?

Log in

No account? Create an account
Sir Thomas Cawne - Eroticdreambattle — LiveJournal [entries|archive|friends|userinfo]
Tony Grist

[ userinfo | livejournal userinfo ]
[ archive | journal archive ]

Sir Thomas Cawne [Feb. 13th, 2015|10:02 am]
Tony Grist
101_7323 (2)

This is Sir Thomas Cawne, first owner of Ightham Mote.

Medieval tomb effigies don't come much finer than this. It's been suggested it may be from the same workshop as the effigy of The Black Prince in Canterbury Cathedral.
linkReply

Comments:
From: cmcmck
2015-02-13 11:21 am (UTC)
Oh he is really splendid.

I can see why that suggestion might get made.
(Reply) (Thread)
[User Picture]From: poliphilo
2015-02-13 11:58 am (UTC)
Ightham doesn't make it into Simon Jenkins' bumper book of great English churches- and I'm shocked. It's a pretty little building and the monuments are fabulous.
(Reply) (Parent) (Thread)
From: cmcmck
2015-02-13 12:12 pm (UTC)
We have the book and I'm amazed at what doesn't get in!
(Reply) (Parent) (Thread)
[User Picture]From: resonant
2015-02-13 01:40 pm (UTC)
The chainmail must have taken forever - and imagine your chisel slipping!
(Reply) (Thread)
[User Picture]From: poliphilo
2015-02-13 01:52 pm (UTC)
Ouch! That would have been awful.
(Reply) (Parent) (Thread)
From: artkouros
2015-02-13 02:46 pm (UTC)
He doesn't look comfortable. I'd hate to be buried in armor.
(Reply) (Thread)
[User Picture]From: poliphilo
2015-02-13 03:47 pm (UTC)
I don't think they were. The Black Prince has his armour displayed above his tomb.
(Reply) (Parent) (Thread)
[User Picture]From: pondhopper
2015-02-13 03:18 pm (UTC)
The chain mail looks almost real. What fine shape it's all in!
(Reply) (Thread)
[User Picture]From: poliphilo
2015-02-13 03:51 pm (UTC)
A lot of these effigies are terribly bashed about. I suspect it has a lot to do with the quality (meaning hardness) of the stone. Sir Thomas has had his nose flattened but otherwise he's looking good.

Mind you, he would probably have been painted in bright heraldic colours when new.
(Reply) (Parent) (Thread)
[User Picture]From: wyrmwwd
2015-02-13 03:50 pm (UTC)
I really love these... as well as the busts from the Roman era. I assume that this is what they did instead of photography. I love things that show me what these folks looked like.
(Reply) (Thread)
[User Picture]From: poliphilo
2015-02-13 04:09 pm (UTC)
The Romans cared about getting a good likeness. I'm not sure the medievals did. Their idea of a handsome knight or beautiful lady seems to have been fairly standardized- and it's only towards the middle of the 15th century that we start to get strongly individualised portraits.

On the other hand I was watching a documentary about King John the other night and one of the scholars interviewed was saying that the effigy on John's tomb is likely to be an fairly accurate portrait- so who knows?
(Reply) (Parent) (Thread)
[User Picture]From: wyrmwwd
2015-02-13 04:11 pm (UTC)

Even today, we use Photoshop to make our celebrities look better.
(Reply) (Parent) (Thread)