This page has paths:
- 1 2018-03-03T20:28:44+00:00 Craig Dietrich 2d66800a3e5a1eaee3a9ca2f91f391c8a6893490 Vestusta Monumenta Craig Dietrich 8 structured_gallery 2018-03-03T21:32:38+00:00 Craig Dietrich 2d66800a3e5a1eaee3a9ca2f91f391c8a6893490
- 1 2018-03-03T20:28:44+00:00 Craig Dietrich 2d66800a3e5a1eaee3a9ca2f91f391c8a6893490 Vestusta Monumenta Craig Dietrich 8 structured_gallery 2018-03-03T21:32:38+00:00 Craig Dietrich 2d66800a3e5a1eaee3a9ca2f91f391c8a6893490
This page is referenced by:
Plate XXVII: The East Prospect of the Ruins of Furness Abbey in Lancashire
Attribution-Noncommercial-No Derivative Works 3.0
TranscriptionCoenobii Furneseiensis in agro LANCASTRENSI facies hodierna, a pristina quantum mutata, splendidissimae docent ruinae. Stephanum primo Moritonii et Boloniae Comitem, dein Angliae Regem, AD MCXXVII Fundatorem habuit, Ordinemque Sauigneiensem sub regula St. Benedicti matrem agnovit, brevi autem se Cisterciensibus adscripsit Reditumque annuum 966£. 7s. 10d, fisco Regio, cum dissolveretur, secum detulit. Iussu Nobilissimi Principis Ducis Montacutij delineatam in aere incidi curavit Societas Antiquar. Lond. A. D. MDCCXXVII
TranslationThe contemporary appearance of Furness Abbey in the county of Lancaster. The splendid ruins show how much the Abbey has changed from its original condition. It was founded in 1127 by Stephen, first the count of Boulogne and of Mortain [Normandy], later King of England. The Abbey originally recognized the Order of Savigny under the rule of St. Benedict. Shortly thereafter, however, they ascribed themselves to the Cistercians. When it was dissolved, the Abbey had an annual rent of 966.7.10 to the Royal Exchequer. The rent was deferred along with it. In 1727 AD, the Society of Antiquaries of London undertook to engrave in copper this drawing made by order of the Most Noble Prince the Duke of Montagu.
Engraved by George Vertue after an anonymous drawing. This plate lacks the conventional signatures found in the lower left- and right-hand corners of many plates, but Vertue is named as the engraver in the minutes for 4 June 1727, when the first 150 prints were ordered (SAL Minutes I.212). The caption indicates that the original drawing was commissioned by John, 2nd Duke of Montague (1690-1749), but this circumstance is not mentioned in the minutes. Montague was elected to fellowship in the society in 1725, and may have shown this drawing at a meeting in November 1726, when the engraving was ordered; he may even have suggested himself that this drawing be engraved, as the caption seems to imply. The print marks the 600th anniversary of the abbey’s foundation. It was re-engraved by J. Bayly for Thomas West’s Antiquities of Furness (1774).
The print shows the ruins of the east front of the abbey church at Furness, Lancashire, together with the chapter house immediately to the south (left) and the infirmary chapel (far left).
The visible portions of the abbey church date from the later 15th century, while the other two structures date from the thirteenth century. Between the chapter house and chapel, a portion of the cloister may be indistinctly seen in the background. This view does not show the five ornate Romanesque arches of the cloister’s eastern range, by now perhaps the abbey’s most celebrated surviving features, but only visible from the west side of the chapter house. The print also shows a number of modern structures, most notably the manor house to the north (far right) with its formal gardens. This manor dates from about 1670 and became the Furness Abbey Hotel after a railway station was built near the abbey in 1845, but was demolished in 1954 (Wood 2008: 11, 17). The many deer indicate the use of the abbey precinct as a deer park in the eighteenth century. The print includes five human figures, most notably the draftsman in the middle foreground.
Founded in 1127 on this site, now known as Barrow-in-Furness, Cumbria, this Cistercian abbey—the second-wealthiest in England after Fountains Abbey —was suppressed by Henry VIII on 9 April 1537. Construction of the presbytery and crossing was complete by 1170 and the nave was complete by 1200. Work on the east front and west tower continued intermittently through the fifteenth century. The church roof and windows were dismantled within three months (Wood 2008: 10) and eventually Thomas Preston purchased the property from the Crown. It remained in the Preston family until 1756, when it was inherited by Lord George Augustus Cavendish (d. 1794), who is credited with the earliest efforts to preserve the abbey ruins (West 1774: 262-63). A stone buttress supporting the north transept dates from his tenure; iron and concrete reinforcement was added beginning in 1884 (Wood 2008: 24); and a major structural stabilization was carried out by the Office of Works beginning in 1923 when the state acquired the property from the Cavendish family. Among other changes over time, the print shows an arched roof on the now roofless rear portion of the chapel and shows the second story of the chapter house in a more complete state (only the middle section of the upper story remains).
In this plate Vetusta Monumenta returns to the medieval subject matter that dominated the first seven years of the series. The ten prints published in 1725-26 focused on the Tudor period, particularly the reign of Henry VIII. The print of Furness Abbey, published in 1727, marks the 600th anniversary of the foundation of the abbey, and the majority of the prints published over the next ten years again focus on medieval subjects. Furness is the last of the four abbeys depicted in Vetusta Monumenta vol. 1 (1718-1747), though second only to Fountains Abbey (ix-xii) in historical importance. Coincidentally, the first two depictions of Furness Abbey, both of the east prospect, appeared in the same year. The other engraving, by Samuel and Nathanael Buck, was an accident of their itinerary, which took them through this region in the process of creating the third annual number of their Collection of Engravings of Castles and Abbeys in England (1725-39). Vertue had used the Bucks’ drawings of Fountains Abbey for Vetusta Monumenta in 1723, before their own series was fully launched, but the Furness Abbey engraving sets itself apart by marking the 600th anniversary self-consciously as an epoch: the building of the great abbey church, representing the apogee of English monastic culture, makes a fitting subject for an antiquarian print conceived as the state of the art in preservation, a permanent modern record of “ancient grandeur and religious pomp” (West 1774: Dedication). The same words could be used to describe an explicitly Catholic revival of 1927, when hundreds of pilgrims marked the 800th anniversary by processing to Furness Abbey to hear mass read by Cardinal Francis Bourne.
In style, this print most closely resembles the print of Walsingham Abbey (commentary for Plate VI): the abbey is of interest to the artists as an archaeological site, but perhaps even more so as the feature of a picturesque landscape. In this way, the print anticipates the aesthetic orientation of descriptions by Thomas West, Ann Radcliffe, and others later in the century. In making this engraving, Vertue would seem to have followed the stylistic choices of the unknown draftsman, whose approach resembles that of J. Badslade in the Walsingham print. (Close scrutiny of the engraving, however, reveals richer architectural detail in this print.) With its topographical approach, this print is one of the first in the series to display the “fissure” noted by Martin Myrone between “antiquarian exactitude” and “aesthetic pleasure” (2007: 113), leaning toward the latter. West, however, noted that this “elegant east perspective view . . . taken by the Society of Antiquaries,” followed by his own ground plan of the ruins many years later, took the essential first steps toward clearing up the “confused idea of the premises” that had appeared in travelers’ recollections (West 1774: 2). A comparison with the Bucks’ engraving of 1727 gives a clear sense of this print’s superior accuracy.
The viewer’s distance from the landscape, standing behind the draftsman, guarantees a certain prominence to the modern house at right, which is echoed by the cluster of deer in a patch of sun on the hillside directly opposite. In this respect, the print may be seen to offer a version of the narrative of improvement associated with topographical depiction: reading left to right, the compact modern manor completes the trajectory suggested by the wild game and the ruins of premodern splendor forming the center of the composition. The sweeping lawn, which appears brightly illuminated by the morning sun, unites these elements and reinforces the sense of improvement and leisure. While the sweeping nature of the view attests to the aesthetic priorities of the print, the presence of the draftsman in the image derives from the tradition of the “eye witness” associated with more scientific visual documentation (Smiles 2000). The figure of the antiquary (embodied in the Rückenfigur of the draftsman and perhaps the gazing figure in the center of the image, if not in the other three), which occurs in several subsequent prints, appears here for the second time in the series, and for the first time in the plural (cf. VII).
The caption makes the abbey’s great wealth a focal point of its historiography. Though the caption offers a much more confined space for historical interpretation than do the letterpress sheets that began to accompany the Vetusta Monumenta engravings in 1763, it effectively focuses attention on the abbey’s wealth by stating the annual income from its agricultural lands, which extended as far as Borrowdale in the Lake District. This emphasis is at odds with the asceticism of the Cistercian order, which the originally Benedictine abbey was compelled to join quite early in its history (1147), as also noted in the caption. The Cistercians were permitted to receive grants of land, though not of money. Large grants of land were more readily forthcoming on a remote peninsula in northwest England than they were in the more developed plains of Dijon, where the Cistercian mother house of Citeaux was situated. The early abbots of Furness turned these grants to good account, building large flocks of sheep that grazed along the rugged fells of Lancashire and Cumberland. Thus wool exports substantially augmented the abbey’s wealth in land, established by Stephen’s original gift and soon increased by additional estates: “within a short time the abbots enjoyed the status of great border barons with feudal independence over a huge territory” (Fergusson 1984: 55). An ambitious building program begun by 1160 extended the nave to ten bays west and renovated the east end of the church originally completed in the 1140s. The cloister was begun in the early thirteenth century, using the same native red sandstone; five impressive archivaults remain from the cloister’s eastern range, along the chapter house porch. After a gradual decline in the size of the community in the fifteenth century, Furness became “the first of the major monasteries to be suppressed” on 9 April 1537 (Wood 2008: 10).
Although the eighteenth-century antiquaries recognized the wealth and power of Furness Abbey as reflected in the scale of the ruins, their specific importance for architectural history was established much later. The abbey church seen here from the east is cited by Fergusson (1984: 55) as the first English church built in the Early Gothic style. Fergusson gives three reasons why this innovation might have happened in a remote corner of northwest England in the 1160s: first, Furness was geographically isolated from the more established Cistercian abbeys of the Northeast and second—partly for that reason—it was more directly under the influence of France, from whence its architectural innovations were imported. A new abbot was installed by papal fiat in 1149 in response to a “rebellion” of this established English community, the members of which did not wish to follow their French Savigniac brethren in adopting the Cistercian order, or “ascribe themselves to the Cistercians,” as the Latin caption has it. The new abbot, however, together with a master mason apparently trained at Laon, extended the nave and then rebuilt the east end of the church originally completed in the 1140s. The “destruction of Furness I” was dictated by this new architectural plan, which “affirmed Cistercian orthodoxy” (Fergusson 1984: 56), an affirmation that would have seemed more urgent at Furness than at Fountains and other English abbeys where the Cistercian order was already well established. The main structural innovation, expressing what Fergusson calls the Cistercians’ “intense interest in light,” was “the appearance of a middle story used in conjunction with . . . [a] vaulted interior” (Fergusson 1984: 64-65). Both the massed pointed arches supporting the aisles and the middle story, a clerestory with round-arched windows, are clearly visible to the left and right of the central arch in the print (the upper story had already fallen by this time).
In the course of the eighteenth century Furness Abbey became widely known through a large variety of prints and paintings as well as through antiquarian and literary texts. In the nineteenth century, several literary treatments by Wordsworth and sketches by Turner and Ruskin helped to establish it, along with Tintern Abbey, as a quintessential Romantic ruin. Vertue’s print of the abbey played a significant role in this popularization, contributing to the revival of interest in abbey ruins sparked in 1718 by John Stevens’s English translation of William Dugdale’s Monasticon Anglicanum (originally published 1655-73). The continuing authority of Vertue’s print is suggested by Thomas West’s decision fifty years later to re-engrave it for his Antiquities of Furness (1777) rather than commissioning a new drawing. The modern historiography begins with a substantial entry on Furness in Dugdale and is extended by detailed attention to other abbey churches modeled on Furness, such as Holmcoltram, in Stevens’s The History of Antient Abbeys (1723). A new edition of Dugdale’s Monasticon (1817-1830) featured a large new print of the same east view of the abbey ruins by John Coney (Wood 2008: 18). The abbey ruins increasingly featured as an aesthetic object outside the antiquarian context; beginning with William Gilpin’s sketch and description for Observations Relative Chiefly to Picturesque Beauty (1772; 1786), the ruins became an essential station on the tour of the Lake District. An etching of the abbey ruins appeared on Joseph Wilkinson’s Select Views in Cumberland (1810), for which Wordsworth wrote a lengthy introduction that became the basis for his own Guide to the Lakes. His famous verses on the “holy scene” of Furness in The Prelude (1805) allude to the “fractured arch” featured in the center of Vertue’s print.
Inspired as much by West’s antiquarian research as by the practice of picturesque tourism, Radcliffe imagined the monks at Furness taking in the sea view of from the watchtower above the abbey and “indulg[ing] . . . [a] sigh of regret” over “the world they had renounced” (Radcliffe 1794: 180-81). It is difficult to decide at this distance whether the tourists depicted in this print imagined the monks in the same way, though it seems clear enough that the producers of Vetusta Monumenta would have agreed with Radcliffe that “the finest view of the ruin is on the east side” (176). Radcliffe’s term “sentimental beauty” captures a more durable aspect of the representation of ruins that may be traced in Italian landscapes of the seventeenth and eighteenth centuries (for example in Giovanni Battista Piranesi’s many prints of Roman ruins) to Roger Fenton’s photographs of Furness Abbey in the 1860s. Victorian photographs showing tourists seated in the well-preserved sedilia at Furness suggest a mode of sympathetic identification inherited from the tourists depicted in this print in 1727. No text accompanies the image, and from an archaeological point of view it is still a far cry from the precise elevations and ground plans published by Thomas Beck in 1844 or the reconstructions of architectural sequence by William St. John Hope (FSA) in the 1890s. Nonetheless, this print faithfully records the state of the ruins in the early eighteenth century, including the seventeenth-century manor house (rejected as “discordant” by Radcliffe). The Furness Railway was building a station near the ruins as Beck’s work left the press, and in 1847 rebuilt the manor house and its incorporated remnants of the medieval abbot’s guest house into a hotel for passengers (finally demolished in 1954). Wordsworth inveighed against these developments in two late sonnets on Furness Abbey. In a large sense, then, the print marks an early stage in the transformation of a Gothic ruin into a tourist site, and of antiquarian documentation into a heritage industry. It also marks a kind of synthesis in the program of Vetusta Monumenta, since this subject combines the medievalism of many of the earlier plates with the Tudor period thematized in the ten prints immediately preceding this one—manifested here in the suppression of the abbey by Henry VIII, as recorded both in the caption and in the ruined state of the remains. The print thus contributes to the project of “open[ing] up the monastic past to a non-professional readership,” a project initiated in 1718 by Stevens’s translation and revision of Dugdale’s Monasticon (ODNB).
Unlike either the picturesque or the archaeological views of later periods, Vertue’s print shows a working landscape with a game preserve, men, horses, dogs, a mill house (the small modern structure overlooking the stream in the left foreground), and a formal garden. These topographical elements suggest the influence of the Duke of Montague, the recently elected fellow who commissioned the drawing that formed the basis of the print. His exact role is not clarified by the Society’s minutes, which merely record that the print was ordered on 23 November 1726, presented in proof the following May, when the inscription was composed, and distributed to fellows in June of that year (SAL Minutes I.193, 212); a second print run was ordered in 1735, indicating continuing demand for the print (II.86). The draftsman’s work is integrated into this working landscape, but while his gaze is directed toward the modern house, the one still figure at the center of the composition seems lost in contemplation of the 287-foot perspective of the ruined church, closed by a single large tree as in the Bucks’ print of the same year. By taking this central figure as our proxy in viewing the print, we enter through the artist’s work into the strange yet familiar space between objects and history.
Buck, Samuel and Nathanael. 1726-39. A Collection of Engravings of Castles, and Abbeys in England. 2 vols. London.
Dugdale, William. 1718 [1655-73]. Monasticon Anglicanum. Trans. John Stevens. 3 vols.
Fergusson, Peter. 1984. Architecture of Solitude. Princeton: Princeton UP.
Myrone, Martin. 2007. ODNB entry for John Stevens.
Radcliffe, Ann. 2014 . Observations during a Tour to the Lakes of Lancashire, Westmoreland, and Cumberland. Ed. Penny Bradshaw. Carlisle: Bookcase.
Society of Antiquaries of London. 1718- Minutes of the Society’s Proceedings.
Stevens, John. 1723. The History of Ancient Abbeys. 2 vols.
West, Thomas. 1774. The Antiquities of Furness. London.
Wood, Jason. 2008. “Visualizations of Furness Abbey: from Romantic ruin to computer model,” English Heritage Historical Review 3.1: 9-36.
Wordsworth, William. 1932. The Complete Poetical Works. Cambridge, Mass: Houghton Mifflin.
Further ReadingBeck, Thomas. 1844. Annales Furnesiensis. Coucher Book of Furness Abbey. 1886-1919. Ed. J. C. Atkinson and
John Brownbill. Remains, Historical and Literary, Connected with the Palatine Counties of Lancaster and Chester. Vols. 9, 11, 14, 74, 76, 78. Manchester: Chetham Society.
Dade-Robertson, Christine. 2000. Furness Abbey: Romance, Scholarship, and Culture. Lancaster.
Hope, Sir William Henry St. John. 1900. “The abbey of St Mary in Furness, Lancashire,” Transactions of the Cumberland and Westmorland Antiquarian and Archaeological Society XVI: 221-302.
Wood, Jason. 2004.
Plate VII: Waltham Cross, in the County of Middlesex
Attribution-Noncommercial-No Derivative Works 3.0
TranscriptionCrucem elegantissimam Walthamiae in memoriam Aleanorae Reginae ab Eduardo I. extructam, injuria temporum vindicavit et pristino nitori restituit Societas Antiquaria Londiniensis, Ao. 1721. W. Stukeley delin.
Translation [EB]This most elegant cross, Waltham, which was erected by Edward I in memory of Queen Eleanor, has been defended against the ravages of time and restored it to its original splendour by the London Society of Antiquaries in the year 1721. Drawn by W. Stukeley. Labels in the image: a) Imagines Reginae [Images of the Queen] b) Sectio Ichnographica Mediana [Ichnographic cross-section]
Plate:Engraved by George Vertue after a drawing by William Stukeley. Dated 1721. The Minute Books of the Society of Antiquaries record that Stukeley "brought drawings of Waltham Cross" (SAL Minutes I: 40) to the meeting on 8 February 1721. During the same meeting the society agreed to have one of Stukeley’s drawings engraved by George Vertue. On 24 July 1721, Stukeley "brought a new Drawing of Waltham Cross" (I: 46) which he gifted to the society, and on 8 November 1721 Vertue "brought a proof of Waltham Cross which was approved of" (I: 47). Vertue printed 150 impressions of which each member of the society received three. The engraving was later included in the first volume of Vetusta Monumenta.
ObjectA hexagonal, spire-shaped gothic cross built in three tiers and set on six stone steps. The lower part is decorated with arch and gable motifs; within the arches are Eleanor’s shields of arms (England, León, Castile and Ponthieu). The middle tier contains high niches that originally housed statues of Queen Eleanor. Three examples of these statues are shown in the upper left. A man approaches the building from the right and an ichnographic plan of the cross is shown in the upper left.
Provenance and LocationWaltham Cross is one of twelve crosses erected by Edward I between 1291-94 in memory of Queen Eleanor. The cross stands in the centre of Waltham Cross, a small town 19 kilometres north of London. It was built by the architect Roger of Crundale and the senior royal mason Richard of Crundale; the stone statues of Eleanor were carved by Alexander Abingdon. The original statues of Queen Eleanor were moved to the Victoria & Albert museum and have been replaced by replicas.
Commentary [KB]Waltham Cross, like the other eleven crosses which Edward I ordered to be built between 1291 and 1294 to commemorate the deceased Queen Eleanor, was erected to mark the spot on which Eleanor’s coffin rested overnight when the funeral procession, proceeding in twelve stages from Lincoln to Westminster, passed through Waltham in 1290 (Steane 1985: 49-50). The Eleanor Crosses, only three of which survive today, had a significant influence on English sculpture: according to Colum Hourihane, they were ‘the prototypes for many crosses which were erected in the following centuries, particularly in market-places’ and they continued to provide inspiration for new market crosses and war memorials well into the nineteenth century (Hourihane 2001: 337).
The drawing on which the plate is based was made by William Stukeley, who was among the founding members of the revived Society of Antiquaries and acted as the society’s first secretary. George Vertue printed 150 impressions of Stukeley’s drawing. Each member of the society received three prints. The engraving was later included in the first volume of Vetusta Monumenta.
Stukeley included a copper print based on another drawing of Waltham Cross in his Itinerarium curiosum, or, An account of the antiquitys and remarkable curiositys in nature or art, observ'd in travels thro' Great Brittan (1724), which discusses Waltham Cross, as well as the crosses at Geddington and Northampton, as part of the ‘Iter Oxoniense’. In December 1745, Stukeley instigated an excavation in Stamford that led to the discovery of the foundations of another Eleanor cross which is mentioned briefly in the expanded second edition of the Itinerarium (Stukeley 1776: 36). For Stukeley and many like-minded antiquaries, the Eleanor crosses, ‘demolished by the Fanatics in the beginning of the Great Rebellion’ (Stukeley in a letter to the Stamford Mercury, 21 Dec 1745), were a poignant reminder of the irrevocable damage which the Civil War had wrought on native antiquities.
The society’s attempt to protect Waltham Cross against further damage can be seen to mark the (very modest) beginnings of the society’s activities to physically preserve historical monuments. As the Minute Books record of the meeting on 12 July 1721, Stukeley "brought in a bill of ten shillings which he paid by Order of the Society for setting down two oak posts to secure Waltham Cross from injury by Carriages, which was repaid by the Treasurer" (SAL Minutes I: 46). However, it is important to bear in mind that the society’s actions concerning Waltham Cross constitute something of an anomaly in the early history of the revived society. It was only at the end of the eighteenth century, when an intensified interest in national history had lastingly changed the cultural climate, that antiquarian debates about the necessity to preserve antiquities gained momentum. In the first half of the eighteenth century, efforts to conserve historical monuments were hampered both by the fact that virtually all historical monuments were the property of private persons or corporate bodies, who were at liberty to demolish or alter these monuments, and by the antiquaries’ deeply ambivalent attitude to the preservation of antiquities. As Rosemary Sweet notes, "[a]ntiquaries were primarily collectors [. . .] and sought above all to enrich their private collections by ransacking the past, often at the expense of the integrity or even survival of a larger monument" (2004: 278). Stukeley himself was no exception: he was the driving force behind the setting up of the wood posts to secure Waltham Cross, but he routinely took away mementos from other monuments, including a fragment of the upper pyramidal stone of the Eleanor Cross at Stamford.
Until the late eighteenth century, the antiquaries’ preferred strategy for preservation consisted in translating the antique object into a pictorial representation that could be collected and circulated by the society’s members. In recent scholarly debates about shifts in the aesthetic of eighteenth-century antiquarian illustrations, a prominent role has been played by Vertue’s engraving of Stukeley’s drawing of Waltham Cross, as well as by a later engraving of the same monument, which James Basire produced for the third volume of Vetusta Monumenta (1796) based on a drawing by Jacob Schnebbelie. Sweet suggests that a comparison between the two plates reveals larger changes which antiquarian illustrations underwent in the course of the century: a shift away from a mode of representation that isolates the monument from its surroundings and offers an idealising reconstruction of the antiquity, towards a more "picturesque" rendition that emphasises the decay of the structure and locates it within its immediate surroundings (2004: 448-9 n94). In a similar vein, Maria Grazia Lolla argues that Vertue’s engraving and the other plates of the first volume of Vetusta Monumenta "render the objects as immaterial," eschewing "a tromp l’œil effect" (1999: 20) and highlighting instead the act of representation that turns an object into a monument worthy of antiquarian attention.
It is possible, however, to see in Stukeley’s drawing a more complex engagement with the materiality of Waltham Cross than Sweet and Lolla concede. Stukeley’s drawing includes the figure of a man, possibly representing Stukeley himself, who approaches the cross from the right and, in doing so, moves through the landscape of plants, grass and stones in which the base of the cross is also located. By contrast, the upper sections of the cross are flanked by an ichnographic map on the upper right and three examples of the Queen’s statues on the upper left – in other words, by elements which point to a conceptual rather than illusionistic use of space. Stukeley pioneered proto-archaeological fieldwork methods and regarded the careful inspection of historical monuments in the context of their surrounding landscape as integral to the study of British antiquities. His Itinerarium curiosum contains countless prints which situate historical monuments – and the antiquaries who are portrayed in the process of investigating them – in the realistically drawn landscape that surrounds them. Stukeley’s drawing of Waltham Cross condenses in one image both the process by which antiquarian knowledge is initially produced through close examination of the object’s materiality in situ and the subsequent translation of the object’s materiality into forms of representation (a ground plot; atomized, exemplary parts) that enable the antiquary to continue his study elsewhere, to compare the object to similar monuments, and to put it in circulation through print.
Work CitedLolla, Maria Grazia. 1999. “Ceci n’est pas un monument: Vetusta Monumenta and Antiquarian Aesthetics.” In Producing thePast: Aspects of Antiquarian Culture and Practice, 1700-1850, edited by Martin Myrone and Lucy Peltz. 15-34. Aldershot: Ashgate.
Hourihane, Column. 2001. From Ireland Coming: Irish Art from the Early Christian to the Late Gothic Period and its European Context. Princeton: Princeton University Press.
Society of Antiquaries of London. 1718-. Minutes of the Society’s Proceedings.
Steane, John. 1999. The Archaeology of the Medieval English Monarchy. London: Routledge.
Stukeley, William. 1776. Itinerarium curiosum, or, An account of the antiquitys and remarkable curiositys in nature
or art, observ'd in travels thro' Great Brittan: Centuria 1. 2nd expanded edn, London.
Sweet, Rosemary. 2004. Antiquaries: The Discovery of the Past in Eighteenth-Century Britain. London: Hambledon and London.