76 



pieces to be constructed of a number of small plates hinged on each 

 other to permit movement and forming a covering from the hips to 

 the knees to be strapped over the padded breeches. 



In the Minster there is a good representation of these pieces of 

 armour on the effigy of Sir Edmund Uvedale, who died in 1606. He 

 was a second son of Frances Uvedale of Horton and was honoured 

 with a knighthood. 



Signs of making the armour more comfortable to the wearer are 

 found in the muslin collar and cuffs and in the bare hands, the 

 covering for which, in the form of a heavy gauntlet, is shown beside 

 him. The same idea is further carried out by representing the figure 

 lying comfortably on his side supporting the head on his right hand, 

 an attitude that had become usual at this period, instead of the more 

 formal one of lying on the back as dead. Being carved in soft 

 alabaster stone, all the details of the fastening together of the pieces 

 of armour are clearly shown by strap and buckle or by hook and 

 staple, and the details of the hangers of his sword are very similar to 

 the sword straps still in use in the army. Want of room on the 

 floor of churches, now required for the use of the parishioners, had 

 caused monuments to be placed against the walls, and this in its turn 

 had given opportunity for lofty erections with all kinds of decorative 

 work to produce an imposing memorial to the dead, and Sir Edmund's 

 is a good example of the period. 



Following on this and some 40 years later we have against the 

 west wall of the nave another lofty monument in memory of a legal 

 man and his wife, kneeling face to face before a double faldstool, a 

 very common position in which to represent figures from this time 

 onwards. Such monuments give opportunity for the display of much 

 heraldry, of lengthy inscriptions and many allegorical figures and 

 emblems of the Virtues and of Death, etc. 



The man is Thomas Hanham, a barrister of the Middle Temple, 

 died 1650, who to give him full honour, is shown in his barrister's 

 gown. He wears the ordinary costume of a gentleman of the period, 

 consisting of a doublet buttoned to the waist and knee breeches, and 

 over this is the legal gown falling in folds around the feet gathered 

 into a square collar behind and having long pendent sleeves lost 

 amidst the folds, with slits near the shoulders for the arms to be 

 passed through. Such barrister's gowns usually had an ornamental 

 facing of knots and strings formed of twisted cord, but these are not 

 shown in this instance. His wife, who was a daughter of Sir 

 William Doddington, is in the plain dress of the Royalists, at the 

 time when the Puritans had the upper hand. A long flowing gown 

 with full sleeves finished with neat cuffs and collar, with the spread 

 out collarette on the shoulders, and a close-fitting cap and large 

 coverchief to complete the costume. 



All through the history of costume in England that of the ladies 

 played an important part. The women-folk of the nobles and 

 courtiers made use of the very best materials they could obtain, 

 according as the skill of the foreign or English manufacturers 

 produced them, including furs, jewels, cloth of silk and gold, etc. 



