Whilst they are fine tombs in their own right, my own interest lies in the extensive markings covering the monuments. Do these inscriptions carry their own meaning and were encouraged (therefore making them calliglyphs) or where they not allowed, and defacement, making them graffiti.
This post is in three parts.
The first part is an analysis of the fine Medieval tomb of Randulphus de Schlopia - the former Bishop of Bath and Wells, who died in 1363. (The English translation is Ralph of Shrewsbury. He was elected in 1329 and was also the Chancellor of the University of Oxford.)
The second part is an analysis of the Early Modern tomb of Robert Creighton. The was also a Bishop of Bath and Wells from 1670 and 1672. He was Treasurer of Wells, 1634, Chaplain to Charles II in exile and Dean of Wells, 1660.
The third part is a comparison of the two tombs.
Part 1: The Early Modern tomb of Ralph of Shrewsbury
The covering of the tomb is shown by the following pictures:
The whole effigy is covered in such initials, names and markings: arms;
body;
legs and feet.
The questions then arises, what do these markings mean?
The first answer that comes to mind is that they are graffiti - ie that the marks are unauthorised and people simply wrote the equivalent of 'I woz 'ere' by adding their initials.
But this leads to other questions:
- Why this tomb cover in particular? (Actually there is another equally covered with initials and names, which I will write about in the next post.)
- Who were the people?
- Can anything be found out about them?
- What was their motive?
The Nose
One part of the tomb seems more damaged that elsewhere and that is his nose. One possibility is that the nose was accidentally or deliberately damaged. However, edges are smooth, which suggests a wearing down of the surface, possibly by generations of people touching it - much as people do today on objects, often as a lucky charm.The Tomb Cover
The point about the tomb can be answered first - both the tombs with the large amount of writing and marks on are white alabaster. Although hard, it was reasonably easy to inscribe, and the cut inscriptions could be easily seen.
However, the location of the tomb is said to have been 'once railed and in front of the high altar, [after which it] was placed unprotected in its current location.' (1) The tomb has a new modern base and so is highly likely to have been moved. It is likely to have been at easy writing height (as it is now) but may not have been. As the inscriptions are on the back as well, it is likely to have been in a location which could have been walked round.
The Dates
The dates that I saw are in a range from the 1750s to early 1800s, but there is reference to sixteenth century dates. (1)The dates associated with names or initials are
John gtal 176-
John Drake 1765
John Drake 1765
R Challice 1809
J Thorley 180- (top)
Wollen Gill 1776
John Sutton 1754
T Pope 1808
GT 1785J Thorley 180- (top)
Wollen Gill 1776
John Sutton 1754
T Pope 1808
W Burge 1780
IC 1760
BW 1808
The People
The vast majority of the inscriptions are initials of people. Even if a person was found with the identical initials there is no certainty that the correct person has been identified.
The assumption is that the inscriber wrote their own name (rather than writing on behalf of someone else) and that they were literate. There is no indication of the sex of the inscriber, but the greater likelihood - given the social conventions of the time - is that they were male. This, of course, may be wrong.
The assumption is that the inscriber wrote their own name (rather than writing on behalf of someone else) and that they were literate. There is no indication of the sex of the inscriber, but the greater likelihood - given the social conventions of the time - is that they were male. This, of course, may be wrong.
In a few cases there is a name and a date. The clearest are
J Daniel
John gtal 176-
J Bacon
John Drake 1765
R Challice 1809
J Thorley 180- (top) J Thorley (bottom right)
Wollen Gill 1776
John Sutton 1754
T Pope 1808
Samuel Clark
J W Clark
GT 1785
Thorley
W Burge 1780
These names make up the following list
J Daniel
John gtal 176-
J Bacon
John Drake 1765
R Challice 1809
J Thorley 180- (top) J Thorley (bottom right)
Wollen Gill 1776
John Sutton 1754
T Pope 1808
Samuel Clark
J W Clark
GT 1785
Thorley
W Burge 1780
These names make up the following list
J Daniel
John gtal 176-
J Bacon
John Drake 1765
John gtal 176-
J Bacon
John Drake 1765
R Challice 1809
J Thorley 180- (top)
J Thorley (bottom right)
Wollen Gill 1776
John Sutton 1754
T Pope 1808
Samuel ClarkJ Thorley 180- (top)
J Thorley (bottom right)
Wollen Gill 1776
John Sutton 1754
T Pope 1808
J W Clark
GT 1785
Thorley
W Burge 1780
One person, J Thorley, appears three times, and a instance (presumably the same person) of the surname Thorley also occurs. There are also two people with the surname Clark (Samuel and JW) on the list.
In an attempt to find a reason or motive for people writing their names an attempt was made to trace the people using the genealogical websites Findmypast and The Genealogist. There were varying results.
The search criteria used in the first instance for the names of people using the later dates (post 1780) was 40 years either side of a birth date in 1760 in Somerset.
R Challice 1809
The most unusual name with a date is R Challice 1809. There are a couple of families with the surname Challice in Devon, and only one in Somerset who fits the bill. There is a Richard Challice who was born in 1785 and in the 1841 Census was living in Staplegrove (Taunton) . Staplegrove is about 30 miles away from Wells. However in 1851 aged 56 he was described as an 'Patient - Agricultural Labourer' in the ---water House Institution and not born in Somerset. The name on the tomb is well carved and thus executed by someone who could write well. Whilst the term Agricultural Labourer covers a wide range of occupations it normally implies someone unskilled and uneducated. The inscription and 1841 Census person do not fit well.
T Pope 1808
T Pope could be another findable name but searching for a T Pope who was born 40 years either side of 1760 in Somerset gives 130 possible people. None were located in Wells.
J Thorley 180-? (As a mid-point the date has been taken as 1805)
There are eleven J Thorley names living in Somerset, with three being connected with Wells itself.
There is a James Thorley who in 1822, aged 84 (born 1738), was buried in St Cuthbert's Wells.
There was also a Charles James Thorley (which could work if he used his middle name) who has a memorial in Wells. He was born in 1777 and died in 1825.
Finally - also located in Wells, was John Thorley - but he died in 1796, so it it not him, unless he was one of the Thorley's who wrote their name but with no date (starting a family tradition?).
All the Thorley's associated with Wells are located at the large Anglican parish church of St Cuthbert's in Wells.
John Drake 1765
There are 62 references to 'John Drake' in Somerset, but this reduces to 7 in Wells (2 of which are Wells-by-Sea in Norfolk). The relevant entries are marriages in 1748 and 1754 (either the same John Drake married twice, or two different people). The first, in 1748, took place in St Cuthbert's church, Wells.
Wollen Gill 1776 (search 40 years either side of 1740)
There are no people called Wollen (or Wallen) living in Somerset. There is a two references to William Gill in Wells but these are both mid 19th Century, so too late.
John Sutton 1754 (search 40 years either side of 1730)
There is a John Sutton who was buried in St Cuthbert's Church Wells in 1771. There is no age recorded. A wider search across Somerset gives 67 hits.
W Burge 1780 (search 40 years either side of 1740)
Searching for W Burge across Somerset gives 272 results and there are six hits for W Burge in Wells. However, most can be ruled out as the hits (marriage, Census etc) are in the mid-19th C, but one possible hit is the marriage of William Burge in 1776 at St Cuthbert's in Wells
J Bacon
J Bacon does not have an associated date, but the writing is broadly similar to the others and the same search criteria can be used.
Unfortunately there are two many possibilities to pin the person down. There are 27 results - James Bacon appears in the 1841, 1851 and 1861 census returns in the Almhouses, and he was a former woolcomber, and their are three references to burials - John Bacon in 1802, John Bacon in 1807 and John Bacon in 1808. No ages are given so whilst most are likely to be children they might not be.
Samuel Clark / J W Clark
Samuel Clark also does not have an associated date, but the writing is broadly similar to the others and the same search criteria can be used.
The best fit is the marriage of Samuel Clark in 1753, in St Cuthbert's church, Wells
There is a James Walter Clark who got married in Bath Abbey in 1818.
Name Summary
There is no consistent pattern across all the names, but the strongest is that of people associated with St Cuthbert's Church in Wells (assuming the correct people have been identified).- J Thorley - various
- John Sutton - death
- William Burge - marriage
- Samuel Clark - marriage
Motive
There are many reasons why people could inscribe their names on a tomb in a religious setting, from the secular to the religious. Possible reasons include- 'I 'woz here' - a simple marking of presence
- Defacement and act of violation - either directed against the religious setting, or the tomb in particular
- Veneration - the tomb held a special power, which acted as a magnate for people to visit, and record their visit in some way.
- Encouragement by the church authorities (perhaps for a payment?)
To identify which of these is correct is difficult as the result in all cases is the same (inscriptions on the tomb) but the motivation could be completely different.
However, a couple of points can be made.
- Identification and Punishment - The first is that people were not afraid of identifying themselves. If the people identified above are correct, and some lived in and around Wells, they would have been known. By writing their names and the dates they could have been easily found and, if appropriate, punished. That this was a continuing tradition indicates that at best the church authorities 'turned a blind eye' to the practice. An alternative explanation is that those who wrote their names took the risk and didn't mind a punishment (presumably light) whilst others did not want to identify themselves and so only wrote their initials.
- Time - some of the inscriptions looked shallow and hurriedly written, which others - such as R Challice 1809 - are well inscribed and the letters are well formed. Writing this is likely to have taken some time, so either this was allowed, or a 'blind eye was turned' or there was no active 'patrolling' by the Cathedral authorities to stop such acts.
- Encouragement - The alternative is that the church authorities actively promote the practice - a scenario can be envisaged where inscriptions were allowed for a payment, the more written, the more payment was made.
- Veneration and luck - The tomb is covered with scratches, initials and names, but there does not seem to be much religious symbolism, in particular crosses, though crossed scratches are difficult to interpret. The predominant incisions are all secular. Medieval shrines often carry a lot of crosses indicating the holy and in this case if there was a powerful reason for the inscriptions on this particular tomb then I would expect more religious symbolism. It may, however, been considered 'lucky' to touch the effigy and carve one's name - hence the worn down nose.
- Religion - that the tomb is the Anglican Cathedral indicates that (unless defacement is the reason) the inscribers felt comfortable in the Cathedral setting. This in turn would indicate that they were Anglican. If the identification of at least some of the people were associated with the local parish church of St Cuthbert's, this association is strengthened.
- Education - all the full names are well written and the letters well formed, as are many of the initials. This in turn would indicate a degree of literacy and education, and in turn social status and wealth
- Choirboys - after writing this original blog I came across the following blog http://carolineld.blogspot.co.uk/2012/08/carved-in-stone.html which also discusses the tomb and the graffiti. In the blog she states 'Since it is alongside the choir, one suspects that choristers - for whom he showed such concern in life - may have been among those responsible.' It's a nice idea and one that I had not thought of. If a list of choristers exists then this could be checked in future.
Summary
The inscribers of the tomb are likely to have been Anglican, educated and literate. A few may have been identified through various records in which case they are Anglican and associated with the local parish church of St Cuthbert's. The motive cannot be securely identified, but does not seem to have been veneration nor defacement. Perhaps the best fit is that 'they woz 'ere'. That the inscriptions were unlikely to have been authorized, and undertaken without permission, they can probably be classed as graffiti, rather than as calliglyphs.Part 2: the Early Modern tomb of Robert Creighton
The second tomb is that of Robert Creighton who died in 1672. It is unclear if the tomb has been moved and their are no indication of any railings. The inscriptions are only on the right hand side.There are also inscriptions are also on the monument
There are similarities with Ralph of Shrewsbury's tomb, as the body lies on its back with its hands in prayer and the head lies on a pillow.
Back of pillow
The names and dates are less prominent but include:
J Beacham
J Oxley
side of pillow
1864
1898
shoulder
1827
Jakob -
head and hands
The first point is that the inscriptions are not so plentiful on Creighton's monument as they are on Shrewsbury's. The nose is intact, the face, mitre and hands are all un-inscribed.
The main target for the inscriptions are on the pillow and the shoulders, and are very few, if any, on the robes, even though there is space for small inscriptions.
The names are indistinct and there are more 'over-scratching' of lines over names making the names and dates that are there much more indistinct.
The three readable dates are 1827, 1864 and 1897 are all considerably later than Shrewsbury's dated inscriptions. The names are
J Beacham
There are two J Beacham references (with a birth date +/- 40 years of 1800), one is John Beacham who is 1813 married in St Cuthbert's church in Wells. The other is also John Beacham who was also married in St Cuthbert's church in Wells, in 1837.
In either case the St Cuthbert's church connection continues.
J Oxley
Given the same birth date criteria there are 24 (men and women) possibilities of a 'J Oxley' located in Wells.
Crighton's monument reveals a lot less inscriptions and information. It is noticeable that the dates are later, the writing is less clear and the inscriptions are only located on the pillow (the majority) and the shoulder area. The dates are also later.
This might mean that a certain amount of time has to elapse before such a monument becomes eligible for people to write their inscriptions: a tomb has to pass from being 'new' into a realm where it can be seen as a inscriptions. However, how to measure the tombs' importance is difficult to determine. Where the inscriptions written because the tombs were important (and the rubbed nose of Shrewsbury may point to its importance) or because they were unimportant and uncared for and hence nobody cared if they were written upon.
It is likely that the reason for the choice of both tombs was the material that they were made of - white marble. It may have been considered easier to inscribe, or the results looked better on a white background. It may also have been the location of the tombs that was a key contributory factor - if as has been suggested (1) that the choir boys carved their names on Shewsbury's tomb when it was in the choir, was Crighton's tomb also at one time in the choir?
--------------
Note - for a definition of calliglyphs and my long article about them here:
http://calliglyphs.blogspot.co.uk/2015/01/welcome-and-copy-of-calliglyph-article.html
1) http://carolineld.blogspot.co.uk/2012/08/carved-in-stone.html
head and hands
The first point is that the inscriptions are not so plentiful on Creighton's monument as they are on Shrewsbury's. The nose is intact, the face, mitre and hands are all un-inscribed.
The main target for the inscriptions are on the pillow and the shoulders, and are very few, if any, on the robes, even though there is space for small inscriptions.
The names are indistinct and there are more 'over-scratching' of lines over names making the names and dates that are there much more indistinct.
The three readable dates are 1827, 1864 and 1897 are all considerably later than Shrewsbury's dated inscriptions. The names are
J Beacham
There are two J Beacham references (with a birth date +/- 40 years of 1800), one is John Beacham who is 1813 married in St Cuthbert's church in Wells. The other is also John Beacham who was also married in St Cuthbert's church in Wells, in 1837.
In either case the St Cuthbert's church connection continues.
J Oxley
Given the same birth date criteria there are 24 (men and women) possibilities of a 'J Oxley' located in Wells.
Part 3- Comparison of the two tombs
Crighton's monument reveals a lot less inscriptions and information. It is noticeable that the dates are later, the writing is less clear and the inscriptions are only located on the pillow (the majority) and the shoulder area. The dates are also later.
This might mean that a certain amount of time has to elapse before such a monument becomes eligible for people to write their inscriptions: a tomb has to pass from being 'new' into a realm where it can be seen as a inscriptions. However, how to measure the tombs' importance is difficult to determine. Where the inscriptions written because the tombs were important (and the rubbed nose of Shrewsbury may point to its importance) or because they were unimportant and uncared for and hence nobody cared if they were written upon.
It is likely that the reason for the choice of both tombs was the material that they were made of - white marble. It may have been considered easier to inscribe, or the results looked better on a white background. It may also have been the location of the tombs that was a key contributory factor - if as has been suggested (1) that the choir boys carved their names on Shewsbury's tomb when it was in the choir, was Crighton's tomb also at one time in the choir?
--------------
Note - for a definition of calliglyphs and my long article about them here:
http://calliglyphs.blogspot.co.uk/2015/01/welcome-and-copy-of-calliglyph-article.html
1) http://carolineld.blogspot.co.uk/2012/08/carved-in-stone.html
