Coventry Crosses

Helen, I note that Wikipedia (no doubt copied from some historical record) states 57 feet for the cross. I would have thought this would include the steps. Rolf Holberg, the architect of the cross most recently removed from Cuckoo Lane, told me that all of the illustrations that are known of the Hollis (Tudor) cross suffer from artistic licence (which seems to fit with your comment about the Spires not visible). He went on to say that none of those illustrated could have in fact been erected as shown, that from an architect's point of view they would have collapsed!

I managed to remove some of the images of the cross as fake but a set stubbornly remain possible. Periodically bits did fall off the cross and there was a lot of maintenance on it. The top parts may have been metal, rather than stone. The reason you can't see the spires in the picture above is that Holy Trinity was directly behind the cross and St Michael's would have been hidden by the houses. The thing must have been a fair old size. One of the best images is by Henry Beighton, who made some very credible images from the city, including the South Prospect of St Michael's and Mr Wright's house. It agrees with an image from the Aylesford Collection that depicts the cross in colour, although like many images of the cross, it doesn't look like it fits the picture it sits in. Beighton would have been alive to see the cross, as would the artist who drew the picture above. He didn't even need to guess the proportions from the ground as there were 4/5 storey buildings on 3 sides, including The Castle Hotel. The 1880 book on the Cross by TW Whitley says that by 1755 the thing had been reduced in size so that the top was level with the adjoining Houses - so still tall but only at most two of the tiers. It's Beighton's version of the Cross that appears on the Bradford 1749 map. Hmmm, needs more though. If people have assumed that base size was the size of the lowest steps, it would be significantly bigger if the base size was the cross itself.

I have a feeling that we have strayed again from the cross of 1523 - if so I have no further interest. I believe the drawings and plans of the original 1523 cross were destroyed in the fire of B'ham free reference library, and as far as I know W Dugdale's was the only account we have of the cross, so who am I to disagree with him. The Victorians had hopes of replacing the cross, replica cross, that turned into the shape of a memorial to Sir Thomas White.

There was a cross recorded in about 1300, then another built in 1423. That was taken down in 1537. The big cross was built in 1541-3 and completely demolished in 1771. That means that artists in the early part of the 1700s would have seen the real thing. The image of the cross in Dugdale's book matches Beighton's image quite well. But yes, the plans and drawings with more detail, may well have been destroyed at Birmingham Library, along with a lot of other important plans.

That's OK Kaga, any information about any of Coventry's crosses is of interest to all of us who enjoy learning more about our history. Anything you know that is interesting is good with me.

You may be interested in this copy of the contract to rebuild Coventry Cross in 1542-3, which I found at Portsmouth City Record Office. That was the cross, demolished in 1771 for a road-widening scheme, which Lord Torrington's diary lamented when he 'survey'd the spot whence the wise corporation of Coventry removed the ornament of their town, their old beautiful cross: upon which they ought to have expended 500£ in reparations.' Some things don't change! Here are some extracts from the contract, complete with the original spelling: An Indenture of Covenants between Cuthbert Joiner, Simon Parker, John Jet, Alderman of the City of Coventry, and Henry Over, and Christopher Warren, citizens of the same, on the one part and Thomas Phillips of the town of Bristow free Mason & John Petit of Wellenbourough in the County of Northampton on the other part. Thomas Phillips & John Petit ... for nine score and seven pounds 6 shillings to them paid before the feast of St Michael the Archangell, which shall be in Anno Dom.1543, shall newly and substantially and workmanly make, build sett up and fully finish a new Cross, of good suer & seasonable free stone, of the Quarries of Attleborough or Kaunton in the County of Warwick, or of both of the said Quarries, except the stone belonging to the steps of the same Cross, which shall be had and made of harder stone, in the late Priory of the said citie, at the only proper Costs, charges & expences of the said Thos.P. & J.P. & their Assigns... The same Crosse to be erected & set up in the Market place in the said Citie of Coventrie, called Cross Chipping in such place there as the Old cross now standith, after the manner and form fashion & due proportion in all points of a Cross, redie made and set up in the town of Abingdon in the Countie of Berks, and further, to set on every principal pinacle, in the lowest story of the same new Cross, the Ymage of a Beast or Foule holding up a Fane - and on every principal pinnacle, in the second story, the Image of a naked Boy with a Target & holding a Fane ... Provided also, and it is agreed between the said parties, that where the said Crosse in Abingdon is begone in 8 panes & changed in the second story into 6 panes, to the deformity of the same Cross, this now Cross to me made in Coventry shall be begane in 6 panes, till the full finishing of the same ... Note the sensible use of harder stone robbed from the nearby St Mary's Priory, whose demolition had recently begun. The insistence on having six sides at all levels shows that Coventry intended to be very proud of this cross. The overall height of the cross was 57 feet (17.4metres). Does the modern replica have naked boys on it? The contract sounds rather modern, with progress payments tied to carefully specified stages in the construction. Few loopholes were left, because the builders had to provide all other necessarys whatsoever they be, to be had and expended about the same Crosse, at their cost, Charges & expences. The only leeway was in a clause allowing the re-use of 6 or 8 old ymages to be set in the said Crosse yf they will serve and be thought meete for the same work (or else not) the same ymages to be repaired and cleaned at the charges of the said T.P. & J.P. One can imagine the builders trying to get away with dodgy old statues from elsewhere. Curiously, the financial details give a total cost of £197-6s, whereas the introduction quotes £187-6s. This money came from the £200 that Sir William Hollis had left to build a cross - a large amount at a time when an agricultural worker earned £5 a year. Why is this document in Portsmouth? Because it was in the collection of Sir Thomas Phillips, presumably a descendant of the builder, whose family ended up in Hampshire. I hope this is helpful.

Both the last two posts were in T.W. Whitley's book 'Humorous Reminiscences' and was clearly copied from William Reader's description, the only difference being in one place it describes Hollis's will as £200 and another place as 200F, but it all came from Dugdale's book who lived in that period.

Thanks Dr Dave, while slightly different, they agree well with other sources. The Fan or Fane was the word for the little flags and Target meant shield. The little naked boys were on the modern statue but had quite different shaped shields and weren't carved in the same style. I haven't worked out a full set of beasts but there was a dragon, a unicorn, a male lion (possibly winged) and what I think was a bear or possibly a female lion. There were also a series of scantily clad ladies, including justice and liberty. Morning Kaga, I'm not familiar with W Reader's writings - and I'm not sure what to look for - but some of the details would be from the Leet book. I've got the Whitley book but I can't see where it said that the height of the cross was from the ground or from the top step. The payment comments stop at 45 feet but I can imagine another 12 feet in decorations, especially the top lantern and the metalwork above it. The Whitley book describes the previous cross having four columns and it might have looked similar to my local cross. It demonstrates that erecting crosses on a series of steps was normal. I'm leaning towards the idea that the steps weren't counted as part of the cross height. I fear I may have to read the Leet books and/or hunt down some of Reader's writings.

Thank you, Dr Dave, nice of you to inform this forum. The Coventry cross of 1542-43, the stone-mason was Thomas Philips, the builder, Petit the quarry owner, found the stone. Many top people said it was the most beautiful building in England. It was said the cross escaped destruction from the fanatic General Purefoy influenced by Major R Beake and the butchers of Butcher Row. The whole so finely finished it was inferior to none in England, for workmanship and beauty. In 1626 Thomas Sargeson, master stonemason who with bart Bewdley Plumer who constructed Swanswell waterworks, were asked to look around and make a report of the cross in 1637. This they did report to the council, the full particulars of this restoration have not been discovered. The said cross was built as posted earlier, the first storey from the top step to above was twenty feet, the second storey another twenty feet, and the pinnacle a further 17 feet

Interesting that Pennant and Whitley wrote the same things about the cross, the steeples and much more about Coventry from the 17/18th centuries. The cross had 18 niches for statues, yet only 17 statues. None survive today.

Kaga, for Pennant (b1726-d1798), the Cross had gone but it was recent history as his book was published in 1782. People he met would have remembered it. There are several descriptions from the time when it was built (the Leet book) and later while it still stood (Dugdale book 1656). Beighton (b1687-d1743) saw it, drew it and wrote a description which was published in 1730. Whitley (book 1888) and Pennant had access to those descriptions and drawings. From other sources the reason for the missing 18th statue is explained. Beighton also drew St Michael's in 1721, before Pennant was born!

Helen, I find it strange that all the talk that's been on this forum of the Coventry Cross, yet you have a copy painting of the cross but not shown on here. Why not show it and let us all know what it looked like. What was the biblical scene? The cross didn't go till 1771 so Pennant would have seen it, he wouldn't have needed anyone to tell him about it. I'm beginning to find it wearisome that you disagree with everything I post, yet history books prove me right.

I've just bought it Kaga, I haven't received it yet. This is the eBay image. Using Beighton's scale on his etching of the cross the main body of the cross was about 55ft, including 5ft of metalwork at the top. The steps at the base add about 6 or 7ft more. It would be easy to lose 2ft in a drawing of a structure that tall and/or the metalwork at the top might have been reduced over the years of repairs. So the steps were probably in addition to the 57ft height. Sorted Pennant wrote that the Cross was gone by the time he passed through. From the book "I surveyed with indignation, such as antiquaries experience, the site of the elegant and antient cross, till of late years such an ornament to the city. CROSS. I am not furnished with an apology for the corporation who destroyed this beautiful building; so must leave it doubtful, whether the gothic resolution was the result of want of money, or want of taste." Kaga, I never assume that you're wrong but I do check the details. I've stopped relying on the accuracy of the old books if they were writing about history well before their time because they weren't as rigorous as modern researchers. They didn't have access to as much information. There are many images of the Cross, most of them are of dubious accuracy or copies. Beighton's version has a good provenance.

Helen, Thank you for your prompt reply. What he did say was, "On leaving the Churches, I surveyed with indignation such as antiquaries experience, etc." To me, that is he turned round from seeing the churches and there was the broken cross right in front of him etc. and he was annoyed with the council for destroying it from what it had been. So I believe he may have seen it before, or knew from antiquaries experience. Helen, he told us about the connection of St Michael's to Lichfield church, about the shrine to St Chad, about the old St John's, he told us how the monks were driven out of the priory, about the Carmelite monks. I think he gives us a good insight to Coventry of years ago.