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)

The objective of this study is to prove the existence of a group peripatetic stonemasons. So far we have established trademarks and styles that make that quite certain. For each of the churches with a mooning men carving we have been able to so far identify at least one mason and two at those churches where the Gargoyle Master left his idiosyncratic mark. There are, however, quite a number of carvings that cannot be instantly attributed to any of these masons. Sometimes this is because they are damaged by weathering. We will see Langham has suffered quite badly, for example. Sometimes friezes are bland and could have been carved by anyone. Others have very small carvings that may or may not be miniature versions of those on other friezes. We will not be able to parcel up every course of frieze and point it to one of these five masons. In some ways, this is very much the point. If we are seeing the work of men who did nothing other than sculpt friezes - and I think that unlikely - then we should expect to see just the same men at every location. If however, as I believe, the frieze carving is a “finishing” job in building works that included changes to aisles, clerestories and roofs then any mason who was competent might be set to the task. That competent mason might work on, say, Lowesby Church and then either join another group of masons or simply be passed over for the job thereafter. All, of course, is speculation.

It is important, though, to investigate those sections of sculpture that cannot be readily associated with one of the “named” masons”. We will see in the next section that one mason really did like to leave his own calling card.

For now, though, I want to focus on the phenomenon of the use of black lead for eyes of grotesques and people. We have seen that Ralf of Ryhall used the device at Ryhall and Oakham. We have seen that the Gargoyle Master used it too. Conversely, there is no sign that it was used by John Oakham, Lawrence of Leicester or Simon Cottesmore. The device is not unique to the MMG churches. It is extremely rare, however, and its proliferation  marks it out as a characteristic of the group. When we look at friezes even within the MMG’s geographical orbit that are apparently not carved by the group  there are no black lead eyes at all.

From ground level it is impossible to make out from what material these eyes are made. Slate was my first thought but this is not an area, of course, where slate occurs. What other minerals are there are that are black, durable and which allow thin slices to be obtained? Flint is a candidate, but this is not an area where flint occurs either. No mason is going to take the trouble to import materials for obscure decoration in minuscule quantities from other parts of the country. I was indebted to a churchwarden at Ryhall Church for the information that it is lead and once you know this the story as how it came to be there becomes very obvious.

Many black eyes have been lost, some sculptures having only one. We can’t know if both were lost and it is  very possible that all of the Gargoyle Master’s work (gargoyles being in particularly exposed positions) had them.

Ryhall is the “spiritual home” of the black eyes so we will start there.

Ryhall Black-eyed carvings. The four pictures top left are of labels stops on the south aisle windows. The three pictures bottom right are labels stops from the clerestory/ All of the others are frieze carvings from the south aisle.

We have seen how Ralf of Ryhall carved wonderful grotesques and the two ”tradesman” carvings at Ryhall, all of the carvings having or having had black lead eyes. Twenty one frieze carvings still have one or two surviving and all are on the south side. There are many complete pairs as well as several where probably both eyes have been lost. Oddly, on the east end of the church and on the north side there are none. Nor does it look like they had then to start with. Four label stops (carvings at the ends of drip moulds) also still have surviving black eyes, again all on the south side. There are at least six more on the clerestory label stops - there is no frieze on the clerestory. Then, we have seen that the same man sculpted seven similar grotesques at Oakham.

Lowesby is the other church with quite a lot of black eyes. Ten survive with one or both eyes intact and there are several others that clearly had them originally.

Lowesby frieze carvings with black eyes.

Were the Ryhall and Lowesby black eye carvings by the same man? Looking at them, I don’t think you would immediately think so. If you look at the Ryhall grotesque carvings, however, some are similar in the use of the deeply cut “maned” faces. On some of them, however, connections are vague or non-existent. Like Ryhall, Lowesby does, however, also has a number of label stops with black eyes. And there is little doubt at all that they have familial connection with the black eye label stops at Ryhall. In fact there is little doubt at all that these are the faces of one or more masons and possibly other master craftsmen. The hats that the men are wearing are unlike any peasant headwear depicted in the mediaeval illuminated psalters. These are clearly men of substance. Nor is there much room for doubt that some of those depicted at Ryhall are also depicted at Lowesby.

The left hand picture is from Ryhall. The Lowesby label stop carving to its right is surely of the same man. The other carvings are other Lowesby label stops which have or have had black eyes.

Left and Second Left: Label stop carvings from Ryhall and Lowesby that, again, are indubitably of the same man. Note the exaggerated skin cleft on both heads and the characteristic soft caps. It has to be a mason, doesn’t it? Centre and Second Right: Badly weathered label stops from Cold Overton Church, Leicestershire. Far Right: Label stop at Oakham Church.

It is, then, very difficult not to to conclude that the same Ralf who was carving all those black-eyed sculptures at Ryhall was carving those at Lowesby as well. I showed pictures of Cold Overton in Leicestershire too - a church I have not previously mentioned. No black eyes have survived that heavy weathering, of course. Can we find any proper evidence for Ralf’s presence here? The church has a frieze only around its tower. Frustratingly, it was clearly of rare quality and interest but has suffered grievous damage. It also has the unique feature of four large monstrous carvings at ground level of the west end of its tower. And one of them has a surviving black eye and it seems a reasonable assumption that they all did originally.  It suggests that some of the grotesques on the frieze may have had then also, although others equally clearly did not.

The frieze carvings at Cold Overton have some images that look like they would not have had black eyes and other that look as thought they might. Note, however, the heavily maned creatures with well-defined claws. Are there reminiscent of Ralf’s heavily maned creatures at Oakham and Ryhall?

This leaves an awkward set of single examples of black eyed carvings at each of Tilton-on-the-Hill, Langham and Whissendine. The Tilton example is very reminiscent of those at Lowesby which is unsurprising as the churches are less than two miles apart. I think we can be pretty confident that Ralf was at both. That at Langham sits amongst a frieze that has been weathered almost beyond recognition. Whissendine’s is one of three buttress sculptures that probably date from known structural damage to the north side of the church and it is by no means certain it is contemporary with the friezes by John Oakham.. None of these three churches has label stops that match those at Ryhall, Lowesby, Oakham and Cold Overton. With some exceptions, stylistic similarities between the groups of black eyed carvings at these churches are elusive.

Black eyed carvings at (left to right): Tilton-on-the-Hill, Langham, Whissendine

Although this study is mainly about external carving it is, however, impossible to ignore the presence of black eyed sculptures inside at three churches: Ryhall, Wymondham and Cottesmore. Ryhall is of course, Ralf’s home village and Wymondham has gargoyles by the black eye loving Gargoyle Master. But what are we to make of Cottesmore where there is no sign of the presence of either of these masons?

Internal black-eyed carvings on spandrels and corbels: Top Row First Three from Left: Wymondham Top Row: Right and Second Right: Cottesmore Bottom Row: All Ryhall.

None of the interior sculpture is obviously by one of the men who carved outside. Indeed, it looks like there was a different sculptor inside each of these three churches. So in addition to Ralf there may be three more sculptors using the device. At Ryhall and Wymondham we might have led ourselves to believe that Ralf and the Gargoyle Master respectively were responsible but this case is drastically weakened by the case of Cottesmore where neither man was present.

What conclusions can we draw? Well, as I said in previous pieces, we are wandering into the land of supposition and inference. We can say quite categorically that the appearance of all of these black eyes is not a coincidence because they are exceedingly rare - I cannot think of another church with even one on its outside. Bear in mind that we have been discussing frieze carvings here. The Gargoyle Master also used the device. In all, then, that is eleven churches, all within a very small geographical area. Then we have the further coincidence of four of these churches having label stop carvings - all badly weathered - that may have be showing the same masons. If we exclude Owston and Empingham that have no friezes at all, seven of the remaining nine have mooning men.

Can we say that all of the black eyed frieze carvings were all by the same man? In the cases of Ryhall, Oakham, Lowesby, Tilton-on-the-Hill and Cold Overton I think we can. The three sets of internal carving - especially Cottesmore - suggests, however, that although Ralf and the Gargoyle Master were the biggest enthusiasts, other masons used the device as well: it was something embraced by the group, not just by those two individuals. On that basis we are not entitled to assume that Langham and Whissendine were also by Ralf.

But why would a stonemason be dabbling in the dangerous business of molten lead. Well, the answer of course is that he wouldn’t be doing an such thing. That leads us onto the topic of....

Plumbers and Lead Roofs

What we do know is that lead eyes would have required the presence on-site of a plumber -  a worker in lead.

We will be discussing later how extending churches gave the opportunity – the necessity even – to re-profile roofs and to upgrade the means of removing rainwater. Even if a church already had lead on its roofs it would still be necessary to rework it. So a plumber will have been needed. Plumbers, however did not just deal with roofs and rainwater goods. They also made liners for fonts and the frameworks that fitted around individual panes of glass in traceried windows..

The plumber – or “plumbarius” - will not have been a stonemason doubling up. Plumbing was a specialised and dangerous job involving intense heat to make the lead workable and the production of  toxic fumes. In 1371 a complaint was made to the Mayor of London “by the good folk of Candelwykstrete and of St Clement’s Lane in Estchepe” that certain plumbers melt their solder “to the great damage and peril of death of all who smell the smoke”. The Ordinances of Plumbers were issued in London in 1365, regulating the trade and laying down rates of payment and requirements for proper training.

Lead was both expensive and, of course, heavy. A  “Super Foot” of lead (that is, one square foot of one inch thickness) weighed fourteen pounds. For a church roof  a lot of it was needed. At Ryhall Church in Rutland the roofs cover approximately four thousand square feet. This would have required twenty five cartloads of lead, each load weighing about a ton. If the lead was bought already in sheet form it would have cost about 5s 3d per hundredweight or £5 5s per ton*. That would mean that applying lead to the whole roof of Ryhall Church would have cost about £131 at a time when £1 would have bought about fifty days of skilled labour. Let’s get some perspective on that cost. A National Archives website suggests that this amount would have bought one of: 100 horses; 220 cows; 5 tons of wool; or 6,250 days of skilled labour! In today’s terms it amounts to about £76,000. That is just for the materials. Add in something for transport by river and by road and for labour and a cost estimate of £100,000 in today’s terms does not look excessive. The cost of lead in pig form would, of course, been much cheaper but would have needed labour to process it into sheets,.

5s 3d/cwt  is the cost of lead in sheet form at Collyweston Church only four miles from Ryhall in 1504, perhaps a hundred years after the Mooning Men Group were at Ryhall Church. Salzman, however, also suggests £5 per ton at around the beginning of the fifteenth century so we can be sure we are in the right ball-park.

The principal point of access to lead for both Ryhall and Collyweston would have been the then-thriving port of Boston in Lincolnshire to which Derbyshire lead was shipped by water via the River Trent, the Roman Fossdyke and the River Witham. From Boston the lead could be relatively easily shipped onwards to the main market of London. For Ryhall and Collyweston – and probably many other churches mentioned in this book – onwards shipment would surely have been via the River Welland which was at that time navigable right into nearby Stamford. The cost of the overland “final leg” would have been relatively modest.

We can then infer that Ryhall’s and Collyweston’s costs for lead were comparable. Incidentally, the theft of lead from church roofs is not a modern outrage. Such was its value that it was liable to be stolen even in the mediaeval period. The 1365 ordinances, therefore, contained this stricture: “None shall buy stripped lead from the assistants of tilers, bricklayers, masons or women, who cannot find warranty for it”. Quite why women were specifically included is a matter for conjecture!

What is the significance of all this for our study of the decorative friezes in the East Midlands?

Firstly, it shows that leading the roofs was a not insignificant activity. The 1365 Ordinances conveniently lay out the piece rate for plumbers working lead for roofing at 1/2d per 7lb. This implies a labour cost of £3 8s at Ryhall just for the roofing. For pipework that rate was doubled to 1d per 7lb. A mason – who would have been working for wages, not as a pieceworker - was paid at about 6d per day at this time. If we assume that plumbers earned from piecework per day approximately what a mason was paid in wages (a big assumption, admittedly) it suggests a plumber worked about 84lb of metal per day and that one hundred and thirty four man days were needed to lay Ryhall’s lead roof.

We can verify these approximate costs by referring to the surviving contract for the leading of the choir at Arbroath Abbey in 1394 where the plumber was to be paid 30 Marks - £20 – for leading the choir roof which was a little less than four times the size of Ryhall’s entire roof area. Every way you look at it, labour costs paled into insignificance compared with those of the lead itself. The plumber at Arbroath was also paid for preparing the lead from which we deduce that it was not purchased in sheet form. The plumber – William Plummer of St Andrews – had to employ another man at his own expense while the Abbey itself funded a third.

We must make the reasonable assumption that there would need to be at least two plumbers to facilitate handling of the lead so a plumber would be on a church site for perhaps seventy working days plus the time taken to work on rainwater goods.  This is all very rough and ready. What is more, if the plumbers bought their lead in ingot form rather than in sheet form they would, of course, have been on site for significantly longer while they re-smelted it. How much longer is a matter, again, for conjecture.

At this point, having established the availability of plumbers we can turn to an oddity about the work of the Gargoyle Master. We have already established through his portrayal of the box headdress on his flying gargoyles that he was operating in the time period that the friezes were carved. When we look very closely at the gargoyles we can see that some of them have unmistakable black eyes.

It all seems eminently logical. By definition, the Gargoyle Master is there because a new roof needs the means for the rainwater to escape. The plumber is there to do the lead-work to both roof and rainwater goods. They work in cahoots so it is hardly astonishing if the plumber indulges his colleague by providing him with some decorative eyes.

Put all of this together and there is a compelling case that what we are seeing in the East Midlands is a widespread industry of church enlargement leading to roof alterations, the provision of parapets, and requiring the presence of plumbers who oblige the masons by creating the quirky little black eyes for their even quirkier carved friezes. It is all a very coherent narrative.

Ralf and the Gargoyle Master - One Man or Two?

We cannot answer this question definitively. For that reason I have always maintained that Ralf and the Gargoyle Master are two different men. It might be argued, however, that if the external use of black eyes is really confined to these men, as I suspect it is, then it seems rather a coincidence that they are also the the two styles that are most similar to each other.

Apart from the stylistic similarities, the most compelling argument for their being one and the same man is to do with the career of the Gargoyle Master. Why would a man with obvious ability confine himself  to carving gargoyles? Secondly, if gargoyles were indeed all he carved then nine churches did not constitute much of a career. The MMG as a group were at thirteen churches, often carrying out considerable alterations. Their stay at an individual church was likely to have been measured in years rather than months. Let’s be bold and suggest a total lifetime of the group of twenty-five years. How on earth could the Gargoyle Master have made a living carving, say, fifty gargoyles over twenty-five years? Everything points to his having part of the peripatetic team on a long-term basis and taking part in the general building work was well as being a sculptor. That being the case, why would he never carve friezes and if he also carved friezes then why would he not use his favoured black-eye trademark?

So there is tantalising circumstantial and subjective evidence that the Gargoyle Master was Ralf of Ryhall. Or vice-versa if you prefer!

Recommended Next Section: Styles of Sculpture

Preface

Introduction

Friezes - a Local Speciality

The Gargoyle Master

Bums and Fleas

The Square Headdress

Black Eyes and Lead Roofs (You are here!)

Styles of Sculpture

Church Building in the Post-Plague Era

Mapping the Sculptors

Scratching those Fleas

The Peregrinations of John Oakham

The Sleaford Cluster

What does it all Mean?

The Cost of it All

What can we Learn?

The Churches

Other Local Friezes

Other Great Sculptures