parts would be easily lost when the pieces were replaced in later re-leading. The remaining fragment would be a plain coat of England, or France and England quarterly etc. These coats represented the marriage of the first Earl of Westmorland with Joan Beaufort, and it seems very likely that Sheriff Hutton may once have had windows as splendid as this. It is to be remembered that the castle there still retains a carved shield of Neville impaling Beaufort." Of course, as Routh and Knowles say, Dodsworth did not mention a plain coat of England in the window, but little can be built on this. He does not mention the St. George’s cross on the tomb either, and that is still there. One cannot just sag! that because Dodsworth did not mention something, it cannot have been there. 7 We reiterate that there is no evidence that Torre, or any later observer, saw the Gloucester arms in the window.

348 \

Concerning the Beauchamp/Newburgh coat, it is not true to say that we ‘consign’ it to the window because we can find no room for it on the tomb." We clearly left the point open as to whether or not it was on the tomb and in the glass. Our point was of course that Dodsworth’s blazon of this coat is in a separate ‘paragraph’ from the other descriptions, when it could have been with them, and he may have meant by this that this coat was in the window.29 Whether or not there was room for the coat on the tomb is not relevant to this point, Dodsworth may or may not have meant to say that it was on the tomb, that it was in the window, or both. It largely depends (in our View) on whether one believes Torre made an error when he said that the tomb had a cross of St. George at each end. We believe that he did,” in which case there is room for the Beauchamp/Newburgh coat on the tomb. It may indeed be the simplest and most reasonable explanation that Dodsworth ascribed all three coats to the glassfu and they may indeed have been in the window, but why should it not be equally reasonable to assign all three to the tomb? His words can quite easily mean this. As has been seen we do not accept that there is independent evidence that the Gloucester arms were in the glass, and favour an interpretation of Dodsworth which puts them on the tomb only, but we are quite prepared to have them in the glass and on the tomb. There is no evidence at all against their being there, arms of some kind must have been painted on the other front shield. The fact that we do not in Routh and Knowles opinion satisfactorily explain why the Gloucester arms should be on the tomb if it is Edward of Middleham’s does not, in our opinion, prove that they were not. On akuimg)2 probably finished after Richard died we believe that it would be highly li e y. We hope that the foregoing remarks have clarified our position regarding this tomb. To sum up briefly, we agree with Routh and Knowles that the interpretation of Dodsworth’s evidence is very important, it is fundamental to the whole matter, but unlike them we accept that several interpretations are possible. We believe that he meant that his first two coats of arms were on the tomb, and that possibly the third was too. Even the first two coats together would show that the occupant was Edward of Middleham. This evidence does not of course stand on its own. When it is combined with the cap of maintenance/coronet worn by the effigy, and that fact that the style is not incompatible with a date in the 1480s,” we believe that the identification of the occupant with Edward of Middleham becomes the most reasonable conclusion. Even if only Dodsworth’s first coat of arms was on the tomb, and the other shields were blank by his time (which we dispute), the other evidence would still point to the Prince of Wales in the absence of any other plausible candidate. Finally we will say that we do not argue that we have proved that the tomb is definitely that of Edward of Middleham, but we believe that we have shown that the evidence is at the very least compatible with the traditional View. We accept that some of the evidence is susceptible of being interpreted in more than one way, and that the tomb may not be that of young Edward, but we ask again, in that case, whose is it? As forcibly as possible we say that it is not the alternative candidate suggested by Routh and Knowles," nor could it possibly be. To argue that such a tomb would have been erected for a virtually unknown

349 PPHF" child, probably an infant when he died,” is to fail totally to understand the mores of the fifteenth century as well as the evidence which is still there today.

NOTES AND REFERENCES

Pauline Routh and Richard Knowles. Sherifl‘ Hutton: The Great Debate. The Ricardian, Vol. 5. No. 72 (19813. pp.3 I s-s. 2. P. W. Hammond and W. E. Hampton. Sherifl' Hutton: Historic Doubts Reconsidered. The Ritardian, Vol.5. No. 71 (I980). pp.274—8l. Routh and Knowles. op.cil., p.3l5. Erwin Panofsky, Tomb Sculpture (London 1964), p.60. See also p.53: ‘lhis Iumbq could either be treated as a freestanding object placed in the centre of a choir or chapel. which was the rule in Germany: or it could be attached to, or recessed into, a segment of the wall suitably decorated and normally enframed by a more or less elaborate archivolt. And such ensembles—resembling an aItar plus retable and therefore oflen referred to as “altar tombs” by English writers, whereas the French call them enfeus—were very popular in all the other European countries, especially in France (where they apparently originated) and, even more so, in Italy.’ Panofsky sometimes uses ‘table tomb' to mean the type of tomb which is literally a table (see p.54), but is consistent where ‘altar tomb’ or enfeu is concerned. That no trace of retable (or canopy) remains at Sheriff Hutton does not prove that one never existed. The plaster on the walls has been removed, and with it all trace of such work. 5. Due to the pleasant habit of moving church monuments it is difficult to point to undoubted examples. This does not disprove our point of course. However we suggest the tomb of Sir Henry Perpoynt at Holme Pierrepoim as one likely example, see illustration in J. T. Godfrey. Notes on the Churches of Nottinghamshire (London I907), p.248. Routh and Knowles, ap.cil.. pp.316. 315. Roulh and Knowles, op.cil., p.315. Hammond and Hampton, op.cil., p.275. Hammond and Hampton. op.cil.. p.280 note 3. Concerning Routh and Knowles’ apparent belief that the phrases they quote from Todd and Torre explicitly state that it was in pieces, and cannot be interpreted in any other way. we venture to suggest that they check the meaning of ‘explicit’ in Chambers Dicn'onaoi. Routh and Knowles, op.cil., p.316. ll. Robin Emmerson. private communication, Hammond and Hampton. op.cil.. p.276. 12. See for example the manuscript of the Roman de la Rose, B. M. Harleian MS.4425, £36 (published as British Museum postcard Bl58). This Flemish manuscript is usually dated to the turn of the century but has also been dated to c.1490, J. V. Fleming, The Roman de la Rose (Princeton. 1969), p.28, Margaret Scott. Late Gothic Europe 1400—1500. History of Dress Series (London I981). p.197. l3. Anne F. Sutton. The Coronation Robes of Richard III and Anne Neville, Costume. No. 13 (I979). p.15. l4. Routh and Knowles, ap.cil., p.3 I7. I! is hardly misquoting to say that ‘Torre calls it (the headcovering) a coronet’ instead of ‘Torre. calls it a round cap or coroner, Hammond and Hampton. op.cit.. p.276. A. Cheelham. Life and Times of Richard III. (London 1972), p.79. It is true that no other monumental use of such a coronet can be found, but we would point out that nor can any other similar tomb of a Prince of Wales. if such this be. It is possible that Torre’s hesitation between a cap and a coronet was because damage by his time meant that it was not clear which it was. Roulh and Knowles. op.cil., p.317. It seems possible that these authors have misunderstood this point. There is no question here of Dodsworlh and Torre merely describing a garment of some kind. but something which proclaimed rank. Viscount Dillon and W. H. St. John Hope (eds.), The Pageant of the Birth, Life and Death of Richard Beauchamp etc. (Landon I914). p.l l0. l8. Hammond and Hamplon, ap.cil.. p.276. I9. W. H. St. John Hope. The Cap of Maintenance. pp.lxxxii. lxxxiv, in L. G. Wickham Legg, English Coronation Records (London l90l). 20. G.E.C.. Complete Peerage. 2nd edition. Vol. 3 (London I913), pp.440—l.

350 Roulh and Knowles. ap.cil.. p.3l7. George Todd. Some Account of Sheri/I Humm Castle elc. (York 1824). p.43: Thomas Gill". Valli: Ebaracensis (York 1852). p.428; for Torre. Routh and Knowles. op.cil.. p.3 I 7. There is no evidence whatever as to what it was. guesses educated or otherwise notwithstanding. We do not know that Torre's ‘coats’ were what Gill and Todd were describing. Romh and Knowles. op.cil., p.317. R. Surtees. History and Amiquilies aflhe County Palatine of Durham, Vol. I (London l816). p.clvi. Victoria History of the Caunlies of England: Yorkshire, Narlh Riding, Vol. 2 (London I923). p.l75. As has been remarked before. he does sometimes make inexplicable omissions. see Pauline Routh. Medieval Efligial Alabasler lambs in Yorkshire (Ipswich I976). p.l29. See also p.97 (wilh reference to the tomb in Sherifl' Hutton) and below for Dodsworlh’s obscurity. Roulh and Knowles, op.cil., p.317. Hammond and Hampton, op.ci!.. pp.277. 278. Hammond and Hampton. ap.cil., p.278. The plain shield shows no sign of ever having been carved wi‘h a cross. Had such been deliberately removed it is not likely that the present surface would be as smooth as it IS. Routh and Knowles. ap.cil., p.317. It is possible (we would put it no higher) that if the tomb was largely constructed in the reign of Henry V". Edward was depicted as Earl of Salisbury rather than Prince of Wales: il naturally followed that if . oflicially Richard [II was not King but Duke of Gloucester then his son could not be Prince of Wales. The Gloucester arms were there to show his paternity. Even Katharine. daughter of Edward W was depicted in the Tudor period (she died in l527) as the daughter of a royal Earl of March rather than as the daughter of a King. see W. E. Hampton. Memorials aflhe Wars of the Roses (Upminsler I979). p.44. 33. See Hammond and Hampton. ap.cil.. pp.275. 276 and above for our comments on the hair style. the probable inscriptions and the copying of monument slyles. 34. Routh and Knowles. ap.cil.. p.318. 35. The reference to his death (Genealogist. New Series. Vol. 3 (1886). p.l l I). given by us in our first article to show Ralph’s impossibility as a candidate. i.e.Radulphus marluus. apud Shire/halo" sepullus (Ralph died. buried at Sheriff Hutton) sounds very like a child either dead at birth or soon after. This also applies to his brother Robert. buried at Middleham. One wonders if an elaborate tomb is supposed to have been erected there too.

351