THE PUZZLE OF THE PRIESTLY EFFIGY IN IVINGHOE CHURCH Early Rectors of Ivinghoe and the True Founder of Ravenstone Priory R. P. HAGERTY Dr Hagerty discusses the evidence for the date and identity of the effigy of a priest in Ivinghoe church and reviews the opinions expressed in the past. He concludes that, although there can be no certainty on the matter, the most likely candidate, as opinioned by a majority of previous commentators, is Peter Chaceporc, a Poitevin in the service of Henery Ill, rector of Ivinghoe and the true founder of Ravenstone Priory. In a necessarily speculative appendix he considers whether the recorded burial of Peter at Boulogne is a fatal objection to this identification. In the chancel of the church at Ivinghoe is the below hip level, on the right side inside the effigy of a priest in mass vestments, carved fold of the chasuble, is a saucer-shaped de• from a single block of Totternhoe stone, re• pression at the bottom of which is a lead-lined cumbent in a recess under a four-centred cin• hole; this looks like a small basin with drain quefoil arch with trefoil sub-cusping. The and is, presumably, a mutilation. If it were not figure lies supine, head to the west, with hands for the depression, one might imagine the hole over the chest in the attitude of prayer, palms to have been a socket holding some external together with fingers pointing toward the chin. feature, although it is difficult to imagine what. The head, covered by a lined hood below which the hair is cut straight across the The decorations one would expect to find on forehead, rests on two quite thin cushions, the the chasuble, maniple, stole, and unusually upper placed diagonally to the lower. The wide amice, and on the apparel panels at wrist effigy is over 6 ft long, almost certainly more and foot of the alb, were obviously never than life-size, with a large head and well• carved. This suggests that the whole would nourished face; the bulging eyes and thick originally have been painted or first coated neck suggest a goitre. Rather than being a with gesso, a mouldable mixture of gum and conventional representation, it almost appears plaster of Paris, on which the decorations were to attempt a likeness. At the foot, the block then impressed and painted or simply pain- 1 ends in a plain, pedestal-like, semi-octagon. ted. The roughness of the surface could The figure has suffered some damage to the then have been deliberate to provide keying left side of the head, to the face around the for the paint or gesso. However, Lipscomb nose and to projecting features - the nose, wrote that the figure was much obscured by fingers and feet - while the surface is, in several coats of whitewash and the present general, rather rough but little eroded. Just state of the surface may be due to scrubbing to 105 2 remove these coatings. There is now no Commission on Historic Monuments in 1913, trace of paint or gesso, unless the very faint dated it as probably fifteenth century, the brownish tint of the stone is not natural. same as the arch, and characterized it as some• Finally, the surfaces accessible in the present what crudely carved, like Gurney perhaps position are blemished by numerous carved overlooking that the stone would be only the and scratched graffiti, while the less accessible base for the gesso and paint finish. 7 Pevsner surfaces at the back are relatively unmarked, described the effigy as a thirteenth-century indicating that the effigy has been in its pre• stone monument of a priest and, exaggeratedly, 8 sent position at least since the time when van• as very defaced. It is obvious that the recess, dals had become sufficiently literate to record with its fifteenth century arch, was not designed their initials. Certainly it was where it is now to accommodate the effigy, which those quoted at the time of the earliest extant descriptions, above, with the exception of the R.C.H.M., that by the Lysons, first published in 1806, and agreed to be the thirteenth century. the contribution by J.S.B. in the Gentleman's The recess is in the usual position in the Magazine of 1812, and it was not displaced north wall of the chancel near the altar to house during nineteenth-century "restorations" which an Easter sepulchre and this was most probably destroyed three table tombs, the painted rood its original purpose. screen, the old font, and some features of the 3 fabric of the church. Would this clear majority dating of the figure to the thirteenth, even the mid• It was during the late thirteenth century that thirteenth, century be accepted by today's ex• Purbeck marble, which was difficult to work, perts? In his study of secular effigies of the was being supplanted for tomb effigies by thirteenth century in England, Tummers more readily worked freestone or wood, pointed out that, apart from the effigies of finished off with paint or gesso and paint. Henry III and Queen Eleanor of Castile, wife Later, effigies of alabaster, or sometimes of of Edward I, on their tombs in Westminster metal, graced the tombs of the rich and impor• Abbey, there was no secular effigy in England tant, while others contented themselves with of that period for which there was documen• flat, engraved, brasses. tary evidence: the existing dates for all other secular tomb effigies were "traditional". 9 As to the dating of the Ivinghoe figure, This must be said about this ecclesiastical J.S.B. considered it to be more ancient than figure. Concentrating on secular effigies, the arch and likened the head covering to Tummers wrote that the attitude of the hands a sort of "Welsh wig". Lipscomb, no doubt in prayer was common on the continent by confused by the whitewash coatings, errone• 1250 and not usual in England until later, but ously described the figure as wearing the habit also commented that ecclesiastical effigies of a monk, with head uncovered; he did not were in general years ahead of secular 10 mention a date. Kelke in 1854 and 1870 lar• ones. Th e supme. positiOn. and t h e arran- gely followed J.S.B., but referred to the usual gement of two rather thin cushions, the upper tonsure, and dated the effigy contemporary placed diagonally to the lower, feature in with the church, that is thirteenth century, works of what Gardner and Stone called the while Sheahan in 1862 thought it contem• London, Westminster, or court school, of the porary with the chancel and nave. 4 Fowler, late thirteenth to early fourteenth cen- 11 in 1892, and Wauton, the contemporary vicar tury. Tummers thought "workshop" pref- dated the effigy mid-thirteenth century. 5 erable to "school". 12 These features can be Gurney, in 1913, described it as rough, local seen on the Westminster tombs of Henry III work and, on the basis of the haircut and (died 1272) and Eleanor (died 1290), the treatment of the vestments, as thirteenth cen• metal figures for which were ordered in 13 tury, probably of a rector; he agreed that the 1291. Tbe dates for Henry indicate that hood and haircut did look sufficiently like a there could be a lapse of years between death Welsh wig, with skull-cap underneath, to jus• and ordering of an effigy, justifying the state• 6 tify the comment by J.S.B. The Royal ment by Tummers that the custom of effigies 106 The effigy in the church at lvinghoe. for the just-deceased was not established in these two; during 1280/90 double cushions the thirteenth century. 14 were used in more than one place and more than one way, so that effigies should not, The stone effigies at Westminster of merely because of this one feature, be dated Edmund Crouchback, earl of Lancaster (died 1300 or even later; a late thirteenth-century 1296) and wife Aveline (died 1273), have the date was still quite possible. 17 The West• double-cushion feature with the addition of minster designers were said to have adopted supportive, sitting, angels at the head. both the double-cushion and supporting angel Gardner and Tummers respectively dated A v• features from France. The possibility that they 15 eline's effigy to c.1290 and c.1290 to 1300. were not the first in England to use the Stone wrote that the London school was not double-cushion feature would seem to be con• entirely dominant but that there were many firmed by Gardner's dating to c.1270 of the others, such as those of Abingdon, Hereford/ stone effigy of a knight at Leighton-under• Worcester, the south-western and the north• Wrekin, Stone's dating to c.1280-1290 of the ern.16 Tummers agreed that other figures wooden effigy of a knight at Woodford, and with double-cushion and angel features would the datings by Tummers of the stone effigy of date from after 1300. However, he considered Bishop Branscombe at Exeter (made shortly that the figures of Henry and Eleanor rep• after his death in 1280) and of stone knightly resented the perfected form (without sup• figures (1270--80) in the Mayor's Chapel at porters), adding that it remained to be seen Bristol and the church at Curry Rive I. 18 whether all effigies in England with the double-cushion feature should be dated after Tummers wrote that effigies m the 107 thirteenth century were earlier idealistic with a stze.