Bakewell Old House Museum

First noted by Plunkett (1984, 269-71); the lack of previous mention along with remains of mortar adhering to stone suggest it was likely recovered as part of nineteenth-century works on the church (see Bakewell 2, p. 113).

All Saints

Broken and damaged, with mortar adhering in places; carving much worn

The fragment represents the square terminal of a lateral cross-arm whose armpit curve is clearly visible on A and C. Plain narrow roll mouldings survive bounding the decoration of the main faces.

A (broad): The face is filled by the well-formed spiral of a plant-scroll that terminates at the centre with a cluster of three berries. A thin stem emerges from the second turn of the spiral where the node is marked by three circular bands; it crosses the outer turn of the spiral towards what would have been the centre of the cross-head and terminates, at the break in the stone, in the worn remains of a bud or leaf.

B (end of cross-arm): Originally the end of the cross-arm, the carving is damaged and worn, but the remains of a figure can still be discerned. The top of the head is lost in the break along the top edge, but it was oval-shaped and well modelled. The lines of the shoulders are clearly visible, indicating that the figure wore a plain under-garment with a pleated over-garment that crosses the torso from the right shoulder in a series of heavy ribbed folds. The right hand crosses this drapery at chest height, emerging from a long sleeve with a double band marking the hemline; all four fingers rest on a prominent square object held in front of the left shoulder by the left hand which grasps it from below.

C (broad): Most of this face is covered with mortar, but a long thin moulding remains, traversing the arm to the right-hand edge from the upper break where it would have passed into the upper cross-arm; a slightly wider, flatter piece of carving survives on the left. Small bulbous pieces of mortar adhere to the surface making it unclear whether the carving represents the remains of foliate ornament.

D: Broken; this represents the juncture of the cross-arm with the centre of the cross-head

E: Originally the top of the cross-arm, the face is composed of a plain, roughly dressed panel contained within the plain mouldings framing it.

F: Originally the underside of the cross-arm, the decoration comprises the remains of a panel of well-formed interlace carved in deep relief.

The presence of a human figure preserved on B, the end of the cross-arm (the opposing face, D, representing the point of junction between the cross-arm and the cross-head), indicates that this piece formed one of the lateral arms of a cross-head, and, although the dimensions of this face (22 cm / 8.75 in) are narrower than the depth (32 cm / 12.6 in) of the remains of the lower cross-arm surviving at the top of Bakewell 1 (on B and D), this face of the stone is incomplete, lacking the roll mouldings that would once have framed it. In its complete state, therefore, the dimensions of this piece are not inconsistent with the dimensions of the cross-head that can be assumed to have surmounted Bakewell 1; if this is indeed the case, Bakewell 31 may have formed the lateral cross-arm of Bakewell 1D. Clearly, such a supposition must remain conjectural, not least because the stone types vary slightly although both are of a moderately sorted, medium-grained sandstone. More problematic is the fact that there is no evidence that the cross-head fragment was recovered from Bakewell itself, or brought to the Museum from elsewhere. Nevertheless, as already outlined (see Bakewell 1), the type of plant-scroll on A, the type of interlace on E, and the style of the figure on B, all link the piece with the centre of production responsible for Bakewell 1. Furthermore, while it is uncommon to find motifs carved under a cross-arm, this does occur elsewhere in the region–on Eyam 1, for example (Ill. 208).

The figure itself is particularly distinctive in this context, in that it holds a book in the left hand and gestures to it, prominently, by placing the right hand over it. Of the figures preserved on the remains of the cross-heads of Bakewell 1, Eyam 1 and Bradbourne 4–5, only that on Eyam 1D possibly holds a book (Ill. 209), but the worn condition of this figure means this is far from certain. Yet, like that figure, and the one preserved in the cross-arm of Bakewell 1B (Ill. 14), this (on 31B) does not appear to have had wings. The right shoulder stands in high relief with no sign of the characteristic ribbed mouldings that distinguish the wings of the angels featured on Eyam 1 and Bradbourne 4. The lack of wings and the presence of the book displayed so prominently by the Bakewell figure, thus indicate that he might be identified as one of the apostles, or more specifically, one of the evangelists. However, if Bakewell 31 was originally part of Bakewell 1, it is more likely that this figure should be identified in the light of that staff-bearing figure, and so should perhaps be regarded as another clerical figure, functioning as a further reference to the ecclesiastical nature of the monument.

Late eighth / early ninth century, most likely early ninth century (see Bakewell 1)

Plunkett 1984, 269–71, 290, 352, pl. 27.ii; Sharpe 2002, 108; Hawkes 2007a, 437, fig. 25; Bergius 2012, 101–2, fig. 4.20

[1] The following are general references to the Bakewell sculptures (other than Bakewell 1): (—) 1845b, 156; Plumptre 1847, 38, 39, 46; (—) 1852, 324; (—) 1855, 67; Hicklin and Wallis 1869, 60; Cox 1877a, 32, 36–7; Cox 1878, 37–8; (—) 1879b, 34; (—) 1885b, 502–3; Allen and Browne 1885, 355; Cox 1887, 37–8; Lynam 1895b, 157; (—) 1900, 89; Cox 1903a; Le Blanc Smith 1904a, 195; Firth 1905, 264; Arnold-Bemrose 1910, 107; (—) 1914a, 401–2; (—) 1914b, 36; Browne 1915, 219; Collingwood 1927, 136; Moncrieff 1927, 86; Tudor 1929, 91; Brown 1937, 94–5; Routh 1937a, 7–8; Routh 1937b, 8–9; Fisher 1959, 72; Thompson 1961, 218; Radford 1961a, 210; Butler 1964, 112; Taylor and Taylor 1965, I, 36; Cramp 1977, 192, 218–19; Pevsner and Williamson 1978, 71; Cramp 1985, 311; Craven and Stanley 1986, 27; Bailey 1990, 2; Jones 1993, 68; Leonard 1993, 48; Sidebottom 1994, 151; Bailey 1996, 11; Barnatt and Smith 1997, 57; Sidebottom 1999, 218; Elliott 2001–2; Sharpe 2002, 61; Hopkinson et al. 2004, 15; Blair 2005, 315, 342, 469–70; Bergius 2012, 189; Stocker and Everson 2015, 16; Ryder 2016, 13, 14, 16, 17