[merged small][ocr errors][ocr errors][graphic][ocr errors][ocr errors][merged small][ocr errors][ocr errors]

of St. Mark and St. Luke arranged similarly to the symbols at the head. This tomb has been covered with polychrome. The slab which covers it is surmounted by a smaller slab, on which is the recumbent effigy of the Lady Montacute. This effigy (of which there are two plates in Hofiis's Monumental Effigies) is represented with the neck bare, and the hair disposed and confined on each side of the face within a jewelled caul of network; over the forehead is worn a veil, and on the head is a rich plaited cap with nebule folds, with a tippet attached to it and falling down behind. The body-dress consists of a sleeveless gown of a crimson colour, flowered with yellow and green, buttoned m front from the neck downwards to below the waist. At each side of the waist, under the armpits, is an opening in the gown, within which is disclosed the inner vest or corset, worn beneath the open supertunic, the close-fitting sleeves of the corset extending to the wrist. The corset is painted of a different colour, and is of a different pattern to the gown. The gown is flounced at the skirts by a broad white border, and round the side openings and along the edge of the top of the gown is a rich border of leaves. The hands are bare and conjoined on the breast, as in prayer; over the gown or supertunic is worn the mantle fastened together in front of the breast, not in the usual mode by a cordon, but by a large and rich lozenge-shaped morse, raised in high relief. The mantle is of a buff colour, and covered all over with rondeaux or roundels, connected together by small bands, whilst in the intermediate spaces are fleursde-lis, all of raised work, probably in some kind of cement.

The statuettes on each side of this tomb are most interesting from the varieties of coeval costume they tend to illustrate. A male figure is attired iu the courtpye, or short cloak jagged at the border, with a white tunic beneath, and bawdrick round the body at the hips. Two represent abbesses in long white gowns, black mantles, and tippets, and plaited wimples. These diner in some particulars, and one only has the pastoral staff. Two of the daughters of the Lady Montacute

were in succession abbesses of Barking in Essex, and were doubtless intended to be represented by these statuettes. The fourth, that of a female, is dressed in a green high-bodied gown or robe, with small pocket-holes in front, and short sleeves reaching only to the elbows. The fifth, also that of a female, is in a white gown, with close-fitting sleeves, belted round the waist by a narrow girdle, and over it is worn a black mantle.

The sixth, of which the mere torso only remains, is that of a male in a doublet jagged at the skirts and buttoned down in front from the neck, with close sleeves, the manias botonata: buttoned from the elbows to the wrists, with a bawdrick round the hips buckled on the right side. From the left side of the bawdrick the gipciere is suspended. This much mutilated effigy presents a good specimen of the early doublet. The seventh is the effigy of a male in a long coat, the toga talaris, with a cloak over, buttoned in front downwards from the neck to the third button, from whence it lies open to the skirts. This habit, in the phrase of the fourteenth century, would be described as cota et cloca. In the right hand is held a purse.

The eighth is the figure of a bishop in the usual episcopal vestments as arrayed for the eucharistic sacrifice, and was intended to represent Simon Bishop of Ely, one of the sons of the Lady Montacute. The ninth is the figure of a female in a gown or supertunic, buttoned in front from the breast to the waist, and with short sleeves reaching only to the elbows, from whence depend long white liripipes or false hanging sleeves. From beneath this gown or supertunic, for it would have been anciently described as supertunica, the loose skirts of the under-robe, of which also the close-fitting sleeves were visible, appear. Behind this figure are the remains of a mantle. The tenth figure is also that of a female in a gown or close-fitting supertunic, buttoned in front to the waist. The heads of all these statuettes have been destroyed, and they are otherwise more or less mutilated; but, from the diversity of costume of one and the same period they present, they contribute to render this one of the most interesting monuments of the fourteenth century. They have been carefully represented in Hollis's Monumental Effigies.

The third monument is a high tomb, the south side of which is divided into compartments by quatrefoiled circles, each containing a shield charged with armorial bearings: a similar compartment occupies the west end of the tomb, the east end and north sides being unexposed. On this tomb lies the recumbent effigy of a knight in body armour, with an emblazoned jupon over, and rich bawdrick, of apparently the reign of Henry the Fourth, but presenting no very peculiar points of interest. This tomb and effigy have been wrongly ascribed to a judge who lived in the middle of the thirteenth century. Its age is, however, nearly two centuries later, and the effigy does not exhibit a single feature in costume applicable to that of a judge. From the armorial

bearings on the sides of the tomb the person of whom this monument was in commemoration might with some little research be ascertained. The feet rest against a dog, collared, and the tiltinghelm beneath the head is surmounted by a bull's head as a crest.

In the north transept is a plain high tomb with shields on the sides charged with an inkhorn and penner, as if indicative of the last resting-place of a notary. This appears to be of the latter part of the fifteenth century.

These are the principal ancient monuments in the cathedral of Oxford; and, with the exception of a slab beneath the wooden watch-chamber erroneously called the shrine of St. Frideswide, raised on a table tomb, and from which brasses of a man and his wife have been removed, are the only monuments in the cathedral of a period anterior to the Reformation.


THERE are several curious points connected with the biography and the works of Drayton which yet remain to be illustrated, and which might be easily illustrated by his own productions and those of others, his contemporaries. Such, however, is not my object at present; but, as regards what authors of his own time have told us respecting him, I may mention a circumstance that has hitherto escaped notice, viz. that Drayton was one of the writers of that day who lamented in verse the death of Sir Philip Sidney. This fact shews him to have been a poet some years before his earliest known work made its appearance. His "Harmony of the Church" came out in 1591, but his Elegy upon Sidney was most likely printed very soon after the catastrophe it celebrates, which occurred, as every body is aware, in 1586. The Rev. Mr. Dyce, in introducing his reprint of "The Harmony of the Church," calls it Drayton s "earliest publication," and Chalmers and others knew nothing of him as a poet before the year 1593.

On what evidence, then, do I say that Drayton, who is stated to have been born in 1563, was a writer of verse about 1587? On the distinct and positive testimony of a contemporary, who tells us so in as many words.

In 1606 was printed "Sir Philip Sydneys Ourania, written by N. B. a work that has hitherto been attributed, from the initials, to Nicholas Breton, but which was in truth the authorship of Nicholas Baxter, whose own copy, signed with his own name, and corrected in many places, is in my possession. Those who have imputed it to Breton can never have read a line of the performance, which is entirely, dedication and all, in verse, and from which we learn that Baxter (or Backster) had been one of the tutors of the illustrious person he celebrates. This circumstance is, I apprehend, of itself a novelty in relation to the early education of Sidney, who, under his self-adopted appellation of Astrophil, is thus made to address Baxter, who poetically translates his own name as Tergaster:

Art thou (quoth he) my tutor Tergaster?

He answer'd, Yea, such was ray happy chaunce.

I grieve (quoth Astrophill) at thy disaster,

But fates denie me learning to advaunce;

Yet Cinthia shall afford thee maintenance.
My dearest sister, keepe my tutor well,
For in his element he doth excell.—Sign. N.

Of course, his "dearest sister " was the Countess of Pembroke, to whom Baxter dedicates his poem, and whom he designates as Cynthia. In the progress of the performance the author mentions various poets by name, and

at the close of the ensuing stanza he apostrophises Drayton, and states the fact that the author of " Poly-Olbion" had been one of the poets who had in verse lamented the untimely death of Sidney:—

But when my Cynthia knew 'twas Astrophill,
She ranne to claspe him in her daintie amies;
But out, alas 1 it passed mortall skill;
Inchaunted was the knight with sacred charmes:
His bodie dead of yore, the more our harmes.
O noble Drayton ! well didst thou rehearse
Our damages in dryrie sable verse.—Sign. M. 4.

It will be owned that this is pretty conclusive; but, in order to put an end to the possibility of doubt, Baxter places these words in the margin, opposite the concluding couplet —" Drayton upon the death of S. P. S."

Here then, (besides "Endymionand Phoebe,") we have information of another and a still earlier production of Drayton's pen, which has not come down to us, but of the existence of •which, towards the close of the reign of Elizabeth, there can be no dispute. Drayton himself never alludes to it, and, like a unique work of which I am now about to introduce a few specimens, he never reprinted it. The only known copy was sold among the books of the late Sir. Heber, and, as he kindly lent it to me before his death, I was enabled to make extracts from it, and to preserve it from entire oblivion. The original has disappeared from sight, and we fear, in consequence of the non-purchase of it for any of our national libraries, that it is now many thousand miles from the country to which it properly belongs, and wnere it ought to have been preserved. The exact title of it is as follows :—" Ideas

Mirrovr. Amovrs in Qvatorzains. Che seme e face assai domanda. At London, Printed by James Roberts, for Nicholas Linge. Anno. 1594."

The year 1594 was that in which Drayton put forth his "Endymion and Phoebe ;" and it is a curious question, to which, probably, no answer can be given, What made him suppress these two works while he reprinted without reserve his "Matilda, the faire and chaste daughter of Lord Robert Fitzwater," of the same year? He dedicated his "Ideas Mirrour" to Sir Anthony Cooke, as he had dedicated his "Endymion and Phoebe" to the Countess of Bedford, and he republished both the sonnets, in which he addressed them, in the first edition of his collected poems in 1605. I did not advert to this fact (in truth it was not in my memory) when I wrote the article on Drayton's "Endymion and Phoebe" in your number for July last.

In the sonnet to Sir Anthony Cooke, Drayton, who puts in his undoubted claim to originality, speaks of Sir Philip Sidney, whose loss he had mourned seven years before :—

Divine Sir Philip, I avouch thy writ:
I am no picke-purse of another's wit.

The impression of Drayton's collected poems of 1605, 8vo. contains The Barons' Wars, England's Heroical Epistles, Idea, The Legend of Robert Duke of Normandy, The Legend of Matilda, and the Legend of Pierce

Gaveston; but the "Idea" there enumerated is not the pastorals printed under that title in 1593, but an assemblage of sixty - two sonnets, all addressed to one lady, who, the poet himself informs us, was born in Coventry, and

« 前へ次へ »