Reviews

REVIEWS The Ancient Glass of Canterbury Cathedral. By Bernard Rackham, C.B., F.S.A. 12£ x 91, Pp. xv + 194. 21 colour plates. 80 monochrome plates. London, Lund Humphries, for the Friends of Canterbury Cathedral, 1949. Price not stated but £12. 12s. THE fairest and largest display in England of painted glass of the twelfth and thirteenth centuries is that which we see in the windows of Canterbury Cathedral. And, though this great mass of early work tends to overshadow it, the later medieval glass in the Cathedral, including the famous " Royal Window " of Edward IV, is far from despicable, and presents many points of interest. A number of persons, from medieval times onwards, have studied the glass and have written about it in print and in manuscript; some, like " Blue Dick " Cuhner, studying it only to destroy. Their records, particularly those which tell us of glass now no longer existing, are of great value ; but the need has long been felt for a complete descriptive catalogue of all the remaining glass, accompanied by an informed commentary and by suitable illustrations. The present volume supplies this need. The Friends have been fortunate in securing, as author of the work, Mr. Bernard Rackham, an eminent authority; and as their artist for the coloured Ulustrations a lady of inspiration, Miss Brodrick, who, unhappily, did not hve to see the pubhcation of her work. It is, experto crede, one of the hardest of tasks to give an adequate rendering on paper of translucent coloured glass ; but Miss Brodrick, like Charles Winston and a few others before her, has on the whole brought it off triumphantly. The technical methods employed to reproduce the pictures enable the quality of the artist's work to be appreciated from the prints. Enghsh colour-coUotype before the war was on the whole very poor stuff—witness the coloured plates in Mr. Herbert Read's book on English Stained Glass, issued as recently as 1926—and it was probably not until the Germans put on show, at the Paris Exhibition of 1937, examples of their superlative work, that the possibilities of this medium of reproduction were fully realized over here. The plates in this volume, as well as developments elsewhere, show that the lesson has been learned. Considering the amount of research which has been devoted to these matters, it is astonishing how little we reaUy know about the origin of the early glass at Canterbury. We can date it reasonably 156 REVIEWS accurately—and here old controversies on this subject are lucidly discussed; we can say that it is the product of a school which was common to both France and England; but of the actual executants we know nothing : as the author points out, the few glaziers recorded in the Christ Church accounts during the relevant period were probably engaged only on repairs. It may surprise many people, even those famihar with the early glass, to reahze how much work there is here of the Perpendicular period and even of the Renaissance. It is all fully described and Ulustrated, and Mr. John Harvey supplies the name—WUliam Neve, King's Glazier—of a probable painter of the " Royal Window " of Edward IV. One would hke to have the evidence—it is not given— for the statement (p. 11) that John Pyle was a London glazier. Whatever his origin, we know from Mr. J. M. Cowper's lists that he was working in Canterbury for sixteen years, from 1438-9 to 1454-5, though he does not appear ever to have become a Freeman, and paid the fees for permission to practise his trade in the city. Mr. Rackham acknowledges the help which he received from various individual members of the Kent Archseological Society, but he was not, it seems, at the trouble of making an official approach to the Society. This is unfortunate, because it is on points where speciahzed local knowledge could have assisted him that his information is not always as complete or accurate as it might have been. This is especially true of his account of certain glass brought from St. Albans Court, Nonington, following the sale there in 1938. This glass included two figures, now in the east window of the crypt, illustrated in PI. 21c and described at pp. 113-4 of the present volume. These figures apparently formed part of a set, of which others (PL 21a and b; p. 114) are in the water-tower, where they are stated to have been since the glass there was rearranged in 1900 : where were they before this ? These figures (unlike the Virgin in the east window of the crypt, also bought at St. Albans Court) do not fit anywhere into the system of glazing as at present seen in the Cathedral, and Mr. Rackham prints a conjecture of Mr. Caldwell's that they came from the windows of Lanfranc's nave, and were preserved by Prior Chillenden when that part of the church was rebuilt. How, in the nineteenth century, two of them got to St. Albans Court is another story. But there is in existence, in an important MS. by Z. Cozens, formerly in Dr. Cock's hbrary and now in the possession of our Secretary, an elaborate description, dated 1794, of glass then in Petham church. This description, whose minuteness extends to the difficult inscriptions (of which Cozens obviously could make little, but copied them as well as he could) leaves no doubt, at least in the mind of this reviewer, that the figures in question were in the chancel windows of Petham church in 157 REVIEWS 1794, and moreover offers strong presumptive evidence that the figures of Christ and the four Evangehsts (PI. 31a ; p. 112) were also there. Canterbury is so rich in ancient glass that it can afford to concede these panels to a village church ; the principle is recognized elsewhere, and one is glad to find Mr. Rackham blowing upon the story, still sometimes repeated, that the Marriage at Cana in Nackington church (recorded there by Faussett as long ago as 1758) once belonged to the Cathedral. IncidentaUy it may be mentioned that the roundel bearing the Goldwell rebus (PI. 78& ; p. 179) described as " recently recovered for the Cathedral " also came from St. Albans Court; and one would like to know (though it is not relevant to this review) what has happened to the panels of Hammond heraldry which were sold at the same time : one of them is known to be in private hands in Sussex. The printers and publishers of this book have made a very fine job of the production, and faced with so sumptuous a volume it may seem churlish to express doubts whether it is not, for these days of high costs, too sumptuous. But this large print, this thick paper, this lavish illustration, all admirable in themselves, have meant putting the volume on the market at a price which places it beyond the reach of many of those who would most wish to possess it, and in a form which, if one wants to take it round the Cathedral to study the original glass with its aid, would necessitate, unless one were a professional weightlifter, the use of a perambulator or a bath-chair. Now that the enormous expense of block-making has presumably been met, and this definitive edition is in existence, there is, surely, a strong case for a re-issue in a more modest form. C.R.C. The Publishers unfortunately feel themselves unable to supply a review copy of this book in the usual way. In view of its great importance to the interests of the Society—the Canterbury glass was studied at the first Annual Meeting of the Society in 1858—Mr. C. R. Councer, F.S.A. has very kindly •contributed this voluntary review from a copy of the book presented to the Society by Mr. John H. Evans, F.S.A. Fourth Report on the Excavations of the Roman Fort at Richborough, Kent. By J. P. Bushe-Fox. 10 x 6£. Pp. viii + 320. 99 plates. The Society of Antiquaries of London, 1949. £2 2s. Obtainable from Messrs B. Quaritoh, Ltd. THE Research Committee of the Society of Antiquaries of London has now issued sixteen volumes. Of these Kent can. claim a goodly proportion—one volume each for Swarling and Ospringe and now a fourth for Richborough. The Fourth Report brings the total number of pages of text devoted to Richborough to just short of one thousand. In the First Report Mr. Bushe-Fox paid tribute to the " archaeologists and others "—men like Somner, Battely, and Roach Smith— 158 REVIEWS who had given attention to the site. It is to him, however, that archseology owes the greatest debt for, although there was plenty of enthusiasm before him, there was but httle systematic scientific excavation. It is greatly to be regretted that his able assistant throughout the excavations, Mr. Walter G. Klein, did not hve to see the present report pubhshed. The Third Report (1932) covered the excavations till 1927. The present one deals with the years 1928 to 1930 and includes the winter 1930-1. The causes for the delay in publication have been the recent war and a serious accident to the author. The scope of the digging increased as well—at times there were over a hundred men employed through the co-operation of H.M. Ministry of Works—and the larger size of pubhcation is a result of this. The text falls naturaUy into two parts—a description of the excavations and an annotated hst of finds. Perhaps the most interesting part of the excavation work was the reveahng of the full significance of the Claudian defensive earthwork, consisting of a mound and two bow-shaped ditches running for a distance of 2,176 feet. The author concludes that it was erected to guard the disembarking invasion troops and their ships and to protect the initial supply base. The entrance excavated was probably the main one and succeeding entrances centred on the same spot. " As the continuation of this road inland was the Watling Street which ran direct to London, we may take it with certainty that this road was of Claudian origin, and that the first main crossing of the Thames may well have been at London." Such was the beginning of the Roman imperium in this island. The Roman occupation of the site was not, however, the first one and the author tells of Early Iron Age ditches being found. Unfortunately the later occupation obliterated much of the earher. The Early Iron Age pottery which estabhshed the dating was found in the Claudian mfUfing of the earher ditches. This infilling formed the Claudian interditch mound. Soon after the Claudian invasion came a more settled site and much building activity. The defensive mound was leveUed by the simple act of using it to fill the ditches and a metalled east-west road, some , 23 feet wide, was laid down. Amongst the buildings which were put up were wooden storage sheds, probably granaries, measuring 118 feet by 26 feet by 8 feet. They had raised floors and appear to have had loading platforms. Mr. Bushe-Fox gives detailed reconstructions of them and one could easily make fuU-scale reproductions from his admirable drawings. He considers that they show that Richborough was used as a military depot at this period. Some of these granaries were dispensed with when the time came 159 REVIEWS for making " the great foundation," as Mr. Bushe-Fox caUs it. This took place c. A.D. 85 so it would seem that by this date Richborough had been replaced as a depot by London and those ports nearer the scene of Agricola's front-line activities. We hear an echo of these matters in the famous exhortation of Caledonian Galgacus (Agricola XXX and XXXI). The great foundation, 30 feet deep, has many pages devoted to it, several of which, given over to detaUs of the pneumatic drilling operation, dispel the idea that excavation is a simple and easy task. There is a complete contrast between the massive foundation and the houses of the workmen who made it—mere huts of wattle and daub. One wonders what kind of reception the workmen would have given VirgU if he could have risen from the grave and quoted his " par cere subjectis et debeUare superbos " passage to them. The third century earth fort and the ditches of the stone Saxonshore fort were discussed at length in previous Reports but many fresh details and conclusions appear here. The author supphes excellent summaries. " The earth fort with its defensive ditches was obviously designed to surround the remains of the first-century monument. This in all probabihty was still standing sufficiently high to be used as a look-out and signalling tower . . . for which purpose its position on the high ground was ideal, while the fort, the area of which amounts to less than 2 acres, would be quite large enough to protect the detachment detailed for this work against sudden rushes." These are some of the bonnes bouches of the excavation section. It may seem bathos to some to mention that it was in this period that the car-park and motor road were made. Richborough was " on the map " and fashionable. I think that all archaeologists wfil agree that the great attraction of previous Reports has been the annotated hst of small finds. Lady Aileen Fox is mainly responsible for the present one. It was completed as far back as 1933 so that much modern research work is not mentioned. For instance, Mr. Phihp Corder's work on the iron blades of wooden spades finds no mention under item 320. This seems a lost opportunity but as Mr. Bushe-Fox explains " these contributions were contributed many years ago, some of them by those who are no longer hving (so) it has been thought best to print them as they were written and without attempting to refer to publications that have appeared since." The pottery descriptions occupy weU over a hundred pages— " Decorated Samian " contributed by the late Mr. T. Davies Pryce and " Potters' Marks " by the late Mr. G. C. F. Hayter. After giving these names I need hardly add that this part contains matter of the highest importance, especially the facsimiles of stamps on amphorse. 160 REVIEWS The coin hst has been undertaken by Mr. W. P. D. Stebbing with help from Mr. B. W. Pearce. Some 15,000 coins have been reduced to order—an immense task, worthy of the highest praise and especiaUy satisfying as they are both members of our Society. The find-lists contain many good things—a south-eastern type enameUed terret, the hilt of an early fifth century dagger, the contents of an Anglo-Saxon inhumation grave and a fifth century coin bearing the name of an unknown, CENSERIS, upon which theme Mr. H. Mattingly lovingly discourses. Certain material, such as coins, dated to late Saxon and medieval times but there was nothing so exciting amongst this as the famous number 362 of the Third Report. L.R.A.G. Stede Hill: the Annals of a Kentish Home. Robert H. Goodsall, F.R.I.B.A., A.R.P.S. Headley Bros., London. 1949. 25s. STEDE HILL HOUSE, which stands near the crest of the North Downs, above the viUage of Harrietsham, was built by Sir WUliam Stede, probably in 1587. In the late eighteenth century the original timberframed buUding was transformed into a typical Georgian country house ; in the nineteenth century it acquired a variety of Victorian features ; in 1935 it was purchased by our member, Mr. GoodsaU, who has restored the house, with great care, to its eighteenth century character. Now Mr. Goodsall gives us a valuable account of the house, and of the families who have successively owned and occupied it since it became the principal mansion house of the Stede famUy, nearly 400 years ago. The Stedes emerge, in the sixteenth century, as an increasingly prosperous and important Harrietsham family, of yeoman origin. Sir WiUiam was wealthy enough to be able to buUd this " faire, large, brick house . . . cost above 2000 1," which remained in the family untU the impoverished Edwyn Stede (1700-35), the " father " of Kent cricket, was obfiged to seU his heavily mortgaged estates, in 1725, to Wilham Horsmonden Turner, of Maidstone. From Turner it passed to his kinsman, Sir Charles Booth, and from him, in 1795, to William Baldwin, of Faversham. The property remained in the Baldwin famUy untU the beginning of the present century. In this book, Mr. GoodsaU is more concerned with Stede HUl as a home—with its inhabitants—than with the house as an example of architectural styles. He has been at great pains to piece together from various documents (especiaUy wUls, many of which are transcribed at length) an account of the fortunes of the successive owners of the house. The book will naturaUy be of most immediate interest to those who know Stede HiU or the families associated with it, but the ramifications 161 REVIEWS of the Stedes, Turners, Booths and Baldwins do in fact lead us far from Harrietsham—to, for example, Sir Charles Booth's London house in Charlotte Street, to the Booth scholarships for Maidstone children, to Wilham Baldwin's business adventures, including his brewery (the predecessor of Messrs. Style and Winch's brewery in Maidstone), and to the troublesome reparation of the former Lovelace family property in Bethersden. The book is iUustrated by maps, famUy pedigrees, and a large number of exceUent photographs. The attractive frontispiece, a reproduction from a painting of Stede HiU by the author, clearly brings out the essentiaUy eighteenth century character of the house as it appears to-day. FRANK JESSUP. Kent: The Little Guides. Revised by R.F. Jessup. Methuen, London. 1950. 6 X 3i,#p.a; + 307. III. Is.Qd. SOMEONE, somewhere (for everything has been done) must have written a book on the Art of Compression, and this Little Guide might well serve as an example. It is of the best of its kind and the name of the reviser is a sufficient guarantee of its contents. Mr. Jessup explains that he has not been able to visit 20 parishes but does not mention that there are over 400 of them in the County. The apology might well have been a boast. J.H.E. Anglo-Saxon Jewellery. Ronald Jessup. F.S.A. Faber and Faber, London, 1950. 10 X 6, pp. 148. 4 coloured, 40 monochrome plates, 11 text figures. 42s. THIS handsome and well-produced volume will be welcomed by Kentish folk not only for its own merits and the magnitude of its theme—the astonishing wealth and beauty of Anglo-Saxon jewellery— but also because it is the work of a Kentishman, or, to avoid argument, a Man of Kent who is an amateur of archseology in the oldest and best sense of the word. Kent holds a premier position in the story and discovery of Saxon Art and it is appropriate that a modern Cantwara should teU it again in language " understanded of the people." The author's purpose should not be misunderstood ; he has not written for his own peers but for that great body of educated persons who, knowing httle of our Enghsh ancestors and their works, desire to confide themselves to a gentle guide to greater knowledge. Mr. Jessup admirably fills this role, for he has made this particular period of history his own and speaks thereon with authority, but with an authority conveyed in a clear and friendly style. 162 REVIEWS The work is divided into two sections, the first 84 pages being devoted to an introduction, and the remainder to a detaUed description of the plates. Throughout the Introductory Essay the author very wisely avoids controversy which would be unsuitable in a work of this character, especiaUy in the generahzed account of the Enghsh Settlement with which the Essay opens. There follows this, a more intimate sketch of the dwelhngs and dress of the Anglo-Saxons, some observations on the jewellers themselves and their art, whUe the vexed question of the survival of Celtic and Roman-British motifs and methods into the Saxon period is lightly touched upon. Next the processes involved in the jeweller's art are summarized in a lucid and succinct passage, and the various types of jewelled objects themselves described. The Introduction ends with some pages devoted to the circumstances surrounding the discovery of some of the best known specimens. The description of the plates is no mere catalogue but rather a set of informative notes which those who know something of the period may consider the better part of the work. Mr. Jessup is fortunate in his publishers, who have provided four colour and a set of very excellent monochrome plates which very greatly enhance the value and interest of the book. Anglo-Saxon Jewellery should be a dehght to all who wish to extend their knowledge of this period of our history. J. H. E. We regret that through unavoidable circumstances, reviews of two Kentish books which wfil be of much interest to Members of the Society must be postponed to our next volume. They are Mr. Ralph Arnold's Yeoman of Kent (Constable, late 1949, 12s. 6d.), and Mr. WiUiam Townsend's Canterbury (Batsford's British Cities Series, Spring, 1950, 8s. 6d.). 163