Please sign my Guestbook and leave feedback

Recent Additions

Finchingfield (Essex)

East Haddon (Northants)

Anstey (Hertfordshire)

Gnosall (Staffordshire)

Earl Stonham (Suffolk)

Norton (Suffolk)

Ixworth Thorpe (Suffolk)

Tutbury (Staffordshire)

Nantwich (Cheshire)

Penmon Priory (Anglesey)

Llaneilian (Anglesey)

Llanbadrig (Anglesey)

Lower Peover (Cheshire)

Leverton (Lincolnshire)

I think this page shows most of  the wall plates but not all because I ran out of time! On the main Burwell page I discussed a few aspects of this extraordinary display and also explained in a footnote why it is so difficult to photograph things high overhead in a church.

As you savour the imagery you will be wondering what it is all about. Some will think they know, but I am not one of those. Perhaps because I have taken so much interest in sculptural and carved decoration - where Pevsner and Jenkins had little or no interest - I am left with more questions than answers. In “Bums, Fleas and Hitchhikers” I satisfied myself (and I hope you) that we can see the work of an itinerant group of sculptural masons that were, first and foremost builders with decoration probably very much a sideline. Yet their prolific output of decorative work is how we recognise them whereas we cannot do so for other presumed itinerant groups of craftsmen who left only anonymous aisles, clerestories, battlements and the like.

Academics love to pontificate about such decoration, basing their opinions mainly on the great churches and Cathedrals. Few venture much into the world of more humble artisanal art in our parish churches and, if they do, that assume that the same commercial and artistic environment prevailed. A very few have the humility and self-confidence to reply to “why?” with “we don’t really know”. Because academics love to focus closely on one church at a time, I believe they often miss the bigger picture. They focus on the imagery and skate over the operation of the mediaeval building industry where a mason or carpenter did not just deliver one set of fancy art and then retire to his smallholding but needed to look for his next job. Few, with the honourable exception of Gabriel Byng, try to dig into how everything was paid for and who was in charge.

So I would say, in words from a song from one of my favourite folk-rock groups, “The more I find out, the less I know”. Within the context of these wall plates, then, I am going to suggest some continuums along which you might care to place yourselves:

Who carved them?                         Specialist Decorative Carpenter ---------------> Jobbing Carpenter with a facility for carving

Who told them to do it?                 Patron ---------------> Nobody, they just did it.

Who chose the subject matter? Patron ---------------> They decided for themselves.

Did they know the significance of the iconography?                                                                                                                                                                        Yes, they had access to a Bestiary and other sources ---------------> No. They were just using what they thought was traditional imagery

Were the congregation meant to understand it?                                                                                                                                                                              Yes, ordinary parishioners had a working knowledge of religious, political and social iconography ---------------> No, they wouldn’t have a clue about what most of it meant but they thought it was entertaining.

Were they paid specifically to do it?                                                                                                                                                                                                    Yes, it was a special commission ---------------> No. It was just something delivered as part of the project within the overall contract price

If you have read a lot of my pages, and in particular if you have read Bums, Fleas and Hitchhikers you will know that I am to varying degrees mainly towards the right of those continuums. Everything I have seen and read suggests that the craftsmen exercised a pretty free hand in the decoration they provided. To them it was not an add-on but part of their pride in what they delivered. But you can construct an argument that this is total bunkum. The fact is we don’t really know and evidence is almost all circumstantial. You can see where I stand and why by following this link.

Anyway, enough of this self-indulgence. I will now indulge you with the pictures.

A question I have is whether all of these wall plates were carved by the same man? Take a look at three plates with unicorns (these two plus one below left). The unicorns (left) are heavy-looking, Their manes are thin. Their tails are badly-drawn. Note also, in passing, signs of repair that we see elsewhere in this range. Now look at her unicorns on the right that are much more athletic-looking. The manes are luxuriant. Their tails are leonine, not stumpy. Do they look they were carved by the same carpenter? I think not.

Left: More unicorns. Or are they? There was also a mediaeval Bestiary figure called a “Monocerous” that was more elephantine. Right: These are probably “yales”, described thus in the Bestiary: “There is an animal called the yale. It is black, as big as a horse,  with the tail of an elephant, the jaws of a boar and unusually long  horns, adjustable to any movement the animal might make. For they are  not fixed but move as the needs of fighting require; the yale advances one of them as it fights, folding the other back, so that if the tip of  the first is damaged by a blow, it is replaced by the point of the second.

Left and Right: There are few Biblical scenes amongst the wall plates but these two portray the four Evangelists. The eagle of St John, the bull of St Luke, the angel of St Matthew and the lion of St Mark. Their words emanating from a central urn, these are very clearly a “matched pair”.

Left and Right: Two elephant and castle scenes. Again the question: one carpenter or two? I think one because both have the same bizarre concept of what an elephant looked like and what a castle should look like.

Griffin are a recurring theme. Half eagle, half lion. The pair on the left claso a blank shield. Those on the right face a plant. These are quite different treatments of the subject and, I think, by two different carpenters. Note how much more naturalistic are those on the left compared with the almost heraldic formality of those on the right.

Left and Right: There are several examples of animals facing crowns but here are two facing bishops mitres. The two mitres are of similar look but they are actually quite different in execution, the mitre on the right being more realistic-looking. The animals too - chained antelopes - are quite sinuous and naturalistic. The dragons on the left are, again, much more formal and heraldic in appearance in the manner of the griffins above right. Again, I contend that we have two carpenters here, not one. I have no idea why the bishops mitre should be shown flanked by fabulous beasts.

Let’s carry on with the antelope theme. That on the right is very clearly by the same carpenter as the mitre-facing antelopes above. This is the first appearance of the crown-facing feature that I feel maybe related to the Wars of the Roses. What about that on the left, facing a sprig of foliage? I rather think not.

Top Left: Compare these yales with the ones further up the page. These are gentle, rounded creatures. That style continues with the two animals (sheep?) facing the shield (above right) and the rather nice rabbit between two hounds (below left). It is a peaceable scene with a distinctly un-alarmed looking rabbit. That theme is mirrored (below right). When I look at the ear forms I am fairly sure this group is all by the same carpenter.

I describe this on the main Burwell page. Suffice to say here that this plate is quite uncharacteristic of this suite of carvings. It has no discernible royal or natural or royal symbolism: this is the pagan and satirical stuff of the misericord carver. Three pieces of folk art in one the mermaid, the ape with his urine flask and the fox and goose. It is almost as if the carpenters felt they had to break out into something that was something more to their own taste and more fun

Here we have six instances of animals or angels addressing a central crown or king. Do these, as I surmise, reference the Wars of the Roses? It is interesting that there are two examples of bearded king’s heads. Neither Henry VI nor Edward IV had beards. Were the carpenters trying to be political? the beautifully accurately carved lions and crown in the picture (bottom left) is very clearly a later replacement.

Two representation of tigers with mirrors. The significance of this imagery is explained on the main Burwell page. You would have to say again that these are by two different carpenters.

Two sets of animals addressing a central crown-less head. That on the right is wonderfully facetious. The dragons are beautifully and the unfortunate man’s hair is standing on end. Who can blame him? Again, these are clearly by two different carpenters.

A couple of whimsical ones here, probably by the same carpenter. Left: A pair of gazelles confront a very cocky squirrel. Right: Two yales face a bird bearing an egg in its beak. This too seems quite apeaceful scene and appear to be by the same man.

Left: In one of the few facetious carvings, a woodwose drags a gazelle by a rope. Right: At the opposite extreme is one of the few seemingly religious plates. A bird - the Holy Spirit? - flies towards the kneeling figure to the right. St Matthew in his guise as an angel holds his gospel

I do not think there is a lot of point to captioning each picture as you can guess their meaning as well as I can.

Click to Return to main Burwell page