As Otley 1

See Otley (All Saints) 1. First mentioned in (–––) 1882a, 379. Speight (1900, 61) said this stone was removed from over the chancel arch in the restoration of 1867.

All Saints

Incomplete and worn especially on face B, but with good definition and depth of carving surviving especially on faces A and C.

The fragment represents the upper part of a cross-shaft of a complex form. Each face is divided into three areas, on faces A and C representing three separate panels. The upper area (i) represents the narrowing of the neck for the cross-head, particularly evident on faces A and C. The middle part (ii) is one long narrow panel on all faces, with rounded edge mouldings and inner vertical roll mouldings, though these are also evident on Ai and Ci. (iii) Below this the shaft is stepped outwards to form a base or a continuation to the shaft of unknown height, in which only parts of one panel survive on three faces. The carving is cut back deeply and is highly modelled on faces A and C but on faces B and D it is much shallower, although in spite of the wear on face B it appears no less confident.

A (broad): There are traces of carving on Ai, of which only the lower right corner survives. The edge mouldings are continued horizontally to divide the beginning of the head from the shaft.

Aii is almost complete and shows a right-facing creature in profile with the head and body of a large bird, possibly an eagle, with feet more like an animal's than a bird's and a dragon-like tail ending in a tip like a large pointed and veined leaf, not unlike some of the leaves on Otley 1 above. The feathers are indicated by long diagonal parallel grooves crossed horizontally by diagonals or chevrons. There are more scale-like feathers on the upper body and on the tail, which also has at least four encircling ridges along its length, giving an impression of muscular solidity. The thicker feathers on the thigh are also indicated. The creature holds a stem in its beak, from which depends a large, deeply modelled leaf-flower or seed pod (again a point of comparison with Otley 1).

Aiii is quite damaged on both edges, but appears to have no frame at top or sides. It is modelled but less deeply cut back than Aii, and shows a frontal nimbed figure, robed, framed on the right and probably on the left by a plant stem which throws off first a bud and then a volute which terminates in a flower or grape bunch. A pointed leaf fills the spandrel. The figure wears an undergarment with a narrow double border to its round neck. The overgarment has two narrow edge folds around the shoulders, while the arm covering is draped in a series of inverted Vs. The treatment of the head and drapery are notably similar to that on Otley 1, face A.

B (narrow): There are only traces of the inner and outer mouldings on Bi, but the decoration between the mouldings and the lower frame has all gone. Bii is an animal interlace in which two creatures, one with its head in the top left corner and the other with its head at the bottom right are linked by the twining of their tails and their lower limbs. The interlace forms a Carrick Bend (simple pattern F). The upper animal bites its fellow's tail. The lower head has survived better and has a double-outlined head, open jaws from which its tongue protrudes, and a round eye. The leaf-like tail of its fellow rests against its forehead. Biii is completely worn and damaged, nothing now remains.

C (broad): In Ci there are vertical grooves like the stylised folds of a robe worn over the shoulders, and an element which could be the beginning of a nimbus. A single roll moulding separates it from the shaft below.

The left-facing creature in profile on Cii is more dragon-like than that on face A, with its beaked head, pointed oval eye, prominent brow ridge, and pricked double-outlined ear. Hatching on the back of its head and neck, which lower down ends in small tendril-like curls, indicates a mane. Its wing is bordered, within which parallel diagonal lines indicate feathers: there are two rows of smaller scale-like feathers at the top. Its front foot shows clearly demarcated toes. Its tail ends in a pointed veined leaf like that of the creature on face A. A double incised line emphasises the sinuous tail. Below its tail is one element of a plant with a pointed leaf.

The stepped transition to Ciii is damaged, but the lower panel clearly had an edge moulding with an inner roll moulding, and within there remains a narrow column and part of an arch with a leaf-like plant form in the spandrels, framing a frontal figure of which only the head and one shoulder remain. The head seems to have a dished nimbus and there are traces of curling hair and ears on both sides. Of the face, traces of the brow ridges, one oval eye with a drilled centre, and a finely modelled nose and upper lip remain. He clearly had an undergarment and an overgarment with an edge fold around the shoulders.

D (narrow): On this face, nothing survives of Di, and the upper part of Dii is also missing. The surviving lower part of the panel shows it was a continuous double-stranded interlace, very finely cut and not deeply modelled, a changing interlace with outside strands. It is three registers of a half-pattern with outside strands, starting at the top with two registers of pattern C, then one register of simple pattern E. On the step of the base is a broad cable moulding, median-incised. Below, Diii has parts of an inner roll moulding above and on the left, within which is an indeterminate shape: part of the head of a figure, or possibly part of the detail in the spandrel of an arched frame.

Cramp (1970, 60) regarded this cross as later than Otley 1, in which some features were the direct result of the influence of the major cross. In particular she saw the busts in arched niches at the bottom of faces A and C as inferior copies of the classicising bust in architectural frames on Otley 1 (Ill. 564). This argument is at its most convincing in the plant-scrolls framing the figure on face A (Ill. 577), which are very attenuated compared to the robust framing medallions on Otley 1C (Ill. 565). However, the drapery of the figure is in no way inferior in cutting or detail, and it is possible that the head was treated in the same way as those of the figures on Otley 1A. Cramp also saw the figure at the top of face C as part of an angel bust also reminiscent of Otley 1Aiv (Ill. 575), though perhaps insufficient survives of this for certainty. The leaf-shaped tail terminals of the creatures on faces A and C are certainly echoes of Otley 1.

However, as far as one can tell from two incomplete monuments, Otley 2 is no mere copy or reflex of the cross represented by no. 1, and indeed it is impossible to parallel the rampant creatures on faces A and C elsewhere in Anglo-Saxon sculpture. There are fantastic beasts in plenty, but rarely rendered so solidly, in such relief, on so large a scale, or so isolated, with only the tiniest reminiscence of a plant-scroll in each case. Lang (2000, 111) described these creatures as wyverns or at least wyvern-like — part eagle and part snake. Both he and Cramp (1970, 60) identified imported silks as the most likely source. Adcock (2002, I, 93–4) makes the interesting point that the process of assimilation of foreign models to Anglo-Saxon taste in animal ornament and styles can be seen in this cross, from face C to A (where the creature's tail twists and it grasps a plant fragment), and even more on face B. The two animals on face B, paired and joined by interlacing elements, are miniature versions of the face C creature, but treated in a much more typical fashion.

Adcock (1974, I, 104) is less admiring of the interlace on face D, which she saw as 'out of character with Northumbrian work although it uses the pattern type' (that is, of the sculpture of the Ripon area such as the imposts or string-courses, Ripon 9a–b (Ills. 671–5), and the cross-shaft Ilkley 4a–b (Ills. 345, 347, 349, 351)). The differences lie in its very shallow relief, far shallower than its edge mouldings, in its unit measure which varies between its vertical and horizontal axes, and other features which she saw as clumsy adaptations nevertheless conforming to or attempting to follow a known pattern type. However, the narrow sides are clearly intended to contrast in scale as well as in ornament with the two broad faces, and the impression given by face D is of great delicacy. A parallel treatment can be seen on the sides of the Rupertus cross from Bischofshofen, Austria, where the surviving broad face has an inhabited plant-scroll, in which some animals have the leaf-tipped tail of the more exotic creatures of the broad faces of Otley 2, while the narrow sides have panels in shallower relief, completely dominated by the heavy edge beading, mainly of interlace patterns on a smaller scale than the plant-scroll on the main face (Webster and Backhouse 1991, 170–3, cat. 133).

Probably early ninth century

(–––) 1882a, 379; Allen 1890, 302, 304, 309; Allen 1891, 227–8, no. 1, figs. 8, 15; Speight 1900, 61–2, pl. on 63; Allen 1903, 219, 226, nos. 567, 586; Bogg 1904, fig. on 30; Collingwood 1912, 130; Collingwood 1915a, 227–8, 268, 276, 281, figs. o–r on 227; Brøndsted 1924, 55, fig. 47; Collingwood 1927, 47–8, 126, fig. 60; Collingwood 1932, 48; Morris 1932, 556; Kendrick 1938, 200, pl. XCI.2; Gardner 1951, 32, fig. 38; Pevsner 1959, 386, pl. 26a; Taylor, H. M. 1968b, 331; Cramp 1970, 56, 58, 61–2, no. II, Taf. 44.4, 45.2, 46.1–4; Adcock 1974, I, 104, 113, 114, 117n, II, pl. 19b; Cramp 1977, 207; Cramp 1978a, 8, fig. 1.2b; Cramp 1984, 40, 215; Wood, I. 1987, 30, 32–4, 35, 36, pls. 3a–b, 4a–b; Bailey and Cramp 1988, 46, 91, 152; Lang 1988, 30–2, ill. 13; Lang 1990a, 11, 13, 14, pl. IV; Lang 1991, 24, 35, 39, 40, 72, 140, ills. 921–3; Cramp 1992, 56, 58, 61–2, 190, pls. 8.2, 9.2, 11.1–3, 12.1; Hicks 1993, 128–9, fig. 3.10; Wood, P. 1999, 6, fig. 5; Hadley 2000a, 237; Lang 2000, 111; Lang 2001, 32; Adcock 2002, I, 92–4, fig. 7b; Hawkes 2003b, 366

[1] The following are general references to the Otley stones: Browne 1880–4a, lxxiv; Allen and Browne 1885, 353; Allen 1890, 292, 293; Allen 1891, 229; MacMichael 1906, 364; Morris 1911, 373; Collingwood 1915a, 224, 231; Collingwood 1915b, 328; Collingwood 1927, 47; Brown 1937, 185; Mee 1941, 276; Pevsner 1959, 20, 385–6; Taylor, H. M. 1968b, 330, 331; Cramp 1970, 56; Faull 1981, 218, 219; Wood 1987, 20; Lang 1991, 38, 67, 84; Ryder 1991, 38; Ryder 1993, 22, 169; Hadley 2000a, 238; Hawkes 2003a, 83; Hawkes 2006a, 107.