Kelston, North-East Somerset

A week or two ago we tried to visit some churches in North-East Somerset: Bitton and Queen Charlton. But they were both locked up tight. This is always very disappointing and really rather bemusing. Especially when there's no friendly notice about where a key can easily be retrieved (a neighbouring door is always nicer to knock on than a bald list of mobile phone numbers, the owners of which could be anywhere at all).

I've found some additional information about the carvings at nearby Kelston though.

This beautiful fragment of a Saxon cross was found by the late Rector, the Rev. F.J.Poynton, thrown aside amongst the rubbish of the old church at the time of its restoration in 1860. The stone isa n oblong square, and appears to have been in use at some former time as a door-jamb. It measures 2ft. 9in. in length, by 1ft. 3in. in width. When discovered, two of its sides were entirely defaced, and a third so injured that only faint traces of carving were visible at the top. The fourth side was smoothed to a surface with mortar, and had then received several coats of whitewash. It was in this state when Mr. Poynton undertook the removal of this facing, an operation in which he entirely succeeded and thus exposed the original carving to view. 

The sculpture is divided by a cable-roll into two parts, and a roll of the same pattern borders it, as in the cross at Bedale, in Yorkshire. In the upper division, which is the larger, is represented two central steps supporting a square, from which spring two stems. The stems are sub-divided, and artistically formed into turning convolutions, each terminal ending in a cordate leaf. Here and there small ovate bodies are introduced in the axils of the branches, which may be taken to mean either buds, or fruit, probably the latter. At no single point do the branches from the two stems unite. 

From the resemblance of the design to the figure of a tree, it has been conjectured that it illustrates a rude attempt to portray the Tree of  Life, but the presence of the fruit points rather to the other tree in the Garden, the Tree of the Knowledge of Good and Evil, since the "Tree of the Fall" is not infrequently met with in early religious art, and is sometimes seen displayed in mystic and typical connection with the Cross. Although, in this instance, the rigid form of the Christian symbol is not apparent, yet the accessories of the steps forming a Calvary, and a block for the socket, together with the flexible tracery of the branches are not a little suggestive of the union of the Cross witht he Tree, particularly as we find in some early examples - as that on a slab at Bakewell, Derbyshire - that the distinctive character of the Cross is preserved in the Calvary and stem, while it is lost in the interleaving knotwork that forms the head. The introduction of transitional foliage int o the curved lines of the coil renders this unique fragment one of high interest. The lower division is filled in with the usual form of the endless interlacing knot.

In order to preserve it from injury, Mr. Poynton has had this valuable relic placed inside the Church, fixed in the wall of the chancel on the north side, just exposing the sculptured face in projection. Late 11th Century.

 Yes I have been rubbishing some other interpretations of the things we see. But this time maybe I like the idea of the 'steps forming a Calvary' from which the stems emerge. And although two stems rather goes against the theory, perhaps we can just have them as nice planty knotwork.

Kelston, North-East Somerset

There's a lot to be said for visiting places with a like-minded companion, because without one, my addled brain misses things. I've just had an excellent time drawing the Saxon carvings in St Michael's church, Kelston. But I nearly didn't get in there at all. I spent quite a long time rattling the door and reading the friendly church-related notices in vain and writing an impotent and entirely unsarcastic message on how they could at least leave a notice about where to get a key. Luckily, as I trudged away in acceptance of fate, I saw instructions, large as life, by the gate: key at Vine Cottage. And doubley lucky, I'm botanically minded enough to know a vine when I see one: and so the key was mine.

But I'm sure B would have spotted it straight away. She might also have recommended taking a photograph of the stone. And also looking at its other sides (one worn side seems to look like a stone at Ramsbury). How did I miss these things? How can a seasoned font-botherer omit this basic stuff. I have no idea. I was too engrossed in drawing and came away ridiculously chilled out though.

(The top panel)

The stone has two panels of carving, one above the other. One's very organic, and seems remarkably reminiscent to me of the one at Chew Stoke. I suppose some might call it a 'tree of life' as it's apparently all sprouting from the bottom. You'll also notice a bit of the'classic Saxon motif', the twisted rope design. The other is more standardly knotty, but not in a strict regular fashion. Due to inattention I didn't mark any of the central lines in situ and just drew them in when I got home. So they're probably not entirely 'true'. But one imagines they'd all have been there when the stone was initially carved.

(The bottom panel)

As I didn't take a photo I offer this as a more realistic impresion of how the two panels look together. It's from 'Memorials of old Somerset' by F.J. Snell (1906). But he's not got it quite right either, he's been a bit elaborate in places and omitted the very bottom. But you get the impression.

Now I did notice this below - or rather I noticed a replica of it, built into the doorjamb. Because, like the stones at Nunney and Somerford Keynes (see the bottom of this page), some hell-bound piece of dog excrement STOLE it in 2004. What on Earth?? They must have brought a chisel and levered it out of the stonework it was cemented into. It was a very pocket-sized 3" square. It's obvious, and I've said it before, but if they did it for themselves, could they not see the irony, bearing in mind the subject matter? And if they did it to sell to someone else, could that person not see the irony? It's such a niche interest, it really makes you wonder who's responsible - can there really be very many people who'd want this? And if it's only about the money, it has no provenance they can admit to publicly. What Was The Fucking Point?? You despicable idiot.

 

So anyway the photo is, I admit it, taken from the Corpus of Anglo-Saxon Stone Sculpture of South West England, by Rosemary Cramp. But I hope that (hypocrit alert) the person I've stolen it off wouldn't mind too much, since if the actual object ever surfaces, it'd be very good to have a picture of it on the internet in the hope that somebody decent might spot and recognise it.

If we're to go by the sculptures at Langford, then with this Jesus apparently being without his shirt, we're probably looking at Norman not Saxon times. The Corpus also explains that the position of the feet is also important in dating, with side-by-side being earlier than crossed. It's hard to know from this photo though. Perhaps the current holder can elucidate (spit).

Drawings copyright Rhiannon 2015.