- Vidimus - http://vidimus.org -
Posted By ltempest On July 13, 2011 @ 5:18 pm In | Comments Disabled
This month we are delighted to publish fascinating new research by Professor Richard Marks on the late medieval glazing of St Margaret’s, Westminster. Richard is the author of the standard work on Stained Glass in England during the Middle Ages and many other books. He is a member of the CVMA GB National Committee. This important article reveals much about the patronage, design and craftsmanship of stained glass in the years around 1500.
Like a cutter in the lee of a man-of-war, the parish church of St Margaret’s, Westminster is dwarfed by the vast bulk of the abbey church of St Peter. [Fig.1] Although lacking the regal functions and international artistic status of the latter, St Margaret’s has its own significance. A fine example of a spacious early Tudor edifice rebuilt between 1486–8 and 1523, its costly fittings and furnishings were funded by donations and bequests from its numerous wealthy and well-connected parishioners. Amongst them was Robert Hunt, whose will makes provision for the glazing of a major window in the church. [Fig. 2] It is of exceptional interest in the degree of detail provided regarding content, the model to be followed, the identification of the glass-painter and provision of materials as well as cost. The relevant extract is as follows:
Also whereas I the said Robert Hunt hath covenanted with oone Adryan a glasyer dwellyng within Seint Thomas Spitell wtin Sowthwerk in the Countie of Surrey to glase the west wyndow of the parissh church of Seint Margaret aforesaid according to the makyng of storyes scriptures and effect of vj new wyndowes standyng next unto the doore on the north side of the chapell of my said lord Cardinall that is to sey iij wyndowes of iij storyes of the old lawe and iij other wyndowes of iij storyes of the new lawe. And to make and sett wtin thesame west wyndow in suche place as shalbe thought most convenyent the Image of Seint Peter Seint Edward Seint Thomas of Canterbury Seint Gregory Seint Jerom Seint Erasmus Seint John Baptist Seint John Evangelist Seint Antony Seint Jamys Seint Ursula and Seint Kateryn. And wt the Image of my fader and his ij sones and the Image of my moder and viij doughters wt their armes. And towarde the makyng and p’formaunce of the same I have delyv’d unto the hande of thesaid Adrian ij & di waw of glase and xls in money and ov’ that thesaid Adryan must have over and above thesame vj li which I wooll that my seid Executors content and pay at suche tyme as thesaid wyndowe shalbe glased and fynysshed. And I reqwyre my said executors that they cause the said window to be glased and fynnysshed in as goodely hast as may be done after my decesse.
First some details about the testator. These are sparse. Robert Hunt made his will on 1 June 1499 and died soon after as the will was proved on 1 July; a payment is also recorded in the St Margaret’s churchwardens’ accounts for 1499–1500 at the tolling of the ‘grete belle’ for his funerary knell. He stipulated burial within Westminster Abbey, but it is not clear what connection he had with the monastery. That he had high ecclesiastical connections is implied by the mention of his chamber at Lambeth, which presumably was in the Archbishop of Canterbury’s palace. This, and references to the chapel and a servant of ‘my lord Cardynall’, suggest that he was employed in some capacity by John Morton, Archbishop of Canterbury 1485–1500, created Cardinal in 1493. In addition to being a parishioner of St Margaret’s, bequests to the parish churches at Lambeth, Wandsworth (also to poor householders of the town here), Battersea and Croydon, and a reference to Mortlake Park indicates that Robert had close connections with those parts of Surrey bordering on and adjacent to the Thames.
Robert Hunt described himself as a ‘gentilman’ and his bequests reveal that he was well-endowed with worldly goods, including woodland. His familial connections were commercial. One of his two named brothers-in-law was a linen-draper and the other a Merchant Taylor, both of London; a bequest was also made to a ‘clothman’ of Suffolk. The absence of any reference to a wife and children in the will, even in obit provisions, and the legacies made to his sisters suggest that Robert was a bachelor. Four nephews and nieces were also beneficiaries, including Johanne, for whose future marriage he left a gold ring, a pair of coral beads ‘gawdid’ with silver-gilt and 20 ewes and 20 lambs. His own and his sisters’ servants are mentioned, and one Edward Freeman, who may also have had a chamber at Lambeth, was to receive the bulk of his household goods and furnishings. The precision of the will indicates a fastidious, if not pernickety, and well-to-do individual. This brings us back to the glazing clause.
At the time Robert Hunt made his will a contract for glazing the west window of St Margaret’s had already been drawn up between him and the glass-painter, Adrian, of the parish of St Thomas Spitall in Southwark. Adrian had received the necessary glass (two and a half wawes) from Robert, plus an advance of 40s.; the balance of £6 would be paid by the executors when the window was finished as expeditiously as possible after Robert’s decease. A wawe seems to have weighed around 360 lbs, meaning that Robert supplied 900 lbs of glass. White glass supplied for Lady Margaret Beaufort’s residence at Collyweston (Northamptonshire) in the early 16th century cost 30 shillings per wawe, exclusive of carriage. As we can assume that Robert’s window included considerable quantities of coloured as well as white glass, the cost would have been considerably in excess of this. Adrian is almost certainly identifiable as Adrian Andru, one of the craftsmen from either the Netherlands or German-speaking lands who settled in England from the end of the 15th century (see Note below). The alien craftsmen congregated principally in Southwark as it lay outside the jurisdiction of the hostile London Glaziers’ Company. Adrian Andru was a member of a team of glass-painters working with Barnard Flower (King’s Glazier probably from the 1490s) at the Tower of London, Westminster Hall and the royal palaces at Eltham and Greenwich between 1500 and 1502. Andru was paid a wage for these tasks and his involvement was not on the scale of Hunt’s commission. It is possible that Andru was one of Flower’s companions when he arrived in England (by 1496).
The imagery specified by Hunt for his window can be grouped under three headings: historiated, hagiographical and familial. The first consists of ‘storyes’ and ‘scriptures’ based on the contents of six new windows on the north side of the chapel of ‘my said lord Cardinall’ (Morton), three of which (according to Hunt) contained ‘iij storyes of the old lawe’ and the other three ‘iij storyes of the new lawe’, i.e. scenes from the Old and New Testament. The hagiographical component comprises the dozen named saints: Peter, Edward the Confessor, Thomas Becket, Gregory, Jerome, Erasmus, John the Baptist, John the Evangelist, Anthony, James, Ursula and Katherine. Hunt’s choice presumably reflected his own personal devotional preferences to some extent. A few call for comment. St Peter was of course the patron saint of Westminster Abbey, where Hunt desired to be interred, and its most important shrine was that of St Edward the Confessor. John the Baptist and John the Evangelist were also significant at the Abbey and one of the guilds at St Margaret’s was dedicated to St John. Erasmus was one of a number of early saints whose cults were re-heated and imported into England towards the end of the Middle Ages. He too was prominent at Westminster. A chapel in St Margaret’s was dedicated to him, in which his image must have been displayed. Elizabeth Woodville founded another chapel in his honour in the Abbey in gratitude for her husband Edward IV’s preservation from drowning through his intercession. Erasmus also occurs amongst the stone saints in Henry VII’s Chapel, begun three years after Hunt’s decease.
The overwhelming preponderance of male saints in Hunt’s list may or may not have meant something – there were more men than women venerated as saints in the Middle Ages – but the two female saints demand comment. Like St Erasmus, St Katherine featured amongst the images in St Margaret’s church, but eclipsed him in importance. Her image occupied the place of honour on the south side of the high altar, where she was paired with the patronal image of St Margaret on the north side; both were placed in elaborate and costly gilded wooden tabernacles. St Ursula was another early cult-figure who enjoyed a renaissance in the 15th century. Allegedly the daughter of a fourth-century British king, she was popular in Cologne (where her relics and those of the 11000 virgins martyred with her were kept) and the Netherlands. There are not many recorded English representations, but that some could be found in ports like York, Bristol, Rochester and Sandwich may indicate the importation of her cult through trade routes. More closely to Hunt, John Flete, the historian of Westminster Abbey (1420-66), recorded that Thomas, Earl of Lancaster had given the head (!) of St Ursula to the monastery. Hunt presumably hoped that this ‘holie companie of heven’ would intercede for his soul and those of his parents and his brother and sisters.
Their representations are the familial element in the window. Their status in this world was to be acknowledged by the inclusion of their shields of arms and, although Hunt does not mention inscriptions, it can be assumed that their images would have been accompanied by texts. The absence of any direct self-referencing calls for comment. One can only conclude that Hunt was represented merely with his siblings. The possibility therefore has to be entertained that he was not the actual donor of the window but, perhaps belatedly, was executing the testamentary provisions of one or both of his parents – by no means an unknown phenomenon in the later Middle Ages. On the other hand the apparent reluctance to foreground his own image chimes with the tone of self-effacement evident in his funerary instructions: ‘my body wtoute pompe or pride of the worlde to be buryed wtin the monastery of Seint Peter of Westm’ bifore the Image of owr lady…’. Wherever the truth may lie, Hunt’s memorializing stipulation is a salutary warning against the dangers of assuming that familial representations invariably are identifiable as the donors of the window in which they appear and hence can be used as reliable evidence for the dating of the glass.
So far so good. However, closer interrogation of the will reveals that things are not as straightforward as they might seem. Firstly, there is the question of the source cited for the Old and New Testament scenes. The obvious candidate for Morton’s chapel is that in his palace at Lambeth, where as we have seen Hunt had a chamber. The problem is that the ‘vj new wyndowes standyng next unto the doore on the north side of the chapell’ as described by Hunt do not correspond with the fenestration of Lambeth Palace chapel as it exists. There is a door on the north side of the ante-chapel which forms part of the so-called Lollards’ Tower, the cellar and two lower storeys of which were erected by Archbishop Chichele in 1434–5. It leads to the upper floors of this building which Tim Tatton-Brown suggests were erected in Cardinal Morton’s time, together with other structures. However, at this period the windows of the original chapel, dating from c.1218–28, consisted of four three-light windows on the north and south sides, and five-light windows in the east and west facades (today there only three on the north side thanks to the construction by Archbishop Cranmer of a tower and stair-turret on the easternmost bay). [Fig 3.] In other words, there never were six windows on the north side. Perhaps Hunt was confused by works still in progress and he meant three windows of the windows on each side. If so, it would be out of tune with the precision of the will as a whole. However, that this may have been what he meant is indicated by a description published in 1695, but purportedly written by Archbishop Laud (executed 1645). This states that each window contained the New Testament ‘antitypes’ in the centre light, flanked by the pair of Old Testament ‘types’, i.e. the windows were arranged typologically, on the lines of the 40-leaf block-book edition of the Biblia Pauperum first produced in the Netherlands in c.1464–5. The latter would have been familiar to Adrian Andru and had also been used as a model by English glass-painters from at least 1480, as for example in the chancel glazing of Tattershall collegiate church (Lincs.). [Fig 4] The same source says that Morton’s device of a mort (a falcon) on a tun was also present in the glazing, strengthening the likelihood that Hunt’s model was the glazing installed by his patron at Lambeth. Indeed, it is conceivable that Adrian was the glass-painter who designed and painted the Lambeth windows, hence his selection by Hunt to execute his window at St Margaret’s. There still remains the problem of Hunt’s description of the windows as separating, not combining typologically, the Old and the New Testament episodes. An alternative source could have been the archiepiscopal palace at Croydon, the chapel of which was also rebuilt by Morton. A bequest by Hunt to Croydon parish church as well as his connections with Morton indicate that he must have been familiar with this building. Like its counterpart at Lambeth the Croydon chapel also survives, with three-light (Perpendicular) windows in the lateral elevations and a seven-light east window; there is also a north entrance to it. Here however there are only five side windows (three on the north and two on the south side) and nothing is recorded of their original glazing. On balance therefore, Croydon can be discounted as Hunt’s model. That he doesn’t give the location of the chapel reinforces the probability that it was the one at Lambeth.
Then there are the handicaps imposed by the design of the window, the stonework of which still survives, albeit restored. [Fig 5] This, like the church as a whole, was almost certainly the work of Robert Stowell, master of the Westminster Abbey masons between 1471 and his death in 1505. A thought should be spared for the glazier, who found himself (metaphorically) between the rock of the donor’s requirements and (literally) the hard place of the mason’s design. For medieval glass-painters it was normal to be faced with the fait accompli of the stonework of a window, but to accommodate New and Old Testament narrative scenes, a dozen saints and representations of the Hunt family within a Perpendicular window of five main lights and six larger and two smaller tracery lights must have presented a real challenge (the old illustrations which show only three main lights are inaccurate). Conventionally the arrangement of the window might be expected to have the ‘donor’ family at the base with the principal subject-matter occupying the major part of the main lights and the saints in the tracery lights. One solution would have been to use the pair of outermost main lights as well as the tracery for the saints. This was the scheme adopted a quarter of a century later by a Netherlandish glazier for a chapel east window in one of Cardinal Wolsey’s establishments, but here he had eleven main lights in which to deploy the Crucifixion and other Passion scenes. At St Margaret’s, the filling of the outer lights with saints would have left only three main lights for the Old and New Testament scenes. A hint that Hunt was cognizant of the difficulties is contained in the clause in the will referring to the designated saints and his family representations to be ‘sett wtin thesame west wyndow in suche place as shalbe thought most convenyent’.
Adrian must have overcome the difficulties one way or another, for by good fortune the installation of his glazing can be traced in the very detailed churchwardens’ accounts. Hunt made his will at a point when the reconstruction and enlargement of St Margaret’s was well under way. Work commenced in 1486–8 with the building of a new south aisle to the existing nave which was completed by Easter 1490. Two years later attention turned to the nave proper. By 1499–1500 the old nave had been demolished and entirely replaced, in which year a payment of 30s. was made to the masons’ foreman for completing the new structure. The following year (1500–1) Hunt’s window features in the accounts. A labourer was paid 10d. for two and a half days’ work ‘aboute wyndowe that mr hunte dede make’ and two sacks of lime were purchased for the same window. That this was indeed the west window is confirmed by the purchase of 38 ‘soudeled barres’ (saddle-bars) from Christopher Smith for it. Most relevant of all is the payment of 4d. ‘to the glasiers men that set up the same wyndowe for a Reward’. In the accounts for 1501–2 there is a further reference to the glazing of the window when the wife of John Denys, a churchwarden, was reimbursed for providing a breakfast for ‘John Gerard and the glasiers the tyme that he made bargeyn for the glasyng of the west wyndowe’. Gerard had also served as a churchwarden, in 1488–90, so the ‘bargeyn’ probably refers to the implementation of Hunt’s contract.
The accounts demonstrate that Hunt’s sister Elizabeth and her husband as executors were diligent in ensuring that his window was ‘glased and fynnysshed in…goodely hast’ (not always the case). One can only speculate about the circumstances in which Hunt made his will. He died within a month of doing so, perhaps indicating that he was already seriously ill and wished to put his affairs in order. Such is the care and precision with which he assigned his worldly goods that it is easy to conjure up an image of Hunt writing or dictating his will with inventories of his lands and goods before him, and perhaps also his contract with Adrian Andru. Apart from the as yet unreconstructed chancel with its east window, the west window of the nave provided the largest and most prominent field for painted glass in the entire church. As such, its subject-matter and design were of exceptional importance. Whether the churchwardens approached Hunt to fund glazing, whether they nominated the glass-painter and whether they had a say in, or even determined, the religious subject-matter remain unknown. Yet the tenor of the will suggests that it was made by a man who knew his own mind. Hunt’s acquaintance with Andru suggests that he moved in the elite circles which patronised foreign craftsmen, also hinted at by his possession of a ‘prymar of beyond the see’ – either a Book of Hours illuminated in Flanders or printed in Paris or Rouen. In any event, Southwark was hardly far from Hunt’s own sphere of activities and he was familiar with the windows across the river in Lambeth Palace chapel which were probably the work of alien craftsmen, even of Adrian Andru himself.
The St Margaret’s accounts raise wider questions about the processes involved in glazing major parish churches around 1500. What is omitted from the record is as significant as what is included. In English parish churches, although nave windows were the responsibility of the parishioners, I have long been puzzled as to why so few references to glazing are to be found in churchwardens’ accounts. St Margaret’s is no exception. The existence of a contract for Hunt’s window might explain why his bequest does not feature in the receipts, but given the ambitious nave rebuilding programme then in progress, it is surprising that there is little trace of individual donations or of collective fund-raising activities for the glazing, unlike those recorded for the roodscreen and images which featured in the rich liturgical life of the parish. The accounts include only two other references to the glazing. In 1498–9 a sack of lime was purchased ‘for a glas wyndowe that James Feet sat up’. Feet, or Fytte, was a London tailor who in 1474–5 served as warden of the major guild at St Margaret’s, that of the Assumption of the Virgin Mary. In the same year (1501–2) that the glaziers of Hunt’s window were given breakfast, Christopher Smith was paid for saddle-bars for a second window made (i.e. funded) by Lady Joan Moreland, wife of another warden of the Assumption fraternity, as well as for the north aisle west window.
Why are there only records of three individuals in connection with windows in the accounts? The conclusion must be that the glazing was not considered to be a communal responsibility, but was personalized, the windows being the gift of individuals, families or other social groups. The windows funded by Hunt, Fytte and Lady Moreland are all mentioned within the years 1498–1502 and two of them were in the west façade of the church; the churchwardens therefore may have considered them a priority for glazing. That this was so is suggested by the payment of 2s. 8d. in 1503–4 to William White for the glazing of two windows ‘in Gabyll end of ye Chyrche’. This is a very small sum and probably indicates it was for clear glass. It is not certain which windows are meant, but likely candidates are the pair of clerestory windows immediately adjacent to the west window, perhaps because scaffolding was still in place from the installation of Hunt’s glass. Other windows were given temporary fillings in this phase of the rebuilding, for in the 1499–1500 accounts there is a payment for ‘rede to stope ye wyndowes’ and for two men for doing so. Nevertheless, the question still remains as to why there are no other references to the nave glazing, which at this time comprised twenty windows plus the clerestory (the windows in the choir aisles are included as an extension of the nave, but omitted are the chancel east window and subsequent alterations). One hypothesis is that Fytte, Lady Moreland and Hunt are only mentioned because some ancillary work to their windows, which the parish had to fund, was required. The first two were still alive at the time and hence presumably were responsible for the glazing costs and the necessary arrangements. Hunt was dead, so the contract he had agreed with Adrian had to be implemented by the churchwardens in association with his executors. The ‘Reward’ paid to the glaziers (which sounds like a bonus) must have fallen outside the terms of the contract and thus likewise would have been a charge on the parish, not the executors. In other words, an explanation for the absence of any reference to other donors of the nave windows in the churchwardens’ accounts is that, like Hunt, they made their own agreements with the glaziers and, in normal circumstances, met all the costs, including transportation of the glass and its installation (unless it was part of the contract that the charges for the latter would be at the glaziers’ expense). There may be wills by other parishioners or those with connections with St Margaret’s which include glazing bequests, although in my experience such provision is not very common. Nonetheless, it is still a problem that there are no references to saddle-bars and/or sacks of lime for any other nave windows (in 1499–1500 the former were provided for a window adjacent to a parishioner’s house, but its location is not clear– even if it was part of the church).
Precisely when the glazing of St Margaret’s was completed is unknown. After the nave was ready a pause occurred until 1515, when work started on a tower at the north-west end, to be finished in 1523. The reconstruction of the chancel was undertaken between 1517 and 1518 by the monks of Westminster Abbey as rector and with the aid of a large contribution from the parishioners. The work included the glazing of the east window at the substantial cost to the monks of £15 7s. 4d. i.e. almost twice the price of Hunt’s window at the opposite end of the church. The churchwardens’ accounts record a payment of 18s. to ‘Symonds Glasier’ for repairs in 1520–21, including the imagery, and for some heraldic glass in 1540. Symonds, a parishioner of St Margaret’s, is identifiable as the Simon Symondes who in company with Francis Williamson contracted to make four windows for King’s College Chapel, Cambridge in 1526. By the time of his documented involvement with his own parish church, it already possessed at least two major windows, one of which was by an alien glazier. If Symondes’ activities were more extensive than is indicated by the accounts, the engagement of a craftsman who was considered sufficiently proficient to be employed on the most prestigious glazing project of the day suggests that St Margaret’s could boast of a fine and very up-to-date set of windows.
Notwithstanding the numerous ifs, buts and maybes, Robert Hunt’s will has ramifications which extend beyond the walls and windows of St Margaret’s church. Firstly, his nomination of twelve saints in addition to the principal subject-matter is a warning not to overlook the significance of imagery normally relegated to tracery lights. Secondly, in conjunction with the churchwardens’ accounts, his will suggests that glazing in late medieval parish churches, at least of the nave, was funded by individuals (or groups of individuals) rather than by the entire lay community – and inter alia provides an explanation of why there are so few references to glazing in parish documents. The extant and relatively complete early 16th-century glazing at St Neot (Cornwall) and St Michael-le-Belfrey, York may therefore be explicable within such a social framework.
There are also implications for the activities of the first generation of foreign glass-painters settled in England from the end of the 15th century. If the Lambeth (and/or indeed the Croydon chapel windows) were commissioned by Cardinal Morton from Adrian Andru, it would support the evidence of the ‘Royal’ window of Canterbury Cathedral (c.1482–7 and associated with Archbishop Bourchier) and glazing at Stamford St Martin’s (Cambs.) (c.1480–94, the patron of which was Bishop John Russell of Lincoln) that members of the church hierarchy in England were prominent in patronising the new mode. Whether or not Adrian Andru was involved with Lambeth Palace, the commissioning of an important window from him is a reminder that Barnard Flower was not the only foreign-born glass-painter to secure major work. Indeed for at least one royal project, the temporary glazing for Katherine of Aragon’s lodgings at the time of her marriage to Prince Arthur in November 1501, Adrian Andru and Barnard Flower were the sole suppliers of the glass and thus may have been in some sort of partnership. At the very least, Hunt’s will suggests that caution needs to be exercised before associating Flower with every extant glazing scheme executed by immigrant craftsmen in the years around 1500.
The will also shows that before the turn of the century the Netherlandish mode of glass-painting was already considered suitable for a parish church, albeit one of great importance. Indeed, St Margaret’s predates its great neighbour in this respect. As late as 1507–10, Westminster Abbey entrusted the glazing of nave windows to Richard Twygge, a glazier from Malvern, and it was not until about the end of the first decade of the 16th century that the community turned to the Southwark-based glass-painters to glaze its magnificent new Lady Chapel (now known as Henry VII’s Chapel). Seen in the light of St Margaret’s, an early date for the windows in the parish church of Fairford does not seem so exceptional.
If donor intentions (and the real nature of their faith) ultimately remain irrecoverable, within the discourse of conventional piety the voices of Hunt and other testators can at least be heard through their wills. In his window the public and private spheres overlapped and represent what Eamon Duffy has characterized as the personalization of parish church space in late medieval England. By contributing to the common good of the parish through filling the largest and most prominent window in the nave with rich imagery, Hunt no doubt perceived his bequest as an act which counted as a ‘good work’ and hence would, like other ‘deeds of charity’ stipulated in his will, alleviate his soul’s time in Purgatory. The presence in his window of representations of himself, his parents, brother and sisters was not merely commemorative, but designed to solicit prayers from viewers for their souls, especially on the occasion of the obit or anniversary that Hunt also instructed his executors to provide in St Margaret’s for all of them for the term of three years.
Alas, as is so often the case, it is not possible to match the rich documentation with the window itself. Sadly for Hunt, the entire system of belief on which Purgatory, prayers for the dead and the intercession of the saints was constructed, survived for less than another half-century. And with its disappearance went the imagery which promoted that kind of faith. Not a trace remains of any of the glazing installed during the reconstruction of St Margaret’s between the end of the 15th and the early 16th centuries. The pre-Reformation glass which today fills the east window was installed only in 1758. It comprises a Crucifixion spread across three lights, flanked by SS George and Katherine with the kneeling figures of a youthful Henry VIII and Katherine of Aragon. The mode is that of the northern Renaissance style espoused by Adrian Andru’s Southwark successors and which reached its apogee in the windows of King’s College Chapel executed by Symondes and his fellow-glaziers. It is not the least of history’s ironies that this window celebrates a royal marriage whose dissolution was to precipitate the series of events which resulted in the destruction of what must have been an exceptional display of the art of glass-painting – including Robert Hunt’s image-rich window.
Richard Marks, History of Art Department, University of Cambridge
Not the least of the pleasures involved in researching this article has been ‘to walk the walk’ over ground familiar to Robert Hunt, from St Margaret’s to the Westminster Archives Centre adjacent to the Abbey precincts and across the river to Lambeth Palace. In the process I have benefitted from the expertise and assistance of the staff of the Archives Centre and of Lambeth Palace (at the latter Dr Richard Palmer, Andrew Nunn and Michael Rundle). I am also immensely grateful to Tim Tatton-Brown for information on Lambeth Palace and the former archiepiscopal palace at Croydon and to Barbara Harvey, Emeritus Fellow of Somerville College, Oxford, for her unrivalled knowledge of the Westminster Abbey archives. Rita Marks drew my attention to aspects of Hunt’s will which I had overlooked and suggested the first part of the article’s title. Above all, I am indebted to Dr Matthew Groom, who most generously drew my attention to Hunt’s will, provided a copy and permitted me to make use of his own researches on Robert Hunt and his connections; without him this article would not have been possible.
Matthew Groom has also found mention of a glazier named Adrian Joys in two Southwark wills of 1502.
•National Archives, London, will of Robert Hunt (TNA Prob. 11/11/36, ff. 287v–288r). City of Westminster Archives Centre, the Churchwarden’s Accounts of St Margaret’s Westminster
•R. Marks, Stained Glass in England during the Middle Ages, London & Toronto, 1993
•R. Marks, ‘Wills and Windows: Documentary Evidence for the Commissioning of Stained Glass Windows in the Late Medieval England’, in H. Scholz, I. Rauch & D. Hess (eds), Glas. Malerei. Forschung. Internationale Studien zu Ehren von Rüdiger Becksmann, Berlin, 2004, pp. 245–252
•R. Marks,‘Sir William Horne and His ‘Scowred’ window at Snailwell, Cambridgeshire’, in E. S. Lane, E. C. Pastan &E. M. Shortell (eds), The Four Modes of Seeing: Approaches to Medieval Imagery in Honor of Madeline Harrison Caviness, Aldershot, 2009, pp. 99–110
•G. Rosser, Medieval Westminster 1200–1540, Oxford, 1989
•T. Tatton-Brown, Lambeth Palace. A History of the Archbishops of Canterbury and their Houses, London, 2000
•H. Wayment, ‘The East Window of St Margaret’s, Westminster’, Antiquaries Journal, LXI (1981), pp. 292–301
•H. F. Westlake, St Margaret’s Westminster, London, 1914
Article printed from Vidimus: http://vidimus.org
URL to article: http://vidimus.org/issues/issue-30/feature/
Copyright © 2011 Vidimus. All rights reserved.