Bramfield, Suffolk, UK
Church of St Andrew
Monument to Sir Arthur (1629) and Elizabeth (1627) Coke. Marble, north chancel, delivered 1634, Nicholas Stone
The long inscription reads: HERE LYETH BURIED ARTHUR COKE ESQ. THIRD SON OF SIR EDWARD COKE KNIGHT LATE LORD CHIEF JUSTICE OF ENGLAND & OF THE PRIVYE COUNSELL OF KING JAMES. HERE LYETH ALSO BURIED IN THE SAME TOMB ELIZABETH DAUGHTER AND SOLE HEIRE APPARENT OF SR GEORGE WALDEGRAVE KNIGHT. ELIZABETH CHRISTIANLY AND PEACEABLY DEPARTED THIS LIFE THE 14TH DAY OF NOVEMBER ANNO DOMINI 1627. THE SAID SIR ARTHR LIKEWISE CHRISTIANLY & PEACEABLY DEPARTED THIS LIFE AT BURY ST EDMUNDS IN THE CONTY OF SUFFOK ON THE 6TH DAY OF DECEMBER 1629. THEY HAD ISSUE BETWENE THEM LIGINGE AT THEIR DECEASES FOURE DAUGHTER. VIZ ELIZABETH, MARY, WINIFRED AND THEOPHILA WHOM ALMIGHTY GOD PROSPER AND PROTECT
Sir Arthur in plate armour, trunk, hose and a plain collar kneels in prayer facing the altar. He is set in a niche of black marble framed by seven cartouches with coats of arms and set above the tomb chest, where Lady Elizabeth lies, her head on twin cushions, holding a child in swaddling clothes (to indicate death) and looking to heaven. The frame is slightly awkward, and White has suggested that it may once have had a canopy. Comparison with the Monument to Lady Katherine Bertie of Lindsey (Paston) †1636 at Oxnead, who is set in a comparable black niche, suggests rather that Stone may have planned, but not executed, a broken curved pediment of white marble (see composite photo with Oxnead pediment). The entry in Stone’s notebook refers to the completion and installation of the tomb in 1634, on receiving the final payment from Sir Arthur’s brother, Sir Robert. Sir Arthur had made an initial down payment of £60 in his lifetime and his brother the balance of £70. This was £70 less than Stone’s monument Oxnead, a discrepancy which might explain the lack of a pediment and the prominence of the top cartouche with its coat of arms.
That the final payment came five years afer Sir Arthur’s death reflects that Sir Robert presumably waited until he had received a considerable legacy on the death (in 1634) of his father Sir Edward Coke, the Lord Chief Justice. The delay is reflected in the contrast between the statues. Sir Arthur’s was presumably finished soon after this death and first payment. It is well observed and executed, a point underlined by comparison with that of his father of 1639 at Tittleshall, by Stone’s assistant John Hargrave. That of Elizabeth is in finer more polished marble with a change in style that reflects, as Margaret Whinney noted: ‘Stone’s experience of the classical sculpture purchased by Charles I from the Mantuan collection in its use of small fine folds.’ To which may be added the exquisite decorative detail, both of her dress and of the cushions on which she lies.
Sources and references: Spiers, W.L., ‘The Note-Book and Account Book of Nicholas Stone,’ Walpole Society, VII, 1919, p. 73 and 68 (Paston); Margaret Whinney, revised John Physick, Sculpture in Britain, 1530 to 1830, London, 1988, pp. 75-78 and note 29 on p. 436; Adam White, A Biographical Dictionary of London Tomb Sculptors, c. 1560-c.1660, The Walpole Society, vol. LXI, 1999, p. 122 and notes 117 and 118, and 123 and note 164 on p. 133 (Paston); Richard and Sarah Cocke, The Public Sculpture of Norfolk and Suffolk, Liverpool University Press for the Public Monuments and Sculpture Association, 2013, pp. 264-65.
detail of the armour of Sir Arthur
Bramfield, Suffolk, UK
Church of St Andrew
Monument to Sir Arthur (1629) and Elizabeth (1627) Coke. Marble, north chancel, delivered 1634, Nicholas Stone
The long inscription reads: HERE LYETH BURIED ARTHUR COKE ESQ. THIRD SON OF SIR EDWARD COKE KNIGHT LATE LORD CHIEF JUSTICE OF ENGLAND & OF THE PRIVYE COUNSELL OF KING JAMES. HERE LYETH ALSO BURIED IN THE SAME TOMB ELIZABETH DAUGHTER AND SOLE HEIRE APPARENT OF SR GEORGE WALDEGRAVE KNIGHT. ELIZABETH CHRISTIANLY AND PEACEABLY DEPARTED THIS LIFE THE 14TH DAY OF NOVEMBER ANNO DOMINI 1627. THE SAID SIR ARTHR LIKEWISE CHRISTIANLY & PEACEABLY DEPARTED THIS LIFE AT BURY ST EDMUNDS IN THE CONTY OF SUFFOK ON THE 6TH DAY OF DECEMBER 1629. THEY HAD ISSUE BETWENE THEM LIGINGE AT THEIR DECEASES FOURE DAUGHTER. VIZ ELIZABETH, MARY, WINIFRED AND THEOPHILA WHOM ALMIGHTY GOD PROSPER AND PROTECT
Sir Arthur in plate armour, trunk, hose and a plain collar kneels in prayer facing the altar. He is set in a niche of black marble framed by seven cartouches with coats of arms and set above the tomb chest, where Lady Elizabeth lies, her head on twin cushions, holding a child in swaddling clothes (to indicate death) and looking to heaven. The frame is slightly awkward, and White has suggested that it may once have had a canopy. Comparison with the Monument to Lady Katherine Bertie of Lindsey (Paston) †1636 at Oxnead, who is set in a comparable black niche, suggests rather that Stone may have planned, but not executed, a broken curved pediment of white marble (see composite photo with Oxnead pediment). The entry in Stone’s notebook refers to the completion and installation of the tomb in 1634, on receiving the final payment from Sir Arthur’s brother, Sir Robert. Sir Arthur had made an initial down payment of £60 in his lifetime and his brother the balance of £70. This was £70 less than Stone’s monument Oxnead, a discrepancy which might explain the lack of a pediment and the prominence of the top cartouche with its coat of arms.
That the final payment came five years afer Sir Arthur’s death reflects that Sir Robert presumably waited until he had received a considerable legacy on the death (in 1634) of his father Sir Edward Coke, the Lord Chief Justice. The delay is reflected in the contrast between the statues. Sir Arthur’s was presumably finished soon after this death and first payment. It is well observed and executed, a point underlined by comparison with that of his father of 1639 at Tittleshall, by Stone’s assistant John Hargrave. That of Elizabeth is in finer more polished marble with a change in style that reflects, as Margaret Whinney noted: ‘Stone’s experience of the classical sculpture purchased by Charles I from the Mantuan collection in its use of small fine folds.’ To which may be added the exquisite decorative detail, both of her dress and of the cushions on which she lies.
Sources and references: Spiers, W.L., ‘The Note-Book and Account Book of Nicholas Stone,’ Walpole Society, VII, 1919, p. 73 and 68 (Paston); Margaret Whinney, revised John Physick, Sculpture in Britain, 1530 to 1830, London, 1988, pp. 75-78 and note 29 on p. 436; Adam White, A Biographical Dictionary of London Tomb Sculptors, c. 1560-c.1660, The Walpole Society, vol. LXI, 1999, p. 122 and notes 117 and 118, and 123 and note 164 on p. 133 (Paston); Richard and Sarah Cocke, The Public Sculpture of Norfolk and Suffolk, Liverpool University Press for the Public Monuments and Sculpture Association, 2013, pp. 264-65.
detail of the armour of Sir Arthur