1 Fletcher’s, paper was then published as ‘Brigham Church’, Cumberland and Westmoreland Antiquarian and Archaeological Society, 1st series, IV (1878-79), pp. 149-77Google Scholar.

2 Ibid., pp. 164, 152-56. The Carlisle Record Office holds a file of material relating to the nineteenth-century restoration work at Brigham, but this is currently on loan and therefore was not available during the period this paper was being researched. The bulk of this file’s contents appears to be related to Isaac Fletcher’s article of 1879.

3 Fasti Dunelmenses (Surtees Society, vol. 139, 1926), pp. 11, 33-34. Thomas’s institution to Brigham is not recorded, but reference is made to him as ‘parson’ there in 1323, when he began the process of founding his chantry — Inq aqd (PRO Lists and Indexes XVII (1904), vol. 1, file CLVI, no. 18.

4 Thompson, A. H. (ed.), ‘The Registers of the Archdeaconry of Richmond, 1361-1442’, Yorkshire Archaeological journal, 25 (1918-20), pp. 129–268 (pp. 250-51)Google Scholar.

5 A likely reason for the attraction of Brigham to individuals of high rank and with prospects of high office was the rectory’s high value, assessed at £80 and worth significandy more than any other church in its deanery (of Copeland). Its ranking persisted during the fourteenth century, when the new taxation of 1318 showed that, although the value of all the benefices surveyed had fallen significandy, that of Brigham was still, at £20, twice as high as that of its nearest rivals, St Bees, Aldingham and Workington — Taxatio Ecclesiastica Angliae et Walliae Auctoritate P. Nicholai IVcirca A.D. 1291, ed.J.Topham (Record Commission, 1802), p. 308; ibid., p. 328.

6 Inq aqd (PRO Lists and Indexes XVII (1904), vol. 1, file CLVI, no. 18.

7 CPR1327-30, pp. 376-77.

8 The Register of William Greenfield, lord archbishop of York, 1306-1315 (Surtees Society, CLII, 1938), IV, p. 220, no. 2101.

9 CPR 1343-45, P. 312; idem, 1330-34, p. 83.

10 The inventory of the chantry’s possessions is cited and printed in full in Fletcher, ‘Brigham Church’, pp. 173-77. The original is said to be among the Dodsworth manuscripts in the Bodleian Library, but at the present time its exact location in unknown.

11 Ibid., p. 160. The tracery design of these side windows can be seen in various locations, e.g. the chancel windows of Kirkby Wiske and Patrick Brompton (North Yorkshire), dated c. 1320-30.

12 Ibid., p. 161, and plates opposite pp. 149 and 173.

13 Bulman, C. G. in Archaeologicaljournal, 115 (1958), proceedings, pp. 229-33 (p. 230)Google Scholar.

14 H. Summerson, Medieval Carlisle, pp. 215, 257; cf. Bulman, , ‘Carlisle Cathedral and its development in the thirteenth and fourteenth centuries’, Cumberland and Westmoreland Antiquarian and Archaeological Society, 2nd series, XLIX (1950), pp. 87–117 Google Scholar (pp. 109-16), who suggests that the window was designed between 1320 and 1348, with a pause for the impact of the Black Death, and then completed and inserted in 1350s. Idem (1958), p. 232, it is suggested that the east window is dated a litde later than York Minster’s west window, which is said to have been ‘erected before 1330’. This sequence of events, although not the dating, is quite probable in view of the stylistic differences between the two windows, discussed in the text above.

15 Aylmer, G. E. and Cant, R. (eds), A History of York Minster (Oxford, 1977), p. 157, n. 22Google Scholar. Harvey, however, believed that the window at Carlisle was designed before that at York, although by the same mason, Ivo de Raughton.

16 Dawton, N., ‘The Percy Tomb at Beverley Minster’, in Thompson, F. H. (ed.), Studies in Medieval Sculpture (London, 1983), pp. 122-50Google Scholar(p. 125), citing studies of contemporary Yorkshire buildings, such as the south aisle at Beverley, York’s west window, Patrington’s nave arcade, and the choir of Hawton (Nottinghamshire).

17 Etherton, David, ‘The Morphology of Flowing Tracery’, Architectural Review, CXXXVIII, no. 823 (Sept. 1965), pp. 173–80 (p. 175)Google Scholar, groups the Brigham and Heckington windows with, among others, Hawton, Selby and Sleaford.

18 Coldstream, Nichola, ‘St Peter’s Church, Howden’, in Medieval Art and Architecture in the East Riding of Yorkshire, BAA Conference Transactions for 1983, pp. 115-16Google Scholar, discusses Heckington in the context of Howden’s east window as reconstructed by Sharpe, Edmund in Architectural Parallels, (London, 1848)Google Scholar. The author finds Sharpe’s version of the Howden window convincing in its similarity to Selby’s choir clerestorey windows and the east window, and compares the east window at Selby with those at Hawton and Heckington. Ibid., pp. 110—11, 113, 117, it is argued that elements of Lincolnshire tracery were being absorbed in Yorkshire in the 1260S, again in c. 1310 at Howden, and c. 1320-35 at Selby.

19 Ibid., pp. no, 111, 113. The author also argues, p. 117, that given the early fourteenth-century patronage of Antony Bek at Howden, later bishops of Durham, including Louis Beaumont, would have continued this patronage. One of Heckington’s patrons was Louis’ brother, Henry, and it is suggested that the stylistic links between Howden and Heckington could be explained, in part, by this family connection, especially if Louis lent some of his Howden masons for the work at Heckington.

20 Crossley, Paul and Maddison, John, Medieval and Early Renaissance Treasures in the North-West, catalogue of an exhibition at the Whitworth Art Gallery, Manchester (1976), nos 30 and 34, pp. 82–83, 86Google Scholar.

21 CPR1307-13, p. 107.

22 Moore, Archibald, ‘Documents relating to the death and burial of Edward II’, Archaeologia, 50, part I (1887), pp. 215-26 (p. 217)CrossRefGoogle Scholar: the roll records the account of Hugh de Glaunvill, clerk, who was instructed to organize the removal of Edward’s body from Berkeley casde to Gloucester and to ensure its safekeeping until it could be buried.

23 Veronica Sekules, ‘A Group of Masons in Early Fourteenth-Century Lincolnshire: Research in Progress’, in Thompson, Studies in Medieval Sculpture, pp. 151-64 (p. 152); idem, ‘Beauty and the Beast’, Art History, vol. 18, no. 1, March 1995, pp. 37-62 (p. 39).

24 Wilson, W. D., ‘The Work of the Heckington Lodge of Masons, 1315–1345’, Lincolnshire History and Archaeology, 15 (1980), pp. 21–28 Google Scholar (p. 23 and n. 8).

25 Sekules, ‘A Group of Masons… ‘, p. 152 and n. 2.

26 CPR 1327–30, p. 272. Potesgrave was also responsible for rebuilding the nave and north transept, south porch and south transept, from c. 1320 on — Wilson, ‘The Work of the Heckington Lodge …’, p. 24.; Sekules, ‘Beauty and the Beast’, p. 39.

27 CFR 1310.-27, p. 8.

28 Ibid., pp. 189,139.

29 Ibid., pp. 273-74. This entry comprises a long list of those appointed to receive goods, levies, etc., and those who were ordered to deliver them. Adam de Skelton was another of de Burgh’s colleagues. In 1324, de Burgh, Antony de Lucy and Hugh de Louther were instructed to deliver confiscated lands to Adam.

30 Fletcher, ‘Brigham Church’, p. 160. There is no evidence that the screens are contemporary with the aisle, but these would have been a familiar feature in the fourteenth century.

31 The tomb’s free-standing tracery is related to the tracery in the chancel window immediately to the east of it, and therefore probably part of the same building programme, which is documented in the Norham Proctors’ Rolls, c. 1338-44/45. Extracts from the rolls are printed in Raine, James, The History and Antiquities of North Durham (2nd edition, London, 1852), pp. 266-82Google Scholar, the original manuscripts being preserved in Durham, Prior’s Kitchen.

32 Gee, E. A., York Minster Chapter House and Vestibule, (HMSO, London, 1974), fig-35cGoogle Scholar.

33 Sekules. ‘Beauty and the Beast’, pp. 37-62, argues that Heckington’s large programme of minor figure sculpture was intended to be seen as an adjunct to and commentary on the functions of the church building and institution, in some ways similar to the use of marginal figures and scenes in manuscript illumination, commenting and therefore enlarging upon the meaning of the accompanying text and major illuminations.

The Welwick tomb is hard to date with any certainty, partly because the identity of the churchman buried there is unknown. A likely candidate, suggested by John Bilson in an untided paper on an excursion to Welwick, Yorkshire Archaeological Journal (1908-09), pp. 140-41, is William de la Mare, Provost of Beverley (1338-60), whose brother Thomas left 10 marks for the repair of Welwick’s east window in 1358 — Testamenta Eboracensia I (Surtees Society, VI, 1836), pp. 68-79.

William was Provost of Beverley while the Percy tomb was under construction, and his interest in contemporary work at Beverley is well documented. He appointed a member of his family, Richard de la Mare, as goldsmith at Beverley in 1340, while one William de la Mare, a stonemason at Beverley, died in 1335, and he too may have been related to the Provost — Leach, A. F. (ed.), Beverley Chapter Act Book II (Surtees Society, CVIII, 1903), p. lxvi Google Scholar; ibid., 1 (Surtees Society, XCVIII, 1899) p. xcvii.

Victoria County History, Yorkshire East Riding, V, pp. 144, 146: Welwick was in the peculiar jurisdiction of the Provost of Beverley, who held the advowson of the rectory. Ibid., p. 142: the Provost is known to have had a manor house at Welwick in 1419, and this may have been long established by this date, probably situated on a moated site to the south-west of the church.

Given William’s interest in artistic projects at Beverley, it is not unlikely that he would have taken advantage of the presence of a group of highly skilled sculptors working on the Percy tomb, and would have employed them to work on his own tomb at Welwick immediately after the completion of the Beverley tomb, c. 134-0-45.

34 In c. 1859, the church of Barnby Don was radically restored, with the chancel rebuilt and some of the monuments ‘newly organized’. This restoration may explain the unusual position of the recess at Barnby, but probably destroyed any remaining evidence for its dating — Tomiimon, John, The Level of Hatfield Chase (Doncaster, 1882), p. 201 Google Scholar. Litde is known of the ecclesiastical history of the church. The family of Newmarch made presentations there in the first half of the fourteenth century, until 1344/45, and although the chantry commissioners noted that there was a chantry at Barnby Don, the details of its foundation were unknown — Thompson, A. H. and Clay, C. T. (eds), Fasti Parochiales I (Yorkshire Archaeological Society, 1933), p. 29 Google Scholar; Yorkshire Chantry Surveys I (Surtees Society, 1892), p. 169.

35 Wilson, ‘The Work of the Heckington Lodge … ‘, pp. 21-22. Because of these and other similarities, he argues that the work at Newark and Heckington was carried out by the same lodge of masons. Sekules, Veronica, ‘Sculpture and Liturgical Furnishings at Heckington Church and Related Monuments’ (doctoral thesis, University of London, 1990)Google Scholar has dated Newark from the 1320s onwards.

36 Coldstream, ‘St Peter’s Church, Howden’, p. 116, notes that such statue niches occur elsewhere in Yorkshire, in the east window at Guisborough priory, and around the west window of York Minster. Barnby Don’s angels supporting statue brackets, set on the chamfered section of the window jamb, are also reminiscent of Brigham’s niches in this context.

37 Morris, R. K., ‘The Development of Later Gothic Mouldings c. 1250-1440 — Part I’, Architectural History 21 (1976), pp. 18–59 CrossRefGoogle Scholar (p. 25). The author isolates the combination of a wave and a fillet cut on the same plane as the third variety of wave moulding.

38 Idem, ‘Mouldings and the Analysis of Medieval Style’, in Eric Férnie and Paul Crossley (eds), Medieval Architecture and its Intellectual Context, Studies in Honour of Peter Kidson (London, 1990), pp. 239-48 (pp. 240, 246).

39 The mouldings are drawn in Wilson, ‘The Work of the Heckington Lodge … ‘, p. 23, and Potesgrave, presumably with the support of his patrons, was responsible for the building of both porch and recess — ibid., p. 24.

40 Hindle, B. P., ‘Medieval Roads in the Diocese of Carlisle’, Cumberland and Westmoreland Antiquarian and Archaeological Society, 2nd series, LXXVII (1977), pp. 83–95 (pp. 84, 86, 93)Google Scholar.

41 Tout, T. F. in The Register of John de Halton, Bishop of Carlisle, 1292-1324, ed. Thompson, W. N. (Canterbury and York Society, XII and XIII, London, 1913), p. xxviii Google Scholar.