munificence of the vicar, Rev. C. Prodgers, who entrusted the work to
no less eminent an architect than Mr. Bodley, has swept away a number
of landmarks, the removal of which the antiquary must record only
with pain and sorrow. Beside the lengthening of the chancel by eleven
feet eastwards, and the abolition of the east window, a proceeding
alien to the traditions of an English parish church, the rood-screen
itself has been shifted and tampered with in a manner far from
conservative. Previously to the “restoration” the screen consisted of
eight bays (the two midmost bays comprising the doorway), and stood in
the recess of the chancel arch, into which space it exactly fitted.
In the course of the “restoration” the screen (found to have been
patched with common deal in many places, and the whole of it thickly
coated with brown paint) was taken to Cambridge to be pickled, and
to have the decayed and the deal portions replaced in oak. Thus far,
good. But returning renovated and lengthened by a fresh, narrow bay
of blind panelling at each end, so as to ruin its proportions, the
rood-screen, now too long for its former site, was erected anew in
a more westerly position against the east wall of the nave. It was,
moreover, provided with elaborate metal gates, which are too high to
give a satisfactory effect, inasmuch as they break the horizontal
line of the wooden rail to right and left. Another flagrant offence
is that the carved ornaments, integrally joined (as at Chaddesden) to
the east side of the entrance jambs of the screen to form the ends
of the return stalls, have been detached from their proper place and
egregiously misappropriated for the ends of new sedilia. Their sides
are richly panelled with Perpendicular tracery, in the top of which is
a human face, with the hair and beard treated like Gothic leafage. The
upper extremities of these stall-ends represent cherubim, below which
are large carved crockets, models for boldness of outline and vigorous
crispness of execution. The occurrence on the elbows respectively of
a lion and an antelope, chained and collared, both of them seated on
their haunches, confines the production of the work within determinate
historical limits. The lion has been described as “chained,” but
after examining it in search of the chain, I came to the conclusion
that the latter is merely a wavy lock of the lion’s mane. As to whether
there is a chain or not will probably always remain a moot question,
like the heads of the famous lions over the gate of Mycenæ. Assuming,
then, that this particular lion is chainless, it would stand either
for the lion of England or the white lion of the house of March; while
the antelope, gorged and chained, is the familiar cognisance of the
de Bohuns. These two together would be the heraldic supporters of
Edward IV. (1466–1483), and therefore bear out the presumption that
the rood-loft and screen were erected in his time by bequest of Lord
Mountjoy. This nobleman’s will, dated 1474, directs that the parish
church and chancel of Our Lady at Elvaston should be “made up and
finished completely” at the cost of his estate. The “chancel” referred
to can hardly be other than the enclosed chapel, now occupied by
the Earl of Harrington’s family pew, in the south aisle. As long as
the stall ends remained in their original situation attached to the
rood-screen, the heraldry they display afforded a valuable clue to the
date of its execution. But their dislocation and perversion amounts
to the falsification of a historical document. For who that in years
to come shall see them as at present made up into sham sedilia, will
ever be able to identify them for what they truly are? The harm,
done, however, is happily not irremediable, for the stall ends can
yet be restored to their rightful place. To do so without delay is no
more than an act of justice due to the past and the present, as also
to future generations. The dimensions of the Elvaston rood-screen
(exclusive of the modern accretions) are: height, 10 ft. 7 in., and
length, 16 ft. 4 in. The bays centre at two feet, the doorway having
a clear opening of 3 ft. 8 in., with a height of 8 ft. 3 in. from
the floor level to the crown of the door-head arch. The latter is
segmental, and on the under side feathered with rose-tipped cusps.
The shield in the middle is modern, and so also (though doubtless
a reproduction of the old) is much of the encrusted ornament which
surmounts the door-head. The pattern of it is one of inter-twisted
stems, branching into crockets on the upper side. The fenestration on
either side of the doorway has a clear opening of 5 ft. 8½ in. high,
with tracery (forming the outline of an ogival arch) and encrusted
ornament in the heads to the depth of 35½ inches. An embattled transom
runs through the head of the side bays, but is arrested in the two bays
of the doorway. Beneath the fenestration the solid part of the screen
is 4 ft. 3 in. high; each bay with tracery in the head to the depth of
11½ inches. The whole screen is a magnificent specimen of Perpendicular
design. The parclose in the south aisle encloses the easternmost bay
of the nave arcade. It measures 17 feet long from east to west, and
then, turning at a right angle, with a length of 14 feet from north
to south, joins the south wall of the aisle. Its height, exclusive of
the stone platform on which it is mounted, is 8 ft. 10½ in. It has a
doorway of 2 ft. 1½ in. wide on the north, and one of 1 ft. 11½ in. on
the west. The bays or compartments vary from 18½ inches to 21 inches
wide. The height of the fenestration is 54½ inches, with tracery in
the heads to the depth of 25½ inches. The lower part of the screen
is 46 inches high, and it is pierced, parclose fashion, by a band of
pierced tracery, forming long panels 9½ inches high. For the rest, this
parclose is similar in design to the rood-screen, only that the main
shafts of the parclose are more handsomely treated with buttresses and
tall, graceful gables, terminating in crocketed pinnacles. The cavetto
of the lintel contains square Gothic pateras. Neither screen shows any
trace of colour. No rood-entrance nor stair remains, but from the plan
of the building it is evident that the former rood-loft could not have
exceeded in length the width of the nave.
[Illustration: Elvaston Church: Rood-Screen (restored).]
Fenny Bentley.—There is no structural division between nave and
chancel, and the rood-screen has been repeatedly shifted backwards
and forwards, but it is now standing approximately in its original
position. Injured, but surviving the many dangers and vicissitudes
through which it had to pass, it remained without repair until about
1848–50, when it underwent complete “restoration” (the vaulting being
practically all renewed), and that very creditably done for the time.
The screen is 18 ft 2 in. long by 9 ft. 4½ in. high. It consists of
eight bays (centring 2 ft. 3¼ in.), whereof the two midmost go to
make the doorway, which is 6 ft. 0¼ in. high to the crown of its
four-centred arch, with a clear opening of 4 ft. 1½ in., protected by
gates. The fenestration openings are four-centred, and measure 5 feet
high from crown to cill, with tracery in the heads to the depth of 1
ft. 8¾ in., nine inches below the level of the vault-springing. The
door-lintel has the left-hand spandril carved with a fox and a goose in
his mouth; the right-hand spandril with a Gothic flower, not a rose.
The lower part of the screen is 3 ft. high, the rail being ornamented
with geometrical tracery. The ridiculous travesty of metal stanchions
and saddle-bars, carried out in wood, ought to be got rid of as soon
as possible. They may not deceive at the present day, but the danger
is that the longer they are allowed to remain, the more they will tone
down until they have acquired that specious air of antiquity which may
enable them to pass for genuine, until some expert will detect the
fraud, and perhaps be provoked on their account to call in question
the authenticity of the whole screen into which they have become thus
unwarrantably intruders. There is no vaulting at the top of the screen
on the eastern side. The loft floor measures 57 inches from front
to back, exclusive of the modern cresting on the front. There is no
sign of any entrance to the rood-loft, but the stair was probably on
the north side, in the wall which has now been rebuilt and converted
into an arcade. The rood-screen exhibits a fully-matured phase of
Perpendicular. It has been variously dated from 1460 to 1500. One
local tradition declared it to have been erected by Thomas Beresford
(of Agincourt fame) as a thank-offering after the Wars of the Roses.
At any rate, it must have been already _in situ_ before 1512, when a
chantry was founded by James Beresford, LL.D., and there being no aisle
nor chapel to contain the altar, a parclose screen was erected round
it in the south-east corner of the nave. The enclosure had its own
flooring of encaustic tiles. Locally called “the cage,” it stood in
its original place untouched until 1877, when, in the same year of his
appointment to the rectory of Fenny Bentley, Rev. E. J. Hayton, with
the proverbial officiousness of a new broom, nimbly cleared it aside.
The only possible justification for this disturbance of a historic
landmark is that it enables the beautiful rood-screen to be seen to
greater advantage than it could have been while the other screen stood
in front of it. The exact place where the parclose abutted on to the
rood-screen is defined by a missing moulding and a light mark in the
wood of the lower part of the bay immediately to the south of the
entrance gates (see illustration). Subsequently the displaced parclose,
incorporated with much new work, was set up, in one continuous length,
between the modern north aisle of the nave and the modern north chapel.
It now measures 14 ft. 8 in. long by 6 ft. 8 in. high, and consists
of thirteen rectagonal compartments, with two different patterns of
tracery in the head; eight of one pattern and five of the other.
Hathersage.—A small piece of carved oak tracery of Perpendicular style,
being part of a screen originally in this church, was to be seen
subsequently among the objects in the Lomberdale House Museum.
Hault Hucknall.—In 1875 there were kept in the vestry two fragments
of oak tracery of Perpendicular design; placed, one upside down, with
their two lower edges contiguous, so that the arched forms were made
to appear like circles. They are thus depicted in the first volume
of Cox’s _Derbyshire Churches_. Beside these, in the eighties of
the nineteenth century, there were in the church tower several more
pieces of tracery and at least one long beam; all of them portions,
presumably, of former screenwork.
Hope.—The rood-screen, including its gates, complete, is surmised to
have remained standing through all the disasters of the civil wars—at
least until the closing days of Oliver Cromwell’s Protectorate—because
of an incidental reference under the date 1658. In a list of the
parochial Easter dues discharged in that year, occurs the item of a sum
received from young people “at the chancell gate.” This might, however,
have meant no more than the spot in the alley where chancel and nave
converge, since the common spelling of the word “gate” of the present
day was “yate” until the eighteenth century, the original sense of
“gate” being rather the equivalent of gangway, path, or thoroughfare.
At any rate, all that was left of the screen by 1881 was the oak beam
of the plinth or base, showing that there had been at that point one
step ascending from the nave into the chancel. This historical relic,
however, was not respected, for in 1881–2, the vicar, Rev. Henry
Buckston, following the example of Dr. Hutchinson, the bane of All
Hallows’, in obstinate defiance of remonstrances, subjected the old
chancel to the most drastic and unnecessary treatment.
Horsley.—In or about the year 1825 it was noted by Rev. R. R. Rawlins
that “a screen of rudely ornamented open-work surrounded a portion of
the north aisle.”
Kirk Langley.—There were originally three screens in this church,
namely, the rood-screen and two parcloses. All three of them have been
so repeatedly altered and mixed up that it is difficult to follow
their history with certain accuracy. The year of darkest tragedy in
the annals of the fabric was 1839, when a devastating “restoration”
ravaged the ancient wood-fittings. Hitherto the parclose-screen of the
Meynell chantry, standing at the eastern extremity of the north aisle,
and extending as far as the centre of the first arch, had remained;
but it was then removed, and certain portions of it made into a
reredos. These fragments, and whatever else could be found belonging
to the same parclose, were diligently gathered together by Rev. Frank
Meynell, and are now incorporated in a new parclose encompassing the
first bay of the north aisle. The cornice, much repaired, contains a
handsome border, 4¾ inches deep, of vine and grape ornament upon a wave
basis; and there are, in all, fourteen of the old panels, carefully
patched together and mounted on canvas backing to strengthen them.
They comprise seven (or, to count one slight variant as additional,
eight) distinct patterns of late Perpendicular in point of date, but
such that so far from being jaded or commonplace, give the lie to the
“correct” view of the decadence of later mediæval art, and testify
to the inexhaustible vitality and resourcefulness of Gothic fancy to
the end. The other parclose stood between the south aisle and the
south chapel, screening the Twyford chantry. In 1710 Bassano noted the
screen, with the arms of Twyford over its entrance doorway. By 1879
this parclose had been demolished, and parts of it made up with the
rood-screen, which yet stood _in situ_, presenting an incongruous blend
of Perpendicular and earlier woodwork. Even this, however, has since
given place to a brand-new screen, and whatever still remains of the
ancient screenwork is now embodied in the box-door in the west tower,
as above described. The abolished rood-loft must have been approached
from the south, for, although there are no longer any traces to be seen
of it, in 1879 it was noted that “the squint from the Twyford quire is
within the doorway of the old stairs leading to the rood-loft.”
[Illustration: Kirk Langley Church: Details from Parcloses of North and
South Aisles.]
Long Eaton.—“Within the chancel (now used as a vestry),” writes Rev.
Dr. Cox in 1879, “is a piece of old oak carving, which was found, in
1868, used as a joist under the floor. It looks as if it had been part
of the cornice of the rood-screen, and is carved with three four-leaved
flowers and two heads. Its date is _circa_ 1460.” This carving was
probably displaced and abused in the manner described, in 1731, when
the church is known to have undergone re-pewing and other “repairs.”
The ancient rood-loft extended from side to side of the nave, which is
20 ft. 6 in. wide—or rather it should be, if the whole building had not
been tampered with and falsified in 1868.
Longford.—The eastern extremity of both the aisles was formerly
partitioned off by carved oak parcloses to form chantry chapels, but
in 1826 both these screens were demolished. “From the east wall of
the nave, close to the north side of the chancel archway, projects” a
stone corbel, which must have had some connection with the ancient rood
arrangements, as a support either for the loft or the rood-beam.
Longstone.—“The east end of the south aisle is” [1877] “shut off by
an old oak screen, so as to form a family pew. It has a finely carved
cornice, and on the north side has the arms of Eyre impaling Stafford
... and over the door which forms the west entrance to the screen is
the well-known crest of the Eyre family—an armed leg.”
Mackworth.—Some old oak carving, portions, apparently, of ancient
screenwork, were made up into the wainscot at the back of a seat within
the porch. The ancient rood-loft may be assumed not to have exceeded
the width of the nave, _i.e._, 21 ft. 3 in.
Melbourne.—At the general restoration of the church in 1859–60, the
rood-screen was so unsparingly treated as to make it difficult to tell
what its original design could have been. It is 13 ft. 9 in. long,
and stands at the entrance of the chancel in the eastern crossing.
A drawing, published in the Anastatic Drawing Society’s volume for
1862, represents the church in the process of “restoration.” The
screen, as there depicted, though it cannot have been even then in
its original condition (having lost its vaulting, gates, and solid
part at the bottom), differs considerably from the screen in its
present state. It dated from the Perpendicular period, and consisted
(as in fact it does still) of three bays, the middle one, for the
entrance, being the largest. But the three main arches, which once
constituted its most prominent feature, have since been replaced by
obtuse chevrons, the ungainly massiveness of which is barely relieved
by the ill-designed tracery underneath, or by a recent attempt to
amend the bungling “restoration” of thirty years previously. It was in
1890, or thereabouts, that this unavailing re-restoration took place.
The fact is that nothing can be done with Sir Gilbert Scott’s clumsy
framework. To overlay it with applied ornament is only to emphasise
its defects. There is but one satisfactory remedy, and that is to
remove it altogether, and to replace it by something else fashioned on
the beautiful flowing lines of the old Gothic design. The upper part
contains eight pierced ornaments, 21½ inches in height from the crown
of the two-centred arch to the base of the tracery, and 15 inches in
width. Beyond these there is practically nothing of the original work
left in the whole screen, which not only gives a very poor idea of what
the majestic structure of the fifteenth century must have been, but
also is in every way unworthy of the grandeur of its surroundings.
Mickleover.—Rev. R. R. Rawlins, in 1825, described the entrance from
the nave as being “through a wooden arch,” near to which were the
remains of a piscina. Whether this wooden arch represents the ancient
rood-screen or not, it is impossible to tell. At any rate, the piscina
shows that an altar must anciently have stood against the front of the
screen.
Monyash.—Previously to the “restoration” of 1886–8, in the east wall of
the north transept, at a height of about twelve feet from the ground,
there projected a wide stone, which had served as the step of the
doorway that led on to the top of the rood-loft. The outline of the
doorway itself could be traced until the unhappy changes at the above
date caused it to disappear.
Morley.—This is one of the few Derbyshire instances of which the plan
might have admitted the ancient rood-loft being carried beyond the
width of the nave across the aisles to the outer walls of the church.
At any rate a piscina at the south-east corner of each aisle shows that
there must have been an altar at the end of both aisles, and would also
seem to imply that the aisles themselves were partitioned from the
eastern chapels beyond by screens in a line with the chancel screen. As
to the latter, the tradition in the parish in the time of Rev. S. Fox,
who died in 1870, was that the screen, “rather handsome but decayed,”
had stood in its place until within rather less than 50 or 60 years
of the above date, _i.e._, until as late, perhaps, as 1820, when, not
being thought well of by those in power at the time, it was taken down
and “sold to a farmer in the village for a guinea or so to serve for
a hen-roost or some such agricultural purpose.” However, according
to another account, the rood-screen disappeared when the church was
“repaired and beautified” in or about the year 1800.
Mugginton.—In addition to the parclose before-mentioned, “a good oak
screen of Perpendicular tracery,” it is written in Cox’s _Churches of
Derbyshire_, in 1877, “in fair preservation, with a door in the centre,
divides the” south “aisle from the chapel. Originally this screen has
been continued across the nave, so as to divide it from the chancel.
Part of the base of this screen can still be seen in the supports
of the pews; and a band of well-carved foliage round the pulpit has
probably formed part of the cornice.” It is believed that this screen
was broken up at the time of the ruthless “renovation,” _circa_ 1845.
Norbury.—The rood-screen had been fine, but was much mutilated in 1840,
according to Sir Stephen Glynne. This screen has since been cheaply and
very badly “restored.” It was originally vaulted, but is now made up
in a new framework of rectagonal form. The original portions consist
of the misused fenestration tracery. These number eight complete, and,
over the doorway, two incomplete pierced ornaments, 29 inches deep,
and averaging 19 inches wide. Upon some of them are traces of scarlet
colour. They are of Perpendicular workmanship, and are all plain and
smooth at the back. On the east side of the bottom part of the screen
are eight of the original panel-heads of blind tracery, 14¼ inches wide
by 10½ inches deep. There is no sign of the rood-stair. There being no
chancel arch, there must have been ample space for the display of the
rood on a beam across the chancel opening above the rood-loft, which
would have extended across the width of the nave, 19 ft. 6 in. The
eastern part of the chancel is panelled with oak, which might have come
from the former rood-loft. Along the top of this wainscot runs what
looks like a breast-summer, consisting of mouldings and a pierced band
of vine ornament, to the length altogether of somewhat over 25 feet.
The eastern end of the north aisle was formerly screened by a carved
oak parclose, which, however, disappeared in 1841.
Ockbrook.—The screen having been brought hither from Wigston Hospital,
Leicester, is not to be reckoned among the screens of Derbyshire.
Osmaston, a chapelry of Brailsford.—In 1834 it was noted that a small,
plain screen of wood stood between nave and chancel. The entire fabric,
however, was swept away in 1844–5, and rebuilt from the ground.
Radbourne.—A parclose, dating from the fifteenth century, if not
earlier, formerly screened in the eastern portion of the north aisle.
Repton.—In the parish church, “traces of the stairway to the rood-loft
across the chancel arch can still” (it was written in 1876) “be seen
in the north-east angle of the south aisle, and it is probable that
it was ... removed” in 1792, when the whole church underwent the
ordeal of “beautifying” in accordance with the degraded taste of the
period. It is, however, only just to the “restorers” of that date to
mention that they did abolish the cumbrous blank walls which they found
obstructing the openings between the aisles and the corresponding
eastern chapels—walls that had, at some previous era of barbarism,
been erected, there can be little doubt, in place of the original
carved wood parcloses. It is on record that remains of ecclesiastical
screenwork, with armorial devices, had become dispersed about the
place, and, falling into private hands, were worked up into panelling
for a dining-room, the wainscot of a summer-house, and other such-like
profane uses.
Sandiacre.—“Up to 1855” (the quotation is from Cox’s _Churches of
Derbyshire_), “there were some parts of the old rood-screen still
remaining across the chancel arch of Decorated date. Some of this
tracery has been used up in the reading-desk, and the pulpit has been
made to correspond.” The length of the vanished rood-loft cannot have
exceeded the width of the nave, namely, 22 ft. 9 in.
Sawley.—The oak rood-screen extends from side to side of the chancel,
18 ft. 5 in. Its height is 9 ft. 7 in. The heavy lintel is embattled
and moulded. The doorway is a plain, rectagonal opening of 3 ft. 5½
in. wide, and without gates. On either side of it are five rectagonal
compartments or lights, separated by muntins, and opening 51½
inches high, centred from 1 ft. 3 in. to 1 ft. 5½ in., with early
Perpendicular tracery in the heads to the depth of 11 inches, smooth
on the eastward surface. The solid part at the bottom consists of a
deep, moulded rail and, below, rectagonal panelling without tracery.
The westward face of each of the doorway jambs is buttressed, the
buttress having a square base. The joinery as a whole is so very coarse
and rude as to suggest the product of a rural workshop. The eastern
portion of each aisle was formerly screened from the rest of the church
by parcloses, which stood intact until 1838. The base of that section
of the southern parclose which ran from east to west between the aisle
and the nave, was removed on the plea of expediency not long ago by the
present rector, who broke it up and caused the soundest parts of it
to be turned into music desks for the choir boys in the chancel. The
only portions, therefore, that now remain are the lower halves of the
western section of either parclose running from north to south. That
in the north aisle (which enclosed the chantry of Our Lady) extends
over a length of 16 ft. 1½ in., with an interval of 2 ft. 8½ in. for
the entrance. It consists of five compartments, and stands 4 ft. 3½ in.
high, the buttressed muntins sawn off to the level of the fenestration
cill. Below the rail is a horizontal panel of pierced tracery, 7 inches
deep; and, below, panels with blind tracery in the heads to the depth
of 7½ inches. What is left of the parclose in the south aisle extends
over a length of 12 ft. 11 in., with an interval of 2 ft. 7¼ in. for
the entrance. It consists of eight rectagonal compartments, and stands
4 ft. 3 in. high, the buttressed muntins being likewise cut off to the
level of the cill. Both these parcloses are Perpendicular, and exhibit
a much more refined standard of execution than does the rood-screen.
Smalley.—The mediæval church was destroyed in 1722, but in 1855, on the
removal of the gallery in the modern building, there was discovered an
ancient beam “enriched with deep, hollow chamfers,” in which pateras
of Gothic leafage and other ornaments “were carved at intervals of
about eighteen inches.” It was apparently of about the date 1460. This
may have been only an unusually elaborate roof-principal; but, on the
other hand, it might have been the old rood-beam or one of the timbers
from the rood-loft or screen.
Spondon.—The rood-loft must have been of the same extent as the nave’s
width, 23 ft. 2 in. A disastrous “beautifying” process in 1826–7,
besides other irreparable damage, bodily removed the fifteenth century
oak rood-screen which stood across the chancel arch opening of 15 ft.
2½ in. At the same time the steps of the rood-stair were cut away to
make room for the flue-pipe of a stove. The entrance remains in the
south-east corner of the north aisle. The doorway is 2 feet wide, and
measures 6 ft. 10 in. in height to the apex of the depressed ogee of
the door-head.
Staveley.—In 1710, Francis Bassano noted at the east end of the
nave, above a family pew, “a large molding, being (the) upper beam
of ye rood-loft, and on (the) wood is cut ye paternal coat armour of
Frecheville (azure, a bend between six escallops, argent) held by an
angel on his breast.” Further details are contained in a letter, dated
October, 1816, which states that “the rood-loft at Staveley, which
remained pretty entire since the Reformation, was taken down about
twenty-five years ago”—which would have been _circa_ 1790—“to let more
light into the church.”