|







|
These effigies represent members of the de la Beche family,
lords of the manor in the 14th century, although it is not
possible to identify them individually. The effigies are very
mutilated but are non-the-less of great interest. Six of the
effigies lie under canopies against the north and south walls -
three on either side. These canopies were over restored by
Aubin
in 1817, although Earp did the actual carving. These monuments
date from the 1340's. The other three effigies, which are of a
similar date, although possible a little later, lie on tomb
chests under the arcading between the south aisle and nave.
South-West (left top) This very
mutilated effigy is probably that of a civilian, this being
more certain when the now missing parts, which were once recorded,
are considered. The position of the damaged animal at the feet
suggests that the legs (now lost) were once crossed. The arms
are also lost but, judging from the remnants, were probably in
the praying position.. Soft limestone.
South-Central (left next) This is of a
lady; she turns outwards to regard the observer. Although this
is the most complete of the effigies, it is very worn and damp.
Her body sways slightly and her hands hold up her cloak. There
appears to have been two angels (one now virtually gone) holding
her pillow and, unusually, a third angel helping her hold her
cloak on the right hand side. Oolitic limestone.
South-East (left next) This is a
military effigy and very worn. His whole body now turns
outwards, for which reason I have drawn him from the side. His
head rests on a double pillow and he wears a helmet with the
vizor raised. The left hand holds his shield well away from his
body and the right hand his sword. Soft limestone.
North-West (right top) A military
effigy; his head, turned slightly outwards, rests on a single
pillow. His left hand holds his shield and his right hand rests
on his sword pommel. He wears a helmet and a long surcoat, cut
short at the front. The mail shirt is visible but the mail is
not represented. The legs, mostly missing, are crossed. Soft
limestone.
North-Central (right-next) This effigy
is similar to the one above but with interesting variations. His
head rests on a large double pillow and he wears a helmet with
mail for the neck. Again he turns outward to regard the lady
opposite. He again wears a long surcoat, cut short at the front,
but, once more, what would have been his mail shirt is not
carved. His legs (more complete than those of his companion) are
crossed and his feet rest on a large lion. His shield appears to
be held be a strap and his left hand (which shows evidence of
armour) rests on his sword. The right hand rests on his chest
and appears to hold the strap supporting the shield. Soft
limestone.
North-East (right-next) This military effigy
is very different to the others and most unusual. His attitude
is almost like a Jacobean effigy: he reclines on one side,
leaning on his right elbow with the hand supporting the head -
although rather he once did as this hand is now mainly lost as
is the forearm. His legs are drawn up and his legs crossed below
the knees. At his feet sits his page. There are effigies of a
similar - but by now means as extreme - attitude in Exeter
Cathedral (one shows a groom holding a horse as well as a page)
and Bere Ferrers in Devon. A wooden effigy of very similar
attitude may be seen in Chew Magna, Somerset; this is dated by
Fryer to 1340-50; it is now very heavily painted . He wears an
elaborately carved helmet with a raised visor and a long
surcoat.
This latter is held by a belt around the waist and
there is a wider and more elaborately carved sword belt below.
Plate armour encloses the limbs, which is again elaborately
carved - except for the thighs which are enclosed in a quilted
material. Between his legs can be seen the tails of a quilted
garment. The effigy is in the round with no slab, although the
detached page (once attached by dowels) does have such a slab.
He may have rested on a shield. Oolitic limestone.
Centre-West (left next) Another
military effigy with armour of a slightly later fashion. He lies
in a more conventional fashion with straight legs (although now
mostly lost) and hands in prayer. His head rests on a helmet and
he wears a pointed bascinet with what was probably a mail
tippet, although again there is no carving, falling onto his
shoulders. The arms are enclosed in plate of which the straps
and joints can be seen. He wears a short surcoat, which is
tightly laced above the waist and loose below. There are remains
of a sword which is held be a thick belt with an elaborate
buckle. Oolitic limestone. No slab; the effigy rest on a tomb
chest of Purbeck marble slabs.
Centre-East (right next)
There
are two effigies here - an knight and a lady. They lie on a tomb
chest with bases of pillars at each corner, indicating that
there was perhaps once a canopy.
The lady is now headless. Her body sways delightfully, her right
hand holds up her cloak or dress and the left holds the tie of
her cloak which is tucked under her right arm. Her feet rest on
an animal. No slab. Beerstone.
|








|
|
The military effigy is similar to that above but with
interesting differences of detail. His head rests on a more
complete helmet but his face has been neatly sliced away. This
was almost certainly made from a separate (finer?) piece of
stone which was glued, rather than pegged, onto the main part of
the effigy. This was carried out with hot glue and when heating
the pieces of stone to be joined; slight burning of the stone
here in just visible. His surcoat is laced all the way down and
the lower part is pleated instead of remaining loose. His legs
are enclosed in plate armour and his feet rest on an animal.
Underneath his legs lie two dogs curled up, another unusual
feature. Coarser oolitic limestone.
There has been much speculation about these very different effigies and the
last word certainly has not been said. The sculptor(s) certainly
showed great imagination in their producing . Are all the effigies in their original
medieval position? Do those against the wall face the central
monuments, although these may be later? Why have different
stones been used? When was the damage done?
|