Late-Medieval Polychrome Tomb Testers in Canterbury Cathedral and Elsewhere

Polychrome WoodPost-prints of a conference in two parts

organised by The Institute of Conservation Stone & Wall Paintings Group

Hampton Court Palace October 2007 & March 2008

Published in 2010 by Icon The Institute of Conservation

1st Floor, Downstream Building, 1 London Bridge, London SE1 9BG, UK

www.icon.org

The Institute of Conservation is a company limited guarantee in England (No 5201058).

The Institute is a charity registered in England & Wales (No 1108380) and Scotland (SC039336)

© (Text & illustrations) 2010 the authors or other copyright holders as stated in the credits

Front cover image: Thornham Parva Retable: detail St Paul

© Hamilton Kerr Institute, University of Cambridge

Title page: The Chinese House in Ireland

© NTPL/James Mortimer

Image p3: Late-fifteenth/early-sixteenth century Head of St Jude (Cawston)

© Pauline Plummer 2010

Image p8: Pieter van Coninxloo attributed Margaret of Austria

© The Royal Collection 2009, Her Majesty the Queen Elizabeth II

Design © Sam Russell DesignWorks 2010

Text set in Museo and Museo Sans

All rights reserved. No part of this publication may be reproduced, stored in a retrieval system or

transmitted in any form or by any means, electronic, mechanical photocopying, recording or

otherwise, without the prior written permission of the copyright owner and the publisher

Edited by David Odgers and Lynne Humphries

Consultant Editors: Sophie Stewart, John Burbidge, Jennifer Dinsmore

A catalogue record for this book is available from the British Library

ISBN 978-0-9553364-5-4

Printed in the UK by MPG Biddles Ltd

Disclaimer

The inclusion of the name of any company, group or individual, or of any product or service in

this publication should not be regarded as either a recommendation or endorsement by ICON

or its agents

Accuracy of Information

While every effort has been made to ensure faithful reproduction of the original or amended

text from authors in this volume, ICON and the Stone & Wall Paintings Group accept no

responsibility for the accuracy of the data produced in or omitted from this publication

Dendrochronological Examination of Medieval Polychrome Sculptures, Altarpieces and CeilingsIan Tyers

Contributors

Foreword

9 Painted Wood in Historic Buildings with Uncontrolled EnvironmentsTobit Curteis

10 Polychromed Timber Conservation SolutionsHugh Harrison

11 The Structure of Panel Paintings, the Causes of Damage and Appropriate TreatmentAl Brewer

12 The Painted Ceilings of the Bodleian LibraryMadeleine Katkov

8 The Vulnerability of the Chinese House at StoweChristine Sitwell

7 The Painted Panel Interiors at Kew PalaceLee Prosser

2

1 Wood as a Substrate for Pigments and PaintsJim Coulson

6 Polychrome Medieval Rood Screens in NorfolkPauline Plummer

5 Late-medieval Polychrome Tomb Testers in Canterbury Cathedral and ElsewhereLucy Wrapson & Marie Louise Sauerberg

4 Surviving Against All OddsEddie Sinclair

3

109

99

85

69

9

53

39

31

11

6

Making Retables: Physical & Documentary Evidence in the Light of Experimental ReconstructionsSpike Bucklow

Contents

119

133

163

147

13 Scottish Renaissance Timber Painted Ceilings & The Stirling Head ProjectAilsa Murray

14 Facing Adhesives for Size-Tempera Painted WoodChantal-Helen Thuer

15 Secular and Sacred: Two Case Studies in Polychromed WoodRuth McNeilage

177

193

213

69

7

Jim CoulsonTechnology for Timber Ltd 42 Market PlaceRiponNorth YorkshireHG4 1BZTel: 01765 601010

email: [email protected]

Spike BucklowHamilton Kerr Institute,University of Cambridge,Whittlesford, CB2 4NE.Fax: 01223 837595


Ian TyersDendrochronological Consultancy Ltd 65 Crimcar Drive Sheffield S10 4EF


Eddie Sinclair Conservator10 Park Street,Crediton Devon EX17 3EQ


Lucy Wrapson & Marie Louise Sauerberg Hamilton Kerr InstituteUniversity of CambridgeWhittlesford CB22 4NE

emails: (Lucy Wrapson): [email protected](Marie Louise Sauerberg):[email protected]

Pauline Plummer ConservatorThe Cottage Howing Common North WalshamNorfolk NR28 9PQTel: 01692 536888

Lee ProsserCurator, Historic Royal PalacesApartment 25 Hampton Court PalaceSurrey KT8 9AUTel: 0203 166 6409


Christine SitwellThe National Trust HeelisKemble DriveSwindonWiltshire SN2 2NA


Tobit CurteisTobit Curteis Associates LLP36 Abbey Road Cambridge CB5 8HQ


Hugh HarrisonConservatorRingcombe FarmWest AnsteySouth MoltonDevon EX36 3NZ


Al Brewer Paintings Conservator, Royal Collection1 Stag MeadowWindsorSL4 3DU


Madeleine Katkov Conservator55 Weyland RoadHeadingtonOxford OX3 8PE


Ailsa Murray Historic ScotlandHistoric Scotland Conservation Centre 7 South Gyle Crescent EdinburghEH12 9EB


Chantal-Helen Thuer

Research Intern Historic Scotland Kolpingstrasse 346145 OberhausenGermany


Ruth McNeilageMcNeilage ConservationWeeks FarmTalatonExeter EX5 2RG


Contributors

6

Foreword

The idea for the Polychrome Wood conference was suggested by Robert Gowing (English Heritage) following the success of the series of conferences on wall paintings (2004-5) which resulted in the publication of ‘All Manner of Murals’. The two part conference was held in the Weston Rooms, Hampton Court Palace on 26th October 2007 and 22nd February 2008. A considerable time had elapsed since painted and gilded wood were the subject of forums such as the Structural Conservation of Panel Paintings at the Getty Museum in 1995 and the symposium at Williamsburg, Virginia in 1994 on Painted Wood, History and Conservation. Since then treatment techniques and understanding have developed considerably which is why the Stone & Wall Paintings Group committee considered it timely to revisit the subject. Wall paintings often include wooden supports so the topic provided an opportunity to bridge the specialist fields of panel painting, architectural wood and wall painting conservation.

This collection of papers from the conference proceedings discusses a diverse range of important historic painted wooden surfaces, the materials involved, their composition and techniques of execution, the agents of deterioration, preventive measures, methods of treatment, and aspects of presentation and display.

Thanks are due to Holly Dawes of Conservation and Collection Care, Historic Royal Palaces, for enabling the conference to take placee at Hampton Court Palace and for helping with arrange-ments. Also to Charlotte Cowin from ICON for her help in organising the two days. We are indebted to the contributors for their collaboration and patience throughout the editorial process and to the editorial team, headed by David Odgers and Lynne Humphries, who displayed great enthusiasm and persistence in assembling this volume. The Stone & Wall Paintings Group Committee are delighted with the result.

Richard Lithgow John Burbidge

AbstractDue to their inaccessibility and often poor condition, late-medieval tomb canopies are a largely ignored group of objects. However, eleven or so late-medieval testers survive dating from c.1290 to 1440. This ongoing study examines the two Canterbury Cathedral testers, that of the Black Prince (d.1376) and the double tester of Henry IV (d.1413) and his second wife, Joan of Navarre (d.1437). The history of each tester, including past restorations and original methods of manufacture, is outlined. In addition the recent conservation treatment undertaken by the Hamilton Kerr Institute is described.

Late-medieval Polychrome Tomb Testers

in Canterbury Cathedral and Elsewhere

Lucy Wrapson & Marie Louise Sauerberg

5

Polychrome Wood

70 71

frame in which they sit to the nineteenth3. It is therefore doubtful

whether it was originally in the format it is in now.

Person IconographyDate

(of Death)Date of Tester Location

UnknownWhitewashed

with decorative trim

unknown 12th centuryPyx Chamber, Westminster

Abbey

Henry III Unknown 1272Unknown

(probably 15th century)

Westminster Abbey

Eleanor of Castille

Unknown 1290Unknown

(probably 15th century)

Westminster Abbey

Walter StapledonChrist in Majesty (flat tester made

of stone)1326 c.1326

Exeter Cathedral

Lord John and Lady Harrington

Christ in Majesty and Evangelists

1347 1347 Cartmel Priory

Philippa of Hainault

Unknown 1369 c. 1376Westminster

Abbey

Edward of Woodstock, the Black Prince

Trinity and Evangelists

1376 c. 1376-1390sCanterbury Cathedral

Edward IIIDecorative

(the tester is vaulted)

1377 After 1376Westminster

Abbey

Richard II/ Anne of Bohemia

Two heraldic devices with

Angels, Corona-tion of the Virgin,

Resurrection

1400 (Richard)1394 (Anne)

1395Westminster

Abbey

Henry IV/ Joan of Navarre

Heraldic Devices 1413 c. 1430-40Canterbury Cathedral

Duchess of York Trinity 1431 c. 1431Westminster

Abbey

The 1532 illustration of the funeral of John Islip at Westminster

Abbey indicates that stone-canopied tombs from the late thirteenth

century were additionally surmounted by wooden testers at this date4.

Other testers of the late-medieval period were flat stone or wood

ceilings incorporated into the canopies of tombs. This is seen in the

Harrington tomb at Cartmel, dated c.1347 and the tomb of Walter

5/ Late-medieval Polychrome Tomb Testers in Canterbury Cathedral and Elsewhere

Late-medieval tomb canopies of the tester

type are a little studied group of objects as

they are often difficult to access. A

valuable opportunity to undertake a close

examination was therefore offered when a

team from the Hamilton Kerr Institute

came to conserve the two late-medieval

royal testers at Canterbury Cathedral in

2006/7 (Figures 1 & 2). This has led to this

present and ongoing study.

English late-medieval tombs would have

presented a riot of colour. Prestigious

tombs comprised many decorative

elements, tomb chest, effigy, railings, and

often a canopy, usually of stone but

sometimes in the form of a wooden tester.

Many were additionally associated with an

altar or separate chantry chapel where

masses would be said for the soul of the

deceased. All were highly decorated with

iconography and heraldry intimately

associated with intercession on behalf of the dead1. Painted testers

appear to have found favour for use in royal tombs for some one

hundred and fifty years, from roughly 1290 to 1440. Their form probably

developed from the highest status beds, such as Henry III’s bed in the

Painted Chamber at Westminster which was vaulted, painted and

decorated with glass2.

Eleven or so late-medieval painted tomb testers have been identified

thus far (see Table 1 opposite). Eight are flat-bed wooden testers with an

internal painted soffit within a wooden architectural frame. Of these,

seven are canopies to royal tombs and centre around the two most

important medieval saints’ shrines of England: Edward the Confessor at

Westminster Abbey, where there are four remaining flat-bed testers, and

Thomas Becket at Canterbury

Cathedral, where two testers –

and the subjects of this paper –

are present. Another royal tester

in the shrine at Westminster, that

of Edward III, is of wood but is

vaulted rather than flat and a

further flat tester, of Philippa of

York, is fragmentary and no

longer placed over the tomb.

The other Westminster Abbey

tester, now in the Pyx chamber, is

more enigmatic; recent dendro-

chronology has dated its boards

to the twelfth century and the

Figure 1Tomb of the Black Prince, Canterbury Cathedral

Figure 2Tomb of Henry IV and Joan of Navarre, Canterbury Cathedral

Table 1Details of late- medieval tomb testers

Polychrome Wood

72

1376. He was buried in October of the same year. The decision to

surmount his tomb with an image of the Trinity was therefore not

unusual. However, the tester is not stipulated as part of the tomb in his

will. The decision to include a tester in the tomb ensemble was only

made possible by the movement of the Prince to the Trinity Chapel,

there being considerably more vertical space. A simple wooden tester

of this type also allowed the shrine of St Thomas to remain visible to

pilgrims in the ambulatory as well as not overshadowing the splendour

of the shrine itself8.

The tester, or at least some of the tomb, may have been put in place

for the funeral itself in October 1376 as there has been a suggestion

that the revenues from pilgrims at the shrine of St Thomas increased

significantly in the year of the Black Prince’s death9. This is more likely

an indication that part of the tomb was complete and was attracting

visitors. It cannot, however, be taken as proof of the completion of the

tomb ensemble.

There is no way of knowing for certain who painted the Black Prince’s

tester. However, the style of the painted decoration would suggest that

it dates to around the end of the fourteenth century and there is also

considerable affinity in halo and figure styles with the Last Judgement

in the Chapter House in Westminster Abbey, dated to between c.1380-

140010. The king’s mason Henry Yevele has been proposed as the

designer of the tomb and it is likely that the team of painters were also

based at the Court11. Tudor-Craig has also proposed Royal Painter

Gilbert Prince as the painter of the tester12.

In contrast to that of the Black Prince, the soffit underside of the

tester of Henry IV and Joan of Navarre is of lesser quality in painted

execution, but is a significant and notable monument in its own right.

The polychrome wood structure over and around the tomb consists of

a crenellated tester with towers and two end panels depicting the

Coronation of the Virgin and the Martyrdom of Thomas Becket. The

underside of the tester is decorated with heraldic devices13.

When Henry IV died at Westminster on the 20th March 1413, he

had already planned to be buried at Canterbury Cathedral in a will

of January 140914. Lack of space at Westminster obviated burial near

the Confessor’s shrine and, as Wilson has argued, the legend of the

Holy Oil of St Thomas may have provided the impetus for selecting

Canterbury, as might Westminster Abbey’s association with the usurped

Richard II. The burial in 1410 of Henry’s half-brother John Beaufort,

Earl of Somerset, in the bay to the east of Henry and Joan’s memorial

is an indication that by this date the site of the tomb had already

been earmarked.

The iconography of the tomb ensemble points to a much later date

for the tomb’s completion and one more closely associated with Joan

of Navarre who lies interred with him. Joan died on the 10th of July

1437 and was buried at Canterbury on the 11th August of that year. Her

involvement with the tomb may be indicated by the choice of alabaster

for the effigy. Indeed she had commissioned an alabaster effigy for


73

Stapledon at Exeter

Cathedral which

probably dates to the

period shortly after

his death in 13265.

The two royal

testers in the Trinity

Chapel at Canterbury

Cathedral are that of

Edward of Woodstock,

the Black Prince and

the double tester of

Henry IV and his

second wife, Joan

of Navarre (Figures

3 & 4).

The tomb of the

Black Prince lies to

the south side of

Becket’s shrine while

that of Henry and

Joan lies opposite it

to the north of the

shrine.

They are, along with

the Westminster

Abbey tester of

Richard II and Anne of Bohemia, the two best preserved examples of

surviving testers. The Black Prince died in 1376, Henry IV in 1413 and

Joan of Navarre in 1437. No commissioning documents for either

tester survive and so the precise dating of each is therefore a matter

for debate.

Edward of Woodstock, the Prince of Wales, popularly known as the

Black Prince, was the eldest son of Edward III and a hugely popular

English hero famed for his military exploits against the French. He was

widely expected to succeed his father but died the year before him in

1376. Having been ill for many years, he commissioned his tomb years

in advance, a detailed description of which survives in his will6. He was a

benefactor of Canterbury Cathedral throughout his life and intended to

be buried in the crypt of the Cathedral in the Chapel of Our Lady

Undercroft, in preparation of which he made extensive alterations to

the fabric. The lack of space for burial at Westminster Abbey may also

have prompted the selection of Canterbury Cathedral7.

The decision to bury the Prince in the Trinity Chapel instead of in the

Undercroft must have had the authorisation of both the monks of

Canterbury and of the King himself. The Black Prince had a particular

devotion to the Holy Trinity; he had been born within the quindene of

Trinity Sunday, and coincidentally died on Trinity Sunday, June 8th of

Figure 3 (left)Composite mosaic of the underside of the Black Prince’s tester, Canterbury Cathedral

Fig 4 (right)Composite mosaic of the underside of Henry IV and Joan of Nav-arre’s tester, Canterbury Cathedral

Polychrome Wood

74 75

that the tomb ensemble must have been broadly complete by this time,

some twenty days after the death of the Black Prince and four months

before his funeral19.

The design of Philippa’s tester and that of the Black Prince have

significant similarities. The cornice of Philippa’s tester is castellated and

was previously decorated with applied patterns, although these were

foliate motifs whereas the Black Prince’s are lions and fleurs-de-lys20.

The tomb railings also provide a point of comparison: Philippa’s were

also castellated and decorated with finials which probably emulated

now lost finials on the tester itself. It has not yet been possible to

examine the top of Philippa’s tester to check for the remnants of these

stanchions, but remnants of similar structures can be seen on the tester

of Eleanor of Castille.

Early records of the tombs tended to focus on the inscriptions and do

not mention testers. In fact, the earliest mention of the Black Prince’s

tester is of its iconoclastic defacing during the Civil War when much of

the painting, especially the faces of the figures, was violently scratched

away by Culmer and his mob21. Yet, while the story of the iconoclasm of

the Black Prince’s tester is explicitly documented, ascribing deliberate

damage to the tester of Henry IV and Joan is more difficult and despite

the parlous condition of both of the end panel paintings, it is not clear

from technical examination or from written sources whether both of

the panels were subjected to deliberate iconoclasm. The indication is

that rather than being violently defaced, the panel of the Coronation of

the Virgin was painted over or adapted to be the figure of a shield-

bearing angel. Indeed technical examination has indicated that signifi-

cantly there are some scratch marks on the Coronation of the Virgin

but none on the Martyrdom of Thomas Becket, which would be

consistent with the removal of an overpainted design from one but not

the other. As today, perhaps the Martyrdom scene was partially covered

by a portable organ or cupboard and already in poor enough condition

to preclude easy identification by iconoclasts.

There have been a number of restorations in both the Canterbury

testers’ histories and they have typically been restored together.

Although the tester of Henry and Joan was considerably overpainted in

the early twentieth century, no attempt has ever been made to repaint

iconoclastic damage on the Black Prince’s tester. Historically, the main

focus of treatments has been the consolidation of flaking paint, which

has been a problem for both testers, since the late nineteenth century.

Records indicate a link between the deterioration of the polychromy

and the installation of central heating in the Cathedral. The earliest

photographic record, a nineteenth-century image of the Black Prince’s

tester in the Cathedral archives, shows now lost strips of canvas

covering the board joints hanging down from the painted soffit.

Recorded interventions include work by Professor Tristram in the

1930s, who consolidated both testers using wax/resin22. Tristram was

also responsible for the watercolour reconstructions of the Black

Prince’s tester and the two end panels from Henry and Joan’s tomb.


Jean de Montfort, her first husband, whereas Henry V commissioned a

metal effigy for Mary de Bohun, his mother, Henry IV’s first wife. The

metal effigy is considered more typically English in this period and can

also be seen on the tomb of the Black Prince which lies opposite15.

Furthermore, the design of the tester and end panels also indicate

Joan’s involvement; for example her arms are displayed as prominently

as Henry’s and his devices, the word ‘soverayne’ and an eagle are lent

the same weight as hers, an ermine and the motto ‘a tempance’ (a

temperance). Finally, the varying positioning of the bodies beneath the

tomb would also indicate a date nearer to Joan’s death for its

completion: as can be gleaned from a reading of Spry and Geddes,

Henry lies equidistant between the columns whereas Joan lies beneath

the tomb chest itself, off to one side16.

It became evident from technical examination that a previous design

underlay the present on part of the underside of the tester. These

roundels were described by Gough in the late eighteenth-century17. The

design was abortive, executed only on the western end of the tester

and it is not certain that the roundels proceeded beyond the

preliminary planning stage before the design was altered to the present.

The roundels may well have been garters in which animals, probably

the same as those of the final design, were placed and they also cross

board joints, so it is not likely that they are present due to the reuse of

wood. In addition, the change of the ceiling design appears closely

related to the end panels, as all three share the same blue background

and mottos. The end panels may therefore have been either conceived

or reused for the tomb. It is also evident that the soffit design was

altered at an advanced stage during the creation of the tomb ensemble

and marks a significant change in design; technical examination

revealed that both the abortive and final paintings were undertaken

after the soffit boards had been joined, but before they were slotted

into the frame.

The black-bordered gilded writing on a blue background, use of

heraldry to commemorate relatives, and supporters and shield-bearing

angels are also reminiscent of a near-contemporary funerary

monument, the Beauchamp or Warwick Chapel at Tewkesbury Abbey.

Probably dating to 1423, this monument is said to have been

considered the finest chapel in England and to have influenced later

chapels at St Albans and Westminster Abbey18. The decision to use

heraldic imagery on the soffit might also have stemmed from a desire

to separate the tester’s design from that of the Black Prince whose son,

Richard II, Henry IV had usurped.

Both the testers at Canterbury follow the tradition of earlier royal

testers at Westminster Abbey. For example, the addition of a tester to

the tomb of the Black Prince consciously emulates testers in

Westminster Abbey, and its design has affinity with that of the Prince’s

mother, Philippa of Hainault, whose tomb was started perhaps as early

as 1362. Stonemason John Orchard received payment for modifying,

installing and painting the tomb railings on June 28th 1376 indicating

Polychrome Wood

76 77

testers have ever been

moved.

On the tester of the

Black Prince a series of

different kinds of mark-

ups were found, made

with at least two

different tools. They

were set by the

carpenters during their

work as a means of

planning the fitting

together of the

components of the

tester. To mark some

joints, a sharp

implement was used to

score scratch marks on

either side of a joint. Elsewhere, semi-circular marks were made, for

example to distinguish the positioning of the south side pinnacles,

differentiating them from the north side finials where straight scores

were used. On the inside, rare and well-preserved chalk markings can

be found which have almost certainly survived in good condition due to

being cased in by the upper layer of boards. By contrast, on the tester

of Henry and Joan, every mark was set with a one-inch wide flat chisel.

These distinct modes of mark-up are in keeping with trends for the

period concerned; scoring is typical of an earlier method of mark-up

and chiselling of later carpentry24.

A visible difference in quality separates the two testers which is not so

much to do with the materials used to make the testers as in their

application. The paint technique of the Black Prince’s tester is typified

by high quality throughout. The detailed underdrawing is boldly

executed with a brush and liquid medium (Figures 5 & 6). The paint

layers are complex in build-up, with many layers and extensive use of

glazes, soft transitions and subtle gradations. This is typical of other late

fourteenth-century painting on both wood and stone, and has

particular resonance with the Last Judgement scenes in the Chapter

House at Westminster Abbey25. Other techniques have been used to

embellish the surface of the painting including stencilling with gold leaf

and the application of three patterns of mordant-gilded tin reliefs. Both

stencils and reliefs were further enhanced through painting. The blue

azurite background of the cusped and pinched mandorla was star-

studded with dozens of cast relief stars. The brilliant matt blue is clearly

visible where the stars have been lost.

The background of the soffit of Henry and Joan was also matt and

brilliantly blue. The cost of this high quality azurite must have been

substantial; it was applied lavishly over the chalk/glue ground. Yet the

quality of the painting does not reflect the use of this expensive material


Figure 5 (left) Detail of St Matthew, Black Prince’s tester, Canterbury Cathedral

Figure 6 (right) Infrared photograph of St Matthew, Black Prince’s tester, Canterbury Cathedral

These watercolours are very much interpretations and reconstructions

rather than straightforward copies and hang in the ambulatory close to

the respective tombs. The testers were again treated during 1974 and

1975 by Pauline Plummer and her team, who consolidated the testers

using gelatine, PVA and also wax/resin23.

Inspections of the testers were initiated by the Dean and Chapter of

Canterbury Cathedral in 2005, highlighting the precarious condition of

both testers. A year later it was apparent the condition of the

polychromy had visibly deteriorated, prompting the recent treatment

and technical investigation. Both structures measure roughly 4.5 x 2

metres. As they are made of oak, each tester weighs approximately half

a tonne. The major structural loss to the Black Prince’s tester is the

removal of eight finials, probably during Culmer’s attack during the Civil

War. The most significant losses to Henry and Joan’s tester are the

wooden angels and bosses. Only two original angels out of eight

remain, minus their wings, while only one out of eight bosses survives.

As one might expect the woodwork is fairly straightforward.

On both testers the techniques are consistent with those used in

contemporary utilitarian carpentry found, for example, in house-

building24. In the case of the Black Prince’s tester, a structural frame

surrounds the soffit panels which is made of quarter-beams, with a

carved groove on the inside and moulding on the outside. The boards

that make up the painted soffit are slotted into this groove and fixed to

cross-battens with nails. This box-like structure is finally closed with

boards, in a type of flooring, perhaps enabling access to the Prince’s

Achievements which are located above the tester (the present

Achievements are replicas, the originals which are on display near to

the tester were probably used during the Prince’s funeral or as part of

his hearse). On Henry and Joan’s tester, instead of the painted surface

comprising width-length boards, two sets of boards run lengthways.

While the underside of the panels is flat to allow for painting, the boards

on both testers overlap on the reverse in a clinker-built fashion.

The sequence of construction and painting on both testers is clear

to follow. On the Black Prince’s tester a lip of paint and ground

between the soffit panel and the groove of the structural frame proves

that these parts were painted after assembly. Cuts through the finished

paint at the east end of the Black Prince’s tester were made during

installation as a last minute adjustment to force the tester into the

tightly measured space between the twin columns. This shows that

most of if not all the tester was painted before it was installed. In the

case of Henry and Joan’s tester, painting was undertaken both before

and after assembly and it is possible that some painting might have

been done after installation.

Both testers are held up with large iron rods inserted into the

columns. In the case of the tester of Henry and Joan, the rods are

hidden behind a protective layer of lead and are not original, having

been replaced in the 1920s. The iron stakes holding up the tester of

the Black Prince appear original and there are no indications that the

Polychrome Wood

78 79

physical and chemical changes to the

paint. The most extreme alteration has

been the darkening of vermilion on the

external mouldings opposite the plain

glass windows (Figure 8). The bright

red of little-altered vermilion is also

visible in the back of the moulding

where it was protected from direct

sunlight. The black in front is darkened

vermilion26 upon which a design in red

lead has been painted. This too has

undergone degradation and has turned grey27.

Testers appear to be a curiously English monumental phenomenon

borne out of a desire to retain a tomb canopy without obscuring the

shrines of saints which they surround. Both of the Canterbury testers

were carefully tailored to the sites they occupy, indicating that they

were made nearby. However, on the Black Prince’s tester, a commission

of the highest prestige, it seems reasonable to assume that the artists

were court painters, particularly in the light of comparable surviving

figurative painting at Westminster Abbey28. Documents indicate that

court painters such as Hugh of St Albans worked at various locations in

the course of their appointment29.

The identity of the artists who worked on the tester over Henry

and Joan is less clear-cut although they may well have been local

artists. However, the poor condition of the end panels obviates any easy

conclusions as the relationship between these two panels both to the

soffit design and to each other is not certain. Their background design

might have prompted the alteration of the soffit design at a late stage,

and yet they are different in scale from each other and appear

somewhat mismatched in the tomb ensemble. They might also have

existed prior to the tester, possibly in a funerary or hearse context.

It is hoped that the ongoing technical study will shed further light on

these questions.

The two Canterbury testers therefore make for a valuable comparison

as they are close in time and yet significantly different in iconography

and technique. They are also both fine examples of a significant and

often ignored component of royal medieval monuments.


Figure 8 Detail of the south side external moulding from the tester of the Black Prince showing darkened vermilion, Canterbury Cathedral

so expansively (Figure 7 ). In fact, much

of the soffit painting is clumsily

handled, particularly the black

outlining. By contrast, the painting and

gilding on the outside of the tester is

more precise and delicate in nature. It

is therefore possible that the change of

plan for the soffit scheme led to a

more hastily painted underside.

Presumably, the difference is also a

reflection of the respective patronage

of the two objects. While both tomb

ensembles were obviously expensive

and high quality, the Black Prince’s

status was undeniably higher than that of Joan of Navarre, who almost

certainly was behind the later commission.

Before this most recent project began, it was established that more

than a third of the surviving paint on each tester was loose and that

there were a number of fresh losses. Generally both testers are

structurally sound, but there appears to have been a pattern of active

deterioration occurring directly which is affecting the polychromy.

Because the testers are largely painted on the underside, any delami-

nation of paint and gilding leads to loss more quickly than had these

paintings been positioned in the upright. A crucial part of this present

work is therefore to try to ensure that this short cycle of repeated

degradation followed by necessary treatment is broken; only in this way

will the long term preservation of these unique objects be safeguarded.

To this end, parameters of temperature and levels of humidity are being

monitored throughout the building, with the aim of understanding the

prevailing environmental conditions. A smaller research project into the

microclimates surrounding the testers themselves has been conducted

by Tobit Curteis. (See Curteis in this volume.)

The principal treatment interventions included consolidation of

flaking paint and gilding, surface cleaning, reintegration and localised

stabilisation of the wood substrate. The flaking paint was consolidated

using Lascaux 4176 Medium for Consolidation, a finely-dispersed

copolymer with excellent flow properties (Hedlund and Johansson,

2005). No large-scale cleaning or retouching was undertaken. Gamblin

colours were used to tone the most recent losses, in order to minimise

their visual impact. All painted areas were surface cleaned using de-

ionised water and the structures and their reverses were dusted and

vacuumed. Two loose pieces of 1930s replacement woodwork on the

tester of Henry and Joan were secured by Ray Marchant using Evo-Stik

Resin W, a PVA emulsion.

The loss of stained glass in three south windows next to the Black

Prince’s tester, which also occurred during the iconoclasm of the Civil

War, has also affected its condition. Unsurprisingly, centuries of

exposure to high levels of ultraviolet light has resulted in a number of

Figure 7 Detail of the soffit under-side of Henry IV and Joan of Navarre’s tester showing paint handling, Canterbury Cathedral

Polychrome Wood

80 81

References

Binski, P. 1995. Westminster Abbey and the Plantagenets: Kingship and

the Representation of Power 1200-1400. New Haven and London:

Yale University Press.

Brunskill, R W. 1994. Timber building in Britain. 2nd edn. London:

Gollancz.

Culmer, R. 1644. Cathedrall newes from Canterbury. London: Richard

Cotes.

Duffy, M. 2003. Royal Tombs of Medieval England. Stroud: Tempus.

Erskine, A, Hope, V and Lloyd, J. 1988. Exeter Cathedral: A Short History

and Description. Exeter: A. Wheaton & Co. Ltd.

Geddes, J. 1981. Detsicas, A. (ed). ‘Some tomb railings in Canterbury

Cathedral’. In Collectanea Historica: essays in memory of Stuart

Rigold. Maidstone: Kent Archaeological Society. pp66-73.

Harvey, J. 1975. Mediaeval Craftsmen. London: Batsford.

Harvey, J. 1976. The Black Prince and his age. London: Batsford.

Hedlund, H P and Johansson, M. 2005. ‘Prototypes of Lascaux medium

for consolidation. Development of a new custom-made polymer

dispersion for use in conservation’. Restauro vol 6. pp432-439.

Hope, W H St John. 1906. ‘The obituary roll of J. Islip, Abbot of

Westminster, 1500-32: with notes on other English obituary rolls’.

Vetusta Monumenta. Vol 7, No4. London: Society of Antiquaries.

Howard, H. 2003. ‘Technology of the painted past: Recent scientific

examination of the medieval wall paintings of the Chapter House of

Westminster Abbey’. Gowing, R. (ed). Conserving the painted past:

developing approaches to wall painting conservation. pp17-26.

Humphery-Smith, c.1976. ‘The tomb of King Henry IV’. Canterbury

Cathedral Chronicle. Vol 70. pp35-41.

Gough, R. 1786. Sepulchral Monuments in Great Britain. Vol 2, part 2.

London: J Nichols.

Lindley, P. Morris, 2003. ‘The Later Medieval Monuments and Chantry

Chapels’. R K and Shoesmith, R (eds). Tewkesbury Abbey: History, Art

and Architecture. Logaston: Logaston Press. pp161-82.

Luxford, J. 2003. ‘The Founders’ Book’. R K and Shoesmith, R (eds)

Tewkesbury Abbey: History, Art and Architecture. Morris, Logaston:

Logaston Press. pp53-64.

Miles, D and Bridge, M. 2008. ‘Westminster Abbey, London. Tree-ring

dating of the chests and fittings’. Scientific dating report, Research

Department Report Series. 3/2008, London: English Heritage.

Neale, J and Brayley, E. 1823. The History and Antiquities of the Abbey

Church of St Peter, Westminster. (2 volumes), London: J Neale.

Nichols, J (ed). 1780. A Collection of Wills of the Kings and Queens of

England. London: J. Nichols.

Page, R. 2010. ‘Glass inlay in Europe in the Thirteenth and Fourteenth

Centuries’. Binski, P and Massing, A (eds). The Westminster Retable:

History, Context, Conservation. Cambridge/T Vanhout/Hamilton Kerr

Institute/Harvey Miller. pp107-23.


Acknowledgements

The authors wish to thank the Dean and Chapter of Canterbury

Cathedral, as well as the Fabric Advisory Commission. Many individuals

helped us in our daily work at the Cathedral, in particular Cressida

Annesley, Paul Bennett, John Burton, John Meardon, and Heather

Newton. Thanks to Spike Bucklow, Jessica David, Lauren Fly, Muirne

Lydon, Ray Marchant, Ian McClure, Joanna Russell, Alison Stock, Chris

Titmus and Ian Tyers who worked on the project. We are very grateful

to the Friends of Canterbury Cathedral; the project would not have

been possible without their generous financial help.

End Notes

1 Duffy. 2003. p9.

2 Page. 2009. p115.

3 Miles and Bridge. 2008.

4 St John Hope. 1906. p9, pl XII.

5 Erskine, Hope and Lloyd. 1988. p35, pp103-4.

6 Harvey 1976. pp160-5.

7 Wilson 1995. pp494-506.

8 Wilson 1995. p495.

9 Woodruff 1932. pp13-32, esp. 21.

10 Binski 1995. p188.

11 Wilson 1995. p496.

12 Tudor-Craig 1997. pp207-22.

13 Humphery-Smith 1976. pp35-41, esp. 36.

14 Nichols 1780. p203. Wilson. 1990. p18.

15 Duffy. 2003. pp199-206.

16 Spry. 1836. pp440-45. Geddes. 1981. p67.

17 Gough. 1786. p32, pl XV.

18 Luxford 2003. pp53-64. Lindley. 2003. pp161-82.

19 Duffy. 2003. p137.

20 Weever. 1631. p468. Sandford. 1707. p173. Neale and Brayley. 1823.

pl opp. p93.

21 Culmer. 1644. p22.

22 Tristram. 1935. Tristram. 1937.

23 Plummer. 1975.

24 Brunskill. 1994. p34.

25 Howard. 2003. pp18-22, 24.

26 Spring and Grout. 2002.

27 Saunders, Spring and Higgitt. 2002.

28 Howard. 2003. p23.

29 Harvey. 1975. pp164-65.

82 83

Plummer, P. 1975. Unpublished treatment reports. Canterbury Cathedral

Archive.

Sandford, F. 1707. A genealogical history of the Kings and Queens of

England and monarchs of Great Britain, &c. From the conquest, Anno

1066 to the year 1707. London: M Jenour.

Saunders, D, Spring, M and Higgitt, C. 2002. ‘Colour change in red lead-

containing paint films’. ICOM Committee for Conservation, ICOM-

CC: 13th Triennial Meeting, Rio de Janeiro, 22-27 September 2002:

preprints (2 volumes). Vol 1, pp455-63.

Spring, M.and Grout, R. 2002. ‘The blackening of vermillion: an

analytical study of the process in paintings’. National Gallery Technical

Bulletin. Vol 23, pp50-61.

Spry, J H. 1836. ‘A brief account of the examination of the tomb of King

Henry IV in the Cathedral of Canterbury, August 21, 1832’.

Archaeologia. Vol 26, pp440-445.

Tristram, E W. 1935. ‘The paintings of Canterbury Cathedral: an address

delivered in the Chapter House, Canterbury, on the Festival Day of the

Friends of Canterbury Cathedral’. Canterbury: Friends of Canterbury

Cathedral.

Tristram, E W. 1937. ‘The tomb of Henry IV and Joan of Navarre’,

Canterbury Cathedral Chronicle, pp6-8.

Tudor-Craig, P. 1997. ‘The Wilton Diptych in the Context of

Contemporary English Panel and Wall Painting’. Gordon, D, Monnas, L

and Elam, C (eds) The Regal Image of Richard II and the Wilton

Diptych. London: Harvey Miller. pp207-22.

Weever, J. 1631. Ancient funerall monuments within the Vnited

Monarchie of Great Britaine, Ireland, and the islands adiacent,

London: Thomas Harper.

Wilson, C. 1990. ‘The Tomb of Henry IV and the Holy Oil of St Thomas

of Canterbury’. Fernie, E and Crossley, P (eds). Medieval Architecture

and its Intellectual Context: Studies in Honour of Peter Kidson,

London: Hambledon. pp181-90.

Wilson, C. 1995. ‘The medieval monuments’. Collinson, P, Ramsay, N

and Sparks M (eds). A History of Canterbury Cathedral, Oxford:

Oxford University Press. pp451-510.

Woodruff, C E. 1932. ‘The financial aspect of the cult of St Thomas of

Canterbury as revealed by a study of the monastic records’,

Archaeologia Cantiana, Vol 44, pp13-32.

Picture Credits

All images © Chris Titmus, Hamilton Kerr Institute

except for Figure 5 © Marie Louise Sauerberg, Hamilton Kerr Institute.

Materials List

Gamblin Artists Colors Co.

PO Box 625

Portland,

OR 97207

USA

http://www.gamblincolors.com/

conservation/products.html

Lascaux Medium for Consolidation 4176

A P Fitzpatrick

Fine Art Materials

142 Cambridge Heath Road

London E1 5QJ

www.lascaux.ch/english/index.html

Evo-Stik Resin W

Bostik Findley Ltd.

Common Road

Stafford

ST16 3EH

5/ Late-medieval Polychrome Tomb Testers in Canterbury Cathedral and ElsewherePolychrome Wood