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: Upper part of shaft
Measurements: H. 125 cm (49 in); W. 33 > 15 cm (13 > 6 in); D. 12.5 > 10 cm (5.0 > 4 in)
Stone type: Oolitic limestone, thinly painted pale grey, evenly graded, consisting of ooliths of 0.4 to 0.5mm diameter in a calcite matrix. Some calcite veinlets in the upper part of the stone. Bath stone, Chalfield Oolite Formation, Great Oolite Group, Middle Jurassic
Plate numbers in printed volume: Pls. 425-8
Corpus volume reference: Vol 7 p. 209-11
(There may be more views or larger images available for this item. Click on the thumbnail image to view.)
The shaft has been split longitudinally so that only one broad face (A) and two side faces (B and D) survive. The cutting is deep, almost 3 cm in places.
A (broad): The face is divided into four elements architecturally. At the base is a narrow plinth, with what could be balustrade and panel ornament; its top is divided from the main figural panel by a narrow roll moulding, which serves as the 'floor' for the figure and supports the frame of balusters (eleven on one side and twelve on the other) capped by stepped imposts. Above them is a small panel containing two coiled palmette fronds, and above that the shaft narrows and is capped by an enclosed zone of step pattern 2.
The figure, which takes up more than half the face (61 cm / 24 in), is half turned and moving to the left, his head is bent back, right arm upstretched and clutching the stem of a plant, left hand holding a globular object with a long tube or handle, and his right leg is raised with the toe pointed to the ground. His curly hair is bound with a filet and he is dressed in a short longsleeved tunic with a cloak over, which is belted at the waist and clipped together at the top by a T-shaped pin. The folds of the garments are indicated by sharp parallel lines. His shoes are cut away over the foot to leave a short tongue and high back. The plant he holds sprouts a leafflower, triangular and long curling leaves, and is topped by globular berry bunches.
B (narrow): Only a small part of the plant-scroll survives, but this fills the main panel, springing from what appears to be rocky ground; there are tendrils with leaf-flowers at the top and small triangular and long curling leaves. In the panel above the impost is a part of what seems to be triangular interlace.
C (broad): Cut away
D (narrow): The plant-scroll which fills the main panel seems to spring from rocky ground and to have been composed of whorls of palmette. In the panel above the stepped impost is a volute of plant-scroll.
E (top): Flat and uncarved
This shaft tapers and so may be part of a cross-shaft, but if it is complete, the small height and the strongly architectural composition with the balusters and imposts supporting an elaborate capping, cause one to wonder whether this was originally a cross-shaft or an architectural feature flanking an opening. The detail of the carving is so crisp that it seems unlikely that the stone has been out of doors.
The identity of the figure, as revealed by its strange posture, has given rise to much speculation, and was early compared with figures of archers which are usually shown with one leg flexed when shooting up into a vinescroll, as for example on the Sheffield cross (Clapham 1930, fig. 18; Kendrick 1938, 181). This comparison has been taken furthest by Swanton (1979), but in all of the archer figureswhich he illustrates there is some indication of the bow which they are drawing. Kendrick also saw a relationship to later Winchester art, and the figure as a stylistic precursor to the depiction of King Edgar in the Winchester Charter (Kendrick 1938, 180), a view supported by Wilson (1984, 196) who would wish to see it as no more than a 'light-footed' figure in a typical late Saxon attitude. The Codford figure is firmly clasping a plant-scroll, and so if it is to be related to an inhabitant of a vinescroll would best be seen as engaged in picking the fruit.
The recent discovery of a strap-end at Cranborne Chase, Dorset, which has a profile figure in the act of climbing through a plant-scroll with a knife in his left hand and holding onto a branch with his right (Ill. 539) provides a striking parallel with the Codford figure (I am grateful to Dr Jane Hawkes for drawing my attention to this piece; see now Webster 2003, 88–9, fig. 6). Although on a miniature scale, the details are clear: the figure may be wearing a cap — or possibly his hair is long and flowing — and his belted tunic and shoes are very similar to those of the Codford figure. His posture, with one arm raised and one lowered, and one leg raised and bent, are also similar. Yet these details may be commonplace in later Anglo-Saxon art since the little figures on the Fuller brooch are also shown with one knee flexed and plant forms in the background (Wilson 1984, ill. 1). Similar small active figures can also be found in Anglo-Saxon calendars depicting the labours of the months (ibid., ills. 235–6). The Codford figure could then, like the Cranborne Chase figure, be seen as a harvester and in a late Saxon posture, but there is a significant difference in the way their feet are placed: in the Cranborne figure, braced one above another on the plant stems in a realistic climbing position; in the Codford figure, one leg back with the foot on the ground and the other bent at the knee with the tip of the foot pointed to the ground.
I would therefore adhere to my earlier viewpoint that this figure is meant to be seen as dancing (Cramp 1972, 140–1), and very closely similar to the dancing figures surrounding King David in fol. 30v of the Vespasian Psalter (see Ill. 527; Alexander 1978, no. 29, ill. 146), and this is a view shared by others (Stone 1972, 22; Tweddle 1991b, 244). Not only the posture, but the drapery folds and the style of shoes are similar in the manuscript and sculpture, as are the palmettes on the top of the stone shaft and the plant motif in fol. 30v. The item which the dancing figure holds in his hand could either be a musical instrument, like a maraca, or, less convincingly, a long stemmed bottle. Tweddle noted that the left-hand figure flanking King David in the manuscript appears to be holding a similar object, but this could be a scroll and pen just as the figure on the other side seems to be holding tablets and a stylus. The musical instrument interpretation is however supported by illustrations of dancers and musicians in two Carolingian psalters: one, possibly from Saint-Denis and dated 842–69, shows a dancer holding a long-stemmed, round-ended, instrument in each hand (Paris, Bibl. Nat., lat. 1152, fol. 1v; Hubert et al. 1970, ill. 134); and in a second, dated to the first half of the ninth century, the dancers and musicians flanking King David brandish similar instruments, but with double circular heads (St Gall, Stiftsbibliothek, cod. 22, fol. 2; Hubert et al. 1970, ill. 157).
In the case of Codford the iconography is not quite the same since the figure is clutching the plant-scroll in one hand and is wearing a diadem, a feature which is proper for angels or rulers. It may therefore represent King David himself. At the beginning of his reign David won a great battle against the Philistines, before which the Lord told him to wait among the mulberry trees, and when he heard a sound in their tops to go out and attack (II Samuel 5.23–4). After the victory David and all the house of Israel 'played before the Lord on all manner of instruments made of fir wood' (II Samuel 6.5), and then David brought the Ark of the Covenant into the City of David, and 'David danced before the Lord with all his might' (II Samuel 6.14). This scene could be a combination of these events with the mulberry tree at the top. The scene of David dancing in front of the Ark does occur in later medieval manuscripts such as Pierpont Morgan Library, M. 638, fol. 39v (Hourihane 2002, 118–21, ill. 37), and it is probable that it formed part of the earlier cycles of illustrations also, especially since a single figure dancing with head turned at an angle and holding cymbals occurs amongst the David images on the Nigg stone in Scotland. This has been seen by Isabel Henderson as either a figure flushing out game or a literal illustration of Psalm 50, '... praise him on the high sounding cymbals' (1998, 132, fig. 36), but a scene from the life of David himself would be consonant with all the other associated figures at Nigg. It is possible that both sculptors, who were masters of their craft, manipulated their models freely.
Although the drapery of the Codford figure has been compared with that of Rothbury, Northumberland (Kendrick 1938, 180; cf. Cramp 1984, pls. 211–14), the sharp inclined cutting of the folds is not like Rothbury, but is more like Continental carving which has the same sharp precision (Cramp 1972, 81). But if the sculptor were copying an ivory the same effect could have been retained, as for example on the Franks Casket where, incidentally, the same type of stepped capitals are found on the architectural frames as are found on this shaft (see Wilson 1984, ills. 34–7). The baluster edgings of the shaftadd to the impression that the figure is set before an architectural feature. The details of the plant-scrolls on the sides of the shaft are similar to those at Britford and Kelston (Ills. 411–20, 268), and this piece seems to belong to the same phase of Wessex art when it was closely influenced by foreign models, the origins of which seem to be the East Christian world (see introduction p. 72).
