¹ Kendrick, T. D., Anglo-Saxon Art to A.D. 900 (London, 1938; repr. New York, 1972), p. 118.Google Scholar

² Brown, G. Baldwin, The Arts in Early England, 6 vols. (London, 1903–1937), VI², pp. 176 ff.Google Scholar

³ Åberg, N., The Occident and the Orient in the Art of the Seventh Century, 3 vols. (Stockholm, 1943–1947), 1 pp. 45–6.Google Scholar

⁴ Peers, C. R., ‘Reculver: its Saxon church and cross’, Archaeologia, lxxvii (1927), 254–5Google Scholar; Clapham, A. W., English Romanesque Architecture before the Conquest (Oxford, 1930; repr. 1964), p. 67.Google Scholar

⁵ Peers, op. cit., p. 255.

⁶ Baldwin Brown, op. cit. (n. 2), VI², p. 172; Clapham, op. cit. (n.4), p.68.

⁷ Kendrick, op. cit. (n. 1), pp. 116, 118. Kendrick, whose evaluation of the Reculver sculpture was brilliant and original, later felt constrained to relinquish his own conviction of the cross's early date in favour of the judgement of Saxl and Wittkower (see below).

⁸ Åberg, op. cit. (n. 3), I, pp. 45–6; Taylor, H. M. and Taylor, J., Anglo-Saxon Architecture (Cambridge, 1965), 11, p. 509Google Scholar; Beckwith, J., ‘Reculver, Ruthwell and Bewcastle’, Kolloquium über frühmittelalterliche Sculptur, Vortragstexte 1968 (Mainz, 1969), p. 18Google Scholar; Newman, J., North and East Kent (The Buildings of England, ed. by Pevsner, N.) (Harmondsworth, 1969), pp. 188–90.Google Scholar

⁹ Stone, L., Sculpture in Britain—the Middle Ages (Harmondsworth, 1955), p. 19Google Scholar; Taylor, H. M., ‘Reculver reconsidered’, Arch. J. CXXV (1968), 295Google Scholar; Wright, D. H., ‘The Italian stimulus on English art around 700’, Stil und Überlieferung in der Kunst des Abendlandes, Akten des 21. Internationalen Kongresses für Kunstgeschichte in Bonn, 1964 (Berlin, 1967), 1, p. 91, n. 21.Google Scholar

¹⁰ Rice, D. Talbot, English Art, 871–1100 (Oxford, 1952), pp. 97–8Google Scholar; Saxl, F. and Wittkower, R., British Art and the Mediterranean (London and New York, 1948), no. 20.Google Scholar

¹¹ Kendrick, T. D., Late Saxon and Viking Art (London, 1949), p. 74, n. 2.Google Scholar

¹² On Reculver, see Jessup, R. F., ‘Reculver’, Antiquity, X (1936), 179–94Google Scholar; Taylor and Taylor, op. cit. (n. 8), 11, pp. 503–9; Philp, B., The Roman Fort at Reculver, 5th edn. (West Wickham, Kent, 1969)Google Scholar; Smith, C. Roach, The Antiquities of Richborough, Reculver, and Lymne (London, 1850), pp. 173–230Google Scholar; Bibliotheca Topographica Britannica (=B.T.B.), 8 vols., ed. by J. Nichols (London, 1780–90), 1, nos. 18 and 45, pp. 65–212.

¹³ Bede, , A History of the English Church and People, trans, by Sherley-Price, L., rev. edn. (Baltimore, 1968), 1.25, 26: pp. 70–1.Google Scholar

¹⁴ See Roach Smith, op. cit. (n. 12), pp. 192–3, which reproduces a map made in 1685 by a surveyor, Thomas Hill, and Hill's accompanying description: ‘… Severus … built here a castle … And 382 years after, Ethelbert, the fifth king of Kent, made this castle his palace for him and his successors’.

¹⁵ Lambarde, W., A Perambulation of Kent (London, 1826; 1st edn. 1576), p. 235Google Scholar; J. Weever, Antient Funeral Monuments (London, 1767; 1st edn. 1631), p.59; Camden, W., Britannia: a Chorographical Description of the Flourishing Kingdoms of England, Scotland, and Ireland, 2nd edn. (1806; 1st, Latin, edn. 1586), pp. 313–14Google Scholar; B.T.B. (n. 12). I, no. 18, pp. 72, 74; Roach Smith, op. cit. (n. 12), pp. 192 ff.; Dowker, G., ‘Reculver Church’, Arch. Cant, xii (1878), 249–50Google Scholar, 267. And see Livett, G. M., ‘Ecclesiastical history’, part 1, in V.C.H., Kent, 11 (London, 1926), p. 12, on Reculver, ‘said to be a royal residence of the early Kentish kings’.Google Scholar

¹⁶ W. Boys, Collections for an History of Sandwich (Canterbury, 1792), p. 837. See also Mothersole, J., The Saxon Shore (London, 1924), pp. 64–5Google Scholar, 93–5. The actual work of Sprott does not survive intact. See ‘Spott or Sprott, Thomas’, D.N.B. XVIII (London, repr. edn. 1922), pp. 838–9Google Scholar, and Sage, W., ‘The Chronicles of Thomas Sprott’, Bull. Depts. of History and Economic Science in Queen's University, Kingston, xix, April (Ontario, Canada, 1916).Google Scholar

¹⁷ See Morris, J. R., ‘The literary evidence’, in Barley, M. W. and Hanson, R. P. C. (eds.), Christianity in Britain, 300–700 (Leicester, 1968), p. 66.Google Scholar

¹⁸ ‘There is some evidence to support a Saxon occupation in the fifth or sixth centuries at Reculver’: Philp, op. cit. (n.12), p. 1.

¹⁹ The Anglo-Saxon Chronicle, trans, by Garmonsway, G. N., rev. edn. (London, 1960), p. 35.Google Scholar

²⁰ Jessup, op. cit. (n. 12), p. 182.

²¹ Anglo-Saxon Chronicle (n. 19), p. 41.

²² Thomas of Elmham, Historia Monasterii S. Augustini Cantuariensis, Public Record Office, Rerum britannicarum medii aevi scriptores (Rolls Series), no. 8 (London, 1858), p. 324.Google Scholar

²³ Jessup, op. cit. (n. 12), p. 182; V.C.H., Kent, 11, p. 20.

²⁴ The charter for the grant is reproduced in Roach Smith, op. cit. (n. 12), pp. 222–30.

²⁵ Peers, op. cit. (n. 4), p. 241. See Taylor and Taylor, op. cit. (n. 8), 11, p. 504, for a fascinating account of the decision to take down the church.

²⁶ Dowker, op. cit. (n. 15), pp. 248–68.

²⁷ See Philp, op. cit. (n. 12).

²⁸ Peers, op. cit. (n. 4), pp. 241–50.

²⁹ Clapham, op. cit. (n. 4), pp. 25–38; Newman, op. cit. (n. 8), p. 415; Peers, op. cit. (n. 4), p p. 242–50; Webb, G., Architecture in Britain: the Middle Ages (Harmondsworth, 1956), p. 3Google Scholar; Krautheimer, R., Early Christian and Byzantine Architecture (Harmondsworth, 1965), p. 134 and n. 26.Google Scholar

³⁰ Peers, op. cit. (n. 4), pp. 241, 250.

³¹ Leland, John, The Itinerary of John Leland, ed. by Smith, L. Toulmin, new edn. (London, 1964), IV, pp. 59–60.Google Scholar

³² Peers, op. cit. (n. 4), p. 250; for full quotation see B.T.B. (n. 12), 1, no. 18, p. 133.

³³ Peers, op. cit. (n. 4), p. 251; Stone, op. cit. (n. 9), p. 1; B.T.B. (n. 12), 1, no. 18, pp. 72–3, and no. 45, p. 165, pl. x, fig. 2.

³⁴ Dowker, op. cit. (n. 15), p. 259.

³⁵ Jessup, op. cit. (n. 12), p. 185.

³⁶ Baldwin Brown, op. cit. (n. 2), VI², p. 173.

³⁷ There is a reference to the ‘missing cross-piece’ in a letter of 1950 on file in the Chapter Office at Canterbury.

³⁸ Except by Jope, E. M., ‘The Saxon building-stone industry in southern and midland Britain’, Med. Arch, viii (1964), 98.Google Scholar

³⁹ Dr. Anderson was formerly Chief Palaeontologist of the British Geological Survey.

⁴⁰ Jope, op. cit. (n. 38), pp. 91, 97–9.

⁴¹ Mr. LeMar is Clerk of Works, and former head mason, of Canterbury Cathedral.

⁴² Dowker, op. cit. (n. 15), pp. 259–60; Peers, op. cit. (n. 4), p. 247.

⁴³ But Taylor, op. cit. (n. 9), p. 394, does not agree.

⁴⁴ Only Peers, op. cit. (n. 4), p. 255, and Clapham, op. cit. (n. 4), p. 62, have noted this.

⁴⁵ Bede (n. 13), 11.14: pp. 128–9.

⁴⁶ The column drums’ diameters range from 23 in. (58·4 cm.) to 27 in. (68·6 cm.), their heights from 12 to 24 in. (30·5 to 61 cm.). The shafts are 12 ft. 4 in. (3·73 m.) tall. The cross fragments are about 18 in. and 15 in. (45·7 and 38·1 cm.) in diameter, and none is taller than 15 in. (38·1 cm.). The columns and cross fragments appear to be of the same material, according to Dr. Anderson. On a relationship between columns and cross, see Taylor and Taylor, op. cit. (n. 8), 11, p. 509. And see ‘The columns of Reculver Church’, Arch. Cant., iii (1860), 135–7.Google Scholar

⁴⁷ Stone, op. cit. (n. 9), p. 8. See also Kendrick, op. cit. (n. 1), pp. 62–5, 69; and on Kentish society and history in this period see Deanesly, M., Augustine of Canterbury (London, 1964).Google Scholar

⁴⁸ Bede (n. 13), 1.25, 26, 27, 33: pp. 68–71, 85, 91–2.

⁴⁹ James, M. R., A Descriptive Catalogue of the MSS. in the Library of Corpus Christi College, Cambridge (Cambridge, 1912), 11, pp. 52–6Google Scholar; Wormald, F., The Miniatures in the Gospels of St. Augustine (Cambridge, 1954), pp. 1–2.Google Scholar

⁵⁰ Bede(n. 13), 11.14: p. 129;and 11.16: p. 131.

⁵¹ Collingwood, W. G., Northumbrian Crosses of the Pre-Norman Age (London, 1927), p. 5Google Scholar; Whitaker, Th., An History of the Original Parish of Whalley (Blackburn, 1800), pp. 31–7Google Scholar; and see also V.C.H., Lancashire, 11 (London, 1908, repr. 1966), p. 4Google ScholarPubMed, n. 19, and Hulton, W. A. (ed.), The Coucher Book or Chartulary of Whalley Abbey (Manchester, 1847), I, pp. 186 ffGoogle Scholar. A fourteenth-century manuscript, the Status de Blackburnshire, cites the antiquity of the crosses.

⁵² Kendrick, op. cit. (n. 11), p. 73; Collingwood, op. cit. (n. 51), pp. 6–7; Camden, op. cit. (n. 15), III, p. 237.

⁵³ Clapham, op. cit. (n. 4), pp. 40, 42.

⁵⁴ On this history see Stenton, F. M., Anglo-Saxon England, 2nd edn. (Oxford, 1950), esp. pp. 273Google Scholar, 370, 390, 427; Hodgkin, R. H., A History of the Anglo-Saxons, 2nd edn. (London, 1939), esp. 1, pp. 283–6, 11, pp. 385, 404–6, 413–14, 497. 564.Google Scholar

⁵⁵ See Beckwith, op. cit. (n. 8), p. 18.

⁵⁶ Peers, op. cit. (n. 4), p. 251.

⁵⁷ In Vienna, Kunsthistorisches Museum. Árnason, H. H., ‘Early Christian silver of North Italy and Gaul’, Art Bull. XX, June (1938), 191–226, figs. 30, 32.Google Scholar

⁵⁸ Fos. 125, 127^v; see n.49.

⁵⁹ See the Genesis page of the Bamburg Bible, Bamburg, Staatsbibl., MS. bibl. 1, f. 7^v, and the roundels in the Raganaldus Sacramentary, Autun, Bibl. de la Ville, MS. 19 bis, f. 8; Koehler, W. R. W., Die karolingischen Miniaturen (Berlin, 1930–1971), 1, pls. 56a, 63b.Google Scholar

⁶⁰ Kendrick, op. cit. (n. 1), p. 118, n. 1.

⁶¹ This stone does not stand upright; the surface slants backward as it goes up. Therefore the lower surface, although evenly sawn, is not the original bottom of the drum. As the remains of the dowel hole reveal, the stone is also tilted and should be rotated about 25 degrees in a clockwise direction. When this correction is made, the figure of Christ appears to be striding more energetically.

⁶² On Ascensions, see Dewald, E. T., ‘The iconography of the Ascension’, A.J.A. 2nd ser., xix (1915), 277–319Google Scholar; Schrade, H., ‘Zur Iconographie der Himmelfahrt Christi’, Vorträge der Bibliothek Warburg (1928–1929), pp. 66–213Google Scholar; Gutberlet, S. H., Die Himmelfahrt Christi in der bildenden Kunst (Strasbourg, 1934).Google Scholar

⁶³ Venturi, A., Storia del'arte italiana, 1 (Milan, 1901), fig. 268.Google Scholar

⁶⁴ Grabar, A., Christian Iconography (Princeton, 1968), figs. 323, 325.Google Scholar

⁶⁵ Monza nos. 1, 2, 10, 11, 14, 16; Bobbio nos. 2, 18, 19, 20; Grabar, A., Ampoules de terre sainte (Monza-Bobbio) (Paris, 1958), pls. 3, 5, 17, 19, 27, 33, 47, 50, 53.Google Scholar

⁶⁶ Paris, Bibl. Nat. MS. lat. 9428; Hubert, J., Porcher, J. and Volbach, W. F., The Carolingian Renaissance (New York, 1970), fig. 146.Google Scholar

⁶⁷ Beckwith, J., Ivory Carving in Early Medieval England (London, 1972), fig. 20.Google Scholar

⁶⁸ Kendrick, op. cit. (n. 1), pp. 164–5, pl. 67, 2; a seated type ascension is figured on the ninth-century Rothbury cross, pl. 64.

⁶⁹ British Library Add. MS. 49598, f. 64^v; Talbot Rice, op. cit. (n. 10), pl. 50b.

⁷⁰ Peers, op. cit. (n. 4), p. 252; Beckwith, op. cit. (n. 8), p. 18.

⁷¹ The drapery arrangements in representations of the climbing ascension display considerable variety. The scheme employed on the Reculver carving is closely paralleled on the Narbonne ivory. This scheme has roots in sixth-century representations, as a number of sixth-century Gaulish sarcophagi representing the ascensions of Christ, Moses, and Elijah testify: all have a waist-level division of the garment, though without the cummerbund effect. See Benoit, F., Sarcophages paléochrétiens d'Arles et de Marseille (Paris, 1954)Google Scholar, pls. 16, 38; Wilpert, J., antichi, I sarcofagi cristiani (Rome, 1929–1936)Google Scholar, 1, pls. 15, 82(2), 98(3), and 11, pl. 208(7). Deeply creased cummerbund drapery like that at Reculver does appear on sixth-century figures striking other poses, such as the archangel on the ivory in the British Museum (pl. XXXVII b) and an angel in the chancel vault mosaics at S. Vitale (pl. XXXVIII b).

⁷² This observation was made by Professor Meyer Schapiro.

⁷³ A scallop-shell shape on the top corner of the block is not carved; it is the imprint of a real shell in the soft stone.

⁷⁴ Peers, op. cit. (n. 4), pp. 252–3.

⁷⁵ It might be a tomb, but no depiction of the entombment or of the holy women at Christ's tomb has a comparable angel or a block in proximity to a hand.

⁷⁶ The fullness of the wrist does suggest a hand seen from the back, but it has been shown that the Reculver sculptor liked to emphasize and even exaggerate the roundness of limbs.

⁷⁷ Baldwin Brown, op. cit. (n. 2), VI², pp. 277–8.

⁷⁸ See Talbot Rice, op. cit. (n. 10), pp. 98–103.

⁷⁹ Reil, J., Christus am Kreuz in der Bildkunst der Karolingerzeit (Leipzig, 1930). p. 26.Google Scholar

⁸⁰ Grabar, op. cit. (n. 65), Bobbio nos. 1, 2, pls. 32, 33. These compositions reflect that of the early seventh-century mosaic in the apse of the Adam chapel of the Church of the Holy Sepulchre. On loca sancta traditions see Weitzmann, K., ‘Loca sancta and the representational arts of Palestine’, Dumbarton Oaks Papers, xxviii (1974), pp. 31–55.CrossRefGoogle Scholar

⁸¹ Per Nordhagen, J., ‘The frescoes of John VII (A.D. 705–707) in S. Maria Antiqua in Rome’, Acta ad Archaeologiam et Artium Historiam Pertinentia, iii (1968), pl. 53.Google Scholar

⁸² Monastery of St. Catherine, Mt. Sinai; Schiller, G., Iconography of Christian Art (Greenwich, Conn., 1971–1972), II, fig. 330.Google Scholar

⁸³ St-Gall MS. 51, f. 266; Zimmermann, E. H., Vorkarolingische Miniaturen (Berlin, 1916), III, pl. 188b.Google Scholar

⁸⁴ Durham, Cathedral Lib. A 11.17, f. 383^V; ibid., pl. 222a.

⁸⁵ Henry, F., Irish Art (London, 1940), fig. 46.Google Scholar

⁸⁶ Kendrick, op. cit. (n. 1), pl. 52.

⁸⁷ Paris, Bibl. Nat. MS. lat. 12048, f. 143^V; Schiller, op. cit. (n. 82), 11, fig. 350.

⁸⁸ Ibid., p. 104.

⁸⁹ Talbot Rice, op. cit. (n. 10), pl. 17.

⁹⁰ Collingwood, op. cit. (n. 51), fig. 95.

⁹¹ For instance, the Hedda stone in Peterborough Cathedral, and carvings from Castor, Northants., Breedon-on-the-Hill, Leics., and Hovingham, Yorkshire. Kendrick, op. cit. (n. 1), pls. 70, 69, 73, 87 (1).

⁹² Hubert et al., op. cit. (n. 66), fig. 315.

⁹³ Dublin, Trinity College MS. 57; Kendrick, op. cit. (n. 1), pl. 38, 1.

⁹⁴ Ibid., p. 117.

⁹⁵ Schapiro, Meyer and Seminar, , ‘The miniatures of the Florence Diatessaron (Laurentian MS. Or. 81): their place in late medieval art and supposed connection with early Christian and Insular art’, Art Bull, lv, December (1973), p. 520 and n. 140.Google Scholar

⁹⁶ Compare, for example, various Romano-British mosaics: from Frampton, in Kendrick, op. cit. (n. 1), pl. 20, 1; from Bignor, Sussex, in Toynbee, J. M. C., Art in Britain under the Romans (Oxford, 1964),Google Scholar pl. 59b; from Cirencester and Chedworth Villa, Glos., in Toynbee, , Art in Roman Britain (London, 1962), pls. 210, 211, 216, 217.Google Scholar

⁹⁷ Kendrick, op. cit. (n. 1), pl. 47. Also see examples from Abercorn, Winchester, and Ramsbury, pls. 50, 85, 99.

⁹⁸ The closest parallel to the Reculver treatment is on the ninth-century Closeburn Cross (ibid., pl. 93, 4), but although its format resembles that of the Reculver stone, its content and spirit differ considerably.

⁹⁹ Rice, D. Talbot, Byzantine Art, rev. edn. (Harmondsworth, 1968), pl. 45.Google Scholar

¹⁰⁰ Huyghe, R. (ed.), Larousse Encyclopedia of Byzantine and Medieval Art, rev. edn. (New York, 1968), fig. 505.Google Scholar

¹⁰¹ Like the marble ambo fragment in the Museo Cristiana, Brescia; Hubert et al., op. cit. (n. 66), fig. 203.

¹⁰² See Toynbee, J. M. C. and Perkins, J. B. Ward, ‘Peopled scrolls: a Hellenistic motif in Imperial art’, Papers Brit. School at Rome, xviii (1950), pp. 1–43.CrossRefGoogle Scholar

¹⁰³ The closest comparison is with two fragments from Otley on which busts are flanked on both sides by plant sprays, although not encircled by the volutes. See Cramp, R., ‘The position of the Otley crosses in English sculpture of the eighth to ninth centuries’, Kolloquium über spätantike und frühmittelalterliche Skulptur, 11, Vortragstexte 1970 (Mainz, 1971). pp. 55–3, pls. 42, 1; 45, 2; 46, 2.Google Scholar

¹⁰⁴ Such as the Canterbury Gospels, British Library Royal I.E.VI, f.43, and the Book of Cerne, Cambridge Univ. Lib. L.C.1.10, f. 2^v; Kendrick, op. cit. (n. 1), pls. 66(5) and 68(4). I owe this observation to Professor Jane Rosenthal. The late classical half-length busts within wreaths, which Newman compares with the Reculver carving and which appear on late Roman diptychs, may also be related.

¹⁰⁵ Kendrick, op. cit. (n. 1), pl. 51; Collingwood, op. cit. (n. 51), fig. 13; Cramp, op. cit. (n. 103), p. 60 and pls. 46, 6; 44, 3; 43, 5; 41, L; 48, 2.

¹⁰⁶ Peers, op. cit. (n. 4), figs. 8, 9. See note 37 above.

¹⁰⁷ Moscow, Pushkin Museum of Fine Arts, f. 7^v, fragment D; Grabar, op. cit. (n. 64), pl. 64.

¹⁰⁸ Kendrick, op. cit. (n. 1), p. 63.

¹⁰⁹ See also the silver paten from Stuma in Istanbul, 565–78 (pl. XXXVIII a); and a late sixth-century fresco of a standing saint from Saqqara, Egypt, in Beckwith, J., Early Christian and Byzantine Art (Harmondsworth, 1970), fig. 56.Google Scholar

¹¹⁰ Kitzinger, E., ‘Byzantine art in the period between Justinian and iconoclasm’, Ber. zum XI Internationalen Byzantinischen-Kongress (Munich, 1958), sheds valuable light on these artistic developments.Google Scholar

¹¹¹ In St. Demetrius, Salonika: Talbot Rice, op. cit. (n. 99), fig. 150; in S. Venanzio, Rome: Grabar, op. cit. (n. 64), fig. 107; in S. Pietro in Vincoli, Rome: Beckwith, op. cit. (n. 109), fig. 127.

¹¹² Zimmermann, op. cit. (n. 83), III, pls. 222^*, 223–6.

¹¹³ See above, notes 6–8.

¹¹⁴ See note 9.

¹¹⁵ Zimmermann, op. cit. (n. 83), IV, pls. 313a, b, 314a, b.

¹¹⁶ Kendrick, op. cit. (n. 1), pl. 62.

¹¹⁷ Examples are the Breedon angel, the ‘Hedda’ stone, the standing figures from Castor and Fletton: ibid., pls. 72, 70, 69,74.

¹¹⁸ Hubert et al, op. cit. (n. 66), fig. 207.

¹¹⁹ See notes 10, 11.

¹²⁰ For instance, on the ivory diptych depicting the consul Asturius: Grabar, op. cit. (n. 64), fig. 203.

¹²¹ Kitzinger, E., ‘Anglo-Saxon vine-scroll ornament’, Antiquity, X (1936), 66; Kendrick, op. cit. (n. 1), p. 130.Google Scholar

¹²² Zimmermann, op. cit. (n. 83), IV, pl. 315b.

¹²³ Radford, C. A. R., “The portable altar’, in Battiscombe, C. F. (ed.), The Relics of St. Cuthbert (Oxford, 1956), pl. 19 and fig. 3.Google Scholar

¹²⁴ See examples from Tabarka and Carthage in Bandinelli, R. B., Rome: the Late Empire (New York, 1971), figs. 207, 208.Google Scholar

¹²⁵ The intermediate octagon, S.2; Creswell, K. A. C., Early Muslim Architecture (Oxford, 1932–1940), 1, pl. 25a.Google Scholar

¹²⁶ Such as the David illumination in The Canterbury Psalter, and carved stone panels from Britford and the Codford St. Peter shaft: Kendrick, op. cit. (n. 1), pls. 65(2), 76, 75.

¹²⁷ Such as a lunette mosaic in the mausoleum of Galla Placidia, Ravenna (Talbot Rice, op. cit. (n. 99), fig. 113), and a Coptic stone door frame (Grabar, A., The Golden Age of Justinian (New York, 1967), fig. 305).Google Scholar

¹²⁸ On a gospel book from Canterbury in the British Library, Royal I.E.VI, ff. 4, 5, 5^V, in Zimmermann, op. cit. (n. 83), IV, pls. 290, 291; and in the Ezra miniature of the Codex Amiatinus, on the edge of The bench, in Grabar, A. and Nordenfalk, C., Early Medieval Painting [New York, 1957], p. 119.Google Scholar

¹²⁹ Striated profile leaves that bear an even more striking resemblance to the Reculver examples appear on a sixth-century stone ambo from Salonika, now in Istanbul (Grabar, op. cit. (n. 127), fig. 264).

¹³⁰ S.E.3. Creswell, op. cit. (n. 125), I, pl. 25, d.

¹³¹ The Stiftsschatz, Beromünster, probably before 676; Braunfels, W., Die Welt der Karolinger und ihre Kunst (Munich, 1968), p. 45, figs. 14, 15.Google Scholar

¹³² Kendrick, op. cit. (n. 1), pl. 60.

¹³³ Ibid., pl. 62; Brøndsted, J., Early English Ornament (London and Copenhagen, 1924), fig. 21, upper 1.; Collingwood, op. cit. (n. 51), fig. 91.Google Scholar

¹³⁴ Kendrick, op. cit. (n. 1), pl. 65, 1.

¹³⁵ As on the Crundale sword pommel: ibid., pl. 33.

¹³⁶ In the absence of a dowel hole the diameter of Stone IV cannot be determined with absolute certainty, but it probably agreed with that of The others.

¹³⁷ Leland, Itinerary (n. 31), foreword (no pagination) by T. D. Kendrick.

¹³⁸ With the exception of Stone III, which is shown below to belong elsewhere.

¹³⁹ And see the Introduction by Lucy Toulmin Smith to Leland's Itinerary (n. 31), 1, xxxiii.

¹⁴⁰ Monza ampullae nos. 10, 11, 14, 15; Grabar, op. cit. (n. 65), pls. 16–19, 26–29.

¹⁴¹ Leland's description may be interpreted to suggest another, slightly different reconstruction. The twelve apostles contained by his ‘third stone’ might be part of the main narrative scenes: that is, they might be shown witnessing the Ascension and also, perhaps, coming around to the front of the cross, as witnesses to the Crucifixion. In this case they would be carved on the same drum as the lower part of Christ's body on the cross. The separate drum containing ‘the apostles’ could then be eliminated from the reconstruction; Stone IV would be some part of Leland's second stone ‘of the Passion’.

¹⁴² There is another English example of a cross-shaft that is reduced by one stage: the four-sided shaft at Otley (Collingwood, op. cit. (n. 51), p. 48). Here too the transition is near the top of the cross, and the narrower stone rests on another block that is only a few inches wider.

¹⁴³ But see also note 141 above.

¹⁴⁴ The ninth-or tenth-century Wolverhampton pillar (Kendrick, op. cit. (n. 1), pl. 86), is a tall, tapering shaft surmounted by a massive torus which presumably supported its cross-top (now missing). Also worth mentioning is the tenth-century market-cross in Trier (Baldwin Brown, op. cit. (n. 2), VI², pl. 28). It has an uncarved cylindrical column-shaft surmounted by a carved capital which in turn supports an ornamented, equal-armed cross. This composition comes closest to the classical scheme in which a statue was placed atop a capitaled column. It is difficult to apply such a scheme to the Reculver column, however, because of its reduction in diameter.

¹⁴⁵ Baldwin Brown, op. cit. (n. 2), VI², pp. 105, 113, 126–32.

¹⁴⁶ See summaries of arguments, ibid., pp. 119–32; also Clapham, op. cit. (n. 4), pp. 68–9; Åberg, op. cit. (n. 3), I, pp. 48 ff.; R. Cramp, ‘Early Northumbrian sculpture’, Jarrow Lecture 1965 (Jarrow).

¹⁴⁷ See Toynbee 1964 (n. 96), esp. pls. 40a and 41b; Saxl, F., ‘The Ruthwell cross’, J. Warburg & Courtauld Institutes, vi (1943)Google Scholar denfalk denfalk, denfalk 18; Bruce-Mitford, R. L. S., ‘Decoration and miniatures’, in Codex Lindisfarnensis (Olten and Lausanne, 1956–1960), 11, pp. 115–17.Google Scholar

¹⁴⁸ Kraus, Th., Das römische Weltreich (Berlin, 1967), pp. 73, 228, pl. 195.Google Scholar

¹⁴⁹ In the interest of brevity I omit a discussion of Jupiter columns. But it should be mentioned that these tall, freestanding, carved stone shafts, a number of which stood about the English countryside, most likely had their effect on the first Anglo-Saxon sculptures. Some bore figures set within niches. An impressive fragment from Great Chesterford, Essex, in the British Museum, is a drum from an eightsided shaft, bearing the heads and chests of figures within round-headed niches (V.C.H., Essex, III (1963), pp. 83–4Google Scholar, pl. 18c). On Jupiter columns, see also ‘Colonne de Giove e dei giganti (Jupiter-Gigantensäulen)’, Enciclopedia del'arte antica, 11 (Rome, 1959), pp. 767–8Google Scholar; Collingwood, R. G. and Richmond, I., The Archaeology of Roman Britain, new edn. (London, 1969), p. 121Google Scholar; Toynbee 1964 (n. 96), pp. 145–7; V.C.H., Shropshire, 1 (London, 1908), p. 253.Google ScholarPubMed

¹⁵⁰ The ‘Porte Noire’. Ésperandieu, E., Recueil général des bas-reliefs, statues et bustes de la Gaule romaine (Paris, 1907–1966), VII, pp. 5–28.Google Scholar

¹⁵¹ See Volbach, W. F., Early Christian Art (New York, [1962]), p. 26, figs. 82–3.Google Scholar

¹⁵² Ibid., p. 326 and pls. 76, 77.

¹⁵³ According to Paulus Silentarius, a sixth-century poet. See Xydis, S. G., ‘The chancel barrier, solea, and ambo of Hagia Sophia’, Art Bull, xxix (1947), 1.CrossRefGoogle Scholar

¹⁵⁴ Haftmann, W., Das italienische Säulenmonument (Hildesheim, 1939), pp. 44–9.Google Scholar

¹⁵⁵ See Baldwin Brown, op. cit. (n. 2), VI, p. 271; Kendrick, op. cit. (n. 11), pp. 68–76; Pape, T., ‘The round-shafted pre-Norman crosses of the North Staffordshire area’, Trans. North Staffs. Field Club, lxxx (1945–1946); Collingwood, op. cit. (n. 51), pp. 5–9.Google Scholar

¹⁵⁶ Baldwin Brown, op. cit. (n. 2), VI², pl. 53.

¹⁵⁷ Rix, M. M., ‘The Wolverhampton cross-shaft’, Arch. J. cxvii (1960), 71–81.Google Scholar

¹⁵⁸ Kendrick, op. cit. (n. 1), p. 191, pl. 85.

¹⁵⁹ Baldwin Brown, op. cit. (n. 2), VI², p. 272.

¹⁶⁰ Collingwood, op. cit. (n. 51), p. 7, fig. 13.

¹⁶¹ Kendrick, op. cit. (n. 11), pp. 72–3. But Collingwood was wrong in his assumption that all cylindrical fragments belong to composite-type crosses.

¹⁶² Stone, op. cit. (n. 9), p. 19.

¹⁶³ There is reason to believe that an early tradition of cross raising existed in Kent. A canon probably attributable to Archbishop Theodore rules that if a church has been removed to another place a cross should be erected on the site of the vanished altar. This not only indicates that crosses were erected in Theodore's time, but also suggests that by then the practice was a familiar one. (Haddan, A. W. and Stubbs, W. (eds.), Councils and Ecclesiastical Documents Relating to Great Britain and Ireland, III (Oxford, 1871), p. 190).Google Scholar

¹⁶⁴ See Cramp, op. cit. (n. 146), p. 5.

¹⁶⁵ See above, notes 50–2.

¹⁶⁶ Such a continuation may have occurred at Whalley, Lancashire, where tradition held that Paulinus or Augustine had raised crosses. In Whalley there now stand only late, crude sculptures, but one of these, Kendrick has shown, is a barbarized derivative of the composite-shaft cross type. Kendrick also identified a number of similar monuments in sections of Yorkshire and neighbouring areas (op. cit. (n. 11), pp. 75–6. pl. 48).

¹⁶⁷ In addition to the cylindricality of shafts, a number of iconographical and stylistic features appear in common among a cluster of monuments in the area proselytized by Paulinus and also at Reculver. A standing frontal angel, in some cases holding a book, occurs not only at Reculver but at Otley and Dewsbury (both in the West Riding of Yorkshire) and at Halton, Lancashire. Busts closely associated with vine ornament are found on the Otley fragments. Other features in common are the representation of apostles, at Reculver and also at Dewsbury, Masham, Peterborough, and Easby; the use of plain bordered bands, at Reculver, Winchester, and Masham; the depiction of figures standing in arcades or colonnades, at Reculver, Masham, and Dewsbury; and a similar drapery form at Reculver and Dewsbury. See Cramp, op. cit. (n. 103), pp. 55–63.

¹⁶⁸ Or, as Kendrick put it, the early days of the Kentish renaissance are ‘the one context in which the naive enthusiasm of the sculpture and its iconographical invention may be reasonably expected as a natural offspring of the age itself’ (op. cit. (n. 1), p. 118).

¹⁶⁹ Hinks, Roger, Carolingian Art, new edn. (Ann Arbor, 1962), pp. 57–8.Google Scholar