Reconstructed in the galleries of the Victoria and Albert Museum, London. Accession numbers: (a) A.11–1931, (b) A.88–1930, (c) A.9–1931, (d) A.10–1931

The four fragments are here considered as a single monument. Its constituent pieces, however, have the following contexts:–

(a) The lower central part of the cross-head, formerly in the exterior south wall of the chancel, close to the priest's door, with face A exposed.
(b) The upper part of the shaft, formerly in the grounds of Easby House, in a private collection, where it was first noted in 1869 (Rowe 1869, fig. facing 61). According to local tradition it was discovered by the owner, R. M. Jaques, in a field wall (Hatcher 1990, 72; C. J. Hatcher, pers. comm. to D.C.).
(c) The middle part of the shaft, formerly built in over the narrow arch at the east end of the south aisle arcade, with face D visible on the south side towards the chapel (Morris, J. 1931, 141).
(d) The lower part of the shaft, formerly built into the exterior west wall over the window, about 7.6 m (25 ft) above ground, with face D exposed. Noted in 1852.

The internal and south chancel walls are of late twelfth-century date and the west wall was rebuilt in the early thirteenth century (Longhurst 1931, 45).

In August 1930 the upper part of the shaft was purchased from L. Jaques of Easby House by the Victoria and Albert Museum; later that year the three remaining pieces were bought for the museum by the National Art-Collections Fund, and extracted from the fabric of the church where Collingwood had recorded them (Collingwood 1907, 314–15, figs. a–g). After removal to the museum the fragments were cleaned of thick adhering mortar and reassembled in their present coherent order (Longhurst 1931, 43–4, pl. XXVIII). A cast can be found in the church at Easby.

St Agatha

Four fragments, reassembled; losses at the fractures, the cross-arms and base lost. Weathering on all faces, including those formerly built in. A piece of lead was found at the base of the middle stone (c), possibly from an earlier repair (Longhurst 1931, 44).

A (broad) : The edge moulding is double: the outer is a well cut cabled roll, and within it is a flatter median-incised moulding which was extended into transverse panel divisions. Fragment a, the cross-head, is much worn but its arm-pit was a wide curve and bore a continuation of the shaft's edge moulding. The centre of the cross is fully occupied by a bust of Christ, facing frontally. The head is damaged and worn, though enough of the features survive to show naturalistic treatment. Christ's right hand is raised in a Latin blessing, and his left holds a book. His right shoulder retains ribbed drapery in almost vertical folds. Behind his head are parts of a dished halo with a plain flat rim. The base of this panel is marked by a transverse moulding, below which the splayed panel at the neck of the cross-head carries the upper part of a terminal plant-scroll with deeply modelled stem and leaflet shoots filling the corners.

Below the fracture, fragment b has considerable erosion on its edge mouldings, though the inner one can be seen to make a rectangular frame for a panel. This contains a frontally disposed figure of the seated Christ, his erect head much worn though accompanied by a large dished halo with a plain rim moulding. His right hand is raised from the wrist, palm outwards with the four fingers lying close and parallel, the thumb extended.

The left shoulder of Christ, though worn, consists of a rounded raised plate of drapery, with a narrow bar descending diagonally downwards from it. Across his lap lie loose bands of drapery which float at each side of his knees in light splayed folds. The knees are slightly apart and the shins vertical, with the drapery clinging to the anatomy loosely, almost like damp-fold. Between the legs the drapery is gathered in a triple splayed fold with a meander hem cut deeply. A broad strand of drapery cuts diagonally from his left thigh to right shin across the gap between the knees, where it is broken. At head level he is flanked by two figures with smaller haloes in half profile. Their jaws are heavy and they carry rectangular objects at waist height. They are tucked behind the seated Christ and their lower halves are not depicted. Christ sits on a Byzantine cushion which may once have extended a little over the frame's moulding. His toes also rest upon the lower frame. In each lower corner is a single shoot of a plant, the left-hand one with a small berry bunch at its tip and a crozier-like half-loop. The right-hand one is curved. Both are deeply cut. The back hem of Christ's long robe is in low relief behind his ankles. The background is neatly dressed flat. Immediately below this panel is the deeply modelled curving arch of the panel beneath. Within it is the damaged crown of a head set in a dished halo.

This panel is continued on fragment c, where the edge mouldings are intact and above the transverse moulding contain a third single cable at each side. Within the arched panel originally were three Apostle busts: one in the arch above, and behind, two side by side. The fracture has marred the upper figure whose rounded neck line and vertically ribbed garment survive between the overlapping dished haloes of the other two. The left-hand one of these is in half profile with modelled facial features and a long spade-shaped chin; his hair is thick and curled in locks. His robe is straight at the neck with a plain edge surmounting vertical folds. An over-garment lies over the shoulders, with the same ribbed drapery. His left hand holds a damaged narrow diagonal element. The right-hand Apostle has a damaged face but identical drapery. He holds horizontally a large book with a beaded rim. Below the transverse panel division is another group of three Apostles in a similar arrangement beneath a deeply cut arch which rests on plain squared capitals supported by cabled 'pillars'. The upper Apostle has a damaged face, frontally disposed in a large dished halo. The drapery of all three is identical with that in the panel above. The heads of the lower pair are slightly inclined in half profile, with stout necks and closely cut curled hair. The faces are better preserved and look younger than the left-hand one above. Their ears are small and rounded. Here the right-hand halo overlaps the left, the converse of the panel above. In each spandrel of the arch is a damaged zoomorphic head; the creature on the left reaches four toes (or fingers) behind the spring of the arch to touch an arc in narrow stem that curves up from the capital. The base of the panel is lost at the fracture.

Below, on fragment d, the tapering lowest panel is longer, containing six Apostles. The uppermost three of this group are framed by an arch with capitals and cabled columns identical with that above, and their postures are similar. Here the left-hand halo of the pair overlaps the right, and only the left-hand figure holds a book; the other holds a clenched fist on his breast. There is no transverse moulding, but a row of three Apostle busts with overlapping haloes (right over left) and shoulders form a front row to the group. Their heads, in half profile, are more erect. Two have clenched fists, the third a book held by his right hand over his heart. The cabled columns terminate behind the haloes of this trio. Their drapery conforms to the type of this face.

B (narrow) : The edge moulding, double, is identical with that on face A, though the cross-arm is broken away. The shaft has four long panels, the upper three separated by a row of pellets framed by the median-incised inner moulding. No doubt the same occurred at the lower fracture between fragments c and d. The panel motifs alternate between plant-scroll and interlace. (i) The topmost panel contains an organic plant-scroll consisting of two plants, each with its root in the corner of the panel. That stemming from the left forms a basic undulating trail which tangles with the second plant. From the lower left corner a thick four-ribbed stem climbs diagonally to a ridged node where it splits into two median-incised stems. The left-hand one climbs into a symmetrical loop with a semi-pendant triple-leaf terminal. The right-hand one climbs higher, splitting again, the left-hand shoot hanging in a loop with a pendant triple leaf. The main stem continues, with a further split, into a wide crozier-like loop whose upturned tip has a leaf flower. Another shootlet ends in a long triangular berry bunch. The second plant rises from a ribbed stock at the right into a ridged node, whence the stem splits: one strand rises to a long triangular berry bunch, the other in a pendant leaf flower. The two plants interlace coherently and there is dressed-back space between the stems. (ii) The second panel is interrupted by the fracture: it contains deeply cut interlace with outside strands in a fine median-incised strand. The pattern is not symmetrical and changes between registers. Above the break is a long loop crossed by two diagonals, below is a symmetrical loop with a U-bend terminal beneath, finishing in an asymmetrical pattern D loop. (iii) The third panel contains a plant-scroll which has a median-incised stem issuing from the broken right-hand corner. It forms a medallion and terminates in two entangled scrolls. The stems have a series of ridged nodes from which the strand splits into shootlets tipped with long triangular berry bunches. The pattern is balanced but without mirror-image symmetry. The design is organic and loose. The base of the panel is lost. (iv) The fourth panel, broken at each end, retains four registers of half pattern F interlace with included terminals and outside strands, all median-incised.

C (broad) : The centre of the cross-head retains the lower half of a bust-length figure within a bold double-cabled roundel. The face is lost but the drapery on the neck and shoulders is identical with that of the Apostles on face A. The figure's left hand holds a square book with a double plain moulding. Below the roundel is the corner of a median-incised splayed frame. Within the panel two median-incised stems cross, each with a pointed split leaf terminal. The double edge moulding is as on face A.

The whole face of the shaft is a long single panel, only interrupted by the fractures. The topmost fragment is very well preserved, giving an impression of the high quality of the original carving of the whole face. The tapering panel is filled with an inhabited plant-scroll, the creatures alternating bird and beast and each occupying a scroll. The plant-scroll is elaborate and varied in its treatment. The topmost fragment b has two scrolls branching from a bold ridged node, whose expanding trumpet is cabled after it has emerged from a splitting median-incised stem. The upper scroll has three further ridged nodes which sprout entangled shootlets with pointed split leaves and an oval berry bunch as terminals. The main stem of the scroll changes character between each node: from median-incised, to cable, and back to median-incised, which is well adapted to splitting the stem into paired shootlets, one of which hangs into the scroll below. The shootlet below the principal node forms a crozier-loop with pointed split leaves and a shootlet bearing a rosette berry bunch. Perched in the upper scroll is a frontally disposed bird, its head lost, its feet held in an 'Anglian lock' in the tendrils. The feathers are layered in rows with scooped interiors on the shoulders, breast and legs. The wings are half-raised and viewed from beneath: the tops are curved and have two rows of longer feathers above two of even longer pinions. The tail, also seen from beneath, consists of three long parallel feathers, each with a transverse bar and a tip, the middle one being longer. From the central node an erect shootlet sprouts its own node to burst into an oval split leaf flanked by a pair of berry bunches. Below it the second scroll hangs from the main node, also with subsidiary nodes and shootlets tipped with the same leaf and berry bunch. The scroll contains a quadruped, facing left, with an equine head and neck, short ribbed torso and canine hind quarters with a thin tail looped at its tip. It holds the scroll in an 'Anglian lock'. The creature is well modelled with bevelled edges.

Below the fracture, on fragment c, the same scroll continues with all the features of fragment b, though there are more split strands and a greater degree of entanglement. The upper scroll of this section has a bird facing right, with lowered head feeding on a rosette berry bunch whose stem it grasps with its talon. It adopts an 'Anglian lock'. Its wing is folded, the feathers worn away. The tail is long and comprises three parallel feathers with a transverse bar and double scooped tips. The eye is drilled. In the scroll below is a profile canine quadruped with small pricked ears facing right but the head turned back to bite a berry bunch. Sinews are depicted in slightly raised ridges on the chest and neck. The lower parts are lost. The lowest fragment d is damaged but the scroll more resembled a medallion, one strand being cabled, the other median-incised. The lower part of a bird, facing right, survives, similar to that two registers above.

D (narrow) : The cross-arm is broken away. The edge mouldings and arrangement of alternating panels of plant-scroll and interlace are as on face B. (i) The topmost panel contains a single medallion plant-scroll growing from a stubby stalk in the middle of the lower edge. Its stem, splitting from a node, is median-incised and continues to divide from other nodes higher up the plant. The shootlets are loosely entangled and have split leaf or leaf-flower terminals. Above the branched medallion the plant forms a loose scroll with small shootlets. (ii) The second panel, interrupted by the fracture, has open half pattern F interlace with outside strands in finely modelled median-incised strand. (iii) The third panel has the upper part of a simple plant-scroll: a pair of scrolls erupting in S-formation from a ridged node. The strands of the scroll split into shootlets tipped with small triangular berry bunches. From the node, between the scrolls, stems a triple veined leaf. At the broken base of the panel is an entangled loop. (iv)

The lowest panel is complete at the top and contains a similar interlace pattern to the one above, though the strand, much worn, may not have been median-incised.

Not only is the quality of carving on the Easby cross by far the most distinguished in the North Riding, it challenges that of the Ruthwell and Bewcastle crosses in its diversity, technique and delicate detail. Its scale is smaller, however, and the fineness of the cutting is all the more suited to the proportions of the monument. Margaret Longhurst's reconstruction of the four pieces is entirely convincing (1931, pl. XXVIII), as the taper and adjoining ornament testify. It is an assertively classical monument, both in much of its ornamental repertoire and the manner of its figure carving, though unlike crosses such as Otley 1 (Collingwood 1915, figs. a–i on 225) the antique traits have been filtered through Carolingian art. For this to appear in Yorkshire during the Age of Alcuin and its immediate aftermath is no surprise (see Chapter II). The iconography of face A, the Apostles grouped under arches, relates this cross to Otley 1 and Masham 1 (Ills. 597–631), a group recently identified as 'Apostle pillars' (Lang 1994a, 15; id. 1999). There is nothing in the iconography that implies redemption or salvation; nor are there biblical references. The Apostles stand for the orthodox and Roman roots of the Church and its authority, and that is reflected in the correctly canonical poses and classical dress of the figures. Apostles were also used in the iconography of baptisteries in the fourth and fifth centuries, and the proximity of Easby 1 to the shallows of the river Swale is significant for its function in baptismal rites (Lang 1994a, 17; id. 2000, 16–18; see Chapter V). The revival of imagery from Ravenna and Rome during the Carolingian period extended from Charlemagne's realm to ecclesiastical centres like York that were intent on consolidating their metropolitan status with Rome.

The grouping of the Apostles and the variety of postures given to their heads is Carolingian rather than Late Antique or early Christian. The illusion of perspective is conveyed by overlapping shoulders and haloes, a trick seen in the ivory cover to the Dagulf Psalter of the late eighth century (Hubert et al. 1970, 227, ill. 208) from Charlemagne's Palace School. The bubble hair-styles are similar in both contexts. The bust on the cross-head of face A depicts Christ giving a Latin blessing, and the upper panel of the shaft shows Christ between two book-holding Apostles, not angels, and his hands are raised to show the palms (contra Longhurst 1931, 45–6). The image is of the Risen Christ displaying his wounds, iconography in vogue in the early ninth century from Italy to Ireland (Harbison 1992, I, 181–4; Lang 2000, 115). Christ is flanked by St Peter and St Paul.

The inhabited scroll of face C has been shown to have a close Carolingian model in an ivory now in the Vatican (Kitzinger 1936, 70–1, pl. VIa–b), and indeed the organic and florid voluted shootlets, together with the relatively large creatures in relation to the plant are similar. There are, however, two important differences: there are far fewer leaves, and smaller ones, at Easby, and its quadrupeds are interlaced into the plant-scroll in an 'Anglian lock' through their legs. Both distinctive features are thoroughly Anglian. The modelling, and the elongated legs and necks of the quadrupeds belong to a late eighth-/early ninth-century milieu in Yorkshire and Mercia (see Chapter V). Details of feathers and muscles are meticulous, and help the relief to convey plasticity.

The alternating plant-scrolls and interlace panels of the narrow faces suggest that there is considerable evidence for continuity in layout and repertoire from the early eighth-century monuments like Bewcastle 1 (Bailey and Cramp 1988, 61–72, ills. 92, 93); it is not a slavish copy of Carolingian motifs, despite their influence on details.

The cutting is very fine, especially the figure carving where light and shade would in their movement lift the relief spectacularly. The interlace and cabled mouldings are equally careful, with grooving and moulding to play with the light. The dished haloes, a feature of the Ruthwell and Bewcastle crosses, are designed to refract the angles of light and cast deep adjacent shadows. At Easby they are even tipped slightly out of the perpendicular, and in the manner of logical interlace overlap left over right and vice versa in an alternating rhythm down the shaft. This deep, bold cutting has a foil in the low relief of the narrow sides, and in the airy Carolingian drapery of the Risen Christ panel.

Late eighth to early ninth century

Longstaffe 1852, 36; Rowe 1869, fig. facing 61; Allen and Browne 1885, 352; Brock 1888, 178, 179; Kelly 1893, 70; Hodges 1894, 194, 195; (—) 1896–1905b, xvi; Morris, J. 1904, 140, 420; Collingwood 1907, 269, 270, 274, 280, 281, 282, 283, 284, 285, 286, 291, 292, 315, figs. a–g on 314; (—) 1909a, 131; Collingwood 1912, 110–11, 124, figs. on 112, 113, pl. III; Prior and Gardner 1912, 118; Page, W. 1914, 51, 64; Collingwood 1915, 269, 272, 274, 275, 277, 282, 292; Collingwood 1916–18, 42, figs. 17, 18; Smith 1923–4, 239, fig. 7; Brøndsted 1924, 36–7, fig. 18; Peers 1926, 50; Collingwood 1927a, 42–3, 69, 119, fig. 53; (—) 1930, 7, ill. on 16; Brown, G. B. 1930, 8; Clapham 1930, 63, 68; Cole 1930, 8; Hagan-Gowe 1930, 12; (—) 1931a, 371; (—) 1931b, 12; (—) 1931c, 12; Longhurst 1931, 43–7, pls. XXV–XXVIII; Morris, J. 1931, 141, 417; Peers 1931, 218, 219–20; Victoria and Albert Museum 1931, 2–3, pl. II, a–b; Casson 1932, 267, pl. 1c; Collingwood 1932, 44; Sheppard 1932, 130–2 and pls.; Victoria and Albert Museum 1932, 1–2, pl. I; Elgee and Elgee 1933, 195, 196, 246; Kelly 1933, 81; Rivoira 1933, 209; Sheppard 1933; Gardner 1935, 29–31, 41, figs. 13, 14; Kitzinger 1936, 70–1, pl. VIb; Pontefract and Hartley [1936], 146; Baum 1937, 37, 106, pl. LVIII; Brown, G. B. 1937, 197–203, pls. LXII–LXV; Kendrick 1938, 133, 152, 200, pl. LXII; Dauncey 1941, 116; Mee 1941, 72; Saxl and Wittkower 1948, 18, fig. 7; Victoria and Albert Museum 1949, pls. 10–15; Gardner 1951, 26–8, 32, figs. 28, 29; Hodgkin 1952, 440, pl. 54; Rice 1952, 97; Stone 1955, 20, pls. 12, 13; Fyson 1957, 71, fig. 12; Cramp 1959–60, 10; Cramp 1965b, 7, 12; Pevsner 1966, 147; Cramp 1970, 57, 60, 62, Taf. 47, 4; Adcock 1974, 100–3, 116n, pls. 17a–b, 18a–b; Wilson, D. 1976b, 400, pl. II; Cramp 1977, 219; Cramp 1978a, 8, 12; Lang 1978c, 13; Morris, R. 1983, 52; Cramp 1984, 17n, 18, 28, 40, 220; Wilson, D. 1984, 77, 105, ills. 80, 81; Cramp 1986, 103; Jewell 1986, 99, 101–2, 111, pl. XLIIIg; Kozodoy 1986, 79–80; Neuman de Vegvar 1987, 235, ill. on 234; Bailey and Cramp 1988, 17, 19, 20, 67, 71, 114, 129; Lang 1988a, 16; Hawkes 1989, I, 28, 152, 350, II, 17, 34; Morris, R. 1989, 120, 138; Hatcher 1990, 72; Lang 1990a, 9, 13, 14; Lang 1991, 21, 23, 24, 38, 40, 54, 56, 97, 139, 140, 147, 148, 192; Webster and Backhouse 1991, 150, fig. 12; Cramp 1992, 1, 31, 36, 57, 60, 62, 76, 202, 225, 229, 294; Harbison 1992, I, 32–3; Hicks 1993, 120; Lang 1993, 262, 265; Lang 1994, 15–17, pl. on 14; Cramp 1995, 130–1; Fellows-Jensen 1995, 177; Tweddle et al. 1995, 56; Bailey 1996a, 54–5; Williamson 1996, 31 and ill.; Muir 1997, 96 and ill.; Henderson, G. 1999, 164, 207, pl. 68; Lang 1999, 271, 273, 280, pl. 1; Hadley 2000, 244; Hatcher 2000, 13, ill. on 12; Lang 2000, 109, 110, 113, 115, 117, fig. 9.3

[1] The following is an unpublished manuscript reference to Easby 1c–d: BL Add. MS 37552 no. XIV, items 550–3 (Romilly Allen collection).