Charlottesville’s Cheapside Cross: Utilizing the Iconoclasm and Destruction of London’s Cheapside C

“When their judges and critics, magistrates and neighbors, asked them why they had destroyed these precious objects, many responded as Hans Zirkel and Basel did: ‘For the honor of God and the betterment of one’s neighbor.’”

-Lee Palmer Wandel

Introduction

Americans engaged in media of any kind during the summer of 2017, likely recognize Charlottesville, Virginia as another city at the center of modern political and religious discussions. Charlottesville has earned a spot on the growing list of familiar cities experiencing uprisings and protests in the midst of racial conversations and tension in America. As eyes turned to Charlottesville to watch protesters, politicians, and religious leaders gather (both literally and figuratively) around the statues of confederate soldier, Robert E. Lee, set in the city’s center, one can’t help but recognize the role of the modern media in propelling this particular conversation. Though such uprisings from a variety of groups eventually led to the removal of the statue, it was certainly not excised without controversy. Political cartoons produced during this period and depicting the Charlottesville protests are eerily similar to the those depicting the removal of the Cheapside Cross at London’s city center in 1643. Just as the media was a major driving force in Charlottesville, the printing press propelled the production of pamphlets that eventually contributed to the eradication of the Cheapside Cross and allowing a contemporary opportunity to utilize the circumstances of the Cheapside Cross as a case study to Charlottesville’s Lee statue.

This discussion seeks to dissect the similarities of these two events, by not simply examining the events in parallel to one another, but through a discussion rooted in the political cartoons produced in response to each event. One could immediately critique the disconnect of these two events by pointing to the clear secularity of the Robert E. Lee statue and noting the strong religious connotations of the Cheapside Cross that ultimately led to its categorization as a target of iconoclasm. While such a critique may halt this discussion, the hope is that this project will make clear why such a claim comes up short by arguing for further inclusion of historical iconoclastic case studies into the more vast category of destruction. The thesis of this discussion contends that an understanding of the role of destruction which eventually led to the eradication of London’s Cheapside Cross should act as a case study to better aid contemporary understandings of the events that that led to the removal of Charlottesville’s Robert E. Lee statue in the summer of 2017.

From the Cheapside Cross to Charlottesville

The Cheapside Cross attracted attention, endured ridicule, and survived many disputes between its construction in the early 1290’s until its final demolition in 1643. In fact, it endured so much negative attention, periodic vandalism, and intense moments of iconoclasm that Joel Budd argues that, “the most remarkable thing about the destruction of the Cheapside Cross is that it did not happen sooner.” The case of the Cheapside Cross can be used as a classic example of reformation period iconoclasm, as it endured at least five clear iconoclastic attacks between the 1580’s and 1640’s amongst dozens of others prior. However, in this discussion, the last two years of the monuments existence can provide a lens for the ways in which the reformation continued tearing through Europe. Some may argue that the abolition of the Cross was nothing more than another event in the early modern history of Europe, however this project challenges historians to understand the reformation as a more vast political and religious movement that continues into modern times. As this discussion continues, the hope is to challenge the reader to begin to see and understand the long lineage that reformation era iconoclasm plays in the destruction of monuments ranging from seventeenth-century London, travelling around the world and breadth of time to twenty-first century Charlottesville, Virginia.

The case study of the Cheapside Cross demonstrates that it was a clear target of iconoclasm throughout its life. According to Stacy Boldrick and Richard Clay’s definition of iconoclasm, there is no question that the Cheapside Cross can be catalogued as another victim of iconoclasm. Therefore, the argument is for the inclusion of Charlottesville's Robert E. Lee statue into this same catalogue. Boldrick and Clay state that, “In our use of the term, iconoclasm is a subset of the larger category destruction,” arguing for iconoclasm to simply fall under the larger umbrella term of destruction. It seems more beneficial to this discussion to understand iconoclasm as a directed form of destruction towards material objects or icons symbolic of ideologies. If iconoclasm is simply limited to religious icons, one must be drawn to question who and what determines the religiosity of icons. In an effort to avoid this much larger question, one can understand iconoclasm as the act of targeting material objects to bring further meaning and open interpretations to the object itself. Boldrick and Clay share in this possibility of larger inclusion in the catalogue of iconoclasm:

“The destruction of objects produces new meanings and practices, and damaged things may become more precious. The destruction of religious objects is a cultural practice that changes the materiality or the meaning of the object involved, or both. Destruction and damage of religious objects cause transformations of the semiotic status of these objects. Operating on materiality- on the body- of a sacred object affects and modifies its symbolic status- its meanings and functions in its cultural contexts. Destruction may also transform the status of the agents involved.”

This shared understanding of the role of iconoclasm within the greater definition of destruction shapes this conversation by arguing that the case study of the Cheapside Cross and its ensuing knowledge can be applied to the Robert E. Lee statue of Charlottesville. Simply put, there are more similarities that draw these two case studies together even if the Lee statue may not be perceived as a religious icon by some. Further, Budd recognizes that other historians have utilized the Cheapside Cross as a case study in better understanding modern icons and monuments. Just as Dario Gamboni employed the Cross’ case study to better understand the monuments of the post-communist era, this case study is employed to shape an understanding of the Charlottesville Lee statue.

In addition to Boldrick and Clay’s understanding of iconoclasm as a categorization of destruction, the case of the Cheapside Cross is most appropriately applied to the Lee statue when combined with Budd’s understanding of iconoclasm. Budd interprets iconoclasm, “as an attempt to restructure perceptions of religious images rather than as an attack on traditional religious beliefs.” Utilizing this lens, one can observe that protesters who attacked the Robert E. Lee statue were not necessarily attacking Lee himself, but instead were active participants attempting to restructure the perception of the statue. That is, as protesters targeted the Lee statue and sparked similar ‘vandalism’ directed towards monuments across the country, they did so with the intention of demonstrating the problematic nature of these very monuments, in an attempt to convince open the icons to further interpretation. As mentioned, though some may argue that the Lee statue is not a religious statue, there is an argument to be made for the role in which it has played in the national perception of religious persons and their relationship to racial tensions.

The Lee statue explicitly celebrates the Confederacy of the southern states during the American civil war, therefore explicitly connecting itself to the pro-slavery movement. Though these sentiments are explicitly stated, their interpretations and the understanding of the statue’s symbolism change over time. More importantly, is recognizing the role of the media in shaping these perceptions and understandings. After the election of Donald Trump in the 2016 Presidential elections, the media quickly began drawing lines between southern confederate sympathizers as the outwardly facing Republican party and often lumping them into the category of “Evangelical Christians.” Although the statue itself may not be explicitly religious, it connates connection to religious groups as demonstrated and perhaps even created, through the media. This is clear in the portrayal of the ‘conservative evangelical Christian’ group’s outpouring of support to maintain the statue in Charlottesville’s city center. The Lee statue itself centered on racial conversations, but also intersected deeply with religious groups and thus, stood as an icon for the ‘religious right.’ The Lee statue therefore becomes its own case study of how an initially ‘secular’ icon come to be understood as a religious icon. Similarly, the Cheapside Cross’ symbolic life also followed a similar path as it was first commissioned as an icon of the monarchy, later earning the additions of religious iconography and symbols.

Applying the Cheapside Cross as a Case Study

While the Cheapside Cross stood at the center of London when iconoclasts attacked the monument, “ they wittingly or unwittingly disrupted the pattern of associations that had been constructed on previous occasions.” Similarly, protesters that initiated the discussion of the Lee statue also sought to disrupt the ideology of the statue as a symbol of historical conservatism. Instead, they attempted to refocus the statue as a symbol of racial bigotry by utilizing its explicit confederate nature. Such refocusing took place through a series of actions in which protesters took on the mission of iconoclasts by disrupting the associations of the monument. In this way, the Lee statue protesters embodied the very mission iconoclasts themselves. These contemporary iconoclasts targeted the ideologies and symbolism of the Lee monument through destruction such as defacing the material of the statue. These pseudo-iconoclastic actions led to a rippling of overt iconoclasm taking place throughout the United States. Following the Charlottesville protests and defacement of the Lee statues, further vandalism and destruction of several religious icons took place across the country. For example, the St. Junipero Serra statue in Los Angeles, was defaced as an act of defiance towards the Catholic Church.

In these contemporary cases, the case of the Cheapside Cross reminds us “that attitudes to images could be more complex than one might deduce from analysis of their form and the context of contemporary religious policy.” Though the media acts as a window into the complexity of these various meanings such as the Lee statue, the Cheapside Cross also demonstrates how often times the way in which a monument is treated and maintained contributes to the complexities of the individual's perception of the statue. Historians have acknowledged that such images and icons elicit “a complex variety of associations, not all of them necessarily ‘religious’ in a direct sense,” and “iconoclasm has itself comes to resemble much less the generalized attack on traditional religion that historians have usually perceived.” This understanding of an icons complexities of perception should act as a lens in attempting to better understand the contemporary case of the Lee statue.

The treatment of the Cheapside Cross seems to extend beyond veneration as the Cross was often beautified prior to visits from royalty while particular attention was paid to it during the Queen’s parades. Over time, the icon grew from simply a statue of the monarchy to a mixing of religious relics and symbolism, eventually growing to include the Virgin Mary, doves, and an infant Christ. David Cressey argues that, “as an object of veneration as well as a target of derision, the Cross braved generations of controversy to participate in the religious and ceremonial drama of the city.” Yet, when the Cross was finally brought down from orders of the council, Cressey recognizes that as it came down and was dismembered, “its fate matching [sic] that of the body politic itself.” The role of the treatment of such monuments plays a part in shaping the public’s perception and complicates further meanings and symbolism the icon is likely to possess. Budd also reminds us that, whether they intended to or not, the people who attacked Cheapside Cross conveyed powerful symbolic arguments about the meaning of the monument that challenged the associations constructed during royal and civic ceremonies.” Such a statement can be appropriately applied to the protestors at the Lee statue, again borrowing Budd’s words and applying them in a similar manner, “Iconoclasm,” or simply destruction, “in this case was a means rather than an end.”

When considering the iconoclasm and destruction of both statues, most importantly, the greatest lens to understanding the nature of such attacks can be found in the iconoclasts themselves. It is important to remember those who participated in such attacks, both at the Cross and Lee state, were people who interacted with the objects or felt the effects of their symbolism most deeply: ““Any attempt to explain iconoclasm must acknowledge the fact that it was carried out primarily by people who were closely acquainted with the objects that they destroyed.” Though we can only guess at the intentions of the iconoclasts, it is important to recall the ways in which the media attempted to shape the public’s perception of the protestors themselves. Though this will be discussed in further detail, such an exploration of the intentions of protesters must also be placed in parallel by considering their motivations. The case study of the Cheapside Cross allows a historical viewing point:

“Also motivating iconoclasts were social considerations such as economics (tithes and rents paid for the oil of votive lamps associated with religious statuary), class conflict (most images were donated to churches by the wealthy patrician families) and rising literacy (the Catholic Church had long justified images as visual "books" for the illiterate). These social factors were long-term underlying causes of discontent with images, but it was the newly popular Reformation sermons and pamphlets against these "idols" that united many urban dwellers in a common cause and sparked local anti-image revolts.”

Though this discussion does not allow for a deep investigation debate regarding the motivations of the Lee statue protesters, it can remind us that such motivations are likely deeply complex and unlikely to be revealed in their entirety.

Similarities of Circumstances of London and Charlottesville

In regards to both the Lee statue and the Cross, simple observations reveal how the media propelled the attention and conversation surrounding the icons. The role of the media can also be observed by a quick survey of similarities of circumstances surrounding the statues. First, simply the location of the statues provide a glimpse into the role of their lives within their communities. While the Cheapside Cross was located in London’s city center, the Robert E. Lee statue was located in Emancipation Park within Charlottesville’s historic courthouse district. These two locations denote locations of power and authority and also demonstrate their interaction within the life of the city.

Second, both icons suffered several attacks prior to removal. Additionally, the media both attempted to portray such attacks as simply vandalism rather than orchestrated and planned attacks. Commonly, iconoclasts were criticized by those who shared similar viewpoints and goals by those who would be considered more educated. That is, at times, iconoclasts were scrutinized by their own, as such criticizers feared that their actions would damage the support and progress of their cause. For example, in the case of the Cheapside Cross, Samuel Loveday, a baptist preacher, spoke out against the actions of the iconoclasts arguing that “The Cross should come down,” Loveday concluded, “but only through parliamentary authority.” Some feared that the protestors destruction would decrease the causes’ respectability in the eyes of the public therefore attract harsher criticism from oppositionists. Such fear was mirrored in publications as the media, through artwork and pamphlets, attempted to demonize the protesters even posting bounties for their capture. Budd demonstrates such demonization by recalling how oppositionists would argue “that iconoclasm was motivated purely by greed and was commonly used to play down its symbolic significance.”Budd continues in observing how such sentiments were mirrored in statements by government officials: “the Mayor denied that the attack on Cheapside Cross had been motivated by religious principles, he acknowledged that it had exposed the problem of the monument’s iconography.” Similarly, after the Charlottesville uprising, in which the ‘Unite the Right’ rally of self-proclaimed white supremacists clashed with peaceful anti-statue protestors at the foot of the Lee statue, the President of the United States argued that the clash was not racially motivated, though those protesting under the guise of the ‘Unite the Right’ name, explicitly stated so. The portrayal of iconoclasts⏤perhaps better named destructionalists for this conversation⏤in the media of seventeenth-century London mirrors that of the twenty-first century American media portrayal of ‘vandals’ who defaced the Lee statue. These observations further demonstrate the lineage of demonization of protesters by the media.

Most noticeably, these two case studies feel most eerily related regarding the circumstances of police presence and government guarding of the statues. Budd remarks that in the days leading up to the removal of the Cheapside Cross, “The whole spectacle was carefully managed by the civic authorities, who were probably worried and concerned about the possibility of rioting: public iconoclasm had provoked several scuffles between puritans and conservatives.” Such statements are echoed in Cressey’s recounting of these days: “The official response to the vandalism, and to renewed public interest in Cheapside Cross, was to mount a guard, with a captain and soldiers to watch it by night,” leaders citing that, “their highest commitment was to maintain public order.” The imagery of the guards standing to protect the Cheapside Cross as protesters surrounded it calling for its destruction, seems most powerful when countered with the imagery of police also standing guard as the statue was brought down and removed via government order.

The similarities of location, portrayal of protesters, and police presence surrounding the Cheapside Cross and the Lee statue allow us to also return to the original discussion of iconoclasm. In the case of the Cheapside Cross, the government recognized that the removal of the statue was necessary because, the “Cheapside Cross had become so strongly associated with religious and civic conservatism that it was likely to attract further violence.” And again, we see such sentiments mirrored in the case of the Lee statue, as government officials recognize that the statue would continue to attract violence, therefore calling for its removal.

The Role of Political Cartoons

A quick survey of the similar circumstances of the Lee statue and the Cross also reveal the comparable roles of the media surrounding the cases. Though technology and media tactics have changed dramatically since seventeenth-century London, political cartoons provide an opportunity for a side-by-side comparison of the media’s portrayal of the statues and their respective protestors. Particularly, “the dramatic increase in the production of pamphlets—most of them in vernacular languages—during the first decade of the Reformation, and the power of pamphlets to communicate ideas, make them an invaluable source for historians,” and further allow the case study of the Cheapside Cross to extend to Charlottesville. In both instances technology dramatically propels the awareness of the issues surrounding the icons: London sees the introduction of the printing press and the role of wood-cuts in producing pamphlets, while America sees the advancement and globalization of technology that leads to easier access to information and media. In both cases, such technologies allow for access to information for those in lower socioeconomic classes, those less educated, and those who may not normally of had access to such debates prior to the introduction of these technologies. Even this knowingly surface level examination of technologies ability to spread media and capture viewers, allows us to recognize the important role that such production played at both the Cross and the Lee statue.

As this discussion begins to close, it is beneficial to take one last look into the role of pamphlets and political cartoons surrounding the Cheapside Cross. First, pamphlets and cartoons are seemingly the most accessible form of political commentary and media. Political cartoons are accessible, most often require low literacy skills, and are viewable at little to no cost. They lack the educational and economic barriers that often work as a form of gatekeeping to such communities and instead they invite more perspectives and commentary into the conversation. At this intersection, the case study of the Cross becomes most valuable in the case of the Lee statue as both technologies drastically improved the accessibility to the debate. As the Lee statue is still a contemporary case that continues to be played out in the media, perhaps this piece of the case study will be most valuable upon closure of the Lee case. That is, it is difficult to appropriately apply this case study to an ongoing study continuing to circulate in the modern media. However, knowledge of the media’s role, particularly the role of pamphlets, can provide a lens for future study of the Charlottesville political cartoons. Utilizing pamphlets as such a tool is most appropriate given Travis Moger’s recognition of their role in studying iconoclasm:

“Pamphlets are important for the study of Reformation iconoclasm because they show the content of popular, anti-image preaching at the time of publication. They provide a view into what people were reading, discussing on the streets and hearing from the pulpits. Pamphlets can even suggest the relative popularity of their ideas, as in the case of pamphlets that were reprinted soon after their initial release. They also indicate where iconoclasts originally got their ideas. For instance, anti-image pamphlets presenting the evangelical teaching on "idolatry" seem to have encouraged many city dwellers to remove or attack images in the early years of the Reformation.”

As the case of the Lee statue continues to develop in modern media, it is advantageous to utilize the role of pamphlets in iconoclasm and destructionalist attacks as a lens for understanding the relationships of anti-statue protestors, the role of the statue in public life, and the intersection of public perception and religious iconography in secular spaces.

Conclusion

Overall, given the similarities and iconoclasm of the case of London’s Cheapside Cross, there should be no question as to the appropriateness of application to utilizing it as a lens to better understanding the Robert E. Lee statue of Charlottesville, Virginia. Though the Lee statue may not be perceived as an explicitly religious icon and therefore may not be viewed as a target of iconoclasts, it has successfully embedded itself into religious conversations lending it to have the ability to fall into the larger umbrella term of targeted destruction. One would argue that it could just as easily be considered as another victim of iconoclasm given the public’s complex perception of its relationship to religion and the media’s portrayal of pro-statue supporters as ‘Conservative Evangelical Christians.’ The destruction and eventual removal of the Lee statue further connects it to the Cheapside Cross based on its location and participation in the life of the city. Additionally, the prior attacks and defacement of the Lee statue and subsequent portrayal of the destructionalists as ‘vandals,’ brings it into an even closer relationship to the Cheapside Cross. Further, the police presence, physical protectiveness of the statue, and the government’s attempt of public deception of the destructionalists and the statue’s themselves, further supports the application of this case study. Most importantly, pamphlets and political cartoons denoting the Cheapside Cross provide an opportunity for a direct comparison of the two cases and can lead to better understanding the role of media encapsulating the modern debate of the Robert E. Lee statue.

Appendix

Figure 1

Fig. 1. Samuel Lovedeay, An Answer to the Lamentation of Cheap-side Crosse, London, 1642. Corporation of London, Guildhall Library.

Fig. 2. Harry Peacham, A dialogue between the crosses in Cheap, and Charing Cross in 1641. The Newberry Library. https://i-share.carli.illinois.edu/nby/cgi-bin/ Pwebrecon.cgi?DB= local&v1=1&BBRecID=640146

Fig. 3. Sean Delonas, Editorial Cartoon: August 29. 2017. The Daily Miner. https://kdminer.com /news/2017/aug/29/editorial-cartoon-august-29-2017/

Figure 4

Fig. 4. Pulling Down Cheapside Cross, 1643. Cambridge Press. https://www.gutenberg .org/files/36417/36417-h/36417-h.htm

Bibliography

Boldrick, Stacy., Clay, Richard, and Henry Moore Institute. Iconoclasm : Contested Objects, Contested Terms. Subject/object--new Studies in Sculpture. Aldershot, Hampshire, England ; Burlington, VT: Ashgate, 2007.

Budd, Joel. "Rethinking Iconoclasm in Early Modern England: The Case of Cheapside Cross." Journal of Early Modern History 4, no. 3-4. 2000.

Chavez, Nicole. “These are the monuments vandalized after Charlottesville.” CNN U.S. Edition. August 22, 2017. http://www.cnn.com/2017/08/18/us/monuments-memorials- vandalized-charlottesville/index.html

Cressy, David. "The Downfall of Cheapside Cross: Vandalism, Ridicule, and Iconoclasm." In Travesties and Transgressions in Tudor and Stuart England, Travesties and Transgressions in Tudor and Stuart England, Chapter 15. Oxford University Press, 1999.

Derespina, Cody. “Trump: ‘Country being ripped apart’ by monument removals.” Fox News. August 17, 2017. http://www.foxnews.com/politics/2017/08/17/trump-country- being-ripped-apart-by-monument-removals.html

Dew, Spencer. “Public Shrines to Treason: Charlottesville and the Cult of Confederate Memorialization.” August, 14, 2017. http://religiondispatches.org/public-shrines-to- treason-charlottesville-and-the-cult-of-confederate-memorialization/

Moger, Jourden Travis. "Pamphlets, preaching and politics: the image controversy in Reformation Wittenberg, Zürich and Strassburg." The Mennonite Quarterly Review 75, no. 3. 2001.

Richer, Alanna Durkin. "Some Heirs Favor Toppling Memorials to Civil War Heroes." Philadelphia Tribune, August 20, 2017. http://search.proquest.com.ezp-prod1.hul. harvard.edu/docview/1937610123?accountid =11311.

Trump, Donald J. "Remarks on the Situation in Charlottesville, Virginia." Daily Compilation of Presidential Documents. August 14, 2017. 1-2. http://search.proquest. com.ezp-prod1.hul.harvard.edu/ docview/1940161615?accountid=11311.

Vives, Ruben. “St. Junipero Serra statue vandalized in Mission Hills.” Los Angeles Times. August 20. 2017. http://www.latimes.com/local/lanow/la-me-junipero-serra- vandalized-mission-hills-20170 820-story.html

Wamsley, Laurel. “Charlottesville Shrouds Its Robert E. Lee And Stonewall Jackson Statues” National Public Radio (NPR). August, 23, 2017. https://www.npr.org/sections /thetwo-way/2017/08/23/545605237/charlottesville-shrouds-its-robert-e-lee-and-stonewall-jackson-statues

Wandel, Lee Palmer. Voracious Idols and Violent Hands : Iconoclasm in Reformation Zurich, Strasbourg, and Basel. Cambridge ; New York: Cambridge University Press, 1995.