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: Part of shaft, possibly furnishing or monumental
Measurements: H. 83 cm (32.7 in) W. 31 > 24 cm (12.2 > 9.4 in) D. 15 cm (5.9 in)
Stone type: As Melsonby 1 (St James the Great); burnt prior to re-dressing
Plate numbers in printed volume: Fig. 18; Ills. 658–61
Corpus volume reference: Vol 6 p. 176-177
(There may be more views or larger images available for this item. Click on the thumbnail image to view.)
The form of the shaft and the nature of the recutting are identical to no. 1 (see above). The labelling of the faces is explained in Fig. 18.
E (?narrow) : The left-hand part of this chamfered face has been dressed back. The rolled edge moulding on the right flanks a plant-scroll identical with that on face 1C, although more worn.
F (broad) : The edge mouldings are rolled. The tapering panel is occupied by well planned eight-cord interlace in broadly modelled, median-incised strand. At the top is one register of pattern A with cross-joined terminals, linked by diagonal and lying strands across a glide to two registers of turned pattern F with internal bends. This in turn is separated by a glide with diagonal and lying strands from a run of turned pattern F interlace of at least four stages.
G (narrow) : A chamfered face has bold rolled edge mouldings flanking a run of half pattern A knots with glides in modelled median-incised strand. At the bottom of the panel the glide is omitted and the pattern turned. At the top there may be a bar terminal.
H (uncertain) : The right-hand edge is dressed off. The rolled edge moulding flanks a plant-scroll identical with that of faces 1C and 2E.
The other two sides of no. 2 have been ruthlessly dressed at right-angles to one another.
Rosemary Cramp is right in suggesting that the two fragments are part of a single polygonal monument (Cramp and Lang 1977, nos. 7 and 8). The form, unique in Yorkshire, is, as she suggests, temptingly similar to the lectern pedestal from Jarrow (Cramp 1984, 115–17, no. 22, figs. 15, 16) whose section and heavy roll mouldings are shared by the Melsonby piece. The shaft, be it cross or church furnishing, has been cut in two longitudinally and other faces recut to serve as a sill, so that the relative proportions are left to supposition. Cramp proposed a schematic section (Cramp and Lang 1977) which postulated four equal broad faces and four narrow chamfers, but the surviving ornament suggests a slimmer plan with faces 1D and 2H (human heads and plant-scroll) being narrow. An alternative would be to regard 1D and 2H as much broader originally than faces 1B and 2F, with their heads and plant-scroll repeated on lost edges to serve as a frame for lost carving.
The animal ornament of face 1B (Ill. 655) is most accomplished and in a fine state of preservation, confirming Cramp's view that it stood inside. The survival of gesso, but no pigment, is additional evidence. The parallels for the animals are found in other media from the late eighth to early ninth century (ibid.), and despite their formalised arrangement are much more naturalistic than creatures on other Yorkshire monuments. The closest parallels are undoubtedly on the Gandersheim whalebone casket (Goldschmidt 1918, II, cat. 185; Webster and Backhouse 1991, 177–9, cat. 138), whose animals include the lizard-like bipeds with interlace tails and superimposed leg-joints as well as long-necked leonine creatures with ribbed muscular necks and small ears. The creatures are further support for Smith's view that the casket has links with Northumbrian sculpture (Smith 1923–4, 236). The lowest pair of affronted canine animals have been compared with those on the Cundall/Aldborough shaft (Ills. 180–1), but these are more plastic and free of encumbering interlace trails; indeed the composition is much freer than on the Gandersheim casket, or within the chi-rho of the Codex Aureus where the posture is matched (Stockholm, Royal Library, MS A.135, fol. 11: Nordenfalk 1977, 106, pl. 38). These parallels indicate a date, by the comparative method, of the late eighth century, though the series of nicks on the edge of one of the bipeds might be a Trewhiddle-style feature and take the carving into the early ninth century. The plant-scrolls would sit happily in that bracket.
The recessed circles in the moulding of face 1D (Ill. 657) may have served as settings for crystals or metal appliqués, comparable with Lastingham 4 (Lang 1991, 169, ills. 582–3).
The heads of 1D are unique in Yorkshire, though a shaft at Heysham, Lancashire has single faces peering from windows (Collingwood 1927a, 72, fig. 89). Cramp responded to the possibilities of their iconography in a wide-ranging way (Cramp and Lang 1977), and of her suggestions, that of a sequence of Apostles seems most likely, especially in view of Melsonby's proximity and similar type of location to Easby 1 (Ills. 193–212), one of a series of 'Apostle shafts' extending along the side of Dere Street (Lang 1999). Such monuments may have been associated with the rite of baptism, and the topography of Melsonby would be geographically appropriate. Given the fine state of preservation, it is possible the shaft originally stood in a baptistery where the iconography of the Apostles was a contemporary convention. That one head only may be bearded suggests an image of St Paul.
The plant-scrolls and ordered interlace are of a high standard in terms of design and execution. It is assured, accomplished carving.
