The Cosmatesque Mosaics of Westminster Abbey: The Pavements and Royal Tombs: History, Archaeology, Architecture and Conservation 9781789252347, 9781789252354, 1789252342

Citation preview

About the pagination of this eBook This eBook contains a multi-volume set. To navigate the front matter of this eBook by page number, you will need to use the volume number and the page number, separated by a hyphen. For example, to go to page v of volume 1, type “1-v” in the Go box at the bottom of the screen and click "Go." To go to page v of volume 2, type “2-v”… and so forth.

THE COSMATESQUE MOSAICS OF WESTMINSTER ABBEY

Frontispiece: The sanctuary, viewed from the west in 2018, showing the Cosmati pavement, the Victorian high altar and its pavement, and the altar screen. The shrine of St Edward lies in the chapel beyond the screen. © Dean and Chapter of Westminster

THE COSMATESQUE MOSAICS OF WESTMINSTER ABBEY The Pavements and Royal Tombs: History, Archaeology, Architecture and Conservation VOLUME 1 THE PAVEMENTS by

Warwick Rodwell and David S Neal with contributions by Paul Drury, Ian Freestone, Kevin Hayward, Lisa Monnas, Matthew Payne, Ruth Siddall, Vanessa Simeoni and Erica Carrick Utsi computerized illustrations by Thomas Clark Foreword by The Dean of Westminster

Oxford & Philadelphia

Published in the United Kingdom in 2019 by OXBOW BOOKS The Old Music Hall, 106–108 Cowley Road, Oxford, OX4 1JE and in the United States by OXBOW BOOKS 1950 Lawrence Road, Havertown, PA 19083 Copyright © Warwick Rodwell and David S Neal 2019 Hardcover Edition: ISBN 978-1-78925-234-7 Digital Edition: ISBN 978-1-78925-235-4 (epub) A CIP record for this book is available from the British Library Library of Congress Control Number: 2019939193 All rights reserved. No part of this book may be reproduced or transmitted in any form or by any means, electronic or mechanical including photocopying, recording or by any information storage and retrieval system, without permission from the publisher in writing. Printed in Turkey by MegaPrint Typeset in Great Britain by Frabjous Books For a complete list of Oxbow titles, please contact: UNITED KINGDOM Oxbow Books Telephone (01865) 241249 Email: [email protected] www.oxbowbooks.com UNITED STATES OF AMERICA Oxbow Books Telephone (610) 853-9131, Fax (610) 853-9146 Email: [email protected] www.casemateacademic.com/oxbow Oxbow Books is part of the Casemate Group Front cover: Head of King Henry III, from the effigy on his tomb (Dean and Chapter of Westminster) Mosaic-decorated tomb-cover set into the sanctuary pavement (Painting by David S Neal) Lombardic font taken from the sanctuary pavement inscriptions Back cover: Detail of the great square and central quincunx of the sanctuary pavement (Painting by David S Neal) Half-title page: Aerial view of Westminster Abbey from the south-west (© Historic England Archive) Endpapers: Design taken from the gilt latten table upon which Henry III’s tomb effigy rests (David S Neal) Note regarding plans: Unless otherwise stated in the caption, or indicated by a compass-point, all plans and vertical photographic views have north towards the top of the page.

Dedicated to Her Majesty The Queen, by gracious permission, to commemorate the 750th anniversary of the rebuilding of Westminster Abbey and the re-dedication of the Shrine of St Edward the Confessor by King Henry III on 13th October, 1269

contents Foreword by The Dean of Westminster���������������������������������������������������������������������������������������������xv Preface����������������������������������������������������������������������������������������������������������������������������������������xvii Acknowledgements�����������������������������������������������������������������������������������������������������������������������xx Summary�����������������������������������������������������������������������������������������������������������������������������������xxiii

VOLUME 1 The Pavements   1 The cosmatesque pavements and monuments: introduction and context Historical and architectural context�����������������������������������������������������������������������������������������1 The mosaic assemblage������������������������������������������������������������������������������������������������������������9   2 Historiography and the antiquarian record Early references, 1269–c. 1700������������������������������������������������������������������������������������������������ 13 Descriptions and illustrations of the pavements and monuments, 1707–1925 Descriptions��������������������������������������������������������������������������������������������������������������������� 15 Illustrations����������������������������������������������������������������������������������������������������������������������� 19 The pavements and monuments in recent scholarship����������������������������������������������������������� 32   3 The sanctuary and high altar pavements: past interventions, damage and repair Paving the sanctuary: an historical overview�������������������������������������������������������������������������� 35 The cosmatesque sanctuary pavement������������������������������������������������������������������������������������ 39 Impact of the Civil War, 1643�������������������������������������������������������������������������������������������40 Repairs, c. 1660����������������������������������������������������������������������������������������������������������������40 Installation of the Whitehall altarpiece, 1706–07���������������������������������������������������������������������40 Sir George Gilbert Scott’s restoration of the sanctuary, 1859–71���������������������������������������������42 Sanctuary pavement���������������������������������������������������������������������������������������������������������42 High altar pavement and its underlying archaeology���������������������������������������������������������43   4 Description of the sanctuary pavement Purbeck marble matrix���������������������������������������������������������������������������������������������������������� 47 Detailed description of the decoration�����������������������������������������������������������������������������������54 Panels 1–8: the central quincunx��������������������������������������������������������������������������������������68 Panels 9–16: background to the quincunx������������������������������������������������������������������������72 Panels 17–20: large medallions (rotae)��������������������������������������������������������������������������������76 Panels 21–32: background to the large medallions������������������������������������������������������������79 Panels 33–52: medallions in the outer border�������������������������������������������������������������������� 85 Panels 53–56: rectangles in the outer border���������������������������������������������������������������������98 Panels 57–88: curvilinear bands��������������������������������������������������������������������������������������� 109

contents Panels 89–116: outer border spandrels������������������������������������������������������������������������������115 Panels 117–136: miscellaneous small compartments����������������������������������������������������������117 The frame inscriptions���������������������������������������������������������������������������������������������������������119 Inscription A. Central roundel of quincunx���������������������������������������������������������������������119 Inscription B. Outer lobes of quincunx�������������������������������������������������������������������������� 120 Inscription C. Great square��������������������������������������������������������������������������������������������� 120 Inscription D. Northern tomb-cover������������������������������������������������������������������������������ 122 Phasing: construction, alteration and repair�������������������������������������������������������������������������� 122 Summary of proposed phasing��������������������������������������������������������������������������������������� 123 Notes on the characteristics of each phase���������������������������������������������������������������������� 125 Early repairs to the Cosmati pavement by Paul Drury�����������������������������������������������������135 Phase 2: repairs in sympathy with the primary mosaic work��������������������������������������������136 Phase 2–3: various interventions, probably between Phases 2 and 3���������������������������������138 Phase 3: introduction of new designs and more stone types, probably c. 1660–62������������ 140 Phase 4: interventions related to reordering the sanctuary, 1706–07�������������������������������� 143   5 Surveying, analyzing and evaluating the sanctuary and high altar pavements Preparatory studies�������������������������������������������������������������������������������������������������������������� 145 Ground-penetrating radar surveys, 2004–05 by Erica Carrick Utsi������������������������������������� 147 Some GPR basics���������������������������������������������������������������������������������������������������������� 147 Planning the survey�������������������������������������������������������������������������������������������������������� 148 The high frequency survey��������������������������������������������������������������������������������������������� 148 The low frequency survey���������������������������������������������������������������������������������������������� 154 Conclusions��������������������������������������������������������������������������������������������������������������������156 Condition and conservation trials, 1993–98 by Vanessa Simeoni���������������������������������������� 156 Condition in 1993–94�����������������������������������������������������������������������������������������������������156 Condition in 1997�����������������������������������������������������������������������������������������������������������157 The archaeology beneath the pavements: a brief assessment������������������������������������������������� 159   6 Conservation and repair of the sanctuary pavement by Vanessa Simeoni Introduction ����������������������������������������������������������������������������������������������������������������������� 161 Recording and the sanctuary pavement archive������������������������������������������������������������������� 162 Photogrammetric survey������������������������������������������������������������������������������������������������ 162 Photographic record������������������������������������������������������������������������������������������������������� 163 Video documentary������������������������������������������������������������������������������������������������������� 163 Reports and other written records��������������������������������������������������������������������������������� 163 Materials in the pavement��������������������������������������������������������������������������������������������������� 163 Cleaning������������������������������������������������������������������������������������������������������������������������������ 163 Solvent cleaning, 2008���������������������������������������������������������������������������������������������������� 166 Relative humidity and temperature�������������������������������������������������������������������������������� 168 Laser cleaning���������������������������������������������������������������������������������������������������������������������� 169 Equipment, settings and mechanism������������������������������������������������������������������������������� 169 Cleaning the tomb-covers���������������������������������������������������������������������������������������������� 169 Removal of cement patching���������������������������������������������������������������������������������������������� 171 Emergency stabilization and temporary repairs��������������������������������������������������������������� 173 Removal methods and techniques���������������������������������������������������������������������������������� 174 Laser removal of cement������������������������������������������������������������������������������������������������ 175 Case studies�������������������������������������������������������������������������������������������������������������������� 175 Purbeck marble: deterioration and treatment����������������������������������������������������������������������� 176 Bed type and deterioration patterns������������������������������������������������������������������������������� 177 Conservation treatment�������������������������������������������������������������������������������������������������� 178 Purbeck marble matrix replacement������������������������������������������������������������������������������� 182 viii

contents Sub-structure delamination��������������������������������������������������������������������������������������������� 183 Stone tesserae: damage and treatment���������������������������������������������������������������������������������� 184 Stone types�������������������������������������������������������������������������������������������������������������������� 184 Cocciopesto mortar������������������������������������������������������������������������������������������������������������185 Condition of stone tesserae���������������������������������������������������������������������������������������������185 Treatment programme���������������������������������������������������������������������������������������������������� 186 Mosaic reintroduction���������������������������������������������������������������������������������������������������� 187 Repairing historic restorations���������������������������������������������������������������������������������������� 191 George Gilbert Scott’s restoration����������������������������������������������������������������������������������� 193 Glass tesserae����������������������������������������������������������������������������������������������������������������������� 194 Opaque glass������������������������������������������������������������������������������������������������������������������ 195 Translucent glass..............................................................................................................197 Survey of remaining glass inlays, 2005���������������������������������������������������������������������������� 197 Deterioration and condition������������������������������������������������������������������������������������������� 198 Treatment����������������������������������������������������������������������������������������������������������������������� 198 Restoration of the western border panel����������������������������������������������������������������������������� 202 Treatment����������������������������������������������������������������������������������������������������������������������� 203 Method of tessera production����������������������������������������������������������������������������������������� 204 Case study: the central medallion���������������������������������������������������������������������������������������� 205 Repairs to the central stone������������������������������������������������������������������������������������������� 206 Surface finish����������������������������������������������������������������������������������������������������������������������� 207 Conclusions and post-conservation care������������������������������������������������������������������������������ 208   7 St Edward the Confessor’s chapel pavement Past interventions and damage����������������������������������������������������������������������������������������������211 Present condition of the pavement��������������������������������������������������������������������������������� 218 The Purbeck marble matrix������������������������������������������������������������������������������������������������ 221 Paving zones������������������������������������������������������������������������������������������������������������������ 221 Setting out the design���������������������������������������������������������������������������������������������������� 224 Detailed description of the pavement...................................................................................225 Designs in the medallions����������������������������������������������������������������������������������������������� 225 Small roundels���������������������������������������������������������������������������������������������������������������� 244 Curvilinear bands����������������������������������������������������������������������������������������������������������� 247 Concave-sided triangles�������������������������������������������������������������������������������������������������� 247 Discussion���������������������������������������������������������������������������������������������������������������������� 247 Ground-penetrating radar surveys of the high altar and St Edward’s chapel pavements, 2005 by Erica Carrick Utsi�������������������������������������������������������������������������������������������������������� 250 High altar pavement and steps���������������������������������������������������������������������������������������� 250 St Edward’s chapel���������������������������������������������������������������������������������������������������������� 252 Conclusions������������������������������������������������������������������������������������������������������������������� 257 The archaeology beneath the chapel floor��������������������������������������������������������������������������� 258   8 Materials employed in the pavements and monuments Antiquarian petrology...........................................................................................................261 The stone types by Kevin Hayward��������������������������������������������������������������������������������������� 262 Introduction....................................................................................................................262 Primary materials����������������������������������������������������������������������������������������������������������� 264 Restoration materials, Phases 2–5����������������������������������������������������������������������������������� 270 Glass: analysis of samples from the sanctuary pavement by Ian Freestone�������������������������������� 274 Opaque glass������������������������������������������������������������������������������������������������������������������ 274 Translucent glass������������������������������������������������������������������������������������������������������������� 275 Metals employed in the pavements and monuments������������������������������������������������������������ 275 ix

contents Wrought iron����������������������������������������������������������������������������������������������������������������� 276 Latten (brass)������������������������������������������������������������������������������������������������������������������ 277 Analysis of ‘mastic’ resin on the sanctuary pavement by Ruth Siddall������������������������������������ 278 Sampling and analytical details��������������������������������������������������������������������������������������� 279 Discussion and conclusions��������������������������������������������������������������������������������������������� 280 Analysis of the paste-inlaid tesserae by Ruth Siddall�������������������������������������������������������������� 281 Sample preparation and analytical techniques����������������������������������������������������������������� 281 Composition of the tesserae������������������������������������������������������������������������������������������� 281 Composition of the pigment������������������������������������������������������������������������������������������ 282 Conclusions������������������������������������������������������������������������������������������������������������������� 282 Mortars used in the sanctuary pavement by Ruth Siddall������������������������������������������������������ 283 Recording and sampling the mortars������������������������������������������������������������������������������ 284 Construction mortars����������������������������������������������������������������������������������������������������� 284 Restoration mortars������������������������������������������������������������������������������������������������������� 285 Cement repairs��������������������������������������������������������������������������������������������������������������� 288 Discussion���������������������������������������������������������������������������������������������������������������������� 288 Notes to chapters 1 to 8������������������������������������������������������������������������������������������������������������� 291 Plans 1 and 2 (fold-outs at end of volume)

* * *

x

contents

VOLUME 2 The Royal Tombs   9 St Edward’s chapel and the context of the shrine Introduction.........................................................................................................................303 Chronology of St Edward’s enshrinement.............................................................................305 Evolving topography of St Edward’s chapel������������������������������������������������������������������������� 309 Elevating the shrine������������������������������������������������������������������������������������������������������� 309 Pilgrim access������������������������������������������������������������������������������������������������������������������310 Proliferation of royal tombs and its consequences������������������������������������������������������������312 Monuments in the chapel: post-medieval interventions and antiquarian investigations����������313 Impact of pilgrims and tourists on the chapel and its monuments����������������������������������������317 10 The shrine-tomb of St Edward the Confessor, I: description and primary fabric Introduction������������������������������������������������������������������������������������������������������������������������ 321 General description of the shrine-tomb������������������������������������������������������������������������������� 322 Detailed descriptions of the components����������������������������������������������������������������������������� 329 Plinth����������������������������������������������������������������������������������������������������������������������������� 329 Cornice�������������������������������������������������������������������������������������������������������������������������� 329 South elevation�������������������������������������������������������������������������������������������������������������� 332 East elevation����������������������������������������������������������������������������������������������������������������� 337 North elevation�������������������������������������������������������������������������������������������������������������� 343 West elevation (incorporating the altar retable)��������������������������������������������������������������� 350 Niches��������������������������������������������������������������������������������������������������������������������������� 356 Columns and colonnettes����������������������������������������������������������������������������������������������� 369 Reconstructing the original form of the shrine-tomb��������������������������������������������������������� 376 Location, steps and plinth����������������������������������������������������������������������������������������������� 376 Lower stage of the pedestal and niches��������������������������������������������������������������������������� 377 Upper panelled zone and chest�������������������������������������������������������������������������������������� 378 Detached architectural fragments from the shrine����������������������������������������������������������� 381 Method of construction and assembly��������������������������������������������������������������������������������� 382 The primary inscription: an assessment���������������������������������������������������������������������������������385 Concluding observations����������������������������������������������������������������������������������������������������� 389 11 The shrine-tomb of St Edward the Confessor, II: Tudor reconstruction and later history................................................................................................................393 The feretory canopy (capsella or cooperculum)������������������������������������������������������������������������ 394 Description�������������������������������������������������������������������������������������������������������������������� 398 Discussion and dating����������������������������������������������������������������������������������������������������� 403 Shrine of St Edward: historical context of its Tudor reconstruction������������������������������������� 407 Abbot Feckenham’s reconstruction of the shrine pedestal and altar, 1557����������������������������� 409 The pedestal and sarcophagus chamber�������������������������������������������������������������������������� 410 Decoration and defacement���������������������������������������������������������������������������������������������415 The secondary inscription��������������������������������������������������������������������������������������������������� 417 Accident and intervention, 1685������������������������������������������������������������������������������������������ 419 St Edward’s coffins��������������������������������������������������������������������������������������������������������� 420 Fragments of silk from the tomb of Edward the Confessor by Lisa Monnas�������������������������� 422 Dating, weave and design����������������������������������������������������������������������������������������������� 425 Dilapidation of the shrine canopy and its restoration, 1958–60��������������������������������������������� 428 xi

contents 12 Tomb of King Henry III Introduction and antiquarian descriptions���������������������������������������������������������������������������� 435 Summary of historical evidence relating to the burial and tomb of Henry III���������������� 439 Architectural form of the tomb������������������������������������������������������������������������������������������� 440 Stepped podium������������������������������������������������������������������������������������������������������������� 440 Lower chest�������������������������������������������������������������������������������������������������������������������� 441 Upper chest������������������������������������������������������������������������������������������������������������������� 445 Effigy����������������������������������������������������������������������������������������������������������������������������� 446 Canopy and accoutrements�������������������������������������������������������������������������������������������� 446 Summary list of the mosaic-decorated components of the tomb������������������������������������ 447 Detailed description of the mosaic decoration��������������������������������������������������������������������� 449 South elevation: upper chest������������������������������������������������������������������������������������������� 449 South elevation: lower chest������������������������������������������������������������������������������������������� 452 East elevation: upper chest���������������������������������������������������������������������������������������������� 453 East elevation: lower chest���������������������������������������������������������������������������������������������� 454 North elevation: upper chest������������������������������������������������������������������������������������������ 458 North elevation: lower chest������������������������������������������������������������������������������������������ 459 West elevation: upper chest�������������������������������������������������������������������������������������������� 468 West elevation: lower chest��������������������������������������������������������������������������������������������� 469 Tomb colonnettes����������������������������������������������������������������������������������������������������������� 471 Later interventions�������������������������������������������������������������������������������������������������������������� 475 Restoration, 1557������������������������������������������������������������������������������������������������������������ 475 Archaeological investigation, 1871����������������������������������������������������������������������������������� 476 Restoration, 1873����������������������������������������������������������������������������������������������������������� 478 13 Child’s tomb in the south ambulatory Identity of the tomb and its occupants�������������������������������������������������������������������������������� 481 Date and primary location of the tomb������������������������������������������������������������������������������� 484 Relocation of the tomb in the south ambulatory���������������������������������������������������������������� 485 The tomb-chest....................................................................................................................489 Detailed description of the decoration��������������������������������������������������������������������������������� 490 North elevation�������������������������������������������������������������������������������������������������������������� 490 East elevation����������������������������������������������������������������������������������������������������������������� 492 West elevation���������������������������������������������������������������������������������������������������������������� 493 Top slab������������������������������������������������������������������������������������������������������������������������� 493 Discussion��������������������������������������������������������������������������������������������������������������������������� 498 Design and execution����������������������������������������������������������������������������������������������������� 498 Decorative materials and their deployment��������������������������������������������������������������������� 500 Architectural setting of the repositioned tomb���������������������������������������������������������������� 501 Post-medieval interventions�������������������������������������������������������������������������������������������� 502 Archaeological investigations, 1937 and later������������������������������������������������������������������� 503 14 Related monuments and furnishings The ‘de Valence’ tombs�������������������������������������������������������������������������������������������������������� 505 William de Valence, Earl of Pembroke���������������������������������������������������������������������������� 505 St Edward’s chapel: northern tomb-cover����������������������������������������������������������������������� 508 St Edward’s chapel: southern ‘de Valence’ tomb-cover������������������������������������������������������511 Identifying the occupants of the two tombs: a reappraisal by Matthew Payne��������������������513 Discussion�����������������������������������������������������������������������������������������������������������������������515 St Edward’s shrine altar��������������������������������������������������������������������������������������������������������516 Fragments of cable-moulded colonnette-shafts����������������������������������������������������������������������519 Statue pedestals and candelabra���������������������������������������������������������������������������������������������519 xii

contents

High altar and the Westminster Retable������������������������������������������������������������������������������� 520 Inscription fragment in the floor of St Edward’s chapel������������������������������������������������������� 522

15 The Westminster mosaic assemblage: summary, assessment and dating The Cosmati episode: embracing the academic challenge���������������������������������������������������� 525 Luxury paving and mosaic decoration: Westminster in context.............................................527 The sanctuary and its pavements����������������������������������������������������������������������������������������� 533 Abbot Richard de Ware, 1258–83������������������������������������������������������������������������������������ 533 Aspects of the pavement’s design and construction����������������������������������������������������������535 Four rectangular border panels��������������������������������������������������������������������������������������� 541 Inscriptions�������������������������������������������������������������������������������������������������������������������� 545 The primary design and materials���������������������������������������������������������������������������������� 547 Later history of the pavement���������������������������������������������������������������������������������������� 549 Altar pavement and screen�����������������������������������������������������������������������������������������������551 St Edward the Confessor’s chapel and its pavement��������������������������������������������������������������551 The underlying topography of the chapel, 11th to 13th centuries������������������������������������551 Demolition and preparations for reconstruction: some logistical considerations��������������� 554 Laying out the chapel in the early 1250s�������������������������������������������������������������������������555 The shrine pavement����������������������������������������������������������������������������������������������������� 559 St Edward’s shrine-tomb and altar��������������������������������������������������������������������������������������� 562 Making liturgical provision during the structural interregnum���������������������������������������� 562 Aspects of the design of the shrine pedestal������������������������������������������������������������������� 564 Dating the construction of St Edward’s shrine���������������������������������������������������������������� 567 St Edward: housing the corporeal relic��������������������������������������������������������������������������� 571 The shrine dismantled and reassembled�������������������������������������������������������������������������� 572 Henry III and his tomb������������������������������������������������������������������������������������������������������� 574 Historical context����������������������������������������������������������������������������������������������������������� 574 The upper tomb-chest��������������������������������������������������������������������������������������������������� 579 The lower shrine-like chest�������������������������������������������������������������������������������������������� 580 Effigy����������������������������������������������������������������������������������������������������������������������������� 583 Canopy�������������������������������������������������������������������������������������������������������������������������� 584 Constructional logistics���������������������������������������������������������������������������������������������������585 The coffin���������������������������������������������������������������������������������������������������������������������� 586 A failed cult?������������������������������������������������������������������������������������������������������������������ 588 Dating the construction of the tomb������������������������������������������������������������������������������ 589 Other tombs������������������������������������������������������������������������������������������������������������������������ 591 The child’s Cosmati tomb (John of Windsor)����������������������������������������������������������������� 591 The ‘de Valence’ tombs: a conundrum resolved��������������������������������������������������������������� 593 Logistics and chronology of the Westminster Cosmati episode��������������������������������������������� 594 Logistics of introducing Cosmati work into Westminster Abbey������������������������������������� 594 Chronology of the Cosmati assemblage�������������������������������������������������������������������������� 596 Attribution of the Cosmati authorship��������������������������������������������������������������������������������600 Appendix 1. The shrine in the records by Matthew Payne Archival references��������������������������������������������������������������������������������������������������������������� 603 Chronicles��������������������������������������������������������������������������������������������������������������������������� 621 Appendix 2. Quantification of tesserae in the mosaic pavements and monuments......625 Notes to chapters 9 to 15............................................................................................................641 Abbreviations and bibliography��������������������������������������������������������������������������������������������������� 661 Index������������������������������������������������������������������������������������������������������������������������������������������ 669 Plans 3 and 4 (fold-outs at end of volume) xiii

foreword By The Dean of Westminster, The Very Reverend Dr John Hall

This two-volume account of the Cosmatesque mosaics in and around the Shrine of St Edward throws new light on one of the most extraordinary and wonderful aspects of the Abbey church. However, much of the history of the Abbey itself is untold and unknown. In the 19th century, Dean Arthur Penrhyn Stanley (1864 to 1881), explored every tomb and every monument in the Abbey and wrote Memorials of Westminster Abbey, published in several editions. Since then, others have attempted aspects of the history. We know little or nothing of the earliest years and cannot be sure of the time of the first Abbey building, though it seems likely to have been commissioned by Dunstan, the former Abbot of Glastonbury and Bishop of London, when he was about to be Archbishop of Canterbury, perhaps in 959 or 960, who would subsequently be canonized. Later, we know of King Edward’s rebuilding of the Abbey in the mid-11th century, who would be canonized in 1161 as St Edward the Confessor, and his burial in his Abbey church on 6th January 1066, but really little of the building itself. Things become clearer in the reign of Henry III, son of King John, who replaced the east end of the Confessor’s church with the quire, transepts, sacrarium and ambulatories around the Confessor’s shrine. The nave was rebuilt many years later and the west towers only finished in 1745. We still see those parts of the Abbey church Henry III left us, consecrated on 13th October 1269.

We also see fascinating remains of the glorious decoration commissioned for Henry III’s church by Abbot Richard de Ware (1258 to 1283). The abbey had earlier that century become exempt from the authority of the Bishop of London or Archbishop of Canterbury, so the abbot travelled to Rome to receive authority for his abbacy from the Pope. He visited Rome perhaps every other year.There he discovered the materials for mosaics recycled from imperial Rome by the Cosmati brothers and became sure that Henry III would delight in their work for his great Abbey church. In 1268, a year or so before the consecration of the new Abbey church, pavements were laid in front of the high altar and around the Confessor’s Shrine, and Cosmatesque mosaics decorated the Shrine itself and would also decorate Henry III’s glorious tomb prepared before his death in 1272. Warwick Rodwell, the Abbey’s Archaeologist, and David Neal have studied these mosaics in great detail and discovered much about them that has never before been known. The mosaics have been despoiled and removed and returned and tampered with over the centuries but what remains is still precious and amazing and glorious. These two volumes offer astonishing insights and amazing detail. We must be immensely glad that their story will now be preserved for the future. Countless generations to come will learn and understand the significance of this work that has stood here already for more than 750 years.

preface The Collegiate Church of St Peter in Westminster – now generally known as Westminster Abbey – is renowned the world over, and no church in the British Isles has a richer, more diverse or more complex history. Formerly a great Benedictine monastery, it is the Coronation church where English kings and queens have been crowned since 1066, and for centuries it was also the principal royal burial church, where many monarchs and nobility were laid to rest. From the Middle Ages to the present day, interest in the Abbey has generated a huge volume of literature, both scholarly and popular, and it has even provided the inspiration for some compelling works of fiction.1 Hardly any publica­ tion has failed to express interest in, and wonder at, the medieval royal tombs and cosmatesque mosaic pavements.The two are inextricably linked, and together they comprise a unique group of monuments of outstanding importance for the study of art, architecture and archaeology in 13thcentury Europe.They include two great pavements, a shrine and two royal tombs. Designed and constructed by Italian craftsmen, the Westminster Cosmati mosaics are the only extant examples outside of Italy itself.Yet despite their undisputed importance, these monuments have never been archaeologically studied or recorded in detail. Consequently, many uncertainties attend the circumstances of their commissioning, the tech­ niques of their construction, and even their dates of completion. The decision by the Dean and Chapter of Westminster in 1996 to embark on a much-needed programme of sensitive conservation on the Sacrarium (sanctuary) pavement was accompanied by historical research, trial investigations and detailed archaeological recording. Upon com­ pletion of the practical work in 2010, it was determined that a monograph on the pavement, including an account of its conservation, should be published. It was deemed essential that the

volume should include a large-scale, overall photograph of the conserved pavement, of the highest quality possible, so that every detail of the mosaic work was plainly visible. Despite strenuous attempts to create such an image, for a variety of technical reasons, the results were consistently disappointing.Then a chance encounter occurred that not only resolved the problem in hand, but also changed the course of the entire Cosmati publication project. In June 2012, the present writers were in conversation when DSN bemoaned that, having worked many years for the Ancient Monuments Inspectorate in Great Smith Street, just around the corner from Westminster Abbey, he had never seen the Cosmati mosaics, which at the time were protected by linoleum and carpets. WR invited him to view the pavements and to consider recording them in the same technique as his paintings of Romano-British mosaics. However, despite having drawn Roman mosaics for more than fifty years DSN had never illustrated a medieval example. Initially, he doubted what a detailed drawn survey could contribute to the study and understanding of the Westminster floors, especially since the pavement in the sanctuary was so complete and glorious to behold, following its recent conservation. This reticence did not, however, prevail over the need to record the mosaic around the tomb of St Edward the Confessor in the shrine chapel, which was in poor condition and still required protection by a carpet. Patches of cement intended to level the floor, and prevent further tesserae from being dislodged, obscured its patterns and in places masked the eroded schemata, which had also been disrupted by later tombs. It was decided that recording should begin with the pavement around the shrine, which was clearly going to take some considerable time, there being tens of thousands of tesserae of many different shapes. Each one had to be individually

preface drawn and then appropriately coloured.The shrine chapel pavement was duly recorded in 2012–13, followed by the sanctuary pavement in 2014–15. During the process of recording these, it became evident that something was missing from the substantial area of Victorian floor that lay between the two pavements, where the high altar stands. A compelling case emerged for positing the loss of a third luxury pavement: the altar pavement. Upon completion of the paintings of the floor mosaics, it was apparent that they were not casual or unassociated works of embellishment, but integral components of a cohesive artistic ensemble that included other Cosmatesque monuments, both extant and lost. The extant works comprise the shrine-tomb of St Edward the Confessor, the reredos from its associated but long-lost altar, the tomb of King Henry III, the tomb of an unnamed royal child, two mosaic-decorated column-shafts and an inlaid coffin lid. The scope of the project was therefore expanded to survey and publish all the cosmatesque mosaics in Westminster Abbey. Such a study would complement the series Roman Mosaics of Britain.2 Accordingly, in December 2015 a survey of the child’s Cosmati tomb was carried out, and the shrine-tomb of Edward the Confessor was tackled in 2016.The latter introduced two fresh recording considerations into the project. First, the shrine had been dismantled at the Dissolution of the Abbey in 1540, and incorrectly reassembled in 1557 by Abbot Feckenham, during the brief monastic revival in the reign of Queen Mary I. Although a shadow of its former self, the original design and decoration of the monument is largely reconstructible. Second, where the tesserae had been lost, Feckenham infilled the matrices with plaster and exquisitely overpainted it with faux mosaic.That work too has been recorded in detail. The final structure to be surveyed was the tomb of Henry III, the most sumptuous of all the English Cosmati monuments. Study of this began in the autumn of 2016, and took almost a year to complete. Elucidating and describing the construction and physical history of the pavements and the tombs of Henry III and the royal child in the south ambulatory was not difficult, but the shrine-tomb of Edward the Confessor presented challenges of a wholly different order. As a result of its having been dismantled and reconstructed, the architectural anomalies and archaeological xviii

questions were legion; moreover, these were not confined to the stone structure, but also embraced the very large and enigmatic timber canopy that surmounts the shrine. Inlaid with glass mosaic and over-restored in 1958–60, its age and precise function were uncertain. It was readily apparent that if we were to compile an accurate description and authoritative discussion of the shrine pedestal and its canopy, we had to study the internal parts of both. Consequently, in January 2018 the Dean and Chapter generously agreed to our request to close the chapel of St Edward, erect scaffolding and lift the canopy off the shrine, thereby allowing us to study and record the interiors of both components for a period of two weeks. The relevant chapters have been greatly enhanced by this additional investigation. Although the primary aim of this opus is to present a comprehensive record of the 13thcentury mosaic pavements and funerary monu­ ments, it became increasingly obvious as study progressed that their design, date and condition could not be properly understood without taking due cognizance of their context within the evolution of the Abbey over three-quarters of a millennium. We have restricted discussion of this to architectural and archaeological aspects, and have not ventured into the fields of Henry III’s patronage or his relations with Rome; these have already been well covered by Professors David Carpenter and Paul Binski.3 Similarly, we have eschewed discussion of geometric, cosmic and theological issues associated with the design of the sanctuary pavement in particular, a subject upon which others better qualified have expounded.4 The Westminster Cosmati study was never planned as a research project that would extend over two decades: it gradually developed through a combination of felicitous circumstances. It began with an academic conference in 1998, effectively setting in train the research that was necessary to precede the conservation programme on the sanctuary pavement, which commenced in 2008. As work progressed, more and more questions were asked, and the answers could only be obtained by studying the other examples of cosmatesque art at Westminster, or by looking to Italy, from whence came the style of the monuments, the materials to decorate them and the mosaicists to execute the work. The scholarly interest generated by the conservation of the

preface sanctuary pavement pointed the way for research to extend to all the other related works in Westminster Abbey. The preparation of these volumes has been a collaborative exercise. The paintings and other artwork of recent date have been created by DSN, who is also responsible for the technical descriptions of the mosaics. The historical and archaeological sections have been written by WR, and we have jointly formulated the discussion. A major section has been contributed by Vanessa Simeoni, Head Conservator at Westminster Abbey, and specialist contributions by other scholars are published under their own names. The aim of this publication was primarily to record the physical evidence of the pavements and monuments, and their setting, thus providing a basic resource upon which future scholarship can

build. Inevitably, as investigation and recording proceeded, innumerable avenues of potential research presented themselves which, for the most part, we have resisted the temptation to pursue. However, the great uncertainty that hitherto attended the dating of the Cosmati ensemble needed to be addressed. Hence, we have brought together, for the first time, all the relevant historical documentation and the archaeological record, to evince a chronology that is coherent, practicable and embraces the entire armoury of evidence at our disposal. Collectively, we offer these volumes in celebra­ tion of the 750th anniversary, in 2019, of both the dedication of Henry III’s rebuilt Abbey and the translation of the body of St Edward the Confessor into its present shrine on 13 October 1269: requiescat in pace. Warwick Rodwell David S Neal Westminster Abbey St Edward’s Day, 2018

xix

acknowledgements The study, recording and publication of the Cosmati pavements and monuments has been a long and complex process, involving many people, to whom we are enormously indebted for their time and expertize. The project was instigated by the Dean and Chapter of Westminster, and the practical element falls into two parts: it began with the conservation of the sanctuary pavement in 2008–2010. Following that, from 2011 to 2019, detailed recording and study of the full com­ plement of Cosmati monuments in Westminster Abbey was carried out, leading to the present publication. A steering group set up in 2004, to advise on the conservation of the sanctuary pavement, was composed of members of the Westminster Abbey Fabric Commission, and other specialists. Members of the Cosmati Steering Group (between 2004 and 2017) comprised: Dr Richard Gem OBE (Chairman), the late Revd Canon Anthony Harvey, Revd Canon Michael Middleton, Revd Canon Robert Reiss, Revd Canon David Stanton, Professor Paul Binski, Dr Ian Bristow, John Burton MBE, Ptolemy Dean, Professor Eamon Duffy, Valerie Humphrey, John Maine, Dr Richard Mortimer, Professor Clifford Price, Dr Eric Robinson, Professor Warwick Rodwell OBE, Sarah Staniforth CBE, Tim Tatton-Brown OBE, Dr Tony Trowles and Jim Vincent. The core team that undertook the conservation programme, headed by Vanessa Simeoni, com­ prised: Paula Rosser (conservator), Ned Sharer (conservator) and Claudio Costantino (archae­ ological recorder). Jim Vincent (Clerk of the Works) and his team provided support throughout the project: Mark Croll and Joe Goodbody, Westminster Abbey stone masons, were responsible for working and bedding the new Purbeck marble; Matthias Garn, master mason, and his team of masons in York undertook the cutting of the new stone tesserae. Treleven and Sue Haysom advised on the different types of Purbeck marble in the

pavement and supplied new material from their quarries; the late Professor David Peacock and Dr David Williams provided advice and direction on the sourcing of Imperial porphyry and other stones for the pavement. Conservation graduates and students from the City and Guilds of London Art School, the Institute of Archaeology, University College London and the Courtauld Institute of Art periodically assisted the core team. Vanessa Simeoni also wishes to thank the following for their assistance in various ways: Lucy Ackland (conservator); Sandra Davison (adviser on glass conservation); Professor Ian Freestone; Diana Heath (metals conservator); Ros Hodges (glass conservator); Peter Lewis (film maker and editor); Marie Louise Sauerberg; Léonie Seliger, Cathedral Studios, Canterbury; Dr Ruth Siddall (study and analyses of mortars and mastic resin); Dr Marina Sokhan (laser cleaning); conservators at the Opificio delle Pietre Dure, Florence; and the Vatican Mosaic Conservation Studio, Rome. Valerie Humphrey (Director, Westminster Abbey Foundation) was instrumental in raising the funds for the conservation programme, and the principal donors were: Sir Siegmund Warburg’s Voluntary Settlement;The Getty Foundation (US); The J. Paul Getty Jnr Charitable Trust; and The Pilgrim Trust. The authors of these volumes are profoundly indebted to numerous colleagues for advice, discussion and assistance during the extensive research necessary both before and during their preparation. The compilation of this study has only been possible through the goodwill and generous collaboration of many colleagues at Westminster Abbey, and beyond. For continuous support and encouragement, we are grateful to the Dean and Chapter, especially the Very Revd Dr John Hall (Dean); the Revd Canon David Stanton (Treasurer) and Sir Stephen Lamport GCVO (lately Receiver General); also Dr Tony Trowles (Librarian and Head of the Abbey

acknowledgements Collection); Matthew Payne (Keeper of the Muniments) for considerable assistance with historical research and providing an appendix to these volumes; Christine Reynolds (Assistant Keeper of the Muniments), for many years of unstinting help with searching out and copying documents and illustrations; Dr Susan Jenkins (Curator); John Burton MBE, and Ptolemy Dean (successively Surveyors of the Fabric), who have always been supportive; Jim Vincent (lately Clerk of the Works) for much practical assistance with conducting archaeological investigations and recording; Vanessa Simeoni (Head Conservator) for close collaboration throughout the duration of the project, providing information and assistance over many aspects, and for contributing a substantial section to this publication; Martin Castledine (Dean’s Verger) and his team of Vergers for tolerating the inconvenience caused by our activities on the pavements and around the monuments over many years. Tony Davies and Bill Mowatt of The Downland Partnership carried out photogrammetric surveys and laser scanning of the pavements and the shrine; Erica Carrick Utsi undertook surveys using ground-penetrating radar (GPR). Professor Christopher Wilson specially photographed aspects of the monuments for this publication; other images were kindly supplied by the contributors, and by Christina Unwin and Dr Richard Foster. David Lambert and The Picture Partnership were also commissioned by the Dean and Chapter to provide further photographs. We are grateful to Dr Olivia Horsefall-Turner for assistance with acquiring new images of John Talman’s invaluable drawings of mosaic work in the Abbey; also to Elisabeth Murray for images of the silk fragments from Edward the Confessor’s coffin; and to the Victoria and Albert Museum for permission to publish these items. For arranging the study-loan of a further fragment of silk from the Confessor’s coffin, held by Westminster Cathedral, we are indebted to the Revd Canon Christopher Tuckwell (Administrator) and Miriam Power (Archivist). Hero Granger-Taylor, Frances Pritchard, Silvija Banic and Frank Bowles are also thanked for their input to the study of the Confessor’s silk. Ironbridge Gorge Museum and Archives generously loaned an album of drawings of the sanctuary pavement made by George Maw, copies of which are now held in Westminster Abbey

Library. Dr Richard Mortimer (formerly Keeper of the Muniments) kindly organized the loan. We are grateful to all the contributors to these volumes, and for the benefit of much valuable discussion, we are indebted to Sally Badham MBE, Professor Paul Binski, Professor David Carpenter, Paul Drury, Professor Eamon Duffy, Dr Richard Foster, Dr Richard Gem OBE, Dr John Goodall, Dr Kevin Hayward, Revd Professor Martin Henig, Lisa Monnas, Matthew Payne, David Sherlock and Tim Tatton-Brown OBE. Additionally, we are grateful to Oxbow Books, and especially Dr Julie Gardiner and Val Lamb, for producing these volumes to our exacting require­ ments, and within the tight timescale required to meet the 750th anniversary deadline of the dedication of Henry III’s rebuilding of Westminster Abbey. Finally, we wish to thank Dr Peter and Mrs Suzette Jarvis and Mrs Ann Gardner for generous contributions towards the cost of this publication; the Society of Antiquaries of London for financial assistance from the publication fund that it holds for mosaics; Thomas Clark for much assistance with the computer generation of illustrations; Noel Read for studio photography; Tony Moon for photocopying;Takako Kanazome for assistance in calculating the numbers of tesserae in the components of all the cosmatesque works; and Atsushi Yoshizawa for calculating the relative areas of mosaic and Purbeck marble in the monuments. WR wishes to thank his wife, Diane Gibbs, for her unfailing support and patience when the preparation of these volumes had an all-consuming effect on life, particularly during the last year of the project.

Authors Professor Warwick Rodwell OBE Consultant Archaeologist, Westminster Abbey; Visiting Professor in Archaeology, University of Reading

Dr David S. Neal Formerly head of archaeological illustration, Ancient Monuments Inspectorate; later Senior Archaeologist, English Heritage

Paul Drury Historic environment consultant, Drury McPherson Partnership xxi

acknowledgements

Professor Ian Freestone

Dr Ruth Siddall

Professor of Archaeological Materials and Technology, Institute of Archaeology, University College London

Student Mediator, University College London

Dr Kevin Hayward Archaeologist and geologist, Pre-Construct Archaeology Ltd and University of Reading

Lisa Monnas Independent textile historian

Matthew Payne Keeper of the Muniments, Westminster Abbey

xxii

Vanessa Simeoni Head Conservator, Westminster Abbey

Erica Carrick Utsi Ground-penetrating radar specialist, EMC Radar Consulting Cambridge

summary The Collegiate Church of St Peter in Westminster – commonly known as Westminster Abbey – has been England’s premier church for almost a thousand years. Soon after he became king in 1042, Edward (later known as the ‘Confessor’), refounded the Benedictine community at West­ minster and set about building a grand new church and cloister for the monks, not in the local Anglo-Saxon architectural style but in the Roman­ esque that was current in Northern France. This remarkable departure from local tradition heralded the arrival of ‘Norman’ architecture in preNorman England, some two decades before William, Duke of Normandy, launched his invasion in 1066. In that same year, the new Westminster Abbey saw both the burial of Edward, its patron, and the coronation of William I as King of England. Thenceforth, Westminster became, first, the coronation church and, later, the burial church for the kings and queens of England and their families. Edward was held in high regard as a monarch who displayed exceptional piety, and the Abbey petitioned the pope for his sanctification, which was granted in 1161.The body of ‘St Edward the Confessor’ was taken up from its tomb in front of the high altar and installed in a shrine sited to the east of the altar. Enshrinement took place on 13 October 1163, St Edward’s Day. The nine-year-old son of King John ascended the throne in 1216 as King Henry III, and so began one of the longest reigns in English history: fifty-six years. Henry, like Edward, was a pious monarch, but he was also extremely ambitious. In 1220 he was present at the enshrinement of St Thomas Becket, the murdered archbishop of Canterbury. The cathedral there had been partly rebuilt in the French Gothic style, following a disastrous fire in 1174. It also had an exotic polychrome pavement in the Trinity chapel, constructed with rare Mediterranean marbles, including purple and green porphyry. There was

probably nothing comparable in England, and Henry would have seen and remembered it. In about 1240 Henry took a decision, the consequences of which were to dominate the remainder of his reign: he would rebuild West­ minster Abbey on a scale to rival architectural achievement in France, and would be so lavishly furnished and decorated that it probably became the most ambitious and expensive building project in 13th-century Europe. Despite periods of political turmoil and financial embarrassment, the speed and determination with which the king drove the project forward between c. 1240 and 1272 is breathtaking, as was the sheer scale of the operation, requiring the simultaneous employment of many hundreds of men.While the political and financial aspects of rebuilding Westminster Abbey, as well as its locus in the development of European Gothic architecture (particularly vis-à-vis France) in the mid-13th century, have been thoroughly explored by several scholars, the archaeology and logistics of this unprecedented operation have largely been overlooked. The liturgical heart of Henry’s new church was the presbytery, a polygonally-apsed structure of four-and-a-half bays, divided at its mid-point by steps into two levels: on the west is the sanctuary (Sacrarium), and on the east the shrine-chapel of St Edward the Confessor, elevated on a platform. The architectural magnificence of these inter­ linked spaces was complemented by a style of decoration hitherto unknown in England: bril­ liantly coloured marble and glass mosaics of the type generically named after the Cosmatus family that constructed a great number of pavements and monuments in Italy in the 12th and 13th centuries. The surviving Cosmati commissions in West­ minster Abbey comprise: the pavements of the sanctuary and chapel of St Edward, the shrine and the retable of its lost altar, the tomb of Henry III, a tomb of a royal child and a grave-slab. Individually, the surviving sumptuous furnish­

summary ings of the medieval presbytery have been illustrated and briefly described on many occasions, and the dating of the principal components debated. However, only one item – the great altarpiece of c. 1270 (the Westminster Retable) – has received systematic forensic study, which proved remarkably informative. The remainder of the Henrician ensemble – mosaic pavements, shrine and royal tombs – awaited similar treatment, and that is what we have attempted in these volumes. Two avenues of approach have been adopted. First, the monuments themselves have been minutely studied, drawn and analyzed and, in the case of the sanctuary pavement, it has also received archaeological investigation and conservation. Secondly, the physical and chronological contexts of the monuments have been scrutinized with the aid of historical documentation, topographical analysis within the evolving building complex, and ground-penetrating radar (GPR). We considered it imperative to adopt a holistic approach to this study, examining not just the Henrician presbytery as we see it today, but also its 11th-century predecessor and the protracted process of transition. The latter has yielded vital clues to the constructional order and dating of the cosmatesque works. Since medieval monu­ ments seldom remain in the same condition as when first built, it is equally important to study their history of post-construction use and physical intervention, working backwards from the present day. Every piece of detectable evidence must fit somewhere in the historic sequence, and any anomalies require investigation and explanation. In the case of certain elements of the Westminster ensemble there have been major interventions: some of the decoration of the sanctuary pavement has been reconfigured or entirely replaced; the shrine of St Edward was totally demolished and re­ assembled in the 16th century; and royal tombs have been dismantled and moved. Furthermore, some fundamental components of the Henrician presbytery have been entirely lost, including the high altar, shrine altar, paschal candlestick and all the screens. The present study began with a programme of conservation work on the sanctuary pavement in 2008–10, instigated by the Dean and Chapter of Westminster; hitherto, the mosaic was in poor condition and had to be permanently covered with carpeting. Conservation provided the oppor­ tunity to identify the assemblage of exotic stones xxiv

and glass employed for the tesserae, as well as studying the mortars and constructional aspects of the pavement. Although the design and mosaic work proclaim its Italian authorship, aspects of the project are expressly English, most notably the matrix into which the tessellation is set: it is grey Purbeck marble from Dorset, rather than white marble of Mediterranean origin. Also, this is the only Cosmati pavement known to incorporate an inscription, created in latten (brass) by the London marblers who were accustomed to lettering Purbeck marble tombs. The inscription records the date of the pavement as 1268, and names Odoricus as the Italian master responsible for its construction. The geometrical structure of the pavement is based on a central quincunx contained within a poised square, from the sides of which develop four lobes (rotae), each containing a medallion. A larger square frames the composition and is in turn bordered by a band of guilloche comprising twenty medallions and four rectangular panels, one mid-way along each side. All the components are defined by a composite framework of straight and curvilinear strips of Purbeck marble. The panels are filled with mosaic patterns, mostly built-up in situ, but two of the rectangular units and at least eight of the circular ones were prefabricated; i.e. the designs were chased into ‘trays’ (slabs) of Purbeck marble and the tesserae installed in the workshop. Each completed unit was then placed in position within the skeletal frame of the pavement. In total, the tesserae numbered c. 93,000. The northern and southern rectangular panels cover tombs that were incorporated in the pavement ab initio. Both are undisturbed, but have been superficially interrogated by GPR. On the north side, beneath a highly ornate slab is a monolithic stone coffin containing Richard de Ware (1258–83), the abbot credited with organizing the laying of the pavement; on the south, beneath another mosaic-inlaid slab, is a rectangular chamber that appears to contain a timber chest with tightly packed contents. This is probably an ossuary. In the Confessor’s chapel the Cosmati pavement is not geometrical, but consists of an overall pattern of medallions, roundels and curvilinear bands, which ‘flow’ around three sides of the shrine pedestal. Essentially, it is a carpet pattern that can easily fill an irregular space, where a formal rectilinear design would fail aesthetically. First, the

summary floor of the chapel was paved with tightly-jointed rectangular slabs of Purbeck marble of varying sizes.The design for the pavement was then drawn on the floor and matrices chased to receive the mosaic inlay; unlike the sanctuary pavement, there were no separately jointed components. Effectively, the chapel floor was one huge tray for mosaic, and it originally contained c.121,000 tesserae. The principal materials employed for the mosaic inlays in the pavements were purple and green porphyry, white lias limestone from Somerset, Italian opaque glass and French translucent glass. Medallions in the sanctuary pavement contain discs of giallo antico and other Mediterranean stones, as well as an impressively large disc of calcite-alabaster at the centre. Egyptian gabbro is also fairly common, as is Carrara marble (but only in the shrine pavement). A further ten exotic stone types are present in very small quantities. After centuries of being tramped over by pilgrims and tourists, the chapel pavement is in a very worn and depleted condition, but has never been subjected to restoration; for the last 150 years it has been under protective coverings. Parts of the mosaic have also been destroyed by the intrusion of late medieval graves. The sanctuary pavement, on the other hand, first underwent restoration in the later medieval period, when several panels and bands of mosaic were replaced. Porphyry was unobtainable and substitute stonetypes were sourced: red Belgian marble as a replacement for purple, and serpentine for green. Two or three phases of intervention in the 17th century saw significant changes that were not primarily governed by the need for repair, but more by a desire to introduce a range of geometrical constructs into the pavement, unrelated to the original design. Plain discs of giallo antico that filled the centres of many of the medallions were extracted and recut to create hexagons, heptagons and octagons. Complex geometrical designs, having the appearance of pietra dura work, were introduced into several of the spandrels, displaying a further array of foreign marbles. Re-ordering the sanctuary in 1706 led to the destruction of much of the guilloche border on the east, and when it was reinstated by Sir George Gilbert Scott in 1868, the medallions were all given new patterns, despite evidence for the originals having been preserved. A comprehensive set of scale-drawings has been prepared of the pavements and monuments by

David S Neal, recording the position of each extant tessera in the mosaic work and, in the case of the monuments, every surviving mortar impression where tesserae have been lost. Very little original mosaic survives on the Confessor’s shrine pedestal, having been picked out by pilgrims and souvenir-hunters. Additionally, the monument was dismantled when the Abbey was dissolved in 1540, and incorrectly reassembled in 1557: the empty matrices of the lost mosaic were infilled with plaster and competently painted as faux mosaic, which, in many places, replicated the patterns of the missing original work. In so far as it survives, the painted mosaic has been carefully recorded, but much of the plaster infilling has fallen away since the 16th century, revealing the bedding mortar and patterns of the original cosmatesque mosaics. Consequently, it has been possible to reconstruct elements of the 13thcentury decoration, using a combination of the surviving mosaic and the mortar impressions of lost tesserae. The original number of tesserae in the pedestal was c. 158,000. The complex history of the shrine has been elucidated. Initially, commissioned by Henry III in 1241 – four years before the reconstruction of the Abbey church began – the pedestal was designed as a Gothic structure, carved from Purbeck marble, and was doubtless intended to be embellished with gilding and paint. At the same time, the king commissioned metalworkers to create the sumptuous ‘golden feretory’ that was to rest on top of the pedestal and encapsulate the coffin containing the complete, ‘incorrupt’ body of Edward the Confessor. The shrine stood at the centre of St Edward’s chapel, on or very close to the site of its predecessor in the old church. The shrine altar is now on the site of the 11th-century high altar, and Edward’s original burial chamber lies immediately to the west, beneath an enormous Purbeck marble slab that forms part of the matrix for the Cosmati pavement. In rebuilding the abbey church, Henry III carefully preserved the saint’s empty tomb – which was revered as a secondary relic – and a small crypt was constructed around it. Access from the west was maintained until 1440, when it was blocked by the erection of the great stone altar screen. The shrine pedestal carried a protective timber canopy, suspended over the feretory by ropes from the high vault above the presbytery. The medieval canopy has not survived, but references to it are xxv

summary preserved in the Sacrist’s accounts. The successor canopy is however extant, and still rests on the pedestal. Long assumed to belong to the Marian revival of the 1550s, the timber canopy has been reassessed and demonstrated to be pre-Reformation: it is a unique survival in England. The two-tiered structure is classical in style, with semicircular arches and ranks of pilasters on all sides; it is also inlaid with glass panels and Italian glass mosaic, and the timberwork is painted in imitation of purple and green porphyry. The west end of the canopy incorporates a flattened arch of a type not found in the English Tudor repertoire, but is paralleled in the quire screen of King’s College Chapel, Cambridge, which dates from the early 1530s and is most likely of Italian workmanship. The arch-form also features in the Chapel’s glazing of the 1520s. However, the Westminster shrine canopy can be dated to 1516, making it an exceptionally early example of Renaissance woodwork in England. St Edward’s body, wrapped in 11th-century Byzantine silk and contained in a timber coffin, was initially placed in the shrine of 1163, the predecessor of the present structure, which was dedicated in 1269. At the Dissolution, the ‘golden feretory’ was seized by the King’s Commissioners, but the Confessor’s coffin was unharmed and was probably placed on the floor of the chapel where the shrine pedestal had stood, and the timber canopy lowered over it, thus creating a makeshift tomb for Edward.When the shrine was resurrected in 1557, the coffin was encapsulated within it, rather than being placed inside a feretrum on top of the pedestal. The Tudor timber canopy was hoisted on to the pedestal, where it still remains. A scaffolding accident in 1685 pierced the Confessor’s coffin, providing an opportunity for unscrupulous antiquaries to pilfer objects. King James II ordered the coffin to be encased with heavy oak planks, and bound with iron so that it could not be further robbed. A detailed study of the coffin, made in 2018, is published here. Henry III’s tomb was probably the most sumptuous of all the Cosmati monuments, and is the best preserved, at least on the north side where much of its glittering array of glass and gilt mosaic decoration is out of the reach of souvenir-hunters. The tomb is two-tiered, the lower chest comprising a shrine-like structure with three accessible chambers to receive relics and other offerings, modelled on the Italian confessio. The upper chest xxvi

contains the king’s coffin, over which a gilt copper-alloy effigy rests on a low metal table bearing a marginal inscription.The chest was clad on all four sides with sheets of purple porphyry, symbolizing the high-ranking late Roman custom of being buried ‘in the purple’, a powerful symbol of legitimacy. Surmounting the entire structure was a ciborium-type canopy supported by four spirally-fluted Cosmati columns, two of which survive and were reused in 1557 as supports for the retable to the shrine altar. The significance of the extant columns had not hitherto been recognized; the set of four would have contained c. 32,000 glass tesserae. Henry III’s tomb was the only cosmatesque monument to be embellished with a significant amount of micro-mosaic, and to have silvered glass tesserae as well as gilded ones. The total number of tesserae would have been c. 127,000. Like the Confessor’s shrine pedestal, Henry’s tomb was partially restored in the 1550s by Abbot Feckenham, using plaster and painted faux mosaic. A small chest-tomb bearing cosmatesque decoration stands in a wall-recess in the south ambulatory, having been installed there in the mid-15th century, when it was ejected from the shrine chapel to make way for the construction of Henry V’s monumental chantry. It has now been established that the tomb was made for Edward I’s son, John of Windsor (d. 1271), and was modified three years later to receive also the body of the king’s second son, Henry. The top slab bears a carpet-like pattern, related to that of the shrine pavement. The final cosmatesque monument is a tombcover, set into the paving at the east end of the shrine. The tapering Purbeck marble slab is a product of the London marblers, who inlaid it with a long central cross of latten, and an inscription composed of individual letters set between fillets around the perimeter of the stone. The exceptional aspect of this otherwise straight­ forward product is the fact that the fields on either side of the cross-shaft are inlaid with panels of glass mosaic in red, white and gold. Moreover, at the west end of the slab are the matrices that once housed a pair of cosmatesque heraldic shields. The monument is heavily worn and only a few letters of the inscription survive. It has often been claimed to mark the burial of John de Valence (d. 1277), but it can now be shown that his interment is beneath an adjacent slab which

summary still bears part of his name and is not mosaicdecorated. Reassessment of the evidence, including the fragmentary inscription, points to the occupant of the tomb being Aveline de Forz, Countess of Aumale, who married Edmund, Earl of Lancaster, brother of Edward I. Aveline died in 1274, aged only fifteen. Two decades later, she and her husband were both honoured with fine canopied tombs in the sanctuary, but her corporeal remains probably still lie under the original grave-slab. The near-total lack of reliable and explicit records that can be meaningfully associated with the pavements and monuments has severely hampered past attempts to elucidate the chronology of the Cosmati episode, and historical events associated with it. The authors demonstrate that too much reliance has been placed on ambiguous and dubiously relevant material, antiquarian supposition and negative evidence. There is, for example, no basis for maintaining that Abbot Ware instigated the Cosmati episode at Westminster in c. 1267; his involvement was limited to the sanctuary pavement, and the grandiose decorative scheme that he envisaged for that was never completed. The design for the outer border was extraordinarily elaborate; work on it was begun and quickly abandoned in favour of a greatly simplified scheme, which was implemented hurriedly and haphazardly. Notwithstanding, the most elaborate and costly element in the entire pavement, with one of the highest densities of tesserae, was Ware’s own tomb-cover in the north border. It contained about 6,600 tesserae, and was probably the first unit to be made; elements of the design were clearly inspired by Henry III’s tomb and the Confessor’s shrine. When Henry III died in 1272, according to some medieval accounts his coffin was placed in the chamber that originally housed Edward the Confessor’s burial. That chamber lies beneath the Cosmati pavement in the shrine chapel, and was accessed from the west. However, other accounts state that the king was buried in front (i.e. west) of the high altar in the present sanctuary. Investiga­ tions in the 19th century and recent radar scanning have confirmed that there is no burial chamber in the floor in front of the 13th-century high altar, and if Henry was interred here, it could only have been in an undocumented chest-tomb constructed at pavement level. There is thus a major conflict in the historical evidence, and only one explanation

could satisfy both accounts, namely that Henry’s coffin lay in state, in front of the high altar for a period, and was then transferred to the Confessor’s empty tomb further east. Wherever it was deposited, the coffin remained there for eighteen years, before being moved into Henry’s own sumptuous tomb on the north side of the shrine chapel. These peregrinations have given rise to an assumption that Henry’s tomb had not been constructed by 1272, and that it was built, or at least completed, by his son, Edward I, in the 1280s. Inexplicably, this assumption has never been questioned until now: there is no supporting historical documentation, and it is refuted by the archaeological evidence. Edward the Confessor was Henry III’s rolemodel: both were renowned for their intense piety, good kingship and rebuilding Westminster Abbey. Edward was canonized, and by the end of his life Henry most likely saw himself as a potential candidate for beatification too. The unique form of his monument, a tomb-chest mounted on a shrine-like base, was designed to encourage people to pray beside it. It is argued here that Henry’s reported sojourn in the Confessor’s empty tomb was deliberately planned, to bring the king’s body as closely as possible into the ambience of his patron, Edward the Confessor. Although we know for certain that the Confessor was translated, with great ceremony, into the new shrine in 1269, some scholars have argued that the structure was not finished until 1279, based on the evidence of a lost inscription mentioned in 1450 by a chronicler of questionable reliability. The evidence has been weighed and found wanting. Archaeologically, it is clear that the construction of the shrine and Henry III’s tomb were contemporaneous, and preceded the laying of the Cosmati pavement in the chapel. Paviours are recorded finishing the floor on the south side in 1269, in time for the dedication. Their work was clearly hurried and lacks the finesse that characterizes the Cosmati paving on the west and north sides of the shrine. The shrine pedestal was conceived in the 1240s as a purely Gothic monument, and shaping its Purbeck marble components had begun before a decision was made to embrace cosmatesque decoration and Roman mouldings. The trefoiled heads of the seven niches (kneeling-places) were all roughed-out from large slabs, as were the backs of the niches: each was designed to simulate a xxvii

summary blind window of two pointed lights, with a sexfoil in the tracery above. Then came the decision to modify the design, and patterns from the Cosmati repertoire was chased over every flat surface, and the matrices filled with stone inserts and glass mosaic. All the mouldings and other detailing followed the Italian tradition too. Thus West­ minster’s hybrid Roman-Gothic shrine emerged. We argue that this change of direction, occur­ ring around 1260, marked the opening of the Cosmati era, and by 1269 the two pavements, the shrine-tomb of St Edward and the tomb for Henry III were all in place. The innumerable cross-links between the design, materials and execution of the ensemble point strongly to a single Cosmati campaign, potentially overseen by one master mosaicist, whose name is recorded on the shrine as Petrus, and on the sanctuary pavement as Odoricus. Since the 19th century, the case has been plausibly argued for identifying him as the Petrus Oderisius who was responsible for the tomb of Pope Clement IV at Viterbo in the early 1270s. This monument displays several decorative elements identical to those at Westminster. Clement IV died in 1268, but Oderisus did not begin work on his tomb until 1271, presumably following his return to Rome; it is perhaps no coincidence that the pope’s monument embodies design elements that could conceivably be derived from Gothic Westminster. Although the precise date of embracing cosma­ tesque decoration in the Abbey has not been determined, it could have been 1258–59, when Henry made other momentous decisions con­ cerning the rebuilding of the Abbey, and delayed

its planned dedication for a decade. The end of the Cosmati era is, however, more clearly definable on archaeological grounds. The last substantial commission was for the tomb of John of Windsor (the ‘child’s tomb’), who died in 1271. It was clearly constructed by the same team as was responsible for the king’s own monument, and it is not difficult to envisage Henry III, in the final year of his life, commissioning this small tomb for his first grandson. Work continued on it after the king’s death, perhaps until 1274, when his second grandson, Henry, died, and his body was added to the tomb. Meanwhile, Edward I had not been crowned for a year, when Aveline de Forz, his young sister-in-law, also died (1274). A standard Purbeck marble floor-slab with brass inserts was made for her, but when it was placed in a position of honour adjacent to the Confessor’s glittering shrine, Aveline’s memorial would have appeared rather drab. Hence, the mosaicist who had worked on Henry III’s and John’s tombs was presumably instructed to enhance its appearance with cosma­ tesque panels and shields.This he did in red, white and gold glass chequers, similar to his previous work. That unconventional, and probably unique, addition to a Gothic floor slab marked the end of the Cosmati era at Westminster. The extant Cosmati work in the Abbey confirms that the team of mosaicists installed c. 536,000 glass and stone tesserae. Allowing for the loss of the shrine altar, which would have been cosmatesque too, brings the tessera-count to around 600,000; if the high altar, paschal candlestick and other lost furnishings were also cosmatesque, the count would be significantly higher.

***

xxviii

summary Volume 1 outlines the architectural context and history of antiquarian study of the Cosmati floor mosaics in Westminster Abbey, followed by an introduction to the sanctuary pavement (chapters 1–3). That leads into a detailed description of its construction and decoration, panel-by-panel (chapter 4). Chapter 5 is devoted to accounts of the recording and various forms of investigation, including ground-penetrating radar (GPR), applied to both the medieval pavement and the Victorian mosaic occupying the area in front of the high altar. A description of the major con­ servation programme undertaken in 2008–10 is given in chapter 6 by Vanessa Simeoni, who led the project. The pavement in St Edward’s chapel is described in chapter 7, together with an account of the GPR investigation that revealed the site of the Confessor’s original tomb and the chamber that was sub­sequently constructed to preserve it. Finally, chapter 8 is devoted to descriptions of the various materials employed in the construction of the whole suite of cosmatesque works: stone, glass, metals, mastic resin and mortars. Two largescale fold-out plans show in detail the tessella­ tion of the sanctuary and chapel pavements, respectively.

Volume 2 is devoted to the Cosmati monuments and furnishings, beginning with the topography of St Edward’s chapel (chapter 9), followed by a description and analysis of the shrine pedestal, including an attempt to reconstruct its original form prior to 1540 (chapter 10). In chapter 11 we consider, first, the surviving pre-Reformation timber and glass-mosaic canopy that tops the pedestal; secondly, the history and archaeology of the shrine’s re-assembly in 1557; and, thirdly, the mishap that occurred in 1685, when the coffin containing St Edward’s body was damaged. Henry III’s remarkable tomb is the subject of chapter 12, where it is analyzed in detail. Descriptions and discussion of the displaced child’s tomb and other related monuments occupy the next two chapters (13 and 14). The history, significance and chrono­ logical sequence of the Cosmati monuments as a whole are explored in chapter 15. Finally, two appendices present, first, the historical references to St Edward’s shrine and, secondly, a quanti­fication and analysis of the numbers of tesserae required for the creation of the Westminster mosaics. Two large-scale fold-out plans detail the north elevation of Henry III’s tomb, and present a reconstruction of the complete mosaic pavement in St Edward’s chapel.

xxix

1 The Cosmatesque Pavements and Monuments: Introduction and Context HISTORICAL AND ARCHITECTURAL CONTEXT The presbytery of Westminster Abbey is not merely the sanctum sanctorum of a great medieval church and former Benedictine monastery, but in many senses it is also the heart of the English nation. Here, following his accession to the throne in 1042, King Edward (later, the Confessor) erected a new church in the Romanesque style then current in northern France. Its construction heralded the arrival of Norman architecture in the British Isles, well before Duke William launched his invasion in 1066.When Edward died, on 6 January in that year, he was interred in front of the high altar of his new, but as yet incomplete, abbey church. Eleven months later, on Christmas Day 1066, William’s invasion and conquest of England enabled him to be crowned in the sanctuary of that church, before the same altar. Westminster thus acquired the mantle of England’s coronation church, a role that it maintains to this day. Following King Edward’s canonization in 1161, he became known as St Edward the Confessor, and in 1163 his body was translated into a newly constructed shrine. Little of substance is known about that shrine, but it was most likely positioned immediately to the east of the high altar in the sanctuary of the abbey church. Edward’s empty tomb was not abandoned and forgotten, but became a cenotaph: it was a secondary relic. In the late 13th century, the vacant tomb served, consecutively, as a temporary place of sepulture for Henry III, and for Edward I’s queen, Eleanor of Castile. Meanwhile, Westminster emerged as England’s premier abbey and the Confessor’s shrine became

a focus of national interest. Soon, Edward was popularly regarded as England’s Patron Saint, a role that St Edmund, King and Martyr, had hitherto fulfilled unchallenged.With the accession of Henry III, and his (second) crowning in the Abbey in 1220, a new and glorious chapter opened in the history of Westminster, its palace and its abbey. Both structures were rebuilt on a breath­ taking scale.1 The plan and much of the fabric of Westminster Abbey today date from Henry III’s reign (Fig. 1). Edward the Confessor had already been buried in the Abbey, and in 1245 Henry determined that he would follow suit, thereby firmly establishing Westminster as England’s royal burial church. Adjoining the sanctuary on the east was St Edward’s chapel, elevated on a platform 1.5m high and secured with railings, which became the royal mausoleum with the saint’s shrine rising wond­ rously at its centre. By the end of the 14th century the chapel had been entirely filled with sumptuous tombs. Con­sequently, several monuments of lesser royalty were moved to other locations around the ambulatory to make room for further monarchs and their queens. Eventually, the whole eastern arm of the Abbey became the mausoleum of royalty and nobility, thirty monarchs and their families being laid to rest within its walls. The history and archaeology of the structure and furnishings of the sanctuary and shrine chapel are complex, and pivotal to every aspect of this enquiry is Edward the Confessor (1042–66). Henry III was obsessed with the cult of St Edward, and this intense devotion strongly influenced the design and decoration of his new abbey church at Westminster. In the words of David Carpenter, ‘Henry’s devotion to the Confessor was, of course,

the cosmatesque mosaics of westminster abbey

Site of sacristy North transept 4

5 6

3

1  Westminster Abbey. Ground plan of the church and cloister, with the location of the Cosmati pavements shown in red. Key: 1. St Edward’s chapel; 2. Sanctuary; 3. North ambulatory; 4. Abbot Islip’s chantry chapel; 5. St John the Baptist’s chapel; 6. St Paul’s chapel; 7. South ambulatory; 8. St Benedict’s chapel; 9. St Edmund’s chapel; 10. St Nicholas’s chapel; 11. St Faith’s chapel and sacristy. Authors

2  Bayeux Tapestry. Funeral of Edward the Confessor, showing a longitudinal section through Westminster Abbey, with its east end to the left. Wikimedia Commons

2

Nave

Quire

Crossing

2

Henry VII Lady Chapel

1

7 8

10 9

South transept

Cloister

11 Chapter House

absolutely central to his piety, and to it we owe Westminster Abbey … Henry embraced the Confessor as a saint of mighty power who would succour him in this life and conduct him to the next.’2 From sometime in the 1050s, Edward was respon­sible for the wholesale reconstruction of the Benedictine monastery of St Peter, Westminster, con­secrated on 28 December 1065. The recon­ struction was incomplete at the time of Edward’s death and work continued on the nave and west front under his successors, William I and William II. Although a small part of Edward’s east cloister range is still extant, nothing remains above ground of the great aisled Norman church that he erected,

and which is represented schematic­ ally in the Bayeux Tapestry (Fig. 2). Its foundations lie beneath the sanctuary, quire and nave of the present Westminster Abbey, and fragments have periodically been unearthed during restoration works since the mid-19th century. Collectively, these discoveries have enabled archaeologists to reconstruct part of the plan of the 11th-century church, although the precise form of the east end remains contentious.3 One fact seems certain: the sanctuary was only of two bays and terminated in an apse, the inner wall of which passes under the floor of the shrine chapel of St Edward (Fig. 3).4 Although no outer apsidal wall has yet been located, it seems almost certain that the small sanctuary was provided with an ambulatory: the overall plan and scale of the church demand it. Less certain is the question of additional radiating apsidioles, although the plan could comfortably accommodate three.5 The Confessor was buried in front of the high altar of his church in January 1066, and in 1075 Edith his queen was laid next to him.6 On 7 February 1161 Edward was canonized by Pope Alexander III and two years later, on 13 October 1163, his corporeal remains were removed to a newly constructed shrine, the exact location of which is unrecorded. It would not have been far

1  the cosmatesque pavements and monuments: introduction and context removed from the high altar and was most likely in the traditional position immediately to the east. The shrine of St Edward was greatly revered and a strong cult grew up. Pilgrims who were sick journeyed to the shrine, to make offerings and pray there for healing. Although St Edmund, King and Martyr (d.  870), who was interred in the abbey at Bury St Edmund’s (Suffolk), was generally regarded as England’s first patron saint, his position was rivalled by St Edward the Confessor. Interest in Edmund slowly waned and by the mid-13th century Edward came to be regarded as the country’s patron saint, a quasiofficial status that continued until St George was formally assigned the title in 1348 by Edward III. The Confessor’s sustained popularity was due in no small measure to Henry III, who unwaveringly championed him throughout his long reign. Unfortunately, we know nothing about the physical and liturgical topography of the eastern arm of the abbey in the mid-12th century. There may already have been a small apsidal Lady Chapel projecting beyond the ambulatory apse of the Confessor’s church, or the eastern termination may subsequently have been extended by a sizeable rectangular chapel, a common occurrence in the later 12th century, as the cult of the Blessed Virgin Mary burgeoned. An argument in support of that scenario can be advanced by looking forward to the next century when, in 1220, the monks began to build a large new Lady Chapel, terminating in a semi-octagonal apse. This stood axially to the east of the Confessor’s church and was on an altogether different scale. The chapel was demolished in 1502, when Henry VII replaced it with the present magnificent Perpendicular structure, but the foundations of its early Gothic predecessor have been observed beneath the floor.7 Somehow, a physical union had to be achieved between the new chapel of 1220 and the existing eastern arm of the Confessor’s church, but there appears to have been a gap of c. 10m between them. One explanation is that the 11th-century ambulatory apse – with or without an original eastward-projecting apsidiole – had already been extended in the following century by adding a Lady Chapel that was more-or-less square in plan. Such an addition would have provided a convenient and appropriately scaled link, and under the new arrange­ment formed a vestibule to the Gothic Lady Chapel beyond. Perhaps it is no coincidence that the vestibule and steps leading into Henry

Sanctuary

0

5

Altar

Shrine

m

VII’s chapel still occupy the same location (Figs 1 and 6, no. 11). The construction of the Lady Chapel marked the beginning of Henry III’s involvement in the rebuilding of Westminster Abbey: the boy-king had himself laid the foundation stone on 16 May 1220, the day prior to his crowning in the Abbey.8 The brethren had embarked on an ambitious building programme that was beyond their means, and in 1240 Henry rode to their rescue and shouldered a large part of the financial burden. Assuming that the 1163 shrine of St Edward was housed within the presbytery apse, on or close to the Confessor’s primary burial site, there would have been no need to disturb it for the Lady Chapel project. However, by c. 1241 Henry had taken the decision to rebuild Westminster Abbey, influenced by the latest French Gothic style, on a scale that would rival church building in France.9 It was to be both the English coronation church and the royal mausoleum; construc­tion began in 1245.The focus of the mausoleum – the chapel of St Edward – embodied a sumptuous new shrine containing the body of the Confessor, a hugely expensive and unprecedented undertaking for England. The speed at which the work progressed in the king’s lifetime was no less impressive. Demolition of the eastern arm, crossing and transepts of the Confessor’s church commenced in the autumn of 1245, followed by clearance of the site and excavation of huge foundation trenches.10 Recent archaeological investigations have revealed the unexpectedly monumental scale of the groundworks: walls and arcade piers were not erected on

3  Westminster Abbey. Foundation plan (incompletely known) of the eastern arm of Edward the Confessor’s church, based on archaeological evidence, superimposed on the plan of the present sanctuary and St Edward’s chapel. The continuous line around the outside of the columns defines the limits of the sanctuary and chapel platforms that rise from ambulatory floor level. Authors

3

the cosmatesque mosaics of westminster abbey

4  Westminster Abbey. View of the eastern arm (presbytery) from the crossing tower in 2003, showing the four ascending levels of paving. In the foreground is the chequered marble pavement of the crossing (c. 1700); then the cosmatesque mosaic pavement of the Sacrarium, or sanctuary (1268); adjoining that is the high altar pavement of opus sectile (1868–69), behind which is the great stone screen of 1440–41 (restored 1860s); beyond is St Edward’s chapel, containing the second Cosmati pavement (concealed here by carpet) and the Confessor’s shrine (1269). © Dean and Chapter of Westminster

4

strip-foundations, as would be expected at that time, but on solid, stepped masonry rafts.11 Scores of labourers would have been required to excavate the foundation trenches, followed by similar numbers of masons and labourers to re-fill them with ashlar-faced foundations and lime-concrete rafts. As a civil engineering operation, the scale and speed of this work must rank amongst the principal achievements of the 13th century. Construction of the new apsidal presbytery, its ambulatory and radiating, two-storied chapels, together with the double-aisled north and south transepts, must have been well on the way towards completion by c.  1250 (Fig. 4). In the following year Henry ordered work to commence on the construction of a large sacristy in the western angle between the north transept and the nave, and by May 1255 its walls were up and waiting to be roofed (Fig. 1).12 Progress on the south side of the church advanced even faster: here, a smaller sacristy was built (St Faith’s chapel; Fig. 1, no. 11),

and next to that a two-storied octagonal chapter house and its vestibule, along with part of the east cloister. The chapter house, described by the chronicler Matthew Paris in 1250 as ‘incomparable’,13 was evidently nearing completion in 1253 when canvas was tempor­arily hung in the window openings, pending the installation of glazing.14 We may deduce that the chapter house was complete and ready for use by 1256, for in May of that year Henry ordered the new lectern that he had com­ missioned in 1249 to be transported from a workshop at St Albans to Westminster.15 In 1259 a second lectern was under construction for the chapter house, demon­strating that Henry’s energies were not only directed towards building work, but also to fine furnishings.16 This is confirmed by a succession of references to the construction of the new shrine and feretory for St Edward between the 1240s and 1260s (for citations, see appendix 1).

1  the cosmatesque pavements and monuments: introduction and context By 1256 the eastern arm must have risen at least to the level of the tribune gallery, when difficulty was evidently encountered in effecting an aesthetically satisfactory union between the 1220 Lady Chapel and the emerging new work. It is recorded that a timber roof had to be taken down and a stone vault constructed at a higher level.17 Whether this applied to a pre-existing roof of the linking vestibule discussed above, we cannot say. By 1259 the eastern arm and transepts appear to have been complete, since the king ordered lition of another tranche of the ‘old the demo­ fabric’, in readiness to progress westwards with the rebuilding.18 No record survives to indicate how the convent’s liturgical requirements were met during the rebuilding of the eastern arm, which may have been out of commission for up to twenty-three years (1245 to 1268). The high altar was doubtless moved west to a temporary location in the Romanesque nave, and the 1163 shrine must have been relocated too. Dismantling the internal furnishings and monuments in the presbytery of Edward’s church, as well as exhuming significant interments, had to take place before demolition began in October 1245. When one considers the logistics of rebuilding the eastern arm of the abbey, it is not difficult to appreciate why, despite the astonishing speed with which Henry’s masons and carpenters worked, the high altar remained in a temporary location for so long. Before the new sanctuary could be brought into regular use the ambulatory and its six two-storied chapels had to be structurally complete, and so too the crossing. That in turn required the transepts to have been built up to eaves-level in order to buttress the crossing piers. It was not necessary to construct the lantern tower over the crossing at this stage, since that could be added from high-level cantilevered scaffolding at a later date, without disrupting the interior of the building. In the event, the lantern tower was never fully constructed, leaving the crossing in its present unfinished form.19 Hence, the interior of the presbytery would have been filled with scaffolding for many years, and could not be cleared away until the clerestory had been glazed and the walls and vaulting decorated. Only then could work begin on the floors, steps, screens, fixtures and decoration of both the sanctuary and the chapel designated to house the shrine-tomb of St Edward, and to

become the royal mausoleum. That point was probably reached soon after 1260, by which time internal work had progressed as far west as the monks’ quire. Of course, the major fixtures and furnishings – altars, retables, the Confessor’s shrine, tomb of Henry III, etc – were being simultaneously fabricated in workshops, ready to be transferred into the structurally completed church, where they would be rapidly installed. It is extremely unlikely that the king ever contem­plated the floor of the sanctuary or the shrine chapel being drearily paved with Purbeck marble alone, when the current fashion was for colourful luxury floors in focal areas of liturgical importance.20 Their pavements generally comprised ceramic tiles, decorated and glazed in a variety of designs. We may even obtain an inkling of what was in the king’s mind in c. 1250 from the highly decorative tile pavement that he caused to be laid in the chapter house.21 This contains a group of eight picture-tiles relating to the life of the Confessor,22 and six Latin inscriptions in leonine hexameters. Each Lombardic letter is formed by a single small tile.The inscriptions, which are now mostly illegible, relate to the king himself, and are the only 13th-century examples surviving in situ in England.23 Another remarkable feature of the chapter house pavement is the inclusion of sixtytwo sets of the royal arms, each depiction being formed by a quartet of large tiles (Fig. 5).24 This display is without parallel. Although the chapter house is floored with the finest surviving 13th-century tile pavement, several idio­syncrasies in its composition suggest that the tiles were not made specifically for this location, but were perhaps surplus from another large-scale, prestigious paving commission in the Palace of Westminster, which Henry was rebuilding at the same time as the Abbey.25 Unless the decision to embrace decorative marble flooring had already been made, the king’s initial intention may have been to pave the presbytery – like the chapter house – with patterned and glazed ceramic tiles. We now come to the disputed matter of dating the arrival in Westminster of Italian marblers – the marmorani – who constructed the Abbey’s mosaicinlaid floors and monuments (frontispiece; Figs 4, 6, 44 and 220).These are in the cosmatesque style, which was named after the Cosmatus family who specialized in creating a highly distinctive form of architectural embellishment in 12th-century Italy, and which continued to flourish through­out

5  Chapter house. Tile pavement displaying the arms of England, c. 1250–55. © Dean and Chapter of Westminster

5

the cosmatesque mosaics of westminster abbey

6

1  the cosmatesque pavements and monuments: introduction and context 6 Westminster Abbey. Internal topographical plan of the eastern arm of the 13th-century church, showing the chapels, principal monuments and other major features, as existing. Key to structure (black numerals): 1. St Edward’s chapel; 2. Sanctuary (Sacrarium); 3. North ambulatory; 4. Abbot Islip’s chantry chapel; 5. St John the Baptist’s chapel; 6. St Paul’s chapel; 7. South ambulatory; 8. St Benedict’s chapel; 9. St Edmund’s chapel; 10. St Nicholas’s chapel; 11. Steps up to Henry VII’s Lady Chapel. A. North-east transept door. Key to monuments (white numerals): 1. Shrine-tomb of Edward the Confessor (1269); 2. Aveline, Countess of Lancaster (d. 1274); 3. Aymer de Valence, Earl of Pembroke (d. 1324); 4. Edmund, Earl of Lancaster (d.  1296); 5. Anne of Cleves (d. 1557); 6. Sedilia (c. 1307); 7. Edward I (d. 1307); 8. Henry III (d. 1272); 9. Princess Elizabeth (d. 1495); 10. Eleanor of Castile (d. 1290); 11. Henry V (d. 1422), tomb and chantry chapel above; 12. Philippa of Hainault (d. 1369); 13. Edward III (d. 1377); 14. Princess Margaret (d. 1472); 15. Richard II (d. 1400) and Anne of Bohemia (d. 1394); 16. Bishop John de Waltham (d. 1395); 17. Unidentified grave; 18. Bishop Richard Courtenay (d. 1415); 19. Unidentified grave-cover, supposedly of de Valence family; 20. Grave-cover of de Valence family; 21. Thomas of Woodstock, Duke of Gloucester (d. 1397); 22. Children: John of Windsor (d. 1271) and Henry (d. 1274); 23. William de Valence, Earl of Pembroke (d. 1296); 24. John of Eltham, Earl of Cornwall (d. 1336); 25. Children: William of Windsor (d. 1348) and Blanche of the Tower (d. 1342); 26. Children: Hugh de Bohun (d. 1304) and Mary de Bohun (d. 1305). (a)–(d) Access hatches to exposed founda­tions of Edward the Confessor’s church; (e) Original site of Coronation Chair; (f) Floor slabs delineating the proposed site for the tomb of Henry VI. After The Downland Partnership, © Dean and Chapter of Westminster

the following century. Prior to its arrival in Westminster, cosmatesque mosaic was seemingly un­known in England – or elsewhere outside Italy – and in order to create it, both skilled craftsmen and supplies of exotic marble and other stones had to be imported.26 Coloured glass was another ingredient of this work, and that too had to be acquired from Continental sources. Detailed discussion of the sequence and dating of the Cosmati pavements and monuments will be reserved for chapter 15, after the historical and archaeological evidence has been fully explored. Suffice it to note here that Abbot Richard de Ware is usually credited with importing Cosmati mosaicists, although whether on his own initiative, or on the instruction of Henry III, is debateable. Ware was consecrated abbot in December 1258 and remained in post until his death in 1283. As was customary, following his election, he forthwith

journeyed to Italy to receive papal confirmation of his appointment. He is said to have been away for two years, which is a long absence for a newly appointed abbot of Westminster. He also made other trips to Italy and would have seen numerous pavements and monuments in both Cosmati mosaic and opus sectile, including those in Anagni Cathedral. John Flete, a monk of Westminster who wrote a history of the abbots in 1443, credited Ware with procuring Italian craftsmen and materials, and for supervising the construction of the sanctuary pavement.27 Ware’s personal involvement is also implied by the wording of the epitaph on his tomb-cover (p. 122). However, Henry III was not unfamiliar with Italian marble flooring, having seen the late 12th-century opus sectile pavement at Canterbury Cathedral (Fig. 519). Since the king took a close personal interest in the reconstruction and furnishing of Westminster Abbey, it is more likely that he decided to decorate it with mosaic, and that Ware simply followed instructions. The decision to embrace cosmatesque decoration could have been made at any time in the 1250s but, for reasons that will be discussed in later chapters, it was possibly not enacted until c. 1260. Several assumptions of dubious validity have been made by numerous writers on the subject of the cosmat­esque work at Westminster, notably that the sanctuary pavement was the first project to be tackled, simply because it is dated 1268.The second surviving pavement, in the shrine chapel, has largely been ignored by scholars, or dismissed as a late and inferior work, on account of its design being less bold and conceived on a smaller scale. Burges sowed the seeds of denigration when he stated, somewhat clumsily, that ‘in all probability [it] must be referred to a Northern workman endeavouring to do something like Abbot Ware’s pavement, only in his own way’.28 Most writers have accepted that completion of the shrine pedestal came second, after the sanctu­ ary pavement, on account of the fact that the remains of St Edward were translated into it in 1269. However, Binski has robustly refuted that, claiming that the shrine was not finished until 1279, and that the entire Cosmati programme extended from c. 1267 to c. 1290.29 Others have rejected the notion of such a long drawn-out campaign, envisaging all of the work to have been accomplished in less than five years.30 It is well to remember that the sanctuary pavement and the 7

the cosmatesque mosaics of westminster abbey

N

7  Reconstruction plan of plain Purbeck marble paving in the south-eastern part of the ambulatory; for its context, see Figure 6, location no. 7. After Lethaby 1906

South-east ambulatory

shrine-tomb of the Confessor are only two items in a suite of monuments, some of which have almost certainly been lost. However, two major, but undated structures survive, namely the St Edward’s chapel pavement and Henry III’s own tomb. As we shall demonstrate, the oft-repeated assumption that Henry’s tomb was not constructed until after the king’s death in 1272 is baseless. There is also an undated child’s tomb and sundry other cosmatesque fragments. Consideration of these in toto, and of the archaeological evidence and logistical issues, points to the likely order in which the various monuments were constructed, and hence to a more coherent chronology. Purbeck marble was adopted as the general flooring material in Henry’s church and cloister, and it mainly comprised square paving stones, laid either in straight rows, or diagonally.31 In some areas variation was introduced to enliven the floors, by dividing the paving into carpet-like strips, as in the south ambulatory (Fig. 7).32 Most of the medieval paving has been lost in recent centuries, but antiquarian views confirm its ubiquity, especially the diagonally-set arrangement.33 Although the matrices of the mosaic pavements in the sanctuary and shrine chapel were also of Purbeck marble, geo­metrical designs were intro­ duced into the former, and a huge amount of coloured mosaic was inlaid into both floors. The components of the shrine pedestal and Henry’s tomb were cut from large blocks of Purbeck marble and their surfaces were almost entirely covered with mosaic. The bulk of the materials used for inlaying by the mosaicists were imported, and the only English stone employed for this purpose was white lias limestone, from the Mendip Hills (Somerset). 8

Nevertheless, there is a tantalizing reference in 1269 to Peter of Lincoln, the king’s mason, paying the modest sum of £2 10s., for crushed white stone for a pavement in Westminster Abbey.34 It has generally been assumed that this referred to a consignment of Nottingham alabaster, but no English alabaster has been observed in any of the cosmatesque works. Helpfully, the sanctuary pavement once bore an inscription recording the date of its laying as 1268. Hence, we can be certain that the high altar had been installed and the sanctuary was in liturgical use in 1268 or 1269. The latter year, moreover, marks what is perhaps the single most important liturgical event in the history of Westminster Abbey: the translation of the body of St Edward the Confessor from its Romanesque shrine into the sumptuous new Gothic one in the chapel behind the high altar. The translation took place in the king’s presence on 13 October 1269. These well recorded dates confirm that the sanctuary and shrine chapel were furnished contemporaneously, which is to be expected since they were contiguous liturgical spaces separated only by steps and probably a low screen.The great stone screen that rigidly subdivides the area today was only installed in 1440–41 (Figs 4 and 289). Bearing in mind Henry III’s overwhelming devo­tion to the Confessor, it may be no coinci­ dence that elements of the liturgical core of his and Edward’s churches are virtually coincident with one another. The present shrine pedestal, which straddles Edward’s sanctuary apse and projects into the ambulatory beyond, is almost certainly on the same site as the 1163 shrine, and the shrine altar occupies the site of Edward’s high altar (Fig. 531). Even when the body of a saint had been elevated into the shrine, the empty grave in which he was initially buried remained a secondary focus of veneration, a cenotaph. Henry certainly did not obliterate the site of the grave, but revered it and constructed a chamber above it, which now lies beneath the Cosmati pavement in St Edward’s chapel, immediately to the west of the shrine altar. Since Henry himself was tempor­ arily interred in it in 1272, we can be certain that not only the site but also the structure of the Confessor’s tomb was preserved in good condition, and remained easily accessible. Queen Edith’s remains had also to be accom­ modated somehow in the new chapel-mausoleum, and according to tradition she was reinterred on

1  the cosmatesque pavements and monuments: introduction and context the north side of the shrine. Another tradition asserts that Matilda (Maud), Henry I’s queen, was likewise reinterred in the new chapel, on the south side.35 No physical evidence indicative of either burial has been noted by antiquaries. In 1241, four years before demolition of the Con­ fessor’s church even began, Henry com­ missioned the new shrine, and by the later 1240s other furniture was being made in readiness for the presbytery and chapter house. In the 1250s, as the king witnessed the structural completion of the eastern parts of the Abbey, he would have been thinking about the designs and materials to be used for decorating the floors, walls and vaults, but it is perhaps unlikely that the idea of creating cosma­tesque mosaics had yet dawned on him. But it was not long delayed in coming. In his choice of construction materials, Henry followed the current trend in English great churches of employing polished Purbeck marble for shafts, string-courses and some decorative work: Canterbury, Salisbury, Lincoln and other major churches already had impressive displays of marble, so too did St Paul’s Cathedral.36 Indigenous Purbeck marble was in widespread use for sepulchral slabs and effigies, and for floor paving in general. It also became a favourite material for constructing major tombs and shrine pedestals, as at St Albans in 1308; Westminster may have provided the inspiration for these. Unsurprisingly, Henry embraced the current fashion, although his deployment of Purbeck marble was more profligate than elsewhere. THE MOSAIC ASSEMBLAGE

that have been lost over time. The assemblage comprises the following (Fig. 6). 1. The sanctuary (Sacrarium) pavement which occupies an area 7.9m square, between the steps at the east side of the crossing and the steps to the pavement upon which the high altar stands (frontispiece; Figs 4 and 44).The floor is intrinsic­ ally dated to 1268. Although subjected to damage and limited restoration on several occasions since the 14th or 15th century, the pavement is still substantially intact. 2. Strong circumstantial evidence can be adduced for another substantial area of decorative pavement having existed in the second bay of the presbytery, now occupied by the monumental stone screen of 1440–41 and the dais whereupon the high altar stands (known as the altar pavement).The medieval pave­ment here seems to have survived until 1706, when it was replaced with chequered marble; the area was again re-floored with opus sectile by Sir George Gilbert Scott in 1868–69 (Figs 35 and 43). 3. In St Edward’s chapel, the pavement encompass­ ing the shrine pedestal on the north, south and west (Fig. 8). It is undocumented, but is almost certainly con­temporary with the sanctuary mosaic. The pavement has suffered from a massive amount of wear by foot-traffic and consequently has lost much of its mosaic inlay. Other physical damage, from a variety of sources, has also been inflicted upon it (p. 218).

8  St Edward’s chapel. Cosmati pavement, from the north-west, 2009. Authors

The chronological and logistical background to the creation of the cosmatesque mosaics in Westminster Abbey is not entirely straightforward, even though their contemporary architectural setting is preserved largely intact and several dates that appear to define stages in the work are documented. Instead, lacunae and conflicts of evidence present significant obstacles that demand investigation. Some of these have been recognized by previous writers, who have attempted to seek explana­tions, but others have been overlooked. The ‘great pavement’ in the sanctuary is the best known, best documented and most com­ pletely preserved display of Cosmati mosaic in Westminster. However, it is but one of several extant works, and there were probably even more 9

the cosmatesque mosaics of westminster abbey

9  St Edward’s shrine from the south-west, with Henry III’s tomb beyond. Ackermann 1812

4. The shrine pedestal that still houses the coffin, and formerly also carried the golden feretory, of St Edward the Confessor (Fig. 6, no. 1). It stands in the middle of the chapel and is datable to 1269 (Fig. 9). The pedestal was originally encrusted 10

with mosaic decoration, but the vast majority of this has been lost, having been deliberately picked out as souvenirs by pilgrims and tourists. The shrine was dismantled at the Dissolution (1540), but reassembled in 1557 (p. 407). The matrices

1  the cosmatesque pavements and monuments: introduction and context where the mosaic was missing were infilled with plaster, which was then carefully painted in imitation of cosmatesque mosaic. 5. The shrine altar to St Edward. This was of stone construction and would have appeared seriously at odds with its setting had it been undecorated. It has often been suggested that the mosaic tombchest of a royal child (no. 7 below) was the altar. Even though the chest is dimensionally com­patible, it has been demonstrated that the tomb-top is not a mensa. The large rectangular slab, inlaid with mosaic and marble panels, that formed the retable to the altar survives and may provide a clue to the artistic character of the remainder of the altar (Figs 326–329). It is noticeable that the decorative schema of the retable was conceived on a slightly bolder scale than that of the shrine per se.37 6. The tomb-chest of Henry III, which stands under the ambulatory arcade on the northern edge of St Edward’s chapel, facing the shrine pedestal (Figs 9 and 430–433). The date of the tomb is controversial. Although the king died in 1272, his coffin was not placed inside the tomb-chest until 1290. No satisfactory explanation has hither­to been advanced for this eighteen-year delay, a conundrum heightened by the fact that the tomb – as we shall argue – was almost certainly constructed (if not completely finished) in Henry’s lifetime.The south face of the tomb-chest, which is readily accessible from the St Edward’s chapel, has, like the shrine itself, been picked clean of its mosaic inlay. The north face is, however, well preserved in part, owing to the fact that ambu­latory floor level is 1.5m lower than that in the chapel. While the accessible part of the monument has been stripped bare, the upper area was unreachable from floor level and much mosaic inlay is preserved. 7. The tomb-chest of an un-named royal child (Fig. 10), which stands in an arched recess in the south ambulatory, opposite the tomb of Richard II and Anne of Bohemia (Fig. 6, no. 22).The chest was clearly moved to this location from elsewhere, and significant damage inflicted in the act. It is reasonably supposed that the tomb initially stood in St Edward’s chapel, and was displaced in either the late 14th or the mid-15th century. It is undocumented and the identity of the child for whom it was originally made has been debated for five centuries. In its secondary position, the

tomb has been alleged to contain the remains of up to nine royal children. The original occupant was almost certainly Prince John of Windsor, the first-born son of Edward I (d. 1271). About half of the mosaic inlay in the top slab survives, and some in the east end, but virtually none in the front panels or west end.

10  Cosmati tomb of a royal child (John of Windsor, son of Edward I) in the south ambulatory. Christopher Wilson

11

the cosmatesque mosaics of westminster abbey 8. A pair of spirally-fluted column-shafts currently supporting the retable for the altar at the west end of the shrine (Figs 29, 359 and 361). It has long been acknowledged that they are not part of the original shrine pedestal, and it is usually supposed that they originated as candlesticks or pedestals for statues. They are undocumented but their mosaic decoration displays close similarities with Henry III’s tomb. Both columns retain a significant amount of fine mosaic inlay, although this has only been visible since 1868, when the shafts were inverted: previously, their lower ends, which had been concealed from view since 1557, were buried below floor level. 9. Grave-cover, commonly attributed to John de Valence (d. 1277) (Fig. 6, no. 19). The attribution is incorrect. This slab, set into the floor just to the east of the shrine, is very badly worn but has a small amount of surviving mosaic and latten (brass) inlay where it has been protected by the step to Henry V’s chantry chapel (Fig. 504). In addition to these known works, the following may potentially have been lost. 10. The high altar itself must have been of stone, as prescribed by Canon Law. It is inconceivable that this would have been a plain construction of Purbeck marble. Since Italian marble altars commonly bore Cosmati decoration, it is not unreasonable to suggest that Westminster followed suit. The argument receives support from the fact that the large oak panel known as the Westminster Retable was undoubtedly associated with the altar (Fig. 514).38 The front of the panel was profusely decorated with polychromy, gilding, coloured glass, cameos and pseudo-enamelling. The back of the retable, which faced towards the shrine, was painted in imitation of purple porphyry. 11. Italian churches decorated with Cosmati mosaics commonly had an en suite paschal candlestick too. Although Westminster’s paschal candle is mentioned in several medieval sources, its material and design are not recorded. It stood in the north-east corner of the sanctuary, and was therefore in direct visual association with the pavement. The candlestick would have been destroyed at the Reformation. 12. It will be demonstrated in chapter 9 that there was a west-facing entrance to the Confessor’s 12

tomb behind the high altar, where it formed an integral part of the design of St Edward’s chapel (Fig. 533). Cosmatesque decoration may well have been applied to a fenestella here. Finally, although not cosmatesque, mention should be made of three further tombs. The first is that of William de Valence, half-brother of Henry III (d. 1296), which is now in St Edmund’s chapel, due south of the shrine (Fig. 6, no. 23).This tomb, which includes a brass-clad oak effigy and chest that were once covered with gilding and Limoges champlevé enamel decoration, is an outstanding monument without parallel in England (Fig. 500). There can be little doubt that it was originally sited in St Edward’s chapel, under one of the southern arcade bays, but was displaced to create room for the burial of a king or queen, potentially Queen Philippa (d. 1366). De Valence’s tomb would have contributed significantly to the sumptuousness of the royal mausoleum. The second tomb belongs to John of Eltham, son of Edward II (d. 1336). His high quality alabaster monument is also in St Edmund’s chapel, but for a short period it was in the shrine chapel (Fig. 6, no. 24). The third monument is the so-called ‘de Bohun’ tomb that is now in St John’s chapel (Fig. 6, no. 26), and the case for its having once been in the Confessor’s chapel has been argued by several scholars. It is uncertain who originally occupied this fine late 13th-century monument. In 1395 Richard II caused a pre-existing tomb in St Edward’s chapel to be removed to make way for his Queen, Anne of Bohemia (p. 312). Their joint monument occupies the westernmost bay on the south (Fig. 6, no.15).The displaced monument may have been one of those just listed. The two Cosmati pavements of Westminster Abbey, together with the shrine of St Edward the Confessor and the tombs of Henry III and John of Windsor, have attracted the attentions of innumerable antiquaries since the mid-15th century, and have been described in varying levels of detail and accuracy in many publications. Similarly, these monuments have frequently been illustrated since the 18th century, the pavement in the sanctuary receiving considerably more attention than its neighbour in St Edward’s chapel. It is to the history of antiquarian enquiry into the cosmatesque assemblage that we must now turn.

2 Historiography and the Antiquarian Record EARLY REFERENCES, 1269−c.1700 The earliest documented reference to Cosmati work in the Abbey occurs in 1269, when Henry III reimbursed Abbot Ware for materials purchased for the sanctuary pavement: … the king is bound to the abbot for £50 as well for a pavement which he brought with him from the court of Rome to the king’s use [for the king’s work?], to be put in the church of Westminster before the king’s great altar there, and for the service which he did for the king in the siege of the castle of Kenilworth …1

The next mention is contained in a manuscript history of the Abbey written by John Flete in 1443: Richardus de Ware … transfretansque ad curiam Romanam confirmationem suam quam citius impetravit, et sic a papa inde recessit. Repatriando tamen adduxit mercatores et operarios, ducentes secum lapides illos porphyriticos, jaspides, et mamora de Thaso, quos sumptibus suis propriis emerat ibidem. Ex quibus ipsi operarii coram magno altari Westmonasterii mirandi operis fecerunt pavimentum: in cuius latere boreali dicto abbati sub opere praedicto decentissimam composuerunt ipso praecipiente sepulturam.2 Richard de Ware … travelling by sea to the Roman curia, he obtained confirmation of his office as quickly as possible, and thereupon withdrew from the papal presence. During his journey home he gathered traders and workmen, and brought with him stones of porphyry, jasper and marble from Thasos, which he bought there at his own great expense. From these materials, these same workmen created a pavement in the vicinity of the high altar at Westminster, of wonderful workmanship: beneath the northern side of which, under the aforesaid work, [the

workmen] made the most becoming tomb for this abbot, at his instruction.

This is a seminal document, since Flete not only recounts how Ware brought craftsmen and stones from Rome, to create a wonderful pavement, but also tells us that the abbot himself was interred beneath it. Furthermore, he provides complete transcripts of Ware’s epitaph and the three other inscriptions embodied in the borders of the floor.3 Few traces of these inscriptions remain today. Flete was clearly an admirer of Ware but we must remember that he was writing 185 years after the event, which may explain some discrepancies that will be discussed later. Flete’s manuscript was copied and expanded in the next history of the Abbey, penned by another monk, Richard Sporley, in 1450–51.4 One of Sporley’s additions was a supposed transcript of the primary mosaic inscription around the frieze of St Edward’s shrine. It incorporates the construction date that he read as 1279, which is ten years after the body of the saint had been translated into its new shrine, in the presence of Henry III, many nobles and clerics. Explaining this plainly impossible discrepancy has exercised the minds of modern scholars (pp. 33–34).5 The first published account of Westminster Abbey was produced in 1600 by William Camden. He was not only England’s most renowned antiquary of the early 17th century, but was also the Abbey’s first librarian, and later became headmaster of Westminster School. Camden’s brief account of the sanctuary pavement does not add materially to that of his predecessors.6 Camden also noted and described the loca­ tions of the principal tombs in the Abbey, and several of those in the sanctuary are particularly

the cosmatesque mosaics of westminster abbey relevant to the history of the Cosmati pavement.7 Under the two arcade bays on the north he lists, from east to west: Edmund, Earl of Lancaster; Aymer de Valence, Earl of Pembroke; and Aveline, Countess of Lancaster (Fig. 6, nos 2–4). Their canopied tombs remain. Also mentioned is Henry, infant son of Henry VIII, whose tomb is no longer apparent. It apparently lay in the northeast corner of the sanctuary, near the door in the altar screen.8 On the south side, Camden records Anne Neville, Richard III’s queen (d. 1484);Abbot Walter de Wenlock (d. 1307); and Anne of Cleves (d. 1557). Again, he appears to have listed the burials from east to west, Anne of Cleves being under the western arcade bay. Since the sedilia, constructed in c. 1307,9 fully occupied the eastern arcade bay, the other two burials must have been cut into the paving on the edge of the sanctuary, but they are not apparent today (Fig. 6, no. 6). Crull’s descrip­ tion in 1711 clarifies the situation slightly: after mentioning Anne Neville’s slab, he says: Next to her, near the South Door, entering St Edward’s Chapel, lyeth under a plated MarbleStone, the Body of Walter Wenlock, Abbot of Westminster, and Lord Treasurer of England … there is nothing remaining of the Inscription on his Tomb, no more than there is of that kind on five others, viz. Three on the North, and two on the South side of this Quire.10

From this account we may infer that slabs commemorating Neville and Wenlock lay in the altar pavement side-by-side, the latter being closer to the screen door and having empty matrices that once held a funerary brass and an inscription. Since Camden did not quote the inscription, it may be presumed that it had been lost, or was illegible, before 1600. Fortunately, the wording had been recorded by Flete in 1443: Abbas Walterus jacet hic sub marmore tectus: non fuit austerus, sed mitis famine rectus11

As we shall see, the location of Abbot Wenlock’s burial is material to the study of the Cosmati pavement. In the centre of the sanctuary (in medio Sacrarii ante Mensam Dominicam) Camden lists: Irish Archbishop John de Leeke (d. 1313) and, to his right, Abbot Thomas de Henley (d. 1344); Sir Thomas Clifford, Governor of Berwick; Abbot Richard de Sudbury (d. 1315); and on the left of the archbishop, Abbot Walter de Wenlock (d. 1307).

14

Crull, writing in 1711 mentions only the abbots and Clifford, adding that ‘They have some Brass Inscriptions but are, for the most part, illegible’.12 Camden states that Ware was buried beneath the tessellated pavement, and quotes the now-lost brass inscription on his tomb-cover. He also transcribed the brass inscription around the frame of the Cosmati pavement. Henry Keepe (1652−88), an antiquary and choir-man at Westminster, published a history of the Abbey in 1682.13 His account of the burials is generally similar to Camden’s, but he does not mention Leeke.The slabs for Henley, Sudbury and Clifford apparently carried inscriptions, ‘… but all the Brass and Inscriptions are torn away’.14 Abbot Wenlock, he says, had ‘a decent Marble Stone plated, and laid over him by the South Door entering the Chappel of St Edward, of which there is nothing continuing at this day’. Camden then lists and describes, at some length, the royal tombs in St Edward’s chapel (Capella Regium), although in no particular order.15 He also includes the Anglo-Saxon king Sebert, queens Edith and Matilda, and ‘Henry son of king Richard’, none of whom have identifiable tombs.16 He mentions the indents of John de Waltham and Thomas of Woodstock, noting that their brasses were damaged and had lost their inscriptions (Fig. 6, nos 16 and 21).17 Remnants of Waltham’s brass still survive, and an engraving of Woodstock’s now-lost brass was published in 1677.18 Keepe described the building in florid prose, commenting not only on the antiquity of its various parts, but also upon their physical con­ dition. This provided a valuable new dimension which was lacking from previous accounts. After lamenting the ‘ruinous’ condition of the exterior of the Abbey, he waxed lyrical about some of the internal detail, including the sanctuary pavement: … leaving the outward view of this ruinous building, let us see whether her entrails be altogether as decayed and forlorn … if you enter … you there behold that noble and most glorious inlaid floor still remaining intire.19

He went on to mention the basic form of its decoration ‘in most artificial Work and delightful Figures’ and listed some of the stone types employed: ‘… you have the Jasper, the Porphyry, the Lydian, the Touch, the Alabaster, and the Serpentine stones’. He also quoted the inscrip­ tions, noting their context: ‘… round the Squares

2  historiography and the antiquarian record and great Circles, in Letters of Brass, are some of the Verses still remaining …’ Similarly, Keepe described the Confessor’s chapel and its monuments, including the inscrip­ tion on the shrine pedestal (copied from Sporley). Again, he noted the mosaic floor ‘… inlayed with the like Stones, a great part remaining, though something defaced at this day’.20

illustrations. Notwithstanding, there is much of value in Dart’s work. As we move through the 18th century, the volume of descriptive and illustrative material rapidly increases, but much of it is derivative and adds little to the works of Camden, Keepe, Crull and Dart. Embellishments and interpretations for which there is no known basis in fact progressively crept in.

DESCRIPTIONS AND ILLUSTRATIONS OF THE PAVEMENTS AND MONUMENTS, 1707−1925

Descriptions

The next useful account was Jodocus Crull’s compact two-volume history, first published in 1711, though much of the contents were lifted verbatim from Keepe’s work. Nevertheless, it contains some additional material, and illustrations of the shrine and major tombs (Fig. 11).21 A contemporary of Crull’s was John Dart (d. 1730), a cleric, lawyer and antiquary about whom little is known.22 His major two-volume work, Westmonasterium, was first published in 1723 and contains more detailed architectural descriptions than any of its predecessors.23 His historical accuracy has, however, received criticism and a good deal of artistic licence is apparent in his

A

B

Keepe’s description in 1682 of the sanctuary pavement as still ‘remaining intire’ did not obtain for long, and when Dart was writing in 1723 he described it as ‘the curious mosaick Pavement, which is esteem’d unequall’d in its kind’. He asserted that Abbot Ware, after his consecration by the pope at Anagni, returned … thro’ France purchas’d, from the Ruins of a decay’d Building there, the Materials of a Mosaick Pavement; which … consisted of small pieces of Clay painted and burnt like Bricks, and being of various colours made, by a just dispo­ sition, [a] variety of curious Figures, more beautiful and durable than the finest Marble; but this is suppos’d to be compos’d of real Marble, as Porphyry, Touch, Jasper, Lydian, Alabaster, and Serpentine.24

11  Naïve engravings by Jodocus Crull, 1711. A. South face of Henry III’s tomb; B. North elevation of the shrine; C. Edward I’s tomb and the 17th-century stair to St Edward’s chapel from the north ambulatory (shrine canopy in the background). Crull 1711

C

15

the cosmatesque mosaics of westminster abbey Dart was clearly describing French medieval inlaid ceramic floor tiles, and the rationale for intro­ ducing this subject here is puzzling. No French floor tiles have been found at Westminster, although the possibility that some were imported in the 12th or 13th century cannot be ruled out, but they were not used in the presbytery. The next part of his description is equally curious.The marble pavement, he says, was formed ‘in several squares and circles’, and the stones were ‘square, and about a finger in length’.This reads more like a description of opus sectile than the extant cosmatesque mosaic. Dart reveals his deep distress that the floor had been so badly damaged, claiming that it had only narrowly escaped total destruction when a monumental new altarpiece was installed: The Pavement, at erecting that Altar, was threaten’d with total dissolution by the Workmen, whose mercenary and misjudging Notions destroy whatever is venerable, but by the influ­ ence of the Lord Oxford, and the care of the then Bishop of Rochester, it was for the most part sav’d; yet they broke it up under where the Altar stands, and where the marble Slabs lie round the edges on the sides. What is left makes a most beautiful appearance, and seems to brave all the Injuries of Time, but that for the brass circles of Letters are almost worn out.25

He then described the Confessor’s chapel, noting that the pavement ‘is of the same Materials with that before the altar’, but also contrasting it with the nature of the mosaic work in the shrine pedestal:‘the Shrine seems to be of a thin Mosaick, like Henry the 3rd’s Tomb’: The Stone-work is hollow within-side, and within it … . is a large Chest banded with Iron, and now almost lost in Dust, over the Stone-work is a Frame of Wainscot … . on the Pillasters between the Arches is a kind of Mosaick-work of stain’d Glass … . This Frame was covered at [the] top, as appears in a Draught by Mr Sandford; but the upper Frame is much disjointed and sunk in.26

Here, he was describing the two-tiered oak feretory canopy that surmounts the shrine pedestal (Figs 27–29). His description of its being ‘covered at the top’ refers to the caddy-shaped roof that was destroyed in the 18th century (Figs 11B and 387). Dart was perhaps the first antiquary to comment on features through archaeological eyes. Regarding the shrine itself, he says:

16

This Shrine was undoubtedly repair’d or built at several times, as appears, in some measure, by the difference of Workmanship: for Instance, the Pillars at the West-end are very unlike, the one having a Dorick Chapiter, the other a wreath of Vineleaves; the same dissimilitude is between the East-end and the West, the latter standing on a Greave or the basis of the Tomb, the former having no Chapiter and the basis buried in the Earth.

In this description he has confused east and west. The capitals (‘chapiters’) are both at the east end, and the columns here stand on a plinth (‘greave’); the western pillars have no capitals, bases or plinth under them. Dart offered an ingenious theory as to why the western columns descend into the floor (‘in the earth’) of the chapel: … under the Chair of the Coronation the Floor is pav’d with Tiles different from the mosaick Pavement, in which place, I am inclin’d to think were Steps to descend under the Tomb, where (very probably) the enshrin’d Body of this Saint lay …

Here, he was referring to the rectangle of red clay pamments on the site of the shrine altar, which can be seen in many illustrations antedating 1902 (e.g. Figs 9 and 12). At various times in the 18th and early 19th centuries the Coronation Chair was displayed on this area of paving; its preReformation position was to the south of the altar (Fig. 6, e). Dart’s reference to steps descending to a tomb is interesting, and may either have been pure supposition, or handed-down tradition but, either way, a radar survey in 2005 demonstrated that there is indeed a chamber beneath the pavement here (pp. 255–7).27 Dart next described the royal tombs, illustrating some (with restored detail). Henry III’s monument he praised as … a most magnificent Tomb, admirably curious in the Workmanship. Considering that Age, and inimitably rich in the Materials, the side and end Pannels of the Table being of the most polish’d Porphiry, of a clear red, and the Work round them mosaick of Gold and Scarlet; it is upon an ascent of Steps, and under it are three Ambries or Lockers, lin’d with the same Mosaick, the Corners of the Table are serpentine Pillars gilt and enamel’d, and upon it the Effigy in Brass gilt … 28

Dart’s illustration of Edward I’s tomb is of interest since it shows also the early 17th-century flight

2  historiography and the antiquarian record

12  St Edward’s chapel. Watercolour of the shrine and pavement from the north-west by John Carter, 1778. On the extreme left is glimpsed Eleanor of Castile’s tomb, next to Henry V’s monumental chantry chapel. © Dean and Chapter of Westminster

of oak steps that facilitated ingress to and egress from St Edward’s chapel. This was the sole form of public access. Also included are the lost iron grille and timber canopy associated with the tomb (Fig. 13).29 Again, adopting an archaeological approach, Dart described and commented on two Purbeck marble grave-slabs in the floor of the chapel, between the east end of the shrine and the gates to Henry V’s chantry. He rebutted Keepe’s identification of these as the burials of two children of William de Valence (d. 1276 and 1277), and postulated that one of them was Richard de Wendover, who died in 1250.There is no support­ ing evidence, and any burial antedating the late 1260s would have to have been resited from elsewhere.30 The Cosmati child’s tomb, housed in a recess in the south ambulatory wall (Fig. 14), is briefly mentioned as … a monument of Mosaick Work, the Sides in plain Pannels, but the Top of the Table wrought in Figures, said to be done with the same Stones as the Floor before the Altar. This Monument was erected for three of the Children of Henry III.

He lists the children as Richard, John and Henry, and then proceeds to discuss Katherine, the youngest daughter of Henry III (d. 1257), for whom a sumptuous tomb was constructed in the Lady Chapel. Finally, Dart lists four children of Edward I, who were alleged also to have been placed in the Cosmati tomb.31 The damaged condition of the sanctuary pavement was corroborated a few years later by the Abbey’s librarian, Richard Widmore, who

13 Tomb of Edward I with its iron grille in situ. This view also shows an early 18th-century stair providing access to the shrine chapel from the ambulatory. Anonymous drawing, engraved by James Cole, c. 1720. Dart 1742

17

the cosmatesque mosaics of westminster abbey

14  Child’s tomb in the south ambulatory, showing four kneeling figures painted under the lower arch, on the back of the recess. A. Anonymous drawing, engraved by James Cole; B. Drawn and engraved by James Basire, 1786. A. Dart 1742; B. Gough 1786

A observed that ‘a good part is still remaining’.32 The new altar to which Dart referred was the huge Carrara marble altarpiece erected in 1706–07, the foundation for which was evidently cut through the floor. This is variously known as the Whitehall or Queen Anne altarpiece (Fig. 40; p. 40). Almost without exception, the authors of histories and guide-books commented on the mosaic work as being a notable curiosity: some waxed lyrical in their admiration, and others lamented the damage that it had suffered. Crull, writing about Ware, observed that he … caused the most curious inlaid Floor to be made before the High Altar … wrought in the most delightful Figures of Jasper, Porphyry, Lydian, Touchstone, Alabaster and Serpentine Stones; round the Squares whereof, in Letters of Brass, there are still remaining some Latin Verses concerning the duration of the World.33

The first detailed and reasonably accurate descrip­ tion of the design and decorative com­ponents of the sanctuary pavement was written by J. P. Malcolm in 1802.34 He, and other antiquaries were already beginning to voice concerns over the degradation of the floors, but the damage con­ tinued and was followed by further lamentations. In 1812, Rudolph Ackermann described the composition of the sanctuary pavement in some detail, summing it up as ‘venerable from its age, costly in its materials, and invaluable for its workmanship’.35 However, he bemoaned: It is impossible to view this wonderful piece of art without extreme dissatisfaction … the most

18

B irreparable injury is said to have been done to it by the workmen employed in erecting the present altar. The late fire in the lantern may also have occasioned an additional disfigurement of it.36

In 1817 the editors of William Dugdale’s Monasticon Anglicanum recorded ‘a sufficient portion is still remaining to indicate its former beauty’;37 and in 1823 Edward Brayley described the floor, reporting it as being ‘in ruin’ and ‘greatly injured by wanton spoliation and by accident’.38 The condition of the shrine pavement was so parlous that by 1850 the Dean and Chapter ordered it to be covered with boards, and it has remained covered ever since, although now with thickly cushioned carpet. It would appear that the sanctuary pavement was also completely covered for a time, since Henry Cole, writing in 1842, said ‘we beseech that some part, at least, may be shewn of the ruins of Abbot Ware’s mosaic pavement’.39 Photographic evidence demonstrates that a large part of the floor was covered by carpet in the later 19th century, and for most of the 20th century it was completely covered. Since 2010, when the con­ servation programme was completed, the floor has remained fully exposed (frontispiece). The Cosmati work in the Abbey has been described and discussed, in varying detail, by many scholars, since the early 19th century. In 1863 Scott reflected on his investigations into the pavements and shrine, and William Burges published an essay on the two pavements, discussing them in the context of medieval cosmatesque work in Italy.40 In the early 20th century W. R. Lethaby considered

2  historiography and the antiquarian record the pavements from an archaeological perspective on two occasions,41 and concise descriptions were published by the Royal Commission on Historical Monuments of England (RCHME) in 1924.42 Little of substance has been said about the child’s Cosmati tomb in the south ambulatory. The earliest description of it seems to date from 1682, when Keepe exhorted … you must take notice of a small Monument, or Tomb … beautified with Stone of diverse Colours, and arched, under which are the effigies of four Children painted thereon in Plano, but without any inscription. Under this Tomb are inclosed the bones of Richard, John and Katherine, Children of King Henry III, and it was erected by Edward I … for three of his Sons and a Daughter, which he had by Eleanor, his Queen … viz. John, Henry, Alphonsus, and Eleanor.43

While the description of the tomb itself is of interest, no reliance can be placed on the list of eight children who are allegedly buried therein (see further, pp. 481–4). Keepe and Crull both described Henry III’s ‘sumptuous’ tomb in similar words, which were also borrowed by Dart (p. 437). Crull gave disappointingly brief accounts of the shrine and the Cosmati pavement, He mentions the ‘golden feretory’ that was destroyed at the Dissolution, and the survival of what he calls ‘the upper part’ (ie the wooden feretory canopy), and says:

Illustrations Antiquarian artists were inevitably attracted to the several displays of cosmatesque decoration in the Abbey, and a number of studies have survived. Some were clearly faithful records of the extant remains, while others employed artistic licence to create an enhanced depiction of the subjects. Before we consider these, one famous illustration needs to be mentioned, and set in context. It is the putative view of part of the sanctuary pave­ ment seen in The Ambassadors, a painting by Hans Holbein the Younger, executed in 1533 (Fig. 15). This magnificent portrait, now in The National Gallery, London, depicts two figures standing on ficial a cosmatesque floor which bears a super­ resemb­lance to the Westminster pave­ment.45 The context of the painting is, however, over­whelm­ ingly secular, not religious. Never­theless, the claim that the illustrated floor is based on the sanctuary pavement has been robustly defended by several scholars, including Mary Hervey and William Lethaby.46 The evidence has been exhaustively reviewed by Richard Foster, who concludes that The Ambassadors was most likely executed in

15 Hans Holbein the Younger, The Ambassadors, 1533. The figures stand on a floor decorated in the cosmatesque style, based on the design of the sanctuary pavement at Westminster Abbey. © The National Gallery, N-1314

The under part, which we still behold, was made at the Charge of Richard de Ware … with some of the same Stones, and by the same Hands who performed the most admirable Pavement before the High Altar in the Choir; and at the same time the Floor of this Chapel was also, by the same Abbot’s Command, inlaid with the like Stones, some Remnants whereof we see, tho much defaced, to this Day. On each side the Base of this Feretory, are three small Niches, separated by Serpentine Columns, which support the Arches; which, they say, were made for the Conveniency and Repose of the Sick and Infirm that came hither for Relief. About the midst of the Inside of this Shrine, stands a large Chest, bound about with strong Bands of Iron, wherein it is generally supposed the Body of this King is still preserved. Round the middle of this Marble Frame, there is to be seen a short Inscription, in Letters gilt with Gold … [Feckenham’s text of 1557 cited].44

19

the cosmatesque mosaics of westminster abbey

16 The sanctuary of Westminster Abbey, showing the funeral procession of Abbot John Islip, 1532. Copy of a lost painting, by George Vertue, c. 1743. The sanctuary and altar pavements are concealed by carpets, but the late medieval configuration of the steps is evident. © Bodleian Library, Oxford: Gough Maps 226

20

Greenwich Palace, and that the cosmatesque ‘pavement’ depicted was not even of marble, but a painted simulation on a wooden floor.47 This argument is wholly convincing, and therefore Holbein’s painting is not directly relevant to Westminster Abbey, but is almost certainly related, at one remove. There can be little doubt that the Cosmati pavement in the sanctuary provided the source of inspiration for the Greenwich floor, the basic form of both being identical.

Sanctuary pavement The earliest view of the sanctuary of Westminster Abbey is found in a drawing in the Obituary Roll of Abbot John Islip: it depicts his funeral cortège at the high altar in 1532 (Fig. 16).48 Unfortunately,

the Cosmati pavement is completely hidden from view by the procession, and nothing can be gleaned from this.49 Moreover, the altar is covered with cloth, so that its construction and decoration cannot be glimpsed. Nevertheless, the view clearly shows the arrangement of three generous steps leading up to the altar and flanking it to north and south. A carpet covers the full width of the steps in front of the altar. Undoubtedly, we see here an arrangement that was created in 1440, when the altar screen with its two flanking doorways was erected. The steps were modified or dismantled in 1706, when the Whitehall altarpiece was installed. The remarkable plan of the eastern arm of the abbey church, showing the arrangements for the coronation of Elizabeth I on 15 January 1558/9, is similarly of little help (Fig. 17). It shows the medieval stone high altar, and in front of that a large carpet, partly overlapped by a ‘carpet of cloth of gold’, upon which were several ‘cusshyons of the same for the queene to be annoyented’.50 These lay above the central sphere of the Cosmati pavement. The earliest known illustrations of the pavement date from 1707 and were drawn by John Talman (1677−1726). He was an antiquarian artist of exceptional calibre, and one of the founders of the Society of Antiquaries of London, who devoted many years to travelling around Europe, recording monuments and other works of art. He spent much time in Italy, including the years 1709−17.51 He was thoroughly familiar with cosmatesque work, and it therefore occasions no surprise that he recorded it at Westminster.Writing about the sanctuary pavement in 1723, Dart records, ‘The ingenious Mr Talman has with indefatigable Pains measured it, a Work of long Time and close Application; a Draught of which, with other curious Things, he has communicated to the Society of Antiquaries, which is now justly engrav’d’.52 What happened to Talman’s drawing and the engraving that was evidently made from it remains a mystery. No subsequent record of them has been found. However, some of the ink sketches that Talman made on site have survived, interspersed in a volume of mainly Italian drawings acquired by the Victoria and Albert Museum in 1940.53 Altogether, twelve items relate to West­ minster, and between them they cover almost the entire pavement (Figs 50–57).54 The sketches are undated, but seem to have

2  historiography and the antiquarian record been made in 1707; they are profusely annotated with dimensions and descriptions of the colours of the stones.Talman evidently recorded the floor shortly after the grievous damage was inflicted by the installation of the new Baroque altarpiece and the elevated pavement upon which it rested. One of the drawings is a dimensioned plan of the new altar pavement, and another is a rough sketch of part of the altarpiece itself (Fig. 41). As Dart later reported, the pavement was under threat, and there was a perceived need to record it. Foster has convincingly argued that Talman took the sketches with him to Ranworth (Norfolk) in 1707, where he compiled the final drawing between 17th June and 14th August.55 At the same time, George Vertue was preparing to engrave it for the Society of Antiquaries, but the exceptionally large size of the drawing was proving problematic. Talman’s drawing may yet come to light in a private collection, but if an engraving was made it was certainly never published: otherwise copies of it would turn up from time to time. The loss of this record of the pavement in 1707 is most regrettable, although we strongly suspect that Ackermann’s published plan was based on Talman’s (Fig. 18). Indeed, it can be deduced that George Vertue was preparing to engrave Talman’s plan of the pavement, since one of the former’s notebooks contains a rough sketch showing the layout of the floor.56 Vertue observed, ‘the Curious pavement in the Quire of the Abby Church at Westminster drawn exactly by Mr. J. Talman: being a sort of Mosaeick work inlaid with beautiful Stones of all kinds, the General form of the whole …’ Vertue made a further five small sketches, illustrating how the drawing might be broken up into manageable sections for engraving and publishing in a book, noting that ‘it might be Grav’d in several Sheets. One, the inside square; two angles next to it another sheet; & so the other two angles; then the square bordure about it, each side one sheet, which would make four sheets more; in all seven sheets – or 8 sheets.’57 As Foster observed,Talman’s drawing was evidently very large and detailed, and the problems associated with dividing it meaning­ fully into numerous parts, for engraving, may have deterred that from ever being accomplished.58 The first complete plan of the pavement to have survived is Ackermann’s aquatint, published in 1812 (Fig. 18).59 This is certainly based on a measured plan and gives an excellent overall

17  Plans showing the layout of the presbytery for the coronation of Queen Elizabeth I in 1558/9 (east is at the top). upper. St Edward’s chapel; lower. The sanctuary. Carpets were laid over parts of the Cosmati pavements, and cushions placed on them. © British Library: MS Egerton 3320, fols 22 and 28

21

the cosmatesque mosaics of westminster abbey

18  Sanctuary mosaic pavement. Aquatint by William White. Ackermann 1812

impression of the design elements, together with indications of damage and restoration. It cannot, on account of the scale of its reproduction, depict individual tesserae, and some elements of the decoration are distinctly schematic. Although a pleasing work of art, it is not a true archaeological record. The eastern border of the pavement is largely missing from the drawing, having been destroyed by the erection of the new altarpiece. The plan was certainly not by the hand of Ackermann, and is signed by W. J. White, who claimed credit for both drawing and engraving it. However, as already noted, the ultimate authorship

22

is disputable, and there are strong grounds for suspecting that the plan is based on Talman’s lost original of 1707.60 Ackermann also published the earliest floor plan showing the pavement in context,61 and a similar one was produced in 1820 by Neale (Fig. 19).62 Both show the 1706 layout of the quire and sanctuary, with the intruded steps partly cutting off the eastern border of the mosaic. During the course of the 19th and early 20th centuries, several artists and scholars prepared careful paintings and drawings of individual components of the pavements and tombs. A major collection of full-size tracings, colour-washed to

2  historiography and the antiquarian record

represent the individual stone types, was made by George Maw in 1862−63. He concentrated on the sanctuary pavement (Fig. 20), but also recorded selected areas of the shrine pavement and Henry III’s tomb.63 Maw was a manufacturer of ceramic tiles, operating in Staffordshire, and he travelled widely in pursuit of examples of medieval designs. He not only studied ceramic tile floors, but also devoted prodigious effort to recording mosaic and opus sectile pavements, drawing Italian examples as well as those at Westminster. Although Maw’s record of the pavement is selective, rather than comprehensive, it is extremely

A

B

useful in showing the floor as it was immediately prior to the Victorian restoration. He drew a plan to a scale of 1:24 and numbered all the mosaic components (Fig. 38). There are several surprising omissions from his detailed record, including one of the more elaborate medallions (panel 33), situated at the north-west corner of the pave­ ment.64 It seems likely that some tracings were lost before they were bound into the folio volume. In 1863 Charles Hadfield also drew and colourwashed examples of the designs, concentrating more on the shrine pavement (Fig. 21).65 In the same year, George Gilbert Scott published the first measured plan of the sanctuary floor that included the remains of the inscriptions, together with line drawings of examples of the mosaic designs (Fig. 22).66 A new measured plan of the whole of the sanctuary pavement was prepared by the RCHME in 1924 (Fig. 23).67 It bears considerable resem­ blances to Scott’s drawing, from which details of many of the decorative bands were seemingly copied. Again, while all the geometrical com­ ponents are shown, the decoration within them is not fully recorded: only representative examples of the designs were drawn. Hence, both Scott’s

19 (left) Extract from John Preston Neale’s plan of the Abbey in 1820, showing the 1706 layout of the sanctuary with the Cosmati pavement in context. Brayley and Neale 1823, pl. 60

20  Examples of George Maw’s colour-washed tracings, 1862–63. A. Sanctuary pavement, panel 33; B. Sanctuary pavement, panel 51; C. Details from Henry III’s tomb. WAL, courtesy of Ironbridge Gorge Museum and Archives

C 23

the cosmatesque mosaics of westminster abbey

21 St Edward’s chapel pavement. Examples of Charles Hadfield’s pencil, pen and wash drawings of details, 1863. © Dean and Chapter of Westminster

24

and the RCHME plans are essentially schematic and do not, for example, record aberrations in the original design, or subsequent repairs. Scott’s and Hadfield’s plans were made before the pavement was restored, and hence the eastern border is largely missing, whereas the RCHME plan shows the post-1868 version. Later illustrations all represent the sanctuary pavement in its post-restoration state, which differs very little from that obtaining in the late 1990s. There is a collection of watercolours made by J. Harold Gibbons in 1909, showing full-size details.68 Also in the same collection is a rubbing of medallion no. 33, which was later published by W. R. Lethaby.69 General photographic views of the sanctuary

in the 19th and early 20th century are few, and have usually been taken from a very oblique angle: they are consequently not useful for studying the condition of the floor. The earliest known photographs of the sanctuary date from c. 1860, but are not very helpful in respect of studying the pavement (Fig. 36). The first view of the latter was taken in 1869, and is thus immediately subsequent to Scott’s restoration (Fig. 24).70 It shows both the new altar rails and the gated sanctuary screen. Only the latter appears in a lithograph of 1887, recording the thanksgiving service for Queen Victoria’s Golden Jubilee, and in a wide-angle view of c. 1910 (Fig. 25).71 This ironwork, which caused damage to the medieval floor, was removed in the 1920s.

2  historiography and the antiquarian record

22  Sanctuary pavement. Measured plan by Orlando Jewitt for G. G. Scott, 1863. The black Belgian marble threshold for the sanctuary gates is shown (left), and the cream marble steps to the altar pavement (right); both were inserted in 1706. Burges 1863a

23  Sanctuary pavement. Measured plan, 1924. RCHME 1924

24 Sanctuary pavement. View looking west, 1869. Harrington 1869, pl. 8

25

the cosmatesque mosaics of westminster abbey

A

B 25 Views of the sanctuary pavement. A. Lithograph of Queen Victoria’s Golden Jubilee service, 1887, with the central area of the pavement uncovered; B., Photograph of c. 1910, showing the damaged condition of the mosaic and the low iron screen on the western step. WAL

26

2  historiography and the antiquarian record

St Edward’s chapel: the pavement, shrine and royal tombs The oldest extant plan of the chapel is that prepared to indicate the required layout for the coronation of Elizabeth I. Although not drawn to scale, it provides confirmation of the essential geography of the chapel in 1558/9.72 St Edward’s shrine is represented by the outline of its steps. Adjoining on the west is a disproportionately large stone altar the length of which is considerably greater than the width of the shrine. In front of the altar a cushion is shown lying on a carpet ‘for the Quene to kneel upon’ (Fig. 17).The plan also shows carpets and cushions placed on the sanc­tuary floor, incidentally confirming that it was not separated into two levels, as it now is, by transverse steps. The earliest graphic records of the mosaic work are the sketches prepared in 1707 by John Talman, but these illustrate only very small areas.73 Talman returned in 1713 to make a series of sketches of the shrine, enabling him to prepare the impressive south elevation of the entire structure – including the timber canopy – which was then engraved by George Vertue in 1724. Nearly all the original mosaic inlay was missing from the pedestal and the engraving shows stylized infilling in many of the panels (Fig. 26). However, a second, highly coloured version was also published, and the intricate detail portrayed there by Vertue rep­ resented either a hypothetical reconstruction, or the 16th-century painted faux mosaic of Abbot Feckenham (Fig. 300). Some of the detail is certainly recognizable as the latter. It is instructive to compare these engravings with Dart’s recon­ struction of the same elevation, published in 1742.74 There are many antiquarian views of the interior of St Edward’s chapel, and most show the shrine itself. The Cosmati pavement appears in some, either represented stylistically or with varying attempts to portray reality. A detailed, panoramic view of the chapel from the south-west, drawn by John Coney in 1816, provides a good overall impression of the various monuments and their setting, but it falls down on accuracy in several areas, such as the decorative panels on the shrine (Fig. 27).75 However, many views postdating c. 1850 do not show any mosaic work; instead, some depict (hypothetically) rectangular paving slabs. This omission is readily explained by the fact that the mosaic was covered with linoleum (p. 316).

Crull’s naïve engravings of the north face of the shrine, the south side of Henry III’s tomb and Edward I’s tomb, as seen from the ambulatory, are amongst the earliest views of these monuments (1711), and are not notable for their accuracy or attention to detail (Fig. 11).76 The first archaeo­ logically reliable view of the chapel is a water­ colour of 1778 by John Carter (Fig. 12).77 He chose to show the Cosmati work schematically, but the red tile pamments west of the shrine and

26  Monochrome version of George Vertue’s engraving of 1724, based on Talman’s lost drawing of 1713. It shows the south elevation of the shrine of Edward the Confessor as reconstructed by Abbot Feckenham in 1557–58 (cf. Fig. 300). WAL

27

the cosmatesque mosaics of westminster abbey

27  St Edward’s chapel. Panoramic view of the monuments and pavement from the south-west. Drawn and engraved by John Coney, 1816–17. WAL

28 St Edward’s chapel. The shrine and pavement from the north-west. Drawn by J. P. Neale and engraved by John Le Keux. Neale 1821

28

29  St Edward’s shrine. Engraving from the southwest. Knight 1845

2  historiography and the antiquarian record the stone slabs delineating the proposed site for Henry VI’s tomb (on the far left; see also Fig. 6, f) are accurate. A similarly angled and detailed view published by J. P. Neale in 1821 renders the Cosmati pavement sketchily, but provides a clearer depiction of the west end of the shrine pedestal (Fig. 28).78 An identical view published in 1897, and clearly copied from Neale’s, represents the decoration on the north face as highly stylized; it also appears to show the pavement covered with linoleum, as it would have been at that date.79 An unsigned engraving of the shrine, from the southwest in 1845, renders detail with notable accuracy, including damage to the cornice and one corner of the altar retable (Fig. 29).80 Although no longer inside the chapel, one of the ejected royal monuments must be mentioned. The Cosmati child’s tomb, now in the south ambulatory, has received little attention from antiquarian artists. The earliest illustration is a rather inaccurate and heavily stylized view published by Dart, who omitted the 13th-century trefoil-headed recess in which the tomb stands, and he modified the form of the low segmental arch that forms its canopy (Fig. 14B).81 He also depicted four kneeling figures painted on the back of the recess, immediately above the top slab. Ackermann published a more realistic aquatint view from a reliable drawing by Mackenzie.82 In the later 18th century, Richard Gough employed the talented artist and engraver James Basire to prepare finely detailed illustrations for his great work on sepulchral monuments. Basire drew the south elevation of Henry III’s tomb, and an overhead view of the gilt copper-alloy effigy (Fig. 30). Along with these, Gough published John Carter’s north view of Henry III’s tomb (Fig. 31).83 Basire also drew an elevation of the Cosmati child’s tomb, improving on Dart’s stylized version (Fig. 14A).84 Edward the Confessor’s tomb was not illustrated, but Gough recorded the exposed lettering of the primary inscription on the east end, and the monograms at the beginning and the end of Feckenham’s secondary inscription (Fig 411), as found on 14 April 1781.85 Several of Neale’s illustrations were published in 1815, including an unrefined sketch of the south face of Henry III’s tomb86 and a general view of the south ambulatory, showing the child’s Cosmati tomb.87 The view east along the north ambulatory, past the tombs of Edward I and Henry III, was a favourite amongst antiquarian artists, and this

showed also the oak stairway that provided access to the shrine chapel for countless thousands of tourists (Fig. 13).88 A watercolour of the north face of Henry III’s monument by Thomas Scandrett, 1840, includes the same stairway and confirms the survival of three of the four original porphyry panels on the tomb-chests (Fig. 32).89 Ackermann published a similar view in 1812.90 A fine painting of the north face of Henry III’s tomb, showing in detail the remaining mosaic inlay, was produced in 1924 (Fig. 33).91 In 1914 the timber canopy was removed from the shrine, dimensioned sketches were made of the Confessor’s coffin and tomb-chamber and a photograph taken (Fig. 385).92 The RCHME

30 Tomb of Henry III. South elevation and vertical view of the effigy. Drawn and engraved by Basire. Gough 1786

29

the cosmatesque mosaics of westminster abbey

31 Tomb of Henry III. North elevation drawn by John Carter and engraved by Basire. Gough 1786

surveyed the floor in 1924 and published the first measured plan of the pavement (Fig. 34).93 This showed that the decorative scheme involved the tight clustering of roundels, but did not reveal clearly the linkage between them, and hence the overall design. It did, however, provide a striking record of the extent to which the pavement had been repaired with cement.

30

The glorious effigial tomb of William de Valence, Earl of Pembroke, now in St Edmund’s chapel, has attracted considerable attention on account of its Limoges champlevé enamel decora­ tion (Fig. 500). Drawings and a description were published by Gough,94 and in 1817 elements of the tomb were illustrated in colour by Stothard.95

2  historiography and the antiquarian record

32 Tomb of Henry III. Watercolour of the north face by Thomas Scandrett, 1840. Private collection

31

the cosmatesque mosaics of westminster abbey

33 Tomb of Henry III. Watercolour of the north elevation, showing details of the surviving mosaic inlay, c. 1920; name of the artist not recorded. RCHME 1924

THE PAVEMENTS AND MONUMENTS IN RECENT SCHOLARSHIP After the publication of the RCHME volume in 1924, scholarly study of Westminster Abbey entered a period of stagnation and, although various aspects of its art and architecture continued to receive attention on a small scale, major works of scholarship were not forthcoming for many years. The Second World War effectively halted academic research for a decade, and when restoration of war damage followed in the 1950s, regrettably, there was no archaeological involve­ ment. Extensive and unrepeatable opportunities to enrich our knowledge of the Abbey’s historic fabric and decoration were lost.96 In 1950, Edward Hutton published the first monograph in English on The Cosmati, a valuable, illustrated account of the Italian marblers and their works of the 12th and 13th centuries, which includes discussion of named marmorani and the inscriptions that they left on their monuments. Hutton’s compendious study carries a brief section on the Westminster material.97 A turning point for the Abbey came in 1958, when John O’Neilly, an architectural assistant to Stephen Dykes Bower,98

32

made careful measured drawings of St Edward’s shrine and attempted to elucidate the history of its reconstruction by Abbot Feckenham after the Dissolution. Lawrence Tanner, the Abbey Librarian, assisted O’Neilly with the documentary research, and their joint paper shed much new light on the architectural history of the shrine.99 The first substantial paper on the sanctuary mosaic was published in 1978 by Stephen Wander, who expressed surprise ‘to find that the pavement and its inscription have not yet been subjected to a thorough analytical examination’.100 He pub­ lished the first detailed study of the inscription and its significance, correcting previous erroneous accounts, but he did not dwell on the physical aspects of the pavement. In 1980, Dorothy Glass’s catalogue raisonné of Italian cosmatesque pave­ ments was published.101 However, she did not include the Westminster floors, dismissing them as ‘best viewed as derivatives of true cosmatesque pavements’; it is difficult to square this statement with the fact that they were laid by Italian Cosmati mosaicists, using designs and materials that they brought with them.102 However, Glass’s catalogue is well referenced and is useful as a source of comparanda for the Westminster mosaics.

2  historiography and the antiquarian record

34  St Edward’s chapel. The first measured plan of the pavement, 1924. RCHME 1924

Richard Foster’s doctoral research, in 1986–87, concentrated on the sanctuary pavement, which he studied, analyzed and interpreted in careful detail.103 For the first time, the geological origins of most of the stone types employed in the mosaic work were correctly identified.104 In 1991 this landmark study was published under the title Patterns of Thought, which has since remained the principal analytical work on the subject.105 In 1990 Paul Binski published an important study of three of the monuments in the cosmatesque assemblage: the shrine of St Edward, the tomb of Henry III and the sanctuary pavement.106 It was a seminal paper that reviewed the Westminster Cosmati assemblage, and all that it symbolized, in a European context. The author attempted to elucidate the chronology of the monuments, which had hitherto only received discussion in a loose and unstructured

manner, with the exception of a paper published in 1987, by Cornelius Claussen, who argued that the cosmatesque floor in St Edward’s chapel was laid in 1266–69, and that by then the shrine pedestal was already in place.107 Binski’s study concluded with an assessment of the importance of the Cosmati work at West­minster in the context of the English Court Style, but envisaged the episode to have been protracted over a period of at least twenty-five years. Expressly, he insisted that the new shrine of St Edward was unfinished and was not in place for the dedication of the rebuilt Abbey and translation of the saint’s relics on 13 October 1269. He further maintained that Henry III’s monumental Cosmati tomb was not constructed in his lifetime, but was provided by his son, Edward I.108 Relying on negative evidence (in respect of the absence of matters 33

the cosmatesque mosaics of westminster abbey cosmatesque in surviving royal adminis­trative records for certain periods), Binski argued for the furnishing of the sanctuary and shrine chapel being long drawn-out and chaotic. In so doing, he portrayed Henry III as having failed spectacularly to achieve his primary objective of honouring St Edward the Confessor. His con­clusions were thus seriously at odds with Claussen’s. The denigration of Henry’s organizational abilities proved contentious, and David Carpenter robustly took issue with it in 1996, arguing that the extended chronology was not supported by the historical record, and in practical terms was implausible.109 He reinforced Claussen’s case for a much shorter chronology. Further debate between Binski and Carpenter followed, without resolution.The former also constructively pursued the historical and symbolic aspects of the pavement – and in particular articulated the powerful sense of Romanitas that it conveys – in the context of Henry III’s new church.110 At the same time Carpenter continued to explore the significance of Cosmati work in the context of Henry III’s reign. 111 Also in 1996, Claussen published a succinct account of the development of the Cosmati industry, and its absorption of Frenchderived Gothic architectural detail, which pro­ vided benchmarks for dating the Westminster assemblage to the 1260s and early 1270s.112 In November 1998, a symposium was convened at the Courtauld Institute of Art, London, as a precursor to the impending conservation pro­ gramme on the sanctuary pavement. A handful of contributors covered aspects of the art history of the two Cosmati pavements, considered their cultural context, included a report on their physical condition and proposed a conservation strategy. The papers were subsequently published, without resolving the major disagreement over dating the Westminster monuments.113 An account of the sanctuary pavement, together with the opus sectile floor at Canterbury Cathedral, was published by Tim Tatton-Brown in 1998, followed by a useful historical survey covering all aspects of St Edward’s chapel in 2000.114 TattonBrown regarded the Westminster monuments as a close-knit unit, all dating from c. 1268–69. A subsequent paper by Rodwell explored the topographical setting of the Cosmati pavements, a theme that is developed further in this volume.115 In 2001 Paloma Pajares-Ayuela’s lavishly illus­ trated volume on cosmatesque ornament provided 34

a useful overview of the range of monuments involved and of the complexities in the design and colour permutations found in intricate mosaic panels and banding.116 She also helpfully refer­ enced a large volume of literature concerning Cosmati work in Italy. Finally, to summarize the current position, there are three inter-related aspects of the Westminster Cosmati assemblage that continue to be hotly debated, and are explored in extenso in these volumes. Foremost are the construction dates of the shrine and its surrounding pavement: Claussen and Carpenter proposed a short chronology with a starting date in the mid-1260s,117 whereas Binski argued for an extended date-bracket of c. 1267– 90.118 The principal problem over dating the shrine is the fact that in 1450 Sporley transcribed a nowlost inscription, supposedly recording the date as 1279, whereas there is indisputable evidence that the body of Edward the Confessor was translated into it in 1269.119 Secondly, the date of construction of Henry III’s sumptuous Cosmati tomb has been debated, without reaching anything approaching a satis­ factory conclusion. Although a long-reigning king with ample means, opportunity and years to construct his own tomb, when Henry died in 1272 he was not interred in it. Consequently, it has been contended that Henry’s place of sepulture was not ready to receive his body, a status quo that supposedly persisted until 1290.120 The few strands of historical evidence contributory to this par­ticular argument are exceedingly opaque and do not point convin­ cingly to any sustainable con­clusion. We shall propose a different scenario, involving the construc­ tion of the tomb by Henry himself (chapter 15). Thirdly, the identity of the royal child for whom the small cosmatesque tomb, now in the south ambulatory, was made has been the subject of much discussion and speculation over the past four centuries (cf. p. 481). A range of potential candidates, drawn from the children of Henry III and Edward I, has been considered by several scholars, and reviewed most thoroughly by Sally Badham.121 Although the tomb was obviously commissioned for one child, it has been suggested that more corpses were added to it. There is evidence that a second small coffin was placed in the tomb-chest, but it is wholly impracticable to contemplate further additions. The problem is compounded by the fact that the tomb was moved to its present location in the 15th century.

3 The Sanctuary and High Altar Pavements: Past Interventions, Damage and Repair PAVING THE SANCTUARY: AN HISTORICAL OVERVIEW The presbytery of Westminster Abbey occupies four-and-a-half architectural bays, east of the crossing, and comprises a paved area of approx­ imately 250m2.The floor is at three different levels, separated by steps. The westernmost bay is the largest (7.0m long by 11.7m wide); the second and third are each 5.0m long; and the remaining oneand-half bays constitute a five-sided apse. The sanctuary, or ‘Sacrarium’ (as it is generally known today),1 occupies the first two bays (145m2); the remainder is given over to the chapel of St Edward. Two steps define the interface between sanctuary and chapel. The sanctuary itself is also divided into two parts, separated by two steps. Here, the break does not coincide with the division between the first and second bays, but is 80cm into the latter. The 7.9m square Cosmati pavement is centred on the lower level; to the east, and occupying most of the second structural bay, lies the altar pavement. This supports the dais that carries the high altar, behind which rises a late medieval stone screen (Figs 1 and 6). The presbytery is thus floored with three separate pavements: sanctuary, high altar and shrine chapel. When considering the setting of each pavement, it is important to bear in mind that the presbytery in c. 1270 would have appeared significantly more open and spacious than it does today, for two reasons. First, there were no sepulchral monuments in the arcade bays, with one exception (Henry III’s), and there was consequently a greater exposure of paving, although the bays would have been screened off from the ambulatory. Secondly, because the

massive stone altar screen of 1440–41 that now separates the sanctuary from the shrine chapel did not then exist, there was a more open view towards the east (frontispiece; Fig. 289). The present altar pavement was laid anew by G. G. Scott in 1868, and is composed of opus sectile, in various coloured marbles. There was no precedent for the design, which was of Scott’s own creation. It stretches across the full width of the sanctuary, from Edmund Crouchback’s tomb on the north, to the sedilia on the south. The pavement is ascended by two Purbeck marble steps on the west, and abuts the altar screen on the east. Two symmetrically disposed doorways lead through that screen to the chapel of St Edward beyond. At the centre of the pavement, abutting the screen, is a rectangular dais upon which the high altar stands, ascended by one further step. The altar pavement comprises a series of rectangular panels, framed by bands of Purbeck marble. The three principal panels envelop the altar dais, one extending along the front and the others forming returns around the ends. Beyond the latter, to north and south, are two narrow flanking panels that serve as space-fillers (Fig. 35). The front panel is dominated by three large roundels of purple porphyry, cut from Antique columns (Fig. 35); they are, as far as we know, the only recycled ancient materials Scott used in the altar pavement. The remainder of the opus sectile work is composed of coloured marbles of different geological origins and hues from those employed in the sanctuary pavement. The design of the panels flanking the dais is based on a rectangular frame containing one large circle of Purbeck marble and two semicircles. The fields in these

the cosmatesque mosaics of westminster abbey

35  High altar pavement. Scott’s opus sectile marble pavement, laid 1867–68. The Downland Partnership, © Dean and Chapter of Westminster

panels are filled with various patterns arranged in hexagonal clusters (Figs 35 and 43). The fields in the two outer panels are occupied by patterns mostly based on chequer-boards and squares, some with eight-lozenge stars as their central motifs. The altar dais is decorated with a simple all-over lattice in two colours only. 36

The present pavement succeeded a chequered one of black, white and green marble, which incorporated a row of large stars in front of the altar dais (Figs 36 and 37).The stars included some coloured marble, but no description of it has survived. The whole of this pavement was laid by Wren, and accompanied the installation of the Whitehall altarpiece in 1706–07 (p. 40). The previous pavement was medieval, but no view or description of it has been preserved, and hence we cannot be certain whether it had survived intact from c. 1268 or had been modified in c. 1440–41, when HenryVI’s altar screen was erected. Abbot Islip’s funerary roll of 1532 shows the area in front of the high altar fully carpeted, but the outline of the steps in the pavement is discernible beneath the covering. It confirms that the altar was elevated by three steps that seemingly ran across the full width of the sanctuary, two of them breaking forward to create a dais directly in front of the altar (Fig. 16).2 Islip’s catafalque and the numerous attendants present at the funeral totally obscure the floor where the transverse axis occurs between the arcade piers at the junction of the first and second bays. However, had there been a step on the site of the present one – i.e. between the sanctuary and altar pavements – it would have been impossible for the catafalque to stand on the floor here. Hence, the Islip drawing points to the lost medieval altar pavement being a level continu­ ation of that in the main part of the sanctuary, with a more compact dais carrying the altar. Support for this suggestion may be found in Flete’s description of the burial place of Abbot Thomas Henley (d. 1344): ‘he was buried in the lower pavement before the high altar where the Paschal candle is accustomed to stand, that is to say on the north side of the said pavement’.3 Thus Henley’s grave lay in the north-east corner of the sanctuary, in the area now covered by the altar pavement.4 The stone screen had not yet been constructed and Flete’s description implies that the burial lay in the ‘lower’ (sanctuary) pavement, rather than the ‘upper’ (shrine chapel) pavement, there being no intermediate (altar) pavement at the time, only a dais. Finally, there is another piece of evidence that should be mentioned. The interface between the first and second presbytery bays is marked today by the two Purbeck marble steps mentioned above. Although the steps date only from the 19th century, there is a narrow band of marble

3   the sanctuary and high altar pavements: past interventions, damage and repair immediately to the west of the lower step, which forms part of the outer border of the cosmatesque sanctuary pavement. Interestingly, this strip continues north and south, beyond the corners of the pavement, and into the second arcade bay (Fig. 46). The band creates a definitive line across the full width of the presbytery and could potentially anticipate a step at this point, although its relationship to the north and south pier bases would appear very odd. More likely, this transverse line is no more than the division between two separate blocks of cosmatesque paving, at the same level. Large Italian pavements are commonly divided in this way. This brings us to a fundamental question that seems never to have been asked hitherto: how was the second bay of the sanctuary – i.e. the altar pavement – floored in the 13th century? We can assume, with some confidence, that the matrix would have been Purbeck marble, since that appears to have been ubiquitous throughout the Abbey, except in a few locations where decorated tile pavements were laid (e.g. the chapter house). Glazed ceramic tiles and Cosmati work are not aesthetically compatible, and such a discordant combination can be ruled out. It would have been important to provide visual continuity between the sanctuary and shrine pavements, bearing in mind that there was no solid masonry screen between the two areas prior to 1440. However, forty-five square metres of unrelieved dark grey paving in bay 2 would not only have cut a disruptive swathe across the presbytery, but also created a dreary setting for the high altar. The paving had to be enlivened and a sense of aesthetic unity maintained within the presbytery. The obvious way to achieve this would have been by inlaying another Purbeck marble pavement with coloured mosaic, either cosmatesque or opus sectile. In some Italian churches with Cosmati floors, the intensity of the mosaic work was lessened around the high altar. Hence, there could have been a sizeable area of plain marble paving, with a panel of decoration in front of the altar, and two more panels forming returns (either conjoined or separate) at the north and south ends. Scott obviously took the cue for the disposition of his paving from such a floor. Although the evidence has been irretrievably lost, we suggest that a broadly similar arrangement might have obtained at Westminster in the 13th century. At this point

A

B 36 The sanctuary, prior to Scott’s restoration in the 1860s. A. View from the quire, showing the early 19th-century iron screen and gates (open) on the western edge of the Cosmati pavement; the top of a second screen in front of the high altar can just be glimpsed; B. View towards the north-east corner of the sanctuary, showing the low wrought iron altar rail and steps up to the early 18th-century pavement of chequered marble. Similar paving is seen along the northern edge of the sanctuary mosaic. Photographs by Victor Prout, c. 1858–60. © Dean and Chapter of Westminster: WAL: LCIII.4(6)

37

the cosmatesque mosaics of westminster abbey

N

37  High altar pavement. Reconstructed plan, based on Figure 41 and photographic evidence, showing the layout and colouring of Wren’s marble pavement of 1706. Drawn by David S Neal

The Pavement, at erecting that Altar, was threaten’d with total dissolution by the Workmen, whose mercenary and misjudging Notions destroy whatever is venerable, but by the influence of the Lord Oxford, and the care of the then Bishop of Rochester, it was for the most part sav’d; yet they broke it up under where the Altar stands, and where the marble Slabs lie round the edges on the sides.

0

1

m (approx)

we need to re-examine Dart’s account of the destruction that occurred in 1706 (p. 16). The marble pavement, he says . . . is form’d in several Squares and Circles, the Stones are square, and about a Finger in length, of which, a great number being taken up at erecting the new Altar, some of them are with the Right Honourable the Lord Harley.5

This is very precise and does not read like a description of the extant sanctuary mosaic, the design of which is not dominated by stones 8–10cm square (i.e.‘finger-length’).6 Indeed, there is hardly anything in the floor that would fit such a description, and it is certainly not applicable to the six roundels on the eastern border that were damaged by laying the new altar pavement. Either 38

Dart was describing something to the east of the sanctuary pavement that is no longer extant, or his description is rather lax. If he meant that the stones were ‘squared’, rather than ‘square’, he could have been describing the finger-length rectangles of green and purple porphyry that occur in the central rectangular panel of the eastern border (panel 54, Fig. 92). However, the number of such pieces, either taken up from panel 54, or concealed by the new steps, would have been thirty; this could hardly be described as ‘a great number’. Dart did not differentiate between paving in the central part of the sanctuary, and that around the high altar: he embraced it all simply as ‘the pavement’ because, prior to 1706, there were no steps running transversely across the presbytery and dividing it into two sections, as exists today. The altar was raised on a localized dais, which is confirmed by the Islip drawing (Fig. 16). Dart revealed further significant details, as he related how the floor narrowly escaped total destruction:

His emphasis on breaking up the floor ‘where the Altar stands’ is significant and again confirms that Dart was not alluding solely to the extant Cosmati pavement, but included in his description and lamentation another – now entirely lost – area of paving adjoining it on the east (i.e. where the raised altar pavement now is). We shall argue that prior to 1706 there were sections of mosaic or opus sectile paving in front of, and flanking, the high altar dais. Indeed, Dart confirmed the existence of another, separate area of decorative flooring by casually mentioning ‘the second pavement’, and he was not referring to St Edward’s chapel.7 Finally, Dart encompassed in this description the bands of flooring that flanked the main Cosmati pavement on the north and south: ‘they broke it up . . . where the marble Slabs lie round the edges on the sides’. Again, he is surely implying the presence of decorative paving, which was destroyed in order to lay the black-and-white marble borders that survived until 1868 (Fig. 38). Dart would not have included such a mention if

3   the sanctuary and high altar pavements: past interventions, damage and repair the borders were simply paved with Purbeck marble slabs. Again, borders of opus sectile, rather than intricate mosaic work, would have best suited the setting; comparanda amongst Italian floors are not hard to find. Even Dart’s concluding remarks give the impression that much had been destroyed in the sanctuary: ‘What is left makes a most beautiful appearance, and seems to brave all the Injuries of Time, but that for the brass circles of Letters are almost worn out’.8 In summary, the frequently rehearsed sup­ position that erecting the altarpiece in 1706–07 was responsible only for damaging part of the eastern border of the sanctuary pavement, cannot be correct. Certainly, the border was encroached upon by the installation of the new steps, but less than two-thirds of its width was actually destroyed. This is accurately confirmed by a note on one of Talman’s sketches: ‘46 – Nr. of Square feet of ye pavemt. spoiled’ (Fig. 57).9 The descriptions by antiquaries, and Dart in particular, imply that a much greater destruction of decorative paving took place. Moreover, a study of the topography of the sanctuary and shrine areas leaves little room for doubt that the two surviving Cosmati pavements did not exist in splendid isolation, but were linked by a third area of luxury paving which also provided a com­ mensurate setting for the high altar and the grandiose funerary monuments that were pro­ gressively installed around the perimeter of the presbytery. Unfortunately, by the time Talman came on the scene in 1707, the damage had already been done: the new altar pavement and borders had been laid, and thus he was unable to record what preceded them.

THE COSMATESQUE SANCTUARY PAVEMENT It is immediately evident upon close inspection that the pavement has undergone repairs at various times in the past, and that these have resulted in the introduction of stone types and design elements alien to the original construction. The mortars in which these replacements are set likewise differ from the original bedding material. Furthermore, in places, cements of various types had been applied to fill gaps where tesserae were missing, or where the Purbeck marble matrix had decayed.

In his study of the pavement, Richard Foster identified two distinct phases of repair and replacement, preceding the general restoration carried out by Scott in the 1860s. He therefore dubbed the original work ‘Primary Mix’ and the two later phases ‘Secondary Mix’ and ‘Tertiary Mix’.10 Most, if not all of this work is undoubtedly post-Dissolution, and there is no evidence to suggest that the floor underwent significant repair or modification in the medieval period, although there is one possible area of exception. Since the floor would have received very little foot-traffic

38  Sanctuary pavement. Outline plan by George Maw, 1862. This includes the early 18th-century chequered marble borders. The numbers provide the key for Maw’s tracings of the Cosmati mosaic decoration. WAL, courtesy of Ironbridge Gorge Museum and Archives

39

the cosmatesque mosaics of westminster abbey

39  Detail from an unsigned oil painting of c. 1700, indistinctly showing the furnishing of the quire and sanctuary, prior to the installation of the Whitehall altarpiece. Fabric-covered panels concealed the medieval altar screen and the monuments under the north and south arcades. The low timber railing and gates on the uppermost step were installed c. 1660. © Dean and Chapter of Westminster

in the Middle Ages, compared to that of later periods, it occasions no surprise that the repairs came relatively late in its history. Access to the sanctuary would have been almost entirely restricted to the monks and their attendants: this stands in contradistinction to the shrine chapel of St Edward, where pilgrims would have been admitted. Consequently, the degree of wear on the two floors is very different. No damage or structural changes to the sanc­ tuary pavement can be linked to the Disso­lution of the Abbey, and there is no reason why the floors should have been adversely affected. However, after the Dissolution, respect for the sanctuary declined, and the Cosmati pavement would have been subjected to greatly increased foot-traffic. Indeed, Malcolm, writing in 1802, complained of tourists incessantly tramping over the floor.11 Serious abuse probably started during the period of the Commonwealth, when it is reported that troops were billeted in the Abbey.

Impact of the Civil War, 1643 In 1643 Bruno Ryves, a Royalist churchman who was later to become Dean of Windsor, published a news-book under the title of Mercurius Rusticus in which he detailed abuses committed in churches by Parliamentarians. He stated that in July of that year soldiers from Weshborne and Cacwood’s Companies were billeted in Westminster Abbey, where

. . . according to the reformation of those times, they broke down the rail about the Altar, and burnt it in the place where it stood. . . . They set forms about the Communion Table, where they ate, drank and smoked tobacco . . . the whole time of their abode there, they made it their common table, on which they usually dined and supped.12

Since this profane activity took place in the sanctuary, damage to the Cosmati pavement was inevitable, especially to the areas of fragile glass mosaic.

Repairs, c. 1660 A payment of £26 is recorded in 1660–62 for repairs to the sanctuary pavement, described as ‘Mosaic work before the Altar’.13 No further details are given, but it is highly likely that the repairs, perhaps necessitated by damage that had occurred during the Commonwealth, were carried out during preparations for the coronation of Charles II (23 April 1661). No detailed description or illustrations of the sanctuary have come down to us from this period, but there is a painting of c. 1700, giving a hazy, long view down the church (Fig. 39). It shows the north, south and east sides of the sanctuary hung with fabric, totally obscuring the altar screen and monuments. On the edge of the steps leading up from the crossing is a low, timber sanctuary rail with a pair of central gates. It is typical of mid17th-century chancel railings. Unfortunately, nothing can be seen of the sanctuary floor, although it seems that the high altar was not elevated on a separate pavement or a multi-stepped dais. INSTALLATION OF THE WHITEHALL ALTARPIECE, 1706–07 A huge marble altarpiece was commissioned by James II for the Catholic chapel in the palace of Whitehall: it was designed by Sir Christopher Wren and carved in Carrara marble and alabaster by Grinling Gibbons and Arnold Quellin. However, it was never installed in the palace and remained in store at Hampton Court until 1706 when Queen Anne presented it to Westminster Abbey.14 Its installation in the Abbey took place over the next year, since it was certainly in place when Talman made his sketches in the summer of 1707. However, the considerable cost of the work was

40

3   the sanctuary and high altar pavements: past interventions, damage and repair

40  Detail from Mackenzie’s view of the quire and sanctuary, 1811, showing Wren’s Whitehall altarpiece, installed in 1706. There was a complex arrangement of iron screens and gates on the east and west sides of the sanctuary; also, Gothic timber screens occluded the north and south ambulatory arcades and the royal monuments within them. Ackermann 1812

still being debated in 1710.15 The altarpiece was erected in the sanctuary, in front of the medieval stone screen, on a new elevated marble pavement that carried the high altar (Fig. 40). The paving extended so far westwards that it encroached upon the eastern border of the cosmatesque mosaic in the sanctuary. Several antiquarian writers in the 18th century complained bitterly about the physical damage to the pavement caused by the introduction of this altarpiece, and Dart was particularly vocal on the subject (p. 16). He even hinted that there may initially have been an intention to destroy the whole Cosmati pavement,

and the cavalier manner in which two-thirds of its eastern border was hacked away supports this. Surrounded by a sea of polished black, white and green marble, and with a Baroque reredos tower­ ing over it, the damaged medieval pavement would have appeared manifestly incongruous. Wren’s overall scheme for the reordered sanctuary clearly demanded a marble pavement in place of the cosmatesque one, and undoubtedly that was the initial intention. However, it is evident from contemporary records that there was a public outcry, and prominent figures intervened in order to save the Cosmati pavement. Hence it was 41

the cosmatesque mosaics of westminster abbey

41  High altar pavement. Talman’s dimensioned sketch of the newly-laid marble pavement, 1707. © Victoria and Albert Museum, London: E.182–1940 verso

patched up, but whether it was actually permitted to remain on view is a moot point: no hint of a decorated floor is seen on contemporary illus­ trations (Fig. 40), giving rise to the suspicion that the mosaic was concealed by a carpet or painted canvas. The medieval altar pavement – in whatever form it took – was totally destroyed and was replaced with one of coloured marble, raised by two steps above the level of the sanctuary pave­ ment. To the north and south of the latter, a new black-and-white chequered marble border was laid at the same time, replacing the medieval floor (Figs 36–38 and 56). Paving of this kind enjoyed great popularity in the late 17th and 18th centuries, and was laid down in many cathedrals and large churches. At Westminster, the crossing and central passage of the quire were so paved in the 1690s, as was Henry VII’s chapel in 1699. When Talman recorded the Cosmati pavement in 1707, the eastern edge had just been cut away by the foundation carrying the two Carrara marble steps leading up to the new altar pavement. He also sketched and dimensioned a plan of the altar pavement, revealing that it comprised a set of six framed rectangular panels, each containing an eight-pointed star (Figs 37 and 41).16 The marbles 42

employed were black (Belgian), white (Carrara), green serpentine (ponsevre)17 and another greygreen serpentine.18 This combination of marbles is helpful for confirming the early 18th-century date of several distinctive repairs to the Cosmati pavement.

SIR GEORGE GILBERT SCOTT’S RESTORATION OF THE SANCTUARY, 1859−71

Sanctuary pavement Surprisingly, Scott’s restoration of the sanctuary and its mosaic pavement in 1866−69 is poorly documented.19 It took place piecemeal and over a considerable period: his first designs were prepared in 1853. These included an elegant low wrought iron screen between the sanctuary and the crossing, to be executed by Thomas Potter. It was seemingly not installed until 1856 (Fig. 25).20 In the 1850s Scott and the Abbey’s successive master masons experimented with applying a shellac-based solution, as a ‘preservative’ for decaying stonework, in particular the powdery Reigate stone and crumbling Purbeck marble. Scott dubbed the process ‘induration’.21 It was

3   the sanctuary and high altar pavements: past interventions, damage and repair marble in the walkways is now beginning to disaggregate and crumble. In taking up the black-and-white paving along the sides of the sanctuary, the bases of two arcade piers of the Confessor’s church were encountered; these provided the first firm evidence for the plan of the eastern arm of the 11th-century building.26 Scott excavated around them and constructed chambers with removable covers, so that future antiquaries could gain access to this historically important discovery.27 Poole’s bill described the work for making the three metal-framed traps, embodying ‘removeable pieces of inlaid floor over the Confessors Pillar[s]’ (Fig. 6, a–c).28 The same investigation encountered the north­ ern edge of a Purbeck marble coffin which lay under the Cosmati pavement. This was correctly identified as Abbot Ware’s tomb, the marble cover for which forms an integral part of the design of the sanctuary pavement. The side of the coffin remains visible in Scott’s underfloor chamber.29

42 (left) Sanctuary pavement. View east along the Purbeck marble walkway on the south side of the pavement. Christopher Wilson

High altar pavement and its underlying archaeology first applied to Richard II’s tomb in 1855, and the following year to the other royal tombs in St Edward’s chapel; this included the mosaicdecorated tombs of Edward the Confessor and Henry III.22 It also appears to have been applied to the Cosmati child’s tomb in the south ambu­ latory. From 1856 onwards, the stonemason who carried out these and many other works for Scott was Henry Poole, the Abbey’s Master Mason.23 Relaying the north and south walkways adjoining the pavement took place in 1868–69, and cost £100, detailed by a bill presented by Henry Poole and Sons.24 Scott replaced the blackand-white paving with a lattice composed of rectangular strips of Purbeck marble, incorporating poised squares, the principal ones being incised with geometric designs. These were based on medallions in the shrine pavement (Fig. 42). The incisions were filled with white mortar – now mostly lost – to create stronger definition. The walkways are bordered by bands of Purbeck marble, both plain and decoratively incised. Although some of the squares in these bands appear to extend under the plinths of the medieval tombs on the north side of the sanctuary, they are not medieval and must have been tucked under the tomb plinths by Poole’s masons.25 The Purbeck

Between the eastern edge of the sanctuary pavement and the medieval altar screen lie two Purbeck marble steps and an elevated section of pavement, stretching across the full north–south width of the sanctuary, covering in total an area of 45m2. This is known as the altar pavement, and it in turn supports a footpace, or dais, upon which stands the high altar (Fig. 4).Very little is recorded concerning the history and appearance of this seminally important area, and we have already reviewed the evidence and established that the present configuration dates from the 18th century. Prior to that the altar is likely to have been raised on a dais with steps on three sides, as glimpsed through carpeting in the Islip drawing of 1532 (Fig. 16). The dais is represented in elementary form on Elizabeth I’s coronation plan of 1558/9 by a large rectangle in front of the altar, and is partly overlapped by the carpet and cushions in the centre of the plan (Fig. 17). That being so, when the Baroque altarpiece was installed in 1706–07, it would have been necessary to dispense with the dais, and raise and pave the entire floor area in front of the medieval altar screen in order to provide a suitable base upon which to erect the new structure. The early 18th-century altar pavement is glimpsed in several 43

the cosmatesque mosaics of westminster abbey pre-1868 photographs (Fig. 36). Similar treatment was afforded to the north and south borders of the sanctuary pavement at the same time. The Baroque altarpiece was dismantled in 1821, to release more space for George IV’s exceedingly lavish coronation. There was no intention of reinstating the altarpiece, and hence some repair to the marble pavement was doubtless needed.The west face of the medieval traceried screen was probably in poor condition as a result of iconoclastic mutilation in the mid-16th century. Benjamin Wyatt, Surveyor of the Fabric, designed a new ‘Gothick’ façade for the stone screen, and in 1824 Francis Bernasconi was engaged to hack off the remains of the original decoration and apply a veneer of tracery, using stucco, a cheap substitute for carved masonry that was very popular in the Georgian era. This was not, however, a ‘cheap’ commission and the estimate for it submitted in 1823 was for a staggering £4,200.30 The Abbey paid handsomely for Bernasconi’s high-standing reputation. All this was to change under Scott, and the first intervention took place in 1859, but is recorded only by a bill for: Taking up part of the Altar Floor, sawing and cutting out the old Altar Step – putting in new solid Sicilian Marble Moulded Step and relaying the marble floor adjacent.31

Clearly, at this stage the intention was to retain and repair the Queen Anne floor, not to remove everything in favour of a wholly new scheme. Scott’s design for the restoration of the high altar, reredos and screen was approved in 1863 and a few months later his scheme to replace the blackand-white marble borders to the sanctuary pavement was also approved. However, nothing further happened until the summer of 1866, when the work included: ‘digging out concrete founda­ tions in Sacrarium, exposing stone coffin, rolling out ledger stone, laying out skeleton etc, cutting letters for new ledger stone over it; building stone wall around the Confessor’s ancient piers.’32 The concrete foundations were presumably under the wings of the marble reredos. The steps associated with the Baroque altar – which impinged on the eastern edge of the Cosmati pavement – were removed and investigations of a quasi-archaeological nature were undertaken. The altar pavement adjacent to the sedilia was also investigated.33 When Poole billed the chapter in October 44

1866 for the opening-up works, they included making a new lid of black marble for the stone coffin that had been discovered in front of the altar. An old ledger that was in store was reused for this purpose, the existing inscription on it was erased and the stone shaped to conform to the outline of the coffin. A lengthy new inscription was cut on the slab, but details of it have not been recorded.34 A further bill contains an item for ‘cleaning off & colouring the cement joints of the marble floor’ in the sacrarium in November 1870.35 Whether this referred to the Purbeck marble borders of the sanctuary pavement or to the new marble floor of the altar pavement is unclear, but it is certainly a task that would be carried out at the end of a project. Beneath the altar steps Poole’s men found a Purbeck marble coffin, lacking its lid, but con­ taining a skeleton, which was ‘scientifically examined’.36 Scott described the discovery, pre­ sumably from memory, in a letter in 1875: A stone coffin was found with its foot under the Altar. It had been disturbed, the bones misplaced and reversed (face downwards) and the spaces filled with rubbish. It was very carefully examined in the presence of the Dean &c. and of the President and Secretary of the Antiquarian Society,37 Mr Franks of the British Museum, Mr Scharf of the National Portrait Gallery, &c. Some fragments of an ebony (or bone) crozier were found and also of a pewter paten and chalice.The bones were carefully arranged in the coffin in due order by a member of the College of Surgeons and closed by a large stone. Near it was found a lead coffin of an infant and close to the sedilia a lead coffin of an adult neither of which were disturbed. Thinking it possible that the first coffin might be that of Abbot Ware (in spite of the general opinion that he was buried to the north of his pavement) we consulted Flete and, finding the last named opinion confirmed by him, we searched carefully under the northern edge of the pavement and found that his coffin (of Purbeck marble) lies beneath an oblong compartment in the middle of that side round which is the sinking for a brass slip for an inscription. The coffin of the ecclesiastic was conjectured to be Abbot Crokesley [1246–1258] or Abbot Wenlok [1283–1308]. The infant could possibly have been Henry, the son of Henry VIII and Catherine of Aragon, buried [1511] near the

3   the sanctuary and high altar pavements: past interventions, damage and repair entrance to St Edward’s Shrine on the north side of the sacrarium according to William Camden.38 The coffin near the sedilia, of which a sketch was made, might possibly have been that of Anne Neville, queen of Richard III, who was buried on the south side of the sacrarium in 1485.39

A sketch of the lid-less coffin shows that it was a hollowed-out block of Purbeck marble of trap­ ezoidal plan, with the head end internally shaped, and a large drainage hole in the base. It is of a type commonly found in the 13th and 14th centuries. An account of the discovery was published by George Scharf.40 In 1867, Scott caused the stucco facing that had been applied to the 1440 altar screen by Bernasconi in 1824 to be hacked off, revealing that its west face had originally been decorated with blind tracery, identical to that which still survives on the east face, but with one highly significant exception. There was a rectangular, un-traceried recess at the centre of the screen, measuring 3.35m wide by 95cm high (11ft by 3ft), where a retable had been inset over the high altar.The dimensions match those of the celebrated Westminster Retable of c. 1265–70, demonstrating beyond reasonable doubt that it was created for the high altar of Henry III’s church, and was later embodied in the Gothic stone screen.41 The damaged eastern border of the Cosmati pavement was reconstructed by Scott in 1868 at a cost of £350.42 The bills itemized the work as ‘repairing and completing with new Purbeck marble and porphyry a part of Abbot Ware’s pavement which was almost destroyed and entirely covered by the old altar steps’.43 In his Recollections, Scott wrote: The mosaic pavement of the sanctuary has been restored, where it had been shortened eastward, the old matrices having been found and refilled. A concrete containing chips of glass mosaic was found under the altar pavement.44

Scott’s ‘recollection’ of the extent of the restoration he carried out is somewhat economical: he replaced the roundels in toto, filling them with mosaic designs of his own choosing. This was uncharacteristic of Scott, who was normally at pains to retain as much medieval fabric as he could and, where that was deemed impossible, to replicate the original work. We have no clue as to what possessed him to treat the eastern border of the pavement so harshly.45

43  High altar pavement. Part of Scott’s opus sectile pavement of 1868, from the north-west. The three large discs are purple porphyry, and numerous other marbles were used for the patterns. The tesserae on the altar dais are mainly of gilded glass. Christopher Wilson

Scott not only repositioned the steps to the eastern part of the sanctuary, and substituted ornamental Purbeck marble paving for the blackand-white tiles flanking the Cosmati mosaic to north and south, but he also renewed the whole of the paving and altar dais in front of the 1440 screen.This included replacing the Sicilian marble steps that he had only installed in 1859. Here, in 1867–68, he created an opus sectile altar pavement of exotic marbles to his own design.46 The stone types and colour palette differ markedly from those in the medieval pavement (see further p. 270).

A modification to the design was intro­ duced at a late stage, to incorporate three large roundels of purple porphyry in the central panel in front of the altar (Figs 35 and 43). Poole submitted a bill in June 1867 for the alterations to the altar pavement.47 He wrote: The altar floor was rendered much more rich and beautiful by the ultimate insertion of several slabs of Egyptian purple porphyry, presented to the Dean by the Earl of Elgin. They consisted of curved segments of frustra of Egyptian pillars48 – parts of the so-called collection of Elgin

45

the cosmatesque mosaics of westminster abbey marbles.49 To slit the segments into thin slabs special machinery had to be fitted up.These were then formed into circles of large diameter, and other shapes.50

From the description, it sounds as though the pavement was initially completed without the large roundels, but was subsequently modified to accommodate them. The ‘special machinery’, comprised a steam-operated sawing machine, set up in the north transept, which so outraged one visitor that he wrote in The Builder that it was ‘puffing away as if it wanted to damage the abbey’.51

46

A lengthy inscription recording the gift of marble was cut into the riser of the upper step to the altar pavement, and dated 1869.52 Wrought iron and brass altar railings were installed on the step above the sanctuary pavement (Fig. 36).53 Restoration of the sanctuary was finally completed in 1873, and Dean Stanley preached a sermon on Easter Day, recalling that the work incorporated: The alabaster from our Midland quarries, the marble from our Cornish rocks, mosaic colours from the isles of Venice, the porphyry from the shores of the Nile or of the Bosphorus . . .54

4 Description of the Sanctuary Pavement Including the outer Purbeck marble frame, the pavement was designed to occupy a square of 7.80m (25ft 8in), but on the west the narrow frame was dispensed with, a wide threshold step taking its place (Figs 44–46).1 The scheme basically comprises three concentric but distinctly separate decorative zones, each containing multiple elements: (i) A central quincunx of double-bordered circles contained within a poised square. (ii) A double-bordered frame in the form of a poised square, attached to the sides of which are four loops, or rotae, each containing a large medallion, and the whole is framed within a great square (5.30m). (iii) A giant guilloche border, surrounding the great square, with a single frame member both externally and internally. The border incorporates twenty medallions and the guilloche is interrupted mid-way along each side by a rectangular panel.

PURBECK MARBLE MATRIX All the framing elements, both straight and curvilinear, are formed from strips of polished Purbeck marble 10cm wide. These constitute the matrix that holds the mosaic decoration; they also provided the matrices for four latten (brass) inscriptions. In total, there are 136 compartments defined by the framing (Fig. 46); these are individually numbered and their decoration described below. On the west, the pavement is bordered by the 37cm wide top tread of the flight of three steps rising from the crossing to the

sanctuary. The tread is scarred by sundry repairs (not shown here on the survey drawings), resulting from the introduction, and subsequent removal, of several sets of timber and iron railings between the sanctuary and the crossing (Figs 24, 36, 39 and 40). However, examination of the undamaged riser reveals that the uppermost step originally com­ prised three massive stone blocks, and a smaller one, contemporary with the mosaic. The lower steps are later. On the east, the pavement is bordered by two steps rising to the level of another pavement that carries the dais for the high altar. All this is the work of Sir George Gilbert Scott who, in the late 1860s, re-ordered the sanctuary and repositioned the steps to the high altar pavement, thereby exposing the eastern side of the Cosmati mosaic which had been encroached upon in 1706 when the sanctuary was previously re-ordered and the massive Baroque altarpiece from Whitehall in­ stalled (p. 40; Fig. 40).The eastern guilloche border of the Cosmati pavement had suffered considerable loss and was restored to its present condition by Scott.The Purbeck marble frame along the eastern edge of the pavement, at the foot of the steps just mentioned, is not only original in part, but it also extends to north and south, beyond the corners of the pavement, to the arcades of the sanctuary (Fig. 46). It provides confirmation that there was an original break in the floor plan at this point, but it was not accompanied by steps: they were first introduced in the early 18th century (p. 42). At the northern end of this extended frame, on its west side, are scars where chisels have been inserted to prise up the adjoining 18th-century chequered marble border seen on early photo­ graphs (Fig. 36B).

the cosmatesque mosaics of westminster abbey

44  Sanctuary pavement. The conserved pavement, 2010. The Downland Partnership, © Dean and Chapter of Westminster

48

4  description of the sanctuary pavement

45 The sanctuary mosaic, overall view. For a larger version, see Plan 1 (at back of volume). Painting by David S Neal

49

b

121 89

65

90

66

123 68

67

34

33

116

91

35

56

114

88

37

98

14 17 136

126 74

62

10

25 58

60

8

13

4 3 2

21

6

1

75

15

11

64

86 134

133

7

127

63

128

50

113

16

49

28

29 120

83

48

110

107

47

109

131 82

108

1

100 27

81

129

105

45

80

79

119

44

106

78

76

101

42

32

55

46

132

0

41

19

20

84

54

26

59

12

111

99

125

5

9

85

73

40

22

112

97

18

57 61

87

72

39

31

24

23

51

53

118

124

115

135

96

71

38

94

122 30

52

95

70

36

69

92

117

93

77

102

a

43

103

104

130

m

Step

46  Sanctuary pavement. Key plan of the Purbeck marble framework defining the decorative scheme, and the numbered mosaic panels and bands contained within the framing (1–136). Painting by David S Neal

DSN

c

4  description of the sanctuary pavement Between the outer frame of the pavement and the north and south arcades are decorative bands of Purbeck marble paving, 1.10m wide, with incised patterns copied from the pavement in the shrine chapel (Figs 42 and 113). These walkways were designed and laid by Scott, and they superseded the Queen Anne paving of chequered black and white marble, mentioned above. No paving of medieval date survives here.2 Returning to the damaged eastern border of the pavement, the central rectangular panel was totally reconstructed by Scott, although parts of its frame were retained. Much of the framing of the guilloche here was also renewed, and the designs currently filling the six medallions bear no relation to the originals, having been replaced with new designs chosen by Scott. Sections of decayed Purbeck marble framing elsewhere within the pavement have also been renewed at various times, involving the loss of many of the matrices that once held the latten letters of the inscriptions, although Scott attempted to preserve as many as possible. Repairs to the mosaic will be detailed in the descriptions. In total, there are about 560 framing blocks of Purbeck marble in the sanctuary pavement (Fig. 46). Many are replacements and some have a distinctive yellow ochre hue dissimilar to the blue-grey of the original material, and lighter in tone than the replacement marble used by Scott. Twelve blocks were renewed in 2008–10 (Fig. 184). But for differential decay and colour, Scott’s restorations are hard to discern, and the degree of repair questionable, especially on the east side where much of the decoration in the medallions was replaced. It would be logical to assume that the frames to these panels were reconstructed at the same time. However, few of the constituent pieces are short in length (that being a character­ istic of Scott’s repairs) and evidence that some of the original framing was retained in this area is demonstrated by a north–south block alongside panel 102 on the eastern edge of the pavement: it is 1.60m long (Fig. 46, a). Likewise blocks (b) and (c), extending north and south of the pavement, are 1.55m and 1.30m long, respectively. No certainty obtains concerning the originality of the blocks encircling medallions 38–43, and hence they cannot be assigned to a specific phase. As already noted, the 13th-century stones are longer than those used in the repairs, and many are straight or segmentally curved, but there is

47  Sanctuary pavement. Diagrams illustrating how spurred blocks of Purbeck marble for the frame were cut from common templates. A. Centre of the quincunx; B. Guilloche border at the south-west corner. Authors

A 0

1

m

0

1

m

B

also a considerable number of specially shaped blocks that incorporate short projections (spurs) enabling one roundel to be linked to the next. Both single and double-spurred blocks are present. This is best exemplified in the inscribed frame to the roundel (no. 1) at the centre of the quincunx, where there are four spurred blocks at the cardinal points (Fig. 47A). The masons used a common template to ensure that they all had the same curvature and angles of intersection, although the blocks are not uniform in length. The same technique occurs in the Purbeck bands encircling the other four roundels at the centre of the pavement (nos 17–20), where the use of a template is again evident. Parts of the quincunx have been restored with shorter units of stone 51

the cosmatesque mosaics of westminster abbey 48  Sanctuary pavement. Medallion 34. A. Diagonally-tooled edge of the circular Purbeck marble tray; B. Matrix for one of the ‘points’ of the inlay, with the triangle of red Belgian marble removed. The pink cocciopesto mortar on which the primary mosaic was bedded is preserved beneath the later square slab of serpentine. The scale indicates that the depth of chasing here was 3cm. Photographs taken during conservation in 2010. © Dean and Chapter of Westminster

A

B inserted. In the original circles forming the centres of the giant guilloche in the outer border, pairs of spurred blocks, alternating in direction, occur on either side of the medallions; another pair of plain curved stones is set in between, to complete the circle (i.e. making four blocks per medallion; Fig. 47B). Although the function of the spurred blocks is to enable many individual components of the framing to join one another through flowing curves, there is no continuity between the three decorative zones defined above.Thus, the framing of all parts of the central quincunx is continuous, but it does not connect with that of the poised 52

square: the only contact is tangential. Similarly, the poised square and the four large loops attached to it form a continuously flowing unit, but do not interconnect with the great square that surrounds them: again, the only contact is tangential. This contrasts with the large guilloche outer border, with its complex arrangement of circles and rectangles, inner and outer frames, where all the elements are interconnected by sinuous curves. In addition to using strips of Purbeck marble to construct the cellular framework within which panels of mosaic were laid, the pavement incor­ porated several larger slabs of stone of circular and rectangular form. The surface of each slab was chased to create a series of matrices into which mosaic was inset. In effect, these were marble ‘trays’ that carried the tessellation, and they could be entirely fabricated in the workshop. The rectangular trays comprise two tomb-covers, sited midway along the south and north guilloche borders (panels 55 and 56, respectively). It was possible to examine the edges of the northern tomb-cover and several of the circular trays during the 2008–10 conservation programme. The discs comprising the latter have a depth of 9–10cm, and their edges exhibit diagonal tooling, showing that they were hand-cut and not latheturned (Fig. 48A). The south-west corner of the northern cover was exposed during the removal of cement patching, revealing the substructure of the pavement (Fig. 49).The foundation comprised upwards of 15cm of mixed limestone and Reigate stone rubble (masons’ waste) in uncompacted cream lime mortar; the surface was trowelled to a smooth finish. In several areas, lines were seen to have been scored into the mortar, showing that it had served as the ‘drawing-board’ for laying out the basic geometry of the pavement. The northern sarcophagus (and presumably the southern one too) was set into the rubble foundation, its rim level with the trowelled surface. The tomb-cover (panel 56) was 11cm thick, laid on a thin bed of mortar (Fig. 49). The straight and curvilinear components of the Purbeck marble frame are 10cm in thickness, and similarly bedded.The spaces between the framing elements – designated to receive mosaic decoration – were then half-filled with cream lime mortar, thereby securely retaining all the Purbeck marble com­ ponents in place while leaving about 5cm for the tesserae and their bedding. Finally, the stone and

4  description of the sanctuary pavement 49  Sanctuary pavement. Tomb-cover 56, showing the south-west corner of the rectangular tray, the Purbeck marble sarcophagus beneath and adjacent framing bands. Key: 1. Sarcophagus; 2. Rubble infilling and bed for pavement; 3. Mosaic-inlaid tray forming the tomb-cover; 4. Frame around tomb-cover, channelled to receive a latten fillet-inscription; 5. Narrow ‘sacrificial’ band of tessellation between the tomb-cover and the frame; 6. Mosaic band 69; 7. Mastic bed for latten inscription fillet. Photograph taken during conservation in 2010. © Dean and Chapter of Westminster

glass mosaic was laid on a generous bed of pink cocciopesto mortar, the usual material employed by Italian mosaicists for floors (Fig. 177). For further discussion of the mortars, see chapters 6 and 8 (pp. 283–5 and p. 185) and for the trays, see chapter 15 (pp. 538–9). There are significant differences between the two tomb-covers.The northern one (56) measures 1.94m by 62cm and when it was chased a narrow rim of Purbeck marble was retained along its north and south edges, providing containment and support for the tessellation. But no such rim exists at the east and west ends, which would imply that the tesserae were not set in the eight exposed spandrels until the slab was laid in the floor. Alternatively, the tomb-cover may have been made 4cm too long in the workshop and had to be shortened on site, in order to fit it into the aperture in the pavement.This cover incorporates four concealed iron rings in its long sides, enabling it to be lifted out of the pavement, to access the coffin below when interment took place (Figs 269 and 270).3 The tomb contains the burial of Abbot Richard de Ware (d. 1283). The southern tomb-cover (55) has a continuous

marble rim around its perimeter, so that the tessellation is fully contained and, at 1.85m, the slab is slightly shorter than its counterpart. Both are of the same width. It does not appear that this slab has lifting-rings attached to its edges, and it has certainly never been extracted to insert a burial below.4 Whatever the contents of the sub-floor chamber, they were installed prior to setting the slab in position (for discussion, see pp. 543–5).5 Several of the medallions in the outer border were constructed in a similar manner to the tombcovers, namely the matrix for the desired pattern was chased into a circular disc of Purbeck marble and then inlaid with mosaic. Panels 33–35, 37, 44, 47 and 52 are all trays, although 47 contains only a single roundel of marble, rather than a tessellated pattern (Fig. 86B). Panel 51 originally con­tained a tray, but this has been eclipsed by post-medieval reworking of the design.6 Talman’s sketches do not show any evidence for trays in the destroyed eastern border, but Scott’s replace­ment medallions 38, 39, 42 and 43 are all in trays. Foster has published a detailed photographic comparison between Talman’s sketches and Scott’s replacement medallions in the eastern border;7 a partial 53

the cosmatesque mosaics of westminster abbey reconstruction of the destroyed medallions has been possible (Fig. 57B). One of the most notable aspects of the sanctu­ ary pavement is its four inlaid latten inscriptions, the only examples known in a cosmatesque floor mosaic (Fig. 99). Now severely depleted, they were all set into the Purbeck marble framing and are described in detail on pp. 119–22. Briefly, the first (A) encircles the central sphere; the second (B) ran around the four lobes of the quincunx; the third (C) is set into the border of the great square, and gives the date of laying the pavement as 1268; and the fourth (D) ran around the frame of the northern tomb-cover. Hardly anything survives of (B) and (D). Finally, before leaving the subject of framing, mention must be made of an anomaly that is found in each of the three zones: it concerns the use of both straight and curved strips of Somerset white lias limestone, of golden hue, for sub-framing.These strips are narrower than the Purbeck marble framing components. The first takes the form of a ring around the central sphere of the quincunx, separating two concentric rings of tessellation (panel 3; Fig. 63). The second is found in the four large medallions attached to the poised square: here, the ring of golden white lias is circular externally, but has six facets internally, and again separates two areas of tessellated decoration: a ring and a hexagon (panels 17–20; Figs 59–62). The third example occurs in the rectangular threshold panel (53) at the mid-point of the western border: the frame of golden white lias separates the central mosaic panel from a narrow tessellated border (Fig. 91).While white lias tesserae are liberally distributed throughout the pavement, the three, discrete instances des­cribed represent the sole use of this stone type for framing.

DETAILED DESCRIPTION OF THE DECORATION The decoration will next be described in detail, from the centre of the pavement outwards. Every panel containing mosaic has been assigned a unique number (1–136) and the actual or esti­ mated original numbers of tesserae in them are given in appendix 2. Where possible, an attempt has been made to group common panel types, such as roundels and sinuous bands, although for convenience of reporting this practice is not 54

always consistent. In many cases the decoration is highly complex; the overall basic scheme is usually described first, but it should be remembered that this provides the clue to understanding the patterns, and frequently the schemes were adapted by rotation and repetition; in a band, an individual pattern may be represented merely as a segment. Most are filled with bands of patterns and therefore there is concordance between the panel and its design. However, on panels 17–20 and 53 these larger elements have additional, separate bands of patterns within them. The pavement has undergone numerous repairs and several significant alterations during its history, which means that the contents of many panels are partly or wholly non-original. Six main phases of work have been identified: Phase 1: primary, 1268 Phase 2: late medieval (probably 14th/15th century) Phase 3: late 16th and 17th century Phase 4: 1706–07 (Wren’s reordering) Phase 5: 1868 (Scott’s restoration) Phase 6: 2008–10 For plans of Phases 1–5, see Figures 106–111. In Foster’s study of the pavement, he coined the terms ‘primary mix’, ‘secondary mix’ and ‘tertiary mix’ to embrace the first four phases listed here.8 In the following schedule each panel is assigned on the basis of its mosaic design, and more especially on the materials employed, to one (or more) phases. The characteristics and dating of these phases are discussed on pp. 125–35. Petro­ logical identification of the materials is by Kevin Hayward; for a full listing of the stone types and discussion, see pp. 262–74. References are given in the schedule to Talman’s invaluable sketches of 1707, which are extensively annotated with the name of the material, or its colour; this is usually given in abbreviated form, or written in hybrid English/Italian (Figs 50–57).9 Similarly, where available, references are given to the archive of George Maw’s tracings of 1862–63 (p. 23);10 his coverage of the pavement was less comprehen­sive (Fig. 58). Although most panels are assigned to a specific phase in the following descriptions, many exhibit later, undatable repairs and patching. The painting recording the pavement in its present condition is shown here quartered (Figs 59–62), and in large format at the end of this volume (Plan 1).

4  description of the sanctuary pavement

A

B

50  Sanctuary pavement. Annotated sketches by John Talman, 1707. A. Various spandrels, including 12, 13, 23, 24, 27; B. Medallion 35 and tomb-cover 56. Panel numbers in red. © Victoria and Albert Museum, London, E.157–1940 recto

55

the cosmatesque mosaics of westminster abbey

A

51  Sanctuary pavement. Annotated sketches by John Talman, 1707. A. North-west side of the poised square, including panels 1–4, 8, 9, 17, 22, 51, 57, 60, 61, 64; separately, detail of medallion 51; B. West border, medallions 50, 51, bands 86, 87 and panels 53, 114. North is to the left on both plans. Panel numbers in red. © Victoria and Albert Museum, London: E.157–1940 verso

56

B

4  description of the sanctuary pavement

52  Sanctuary pavement. Annotated sketches by John Talman, 1707. North-west corner, including medallions 33–35, 52, bands 65–68 and spandrels 89–92, 115, 117. North is to the left. Panel numbers in red. © Victoria and Albert Museum, London: E.166–1940 recto

57

the cosmatesque mosaics of westminster abbey

53  Sanctuary pavement. Annotated sketches by John Talman, 1707. East corner of poised square, panels 6, 10, 11, 15, 24, 26 and band 58; other details include inscription A and samples of lettering. North is to the left. Panel numbers in red. © Victoria and Albert Museum, London: E.166–1940 verso

58

4  description of the sanctuary pavement

A

B

54  Sanctuary pavement. Annotated sketches by John Talman, 1707. A. Small mosaic details; also classical cornice profiles, presumably taken from the newly-erected marble Baroque altarpiece; B. Southern border, medallions 46–48, panels 55, 107, 110 and bands 55, 82, 83. North is to the left (on B). Panel numbers in red. © Victoria and Albert Museum, London: E.173–1940 recto and verso

59

the cosmatesque mosaics of westminster abbey

A

B

55  Sanctuary pavement. Annotated sketches by John Talman, 1707. A. Medallions 18, 19 and bands 62, 63; B. South-west side of poised square, including medallions 7, 20, 49, panels 21, 28, 120 and bands 84, 111, 112. North is to the left. Panel numbers in red. © Victoria and Albert Museum, London: E.174–1940 recto and verso

60

4  description of the sanctuary pavement

56  Sanctuary pavement. Annotated sketches by John Talman, 1707. Southern border, medallions 43–45, spandrels 104–106, 119 and bands 77–80; also the black-and-white paving of the south walkway. Panel numbers in red. A ‘ghost’ image can be seen in the lower part of the figure: it is from Talman’s drawing of the new screen of 1706 (cf. Fig. 40). © Victoria and Albert Museum, London: E.177–1940 verso

61

the cosmatesque mosaics of westminster abbey

38

39

40

41

42

43

57A  Sanctuary pavement. Annotated sketches by John Talman, 1707. North-east corner and eastern border, including medallions 36–42, panel 54, spandrels 31, 32, 93, 94, 98, 100, 106 and bands 69–76. Panel numbers in red. © Victoria and Albert Museum, London: E.182–1940 recto

62

0

1

m

57B  Sanctuary pavement. Reconstruction of the destroyed eastern border, based on information recorded by Talman. Painting by David S Neal

4  description of the sanctuary pavement

58  Sanctuary pavement. Key to areas traced by George Maw, 1862. Maw’s tracing numbers are shown in red (several are unnumbered). Authors

63

the cosmatesque mosaics of westminster abbey

59  Sanctuary mosaic. North-west quarter. Painting by David S Neal

64 Sanctuary mosaic: Northwest quadrant. Painting by DSN

4  description of the sanctuary pavement

60  Sanctuary mosaic. North-east quarter. Painting by David S Neal

Sanctuary mosaic: Northeast quadrant. Painting by DSN

65

the cosmatesque mosaics of westminster abbey

61  Sanctuary mosaic. South-west quarter. Painting by David S Neal

66

Sanctuary mosaic: Southwest quadrant. Painting by DSN

4  description of the sanctuary pavement

62  Sanctuary mosaic. South-east quarter. Painting by David S Neal

67

Sanctuary mosaic: Southeast quadrant. Painting by DSN

the cosmatesque mosaics of westminster abbey

Panels 1–8: the central quincunx 1

2

3

4

63  Sanctuary mosaic. Central medallion and encircling bands (panels 1–4). Authors

68

A single circular slab of rare alabaster, possibly alabastro di Busca, from Piedmont, Italy (Fig. 63). It presents a fiery globe of orange, with veins of deep red, subtle shades of yellows, and very pale green and pale blue hues.There are hairline cracks but these are not shown on the survey. Diameter: 68cm. Phase 1. Surrounding the sphere is a band of forty-three oblique pairs of small hexagons containing sixlozenge stars and forming diminutive triangular interspaces of four tesserae. The stars are entirely of glass and are alternately shaded: red, white, deep blue and pale green. The interspaces are white lias, with a single triangle in their centres (colours not known). The band has suffered considerable loss of tesserae, which have been restored in the painting (Figs 63 and 64). Phase 1. A small area was poorly reconstructed with inappropriate materials, probably in the early 20th century. Limited restoration took place in 2010. Talman, E.157–1940; E.173–1940. A plain circular band of golden white lias, composed of nine segments of unequal length (Fig. 63; see above, p. 54). Phase 1. A band of superposed lozenges in purple and

green porphyry, developing triangular interspaces on the outer rim of white lias and containing, predominantly, outward-pointing triangular green tesserae (Fig. 63).The innermost triangular interspaces have golden brown, red and green glass tesserae with triangular white lias centres. There is one tessera of granito verde antico on the west side. Phase 1. Talman, E.157–1940. 5–8 These panels form the centres of medallions occupying the angles of the central poised square. Three contain slabs of orange-yellow-cream brecciated marble (giallo antico), with the north and south examples surrounded by red Belgian marble (rouge royal). The fourth (panel 6) is red ammonitico rosso from Verona. It is suspected that the slabs were modified in Phase 3.1, when alterations also took place to medallions in the outer zone of the pavement (for detailed argu­ ments, see p. 130). The principal reason for suggesting this is that red Belgian marble is found only in repairs on the sanctuary pavement and is not present on the shrine pavement (apart from one minor repair). Nor does it occur in the tomb mosaics. It is likely, therefore, that previously plain discs of giallo antico have been extracted and reworked to create geometrical shapes:

4  description of the sanctuary pavement

64  Sanctuary mosaic. Central medallion, inscription A and parts of adjacent bands 57–60. Painting by David S Neal



Panel 5, a heptagon on the north (Fig. 65A). Panel 6, a smaller plain circle on the east, surrounded by two concentric bands of mosaic (Fig. 65B). The outer band comprises a row of purple and green poised squares of porphyry (and one of granite), with small triangles of white lias in the triangular interspaces, and the inner, a row of inward-pointing tangent triangles of the same materials (also including one of granite), some with small triangles of purple and green porphyry in the interspaces. On the north side, the tips of the larger triangles have been clipped off because the disc of red coral limestone was slightly too large to fit the matrix, and was inserted off-centre, with the minimum of disturbance to the mosaic border (potentially Phase 2–3.2). Panel 8 also has a border of two concentric rings of mosaic comprising purple and green isosceles triangles of porphyry.







Panel 7, an octagon on the south, which has been given a small black circle of Tournai marble at the centre (Fig. 66A). Panel 8, a hexagon on the west, around the facets of which are, alternately, slips of red Belgian marble and serpentine (Fig. 66B). They in turn are surrounded by two concentric bands of tangent triangles with small triangles in the interspaces. Panels 5–8 are the same size as panels 33–52, some of which also display evidence of modification. Panels 5 and 36 could have been sliced from the same column of brecciated marble since their colours and patterning match closely. The red coral limestone of panel 6 is not seen anywhere else on the pavement, and is not primary in its current position: Phase 2–3. Talman recorded panels 6 and 8 in the same form as they survive today: E.157–1940; E.166–1940.

69

the cosmatesque mosaics of westminster abbey

A

65  Sanctuary mosaic. A. Panel 5, band 57; B. Panels 6, 15 and 26, bands 58 and 62. Authors

B

70

4  description of the sanctuary pavement

A

66  Sanctuary mosaic. A. Panel 7 and band 59; B. Panels 8, 13, bands 60, 64 and inscription A. Authors

B

71

the cosmatesque mosaics of westminster abbey

Panels 9–16: background to the quincunx The background to the quincunx comprises four trapezoidal panels between the loops and four small spandrels in the corners of the poised square. Panels 9–12: trapezoidal spaces These four panels are concave-sided trapezia formed between the roundels of the quincunx and the straight sides of the enclosing square. Nos 9 and 10 are original work, but 11 and 12 were created in the post-medieval period (Phase 3.2), although it is likely that the earlier patterns in these matrices were variations of the designs surviving in panels 9 and 10. Since Talman recorded all the panels in 1707, nos 11 and 12 must have been modified at an earlier period. 9

10

11

72

A pattern of intersecting hexagons created from three separate alignments of superposed spindles (Fig. 67A). All three are at 60o to one another and create white concave-sided triangular inte­ rspaces, each with a pattern of reducing triangles with many of the finer examples being of blue and red glass. The spindles are predominantly of green porphyry with white lias in the interspaces; an attempt was made to alternate the rows between green and purple porphyry but this was not consistently achieved overall. Phase 1.Talman, E.157–1940; Maw 149. Another pattern of intersecting hexagons, but this time created from three separate alignments of rectangular tesserae (Fig. 67B). As with no. 9, all three are at 60o to one another and, where the rectangles intersect, diminutive hexagonal inter­ spaces occur, each with a triangular tessera. Triangular interspaces of white lias contain reducing triangles of purple and green porphyry. As before, two colours are introduced and a swathe of purple hexagons aligned south-east to north-west crosses the panel. Phase 1. Talman, E.166–1940; Maw 146. Together with no. 12, this restored panel is one of the most complex on the mosaic and was carefully designed for the space it occupies (Fig. 68A). At first its segmental tesserae might appear random, but study shows a complex interplay of geometric shapes. Its design comprises a quasidodecagon of red Belgian marble, composed of alternating trapezoids and oblong hexagons, the latter set at the angles. In the centre is a smaller dodecagon of alternating oblong hexagons and squares, forming a central hexagonal interspace.

12

Alternate angles are linked to the outer dodecagon by ‘spokes’ creating trapezoidal interspaces, each filled with a hexagon and flanking triangles. Alternate hexagons are red Belgian marble and serpentine stone, possibly from the Lizard (Cornwall). On the outer faces of the quasidodecagon are triangles converting the overall motif into a star with five triangular points outlined with trapezia and alternating black Meuse Limestone and orange-yellow brecciated marble. Central triangular interspaces alternate grey and orange. On the north-west side are rectangular extensions continuing the projections of the ‘spokes’ within the central dodecagon. On the south-east side of the panel the infilling is different: continuation of the ‘spokes’ does not occur and the areas are filled with complex patterns of regular hexagons, oblong hexagons, triangles and trapezia. The red/orange/cream tesserae are brecciated marble; other materials include cipollino and Tournai marble. The east corner is restored (possibly by Scott) using yellow and white mottled marble and a pinkish-red Belgian marble. The panel was sketched by Talman and therefore antedates 1707: Phase 3.2.11 Talman, E.166–1940. This panel is somewhat less complex than the last. At its axis (but off-centre) is a six-pointed star of red Belgian marble (Figs 68B and 283). Within four of its angles are hexagons outlined with trapezia and hexagonal centres.The arrange­ ment is set within two diagonal bands forming a large triangle and composed of parallelogramand trapezium-shaped stones and, on the outer sides, arrangements of trapezia, triangles and lozenges. Other materials of the tesserae include black carboniferous Meuse limestone, white Carrara marble, yellow brecciated marble, ser­ pentine, black Tournai marble, another type of marbre griotte from the French Pyrénées and white lias. Phase 3.2. Talman E.166–1940.

Panels 11 and 12 are attributed to Phase 3.2 on the basis of the materials used. Neither makes any attempt to reflect medieval patterns but in some respects they are very similar, despite differences in appearance. They represent the most complex work on the mosaic and would have required a geometer to design them. They are not just random patterns chosen at will by the marblers but designed to fit the spaces they occupy. The use of brecciated marble identical in type to the breccia elsewhere on the first phase mosaic suggests that the material derived from the same overall pavement.

4  description of the sanctuary pavement

A

67  Sanctuary mosaic. A. Panel 9 and bands 57, 61; B. Panels 5, 10 and bands 57, 62. Authors

B

73

the cosmatesque mosaics of westminster abbey

A

68  Sanctuary mosaic. A. Panel 11 and bands 59, 63; B. Panel 12 and bands 59, 60. Authors

B

74

4  description of the sanctuary pavement tesserae in the interspaces).The materials include brecciated yellow marble, serpentine, Tournai marble, red Belgian marble, and purple and green porphyry (Fig. 69C). It is likely to have been restored, but with the pattern reflecting what went before. However, the original probably had small triangles in the yellow/white interspaces. Phase 2–3.2. Talman, E.166–1940. A complex arrangement best described as based on a grid of bands of creamy white lias, forming spaced squares (Fig. 69D). However, the pattern is made complex by inserting into the spaced squares purple or green poised squares of por­ phyry (and, rarely, granito verde antico, and a single square of possible red glass) with blue glass triangles in the interspaces. The overall pattern is made yet more complex by adapting the inter­ sections of the grid: here red or green squares of porphyry are introduced with outward-pointing triangles of amber glass on each face, creating a pattern of stars.The points of each star are tangent to the points of others. A consequence of this arrange­ment is the creation of an overall pattern of tangent octagons. The panel almost certainly belongs to Phase 1, although its tapered ends were restored in Phase 3. Other materials used here in repairs include red Belgian marble and serpentine. Talman, E.157–1940.

Panels 13–16: spandrels These spandrels are formed between the angles of the central poised square and the quincunx. Panels 14 and 16 are medieval but 13 and 15 are post-medieval replacements in the same style as, and contemporary with, panels 11 and 12. 13

14

15

A

C

A spandrel with a multicoloured outer fillet or band composed of parallelograms, lozenges and trapezoidal-shaped segments (Fig. 69A). In the angle is a cream-orange six-lozenge star with grey lozenges in the angles forming a quasihexagon.The spaces on either side of the star are filled with red hexagons and triangles in red Belgian marble (red and fawn rouge de Rance). The orange/cream tesserae are yellow brecciated marble. Other materials include Tournai marble, serpentine, white lias and small fragments of purple and green porphyry. Phase 3.2. Talman, E.157–1940. An all-over pattern of purple and green chequered triangles of porphyry with a single red or green tessera in each of the white lias interspaces (Fig. 69B). Phase 1 with a later repair to the eastern tip. Talman, E.157–1940. An all-over pattern of dark/light grey and pale yellow/white chequered triangles (without single

16

B

D

69  Sanctuary mosaic. A. Panel 13 and band 64; B. Panel 14 and band 61; C. Panel 15 and bands 58, 62; D. Panel 16 and band 63. Authors

75

the cosmatesque mosaics of westminster abbey

Panels 17–20: large medallions (rotae) These large hexagonal panels occupy medallions within loops midway along the bands bordering the sides of the poised square framing the central quincunx (Fig. 46). All four are superimposed on a circular field of golden white lias, the diameter of which (90cm) accords with that of the surround to the ring of stars (2) in the central panel. Each circle of white lias is formed from six segments and is surrounded by patterned bands, which will be described here, together with the panels they enclose. All four designs are medieval, although sympathetic repairs, possibly by Scott, are evident. 17

The basic scheme comprises an overall arrange­ ment of alternate rows of recumbent and vertical lozenges, defined by elongated rectangular tesserae of green porphyry, creating the effect of star-like patterns, or reticulation (Fig. 70A). Where three rectangular tesserae converge, diminutive triangular interspaces of white lias occur and where six converge, small hexagons are formed each with a triangular tessera of purple porphyry and white lias interspaces. Within every lozenge is a white hexagon superimposed with a six-lozenge star in purple porphyry and, on either side of them, shallow green triangles of porphyry. Overall, the sixlozenge stars can be seen as forming diagonal bands. Phase 1. 17A The band surrounding the hexagonal scheme is of golden white lias; it in turn is enclosed by a band with a pattern based on a row of tangent poised squares defined in oblong porphyry tesserae, alternating purple and green (Fig. 70A). Where the outlines of the grid intersect small squares of white lias occur and in the poised square interspaces are purple and green squares of porphyry (and three of granito verde antico) with tiny purple and green triangular tesserae of porphyry on white lias interspaces in the corners. One of the stars on the south side has been restored with serpentine, and two types of red Belgian marble (rouge de Rance and rouge royal). Phase 1. Talman, E.157–1940. 18 This panel is of similar style and is also surrounded by golden white lias. Its scheme comprises a grid of deep yellow hexagons of white lias, tangent at the angles, creating triangular interspaces filled with reducing triangles (Fig. 70B). Normally these are depicted with coloured tesserae on a white or yellow background but here the colours are counter-changed showing white and yellow tesserae of lias on red (one tessera is of turquoise

76

glass). Superimposed on the hexagons are sixlozenge stars with their lozenges of porphyry, alternating purple and green. Phase 1. 18A The encircling patterned band has outwardpointing chequered triangles, mainly of purple and green porphyry, with smaller triangles of the same materials in the interspaces (Fig. 70B). Among them are tesserae of granito verde antico. The three rows of triangles forming the pattern reduce in size towards the radius. Phase 1.Talman, E.174–1940. A honeycomb arrangement of hexagons defined by narrow rectangular purple porphyry tesserae; where they converge, tiny triangular interspaces of white lias are formed (Fig. 71A). Alternate rows of hexagons contain golden sixlozenge stars of white lias, with green porphyry triangles within their outer angles, creating hexagons. The tips of the stars touch the midpoints of the faces of the surrounding hexagons. The other rows also contain six-lozenge stars but they are predominantly in green porphyry and have their tips pointing into the angles of the enclosing hexagons; they therefore have a differ­ ent rotation. Phase 1. 19A The band surrounding the field of golden white lias has a pattern based on a grid of poised squares of purple and green porphyry, with smaller squares of the same materials along each side, filling the interspaces (Fig. 71A). Phase 1.Talman, E.174–1940; Maw 157. 20 A scheme based on an overall pattern of hexagons of golden white lias, tangent at their angles (Fig. 71B). Superimposed on the pattern are seven large six-lozenge stars of porphyry, creating clusters, with the golden white lias hexagons forming ‘petals’ and the stars the ‘corolla’. The lozenges of the stars alternate purple and green; the hexagons are superimposed with golden sixlozenge stars of white lias defined with triangles of alternate purple and green porphyry in their outer angles.A small part of the pattern is restored, possibly in Phase 3, when many of the original materials were replaced with red Belgian marble and serpentine identical in type to, for example, the materials in panel 12. Phase 1. 20A The band surrounding the field of golden limestone comprises a row of tangent yellow hexagons of white lias superimposed with sixlozenge stars in purple and green porphyry (Fig. 71B). In triangular interspaces at the sides of the band are patterns of triangles, light on dark, with the outermost triangles alternating between purple (or green) porphyry and blue glass. Phase 1. Talman recorded the repairs to panel 20 (E.157–1940).

4  description of the sanctuary pavement

A

B

70  Sanctuary mosaic. A. Panel 17, bands 17A, 61 and inscription C; B. Panels 18, 31 and bands 18A, 62. Authors

77

the cosmatesque mosaics of westminster abbey

A

71  Sanctuary mosaic. A. Panels 19, 32 and bands 19A, 63; B. Panels 20, 29 and bands 20A, 64. Authors

78

B

4  description of the sanctuary pavement

Panels 21–32: background to the large medallions The background to the medallions – the areas between the great square and the poised square to which the medallions are attached – consists of eight triangular spaces and four spandrels. Panels 21–28: triangular spaces Panels 21–28 are quasi-triangles formed between the large circles (17–20) and the corners of the square frame bordering the central quincunx. There are pairs on each side of the pavement with their opposing acute angles meeting the corners of the square. The designs differ in all eight: four are preserved either virtually complete, or in part; the others are restorations, some possibly reflecting the original mosaic patterns. 21 A grid of green spindles of porphyry forming circles (Fig. 72A). In concaved square interspaces are poised squares of purple porphyry with diminutive purple porphyry triangles (two are of black-and-white granite) in the four interspaces. The backgrounds are white lias. Phase 1. Talman, E.157–1940; Maw 162. 22 A diagonal grid of squares of purple porphyry (and two of black-and-white granite) forming chequers (Fig. 72B). In the interspaces are pale yellow squares of white lias with green porphyry outward-pointing triangles on each side with their tips tangent to the purple chequers. In the pale yellow interspaces are inward pointing triangles of green porphyry. Phase 1. Talman, E.157–1940; Maw 163. 23 Bands of green porphyry forming an overall grid, creating small white squares of white lias, with purple porphyry poised squares at the inter­ sections (Fig. 73A). Occupying the interspaces formed by the grid are five purple squares of porphyry, one in each corner, and a larger poised example in the centre (one of these is of granito verde antico).Together with triangles midway along each side, they create star-like patterns, further elaborated by green porphyry triangles within each of the triangular interspaces. Similar to panel 26. Phase 1. Talman, E.157–1940. 24 Similar in style to panel 21, this comprises a grid of spindles of reddish-brown Belgian marble forming interlaced circles (Fig. 73B and 281). In concaved square interspaces are grey/black poised squares of Tournai marble with their tips tangent to the spindles, and with both inward- and outward-pointing red Belgian marble triangles in the triangular interspaces (some are of purple

A

B

72  Sanctuary mosaic. A. Panel 21, bands 64, 87 and inscription C; B. Panel 22, bands 61, 64, 87 and inscription C. Authors

79

the cosmatesque mosaics of westminster abbey

A

73  Sanctuary mosaic. A. Panels 23, 14 and band 61; B. Panels 14, 24 and bands 61, 62. Authors

80

B

4  description of the sanctuary pavement

A

74  Sanctuary mosaic. A. Panels 18, 25 and band 62; B. Panels 19, 26 and band 63. Authors

B

81

the cosmatesque mosaics of westminster abbey

A

75  Sanctuary mosaic. A. Panels 16, 27, band 63 and inscription C; B. Panels 16, 28 and bands 63, 64. Authors

82

B

4  description of the sanctuary pavement

25

26

27

28

and green porphyry, and two of turquoise glass). These interspaces have no background white or cream tesserae but are merely filled with mortar. The main materials of the tesserae indicate that this panel is secondary and broadly contemporary with the restored parts of bands 63 and 64, for example. However, because its style is so similar to medieval patterns, such as panel 21, it is potentially a reflection of the original design, albeit to a slightly larger scale. Other materials include serpentine and black Meuse limestone. Phase 2.1. Talman, E.166–1940. A chequered pattern of squares of red Belgian marble (Fig. 74A). In the cream-coloured square interspaces are poised squares of grey/black serpentine (and some of black Tournai marble). No diminutive triangular tesserae occur and the cream lias tesserae in the interspaces appear to be grainier than those used in Phase 1 work. Although the design may reflect the earlier pattern, it most likely has a larger format. Probably Phase 2.1. Talman, E.166–1940. Similar to panel 23, a grid of narrow, rectangular strips of green porphyry defining squares (Fig. 74B). Where the strips intersect, small square interspaces of white lias are formed, each with small purple squares of porphyry in the corners and a green or purple poised square of porphyry in the centre. In the interspaces are tiny outwardpointing triangles of purple porphyry. The workmanship is mainly medieval although restoration has occurred on the north-west side, which is probably contemporaneous with the replacement of a block of Purbeck marble bordering the adjacent poised square, and Phase 2 repairs to band 62. The restoration includes reddish-brown Belgian marble and serpentine. Phases 1 and 2.1. Talman, E.166–1940. An overall pattern of grey/black six-pointed stars of Tournai marble and serpentine, tangent to one another at their tips and forming lozenge-shaped cream/white interspaces of Carrara, red and cream brecciated marble creating the allusion of overlapping irregular hexagons (Fig. 75A). The lozenges are composed of two triangles of the same colours. There are examples of red Belgian marble, of rouge royal and rouge de Rance. Its design is unlikely to be a reflection of what went before. However, the artist may have taken his cue from the latticed grid of hexagons containing sixpointed stars, on the adjacent tomb-cover (55). The same materials occur in panels 15, 27 and 112, which are likely to be contemporaneous. Phase 2–3.2. Talman, E.157–1940. As with panels 23 and 26, this too has a latticed grid, but in serpentine (Fig. 75B). Where the rectangles of the grid intersect, small square

interspaces contain poised reddish-brown Belgian marble squares.The triangular interspaces contain various materials, including fragments of purple and green porphyry, red glass and white lias. Within squares formed by the grid are four poised squares of red Belgian marble and, predominantly, with serpentine squares in the centres. Brecciated yellow marble and red Belgian marble of three colours, occurs.The whole panel has been rebuilt; its scheme is similar to others within compart­ ments of this shape and it is likely to reflect what went before, possibly to a larger format. As with panel 24 the interspaces are not entirely filled with tesserae, but with plain cream mortar. Phase 2.1. Talman, E.157–1940.

Panels 29–32: spandrels These panels are spandrels between the corners of the square Purbeck marble frame and panels 17–20. Apart from no. 30, they are original work. 29

30

31

An overall scheme of green porphyry hexagons superimposed with yellow six-lozenge stars of golden white lias (Fig. 71B).Triangular interspaces contain reducing triangles of green and purple porphyry, turquoise and red glass and granito verde antico. The pattern is very similar to that in panel 18. Phase 1. Talman, E.157–1940. A complex arrangement of hexagons, trapezia, triangles, lozenges and parallelograms, predomin­ antly in red Belgian marble, serpentine and yellow brecciated marble (Fig. 76A).Also present is white Carrara and black Tournai marble. At the axis is a hexagon ‘containing’ a honeycomb of seven hexagons, alternately white and grey, and with lozenges (of two triangles) forming the angles. In the acute angles of the spandrels are identical arrangements of colours and shapes but there seems to be no logic to their pattern. The work is almost certainly by the same marblers respon­ sible for panels 11 and 12: Phase 3.2. Talman, E.157–1940. A pattern of large squares tangent to smaller tilted squares with eight-lozenge stars in the interspaces (Fig. 76B). The larger squares contain alternately purple and green porphyry, or yellow white lias poised squares and the smaller tilted squares are divided into triangles, alternately yellow and green, or yellow and purple. The lozenges forming the eight-lozenge stars filling the interspaces are paired green and yellow. There is a tessera of granito verde antico in the south tip. This is the only scheme of its type on both the floor mosaics, yet it is ubiquitous on Roman pavements in all provinces and at all periods.The pattern is employed in panel 18 on the south

83

the cosmatesque mosaics of westminster abbey

A

76  Sanctuary mosaic. A. Panels 17, 30, 92, 115, 117, band 61 and inscription C; B. Panels 31, 94 and bands 62, 70, 71. Authors

B

84

4  description of the sanctuary pavement

32

elevation of Henry III’s tomb (Fig. 446; p. 453). Phase 1. Talman, E.174–1940; E.182–1940. A grid of chequers in diagonal bands of alter­ nating green porphyry (mixed with purple porphyry) and yellow white lias (Fig. 71A). Square interspaces are divided diagonally, one half green and the other half white, the white examples being superimposed with diminutive purple or green triangular tesserae of porphyry, granito verde antico and red glass. Phase 1. Talman, E.182–1940.

Panels 33–52: medallions in the outer border These twenty medallions lie within the centres of the giant guilloche forming the outer border of the pavement. Many have been heavily restored, but a few are original, particularly on the west side. Like panels 5–8, many probably originated as slabs of exotic marble surrounded by bands of tessellation, but have subsequently been modified. Although none had overall fields of tessellation, some had circular trays of Purbeck marble chased with complex patterns into which tesserae were set; these, like the two grave-covers (panels 55 and

56), were prefabricated. The descriptions present the panels as they survive today, followed with the evidence for their original form. They are described clockwise from the north-west corner of the mosaic. The roundels have the same diameter as panels 5–8 (54cm). Panels 33–37: northern border 33

The design, based on the same pattern as in panel 55, is chased into a single roundel of Purbeck marble and comprises a pattern of six pairs of superimposed triangles of narrow fillets forming six-lozenge stars (Fig. 77). They are tangent to one another at their tips, but a central (seventh) example is substituted by a larger six-lozenge star of green porphyry (cf. the centre of panel 55). The design is an enlarged version of the hexagon­ ally latticed medallion found in the shrine chapel pavement, row 15b (Fig. 232). Within hexagons at the centres of the stars are green and purple porphyry six-lozenge stars (colours random), with white isosceles triangles in the interspaces. Within small white interspaces at the points of the stars are voids for central triangular tesserae but, in every case, they are lost; possibly they were glass. Between the overall pattern and the outer

77  Sanctuary mosaic. Panels 33, 89 and bands 65, 66. Authors

85

the cosmatesque mosaics of westminster abbey

34

78  Sanctuary mosaic. Panel 34 (cf. Fig. 48). Authors

86

edge of the medallion are lozenge-shaped tesserae, creating truncated stars of purple and green porphyry (half-units of those in the main pattern). Although the majority of the mosaic infilling of the disc could have been done in the workshop, it is unlikely that the half-stars around the circumference were prefabricated, but set on site. This would enable better masking of the joint between the marble roundel and the circular frame. Phase 1. The central six-lozenge star of green porphyry, and the green lozenges of some other stars, may have been restored, possibly in Phase 5; they have sharp profiles and prominent phenocrysts. Panel 43 is a facsimile based on this one. Talman, E.166–1940; not illustrated by Maw. A single disc of Purbeck marble, chased out to create four spindle-shaped segments and a large concave-sided square (Figs 48 and 78).The design is the same as that of a medallion in the shrine pavement, row 20b, but larger (Fig. 232).The disc is surrounded by a fillet of superposed cream lozenges of white lias and occasional white marble, with triangular purple and green por­ phyry tesserae in the interspaces. Within the concave-sided square is a poised square of serpentine with its angles tangent to the spindles and forming four quasi-triangular interspaces which are filled with segments of red Belgian marble. Probably Phase 3.1. Panel 44 is identical.

What design occupied the centre originally is not known, but probably tesserae; the serpentine square could be Phase 3.1, or later. Talman (E.166–1940) shows the panel as it survives today. 35 This complex and unusual design is chased into a large circular slab of Purbeck marble and drawn within a continuous 15mm wide fillet which forms three separate interlaced patterns (Figs 79 and 80). Two of them, superimposed, are fillets creating six quasi ‘rectangles’ radiating from the centre of the roundel, where they are interlaced to form a cross with six curvilinear arms. The third pattern is curvilinear and comprises six cusps, forming a pointed sexfoil with their apices looped to create six circles, lying within the outer arms of the ‘rectangles’.12 The mosaic designs in the circles are very decayed but the northern example has a triangle in green bottle glass (possibly Roman); other materials include blue, amber, turquoise and red glass and granito verde antico. Although the rectangular forms appear to dominate the scheme they are, in fact, the sides of a large six-pointed star or flower, and the central cross with six curvilinear arms is the corolla. Around the margin of the disc are six inward-pointing triangular interspaces. Surrounding the medallion is a band of purple and green poised squares of porphyry with small triangles, predominantly of the same materials, in

4  description of the sanctuary pavement 79  Sanctuary mosaic. Panels 35, 91, 92 (also parts of 34, 56) and bands 67, 68, 68A. Medallion 35 comprises a circular tray into which the mosaic was set. Parts of the Purbeck marble curvilinear frame were restored in 2008–10 (showing darker: cf. Fig. 175). Authors

the white lias interspaces; the band fills the gap between the roundel and the giant guilloche. Although the medallion was doubtless prefab­ ricated, the tesserae in the six perimeter triangles would only have been inserted when the sur­ rounding mosaic band was installed. It is significant that Scott retained this roundel despite its poor condition, and further supports the contention that wherever possible he pre­ served historic features. Although little survives of the tessellation, the colours are accurately represented on the facsimile that he created in panel 39 on the east side of the pavement. Phase 1. Little has changed since the medallion was sketched by Talman (E.166–1940; for a more detailed sketch, see E.157–1940). It was also traced by Maw (1d). 36 A roundel containing a large circle of yellow brecciated marble with a surrounding band of two rows of outward-pointing purple and green triangles of porphyry with small purple and green triangles in the interspaces (Fig. 81A). Present also on the south-west side, in later patching, are tesserae of brown porphyry, red glass and black and white granite; there are no white lias tesserae filling the interspaces, merely plain cream mortar. As with other examples, this band filled the interstice between the edge of the roundel and FIG 4/24 b - Panel 35

37

the surrounding blocks of Purbeck marble. Phase 1. Talman, E.182–1940. A circular tray of Purbeck marble containing in the centre a slab of serpentine, 22cm square (Fig. 81B). In the four segments are alternating green porphyry and yellow lias chequers, with inwardpointing purple and green triangles of porphyry in the white lias interspaces. At the corners of the square are inward-pointing triangles of green porphyry, and one of granito verde antico. A band between the rim of the tray and the Purbeck surround has a chequered arrangement of purple and green porphyry poised tesserae with yellow lias tesserae in the interspaces.This is one of only two instances of a Purbeck marble tray, with a continuous rim, containing a potentially prefabricated mosaic design (the other being 47). The central slab is a post-medieval replacement because serpentine is only found on the pavement in repaired or replaced panels.13 However, the triangular stones, which are original, indicate that a square pattern or slab of marble always occupied this location. Repairs in white marble have replaced white lias tesserae. Phases 1 and probably 3.1. Talman, E.182–1940.

80  Sanctuary mosaic. Panel 35: diagram showing the three components of the scheme, defined by narrow fillets which were left upstanding when the design was chased into the Purbeck marble tray. The sexfoil with apex loops (shown in yellow) is the only Gothic motif in the pavement. Authors

87

the cosmatesque mosaics of westminster abbey

A

81  Sanctuary mosaic. A. Panels 36, 93, 123 (also part of 56) and bands 68, 69, 70. Phase 3 repairs to band 69 (lower left) are apparent; B. Panels 37, 93, 94, 95 and bands 70, 71. Medallion 37 is set in a Purbeck marble tray. Authors

88

B

4  description of the sanctuary pavement Panels 38–43: eastern border Prior to Scott moving the step to the high altar eastwards by c. 60cm, only about one third of the west side of panels 38–43 and 54 was visible.When fully re-exposed they must have been so badly damaged that Scott had little alternative but to replace them. Of the six new roundels, two are facsimiles of panels 33 and 35, and the others are scaled-up copies of medallions on the shrine pavement. However, the decoration of the western parts of the original roundels is known from Talman’s drawings of 1707, Ackermann’s aquatint of 1812,14 coloured tracings by Maw of 1862 and a photograph of c. 1858–60 by Victor A. Prout15 (Figs 18, 36 and 38). It is clear that Scott’s restoration of panel 54 followed the same style and scale as recorded by both Talman and Maw. Furthermore, from an annotation on Talman’s sketch and a diagonal line representing a division between two phases of work, the southern end of this panel had already been repaired before 1707 (for further discussion see p. 100). The graphic records reveal that medallions 38, 40, 42 and 43 were not in the style or materials of Phase 1 work, and they must all have been renewed in the post-medieval period. Medallion 39 seems to have been unaltered primary work,

as also the outer border of 41. Scott elected to replace these roundels with entirely new designs. The range of materials that he used is different from elsewhere in the mosaic in that the replaced white lias tesserae have a distinct bronze, lustrelike, appearance. His green porphyry tesserae are shinier with prominent phenocrysts, almost gaudy, and the purple porphyry tesserae are redder in tone.Their edges are usually machine-cut, although ancient tesserae were also reused. Additional materials include brown-and-white porphyry, and black-and-white porphyry. 38

Renewed (Fig. 82). A cross pattée chased into a single circular slab of Purbeck marble. It is a larger copy of medallion 37g on the south side of the shrine pavement (Fig. 238), which also has patterns of chequered triangles. Between the cross and the edge of the slab is a band of outwardpointing isosceles triangles in purple and green porphyry with smaller triangles, occasionally in blue, red and turquoise glass, in the interspaces. Some of the purple porphyry has no phenocrysts and is replacement material. In the U-shaped interspaces between the arms of the cross are patterns of chequered triangles, purple and green porphyry, on a yellow (almost copper-coloured) ground. In spindle-shapes formed at the ends of the arms of the cross are superposed lozenges. Phase 5.

82  Sanctuary mosaic. Panels 38, 95, 96 and band 71. Panel 38 is a facsimile of medallion 37(g) on the shrine pavement (Fig. 238), and is set in a Purbeck marble tray. Authors

89

the cosmatesque mosaics of westminster abbey Talman’s drawings show about one-third of the original decoration surviving and, signific­antly, he noted ‘no border’ and with three outwardpointing triangles, recorded as ‘two and a half ’ inches, with their tips tangent to the Purbeck marble surround (Fig. 57). The internal sides of the triangles formed a polygon. However,Talman’s drawing is only a sketch. Since he knew the diameters of the roundels and the dimensions of the triangles precisely, he did not have to draw them to scale; the information was possibly suf­ ficient to enable him to work up a detailed drawing off-site. When triangles of these pro­portions are drawn within a roundel it can be seen that there is space for about eight, pointing to the likelihood that the polygonal centre was octagonal. Further information can be gleaned from Talman’s drawings, based on his recording of the colours of the materials, written in ‘a curious hybrid of abbreviated English and Italian’.16 Two of the triangles are noted as gial. and giallo, presumably abbreviations for giallo antico.Another triangle and a stone forming the polygon are recorded as ‘livor’ (i.e. red Belgian marble). This material is always associated with repairs and therefore panel 38 had previously been recon­ figured before the step for Wren’s altarpiece was constructed; the absence of a border may also support this contention. It is assignable to Phase 3.1. Maw’s tracing of the roundel shows four

83  Sanctuary mosaic. Panels 39, 97, 118 and bands 72, 73. Medallion 39 (a facsimile of 35) is set in a Purbeck marble tray (Fig. 79). Authors

90

39

triangles. He coloured them black (his pigment may have oxidized), but they are likely to have been red or purple; there is no indication of a polygon and he shaded the roundel pink. Part of the pre-Scott roundel is visible in Prout’s photograph. Talman, E.182–1940; Maw 182. Renewed (Fig. 83). This is a facsimile of panel 35 (Fig. 79), and some tesserae are a good match for those surviving in that panel. Hence, they will be described in detail, since they possibly reflect the colours of the original panel 35. Describing them clockwise from the north, the six circles within the ‘rectangles’ contain various motifs including: a white hexagon containing a pair of overlapping triangles, green and pale blue glass (the green is a facsimile of the Roman(?) bottle glass in panel 35), and with red triangles of glass on its outer faces; a white poised square of lias containing a square of serpentine, and with small red glass triangles in the interspaces and pairs of black triangles of Tournai marble between the white square and the margin of the circle; a flower with six triangular petals, alternately red and black, on the outer faces of a hexagonal corolla; an eight-lozenge star with its glass lozenges alternately red and pale blue; a yellow six-lozenge star of white lias; and a black triangle of Tournai marble with white lias reducing triangles. Sur­ rounding the medallion is a circle of purple and green poised squares of porphyry. Phase 5.

4  description of the sanctuary pavement Talman’s sketch shows the original roundel as plain, and it is described as ‘albastro orientali as wt. in medio of ye pavemt’ (Fig. 57A). As with the previous panel he states ‘no border’, and neither is a border represented on Maw’s tracing, which shows a plain circular slab of pinkish stone.Talman evidently considered this slab to be comparable with the roundel at the centre of the pavement (panel 1). Unlike the other panels along this side, it was potentially an intact survival from Phase 1, and not a restoration.Talman, E.182–1940; Maw 210. 40 Renewed (Fig. 84A).A larger version of examples in the shrine pavement, such as row 33c (Fig. 235). Three quasi crosses pattées(?) made from individual triangles of Purbeck marble, tangent, forming a central hexagonal interspace which contains a larger triangle of Purbeck marble, with the interspaces filled with patterns of chequered triangles, radially reducing in size. Around the central triangle are arrangements of purple and green reducing triangles of porphyry. Encircling the outer margin is a band of inward-pointing triangles of purple and green porphyry with diminutive examples, some of glass, within the interspaces. Phase 5. Talman’s sketch reveals that originally the border of this medallion comprised segments of a circular band, the remaining five being des­ cribed (anticlockwise) as bianco, liver, bianco, pons.17 and bianco (Fig. 57A). Clearly, white alternated with red and green. At the centre lay a circular slab, described as brocat. (brocatello, yellow Siena marble). Maw’s tracing of the same roundel shows only three segments, more rectangular in appearance and with the central slab yellow. The presence of Carrara and Belgian marble (liver) in this roundel confirms that the east side of the mosaic had already been altered before the installation of the Queen Anne altarpiece: probably Phase 3.1. Scott’s restorations also used Tournai marble, black-and-white porphyry and fine purple porphyry, possibly derived from the Phase 1 work. Talman, E.182–1940; Maw 70. 41 Renewed (Fig. 84B). This has a grid of Purbeck marble chequers, laid as individual tesserae, with the interspaces decorated with purple or green poised squares of porphyry in their centres and smaller squares of the same materials at the angles. Tangent to the tips of the poised squares are diminutive triangles. Encircling the panel is a row of superposed lozenges, of purple and green porphyry, with tiny outward-pointing triangles, including examples in turquoise glass, in the outer interspaces. Some tesserae are of black-and-white porphyry, fine purple porphyry and rather garish green porphyry with prominent white pheno­ crysts. This panel is a copy of a medallion in the

shrine pavement in rows 7b and 34 (Figs 231 and 236). Phase 5. Talman recorded the design of the original panel as a complex scheme with an outer surrounding band comprising a row of tangent poised squares with small squares in the centres (Fig. 57). Inside the circle was a ring of inwardpointing triangles, alternating green and purple as evidenced from his abbreviations S,P,S,P,S, (signifying serpentine and purple porphyry) and with poised squares in the resulting triangular interspaces. These he noted as ‘fondo giallo w. squares of serp. & por.’ (green and purple squares on a yellow background). In Phase 1 there was probably a central circle with an outer band of giallo and serpentine; modified in Phase 2–3. Maw’s tracing of this panel appears to show tesserae of purple and green porphyry. The recorded detail for this lost panel is particularly significant because the decoration is more complex than in other panels on this side of the pavement, and points to a medieval date. It reinforces the suggestion that the other, simpler, panels were reworked sometime before Wren’s alterations to the steps. Phase 1. Talman, E.182– 1940; Maw 184. 42 Renewed (Fig. 85A). This is modelled on the designs of row 36 on the shrine pavement (Fig. 237). It depicts a six-armed Catherine-wheel motif, turning anticlockwise, and with similarly shaped interspaces, alternately filled with arrange­ ments of large and small triangles. It is difficult to be certain whether the pattern is chased into a single disc of Purbeck marble (as in the medieval technique), or built up from separate pieces (as in Scott’s panels 40 and 41); the texture of the stone would seem to favour the former. The purple and green tesserae are porphyry, black are glass, with ‘copper coloured’ white lias in the interspaces. Black and white tesserae are also present. Talman’s drawing records the panel as having a circular outer band of bianco (Carrara marble), enclosing a polygonal band (Fig. 57). Both bands were segmental, and that is confirmed in Maw’s tracing, probably formed a hexagon originally. Talman describes its colour as sab., one of the abbreviations he uses for the several types of serpentine present in the pavement. The colour­ ing on Maw’s tracing is ambiguous; it shows the inner band black (but the paint may have oxidized), the same colour as an inward-pointing triangle against a background of yellow in the centre.18 Talman shows two such triangles, hinting at the possibility that there were originally six, and that the centre of this medallion comprised a six-pointed star.Whether the roundel illustrated by Talman and Maw was primary is doubtful, the

91

the cosmatesque mosaics of westminster abbey

A

84  Sanctuary mosaic. A. Panels 40, 98, 99 and bands 73, 74; B. Panel 41. Authors

92

B

4  description of the sanctuary pavement

A

85  Sanctuary mosaic. A. Panels 42, 100, 101,102, 119, bands 76, 77 and inscription C; B. Panels 43, 103, 104 and bands 77, 78. Panel 43 is a facsimile of medallion 33 (Fig. 77). Authors

B

93

the cosmatesque mosaics of westminster abbey segmental outer band of Carrara marble pointing to the likelihood that it was modified in Phase 3.1. Talman, E.182–1940; Maw 185. 43 Renewed (Fig. 85B). A facsimile of panel 33, where its description is given (Fig. 77). However, the original panel had lost tesserae in six of the hexagons at the centres of pairs of interlaced triangles of Purbeck marble forming six-lozenge stars. Here, Scott reconstructed their fillings with seven tiny tangent hexagons of purple and green porphyry, creating flower patterns, but the original provides no evidence for these; instead, the impressions of tesserae indicate that they had six-lozenge stars. Nevertheless, many of the tesserae in the restoration are likely to be reused because they are not machine-cut. Restored tesserae include examples of black glass and ‘copper coloured’ material used in interspaces. Phase 5. Talman’s drawings show an outer circular band recorded as ‘livor colour’ (red Belgian marble) and with the inner edge of the band tangent to a pentagon or hexagon labelled brocatello (yellow Siena marble) (Fig. 56). The enclosing segments are recorded as ver. di ponsev.19 Almost certainly this represented a Phase 3.1 alteration. Talman, E.179–1940; Maw 185.

Panels 44–48: southern border 44

45

94

A circular slab of Purbeck marble chased with a large concave-sided square developing prominent spindle-shapes on four sides (Fig. 86A). It is similar to panel 34 (Fig. 78). In the interspace is a poised square of dark green serpentine with the same material forming triangles at the tips of the concaved square. Red Belgian marble fills trapezia between them. Encircling the slab is a band of superposed squares, mostly of green porphyry, with small outward-pointing triangles of green porphyry and granito verde antico; the interspaces are of white lias; this is probably original work. Repairs include tesserae of Carrara marble. The decoration is the same as when it was recorded by Talman; however, the serpentine and Belgian marble probably replaced patterns of tesserae such as those filling panel 37. Probably Phase 3.1. Talman, E.179–1940; Maw 188. A large hexagon of yellow brecciated marble is surrounded by six segments of red Belgian marble, and encircled by a band of superposed green triangles of porphyry (including a few purple examples) on a white lias background (Fig. 86A). A roundel of breccia may have been trimmed in Phase 3.1 to create a hexagon, and the Belgian

46

47

48

marble introduced at the same time. The form of this medallion is very similar to panel 5, which is suspected as also once having a disc of brec­ ciated marble, before being trimmed into a heptagon (Fig. 65A). Phase 3.1. It is the same now as when it was recorded by Talman (E.177–1940). Apart from an outer band of alternating tangent and poised purple and green squares of porphyry, with white lias interspaces, this panel is a postmedieval restoration (Fig. 86B).Working inwards, it comprises a band of red Belgian marble, in eight segments, and a central roundel of serpen­ tine; at its centre-point is a tiny triangle of red brecciated marble. Panel 47, to the west, is set in a tray of Purbeck marble and it is possible that panel 46 was once similarly composed. It was reconfigured in Phase 3.1. Talman, E.173–1940. A single slab of yellow brecciated marble (giallo antico) set into a circular tray of Purbeck marble and surrounded by a band of superposed purple and green squares of porphyry, with small outward-pointing triangles of the same materials in the white lias interspaces (Fig. 86B). This is indisputably medieval, but the surface of the breccia is smoother than other examples of this type suggesting, possibly, that it has been repolished. Phase 1. Talman, E.173–1940. This panel occupies the south-west corner of the mosaic, and little of the medieval work survives; it has a large poised square of yellow brecciated marble, suspected to be part of an original medallion (Fig. 87A). Its corners are tangent to the tips of triangles with their bases tangent to the rim of the Purbeck marble frame. Against the sides of the central square are rectan­gular strips of dark green-grey serpentine with pale grey squares at each end (terminating at the corners of the central square). In the interspaces formed between the curved frame and the strips are segments of red Belgian marble (each formed from two stones). The grey stone used at the corners of the central square is cipollino marble with distinctive straight darker grey veining. The material is not found in the shrine pavement and only occurs on the sanctuary pavement in association with post-medieval panel 11. On the north-west side are two triangles of yellow brecciated marble at the interface of the Purbeck marble frame and the tips of the central square.20 The original design (Phase 1) probably had a plain roundel of yellow brecciated marble surrounded by tessellation. What survives is attributed to Phase 3.1. Talman, E.173–1940.

4  description of the sanctuary pavement

A

B

86  Sanctuary mosaic. A. Panels 44, 45, 105, 106, 129, 130 and bands 78, 79, 80; B. Panels 46, 47, 107, 108, 109, 120 and bands 81, 82, 83. Medallion 47 is set in a Purbeck marble tray (cf. medallion 37). Authors

95

the cosmatesque mosaics of westminster abbey

A

87  Sanctuary mosaic. A. Panels 47, 48, 109, 110, 111, 120 and bands 82, 83, 84; B. Panel 49. Authors

96

B

4  description of the sanctuary pavement Panels 49–52: western border 49

In the centre of this panel is an octagon of red Belgian marble (rouge de Rance) (Fig. 87B). Between it and an outer band of purple and green porphyry inward-pointing tangent triangles, with smaller triangles in the interspaces, are segments of rouge royal, yellow brecciated marble, and almost black/dark green serpentine.The tessellated band is medieval but, as elsewhere, it is suspected that the central stone was originally a roundel and that the other materials were introduced in Phase 3.1. However, the origin of the octagonal slab is uncertain, but may have been cut from a disc; there is only one other disc of rouge de Rance in the pavement (panel 56). Apart from a few small pieces, all the other red Belgian marble is rouge royal, and that is only found in Phase 2 and later work.21 As it stands, the medallion is essentially attributable to Phase 3.1, but the centre slab probably originated as a Phase 1 disc. Talman, E.174–1940. 50 A central hexagonal slab of yellow brecciated marble with six segments of Carrara marble against each face and set within an outer band of yellow tangent poised squares of white lias with purple and green porphyry tesserae in the interspaces (Fig. 88).The white marble is possibly an adaptation of Phase 3.1, as observed for panels

5–8 and potentially panel 40. Originally, the slab of brecciated marble was probably circular, Phases 1 and 3.1. Talman, E.157–1940; Maw 104. 51 This panel is largely a restoration of uncertain date, assigned to Phase 2–3 (Fig. 89). The outer band of two rows of outward-pointing triangles of purple and green porphyry (and interspaces of white lias), spaced and tangent respectively, is original work and once surrounded a Purbeck marble tray possibly containing a large marble disc (but cf. panel 41, Fig. 57B). The roundel is now filled with four concentric circular bands of inward-pointing triangles with smaller triangles in the interspaces and set predominantly, in red Belgian marble alternating with yellow brecciated marble. In the fourth of these concentric bands the triangles are of black Tournai marble alterna­ ting with brecciated limestone, with their tips tangent to a small roundel of red Belgian marble. The panel was probably adapted at the same time as repairs to the north end of panel 87. The use of breccia might suggest this to be Phase 3.2 work but it is not so technically accomplished. For example, the interspaces of three of the concentric bands lack tesserae and are of plain lime mortar. It is a singular work and is designated as Phases 1 and 2–3. Talman, E.157–1940. 52 A solid circle of Purbeck marble chased with

88  Sanctuary mosaic. Panels 50, 112, 113, 133, 134, bands 85, 86 and inscription C. Authors

97

the cosmatesque mosaics of westminster abbey inward-pointing concaved triangles forming a hexafoil of spindles (Fig. 90). The design is identical to that of the row 4b medallion in the shrine pavement (Fig. 231).The concaved triangles are all filled with pieces of rouge royal, but these have replaced Phase 1 inlays, which were perhaps tessellated. Talman describes the filling of the interspaces as ‘livor red breccia of France’. Encircling the disc is a band of tangent purple and green poised squares of porphyry (one is blue glass) with small triangles in the white lias interspaces; on the south-west, part of the band has been repaired with a fragment of rim from a redundant circular Purbeck marble tray (probably derived from the modification of panel 51), and the original design reset with plain lime mortar filling the interspaces, except on the south side where some of the original tesserae remain undisturbed, including the interspaces. Miscellaneous materials include tesserae of various types of red Belgian marble, white lias, purple and green porphyry, Carrara marble and serpentine. Phases 1 and probably 3.1. Talman, E.166–1940.

Panels 53–56: rectangles in the outer border 89  Sanctuary mosaic. Panels 51, 114, 115 and bands 87, 88. Authors

Bordering the mosaic are loops of giant guilloche, which has been ‘opened-out’ at the axes to accommodate large rectangular panels (53–56), each of which takes up the width equivalent to three loops. The guilloche adjacent to the panels turns a sharp right-angle to envelope them. The locations of the panels are also prominent in that the angles of the large poised square in the centre of the floor point to their cardinal positions. The western panel (53) acts as a threshold onto the pavement, from the crossing, and the eastern panel (54) similarly to reach the high altar. Panels 55 and 56 on the south and north sides, respectively, mark the locations of two sub-floor tombs. The occupant of the southern one is unrecorded, but the northern contains the body of Abbot Richard de Ware (d. 1283). The dimensions of three of the panels are 1.95m by 72cm, but the southern one is 10cm shorter. 53

90  Sanctuary mosaic. Panels 52, 114, 115, 116, 117, bands 65, 88 and inscription C. Authors

98

This threshold panel has an overall grid of purple and green chequers of porphyry and granito verde antico (and one of Tournai marble) set diagonally to the border (Fig. 91).Within each of the creamcoloured square interspaces of white lias are smaller squares of the same materials, tangent at their tips to the larger squares, and with diminutive

4  description of the sanctuary pavement triangles of the same materials in the corners. On the east, west and south outer sides of the panel, in interspaces formed between the angles of the large poised squares and rectangular tesserae (truncated small squares), are pairs of blue glass tesserae. The decoration is surrounded by a plain band of golden white lias similar to the bands surrounding panels 1 and 17–20. 53A Between the golden white lias and the outer margin of Purbeck marble is a complex band of tesserae comprising rows of alternating yellow and cream lozenges of white lias (Fig. 91). The yellow examples are superimposed with pairs of green poised squares of porphyry, forming hourglass motifs (and thereby creating the illusion of two poised squares), and the cream lozenges of white lias superimposed with pairs of triangles of purple and green porphyry set in alternate directions. Some of the squares of green porphyry and fine purple porphyry are comparable in tone with Scott’s restorations on the east side of the pavement, perhaps suggesting 19th-century repairs. In 1706–07 (Phase 4) the west side of this band was entirely replaced with two long slabs of black Belgian marble which acted as a threshold for gates in the new sanctuary railings erected on the uppermost step (Fig. 25). Basically, the panel

is Phase 1, but with sundry restorations. The low iron screen was removed in the 1920s and its fractured stone threshold eliminated during the restoration in 2010. The mosaic border pattern was also restored. Talman, E.157–1940; Maw 172. 54 The equivalent panel on the east side of the pavement was supposedly reconstructed by Scott and is consistent throughout in its workmanship and colours. It has an overall diagonal grid of rows of alternating purple and green rectangles of porphyry, forming zigzags (Fig. 92). Where the bands intersect, squares of white lias and Carrara marble are introduced each with a central poised square, four smaller squares in the corners and triangles of white lias in between. The large squares formed by the grid are quartered with purple and green rectangles of porphyry (also developing small squares where they intersect) and, in the squares so formed, poised squares with small triangles in the corners. The green porphyry has prominent, almost vivid, pea green phenocrysts; some of the purple porphyry lack phenocrysts. Like the roundels to the north and south, the eastern edge of this panel was destroyed when the new steps for the extended altar pavement were installed in 1706–07. The area was re-instated by Scott, and

91 (left) Sanctuary mosaic. Panels 53, 53A and bands 86, 87. Authors 92 (right) Sanctuary mosaic. Panel 54 and bands 74, 75. Authors

99

the cosmatesque mosaics of westminster abbey hence the panel, as it stands, must be assigned to Phase 5. However, both Talman’s sketches and Maw’s tracings show an identical pattern to the extant one: the design is not, therefore, Scott’s, but has an earlier origin. Talman records the south part of the panel as having different materials (Fig. 57), and shows a diagonal line dividing two phases: ‘ye southern half of ye oblong is ponsevera and liver color and placed as ye rest’. This restoration is most likely datable to Phase 4, being a reinstatement of a section of paving that was torn up when the sanctuary was being reordered in 1706–07. The design appears too bold and out of scale with those on panel 53, and the tomb-covers (55–56), to be contemporary with the original work. Moreover, it lacks an intermediate frame, such as the band of golden lias seen on panel 53, and in scale the rectangular strips of purple and green porphyry defining the grid are more like opus sectile work than mosaic. They are also the largest pieces of porphyry in the pavement.These deviations are so striking that the rectangle surely marks an area that it was initially not intended to pave with mosaic, but to have a different use, such the site for an altar; for discussion of the possibilities, see p. 541.Talman, E.182–1940; Maw 171.

Southern tomb-cover (Figs 93A and 94) 55

100

This panel, measuring 1.85m by 62cm, overlies a stone chamber or coffin beneath the floor (p. 543). Like the mosaic around the Confessor’s tomb and some of the small panels elsewhere on the sanctuary pavement, its design is chased into a solid slab of Purbeck marble and comprises, basically, a diagonal and a vertical grid of thin fillets, 10cm apart, forming an overall pattern of hexagons, tangent to one another at their angles, creating triangular interspaces. There is also a narrow rim around the perimeter of the slab: it is effectively a compartmented tray that contains a discrete mosaic design. By leaving clusters of hexagons void at their centres and substituting them with six-lozenge stars in purple and green porphyry (except the central example which is a single stone: cf. panel 33), a staggered arrange­ ment of ‘six-armed crosses’ was created. All the hexagons contain six-lozenge stars in blue, buff (in a variety of tones, but not lias), turquoise, red and yellow opalesque glass tesserae with white marble triangles between the points. One has two types of marble: grey stone alternating with avocado and white brecciated marble; another lozenge on the north side is a repair using a type of red Belgian marble. Between the white tesserae

and the sides of the hexagons were spandrelshaped tesserae but none survive, because they have either eroded or because they were of glass. Around the sides of the panel the hexagons are truncated into pentagons each with diminutive white six-lozenge stars and patterns of triangles. Between the panel and the surrounding frame of Purbeck marble is a narrow zigzag fillet of alternating purple and green lozenges of porphyry and with white lias in the interspaces. This fills the joint between the grave-slab and the frame. The self-contained nature of the mosaic work meant that the tomb-cover could be made and completely finished in the workshop, ready for installation. In the late or post-medieval period there appears to have been a policy of change rather than repair.Two clusters of six-lozenge stars were each replaced with a single, large six-lozenge star with its segments alternately of red Belgian marble and serpentine.The materials are the same as those in the reconstructed adjacent roundels and are assumed to be contemporaneous (Phase 2–3). Moreover, in contrast, the surrounding interspaces are filled with yellow mortar, not stone, so this may signify a yet later modification. Talman records these as being ‘mere white’. Other post-medieval changes include new opposing pairs of small six-lozenge stars on the north-east and south-west sides of the large western star. Their lozenges alternate between red Belgian marble and serpentine. Phases 1 and 2–3.Talman, E.173–1940.

Northern tomb-cover (Abbot Ware) (Figs 93B and 95–97) 56 This panel overlies a monolithic stone coffin beneath the floor (p. 541). Although now a sad reflection of its original condition, it nevertheless still retains enough of the medieval fabric and impressions of lost tesserae to enable many of the designs to be recreated. As with the previous ledger (55), the cover comprises a single slab of Purbeck marble, 1.94m by 62cm, but instead of having a narrow band of mosaic running all round it, there are ‘sacrificial strips’ of red marble (alternating regular and poised squares) along the north and south sides only; these fill a gap between the ledger and the surrounding frame (Fig. 49, no. 5). Four iron lifting-rings attached to the edges of the slab are concealed within the gaps. These rings needed to be accessible when the time came to lift the tomb-cover out of the pavement and insert the body of Abbot Ware. After the interment, the cover was replaced and the two strips of mosaic reinstated (Figs 49 and 269).

4  description of the sanctuary pavement

A

B 93 Sanctuary mosaic. A. Panel 55 (southern tomb-cover) and bands 80, 81; B. Panel 56 (northern tomb-cover) and bands 68, 68A, 69. Based on fragmentary evidence; some areas have been restored in the painting. Painting by David S Neal

101

the cosmatesque mosaics of westminster abbey

A

94  Sanctuary mosaic. Panel 55, detail of southern tomb-cover. A. West end; B. East end. Authors

B 102

4  description of the sanctuary pavement

A

B

95  Sanctuary mosaic. Panel 56, detail of northern tomb-cover. A. West end; B. East end. Authors

103

the cosmatesque mosaics of westminster abbey The tomb-cover is chased with a scheme that is unlike the decoration elsewhere on the pavement, but the style closely matches that on the Confessor’s tomb. However, some elements of the scheme are echoed in the sanctuary pavement: thus, the loops of guilloche on the ledger are miniature versions of those bordering the pavement. Red, blue and green tesserae are of glass. The workmanship is exceptional, as highlighted by the minuteness of its 6,500 tesserae as compared to about 2,400 in the previous example. The tesserae here, together with those in the primary workmanship on the southern tomb-cover, are profoundly different from tesserae used elsewhere in the mosaic. Although purple and green porphyry are common to both pavements, the tomb-covers include a high proportion of glass mosaic and use white marble tesserae, not white lias (apart from a few in later alterations). The significance of this is discussed on p. 560. The basic scheme can be seen as comprising a row of three quincunxes: the intermediate one is based on a large central circle, and is flanked by quincunxes formed from large poised lozenges. All three are outlined by ornate bands which loop to form roundels on all the diagonal sides. Where the circular and lozenge quincunxes are inter-looped, knots of guilloche are formed. At each end of the panel the loops springing from the lozenges create triangular interspaces.Whereas every loop of guilloche contains a different pattern, pairs of interspaces share the same designs. The central circle contains a large disc of rouge de Rance that seems to be primary (cf. the octagonal slab in panel 49).The flanking lozenges each have a square panel at the centre, curiously composed of two rectangular stones.That on the west side combines Egyptian gabbro and purple por­phyry, and appears to be primary.The eastern panel was certainly replaced in the post-medieval period with red Belgian marble (rouge royal) and serpentine (Phase 3?); these repairs also extend into the triangular interspaces to north and south, and include serpentine, white marble, two shades of red Belgian marble, yellow brecciated marble and a rare example of porfido verde from Greece (also seen on panel 74). The sixteen loops or bands around the roundels differ from one another and are listed alphabetically, from west to east; their schemes are based on chequered patterns. Unlike the four roundels isolated in the corners, which are encompassed by individual loops, the pairs of roundels in the centre, because they are interlaced, share loops and consequently share patterns. The designs are very fragmentary and, for some, their interpretation is speculative.

104

In the case of loop (f), for example, two shades of red tesserae have been identified. Two shades of red have similarly been noted on the shrine, but the darker of these were once gilded (Fig. 97E). It is possible that the same situation obtained on Ware’s tomb-cover, despite its being a vulnerable floor mosaic, rather than decorating a vertical surface. Gilding is present on some tesserae of the tomb-cover in the floor of the shrine chapel (Fig. 508).

Loops a–q (Fig. 96)

(a) The scheme is based on a diagonal grid of alternating squares of red glass and white marble. Each square is superimposed by a smaller square, rotated; all examples of the latter are lost, although it is likely that those on the white were of a different colour and material from those on the red. Along the sides of the loop are small red glass triangles with their tips tangent to the red poised squares (had the pattern been larger these would be the corners of adjacent poised squares). The overall effect is that the underlying grid is converted into triangles forming a row of stars. (b) The pattern consists of red glass and white marble chequers, set diagonally to the band. Where the red chequers meet the border, triangles are substituted and rows of tangent pairs of white marble squares are divided into triangles, effect­ ively creating the appearance of an inner central band ‘underlying’ the pattern. Clusters of four white marble tesserae around a central red tessera could be interpreted as florets. (c) This loop looks very similar to (b), but the adaptations are more complex. Along the spine is an arrangement of tangent poised squares in white marble, each superimposed with a smaller poised square of red glass (and some green) and further subdivided by small squares (colour unknown). The resulting triangular interspaces along the sides of the band are each divided into four triangles, the red triangles at their innermost tips forming hourglass motifs and, along the sides of the band, dogtooth patterns. (d) This also has a pattern of chequers. It is set diagonally to the band and adapted to create pairs of poised squares alternating with oblong hexa­ gons. These are formed with red glass and white marble triangles set as chequers. Alternate pairs of poised squares are of red glass and white marble but the colours of the oblong hexagons are uncertain. The scheme is the same as (k), but the colouration different. (e) A scheme based on a grid of red glass and white marble chequers arranged diagonally to the band in clusters of four. The pattern has been adapted

4  description of the sanctuary pavement

by infilling alternate clusters with blue glass tesserae on a red glass ground, and the others with blue glass on a white marble ground. The central interspaces of the clusters of squares are red glass. (f) A diagonally arranged grid of chequers. On the north and south sides of the loop the squares are truncated to form triangles. A row of red glass squares has two tones and it is suspected, therefore, that alternate examples were originally gilded (cf. the Confessor’s shrine); a row of possible white squares has impressions of small triangular red glass tesserae in their corners creating a line of small poised squares. (g) A diagonally arranged grid of chequers. The central row forms a spine and was possibly gold. The squares on either side are divided diagonally, one half red and the other half white. Triangular interspaces along the sides of the band are of opalesque blue glass. (h) A bolder pattern than the others comprising a regular grid of chequers of red glass and white marble with opalesque poised blue glass tesserae on the white. (j) A diagonal grid of chequers shaded as two separate rows of poised squares, one of red glass, the other lost. A central row of squares (the interspaces) is divided into triangles, alternately of white marble and an unknown colour. (k) A design based on diagonally arranged chequers. It was adapted by creating a row of pairs of tangent blue glass squares, alternating with white lozenges superimposed with pairs of confronting red triangles to create hour-glass shapes. The interspaces are filled with red triangles.The basic

(l)

scheme is the same as (d), but the colouration differs. A row of large red glass squares, occupying the width of the band, separated by rectangular fillets (colours not known), creating a ladder-like pattern. Within each of the squares, tangent to the rectangles and the sides of the band, are poised squares of white marble and, superimposed upon them, poised squares, but their tesserae are lost and their colours not known.

96  Sanctuary mosaic. Panel 56, key diagram. Medallions are numbered 1–12; bands are lettered a–q. Areas replaced in Phases 2 to 4 are shaded. Authors

(m) A diagonal grid of chequers with alternate diagonal rows of red and blue glass tesserae, creating a zigzag affect. Rows of inward-pointing white triangles of marble are formed along the sides of the band, and in white square interspaces between the red and blue tesserae are pairs of red glass triangles. The red tesserae may be of two tones hinting, perhaps, that some were originally gilded. (n) The tesserae on this band are considerably finer than the others. Its scheme is also based on diagonally arranged chequers, but adapted to create a linear grid in blue glass tesserae. Where the lines of the grid intersect tesserae of white marble occur. In the poised square interspaces so formed are red glass tesserae (perhaps once gilded) with darker red tesserae in the remaining interspaces. At the margins of the band are red glass, outward-pointing, triangles on white marble. (o) Diagonally arranged chequers forming, altern­ ately, clusters of four red glass and four white marble tesserae. Both groups enclasp a single tessera but their colours are not known.They can be viewed as quincunxes or florets.

105

the cosmatesque mosaics of westminster abbey (p) Another diagonally arranged grid of chequers creating a spine of superposed red poised squares of glass tangent to red glass triangles at the sides of the band. The interspaces form groups of four white poised tesserae of marble, creating florets or quincunxes separated from one another by pairs of poised squares in an undetermined colour. (q) A scheme of chequers set diagonally to the band arranged in two rows with their glass tesserae alternating red and blue, creating a zigzag pattern. A row of square interspaces down the spine of the band is divided into triangles, one of white marble and the other of green glass.

Interspaces

The interspaces are better preserved on the south side, where sufficient tesserae and impressions survive to glean evidence for their designs. Unfortunately, the preservation on the north is poor, the panel having been repaired in antiquity using inappropriate materials and designs. These repairs also included restoration of the Purbeck marble fillet bordering the panel with strips of black Tournai marble (part of the fillet on the south side was also replaced). Descriptions of the backgrounds will be from west to east, starting with the infilling of the large lozenges. The decoration of both lozenges is the same. Their schemes comprise rectangular fillets (lost) forming a grid aligned with the borders; the resulting grids are therefore slightly lozenge-shaped. Blue glass tesserae are set at their intersections and in the interspaces, are red glass poised squares with white marble triangles in the angles. On the west panel, the incongruous centrepiece of slabs of granito verde antico and purple porphyry appear not to have replaced a pre-existing pattern, and must therefore be medieval.Abutting them, the red poised squares of glass filling the grid are cut as rectangles. In the eastern lozenge both slabs are repairs and a narrow cut can be seen alongside where they have been inserted (or where the original stones have been removed). The larger slab is red Belgian marble and the smaller, serpentine.Triangular interspaces north and south have been repaired with serpentine, two shades of red marble, brecciated yellow marble and white marble.This area of repair is likely to be associated with Phase 3. South of both lozenges are pairs of quasi-triangular interspaces; their patterns differ. The west pair has blue glass and white marble chequered triangles with red triangles in the interspaces. The east pair has diagonal blue glass and white marble chequers with poised red glass squares on white. It is assumed that originally the equivalent panels on the north side of the grave-cover were the same but they have been repaired, probably in Phase 3; the western one with alternating squares and inward-pointing triangles of two shades of red Belgian marble, serpentine, a tessera of white marble, one of green porphyry and a strip of serpentine. The

106

repairs in the eastern panel are of the same materials but the tesserae are larger and include a trapezium in black Tournai marble; other stones are red Belgian marble and yellow brecciated marble. As with many repairs attributed to Phase 3, the interstices between the tesserae are infilled with cream mortar. In a concave-sided trapezium south of the central roundel is a design based on rectangular fillets forming a grid (colours unknown) and also with blue glass tesserae on white marble at the intersections. However, the square interspaces contain bright red glass squares with triangular darker red glass tesserae on each side and white marble interspaces. The two shades of red glass suggest that one of them was flashed with gold. Of the original equivalent panel on the north side only a small part survives. It is made from tiny tesserae with a complex pattern of blue glass triangles with white marble rectangles on each side and red glass tesserae in the interspaces, creating small hexagons. Only a single row survives, the rest having been later replaced with spindles arranged into ‘circles’ and with squares in the interspaces (Phase 2). Materials include Tournai marble, serpentine, red Belgian marble, green porphyry and white Carrara marble. One of the triangles of white limestone is chased with a triangular matrix that is filled with red paste and is identical in type to tesserae used in the repairs in band 64 and they can be assumed to be contemporaneous (there is another example in the repairs at the north-west corner of the grave-cover, p. 111). Interspaces on the east and west sides were repaired using similar materials. East and west of the central roundel of rouge de Rance are pairs of quasi V-shaped interspaces mostly devoid of patterns. However, triangular tesserae of white marble survive (and one of red glass), but are insufficient to establish the designs. The original workmanship in the interspaces at the corners of the ledger is largely lost, having been repaired in the post-medieval period. In the north-west corner is a square of red Belgian marble flanked by two triangles of limestone chased with small triangles filled with red paste. The remaining space is patched with cream mortar with no tesserae. The south-west corner is also patched with cream mortar except two tesserae of Carrara, which may be original.The equivalent panel on the north-east side of the ledger has been filled with a large triangle of red Belgian marble; the panel to the south-east is repaired with a row of poised squares (made from pairs of triangles) of serpentine, two types of red Belgian marble and Tournai. Elsewhere it has been filled with plain cream mortar. Two pairs of triangular interspaces on the west and east sides of the pavement: the tesserae in the western pair are lost, but on the east are square tesserae of red Belgian marble and a single tessera of serpentine.The southern triangle on this side has red Belgian marble and serpentine and also a tessera of purple porphyry, one of blue glass and a limestone tessera chased with a triangle once filled with either red or green paste (cf. similar tesserae in

4  description of the sanctuary pavement panel 64: Phase 2). Other spaces are filled with plain cream mortar. Of the remaining interspaces, two diminutive triangles on the north side are patched with a mixture of purple and green porphyry, red Belgian marble and serpentine, and those on the south side of the ledger patterns of reducing triangles. That on the west with a large triangle of red glass and small triangles of white marble; the example to the east has triangles of white marble and plain cream mortar. Running along the north and south sides of the grave-cover are strips of mosaic concealing lifting rings for the ledger (see p. 100). The northern strip com­ prises a row of alternately recumbent and poised squares of red Belgian marble and Flemish red tile, respectively. The interspaces contain triangular finegrained cream white lias. The western half of the southern strip has a similar pattern, but uses original tesserae of purple porphyry with cream mortar in the interspaces. There is also a narrow strip of serpentine used in the repair, as well as a small piece of laminated purple and white marble not seen elsewhere on the mosaic. A similar strip of serpentine survives in the northern border. These bands filled narrow gaps that were left between the tomb-cover and the surrounding Purbeck marble framing. They were ‘sacrificial’ strips that were intended for removal, in order to access the slab’s concealed iron lifting-rings, when Ware’s body was interred in 1283, fifteen years after the mosaic had been laid (Fig. 269; p. 542). However, much of the present filling of the strips is clearly post-medieval and is similar in style and materials to other repairs attributed to Phase 2–3. This does not indicate that the tomb-cover has been lifted and reset since Ware’s death: some of the purple porphyry tesserae on the south side appear to be undisturbed. The evidence points to an aborted attempt to open the grave. This ledger differs significantly from the previous one in two respects. First, it is 10cm longer, and there is no gap between its ends and the surrounding Purbeck marble frame, and hence no room for sacrificial strips of tesserae. Second, although there is a narrow ‘rim’ along the north and south edges of the slab – effectively creating a tray to contain the mosaic inlay – no hint of a rim can be detected at the east and west ends. As with the southern ledger, one would expect the inlay to have been fully installed in the matrices in the workshop, before the slab was brought on to site. Possibly, this slab has had its ends trimmed as a consequence of an error in measurement when it was being made.

Roundels 1–12 (Figs 96 and 97)

There are twelve roundels on the ledger, all 11cm in diameter. Five were restored in the post-medieval period and one in 2008–10.They are described starting at the north-west corner.

1

2 3

4

5

6

7

8

9 10

11

A six-lozenge star in purple porphyry forming spandrel-shaped interspaces in white marble containing red glass outward-pointing triangles. The star is constructed in three and not six segments (one is cracked) similar to roundel 2, but not noted elsewhere on the two floor mosaics (although the central six-lozenge star on the southern tomb-cover (55) is solid). Phase 1. Similar to roundel 1, restored 2008–10. Around the medallion are five spindles of yellow brecciated marble forming a concave-sided pentagon. Within this, five small spindles of Tournai marble form a pentagonal interspace containing a similarly-shaped tessera of Tournai marble with diminutive outward-pointing black tesserae of the same materials on each of its sides. The interspaces around these triangles are filled with cream mortar. The use of brecciated limestone suggests it was restored in Phase 2–3. See no. 10. A six-lozenge star in green porphyry with red glass triangular tesserae in the white marble interspaces. Phase 1. A medallion bordered with five green and one purple spandrels of porphyry creating a concavesided hexagonal interspace containing a sixlozenge star of cream ‘white’ marble. Red glass triangles occupy the white interspaces. Chips of green glass between the arms of the central star might suggest that they were from triangles, and once formed hourglass motifs with the red glass tesserae. Phase 1. A disc of ‘white’ Thasos marble surrounded by an outer row of inward-pointing white marble tesserae and an inner row surviving as impressions. Phase 1. A disk in green/black verde antico surrounded by a row of outward-pointing red glass tesserae with triangular white marble tesserae in the interspaces. Phase 1. A six-lozenge star in green porphyry. In the interspaces are red glass tesserae on a white marble background. Phase 1. Similar to 8 but with one purple and five green porphyry lozenges. Phase 1. This has a pentagonal centrepiece of serpentine within a concave-sided pentagon created from five spindles of black Tournai marble. Surrounding this are five spindles of cream brecciated marble; the interspaces are of cream mortar. Phase 2–3. A medallion quartered radially by rectangular strips of black Tournai marble, with a white marble tessera at the intersection.The interspaces are filled with yellow brecciated marble. Phase 2–3.

107

the cosmatesque mosaics of westminster abbey

A

B

C

D

E

F

97  Sanctuary mosaic. Panel 56, details of northern tomb-cover. A. Roundel 1 and Phase 2–3 restored interspace; B. Phase 2–3 restored interspace; C. Roundel 8; D. Roundels 7 and 9; E. Roundels 4 and 6, and loop (f); F. Roundels 8 and 10; G. Roundel 12 and part of Phase 3 restored lozenge. Authors

G 108

4  description of the sanctuary pavement 12

A six-pointed star of serpentine formed from four tesserae: a large triangular tessera at the centre, with three smaller tesserae on its sides. The interspaces are of cream white lias. Phase 2–3. Talman, E.157–1940; Maw 174–5.

Panels 57–88: Curvilinear bands For bands surrounding and forming parts of panels 17–20, see the catalogue entries. There are thirty-one bands divided into three groups; those forming the central quincunx (57–60), those looping around large circles in the corners of the great square (61–64) and the bands decorating the loops of giant guilloche and bordering the rectangular panels (65–88). Those encircling the central medallion (2–4) – and are integral to it – have already been described. A notable feature of the bands is their diversity. Some contemporaneous examples of equal length have more complicated patterns with more tesserae; and some have better workmanship, or required greater skill to construct them. This would have necessitated careful forward planning; possibly there would have been a need to calculate the number of repetitive units of a given pattern to provide advance knowledge of the quantity and specification of the tesserae required. A related issue is the degree of prefabrication of the tesserae; were they shaped in Italy to avoid transporting unnecessary spolia? With Roman mosaics, most tesserae are square and rarely are they shaped. With Cosmati mosaics, however, the tesserae are not of standard sizes or shapes, and careful consideration had to be paid to the construction of sinuous bands. For example, on band 59 the rectangular ladder-like ‘rungs’ are radial to both panels 1 and 7. Examination of their tesserae demonstrates that the rungs taper towards the radii, so, as the band progresses from one roundel to the next, the direction of taper changes also and, conversely, where the band is midway between the roundel and is relatively straight, the ‘rungs’ are also straight (see band 70, where rectangular tesserae are larger on the outer sides of the sinuous bands than on the inner). Con­ sequently, it was necessary for the mosaicists to have supplies of parallel-sided and tapered tesserae.

Bands 57–60: the central quincunx All four bands, apart from minor repairs, are Phase 1. 57

The scheme is based on a linear grid created from rectangular purple and green porphyry tesserae (one is of granito verde antico), which also form margins where the pattern runs alongside the Purbeck marble surrounds (Figs 65A and 67). Single white tesserae of lias and marble are set where the lines of the grid intersect. Within square interspaces are purple and green poised squares of porphyry (two are of serpentine); the interspaces are yellow triangles of white lias. The radial, rectangular, tesserae are tapered slightly towards the centres of panels 1 and 5 and the sizes of the poised squares around the outer margin are also slightly larger than those around the inner margin.These subtleties are represented on Talman’s sketches and stylistically by Ackermann (Fig. 18) and are almost certainly Phase 1: trapezoidal tesserae do not occur in later work. Talman, E.157–1940. 58 An arrangement of alternating diagonallyarranged purple and green spindles of porphyry creating circles (Fig. 65B). In concave-sided square interspaces are purple and green squares of the same materials and tangent to these, inward-pointing triangles (some are glass) set on a cream background.There are inconsistencies in the pattern; at one end of the band the spindles are mostly green, including one of green porfido verde from Greece. Phase 1. Talman, E.166–1940; Maw 169. 59 Similar to band 57, this has a linear grid of rectangles in three colours (Figs 66A and 68B). The tesserae alongside the Purbeck marble surrounds alternate purple and green porphyry and the radial tesserae are cream white lias.Where the rectangles intersect are single tesserae of black Tournai marble.Within square interspaces formed by the grid are pairs of inward-pointing purple and green triangles of porphyry with smaller triangles of the same materials in the remaining spaces. Among the larger triangular tesserae are examples of granito verde antico. The cream radial rectangles are tapered towards the radii of panels 1 and 7. Phase 1, but with repairs. Although Talman does not record this panel it is likely to be an omission on his part rather than an indication that the workmanship post-dates 1707. The pattern is stylized on Ackermann’s aquatint. 60 A chequered arrangement of purple and green squares of porphyry set diagonally to the band to form a spine of poised squares with triangles (half squares) at the margins (Fig. 66B). In square cream white lias interspaces are poised squares of

109

the cosmatesque mosaics of westminster abbey the same materials and three squares of granito verde antico and one triangle of Tournai marble. It is a similar design, in larger tesserae, to bands 57–59. Phase 1. Talman, E.157–1940.

Bands 61–64: bordering the large roundels in the great square Band 61 is preserved entire. Some original workmanship is also preserved on bands 62–64; in post-medieval times these were heavily restored, but in character with the earlier designs, albeit using different materials. 61 This highly complicated scheme comprises, basically, two superimposed bands of lozenges, mostly alternating purple and green porphyry (forming zigzags), defining a pattern of elongated hexagons (Figs 67A, 70A, 73 and 76A). Because the hexagons are defined by lozenges set pointto-point, and not by continuous fillets, the central interspace so formed takes the shape of a sixpointed star into which a yellow white lias sixpointed star with green isosceles triangles (forming small hexagons) is set.The points of the star have green and purple triangles between them and in the interspaces, are diminutive triangles of the same colours. A curious feature is that where the pattern turns a right-angle just south of Ware’s tomb-cover, a white octagon of lias is formed, superimposed by a green eightlozenge star of porphyry with diminutive purple triangles of porphyry in the interspaces (Fig. 73). Its axiality and proximity to the tomb cannot be coincidental and must surely be a tribute to Ware (see also band 68). Phase 1, but a small part at the east end was later restored using red Belgian marble. Talman, E.157–1940. 62 This has a diagonal grid of small squares forming chequers (Figs 67B, 70B, 73B, 74A and 76B). It has been restored sympathetically over the years and the scheme remains unaltered but the colours are reset incorrectly in places and, in the case of repairs, in the wrong materials and without small triangular stones in the interspaces which have been filled with fine yellow lime mortar instead. The most likely areas of original workmanship are the east side of the loop and part of a straight length before it turns sharply south-west. The remainder is attributed to Phase 2.1. A consistent feature of the band is a spine of yellow poised squares of white lias with purple and green triangles of porphyry; exceptions are examples of black and white granite. These triangles are subdivisions of squares. On either side of the band are further rows of poised squares (with their tips tangent to the tips of the squares in the central

110

63

64

band), and with diminutive triangles in the interspaces. In the sections suspected to be primary the outer rows of poised squares are mostly green, but elsewhere they are mixed. Whether this was the case historically is uncertain but a possibility is that short lengths of the band alternated in colour as, for example, in panel 63. In the restorations, the squares along the outer sides alternate black/grey serpentine and reddishbrown Belgian marble. Yellow tesserae in the restorations are likely to be white lias. The interspaces are filled with lime mortar without tesserae. Phases 1 and 2.1. Talman, E.174–1940. This is one of the finest examples on the mosaic (Figs 71A and 75). Most of the primary work is preserved in the loop but the straight lengths on the south and west are later and almost certainly contemporaneous with the repairs of bands 62 and 64: i.e. Phase 2. Its scheme comprises a grid of spindles forming a pattern of small circles. In the concave-square interspaces of white lias are small poised squares of purple and green porphyry and, in the remaining interspaces (on the original work), very tiny triangles of white marble and blue glass. A larger form of the pattern can be seen on band 58, but band 63 is sub-divided into sections, each about 20cm long, with their spindles alternately shaded purple and green. Where the spindles are purple, the poised squares are green and, vice-versa. However, there is no consistency in the colours of the tiny triangles in the white marble interspaces.Towards the west they are predominantly of blue glass but further east of red glass or green porphyry. The postmedieval repairs are good and the basic design is unchanged; the replaced spindles are not arranged arbitrarily but usually set in rows of alternate reddish brown red Belgian marble and black Tournai marble with the same materials set as squares in the interspaces. Other materials include serpentine and yellow brecciated marble. How­ ever, there are no tiny white marble triangles in the remaining small interspaces, which are filled with fine yellow mortar instead. Talman com­ mented on these differences, thereby confirming that the repairs predate 1707. Phases 1 and 2.1. Talman, E.174–1940; Maw 157. Most of this band is original but the south-east side of the loop was replaced in Phase 2 (Figs 68B, 69A, 71B, 72 and 75B). Its scheme is a grid of squares with a spine of alternating yellow and white squares of white lias and with alternating pairs of purple and green squares of porphyry along the sides (separated by a white square).The effect created is a series of quincunxes with purple or green squares of porphyry at their corners and with a yellow central stone.The white interspaces are filled with pairs of purple or green triangles

4  description of the sanctuary pavement set tip-to-tip with smaller triangles in the remaining spaces. Usually, if the pairs of triangles are purple the smaller triangles are green and, vice-versa. The medieval repairs substituted brownish-red and black Belgian marble for purple porphyry, and serpentine for green porphyry. Of particular interest in the Phase 2 repair are the intermediate triangular tesserae of finegrained cream limestone. They have diminutive triangular indentations cut into their faces (Figs 71B, 75B, 137, 273 and 274A). Where the tesserae form the interspaces between red triangles the indentations are filled with red paste and where they form the interspaces between serpentine triangles the indentations are filled with green paste. No other repair of this type occurs at Westminster, although two specimens were used to fill gaps on the north side of Ware’s tomb-cover. As with band 63 a conscious effort was made to recreate the former pattern.Talman only recorded part of the original pattern at the north end of the band. Phases 1 and 2.2. Talman, E.157–1940.

Bands 65–88: the guilloche border These are the sinuous bands in the guilloche surrounding the mosaic and bordering the rectangular panels on the four sides. Descriptions begin in the north-west corner. 65

66

Similar to band 59 and with a scheme based on a grid of rectangular fillets (Figs 77 and 90). A fillet forming a spine down the centre of the band is of yellow lias: it is bisected by purple and green porphyry radial fillets.Where these intersect are white interspaces with tiny triangles of the same material set point to point. An exception is a triangle of granito verde antico. Within squares formed by the grid are arrangements of reducingtriangles in purple and green porphyry. One of the radial fillets is of Tournai marble and another of black crinoidal carboniferous limestone. The workmanship is very fine and the radial tesserae taper slightly towards the centre of the circle. Phase 1. Talman, E.166–1940. Although the design is based on a grid of squares formed from narrow fillets it has been set diagonally to the band, creating a row of crosses (Fig. 79). Where the arms of the crosses intersect are small white lias tesserae.The square interspaces so formed are divided into nine squares: the central examples are purple or green porphyry, those in the corners white, and the intermediate examples filled with confronting pairs of purple and green triangles (forming hourglass shapes) of the same materials. Exceptions include three small

triangles in granito verde antico. Half-units of the same pattern occupy interspaces along the margins of the band. Phase 1.Talman, E.166–1940. 67 A chequered pattern set diagonally to the band (Fig. 79). Rows of squares along each side of the band are purple or green, alternating with yellow white lias; they are plain, but because their colours also alternate on both sides of the band a pattern of zigzags is formed (two of the squares are of granito verde antico). The square interspaces along the spine are quartered diagonally, forming confronting triangles of purple and green porphyry and, in the other triangular spaces, diminutive triangles of the same materials. Halfunits of the same patterns also occur along the outer sides of the band. Phase 1. Talman shows the western extent of the band with diagonal hachures as if to suggest this part was lost when he drew it. In which case, we must assume later repairs. Talman, E.166–1940; Maw 1d. 68 A diagonal arrangement of squares with small poised squares and triangles, creating a highly complex design, which can be seen as either a row of oblong hexagons or superposed, or overlapping, poised squares (Figs 79, and 93B). This has been achieved by inserting down the spine of the band a row of pairs of triangles in  purple and green porphyry, set tip-to-tip, alternately recumbent and upright. Recumbent examples have smaller triangles of the same materials (but two are in granito verde antico) in the four interspaces and the upright examples, small squares above and below them. Other materials include tesserae of black Tournai and white marble and, in later repairs on the north side, an avocado-coloured marble tessera, a material also seen on the southern tomb-cover (55). 68A Where band 68 turns the north-west corner of Ware’s tomb-cover, a square motif has been introduced, strikingly different from the design elsewhere on the band. It is divided into nine squares, a yellow white lias centre, red (possibly rosso antico) in the four corners, and dark green porphyry and blue glass triangles at the midpoints (Fig. 98). It cannot be coincidental that the motif adjoins the corner of the tomb, and it is almost certainly the mosaicist’s emblem or ‘trademark’. The band is primary and there is nothing else remotely like this feature on the pavement, although a common version of the nine-square motif is present in band 64; for further discussion, see p. 547.Talman, E.166–1940. 69 A diagonal lattice grid in random purple and green fillets of porphyry (Figs 79, 81A and 95). Where these intersect are single cream white lias tesserae and in the square interspaces, small purple

111

the cosmatesque mosaics of westminster abbey

98  Sanctuary mosaic. Detail of panel 68A, at the junction of two lengths of band 68 (for location, see Fig. 79). Authors

70

71

112

or green poised squares of porphyry.This Phase 1 work is very fine. Later repairs along the east side of the tomb-cover include red Belgian marble, serpentine, Tournai marble, brecciated yellow marble and two strips of white marble, all materials seen in repairs elsewhere and attributed to Phase 2.1. Talman, E.182–1940; Maw 180. A row of tangent alternating purple and green poised squares of porphyry (Fig. 81). At their outer tips are small coloured triangles (effectively truncated squares continuing the general scheme) forming truncated yellow interspaces of white lias at the margins containing purple and green rectangles of porphyry. They are larger on the outer sides of the sinuous bands than on the inner sides reflecting their orientation towards the radial points of panels 36 and 37. Phase 1. Talman, E.182–1940; Maw 181. A similar scheme to band 67, but here it is divided into a row of squares, each containing five smaller chequered poised squares forming quincunxes (Figs 81B and 82). These alternate, yellow with purple and green backgrounds, and purple and green against yellow backgrounds. In the corners of the central squares of the yellow examples are small purple or green triangles, in the others the colours are counter-changed. The resulting patterned ‘squares’ taper towards the radii of the

roundels. Much of the band is original work with purple and green porphyry and white lias: Phase 1. Repairs by Scott along the eastern and northern sides incorporate original materials but occasionally purple tesserae have been replaced by examples of fine pink-grained porphyry, purple porphyry without phenocrysts and the yellow tesserae of white lias with a ‘copper coloured’ stone. Phases 1 and 5. Talman, E.182– 1940; Maw 182. 72 A similar band to 71, but here the row is divided into a ladder-like pattern of rectangles each with a pair of tangent poised squares forming triangular interspaces (Fig. 83).As before, alternate rectangles are shaded purple and green with pairs of squares of yellow white lias superimposed or, conversely, yellow white lias with purple and green squares superimposed. Within the superimposed squares are smaller poised squares creating triangular interspaces of yellow white lias. The east side of the band was restored by Scott, based on extant medieval work on the west side. Phases 1 and 5, the latter verified by Talman’s drawings (E.182– 1940). 73 A band of two rows of outward-pointing purple and green triangles (chequered triangles) of porphyry with smaller triangles in the interspaces (Figs 83 and 84A). Although the eastern extent of the band was restored by Scott with new materials, on the west side it remains substantially medieval and was recorded by Talman (E.182– 1940) and traced by Maw (210). 74 This band envelops the west side of roundel 40 and the east side of the rectangular panel (54) on the eastern axis of the mosaic (Fig. 84A). It has a diagonal grid of chequers in purple and green porphyry and a single example of porfido verde. In square cream white lias interspaces, forming a spine down the centre, is a row of poised squares in the same materials and, in triangular interspaces at the margins, small outward-pointing triangles. Where the band follows the east side of the rectangular panel it has been restored, but on the west side of roundel 40 the band is medieval, with slightly larger squares in the outer row compared to those in the inner row, to allow for their convergence to the radius. Phases 1 and 5. The design was recorded by Talman (E.182–1940) and Maw (183). 75 This borders the west side of rectangle 54 and envelops the east side of roundel 41 (Fig. 92). Its scheme is basically the same as band 81. It has a diagonal grid of narrow rectangular fillets in purple and green porphyry.Where they intersect in the centre of the band white lias interspaces are formed; at the sides are white triangles, also of lias.Within each square of the grid are centrally

4  description of the sanctuary pavement

76

77

78

placed purple or green squares of porphyry (one is Tournai marble) and in the four corners, tangent to the central square, smaller squares of the same materials. The remaining interspaces contain small triangles also of the same materials. Where the design is interrupted by the border the central squares become rectangles. There can be little doubt that the west side of the band is principally medieval and was recorded by Talman, but rebuilt where the band proceeds to envelop roundel 41. Phases 1 and 5. Talman, E.182–1940. Clearly it was surviving in part in 1862, when it was traced by Maw (171). A band of superposed white lias lozenges with their tips tangent to the sides of the band (Fig. 85A). In each lozenge is a purple or green square, mainly of porphyry (apart from repairs) with small triangles of the same materials in the interspaces. Along each side of the band is a row of purple and green porphyry inward-pointing triangles. Same pattern as 84.The east part of the band is restored but the west part survived in 1707, when sketched by Talman (E.182–1940); there was minor restoration by Scott which included red-purple porphyry, without pheno­ crysts, brown and black porphyry and green porphyry with prominent phenocrysts. Phases 1 and 5. Maw shows it surviving in part (Maw 184). A row of almost tangent superposed lozenges each containing and tangent to a rectangle of yellow white lias forming interspaces of purple or green triangles of porphyry at the sides and points (Fig. 85). In triangular interspaces so formed along the sides of the band are yellow arrow points of lias (composed of two tesserae) with re-entrant angles. In the re-entrant angles bordering the band are purple and green triangles of porphyry. Despite reconstruction along the east side, where it passes around panel 42 on the west side, it is substantially medieval. Here, the tesserae forming the arrow points are slightly larger on the outer sides of the curved part of the band than on the inner sides so all points are directed at the radius. This technique was not adopted on the more recent work. Restored tesserae include examples of black and brown porphyry, white marble (possibly Carrara), red/ purple porphyry without phenocrysts, and green porphyry with prominent phenocrysts. Phases 1 and 5. Talman shows the band in his sketch: E.177–1940; Maw 185. Similar to bands 59 and 65, this too has a linear grid of rectangular fillets (Figs 85B and 86A). Those crossing the band at right-angles are yellow white lias and those forming a spine along the band are purple and green porphyry with amber glass at the intersections. Within squares formed

79

80

81

by the fillets are pairs of inward-pointing purple or green triangles of porphyry with smaller triangles of the same materials in the remaining spaces; some of the triangles are of black crinoidal carboniferous limestone. Where the band curves, the fillets taper towards the radii of panels 43 and 44 and the outer squares are slightly larger than the inner. Apart from a few minor repairs, which include white marble and black Meuse limestone, most of the band is Phase 1. Talman, E.177–1940; Maw 186. A scheme based on a diagonal grid of chequers (Fig. 86A). Two rows of tangent poised squares, one of purple and green porphyry, and the other of yellow white lias, follow the curvature of the band, and in white interspaces are chequered triangles of purple and green porphyry, some of granito verde antico and one of Tournai marble; there are repairs in white marble.Where the band curves around panels 44 and 45 the squares on the inner sides are smaller than the outer sides so that their angles align with the radii. A consequence is that the central interspaces are distorted and lozenge-shaped. Phase 1. Talman, E.177–1940. This band encircles roundel 45 and the south side of the southern tomb-cover (Figs 86A and 93A). Its scheme is simply chequers in purple and green porphyry. On the east side of the tomb there is a suggestion that perhaps purple squares occupied one band entirely and green squares occupied the other, but elsewhere the colours are mixed and on the south-east side the yellow/cream white lias tesserae are paler than elsewhere and with repairs of white marble. Here the green porphyry has traces of phenocrysts. In yellow square interspaces are poised purple or green squares; other original materials include granito verde antico and black Meuse limestone. Despite repairs, the pattern has remained substantially unchanged. Phase 1. Talman, E.173–1940. The same scheme as bands 66 and 75. It comprises a diagonal grid of yellow fillets of white lias (forming zigzags); where they intersect along the spine of the band, and at the margins, small purple or green tesserae of porphyry and granito verde antico occur (Figs 86B and 93A).The fillets define squares filled with a central square, smaller squares in the corners and triangles in the interspaces, all of purple or green porphyry. Other types of tesserae include examples of red glass and black and white granite. There are minor repairs using white marble. Where the design runs along a straight section of the band the pattern is regular but where it curves around panel 46, in order to ensure the angles of the zigzags are aligned with the radii, the ‘squares’ take the form of lozenges. Phase 1. Talman, E.173–1940.

113

the cosmatesque mosaics of westminster abbey 82

83

84

85

86

114

A scheme based on a diagonal grid of squares similar to band 62. It has a spine of yellow poised squares of white lias with purple and green triangles of porphyry between them forming half-units of further rows of poised squares (Fig. 86B). In the other half of these ‘squares’ are diminutive purple and green triangles. On the outer sides of the band are rows of inwardpointing triangles with their tips tangent to the corners of the yellow poised squares forming the spine of the pattern.The triangles on the outside of the loops are larger than those on the inside to ensure their tips are aligned with the radii of panels 46 and 47. Apart from some minor restoration (including a tessera of black and white granite) it is Phase 1. Talman, E.173–1940. Similar to band 77, but with arrow points in the opposite direction (Figs 86B and 87A). A row of tangent superposed lozenges of cream lias (composed of four tesserae) each superimposed by recumbent purple or green lozenges and examples of granito verde antico. In purple and green triangular interspaces along the sides of the band are yellow triangles, tangent to one another tip-to-tip. The workmanship is mainly medieval but some of the lozenges of green porphyry contain distinctive phenocrysts characteristic of the porphyry used in Scott’s restorations. Wide interstices suggest many tesserae have been reset. Phase 1, with later repairs. Talman, E.173–1940. A band of superposed lozenges of white lias with their tips tangent to the sides of the band (Fig. 87A). In each lozenge is a purple or green square of porphyry with small triangles of the same materials in the interspaces. Along each side is a row of purple and green inward-pointing triangles of porphyry. Original work throughout: Phase 1. Same scheme as band 76. Talman, E.157–1940. A complex scheme based on a diagonal grid of squares set as chequers; it can also be seen as a row of repeating quincunxes (Fig. 88). Diagonal rows of squares of yellow white lias are tangent to and alternate with purple or green squares of porphyry. White square interspaces are occupied by pairs of green triangles set tip-to-tip forming hourglass motifs. Miscellaneous materials include granito verde antico, Tournai marble and white marble.Where the rows of squares are orientated towards the radii of panels 49 or 50 they are smaller on the concave sides. Similar to band 87. Phase 1. Talman, E.157–1940; Maw 104. This band curves around the east side of roundel 50 and then forms the west border of panel 53 (Fig. 88). In 1706–08, when railings and a central

87

88

gate were installed, this section was destroyed by the insertion of a large rectangular slab of black marble, represented on Talman’s sketches and Ackermann’s aquatint of 1812 (Fig. 18); it was removed in 2010 and the band restored (Figs 203, 204 and 208). Only where it encircles panel 50 is the work medieval, but sufficient survives to establish its scheme, which is based on a lattice pattern forming square interspaces filled with purple or green poised squares of porphyry. Where the lattice bands intersect, squares of porphyry were introduced and the bands further adapted by superimposing upon them pairs of inward-pointing triangles. These are of blue opalesque glass but adjacent to the rectangular panel they are red so it is possible that, originally, the colours of the band counter-changed. Unlike the other bands in the mosaic, glass was used extensively with amber glass filling the interspaces forming the background colour to the two rows of poised squares near to the margins. Presumably the more extensive use of glass tesserae compared to other bands is due to its prominent position. It would be the first part of the pavement to be seen and crossed and was intended to impress. It also explains the need to replace this part of the threshold with a slab of marble; here the mosaic was vulnerable and suffering wear. A false impression is that the interspaces, like some repairs elsewhere, are of plain mortar, but they were the bedding to lost glass tesserae. Phases 1 and 6. Talman, E.157–1940. This borders the east side of the threshold and loops around the west side of roundel 51 (Fig. 89). It is similar to, but a finer example of, the design on band 85. Its scheme is based on a diagonal grid of squares. The diagonal rows alternate: purple or green squares of porphyry, pairs of yellow white lias and purple or green triangles of porphyry (forming squares) and yellow squares of lias. The scheme is medieval but some tesserae have been restored. Miscel­ laneous tesserae used in repairs include brown porphyry and white marble. The north end of the band has been restored, probably in Phase 2, with red Belgian marble, serpentine and Tournai marble. Talman, E.157–1940; Maw 172. Two rows of tangent purple and green triangles forming white triangular interspaces, each containing a purple or green triangle (Figs 89 and 90). The scheme can be seen either as an overall pattern of triangles or of lozenges. Phase 1. Talman, E.166–1940.

4  description of the sanctuary pavement

Panels 89–116: outer border spandrels These are formed between the loops of giant guilloche and the enclosing bands; they are described from the north-west corner clockwise. 89 An arrangement of chequers of plain yellow white lias and central squares filled with purple and green poised squares of porphyry, granito verde antico and with smaller squares of purple and green porphyry in each corner (Fig. 77). In the interspaces are small inward-pointing triangles of the same materials. Phase 1 work, apart from some minor repairs, including the use of brown porphyry and white marble.Talman, E.166–1940. 90 A post-medieval restoration in the same style and of the same date as panels 11, 12, 13, 30 and 94. It has a symmetrical pattern with an arrangement of triangles, hexagons, trapezia and lozenges designed specifically to fit the spandrel. Materials used include; white marble, serpentine, red Belgian marble (rouge de Rance and rouge royal), Tournai marble and yellow brecciated marble. The original pattern was possibly an arrangement of triangles such as 92. Phase 3.2. Talman, E.166– 1940; Maw 200. 91 A pattern of reducing triangles in purple and green porphyry and white lias (Fig. 79). Probably Phase 1, except for the narrow terminals which are repairs. Talman, E.166–1940. 92 A pattern of chequered triangles of purple and green porphyry with small triangles of the same materials in the white interspaces (Fig. 79). Phase 1, but with minor repairs to the terminals.Talman, E.166–1940. 93 This spandrel contains a large rectangle of green porphyry flanked with patterns of reducing purple and green triangles of porphyry (Fig. 81). The background tesserae are white marble, which have been replaced, excepting the east terminal where the white tesserae are of lias and are original. The large rectangle of porphyry is also a repair; two of its edges are bevelled and its surface, machine polished. Nevertheless, much is Phase 1, and the overall design little changed. Talman, E.182–1940. 94 Post-medieval restoration with a pattern com­ posed of a large central lozenge flanked by triangles, trapezia and parallelograms (Fig. 76B). Materials include; white Carrara marble, red Belgian marble, serpentine, Tournai marble and pink brecciated marble. Phase 3.2, with mortar patching at the terminals. Talman, E.182–1940; Maw 205. 95 A pattern of reducing purple and green triangles of porphyry on a background of yellow white lias triangles (Figs 81B and 82). Phase 1, apart

from a patch of Tournai and white marble at the west terminal. Talman, E.182–1940, 72. 96 An arrangement of plain yellow lias and patterned chequers with alternate squares centrally filled with purple or green poised squares and smaller squares of porphyry in each corner (Fig. 82). In the remaining spaces are small inward-pointing triangles of the same materials. Restored by Scott but with a design based on the original; the squares of white marble are replacements of white lias. Other materials include fine red/purple porphyry without phenocrysts, black and white porphyry, green porphyry with prominent phenocrysts, brown porphyry and pink brecciated marble. It has the same pattern at panel 89. Phase 1. Not recorded by Talman or Maw. Note: since this panel (and its equivalent (103) in the south-east corner), were not recorded by either Talman or Maw, they evidently remained sealed and protected until the time of Scott’s restoration. Both are almost certainly original and perhaps sufficient survived for Scott to restore rather than replace them as he did with panels 38–43. 97 A pattern of reducing triangles in purple and green porphyry, attributable to Scott’s restoration (Fig. 83). Materials include; purple porphyry (of two types), green porphyry (with prominent phenocrysts) and black porphyry. The back­ ground tesserae are white lias.The pattern reflects original work elsewhere on the mosaic so is likely to be generally correct. Phase 5. 98 An arrangement of reducing triangles in purple and green porphyry against a background of white lias (Fig. 84A). Other materials include examples of granito verde antico. Phase 1. Talman, E.182–1940; Maw 70. 99 An arrangement of reducing triangles in purple and green porphyry (Fig. 84A). This is likely to be Scott’s work. Materials include red/purple porphyry without phenocrysts, brown porphyry, black porphyry, green porphyry with prominent phenocrysts and purple porphyry with pink inclusions. Two triangles are of granito verde antico and almost certainly derive from the original material. Phase 5. 100 This spandrel has a large green triangle of porphyry in the centre and patterns of smaller purple and green triangles of porphyry in the white lias interspaces; one of the triangles is of granito verde antico (Fig. 85A). Despite the central green triangle of porphyry having distinctive phenocrysts it is not a repair and its edges are grozed; minor repairs are evidenced by the use of red/purple porphyry without phenocrysts and white marble but the panel is substantially Phase 1 work. Talman, E.182–1940; Maw 184.

115

the cosmatesque mosaics of westminster abbey 101 An all-over pattern of purple and green chequered triangles of porphyry with smaller triangles of the same materials in the interspaces of white lias; exceptions include white marble, black and white porphyry and red /purple porphyry without phenocrysts (Fig. 85A). Rebuilt by Scott, but modelled on similar patterns elsewhere. Some green porphyry tesserae include distinctive phenocrysts indicative of Scott’s repairs but others do not, suggesting the reuse of original materials. Phase 5. 102 A copy of band 98 with a pattern of purple and green reducing triangles of porphyry (Fig. 85). Rebuilt by Scott, using a miscellany of materials, including white marble, red/purple porphyry without phenocrysts, green porphyry with phenocrysts and Africano marble from Turkey. Phase 5. 103 This panel occupies the south-east corner of the pavement (Fig. 85B). It has a grid composed of thin oblong bands. East-west bands are white and originally of white lias, and the north-south bands, purple and green porphyry. At the inter­ sections are pairs of tiny triangles of purple and green porphyry and in the square interspaces, reducing triangles of the same materials. The panel has been heavily restored with white marble, black and brown porphyry, green por­ phyry with distinctive phenocrysts, black Tournai marble and red Belgian marble. Despite these interventions, the panel is basically Phase 1 work; its tesserae are possibly the finest in the whole pavement with 105 tesserae per 10cm square. Not recorded by either Talman or Maw (see note following description of panel 96). 104 Tangent bands alternating white lias and purple or green porphyry (Fig. 85B). The white bands have purple or green poised squares and the others, yellow poised squares of lias. Miscellaneous materials include black porphyry and red/purple porphyry without phenocrysts. However,Talman shows it with an arrangement of reducing triangles around a large triangle of serp. (green porphyry), so we must assume the panel was restored by Scott. Phase 5(?).Talman, E.177–1940. 105 This contains two large outward-pointing triangles, one of green porphyry and the other of onyx banded white, yellow, orange and red. In triangles of white lias between and west of them are reducing triangles, and in the triangular space on the east, chequered triangles (Fig. 86A).Talman describes the banded triangle as ‘alabaster’ and ‘orientale’, so it has not changed substantially since 1707 although the interspaces on the east side are of white marble indicative of repairs. Repairs are also suggested by the patterns on either side of the large triangles having different

116

106

107

108

109

alignments. Miscellaneous materials in repairs include white marble, corallina breccia, and possibly red/purple porphyry without phenocrysts. Despite restorations, the basic pattern is original. Phase 1 and later. Talman, E.177–1940. The filling of this panel is now similar to 104, having been restored to its present form in 2010 (p. 176; Figs 86A and 162). Talman’s and Maw’s records show it with a circular stone of ‘serpen­ tine’ flanked by small triangles. The disc was lost some time after 1863. Talman shows the back­ ground with rows of poised squares and triangles in a banded arrangement, as restored in 2010, but by then the panel was very damaged and had been pierced by a 30mm diameter borehole and levelled with cement (perhaps the disc was stolen and hence the void available to make the borehole: p. 160). There are no other examples of stone discs filling interspaces on the pavement, only the large slabs in the medallions. Materials of the tesserae include: white marble, white lias, green porphyry with and without phenocrysts, purple porphyry and polychrome brecciated marble in white and dark red (different from elsewhere). Phases 1 and 6. Talman, E.177–1940; Maw 204. A large green triangle of porphyry occupies the centre and, beneath and on either side of it, arrangements of reducing triangles in purple and green porphyry with white lias interspaces (Fig. 86B). Probably medieval, but with minor repairs to the edges of the panel where white marble rather than white lias has been used. Other repairs include green porphyry with phenocrysts and a tessera of granito verde antico. Phase 1 and later. Talman, E.173–1940. A rectangular slab of purple porphyry occupies the centre of the panel and above and on either side of it, arrangements of reducing triangles in purple and green porphyry (Fig. 86B).The colour and texture of the slab of purple porphyry are the same as that covering the elevations of Henry III’s tomb. Phase 1, but with minor restorations including white marble, green porphyry with phenocrysts and red/purple porphyry without phenocrysts. Talman, E.173–1940. Same as 104, 106 and 110. As noted from Talman’s sketches, Panels 104 and 106 (once with a green roundel) are different today and have been replaced by rows of small poised squares. Panel 109 is likewise (Fig. 86B). Unfortunately,Talman’s sketches of the mosaic at this point are ambiguous; he shows the panel void but below it is a curved line leading across from Panel 110 indicating, possibly, that its decoration was duplicated. From this evidence, the medieval filling was a pattern of small triangles and not rows of small chequers.

4  description of the sanctuary pavement

110

111

112

113

114

115

However, the existing workmanship appears to be original (excepting minor repairs along the southern edge which include, white marble and a tessera of granito verde antico). Phase 1. Talman, E.173–1940. Same as 109.An error of registration has occurred at this point. A narrow space has developed between the outer border and the loop of guilloche around panel 48 (Fig. 87A). Con­ sequently, the outer row of poised squares runs between them to form part of the decoration in 109. Probably not medieval; the presence of prominent phenocrysts suggests repairs by Scott (see 109). Phases 1 and 5. Talman, E.173–1940. The same pattern as 103; a grid of oblong tesserae, green examples of porphyry running east-west and yellow examples of white lias, north-south with blue glass tesserae at the intersections (Fig. 87A). The interspaces contain, predominantly, pairs of purple and green porphyry triangles, but turquoise glass and granito verde antico are also present. Phase 1. Talman, E.174–1940. This has a central dark green six-lozenge star of serpentine with triangles of yellow brecciated marble between the points, forming a hexagon. In the outer spaces are arrangements of triangles of Tournai marble, serpentine, and purple and white brecciated marble (Fig. 88). Post-medieval, in a style similar to panels 12, 13 and 30 which are probably contemporaneous. Phase 2–3.2. Talman, E.174–1940; Maw 96. A pattern of chequered triangles of purple and green porphyry (and one of granito verde antico) with small triangles of white lias in the interspaces (Fig. 88). Phase 1, but with minor repairs using white marble and black porphyry.Talman, E.174– 1940; Maw 202. This panel is occupied by two large green triangles of porphyry with reducing triangles of purple and green porphyry in the interspaces (Fig. 89). It is mainly medieval but its northern extent is inconsistent; the interstices between tesserae are wide, possibly indicating that some of them have been re-set and this is verified by the tesserae of serpentine, white marble, red Belgian marble, black porphyry and machine-cut green porphyry with phenocrysts. Phase 1, and later. Talman, E.157–1940. A large rectangle of purple porphyry occupies the centre and reducing triangles of purple and green porphyry in the remaining spaces (Fig. 90). The northern part is medieval but the southern seems to have been replaced, including the purple rectangle which has sharp, possibly machine-cut, edges. The original interspaces are of white lias and the repairs, in white marble. Mainly Phase 1. Talman, E.166–1940.

116 A large rectangle of green porphyry occupies the centre and arrangements of triangles of green and purple porphyry in the remaining spaces (Fig. 90). Some of the white interspaces are of white lias but repairs are indicated by the use of white marble and white and purple brecciated marble. Nevertheless, it is mainly Phase 1. Talman, E.166–1940.

Panels 117–136: miscellaneous small compartments Compartments 117–120 are ‘tuning-fork’ shaped spaces formed between the inner loops of the guilloche and enclasping the outside angles of the inscribed square band bordering the main panel of the mosaic. Curiously, their tesserae are smaller than most elsewhere on the mosaic. The other compartments are tiny spaces near the angles of the rectangular panels, four on each side. 117 An all-over pattern of green and yellow triangles of white lias and porphyry, respectively, arranged as chequers (Fig. 90). Phase 1, but the ‘points’ of the panel have been repaired with white marble and black and white porphyry. Talman, E.166– 1940; Maw 179. 118 Purple and green chequers of porphyry (and one of granito verde antico) set diagonally within the panel and containing poised squares of white lias in the interspaces (Fig. 83). Phase 1. Talman, E.182–1940. 119 Same as 118. Purple and green porphyry (also with examples of granito verde antico) with white lias interspaces (Fig. 85A). Phase 1, but with restoration on the south-east terminal, including white marble tesserae and green porphyry with prominent phenocrysts. Talman, E.177–1940; Maw 185. 120 A chequered arrangement of brown-red and black tesserae. It is a post-medieval repair, probably of Phase 2.1 (Fig. 87A). Its materials include, red Belgian marble, serpentine, and purple and green porphyry; its interspaces are of lime mortar without tesserae. Talman, E.173–40; Maw 103. 121–136  All sixteen panels contain tiny triangles and need not be described further.They are probably primary, with the exception of 131, which was patched when panel 28 was restored (Phase 2).

117

the cosmatesque mosaics of westminster abbey

N

Inscription A

Inscription B

Inscription C

99  Sanctuary pavement. Inscriptions A–C, reconstructed. David S Neal

118

4  description of the sanctuary pavement THE FRAME INSCRIPTIONS /··-·----

The pavement formerly carried four inscriptions, all made of latten (brass), and set into the Purbeck marble framing (Fig. 99). They will be described from the centre outwards. A. B. C. D.

Occupies the circular band around the central medallion (panel 1). Runs continuously around the outer lobes of the central quincunx. Runs around all four sides of the great square. Inset around the perimeter of the tomb-cover of Abbot Ware (panel 56).

Transcriptions made in the 15th century record all four texts. Inscriptions B and D are now entirely lost, but A and C largely survive, either as letters or indents. Many of the indents are well preserved, displaying chased strokes, curves and serifs, enabling verification of lost letters (shown on Figures 100, 103 and 104 in small Roman characters). In some instances traces remains of the dark brown mastic in which the letters were once set. Their fonts are mixed. The letter ‘M’, for example, includes both Lombardic and Roman styles and there is evidence that some had been replaced, resulting in the indents being re-cut.

�-\ ·-..

.

♦ ♦

0

TYPUM

7, '/

GL

♦

6

t

�---

'?

1 I\:! �

:

\

'-.,___ __ ./

((� �

((- - -- i \ c'"�

. I

I\

/

i (

(�_)

0

5

'

r------�
.

.. \✓/

( (-'-

\ \ ,,

I \' "\ • i

;; l VI \ j \i--'