The statue is small, a mere forty six centimetres by 23, but the dowel holes in the back inform us that it was affixed to an altar piece.This means that it came from a church rather than a domestic dwelling, a fact that is important as there were copies of the Walsingham image made in the mediaeval period. Investigators have found traces of paint on the statue's surface, so at one time it had been well-maintained.There is some damage, for one hand is missing, why we know not.
The seal of the priory of Walsingham, found on surviving documents,shows us what the statue looked like, and in 1931 an Anglican clergyman, Henry Fynes Clinton, noted that the statue was almost identical to the image on the seal.He said that it came from a church now destroyed. This is significant, as only monastic churches were destroyed at the Reformation, parish churches survived. So we are dealing with a monastic image, and nearby Walsingham was the prime candidate.Clinton speculatively hoped that we had found the long-lost statue. A high church Anglican, he was sympathetic to the revival of the shrine that was taking place.
The way that the Langham Madonna differs from the image on the Walsingham seal is that the seal's image shows Mary with a veil, whereas the Langham Madonna has no veil, but this is not very significant because it is possible that the Madonna had a cloth veil replaced daily.
A mistake in provenance might have delayed recognition. There is another Langham. Besides the Langham in Norfolk where the statue was found, there is a Langham in neighbouring Essex. The museum authorities assumed that we had got the statue from Essex Langham, but Fynes Clinton said that it came from the Norfolk one. The clue that it was from Norfolk comes from the fact that Langham in Essex still has its pre-reformation church, as does Norfolk Langham. So the pointers go back to a mediaeval monastic church.
Descendants of the Calthorpe and Rookwood families cannot be traced to give any further information, for their estates were sold long ago and family history would probably have been long forgotten.So there is no information from that source. The museum that bought the statue was originally of the opinion that it was a copy, a rarity in its own right. The Victoria and Albert Museum in London is a large, high status museum specialising in artistic items, so it will want to maintain the highest standards of proof and provenance before coming to any conclusion.
Of course, in history proof is not possible, there is only justification. Maybe we will never know if this is the lost image. Or maybe an untold story will be discovered.
Comments
What a good explanation of presence. Thank you Mira.Your observation about presence being felt in little things is also important.
The point that you make is that presence does not depend upon physical proximity, as you could sense the presence even though you are well over a thousand miles away.
I think of presence as Life from a spiritual realm felt through an object or a person. I also think of it in terms of a certain connection with a person or an object. Frankly, I'm surprised that so many people fail to recognize spiritual presence in the little things. Our being in the world speaks volumes about us being so much more than matter. One does not need miracles to acknowledge this, even though there are plenty of miracles around, such as the birth of children and their development in the womb.
Returning to your comment about the statue, I know that Orthodox Christian icon makers, for instance, pray and sometimes fast or do other religious rituals before they start painting an icon and while they work on it. I believe that in doing that they establish a connection with Life which helps Life pervade the icon once this object is completed.
You mention that the statue has presence, Mira, and that makes me wonder what is presence. You can sense the presence of the statue even though you are not in physical proximity to it. How does a person or object have it ?Does presence extend through space and if so how does a picture of an object mediate it?
These are questions to which I have no answer.
Yes,indeed, Mira.
That 12-century statue, even damaged, has so much presence!
Thank you for this article. I never knew about this backlash against Catholics the way you present it in your articles. It's good to know and to ponder on.
You say that those of you whose families suffered Henry's wrongs should keep the story well circulated. Veronica knows more family history than I do, so I am unsure whether we Beswicks suffered in any way other than the general English population did. Of course, our Irish ancestors suffered much. I did read once of a couple of Beswicks in 1603 being fined for non-attendance at a Protestant church, though whether or not they were related to me I know not.
Your response is completely accurate and well said. Henry was an anti-Christ character.
It is true that in the English speaking world history was written with a Protestant bias.It was also a bias in favour of the landowning class who profited from stolen church lands.Here is the truth. The destruction of schools run by monks and nuns was terrible. Libraries were scrapped or torched. Education for women, provided to some degree by nuns, disappeared. Endowments for the poor were stolen by the king, and the wonderful system of craft guilds, which provided social security for their members, was plundered and destroyed. Good people were tortured, imprisoned and murdered for their faith. A great wrong was done to England by its rulers.
I consider Henry's successors to be less bad than he, and James was probably not the worst,
One underlying idea that comes through several of your articles, and in particular this one, is the extent of the persecution of Catholics Henry VIII inflicted. Our history books are not complete on this. He is cited as having broke with Rome over a marriage issue for which a dispensation was granted, but he tried to nullify the dispensation when it favored his desire to do so. He then proclaimed himself head of the Church of England, and had clergy follow him. The cruelty was diminished in the books, so it is important that those of you whose families have suffered his wrongs keep the story well circulated.
I believe some of his successors were also extreme. I may be wrong on this, but it seems James was perhaps just as bad.
As for hidden icons, this is a real possibility. Destruction of icons is a final act, the Germans took icons for their own, a step higher than what Henry did. I see an early version of Hitler, and a candidate for the title anti-Christ.
The break with Rome is softened here in the United States in opinion. I once assigned classes to research an incident where weather influenced history. Too often I got the unfortunate storms and the Armada, and inevitably they would claim Divine intervention through a Protestant wind. It shows they favored what the outcome came to be of Henry's actions, and how they falsely attribute an event to God's favor on their position. This shows the soft view of Henry in the United States.
Well observed about the statue. I suspect that the modern statue was not intended to be an exact likeness, but is strongly dominated by Italian style, which was a big influence in 19th and 20th century English Catholic art. It is possible that the seal was not an exact likeness, as artistic and scribal errors are often found in mediaeval works.
I do not know why Calthorpes and Rookwoods are untraceable.
frankbeswick, Thank you for the paper trail and the product lines.
A prevalent notion among genealogists on this side of the pond considers the world's best genealogists as based in the New York City Public Library and in the United Kingdom. Do you know why it is that Calthorpe and Rockwood family descendants are untraceable?
The article Was the Original Walsingham Statue Really Destroyed - Or Is It in the V&A? by Fr Michael Rear and Francis Young for the Catholic Herald July 25, 2019, includes side-by-side photos of the Langham Madonna and, as a modern statue based on the seal, of the Lady of Walsingham. They indicate that the Christ Child is positioned differently on the former than on the latter. Is it possible that the seal was not an exact likeness?