Select a site alphabetically from the choices shown in the box below. Alternatively, browse sculptural examples using the Forward/Back buttons.
Chapters for this volume, along with copies of original in-text images, are available here.
Object type: Grave-cover [1]
Measurements: L. 176 cm (69.3 in); W. 37 > 33 cm (14.6 > 13 in); D. 36 > 30 cm (14.2 > 11.8 in)
Stone type: Limestone, yellow-brown, medium to coarse grained, ooidal and bioclastic. Middle Jurassic, Bajocian, Upper Lincolnshire Limestone Formation, Ancaster Stone
Plate numbers in printed volume: Ills. 28-31, 179; Figs. 8, 18
Corpus volume reference: Vol 12 p. 111-15
(There may be more views or larger images available for this item. Click on the thumbnail image to view.)
The stone played the role of a lintel supporting the tympanum, Hawksworth 2 (Appendix B, p. 208), when these two stones apparently formed the outer doorway of the south porch. The date of this porch seems unknown, and it was taken down when the nave was completely rebuilt in 1813 ((—) 1897–8, illus.; Robertson 1910, 79). In this year, these two stones were re-erected, along with certain others retained from the former south porch, 'as before', to form the outer doorway to a new porch against the west wall of the church's west tower, most of the upper parts of which are of brick. Presuming that the chamfer in Hawksworth 1 sat beneath the tympanum in this reuse (which seems to be the case in the surviving drawings), and did not form part of an earlier reuse of the stone, the rebate and the chamfer are disposed in such a way that suggests that the stone has been reused only on these two occasions. Hill supposed that this arrangement was set up in the south porch when the tympanum itself was carved, only two centuries after the grave-cover's original manufacture, to support the Romanesque tympanum in the original south door of the nave here (Hill 1916a, 201), but this seems inherently unlikely, and it is probably more realistic to see the south porch as a structure of the late Middle Ages that reused both stones together. Porches are rare on parochial churches in the twelfth century (the date of the tympanum), and, even had one existed, the tympanum would have been more likely to be mounted over the inner doorway and not the outer.
A note in the parish register reports that the west porch was demolished 53 years after its construction, in April 1866, and a new western doorway was provided leading directly into the tower.[2] On this occasion, the tympanum was carefully re-set in the fabric of the south wall of the tower, where it remains (Godfrey 1907, 213; see Hawksworth 2 in Appendix B, p. 208); but there is no mention of similar consideration being given to re-mounting the earlier stone that had formed its lintel. Indeed, Romilly Allen found himself praising the architect of the new works for 'not destroying it altogether' (1901–3, 88); and according to W. Stevenson in 1897, it was sold to a stone mason in Newark to make window-cills of, 'but he never completed his purchase' (BL, Add. MS 37604, 384–5; Stapleton 1903, 26). Presumably, despite its seniority, the importance of Hawksworth 1 was less easily recognized because it did not carry an inscription! The stone was left propped up against the south wall of the tower, where it appears in early photographs (e.g. Phillimore 1897; Godfrey 1907, 218; Stapleton 1903, 26 and illus.; Stapleton 1911, 123–6). It was evidently moved inside the church on 12 November 1908 (Stapleton 1911, 125), perhaps following the strictures contained in Godfrey's book in which he complains of the vegetation growing over it, and also points out that a clearer understanding of the stone will be had if it can be moved inside (Godfrey 1907, 219). We presume it was fixed in its modern position on that occasion and that the finely wrought metal armature, designed to hold it at a slight distance from the tower wall, was also a response to Godfrey's remarks.
Along with Creeton 7 and Hougham 1 in Lincolnshire (Everson and Stocker 1999, 36–46), Hawksworth is one of the most complete mid-Kesteven grave-covers that have survived, and is certainly the most complete example in Nottinghamshire (Fig. 18). Unlike some members of the group, it is quite markedly tapered from 'head' to 'foot' both in terms of its width and depth. The upper angles of the stone, defining the 'lid', and the upper edges of face D, have not survived well. As explained above, the stone has been reused as a lintel. The substantial rebate in the arris between faces B and F, intended to receive the door-leaf, is 10 cm deep and of rectangular section. Unlike the cutting of the chamfer between faces A and D, this was crudely done using a large blade. This chamfer is a delicate piece of work, and was created by simply removing the angle-roll along the central part of the stone. The chamfer is not 'stopped'. The original arris moulding between faces A and D survives only in a poor condition. The chamfer has removed all but the upper-most and -most parts, and these are considerably abraded. Even so, it may be just possible to make out the remains of a lightly incised cable moulding here, which would be typical of the monument class. The arris between faces A and B was evidently trimmed back when the original surface of face B was removed, and no traces of the original moulding have survived.
A (top): This face, decorated with interlace carving in low relief and enhanced with a medial line, is laid out in the manner typical of the lids of grave-covers in this group (Everson and Stocker 1999, 36–46). The transverse panels at both the 'foot' and the 'head' ends are defined by cable moulding along the arrises that adjoin face D. Their borders with the outside ends of the stone are broad undecorated fillets of more-or-less rectangular section. Within these frames the transverse panels are decorated with units of interlace motif type iv (ibid., 42, fig. 10). Both are divided from the decoration on the longitudinal panel in the usual way by means of a belt of thick double-cable moulding. The decoration within the long central panel, again typical of others within the group, takes the form of a bold double-ended cross surrounded with interlace. The interlace here is a consistent three-strand plait. Also as with many other examples, the interlace plaits develop from each of the cross-arms with the medial lines being taken across the terminals of the crosses.
B (long): The original surface here has been entirely removed, when at least 1–2 cm were trimmed from the entire length of face B, taking all traces of the original decoration with it. We can use other monuments in the series to estimate what this face would have looked like (Everson and Stocker 1999, fig. 9; this volume, Fig. 8, pp. 54–9), but all evidence of it is now lost.
C (end): This face is the original end of the monument. It has been dressed to an entirely plain surface and it is greatly weathered.
D (long): Decoration survives along the length of this face in good condition, except for a wedge of damage extending through the arris with face F and into the part of the interlacement. As is typical of examples of side-panels in the mid-Kesteven group, the surviving side at Hawksworth is divided into three panels reflecting those on the lid (face A). Both transverse and longitudinal panels are framed by cable moulding along the boundaries with face A and by broad flat fillets of square section with faces C, E, and F. As on the lid (face A), the outer transverse panels thus defined are filled with single units of interlace motif type iv (Everson and Stocker 1999, 42, fig. 10) that develop out of the panel borders. Also as on the lid, they are divided from the long central panel by broad runs of double-cable moulding. The central panel is decorated with two runs of four-strand plait disposed in a single tier, symmetrically either side of a 'bull's head' motif (ibid., 42–4, fig. 11). The interlace is grouped into two units of 'figure-of-eight' form (simple pattern F) with integral triquetra knots at the outer ends of each run. At the centre, one strand on each side develops directly from the 'horns' of the 'bull's head', in the usual way, whilst a second originally passed beneath the 'bull's nose', but has been broken away by later damage. The 'bull's head' itself is without 'nostrils' or eyes, but does have a broad 'nose-band' of rectangular section.
E (end): Not visible, but it probably represents the original surface of the grave-cover's (undecorated) end panel (as face C).
F (bottom): The base is finely cut to a smooth surface, which is somewhat weathered. Although those scholars who have looked at Hawksworth 1 previously have been inclined to think this surface represents a re-cutting of an originally decorated surface (Hill 1916a, fig. 3), the stone's identification as a mid-Kesteven cover suggests that this is the surviving plain underside of the original monument.
When Hawksworth 1 first came to scholarly attention, somewhat later than the inscribed tympanum that it supported for so long, it was considered to have been a cross-shaft; a view espoused by both Allen (1901–3, 88; see this volume, Ill. 179) and Hill (1916a, 200–1). Godfrey, however, having thought that it was a shaft when he first saw it in 1886, eventually came to believe that it was a grave-cover, albeit of peculiar type (Godfrey 1907, 218–19). Now that Hawksworth can be seen against the backdrop of the other 47 examples of this type of monument, we can see that it is clearly a grave-cover of the distinctive chest-like type represented by the mid-Kesteven cover group (Everson and Stocker 1999, 36–46, fig. 9; this volume, pp. 53–61, Fig. 8). Indeed Hawksworth 1 is one of the finest examples surviving of this specialized type of grave-cover monument, yet even this example is missing the entirety of one side. The lid decoration, in particular, is the only example to survive intact (Ill. 29), though we have partial evidence for at least another sixteen (including the atypical example at Derby Museum). Although its decoration appears to have been similar to that at Aisthorpe 1 (Lincolnshire), the other example with precisely the same detailing also lies in Nottinghamshire, at Girton (p. 110, Ill. 27). The side panel (face D, Ill. 31) however, finds somewhat more precise parallels at Creeton 7 and Hougham (both Lincolnshire), though in neither of these cases are the transverse end panels identical (Everson and Stocker 1999, 95–6, 142–3, 186–7; and see Fig. 8, pp. 54–9). Interestingly, Creeton 7 also seems to have had both sides decorated with interlace runs in a single tier, a feature not seen in many other members of the group.
[1] The following are unpublished manuscript references to Hawksworth 1: Nottinghamshire Archives Office, PR 6571, p. 119; DD/TS/14/32/3, unpaginated ('Notes on churches visited No. IV' by Arthur Barratt of Lambley); BL, Add. MS 37552, ff. 182–5, illus. (Romilly Allen collection); BL, Add. MS 37604, ff. 380–1, 384–5, 390–1, illus. (Romilly Allen correspondence).
[2] Two respectable authorities in the initial years of the twentieth century mis-located the porch on the north side of the church (Godfrey 1907, 212 n.1).
[3] The church may have been dedicated to Edmund prior to the Reformation (Godfrey 1907, 208).
