At the east end of the nave, on the north side

See Brompton In Allertonshire 1 (St Thomas)

St Thomas

Complete hogback; quite crisp

A ridge issues from the jowls of the end-beasts, its top decorated with step-pattern 1 between plain mouldings.

A (long) : Below the ridge and between the end-beasts' paws is a horizontal strip of four-strand plain plait, clumsily cut and with no edge mouldings. It has six stages and the hole-points are deeply cut. The strand is fairly broad. Below is a recessed semicircular niche with signs of rough dressing.

The end-beasts are not muzzled, the jaws being a thin slit and the jowl square-cut. Circular eyes are incised on the top of the head. The ears are small and rounded with a rim. Each beast has fore and hind legs, the paws having four toes. Their posture assumes a reclining position with the legs upwards. The sides are much defaced with hack-marks and are steeply curved.

C (long) : Identical with face A, except that the plait is of only five stages.

This is amateurish work compared with nos. 17, 18 and 19. The crude cutting, especially of the end-beasts, and the absence of planning in the plait demonstrate that this is by a less accomplished hand, possibly the same as the sculptor of no. 22, where the lack of mouldings and the crude hatching also appear. It does, however, conform to type c (niche) in layout and may well be a copy made after the demise of the more expert atelier that produced nos. 17–19. It appears to have been carved free-hand.

First half of tenth century

Rowe 1877, 62; Collingwood 1907, 276, 299, fig. a on 298; Collingwood 1912, 116, 123, fig. a; Page, W. 1914, 431; Collingwood 1927a, 168, fig. 205a; Gardner 1951, 38, fig. 61; Lang 1967, 36–8, pl. V; Schmidt 1970, 19, fig. 6; Schmidt 1973, 69, fig. 27c; Bailey 1980, 97; Lang 1984a, 99, 106, 108, 120, no. 5, pl. on 121; Bailey and Cramp 1988, 131; Schmidt 1994, 139, figs. 63, 70

[1]The following are general references to the Brompton stones: (—) 1867–8, lxxxviii; Rowe 1870, 240; (—) 1871–2, xxiv; Greenwell 1869–79a, lx; Rowe 1877, 61–4; Allen and Browne 1885, 352; Browne 1885–6, 124, 128; Saywell 1886, 481; Allen 1887, 126, 386, fig. 28; (—) 1890–5a, viii; Haverfield and Greenwell 1899, 125–6; Bulmer 1890, 389; Hodges 1894, 195; Morris, J. 1904, 32, 84–5, 420; Bogg 1908, 28–32, ills. on 29 and 32; Page, W. 1914, 430, 431; Morris, J. 1931, 33, 86, 87, 417; Elgee and Elgee 1933, 219–20, 245; Mee 1941, 41–2; Fisher 1959, 89; Pevsner 1966, 90, pl. 8; Bailey 1980, 85, 100, 240, 252, 255, 265; Kerr and Kerr 1982, 38–9 and ill.; Morris, R. 1983, 7; Cramp 1984, 11, 30, 93; Bailey and Cramp 1988, 54; Lang 1988a, 14, 24, 56; Cambridge 1989, 378; Richards 1991, 80, 119, 124, ill. 81; Everson and Stocker 1999, 138; Stocker 2000, 205–6.