In the recently published Ancient church fonts of Somerset surveyed and drawn by Harvey Pridham, mention is made of a duplicate volume of descriptions of Somerset fonts. This volume was presented to the Episcopal Library at Wells (referred to as volume B) but could not be traced in 2011. However, it was known that a similar volume was sold at auction at Phillips in 1999, as lot 441, described as ‘Pridham (Harvey): The Ancient Church Fonts of Somerset, typescript, half calf, 4to, 1899’.1 At the end of 2013, after Pridham’s labours had been published (referred to as volume A) following over a century of inactivity, the Somerset Archaeological and Natural History Society (referred to as the Society) was presented (by Dr John Leveson Gower) with a volume of descriptions of Somerset fonts. It is this author’s belief that the volume donated at the end of 2013 is volume B. Although volume B does not contain the manuscript additions which Pridham added before selling his work to the Society, it does contain information concerning its provenance and some interesting additional information on fonts at West Harptree, Preston, East Brent and Rowberrow, as well as Pridham’s personal view on the subject of fonts being given away, all of which are not in volume A.
With regards to its provenance, volume B bears the inscription on the inside of the front cover ‘George H. Mitchell, Shepton Mallet. 1921.’, suggesting how it may have left Wells shortly before that time. It also contains a typed letter, dated 1 May 1963, from Dr R.D. Reid of 8 Chamberlain Street, Wells concerning the discovery of a ‘bowl’ at West Harptree. Apart from these two items there is nothing else, except for a recently added Society bookplate recording the kind donation by Dr Gower.
The letter, from Dr Reid, has a dual interest to the Pridham story due to the fact that Reid was approached by a Mr Wainright regarding the discovery of a bowl at West Harptree which Wainright thought may have been that parish’s ancient font. This would have been quite some discovery, as Pridham spent many years at West Harptree where his father was vicar.2 Surely such a discovery could not have slipped Pridham’s gaze during his quest for lost fonts many years earlier. Nevertheless Wainright’s letter records how the bowl was ‘too much weathered to date as there is not a hint of evidence, even that it was a font’, but in his opinion was the ‘right size’. West Harptree’s font is modern and it is thought that its predecessor was removed when the church was restored in 1865. Wainright noticed how the bowl ‘had more than 100 years of weathering’ and how it had ‘an entire absence of any sort of carving’ to help date it, although it could, of course, have been ‘absolutely plain’. But no drain hole, or any holes for a lock or hinge, led him to state that he thought it was a ‘domestic or farm bowl’.
Pridham’s volume B contains a note on East Brent’s and Preston’s ancient fonts which differs to that in volume A. He stated in volume A, in July 1888, that the ancient one at Preston was in the ‘church-yard, in the angle formed by the South side of the church and the South porch’.3 In volume B, in a note dated July 1899, he stated:
Since it was taken away and used as a flower-vase on a local lawn for some years. Afterwards, it was recovered, and, to the credit of all concerned, was replaced in the church, close by its modern replica.4
Thankfully it was restored and not added to Pridham’s list of missing fonts.
Of East Brent, Pridham included some additional facts, in manuscript, in volume A, some of which were reproduced in the recent publication.5 However, in volume B he included two pages of notes under the heading of ‘EAST BRENT’:
A corrected addition to the notes under this heading and that of Rowberrow is rendered necessary as a result of a visit paid to the former church in July, 1899.
At the time of my first visit, in 1887, I condemned the font as new. It must be borne in mind that I had not then seen the Pigott Drawings, nor did I know of their existence. When, later on, I did see them, I instantly recognised the likeness between the font therein entitled “East Brent” and that of Rowberrow; and concluded that either Buckler had got his notes mixed up, or that the East Brent people had given their old font to Rowberrow;- which thing is too often done, as I can prove. In this case, however, it appears that both churches retain their old fonts; and two more like each other it would be hard to find. Hence my error. The new appearance and clumsy execution of East Brent font induced me to believe that it was entirely new work, of village handicraft; it looks painfully new, and the details are unpleasantly insisted upon and accentuated, even now; much more so would it look 12 years ago when I condemned it. Evidently it must then have just gone through the process known to ignorant builders as “freshing up” with a chisel. It cannot now be classed as missing, though sadly mauled. Reference should accordingly be made in this Volume of Notes to the following:-
1. The total number of old fonts remaining is increased, and that of fonts missing decreased, by one, respectively.
2. Add the name of East Brent to the Index to Section VII; and remove it from Section VI, pp. 3 and 4.
3. Enter to Rowberrow, Section VII, pp. 177-8.
July, 1899.6
The final addition to volume B, also added in July 1899, was his notes headed ‘THE PARTING WORD’. These are reproduced in full below:
Recent experience in this and other Counties has forced upon my attention a fact which might well have been noticed at the outset. This is the frequent “giving” away of fonts of old churches to mission buildings or new district churches, either in or out of the Parish. This ought never to be allowed, even where people in authority are willing. It not only destroys the individual historical associations, which is a secondary matter: but it is not right that the font in which generation after generation of the ‘forefathers of the hamlet’ have been baptised should be taken from their children of to-day. If, unhappily, those children should, by ignorance or want of thought, be themselves willing to let the thing be done, it means no credit to those who should teach them better, and doubtless would, did themselves think. If the font be “good enough” (i.e., capable of being used), for a London “poor” church, it is good enough for its own church. A good many old fonts can be found in London.
Still, the fact remains: and, if it alone have stood in the past between these old fonts and destruction, we must be so far thankful. As, consequently, there remains a chance that some of the modern churches of Somerset, (which I have not visited), may have been so far favoured. I suggest that those in authority, (the most direct being, I imagine, the Rural Deans), be requested to state the name of and modern church which, in their opinion, possesses an old-looking font, making, at the same time, any reasonable enquiries as to when and whence it was obtained. By this means it is quite possible that the “List of Missing Fonts” given in this Volume may still be further reduced; and for my part I shall be happy, if still in England, to visit the churches that may be named and add drawings of their old fonts to this Record.7
Pridham was very outspoken in his introduction.8 Clearly his strong views about ignorant builders and church officials who generously gave away their fonts to mission churches was something which he felt equally disgusted by.
1. A.J. Webb, ed., Ancient church fonts of Somerset surveyed and drawn by Harvey Pridham (2013), xxxviii n.39.
2. Webb, Ancient fonts, ix.
3. Webb, Ancient fonts, 121.
4. Volume B, 238.
5. Webb, Ancient fonts, illustration 20, xxiii.
6. Volume B, 236-7.
7. Volume B, 238-40.
8. Webb, Ancient fonts, ix-x, 1.
I am grateful to David Bromwich for bringing volume B to my attention.
Kommentare