|

|
Military Effigies in Nottinghamshire before the Black
Death (1)
By Rev. Henry Lawrence, M.A. and T E Routh
An attempt is made in the following notes to describe,
and where possible identify, the early military effigies of the county.
Those here described are nineteen in number and are to be found in fourteen
churches:
|
Church
|
Probable subject
|
Approximate date
|
|
I. *Blyth
|
Fitzwilliam
|
c.1240
|
|
II. Gonalston (1)
|
Sir John Heriz
|
c.1270
|
|
III. Laxton (1)
|
Sir Adam de Everingham
|
c.1280
|
|
IV. Staunton (1)
|
Sir William de Staunton
|
c.1290
|
|
V. West Bridgford
|
Sir Robert de Lutterell
|
c.1298
|
|
VI. *Gonalston (2)
|
Sir John Heriz
|
c.1310
|
|
VII. Staunton (2)
|
Sir Geoffrey de Staunton
|
c.1310
|
|
VIII. Hawton
|
Sir Robert Compton
|
c.1310
|
|
IX. *Bingham
|
Sir Richard de Binlham
|
c.13l0
|
|
X. *Lowdham
|
Sir John de Lowdham
|
1318
|
|
XI. *Staunton (3)
|
Sir William de Staunton
|
1326
|
|
XII. *Willoughby
|
Sir Richard Willoughby
|
1326
|
|
XIII. *Norwell
|
Sir John de Lisours
|
1330
|
|
XIV. *Flintham
|
Hosee
|
c.1330
|
|
XV. *Laxton (2)
|
Sir Adam de Everingham
|
1335
|
|
XVI. Whatton
|
Sir Robert de Whatton
|
1336
|
|
XVII. East Bridgford
|
Sir John de Caltoft
|
c.1344)
|
|
XVIII. Laxton (3)
|
Everinghain
|
1343
|
|
XIX. Tuxford
|
Sir John de Lexington
|
1341
|
*Illustrations
are given of these effigies. |
The Nottinghamshire effigies provide a fairly comprehensive
summary of the armour in use between 1250 and 1350. Most of them to belong
the first standardized type, the chain-mail period, during which the
knight was clothed, with the exception of knee-caps, entirely in mail
from head to foot. A few of the later effigies belong to the period of
transition which intervened between chain-mail and the succeeding standardized
type, Camail and Jupon, and overlapped the Black Death interval. During
this period Various reinforcements to the mail were being tried, and
attempts made to combine strength with lightness and flexibility.
Probably the finest effigy in the county is at Laxton,
but the one at Lowdham is a serious rival. The effigy at Blyth is of
special interest, belonging as it does to the comparatively small class
of heaume effigies (i.e. with cylindrical helmet). The Bingham effigy
is also of importance: the two at Whatton and Staunton figured by Stothard
are for that reason the best known. On the whole the county is to be
congratulated on the number and importance of its military effigies of
this period.
I. BLYTH.

This effigy is for many reasons of exceptional interest.
It now lies at the north side of the structural south aisle, and like
others of the same type—notably one in the chapel of Kirkstead, Lincolnshire—is
made of Purbeck marble.1 It is not carved like later effigies
to stand out from the base slab, but is worked to only about half the
usual depth. Unfortunately the effigy is in a sadly dilapidated condition,
but when perfect the knight lay
within a canopy, consisting of an arch over the head and shafts with
moulded capitals and bases at the sides. The legs have not been crossed,
and the feet, to which spurs were attached, rest on two grotesque beasts.
The sword lies diagonally underneath the shield,2 which is placed directly
in front of the body and covers almost the whole of the upper part. The
position of the arms is difficult to determine, but perhaps the right
lay down that side whilst the left was bent upwards under the shield.
The surcoat is short and both it and the shield are charged with the
knight’s arms—lozengy. To find the surcoat thus ornamented with coat
armour at this early date is very unusual and the writers cannot recall
a parallel instance. Another point of exceptional interest is that the
figure is depicted wearing a heaume, which completely covers the head
and face. This is not, of course, unique. The effigy at Kirkstead, referred
to above, wears a very similar one, and there are two effigies at Furness
Abbey of knights portrayed in the same manner and one or two other examples
elsewhere. The heaume at Blyth is flat-topped and belongs to a type which
appears to have come into use in the reign of Richard I and continued
for about fifty years. On the whole it is not possible to assign a later
date than 1240 to this effigy, which may be somewhat earlier.
There can be no doubt that it represents a member of
the great South Yorkshire family of Fitzwilliam, whose arms were lozengy
argent and gules3. Roger, younger son of Sir Thomas Fitzwilliam,
was living about this time at Braithwell, which though in Yorkshire is
no
great
distance from Blyth. Owing to the lack of detail it is not possible to
date the effigy accurately, which adds to the difficulty of identification.4
II. GONALSTON. (1).

This effigy, which now lies at the east end of the south
aisle, though in poor condition is of considerable interest. The head
and shoulders have disappeared entirely. The hands, which are joined
in prayer, are clothed in mail mittens fastened with cords tied at the
wrists. The sword-belt is much narrower than is usual later, and is fastened
to the scabbard at two points, a method which though later than the attachment
at one point, is earlier than the interlocking-thong principle. The quillons
of the sword are long and straight and the hilt is surmounted by a pear-shaped
pommel. The surcoat is short and only split up the front a matter of
six inches, displaying the hauberk beneath it, the latter reaching down
almost to as low a point as the surcoat. The legs are crossed5 and
the feet rest on a lion. No knee-caps are worn, but straps are fastened
round the leg below the knee much after the fashion of the effigy ascribed
to William Longsword at Salisbury, which has several features in common
with this effigy. The purpose of these straps was to lesson the drag
of the heavy chain-mail chausses, an inconvenience which was afterwards
obviated by dividing them into two separate gannents, termed chausses
and chaussons respectively.6
This effigy evidently represents a member of the family
of Heriz who held four knights’ fees: one at Stapleford, one at South
Wingfield in Derbyshire, and two at Gonalston and Widmerpool. It seems
probable, having regard to the type of equipment, that the original was
Sir John Heriz who in 1236 paid three marks relief on succeeding to his
brother Yvo’s lands.7 He appears to have died about 1270,
a date which suits the character of the armour worn.
III. LAXTON. (1).

This effigy, the northernmost of the two free-stone
effigies in the south aisle, is so worn that it is difficult to speak
in anything but general terms. The head rests on a double cushion, and
the metal skull-cap is secured by a plain fillet. The hands are joined
on the breast in prayer. The sword has a round pommel and the quillons
slope slightly downwards, the attachment to the sword-belt is somewhat
uncertain, but seems to have been by interlocking-thongs. The shield,
twenty-eight inches in length, is worn low down on the left side and
bears no charge. The knees are protected by plain caps, and though both
feet have gone, the prick-spur remains on the right heel.
There
seems little doubt that this effigy, as well as the later effigies
in the same church, belong to the Everinghams.8 Their
important property in Nottinghamshire came to them by the marriage of
Sir Robert de Everingham with Isabel sister and heir of Thomas de Birkin.
This lady was the grand-daughter of Adam de Birkin and Matilda daughter
and co-heir of Robert de Calz, from whom she inherited the hereditary
office of Keeper of Sherwood Forest. Isabel died in 12529 and
Adam her son and heir is returned the next year as holding twelve-and-a-half
knights’ fees
of the barony of Shelford.10 Amongst his manors was included
Everingham in the East Riding of Yorkshire, from which the family derives
its name. Sir Adam served in the Welsh wars and fought against the king
at Evesham. He died 8th December, 1280 and in the following year Robert
his son paid relief for his lands.11 The latter only survived
six years, dying before July 20th, 1287, so that this effigy might commemorate
him, though his long life and distinguished career point rather to Sir
Adam.
[<Previous] [Next>]
|