Download [5] Montague, D. Dictionary of Building and Civil Engineering

Student No: 12025119
HA2219 Documents
Assessment 1: Commentary on ‘Contract VI. 1421 Contract for a Tomb Chest a
Bisham Abbey (Berkshire)’ in Sally Badham and Sophie Oosterwijk (eds.)
Monumental Industry; The Production of Tomb Monuments in England and Wales in
the Long Fourteenth Century.
The contracts provided by Badham and Oosterwijk concerning English tomb
contracts show important aspects of art patronage and tomb construction specifically contract VI, a contract for a tomb chest in 1421 at Bisham Abbey in
Berkshire, which proves how much we can learn solely from an art contract, but also
how many questions they can raise and leave unanswered. Badham and Oosterwijk
have used a version of the contract as transcribed by G. M. Bark in 1949, and
translated by J. Bayliss.
The contract between Richard Hertcombe and Robert Broun Kerver, dated 1421 by
Badham and Oosterwjik, outlines specifications of a tomb, including size, material,
key features, the level of quality expected, the date the work was expected by and
the location it was intended to rest. It also states the amount and manner of
payment: twenty-two pounds, thirteen shillings and four pence, with “four marks” 1
to be paid before work commenced. The contract states that Kerver was to pay forty
pounds in compensation if the work was not up to standard, and ends with the
formalities of how the contract will be split between the two parties. The details of
the contract are quite specific, and overall there is a sense that the commissioner;
Hertcombe, had a definite idea of how the resulting tomb should appear.
The materials specified are alabaster and “other stone”2. Badham and Oosterwijk are
in agreement with Bayliss that the ‘other stone’ was likely to be used for the unseen
vault, while the alabaster would be reserved for observable sections of the tomb.
There is reference to what could be another material in the translation; “and in
breadth five feet of assise”3, (transcribed, “de lacure cynk pees dassise”4), which has
no mention in Badham and Oosterwijk’s commentary. However alternative
translations for assise include the French meaning seat or base, or the French
construction term for a ‘course’, meaning a row of bricks or stone5. The first
possibility would translate as ‘and in breadth five feet at the base’. The latter
explanation would translate ‘and in breadth a five foot course’. Both are equally
feasible translations that flow in to the following part of the sentence; “in which
1
Badham, S. & Oosterwijk, S (eds.), Monumental Industry: The Production of Tomb
Monumnts in England and Wales in the Long Fourteenth Century, Donington: Shaun Tyas, 2010, p.
231.
2
Ibid, p. 230.
3
Ibid, p.230.
4
Ibid, p. 229.
5
Montague, D. Dictionary of Building and Civil Engineering: English/French, French/English,
London: E & FN Spon, 1996, p. 52, under ‘course’.
tomb the said Robert shall make twelve niches”6 (transcribed “en quele tumbe le dit
Robert ferra dusze measons”7).
The contract states that Hertcombe was responsible for the delivery of the stone,
the patterns for the niche figures, and providing Robert with “a measure”8. Kerver
meanwhile was contracted to produce work of an acceptable quality to Hertcombe,
including the creation of the vault in which the bodies would lie, as well as the
eventual movement and assembly of the entire structure.
Although the contract mentions Hertcombe having to show a pattern to Kerver to
illustrate how the weeping figures in the niches of the tomb should look, it is
nevertheless possible to gauge a fairly clear idea of how the tomb may have looked
from the other details included in the contract. The tomb was required to be 11’ 8”
(3.55m) in length, 5’ wide (1.52m), and 4’ 7” (1.39m) in height. The vault below was
to be 9’ (2.74m) in length, 4’ 6” (1.37m) wide, and 5’ (1.52m) in depth, to be set with
stone all around. The vault also requires internal arches to hold up the tomb above,
and ensure that the bodies placed within are not crushed. On the assembly of the
tomb the contract dictates that it should be put together in the “priory church of
Brustlesham Montagu in the county of Berkshire”9. Once Kerver has place the tomb
over the vault, it is then laid with marble, on top of which two effigies are placed,
each effigy with its own canopy. Badham and Oosterwijk note the unlikelihood of
Kerver being the sculptor of the marble top, the effigies, the two canopies, the
shafts, and “other appurtences”10 after the discovery of another contract by Bayliss
(Contract V)11. They are instead attributed to the sculptors Prentys and Sutton, with
the responsibility of assembly remaining with Kerver.
The use of different sculptors for separate elements of the complete tomb raises
some questions in Badham and Oosterwijk’s commentary, following the translation
of the tomb contract. Similar contracts show that Prentys and Sutton were also able
to carve tombs, and Badham and Oosterwijk’s own research12 show that their
workshop also offered ‘weepers’, therefore this was not a skill exclusive to Kerver.
Additionally, Badham and Oosterwijk have observed oddities in the payment and
commission dates for parts of the tomb chest. The entire cost for the tomb is
estimated at sixty pounds13, which Badham and Oosterwijk feel is an unusually large
amount of money in medieval terms for a single tomb monument. Stranger is the
fact that the date the effigies commissioned from Prentys and Sutton were to be
completed and delivered to Bisham Abbey is two years before that of the tomb in
the Kerver commission. Badham and Oosterwijk offer four inconclusive explanations.
Firstly the notion that the widow countess of John Montagu, who the tomb
monument was made for, hoped to commission a joint tomb before her own death.
6
7
8
9
10
11
12
13
Badham, S. & Oosterwijk, S. 2010, p. 230.
Ibid, p. 229.
Ibid, p. 230.
Ibid, p. 230.
Ibid, p. 230.
Ibid, pp. 224-226.
Ibid, p. 232.
Ibid, p. 232.
Another suggestion is that Prentys and Sutton were unable to complete the effigies
and canopies in time, therefore given an extension of which there is no record.
Thirdly, there was perhaps a tomb commissioned alongside the effigies and canopies
by another sculptor, but was deemed substandard by Hertcombe or Montagu’s wife.
Finally, an idea originally proposed by Bayliss, that the contract with Prentys and
Sutton actually refers to a separate tomb monument for another member of the
Montagu family who died in the same period. Badham and Oosterwijk demonstrate
the high possibility that the wife of the second Earl of Salisbury, William Montagu,
was responsible for the tomb chest in the hopes of a joint burial with her son.
Without the discovery of further contracts, or the absolute confirmation of who
commissioned what for whom, the peculiarities surrounding the tomb monuments
at Bisham Abbey cannot be made clear. Nevertheless, they have allowed us an
invaluable insight in to monumental industry, including the intent of the
commissioner, the responsibilities of the commissioned, and the formalities between
the two.
Bibliography
Badham, S. & Oosterwijk, S (eds.), Monumental Industry: The Production of Tomb
Monumnts in England and Wales in the Long Fourteenth Century, Donington: Shaun
Tyas, 2010.
Montague, D. Dictionary of Building and Civil Engineering: English/French,
French/English, London: E & FN Spon, 1996.