'A pillar curiously engraven; with some inscription upon it': What is the Ruthwell Cross? 9781841718675, 9781407320465

Citation preview

BAR 397 2005  O’NEILL  WHAT IS THE RUTHWELL CROSS?

‘A pillar curiously engraven; with some inscription upon it’: What is the Ruthwell Cross?

Pamela O’Neill

BAR British Series 397 9 781841 718675

B A R

2005

‘A pillar curiously engraven; with some inscription upon it’: What is the Ruthwell Cross? Pamela O’Neill

BAR British Series 397 2005

Published in 2016 by BAR Publishing, Oxford BAR British Series 397 ‘A pillar curiously engraven; with some inscription upon it’: What is the Ruthwell Cross? © P O’Neill and the Publisher 2005 The author's moral rights under the 1988 UK Copyright, Designs and Patents Act are hereby expressly asserted. All rights reserved. No part of this work may be copied, reproduced, stored, sold, distributed, scanned, saved in any form of digital format or transmitted in any form digitally, without the written permission of the Publisher.

ISBN 9781841718675 paperback ISBN 9781407320465 e-format DOI https://doi.org/10.30861/9781841718675 A catalogue record for this book is available from the British Library BAR Publishing is the trading name of British Archaeological Reports (Oxford) Ltd. British Archaeological Reports was first incorporated in 1974 to publish the BAR Series, International and British. In 1992 Hadrian Books Ltd became part of the BAR group. This volume was originally published by Archaeopress in conjunction with British Archaeological Reports (Oxford) Ltd / Hadrian Books Ltd, the Series principal publisher, in 2005. This present volume is published by BAR Publishing, 2016.

BAR

PUBLISHING BAR titles are available from:

E MAIL P HONE F AX

BAR Publishing 122 Banbury Rd, Oxford, OX2 7BP, UK [email protected] +44 (0)1865 310431 +44 (0)1865 316916 www.barpublishing.com

‘A pillar curiously engraven; with some inscription upon it’: What is the Ruthwell Cross?

Between Anandale and Eskdale lyeth Wachopdale, so called from the water of Wachop running through it; and is much of the same nature with the adjacent Countries already described. The most ancient monument remarkable hereabouts is St Ruth’s Church, where is a Pillar curiously engraven; with some inscription upon it. Camden’s Britannia 1695

Behold unexpectedly I came across a cross of wonderful height which is in the church at Ruthwell with beautiful images telling the story of Christ, decorated elegantly and splendidly with vines, animals and incised on two sides with foreign but fluent letters ascending from the base to the summit and also from the summit to the base. Reginald Bainbrigg c1600

As I see it, the Ruthwell cross is an inelegant thing. What passes as reconstruction is an awkward mixture of five or six carved Anglo-Saxon stones – as we will see the number is uncertain and likely to remain so – and six blocks (one of which is best described as a wedge) of convenience from the nineteenth century cemented together with crude pointing which occasionally attempts to serve as modelling. Fred Orton 1998

Anent the report of idolatrous monuments in the Kirk of Ruthwell the Assemblie finds that the monument therein mentioned is idolatrous, and therefore recommends to the Presbyterie that they carefully urge the order prescrived by the Acts of Parliament anent the abolishing of these monuments, to be put to execution. General Assembly of the Church of Scotland 1642

3

Contents Contents

5

Acknowledgements

11

Photographic Acknowledgements

11

Chapter 1: Introduction

13

The Ruthwell Cross

13

The questions

13

The book

13

The chapters

14

Chapter 2: What is the Ruthwell Cross?

17

Description South face North face East face West face

17 17 18 18 18

History of the monument Before the Reformation The Reformation After the Reformation Re-erection in the manse garden Relocation into the church

19 19 19 20 21 22

Present condition South face North face East face West face

23 23 24 25 25

Conclusion

25

Chapter 3: Where is the Ruthwell Cross?

27

Kings, queens, bishops and abbesses

27

Carlisle

28

Cumbria

29

Whithorn

29

Bewcastle

30

Annan district

30

Roman roads

30

Ruthwell

31

Conclusion

31

5

Pamela O’Neill

Chapter 4: Literature Review

33

Vinescroll

33

Figural sculpture

34

Latin inscriptions

35

Runic inscription

35

Other works

35

Catalogues

36

Chapter 5: Statistical Analysis of Vinescroll

37

Multivariate analysis

37

Preliminary experimentation

37

Sample

38

Attributes

39

Results

40

Discussion

41

Chapter 6: Statistical Analysis of Figural Sculpture

45

Sample

45

Attributes

46

Process

46

Results

47

Outliers

47

Isolated units

47

Discussion

48

Chapter 7: Latin Inscriptions

51

Multivariate analysis

51

Results

51

Discussion

52

Relationship to figural panels South face: Christ and Magdalene South face: healing scene South face: Annunciation South face: Crucifixion North face: worshipping beasts North face: Paul and Anthony North face: Egypt journey Upper stone: Mary and Martha Upper stone: Agnus Dei

52 52 54 54 54 54 55 55 56 56

Conclusion

56

Chapter 8: Runic Inscription

59

Workmanship

59

Futhorc

59

6

‘A pillar curiously engraven; with some inscription upon it’: What is the Ruthwell Cross? Text

60

Interpretation

60

‘The Dream of the Rood’

61

Other comparable material

61

Alternative reading

63

The nature of Christ

64

Conclusion

64

Chapter 9: The Upper Stone

65

Vinescroll and figural sculpture

65

Inscriptions

66

Stone types

66

Stone shapes

68

Folk traditions

68

How many monuments?

69

Conclusion

70

Chapter 10: By Whose Hands?

71

East and west, north and south Vinescroll Figural sculpture Inscriptions Conclusion

71 71 71 71 72

Relationships to ivory carvings

72

Relationships to manuscripts

73

Relationships to Romano-British sculpture

73

Relationships to Pictish sculpture

74

Relationships to Anglo-Saxon sculpture

74

Conclusion

75

Chapter 11: For Whose Eyes?

77

The desert

77

The Virgin Mary

77

Mary Magdalene

77

The Cross

78

Christ

79

Theme or narrative

79

For whose eyes?

80

Chapter 12: Epilogue

81

Bibliography

83

7

Pamela O’Neill

Illustrations for Chapter 2

93

Figure A: The Ruthwell Cross

94

Figure B: Bainbrigg's drawing of Ruthwell runes

99

Figure C: Nicolson's drawing of Ruthwell inscriptions

100

Figure D: Ruthwell Cross in manse garden

101

Figure E: Dods' sketch of Ruthwell Cross

104

Figure F: Architect's drawing of mechanism for moving Ruthwell Cross

105

Figure G: Ruthwell Cross c1890

106

Illustrations for Chapter 3

107

Map A: Ruthwell in context

108

Map B: Mountainous areas

109

Map C: Cumbria

110

Map D: Whithorn area

111

Map E: Annan district

112

Map F: Possible Roman roads

113

Figure A: Ruthwell church

114

Illustrations for Chapter 5

115

Figure A: MV Nutshell vinescroll plots

116

Figure B: MV Nutshell inhabited vinescroll plots

116

Figure C: Preliminary minimum spanning tree

117

Figure D: Inhabited vinescroll sample

119

Table A: Inhabited vinescroll attributes

133

Table B: Inhabited vinescroll data

134

Figure E: Inhabited vinescroll minimum spanning tree

141

Illustrations for Chapter 6

143

Figure A: Figural sculpture sample

144

Table A: Figural sculpture attributes

157

Table B: Figural sculpture data

158

Figure B: Figural sculpture minimum spanning tree

165

Figure C: Additional figural sculpture minimum spanning tree

167

Illustrations for Chapter 7

169

Figure A: Inscription sample

170

Table A: Inscription attributes

185

Table B: Inscription data

186

Figure B: Inscription minimum spanning tree

191

8

‘A pillar curiously engraven; with some inscription upon it’: What is the Ruthwell Cross?

Illustrations for Chapter 8

193

Figure A: Arrangement of inscriptions

194

Figure B: Ruthwell Cross futhorc

195

Table A: Ruthwell Cross poem

196

Illustrations for Chapter 9

199

Figure A: Arrangement of component parts

200

Illustrations for Chapter 10

203

Figure A: The Franks Casket

204

Figure B: Roman goddess, Carlisle museum

204

Figure C: Roman goddess, Chesters

204

Figure D: Pictish symbols

205

Figure E: Pictish 'beast head'

205

Figure F: Pictish horse and rider

205

Illustrations for Chapter 12

207

Figure A: My proposed 'original' Ruthwell monument

9

208

‘A pillar curiously engraven; with some inscription upon it’: What is the Ruthwell Cross?

Acknowledgements This book is based on a thesis which was submitted in fulfilment of the requirements for the degree of Doctor of Philosophy in Celtic Studies at the University of Sydney in 1999.

monument and the church. Rene Anderson, curator of the Savings Banks Museum in Ruthwell, was extremely generous with her time, resources and local knowledge. I was able to examine and photograph stone sculpture at many churches, museums and historic sites throughout the British Isles, and was sometimes assisted by attendants or curators. My 1999 travel was assisted by a grant from the Faculty of Arts at the University of Sydney.

The minimum spanning tree programme used in the statistical analysis which forms an important part of the thesis was written to my requirements by my brother David Blackman, a freelance computer programmer, using Perl. Some of the preliminary experimentation for the analysis used MV Nutshell, developed by Richard Wright of the University of Sydney. I received help in various stages of the preliminary experimentation from Michael Barry, John Clegg and Michael Coleman.

I wish to thank my supervisor, Aedeen Cremin of Celtic Studies, whose advice, support and friendship over many years have been very valuable to me. My associate supervisors, Lyn Olson of History and John Clegg of Archaeology, were also extremely generous with advice, knowledge and time.

I was assisted in preparing the appendices by Stephane Bowker, whose expertise and generosity with her time and equipment contributed greatly to their technical quality. Marie Dunn kindly proof-read a draft of the thesis.

While I have made only very minor revisions in preparing the thesis to be published as a book, those revisions have benefited from the comments of the thesis’s examiners, particularly Rosemary Cramp. I am very grateful to Tony Earls and Julianna Grigg for their practical help while I was preparing the book for publication.

I twice travelled to the British Isles to research this work. In 1996, I benefited from advice from Peter Hill and Senga Mitchell of the Whithorn Dig and Maree-Lee Haynes of Dumfries Museum. In 1999, I received helpful comments from Éamonn Ó Carragáin of University College Cork and Dan McCarthy of Trinity College Dublin. In Ruthwell, I was assisted by the Church of Scotland minister, Jim Williamson, who gave me access to papers in his possession and talked about the

My husband Andrew O’Neill acted as research assistant, proof-reader, travel agent and housekeeper as the need arose. I am extremely grateful to him for his support and patience. This book is for my children Mairi-Ceit, Natalie and Patrick.

Photographic Acknowledgements All photographs, maps, plans and tables are by the author unless otherwise acknowledged in the captions. Captions indicate the copyright of illustrations not by the author, or, where I believe the illustration to be in the public domain, the source of the illustration as listed in the bibliography. I have made every effort to trace the owners of copyright material and offer my apologies to any copyright holder whose rights I may have unwittingly infringed.

I wish to thank The Museum of Antiquities of the University and Society of Antiquaries of Newcastle upon Tyne; The Institute of Archaeology, University of Oxford; The British Library; the National Museums of Scotland; and the Corpus of Anglo-Saxon Stone Sculpture for their assistance and for kind permission to reproduce photographs.

11

Chapter 1: Introduction The Ruthwell Cross

have made the Ruthwell Cross, and what their influences and models were.

The Ruthwell Cross is near the village of Ruthwell, Dumfriesshire, in south-west Scotland. It is inside the Ruthwell parish church, in a purpose-built semi-circular apse with a sunken floor.

Any comprehensive explanation of the use and message of the monument must address the inscriptions and sculpture on all four faces. Few discussions of the meaning of the monument address all of its aspects. Perhaps most importantly, no work has been published which addresses both the workmanship issues and the issues of theme and meaning of the Ruthwell Cross.

It is a sculptured stone monument in the shape of a freestanding cross about 5.3m tall. It has a tall tapering rectanguloid shaft which is approximately 0.7m wide at the base. The transom is close to the top of the monument and just under 1m across. The monument is positioned with its broad faces to the north and south and its narrow faces or sides to the east and west.

The original form of the Ruthwell Cross has not been established. Suggestions have been made, but not pursued with any vigour, that the monument in its current form includes parts of more than one early medieval monument. The questions about workmanship and meaning cannot properly be resolved when the object under discussion has not been defined.

The north and south faces are covered by panels which contain figural sculpture. Each panel is surrounded by a margin bearing a Latin inscription. The east and west faces each have long panels with vinescroll ornament surrounded by a margin bearing an inscription in Old English runes.

The book This book aims towards a comprehensive explanation of the Ruthwell Cross. It seeks to define the form of the early medieval monument or monuments incorporated in the reconstruction. It considers the issues relating to workmanship and likeness to other sculpture. Conclusions are drawn as to the likely background of the artists, and probable sources for their models. The book also examines the questions of meaning, message and audience. Suggestions are made about the nature of the religious community for whom the monument was made. This book addresses a wide range of questions about the Ruthwell Cross and suggests why, how and for whom it was made.

The monument has had a colourful history. It was first made in the early medieval period. It was thrown down and considerably damaged in the Reformation. Several broken pieces survived, scattered inside and outside the church. They were collected and combined by the minister in the early nineteenth century. He found insufficient fragments to complete the cross, so parts of the present monument date from the nineteenth century.

The questions The Ruthwell Cross has attracted a considerable amount of scholarly interest and generated a great deal of literature since the eighteenth century. For the most part, recent scholars have taken one of two approaches to the study of the monument. One approach is to discuss the detail of the Ruthwell Cross in terms of workmanship, models, workshops and schools of sculpture, comparing Ruthwell with sculpture from elsewhere in Britain and overseas. Others address the question of the meaning or message of the monument, and its use within the religious life of the community for whom it was made.

The book aims to perform three distinct functions. First (Chapters 2-4), it will establish the form, condition and context of the Ruthwell Cross, and the position of current scholarship about the Ruthwell Cross. This exercise is primarily a gathering together and assessment of existing disparate sources, although it relies heavily on a careful examination of physical evidence including the monument itself, drawings and photographs, the fabric of the church, and the topography of the surrounding area.

To date, scholarly achievement lacks a satisfactory combination of both approaches, or a thoroughly conclusive solution to either.

Second (Chapters 5-8), the book will analyse four major features of the Ruthwell Cross: the vinescroll, the figural sculpture, the Latin inscriptions, and the Runic inscription. In the first three cases, this analysis will include detailed statistical analysis of the degrees of likeness between the Ruthwell Cross and other early medieval sculpture of the British Isles. The statistical analysis is a major project which contributes a new approach and some quantitative evidence based on hard data to existing discussions of the relationships between the sculpture at Ruthwell and that of other Anglo-Saxon

Scholars have sought possible influences or sources for aspects of the Ruthwell sculpture. Comparisons have been made with possible models. Possible products of the same school or workshop have been suggested. Attempts have been made to explain some of the more unusual aspects of the sculpture. No comprehensive explanation has been offered of the artists who might 13

Pamela O’Neill centres. Such discussions have hitherto been based on observation of a small number of particular features or overall appearance. The multivariate nature of the analysis in this book allows a larger number of unweighted attributes to be considered concurrently.

fabric of the church itself to suggest that Ruthwell may have had an early medieval monastery. The site may have continued in use up until the eleventh century when a stone church of considerable size was built, parts of which remain in the fabric of the modern church. This chapter concludes by suggesting that Ruthwell was not an isolated outpost of Northumbria but rather a monastic site which may have been occupied continuously from the sixth century, and which was surrounded by a network of other ecclesiastical sites.

Finally (Chapters 9-11), the book will consider the original form, purpose and location of the monument, and the people associated with it: artists, designer, commissioner and audience. Some of these questions have been addressed previously, with varying degrees of thoroughness. This discussion aims to present a more considered and detailed assessment of the monument’s original form, creating a new basis for future consideration of the monument. The wide-ranging discussion of the people involved in its creation and their aims and methods will present a unified approach to these questions, linking historical figures with material evidence to postulate a context for the original Ruthwell monument.

Chapter 4 (‘Literature Review’) reviews the scholarly background to the four analysis chapters. Literature concerning the vinescroll, figural sculpture, Latin inscriptions and Runic inscription on the cross is reviewed to establish the history and current state of the study of each feature. This chapter also reviews the catalogues of early medieval sculpture from which samples are drawn for analysis. Chapter 5 (‘Statistical Analysis of Vinescroll’) makes a detailed analysis of the vinescroll ornament on the east and west faces of the Ruthwell Cross. It begins with an overview of the occurrence of vinescroll in stone sculpture in the British Isles. It then outlines some preliminary experimentation which I carried out using multivariate analysis to compare degrees of likeness of the vinescroll at Ruthwell and on other sculpture. The major analysis work in this chapter uses a minimum spanning tree programme purpose-written for this project by David Blackman. An outline is given of the sample and attributes selected for the analysis project, and of the procedure followed. The results of the analysis are recorded and discussed. They show that the four panels of vinescroll on the Ruthwell Cross are not all of the same workmanship, and that one panel of the Ruthwell vinescroll is remarkably similar to the vinescroll at Bewcastle and Jedburgh. Apart from these links, the Ruthwell vinescroll is shown not to have a strong likeness to any other vinescroll in the sample. The chapter concludes by suggesting that the upper stone and each of the two faces of the lower stone were created by different hands.

The chapters Chapter 2 (‘What is the Ruthwell Cross?’) considers the form and condition of the Ruthwell Cross. It begins with a survey of the current appearance of the monument. The writings of early observers of the monument are then considered, to derive an understanding of the appearance, condition and form of the monument at various times from the seventeenth to the nineteenth centuries. The impact on the monument of the iconoclastic activities following the Reformation and of the actions of various ministers from the Reformation until the restoration of the cross inside the church is examined. The chapter concludes by assessing the condition of the Ruthwell Cross and the damage its various parts have sustained since their manufacture. It suggests the difficulty of studying a monument of which so little of its original form survives. Chapter 3 (‘Where is the Ruthwell Cross?’) explores the region where the Ruthwell Cross is located. It examines the political and ecclesiastical history of the region derived from contemporary sources including the writings of the venerable Bede. The role of Cuthbert, Bishop of Lindisfarne in the seventh century, is emphasised. Places of interest for the early medieval period in the region are discussed. These include Carlisle, where Bede informs us there was considerable ecclesiastical activity, and where some early medieval sculptured stone cross-heads have been found. Sites with ecclesiastical sculpture, place-names and archaeological remains are identified throughout Cumbria, the Whithorn area, and Annan district. These include substantial monastic sites at Whithorn and Hoddam. This chapter establishes that Ruthwell was located within a network of Roman sites, transport and communication routes, suggesting that it was readily accessible during the early medieval period. The excavation of apparently Romanperiod remains at Ruthwell is briefly discussed. Other finds of sculptured stone from Ruthwell combine with the

Chapter 6 (‘Statistical Analysis of Figural Sculpture’) makes a similar detailed analysis of the figural sculpture on the north and south faces of the Ruthwell Cross. It begins with an overview of figural sculpture in the early medieval British Isles and of the panels of figural sculpture on the Ruthwell Cross. An analysis is then carried out using the same minimum spanning tree programme. The sample and attributes are outlined. The process is explained, including the generation of a fictitious sculpture to test the reliability of the method. The results of the analysis are recorded and discussed. They show that apart from Bewcastle there are no close equivalents for the figural sculpture on the Ruthwell Cross. The drapery of the clothing on the Christ figures is examined, and the implication that Christ is shown as a teacher and church leader. It is shown that there are aspects of the sculpture for which there were apparently 14

‘A pillar curiously engraven; with some inscription upon it’: What is the Ruthwell Cross? no models, particularly the figures of Mary Magdalene and the worshipping beasts. Possible sources for the style of these figures are discussed. The evidence shows significant differences between the north and south faces of the Ruthwell Cross.

chapter concludes that the poem joins the figural sculptures to illustrate the proper response to Christ’s incarnation. Chapter 9 (‘The Upper Stone’) addresses the upper stone and its relationship to the lower stone. It begins by identifying the many differences between the two and reviewing comments by some authors on the question. The results of the multivariate analysis of the vinescroll and figural sculpture are reviewed, with particular reference to differences between the upper and lower stones. The differences in the inscriptions are discussed, with particular reference to layout of the inscriptions. The debate about the type and source of the pieces of sandstone is reviewed and the shapes of the various pieces of stone and the way they fit together are examined. The evidence that survives for how the pieces of the upper stone were fitted together is considered. This chapter questions whether the parts of what is now the upper stone were originally part of the same monument.

Chapter 7 (‘Latin Inscriptions’) addresses the Latin inscriptions surrounding the figural panels on the north and south faces of the Ruthwell Cross. It begins with an overview of Latin inscriptions in the British Isles. An analysis of the letterforms and layout is then carried out using the minimum spanning tree programme. This analysis is of limited usefulness because of the fragmentary nature of much of the sample. The results are recorded and discussed. Minor differences between the forms of the inscriptions on the north and south faces are noted, as are more considerable differences between the upper and lower stones. The similarity of the letterforms to decorated manuscripts is considered. The relationship between each inscription and the figural panel it surrounds is evaluated in detail. The significance of the content of each panel and inscription is discussed.

Chapter 10 (‘By Whose Hands?’) considers the workmanship of the Ruthwell Cross. It discusses possible traditions in which the artists or teams might have been trained and possible models for various parts of the sculpture and inscriptions. Much of the sculpture refers to models in ivory and manuscripts. There are some slight reflections of Romano-British stone sculpture. The chapter concludes that the artist was not of the Anglo-Saxon mainstream, and may have come under Pictish influence.

Chapter 8 (‘Runic Inscription’) considers the Runic inscription surrounding the vinescroll on the east and west faces of the Ruthwell Cross. It begins by comparing the Ruthwell inscription to other Anglo-Saxon Runic inscriptions, noting that Ruthwell is unusual in both length and subject matter. The arrangement and workmanship of the runes are considered, noting some differences in execution between the two faces. A discussion of the futhorc used at Ruthwell shows that it is particularly developed, distinguishing between sounds to an unusual extent. The text of the inscription, although severely damaged, is clearly Old English alliterative poetry concerning the Crucifixion. The early interpretations of this text, including its resemblance to the Old English poem ‘The Dream of the Rood’, are reviewed. The resemblance of ‘The Dream of the Rood’ to other Old English poetry and to an Old English inscription on the Brussells Cross is examined, to show that the link between the Ruthwell inscription and ‘The Dream of the Rood’ is not particularly strong. The views of recent scholars on the association of the two are reviewed. An alternative interpretation is proposed, which rejects the assumption that the Ruthwell inscription is an extract from ‘The Dream of the Rood’ and proposes that it is narrated by a human witness to the Crucifixion, perhaps Mary Magdalene. The treatment of Christ in the poem is discussed in the context of early medieval doctrine concerning the nature of Christ. The

Chapter 11 (‘For Whose Eyes?’) addresses the themes of the cross, and the possible audiences for whom it may have been designed. The questions of doctrine and religious life are discussed. The design of the cross is considered in the light of possible religious communities in the Ruthwell area. The chapter concludes that the most likely audience would be predominantly female, because of the emphasis on women in the figural sculpture. It suggests a possible context of a female religious house in the Ruthwell area occupied by persons of Irish, British and Anglo-Saxon descent and affinity, led by a noble Anglo-Saxon abbess and influenced by Lindisfarne. Chapter 12 (‘Epilogue’) reviews the thesis and suggests further work which might be done. It places the methods and findings of this book in their scholarly context. Suggestions are made concerning the future of the Ruthwell Cross and of its study.

15

Chapter 2: What is the Ruthwell Cross? The monument now known as the Ruthwell Cross was created in the nineteenth century. It has taken various forms over the centuries since the original manufacture of its oldest component parts, probably in the early eighth century. This chapter will describe the monument in its current state, and examine descriptions of the monument by various eyewitnesses, seeking evidence for its form and condition from medieval to modern times. It will then attempt to establish what changes have been made to the appearance of the monument since the early medieval period, and therefore how its present condition compares to what might have been its earlier form.

The left and right arms have margins approximately 40mm wide and panels with a whale and a swan respectively. The centre of the cross-head has a raised circular margin approximately 40mm wide enclosing a triangle. The lower arm has a margin approximately 40mm wide bearing traces of an illegible inscription. Within the panel is the profile upper body of a person with a bag, possibly a quiver of arrows, over the shoulder, who aims a longbow towards the upper right. The panel below this has a margin of variable width, ranging from approximately 40mm to approximately 60mm, bearing a partially legible inscription in mixed Runic and Latin alphabets. The upper part of the panel shows the upper bodies of two figures, probably female, turned partially towards each other and embracing. The centre of the panel is roughly dressed flat, and the lower part shows the lower edge of the garments and the feet of two figures in profile. In this book, this panel will be referred to as the Mary and Martha panel.

Description The Ruthwell Cross is currently a freestanding stone sculpture located in a purpose-built semi-circular apse with a sunken floor, on the north side of the parish church at Ruthwell. It is composed of five distinct pieces of New Red Sandstone sculptured in the early medieval period, combined with some modern pieces of stone and modern mortar to form a standing cross with a total height of 5.28m. It is aligned with the broad faces approximately to the south and north, and the narrow faces or sides approximately to the east and west. The base is set into the concrete floor of the apse. The lowest visible part is rectanguloid and measures 0.69m east-west by 0.46m north-south. The sides taper to 0.38m by 0.29m at the very top of the monument. The transom, which is modern, is 0.94m across and runs east-west. The lower part of the shaft is thicker, projecting 0.1m on the west and less on the east, with shoulders at a height of 1.12m. The head of the cross has cusped terminals and curved armpits.

The next panel has a margin approximately 60mm wide, which at the top forms a second adjacent margin to that of the panel above. The margin contains a mostly legible Latin inscription on all four sides. The panel shows a frontal standing figure with cruciferous nimbus and shoulder-length curly hair with his head slightly inclined. He wears complex garments with multiple folds. His left hand is covered by his garment and holds a square object. His right hand is raised vertically from the elbow. His lower legs and feet are bare. Below and in front of his feet is the profile upper body of a female figure, whose head is bent over his right foot. Her right hand holds her exceptionally long hair to his left foot. In this book, this panel will be referred to as the Christ and Magdalene panel.

Photographs of each of the panels in the following description of the monument are at Figure A. This description will address each panel from top to bottom of each face. The texts of the inscriptions can be found in the chapters on the Latin and Runic inscriptions.

The panel below this has a margin approximately 60mm wide containing a partially legible Latin inscription on parts of the two vertical sides. The lower two-fifths of the panel is flat and slightly pitted. The remainder of the panel shows the upper bodies and upper legs of two figures. The figure on the left has a cruciferous nimbus and is partially turned towards the other figure. His left hand holds the edge of his garment, and his right hand, covered by a fold of the garment, reaches towards the chest of the second figure. The figure on the right is slightly shorter and has shoulder-length hair. It is turned almost in profile towards the other figure. In this book, this panel will be referred to as the healing panel.

South face The south face is divided into panels surrounded by raised flat margins. There are five tall narrow rectanguloid panels on the cross-shaft. The cross-head is composed of four irregularly shaped panels around a central circular panel. Each panel contains sculpture in relief. The uppermost arm of the cross-head has a margin approximately 40mm wide, on which are illegible traces of inscription. The panel shows a person with a bird, possibly an eagle.

The next panel has a margin approximately 60mm wide with a partially legible Latin inscription on the upper and part of the left sides. Within the panel are two nimbed 17

Pamela O’Neill figures turned slightly towards each other, wearing anklelength garments. The figure on the left has wings behind its shoulders and holds its hands in front of its chest. The figure on the right has long hair. In this book, this panel will be referred to as the Annunciation panel.

crossing below their snouts, which touch in the centre. The animal on the left has two ears. That on the right has one ear and one eye. In this book, this panel will be referred to as the worshipping beasts panel. Below this is a panel with parts of a margin approximately 60mm wide on all sides. There are fragments of partially legible Latin inscription on the upper and two vertical sides. Within the panel are two standing figures in full-length robes turned slightly towards each other. They have very short hair, and the figure on the right has a large ear. They hold between them at chest height a rounded object with a vertical groove in the middle. In this book, this panel will be referred to as the Paul and Anthony panel.

The lowest panel on the south face is rectanguloid and contains low rough relief in a flat cross shape. In front of the lower part of the cross are two long shapes which could be bare legs. Above the arms of the cross are circular shapes, and below the arms are two tall thin irregular shapes, one of which has a projection which extends onto the cross. In this book, this panel will be referred to as the Crucifixion panel.

North face

The next panel has a margin approximately 60mm wide at the top and part of the left side, which contains fragments of a partially legible Latin inscription. It shows a female figure holding a baby and seated sidesaddle on a donkey. Above the donkey’s head is an irregular shape that may be part of a palm tree. In this book, this panel will be referred to as the Egypt journey panel.

The north face is divided into panels surrounded by raised flat margins. There are five tall narrow rectanguloid panels on the cross-shaft. The cross-head is composed of four irregularly shaped panels around a central circular panel. The uppermost arm of the cross has a margin approximately 40mm wide with illegible traces of inscription. In the panel, a bird with a curved beak, its body frontal and head profile, perches on a short curved branch terminating in a bunch of berries.

The lowest panel on the north face shows no sign of figural sculpture or inscription. Its surface is smooth but uneven.

East face

The left and right arms have margins approximately 40mm wide and irregularly shaped panels with a rooster and a sheep respectively. The centre of the cross-head has a circular margin approximately 40mm wide enclosing a sunburst.

The east face is smooth in the area of the cross-head. Below this is a panel with a raised flat margin approximately 40mm wide on the bottom and the two vertical sides. This margin bears traces of illegible inscription. An irregularly shaped area at the bottom left of the panel is roughly dressed. To the right of and above this area is inhabited vinescroll of the simple single-stem type. In this book, this panel will be referred to as the east face upper stone.

The lower arm of the cross-head has a margin approximately 40mm wide bearing traces of an illegible inscription. Within the panel are the upper bodies of an angel, shown frontally, on the left, and a person holding a square object, shown frontally, on the right.

Below this is a panel with a raised flat margin approximately 60mm wide on the top and two vertical sides. This margin bears an inscription in Anglo-Saxon runes carved in short horizontal lines. Within the panel is inhabited vinescroll of the simple single-stem type. At the lower part of the panel, the vinescroll terminates without alteration to the pattern at the point where the shoulder projects. Below this the panel is blank but its surface is uneven. In this book, this panel will be referred to as the east face lower stone.

The panel below this has a margin whose width varies from approximately 40mm to approximately 60mm, on which are fragments of a partially legible inscription. Within the panel is a frontal nimbed and robed figure. The figure has his feet on two circles, and a lamb stands in his left arm. In this book, this panel will be referred to as the Agnus Dei panel. The next panel has a margin approximately 60mm wide, which at the top forms a second adjacent margin to that of the panel above. The margin contains a mostly legible Latin inscription on the upper and two vertical sides. The panel shows a frontal standing figure with cruciferous nimbus and shoulder-length curly hair. He wears complex garments with multiple folds. His left hand holds a narrow cylindrical object in front of his waist. His right forearm is raised vertically from the elbow. His feet rest on the snouts of two animals whose upper bodies are shown below him. They face in profil perdu towards the centre of the panel, with their forepaws raised and

West face The west face is smooth in the area of the cross-head. Below this is a panel with a raised flat margin approximately 40mm wide on the two vertical sides. This margin bears traces of illegible inscription. The lower half of this panel is roughly dressed. In the upper half is inhabited vinescroll of the simple single-stem type. In this book, this panel will be referred to as the west face upper stone.

18

‘A pillar curiously engraven; with some inscription upon it’: What is the Ruthwell Cross? Below this is a panel with a raised flat margin approximately 60mm wide on the top and two vertical sides. This margin bears an inscription in Anglo-Saxon runes carved in short horizontal lines. Within the panel is inhabited vinescroll of the simple single-stem type. At the lower part of the panel, the vinescroll terminates in a tree-trunk shape where the shoulder projects. Below this are vague outlines of more vinescroll. In this book, this panel will be referred to as the west face lower stone.

only of the lower stone, or may have been more extensive, with a cross-head.

The Reformation In 1560, the Scottish Parliament created the new Church of Scotland, and severed its ties with the Roman Catholic Church. Dumfriesshire was slow to accept the edicts of the reformed church, clinging to Catholic rites throughout the following decades (Cowan 1981).

The arrangement of the separate stone fragments within the monument will be discussed in detail at the end of this chapter. In this book, the part of the monument from the upper margins of the lower vinescroll panels, the Christ and Magdalene panel and the worshipping beasts panel downward will be referred to as the lower stone. The part of the monument from the lower margins of the Agnus Dei panel, the Mary and Martha panel, and the upper vinescroll panels upward will be referred to as the upper stone.

In 1640, the General Assembly of the Church of Scotland passed an ‘Act anent the demolishing of Idolatrous Monuments’. This act demanded that ‘Idolatrous Monuments, erected and made for Religious worship . . . such as Crucifixes, Images of Christ, Mary, and Saints departed . . . be taken down, demolished, and destroyed, and that with all convenient diligence’ and required reports to be provided to the next Assembly (quoted in Dinwiddie 1927: 79).

History of the Monument Before the Reformation

It has been suggested (Dinwiddie 1927: 83), without supporting evidence, that the then minister at Ruthwell, Mr Gavin Young, urged the local Presbytery and Synod to preserve the Ruthwell Cross. It is possible that he met with little opposition there. In any case, by 1642, the monument must have been still standing. In that year, the General Assembly issued the following edict (quoted in Cassidy 1992: n2):

There is no evidence for the physical state of the monument until the end of the sixteenth century. Around 1600, Reginald Bainbrigg wrote a note concerning the monument, and transcribing some of the runes from the east face of the lower stone. The text of his note (translated by Orton 1998: 83) is: ‘Behold unexpectedly I came across a cross of wonderful height which is in the church at Ruthwell with beautiful images telling the story of Christ, decorated elegantly and splendidly with vines, animals and incised on two sides with foreign but fluent letters ascending from the base to the summit and also from the summit to the base. The inscription is such.’

‘Anent the report of idolatrous monuments in the Kirk of Ruthwell the Assemblie finds that the monument therein mentioned is idolatrous, and therefore recommends to the Presbyterie that they carefully urge the order prescrived by the Acts of Parliament anent the abolishing of these monuments, to be put to execution.’

Orton (1998: 83) interprets Bainbrigg’s words and selection of runes (Figure B) as an indication that Bainbrigg saw not a monument of the scale and shape now present at Ruthwell, but rather only the lower stone. This in itself would be of wonderful height, standing close to four metres tall. The lower stone is, however, not a cross but a pillar. Orton (1998: n30) convincingly dismisses Bainbrigg’s use of the term ‘cross’ to describe the monument, citing other uses of ‘cross’ where it is clear that there is no cross-head. He emphasises that Bainbrigg’s note does not refer to any part of the upper stone.

The wording of this act suggests that there had been a formal ‘report’ concerning monuments at Ruthwell, to which this was a response. The report might have been provided by the minister or session at Ruthwell. No evidence of such a report has been found.1 Dinwiddie (1927: 89), a successor of Young’s, suggests that in following the recommendation of the Assembly, Young took steps to preserve the cross from complete destruction. He supposedly had a trench cut into the hard clay floor of the church, into which the monument might be gently lowered, and was careful in selecting parts of the sculpture to deface, while leaving others intact. The plausibility of this suggestion will be discussed later in

I interpret Bainbrigg’s text as evidence that, at the beginning of the seventeenth century, the monument at Ruthwell was erect and inside the church. The Runic inscription on the east face was apparently more complete than it is at present. The monument may have consisted

1 While in Ruthwell in 1999 I sought information about papers from this period of the local church. I was unable to locate any, but it seems possible that they might still exist.

19

Pamela O’Neill this chapter, when the damage to the monument will be examined.

‘. . . these are the Faces of the four sides so far their Legends goe. Besides these, there are some little Fragments of them on the heavy pedestal of this Cross; which lyes in Murray’s Quire . . . This was so clumsy and unyeildy that we could not (without Crows or Levers) remove it: But, on that side which lay to view, were the words ET INGRESSVS ANGELVS which seem to be part of the History of the Annunciation, Luc.1.28. This pedestal is about two yards and a half long: and that part (which has been broken from this) whereon are the foresaid Inscriptions is about 5 foot in length. Some lesser pieces, which seem to have been in the middle, we found thrown under Through-stones in the Church-yard.’

After the Reformation The next documented notice of the Ruthwell Cross is in Camden’s Britannia. The note (Camden 1695: 910) reads: ‘Between Anandale and Eskdale lyeth Wachopdale,1 so called from the water of Wachop running through it; and is much of the same nature with the adjacent Countries already described. The most ancient monument remarkable hereabouts is St Ruth’s Church, where is a Pillar curiously engraven; with some Inscription upon it.’ The only information this reference gives us about the condition of the cross is that some of an inscription was visible. It is unclear whether this was in the Runic or the Latin alphabet. The word ‘curiously’ might be taken as referring to any part of the sculpture or inscription. We can infer, but not with certainty, that Camden or his informant did not see a cross-head, as he refers to the monument as a pillar. Just as Orton interprets Bainbrigg’s ‘cross’ as meaning ‘pillar’, so Camden’s ‘pillar’ might mean ‘cross’. Interestingly Camden does not indicate whether the pillar was upright or lying on the ground. Other accounts examined here suggest that it cannot have been upright, but Camden does not describe it as fallen or broken.

Nicolson clearly saw the lower stone, broken into two pieces. The larger, lower piece, which he was unable to move, lay with what is now the south face upwards. Apparently the only words Nicolson could clearly make out were ‘et ingressus angelus’, suggesting that condition of this face was much as it is today. The pieces in the churchyard, which Nicolson suggests belong in the middle of the monument, might coincide with parts of what is now the upper stone. According to Dinwiddie (1927: 98), Murray’s Aisle was separate from the church until renovations between 1772 and 1790. Murray’s Aisle appears to have been a separate building, perhaps a burial chapel, before its incorporation into the church building. This suggests that the two pieces of the lower stone were in separate buildings when Nicolson visited. The arch above an entrance to what may once have been the Murray burial vault is still visible at floor level in the Aisle, bearing the Murray arms and the date 1687. The gravestones immediately beyond the end of the aisle all commemorate members of the Murray family, which suggests some sort of private burial plot or vault. That the most unwieldy section of the monument seen by Nicolson was in Murray’s Aisle suggests that the Ruthwell Cross was not situated inside the actual church in 1642. If it was indeed located in the area which became Murray’s Aisle, it may have been in the open churchyard in 1642, as the Murray building may only date from 1687.

In 1697, William Nicolson, Archdeacon of Carlisle, visited Ruthwell, and wrote (quoted in Cassidy 1992: 11) to a friend: ‘. . . a famous cross in a church near Dumfries. I was surprised with the inscriptions, very fair and legible on all its four sides. They were Latin and Runic intermixed . . .’ ‘. . . sending you the [Runic] inscription, which most affected me . . . On the other two sides of the square there are draughts of Christ and Mary Magdalen; St. Paul and St. Anthony in the Wilderness, &c.; and a Latin circumscription’.

George Archibald (Orton 1998: n30), in an undated publication around the end of the seventeenth century, refers to the monument as a pillar in two pieces, supporting Nicolson’s description.

His drawing of the monument (Figure C) shows the upper part of the lower stone, terminating partway down the healing panel and the Paul and Anthony panel. The Runic inscription appears to have been only as extensive as it is today.

A note attributed to W Hamilton of 1699 (Orton 1998: n30) refers to the monument as a broken cross four feet three inches long, whose pedestal is in Murray’s Aisle. The piece four feet three inches long might conceivably be the piece recorded by Nicolson as about five feet long. Hamilton’s visit took place between the two visits by Nicolson. Had this part seen by Hamilton been visible during Nicolson’s visits, he should surely have recorded

In 1704, Nicolson revisited Ruthwell, and wrote in his diary (quoted in Cook 1902: 372): 1 Ruthwell is not located in Wauchopedale between Eskdale and Annandale, but between Annandale and Nithsdale. Presumably Camden’s information confused the location.

20

‘A pillar curiously engraven; with some inscription upon it’: What is the Ruthwell Cross? it, as he seems to have taken some trouble looking for fragments in the churchyard, and noting their existence. It seems likely therefore that Hamilton’s piece is the smaller piece seen by Nicolson. If it is not, then there was a third piece which appeared and then disappeared between Nicolson’s two visits. The other possibility is that this is one of Nicolson’s ‘lesser pieces’ found in the churchyard, although Nicolson’s description does not seem appropriate for such a large fragment.

length of the third piece at five feet, so that it might be the piece measuring four feet three inches seen by Hamilton. Here, for the first time, we are able to clearly identify parts of the modern Ruthwell Cross other than the lower stone. Pennant describes the lower part of the north face of the upper stone, the feet with globes. He also describes what may be the upper arm of the cross, with an eagle on each side. By 1794 the state of the monument had changed significantly. Sinclair’s Statistical account of Scotland was published in that year. The account is a compilation of information submitted by the ministers of the various parishes. It discusses such subjects as topography, geology, industry and antiquities. It describes Ruthwell as a ‘long straggling place, through which the high road from Dumfries to Annan [formerly] passed’ (Sinclair 1794: 221). The church at Ruthwell, it says, is ‘an ancient fabric, perhaps now the most so of any in this part of the country. It is a long building, remarkably narrow, and has a projecting aile or wing’. Of the monument, it says:

Alexander Gordon’s Itinerarium Septentrionale of 1726 (quoted in Dinwiddie 1927: 97) mentions an obelisk which ‘lies flat on the ground within the Church of Ruthvell’ and is broken into three parts. This account appears to confirm Nicolson’s observation of the two pieces of the lower stone lying in the church, but contradicts Nicolson’s account in that it mentions a third piece. It is possible that the third piece seen by Gordon was one of the small pieces found in the churchyard by Nicolson, or that it was the piece measuring four feet three inches recorded by Hamilton. Richard Pococke, Bishop of Meath, visited Ruthwell in 1760 and wrote to his sister of an ‘extraordinary square obelisk, broken in two’ which was twelve and a half feet long (quoted in Cassidy 1992: n10). His account agrees with that of Nicolson, and excludes any mention of the third part described by Gordon.

‘In the church yard of Ruthwell, a very curious ancient monument appears, although now broken into two or three fragments, which, however, have all been preserved. The whole, when entire, seems to have had the form of an obelisk, and was about 18 feet long; and the side of each square is ornamented with figures, in relievo, descriptive of sacred story. Our Saviour is represented in different attitudes, and at the bottom of one of the sides, his Crucifixion is discernible; the borders of each of the sides are inscribed with Runick characters, much more ancient perhaps than the figures sculptured upon the stone.’ (Sinclair 1794: 226)

Thomas Pennant’s Second Tour of Scotland of 1772 (quoted in Orton 1998: 95) also mentions the Ruthwell monument: ‘The church at Ruthwell contains the ruins of a most curious monument; an obelisk, once of great height, now lying in three pieces . . . When entire it was probably about twenty feet high, exclusive of pedestal and capital; making allowances in the measurement of the present pieces for fragments chipped off, when it was destroyed: it originally consisted of two pieces; the lowest, now in two, had been fifteen feet long; the upper had been placed on the other by means of a socket: the form was square and taper, but the sides of unequal breadth . . . The pedestal lies buried beneath the floor of the church: I found some fragments of the capital, with letters similar to the others; and on each opposite side an eagle, neatly cut in relief. There was also a piece of another, with Saxon letters round the lower part of a human figure, in long vestments, with his foot on a pair of small globes: this too seems to have been the top of a cross.’

The monument had been removed from the church into the churchyard. Dinwiddie (1927: 100) explains this removal as necessary to the flooring of the church with flagstones, which was carried out around 1780. According to Sinclair’s informant, the overall size of the monument was similar to its current size. It was still referred to as an obelisk. The ‘two or three’ fragments may be interpreted as ‘a few’, allowing for the three fragments seen by previous witnesses and possibly more. It seems that Sinclair’s informant saw the two pieces of the lower stone, and at least one other piece. What this additional material looked like is uncertain, except that it must have had a total length of about six feet. It may perhaps have had Runic inscriptions on all four sides, as this claim by the informant is certainly not true of the lower stone, where the runes are on only two sides.

Re-erection in the manse garden

As with previous visitors, Pennant saw the two pieces of the lower stone. He estimates their original length as fifteen feet, comparing to the twelve or so feet as measured by other visitors. He estimates the original

Apparently the fragments of the monument deteriorated rapidly in the churchyard (Duncan 1833: 6). They may

21

Pamela O’Neill even have been subjected to further attacks by the parishioners (Dinwiddie 1927: 103), who seem to have become vehemently anti-Catholic (Cassidy 1992: n63). It was perhaps fortunate, then, that in 1799 Henry Duncan was ordained minister of Ruthwell and took a strong interest in the monument. In 1802 he had it moved to ‘a place of greater security’ (Duncan 1833: 6) and erected it in the garden of the manse. It is uncertain how much of the reconstruction Duncan carried out at this stage.

A letter written by Dods in 1913 in response to an enquiry from J K Hewison and accompanied by sketches gives some information about the way in which the work was carried out. Unfortunately Dods refers only to the joint between the upper and lower stones and the insertion into the concrete floor. The main sketch accompanying the letter (Figure E) shows the monument fully assembled. Dods numbers the five early medieval pieces, but does not mark the modern pieces apart from the transom. He marks what is now the upper stone ‘one piece 6’3”’, and the lower stone ‘one piece . . . fully 12 feet’.

Over time, Duncan had collected broken fragments of what is now the upper stone from various locations in the churchyard. One piece, with the Agnus Dei panel, was found in the digging of an exceptionally deep grave (Duncan 1833: 6). It is not stated whether or not any of these pieces were erected together with the lower stone in 1802.

There are also architect’s drawings of the apse which was added to the church to house the monument, and of the machinery proposed for the safe movement of the monument. The architect’s drawings (Figure F) show a large complex framework, which, according to McFarlan, would aid ‘the careful removal and recreation of the monument’ (McFarlan et al 1887).

In 1823, Duncan enlisted the help of a country stonemason and formed the monument into a cross. As he had been unsuccessful in recovering any part of a transom, he had the mason create one. Other modern pieces incorporated either at 1802 or at 1823 are the four uncarved sections interpolated into the vinescroll, Mary and Martha and Agnus Dei panels of the upper stone. The lower part of the shaft was sunk into the ground to halfway up the thicker section.

There is no surviving eyewitness description of the actual movement of the monument from the manse garden to the apse. The work is described by McFarlan’s wife in her journal (McFarlan 1914: 144) as follows: ‘Last week was a very busy one with the moving of the Cross. The remover and all his men were with us for two days, and at the actual placing of the big block we were all present and all employed, even my hand at the last was called for to keep a support steady. It was an exciting scene. But the old Cross is safely set up now in the church, and we go over and look – and wonder if it can really be true. The wall is now rising steadily round it.’

Photographs of the cross in the manse garden shows its condition at this time (Figure D). The construction of the upper stone appears to be slightly different from its current form. In the photograph, the right-hand margin of the Agnus Dei panel forms a clean straight edge, and the left-hand margin shows a distinct concavity about halfway up the panel. The current monument has an irregularity in the right-hand edge, and the left hand edge slopes in sharply halfway up the panel, but does not slope outward to return to its original line. Drawings by Henry Duncan and others of the monument in the garden have been criticised for glossing over the misalignment that can clearly be seen on the monument today (Farrell & Karkov 1992: 44). Detailed inspection of the photograph taken in the garden suggests that the misalignment did not then exist. Orton (1998: n11) has also suggested that differences exist between the reconstruction by Duncan and the current form of the monument.

Dinwiddie (1927: 112f), writing forty years after the work was carried out, gives an account: ‘The skill and ingenuity of Dr Henry Duncan, in piecing together the many fragments, called forth admiration and grateful remembrance, as they were, one by one, detached, and laid carefully on the grass. The socket having been prepared in the cement on the floor of the Cross chamber, and a gentle slope arranged towards it, the base of the Cross - the large block which forms the lower half of it was wheeled round into position. The rope, fastened round the stone, was passed over a pulley and grasped by men inside the Church, the minister and his boys laying hold of it too. At a given signal, the rope was pulled with a will, the grand old block rose upwards, and, guided by the sculptor’s hand, slid unscathed into its resting-place. A scaffolding was quickly erected, and the other parts of the

Relocation into the church In 1887, the Ruthwell Cross was declared an ancient monument under the Ancient Monuments Protection Act of 1882. Hitherto unnoticed correspondence between the minister of Ruthwell, James McFarlan, and the Office of Public Works, is now held by the current minister of Ruthwell (McFarlan et al 1887). In the same year, under McFarlan’s supervision, the monument was relocated inside the church building. McFarlan was assisted in this work by John Dods, a monumental sculptor from Dumfries.

22

‘A pillar curiously engraven; with some inscription upon it’: What is the Ruthwell Cross? monument restored to their places. Ere very long, the walls and roof of the apse were completed.’

were responsible for the various parts of the early medieval work. The remainder of this chapter will attempt to establish what changes have been made to the appearance of the monument since the early medieval period.

Dinwiddie gives no source for his account, but it is possible that it is grounded in fact. Dinwiddie was a local man, who succeeded McFarlan as minister of Ruthwell parish following the latter’s death in 1889. Some of his parishioners were probably present at the relocation of the monument. Orton (1998: n11) suggests that Dinwiddie himself might have been present, but only on the grounds of the vividness of the account. The various evidence points to the accuracy of Dinwiddie’s reference to the various pieces of the upper part of the monument being separated.

Robert Farrell recently (1992: 37) pointed out that ‘As light, distance from the [Ruthwell Cross] and angle change, the carvings also appear to change. Most important of all, the sculpture is enhanced, and the light tricks the eye into seeing a monument far more complete than is actually the case . . . most scholars who write about the Ruthwell cross recount only in passing the damage it has sustained and confront the problem directly only when damage is so immediately obvious in photographs that the question cannot be ignored.’

Dinwiddie’s account suggests an approach to the relocation of the monument which would endanger its fragile parts as little as possible. The relatively robust lower stone was moved in one stage, with the help of a wheeled cart, and erected in its socket by means of a pulley and considerable manpower. The already badly damaged and still fragile upper stone was divided into its component parts. The mortar could presumably be broken by a vaguely competent sculptor without serious damage to the stone. The pieces were transported separately, and rejoined on top of the lower stone in situ.

In fact, although the modern construct called the Ruthwell Cross is an impressive monument, the early medieval parts of it are in very poor condition. The following assessment of the monument’s current condition will follow the same order as the description at the beginning of this chapter.

South face

If we accept Dinwiddie’s account of the relocation of the monument, then Dods’ competence for his task must be questioned. The misalignment of the fragments of the upper stone mentioned above is attributable not to Duncan’s country mason in 1823, but to McFarlan’s monumental sculptor in 1887. In reconstructing Duncan’s upper stone, Dods must have placed the pieces slightly incorrectly, leading to the irregularity in the righthand edge of the Agnus Dei panel. He attempted to disguise the irregularity in the left-hand edge by building it up with mortar.

The uppermost arm of the cross-head is a distinct piece, with a straight horizontal break just below the upper edge of the circle surrounding the centre of the head. It has considerable chipping, particularly around the upper left corner. There is considerable wear over the whole panel, evidenced in the illegibility of the inscription, as well as the erasure of most of the features apart from the outline of the man and the eagle. There is a diagonal groove from the upper edge across the man’s face. This damage is all compatible with natural and accidental wear incurred during a long stay in the churchyard, although it could also have been deliberately inflicted.

Bailey (1993: 147) suggests that an engraving by Cardonnell of around 1789 indicates a ‘fairly substantial tenon and mortise’ between the upper and lower stones. The derivative nature of Cardonnell’s depiction (Cassidy 1992: 9) and its many inaccuracies cast doubt on this feature, which in any case is shown in only two of the four views. The existence of an original tenon and mortice joint would have potential implications for the reconstruction and misalignment, but I do not believe that there is sufficient evidence to accept that such a joint existed.

The transom is entirely the nineteenth-century invention of Duncan and his mason. No evidence of an original transom has ever been found. There is a fragment of sculpture located adjacent to the monument in the church at Ruthwell, which is sometimes suggested (eg Cramp 1978b: 247) as a part of the missing transom. This association is unsubstantiated.

Present condition

The upper edge of the lower arm of the cross-head is broken off. The fracture slopes downward to the left, and has been filled with mortar and a thin slip of modern stone. The piece offers no evidence that it was originally part of a cross-head. Severe wear has removed almost all traces of the inscription in the margin, and all but the outlines of the archer, his hair and accessories.

The monument which we now know as the Ruthwell Cross is demonstrably the product of many hands. Later chapters of this book will seek to determine which hands

The Mary and Martha panel has a straight horizontal crack about two-fifths of the way down. Above this

A photograph taken around 1890 (see Figure G) shows the Ruthwell Cross as it must have appeared when McFarlan’s work was completed.

23

Pamela O’Neill crack, the inscription is badly worn and the figures worn so that only outlines remain. Duncan found this piece of stone, also incorporating the panel above, buried in the ground. It is severely worn, but not chipped or defaced. Below the crack in the Mary and Martha panel are four roughly dressed modern stones, incorrectly aligned with the edges of the monument, probably inserted by Duncan’s mason and shifted slightly by Dods in 1887. Surrounded by these modern stones is a small fragment with the feet of the two figures above a wide flat margin. The folds of the garment on the right are still clear, and apart from being such a small fragment, this piece appears to have sustained little damage. It is surrounded by considerable quantities of mortar, which obscures its edges.

a deep irregular hole in the centre of the panel, and all of the surface has been eroded, possibly with tools. The Virgin’s hands have been broken or rubbed off. The margins have been almost entirely removed. This damage is almost certainly deliberate, and most likely to have been inflicted at the throwing down of the monument. The surfaces are all worn smooth, and there are no surviving signs of tool marks. This face was uppermost during the one hundred and fifty years when this part of the stone was left in Murray’s Choir as seating for parishioners (Cassidy 1992: 4), which must have contributed to the smoothing effect. The Crucifixion panel is in worse condition than the Annunciation. The entire sculpture appears to have been chiselled back to within a few millimetres of the background. Only very vague outlines remain of all but the legs, whose outlines are clear, but which still lack any detail.

The Christ and Magdalene panel has suffered damage in specific areas. The upper edge is neatly finished, and marks the extent of the lower stone. There is a little chipping around the top right-hand corner, which is probably edge damage caused while the stones were separated in the floor of the church. The inscription is still quite clear, with edge damage limited to the first few millimetres. The folds in the garments worn by Christ are quite clear. The curls in his hair and the shapes of his blessing fingers can still be made out. His face is much more worn, and Dods (quoted in Orton 1998: 91) was of the view that the heads of all of the figures on the monument had been ‘smashed either with a hammer or with stones the stroke dents are visable’. Such damage was presumably inflicted in 1642. The Magdalene figure has little detail remaining, all her surfaces worn smooth. This could be the result of natural wear, or possibly a reflection of the difference in sculptural technique of the two figures.

North face The uppermost arm of the cross-head is a distinct piece, with a straight horizontal break just below the upper edge of the circle surrounding the centre of the head. It has substantial chipping, particularly around the upper right corner. There is considerable wear over the whole panel, evidenced in the illegibility of most of the inscription, as well as the erasure of most of the features on the bird’s head and upper body. This damage is all compatible with natural and accidental wear incurred during a long stay in the churchyard, although it may have been accelerated by deliberate chipping or chiselling. The panel immediately below the transom is incomplete and severely worn. Its fractured upper edge slopes downward to the right and has been filled with mortar and a small slip of modern stone, which runs through the monument to appear in the corresponding position on the south face. The wear to the panel is such that there are only very slight traces of a marginal inscription. The two figures are completely featureless, with only their outlines vaguely visible. The right-hand margin appears to have been deliberately chiselled, and other parts of the panel might have worn naturally if exposed to severe weather or been deliberately damaged with tools.

The upper half of the healing panel is in similar condition to the Magdalene panel. The faces are worn quite smooth. The nearside hands of the two figures appear to have been broken off or rubbed back. Approximately three-fifths of the way down this panel is a straight horizontal fracture. The margins immediately above the fracture, and larger areas below, are chipped and worn. The fracture has been filled with mortar, which has been sculpted to continue the folds of the figures’ garments. This fracture divides the two large pieces seen by most eyewitnesses. It probably occurred when the monument was thrown down. It is possible that there was a weakness in the stone at this point, which became a fracture with the shock of impact. Alternatively, the shaft may have fallen onto a projecting object at this point, the forces of gravity causing the top part to break off. Below the fracture, the panel is dressed flat, with slight pitting. There is severe edge damage to the margins, particularly on the left, but it seems that the margin was distinct from the unsculpted panel and the inscription continued in this part, although it is now illegible.

The Agnus Dei panel has a straight horizontal fracture about two-fifths of the way down. Above this, the margins are worn smooth, and the features of the figure’s face and lamb’s head are barely discernible. The deeper carving, such as the folds of the figure’s garments, is quite well preserved. The right hand and surrounding area are badly eroded. The left margin above the fracture is covered with mortar, which also fills the edges of the fracture. This fragment, incorporating the panel above, was found by Duncan buried in the churchyard. It is severely worn, and may have been deliberately damaged. Below the fracture, the Agnus Dei panel has two modern stones inserted at the right hand side. These continue through the monument to be visible in the Mary and

The Annunciation panel has suffered severe damage. The faces are completely blank, that of the angel showing a sharp outline suggestive of deliberate chiselling. There is 24

‘A pillar curiously engraven; with some inscription upon it’: What is the Ruthwell Cross? Martha panel. The remainder of the panel is in fairly good condition, with the folds of the garment quite clear. There is some surface pitting, which may indicate deliberate damage, and the feet on the globes are badly worn. The part of the margin which survives is in poor condition with a partially legible inscription.

small fragment of remaining vinescroll and inscription is in good condition, although the lower part is badly worn. The vinescroll on the lower stone is in fairly good condition, although badly worn. There is some edge damage to the inscription, particularly at the top left corner, where the stone is chipped. The fracture seen on the north and south faces causes some disruption to the vinescroll and inscriptions on this face, and is surrounded by mortar. Where the shoulder projects on this side, it has been trimmed to a depth of perhaps 50mm or more, removing any sculpture that might have existed and leaving an uneven surface.

The worshipping beasts panel has suffered damage in specific areas. The upper edge is neatly finished, and marks the extent of the lower stone. The inscription is mostly clear, although edge damage is quite severe, extending over the whole margin in some places. The folds in the garments worn by Christ are quite clear. His face and hands have been chipped or rubbed off, leaving no detail. The face and hands of Christ were apparently considered particularly offensive to Church of Scotland doctrine in 1642.

West face The west face appears to have been dressed smooth in the area of the cross-head. Below this both vinescroll and inscription are badly worn, so that general shapes but no details can be made out. There is a straight horizontal fracture about two-fifths of the way down. Below this fracture are two modern stones which continue onto the Agnus Dei and Mary and Martha panels.

The Paul and Anthony panel has a fracture sloping up to the right approximately one-third of the way down the panel. Above the fracture the margins are in good condition, with the inscription clearly legible. The figures are badly deteriorated, with no features discernible except the hairline and the ear of the figure on the right. This suggests deliberate damage to the facial features. Below the fracture, there is severe edge damage to the left margin, and the right margin has been removed completely, as has most of the body of the right-hand figure. The clothing of the figure on the left is badly damaged. This panel must have been deliberately defaced, with a chisel or similar tool, presumably in 1642.

The vinescroll on the lower stone is in fairly good condition, although badly worn. The fracture seen on the other three faces causes some disruption to the vinescroll and inscriptions on this face, and is surrounded by mortar, filling a large gap on the left-hand edge. There is some edge damage to the inscription, slight at the top and severe below the fracture, where anything from one character to an entire line is lost. Where the shoulder projects, the vinescroll is badly worn. Below this are vague outlines of more vinescroll, where the surface appears to have been damaged, probably deliberately.

The Egypt journey panel is in extremely poor condition. The right-hand margin has been completely removed, and the left-hand almost completely. Only a vague outline of the donkey remains, with its nearside legs completely removed. The Virgin and Child are similarly damaged, with only a rough outline remaining. This panel has been deliberately defaced with tools, probably in 1642. The damage may have been more severe on this panel because most of the carving appears to have been in higher relief than on other panels.

Conclusion The Ruthwell Cross is a nineteenth-century construct. Some of the components of that construct were newly fashioned, while others had been made in the early medieval period. The early medieval pieces had all been subjected to natural and human forces of destruction before their inclusion in the Ruthwell Cross. The effects of these natural forces depended largely on where the pieces were located, so that some show the effects of weathering more than others. The human forces appear to have varied according to the extent to which the sculpture was considered offensive. The faces of human, divine and angelic figures seem to have been particularly targeted, and in many instances also the hands. The lower part of the monument seems to have been attacked with more zeal than the upper, perhaps because it was easier to reach or perhaps because this part was addressed first, while the attackers were more enthusiastic.

The lowest panel on the north face has no surviving signs of sculpture. If it was originally sculptured, then it has been entirely defaced. This is quite possibly the case, as the surface is not dressed flat, but is uneven.

East face The east face appears to have been dressed smooth in the area of the cross-head. Below this both vinescroll and inscription are badly worn, so that general shapes but no details can be made out. There is a straight horizontal fracture about two-fifths of the way down. Below the fracture at the left-hand side there are two modern stones roughly dressed, which continue onto the Mary and Martha panel. These stones and the fracture are surrounded by roughly finished mortar. To the right, the

The figural panels on the north and south faces seem to have suffered more severe damage than the vinescroll faces. The major damage to the east and west faces is at the margins, which may be an incidental effect of attacks on the north and south faces. There appears to have been

25

Pamela O’Neill an attempt to trim the shoulders, which has been more successful on the east side, but has removed most of the sculpture from the lower parts of the east and west faces. During a visit to Ruthwell in 1999, I observed that the only visible toolmarks appear to be those made in the recent past, presumably during or after the 1642 attack. I was unable to discern any trace of early medieval toolmarks.

which has been variously attacked by iconoclasts, sat upon for a hundred and fifty years, dragged from church to churchyard to manse garden and back to church, and left lying in the open for hundreds of years. It is clear that what remains to us is a badly damaged, much mutilated remnant of a highly complex sculpture of which we can have very little knowledge. Any discussion of the early medieval sculpture on the Ruthwell Cross must proceed from this basis.

In all, the early medieval parts of the Ruthwell Cross are in the sort of condition that can be expected for sculpture

26

Chapter 3: Where is the Ruthwell Cross? There is no identifiable reference in primary sources to Ruthwell before the Norman Conquest. There is, however, limited reference to nearby sites (see Map A). The paucity of documentary historical evidence is balanced by extensive archaeological and artefactual remains. Interpretation of the material evidence is far more difficult than for the same period in better documented regions such as eastern Northumbria.

Lean (1992: 63) makes it clear (contra Brooke 1991) that in order for the marriage to proceed Northumbria must have considered Rheged worthy of alliance. That is, at the time of the marriage Rheged was still a strong political entity. Brooke (1991) concludes that even after Northumbrian conquest of the region, the British and Anglian populations existed largely side by side, in clearly demarcated territories, and that in places British occupation continued from pre-Northumbrian times through until the tenth century.

The area around Ruthwell has many places of early medieval interest. About 8km to the north-east lies Hoddam, where an early medieval ecclesiastical site has been excavated. Ruthwell is less than 40km by land to the north-west of Carlisle, which was a town in both the Roman and the Anglo-Saxon periods and may have been continuously occupied. The coastal town of St Bees in Cumbria is less than 65km by sea to the south-west of Ruthwell. Also in Cumbria is Derwent Water, the lake where a hermit associated with Cuthbert of Lindisfarne resided. Approximately 110km to the north-east of Ruthwell is Melrose, where Cuthbert began his monastic career. Whithorn, an ecclesiastical site in use from the fifth century throughout the medieval period, is about 110km by land and 80km by water to the west of Ruthwell. Ruthwell is also quite close to several Roman sites, as well as to the western end of Hadrian’s Wall.

The annexation of Rheged appears to have happened a little at a time rather than in one definite stroke. Mac Lean (1992: 64) attributes the annexation to Oswiu’s son and successor Ecgfrith. He argues that grants made by Ecgfrith in the 670s of land in Lancashire and western Yorkshire were in territory recently taken from Rheged by Ecgfrith. There is no mention of the northern part of Rheged in a Northumbrian context until Ecgfrith’s death in 685, as discussed below. This suggests that the annexation of Carlisle and district was a recent event at the time of Ecgfrith’s death. The British appear to have had a strong monastic establishment in Rheged. Finds of fifth-century Christian memorial stones around the Whithorn area (Radford & Donaldson 1984: 28ff) support an early foundation date for the British monastery at Whithorn. Whithorn was noted as a seat of learning in the fifth and sixth centuries. The Christian presence in Rheged may even have dated from Roman times, when Carlisle is thought to have been a bishopric (Frere 1987: 322).

In this chapter I will outline a brief history of the area, using information presented by Bede, and drawing on the work of later historians. I will then examine the various sites of interest. This superficial survey is intended to suggest the political and ecclesiastical context in which the Ruthwell monument might have been created, and in particular to show that Ruthwell did not necessarily occupy a peripheral position in the early medieval world. More thorough analysis of the Dumfries and Galloway region has been carried out by such scholars as Daphne Brooke (1991, 1994).

By the end of the seventh century, Northumbrian ecclesiastical control had been imposed on the Christians of Rheged. This control was largely represented by the person of Cuthbert, bishop of Lindisfarne, in whose diocese northern Rheged was placed. Most of this territory is actually geographically closer to the more southerly Northumbrian sees such as Hexham, but these dioceses appear to have taken no interest in the area. By contrast, Cuthbert’s interest in this south-western expanse of his diocese was clearly a very personal one.

Kings, queens, bishops and abbesses Ruthwell lay in the British kingdom of Rheged, which extended in an inverted L shape from Galloway through Ruthwell and Carlisle into western Yorkshire and Cumbria. Rheged had been a powerful British kingdom, ruled by the family of Urien and boasting the poet Taliesin (Smyth 1984: 21)). By the end of the seventh century, Rheged had become part of the kingdom of Northumbria. There is no precise information about how or when this change came about. Oswiu, king of Northumbria from 641 to 670, married Riemmelth, daughter of the Rheged royal house, at an unknown date. It has been suggested that Northumbria gained control of Rheged as a result of this marriage, but Douglas Mac

The monastery of Melrose, where Cuthbert first became a monk, is north-east of Ruthwell, about 110km away. Bede (Colgrave 1969: 187) indicates that Cuthbert endeavoured to convert the common people as well as to instruct his monastic brothers while he was prior of Melrose. Bede says that Cuthbert would often be away from the monastery preaching to the common people for a week, sometimes for two or three weeks, and on some occasions for a whole month. Although he preferred to go on foot, Cuthbert sometimes travelled on horseback. Quite a long journey could be accomplished on horseback in a month, leaving adequate time for missionary activity. 27

Pamela O’Neill Bede emphasises that the saintly Cuthbert usually preached in places ‘far away on steep and rugged mountains’ (Colgrave 1969: 187), where other teachers would not venture because of the barbarity, poverty and inaccessibility of the territory. In order to find far-off steep and craggy mountains, Cuthbert would probably have travelled in a southerly or westerly direction from Melrose. Although Ruthwell itself, being on the Solway coast, is not in a mountainous area, the areas immediately to its north, east and south across the Solway Firth are very much so. The Cheviot Hills and the fells immediately to their west, and the Cumbrian Mountains are good examples (see Map B). Perhaps Cuthbert established an association with the Solway basin and surrounding areas early in his monastic career, which would help to explain why he continued to travel to Carlisle later, despite its greater distance from Lindisfarne.

Cuthbert was a product of the monastery at Lindisfarne, which had strong Columban Irish traditions. At the synod of Whitby in 664, Wilfrid, later bishop of York, had persuaded King Oswiu to abandon these Celtic traditions in favour of the Roman ways introduced to England through Canterbury. As a result of this decision, some of the Lindisfarne community had retreated outside the kingdom of Northumbria, where they could continue their traditions undisturbed. That Cuthbert did not accompany them does not imply that he did not sympathise with them. He continued to display the ascetic ideals of his upbringing, apparently preferring solitude and simplicity to overt worldly involvement. Many of these traditions were shared by the British, of whom Bede observes at the end of the Ecclesiastical History (V: 22) that those outside Northumbrian control still refuse to observe the Roman Easter. The British who occupied Whithorn before its incorporation into the Northumbrian church were doubtless no exception. The secluded site of St Ninian’s Cave near Whithorn has been identified as a possible contemplative retreat for monks (Radford & Donaldson 1984: 5). Bede (Ecclesiastical History III: 4) claims that Whithorn promoted missionary activity of a style similar to Cuthbert’s: simple preaching to the common people, and over a quite extensive area. Laing (1975: 42) asserts that the population of the Whithorn area in the fifth century was mixed Irish and British, with Christian sites showing Irish influences.

Chapter 27 of Bede’s Life of Saint Cuthbert refers to the death of King Ecgfrith of Northumbria in a campaign against the Picts (Colgrave, 1969: 243-245). The AngloSaxon Chronicle records that Ecgfrith was killed north of the Firth of Forth in 685 (Garmonsway 1994: 38-39), which gives a date for Bede’s narrative. According to Bede, Ecgfrith’s queen, Eormenberg, retired to her sister’s monastery at or near Carlisle (ad Lugubaliam) to await the outcome of the campaign. Cuthbert came to Carlisle to speak with Eormenberg, and the next day the citizens conducted him to see the city walls and a ‘marvellously constructed’ Roman fountain. When Cuthbert informed Eormenberg of Ecgfrith’s death, he told her that he had been asked to go the following day to dedicate a church in a neighbouring monastery.

When Cuthbert came to include the former Rheged territory in his diocese, it may well be that he found a surviving church organisation there whose ideals closely paralleled his own. Rather than the imposition of Northumbrian rule on the church in this area, it may well be that a mingling of groups with similar interests took place. It is possible to envisage an ecclesiastical presence in this newly-established part of Northumbria which, although nominally English, represented a blend of native British and Columban Irish traditions and ideals. It was fostered by Cuthbert of Lindisfarne and featured at least one abbess of Northumbrian English birth who looked to Cuthbert for spiritual guidance.

In the next chapter of the Life, Bede tells of another visit by Cuthbert ‘not long afterwards’ (Colgrave 1969: 249). Cuthbert was again invited to Carlisle, this time to ordain some priests and to make Eormenberg, who had retired permanently to the monastery there, a nun. During this same visit to Carlisle, the hermit Hereberht, who lived on an island in Derwent Water, came to see Cuthbert ‘according to his custom’ of visiting him every year (Colgrave 1969: 249). If it was Hereberht’s custom to do so in Carlisle, the implication is that Cuthbert visited Carlisle at least once a year, and might have done so for some time, probably from before his consecration as bishop.

Carlisle Bede’s narration of the events surrounding Ecgfrith’s death is mainly concerned with Cuthbert’s precognition of that event, but he includes some incidental information that gives an indication of the state of Carlisle at the time. From this short passage, we understand that there were at least two monasteries in the immediate area of Carlisle. This indicates a Christian monastic presence of a high order. That the citizens of Carlisle sought to cater to the interests of their visitor from the east implies that relations between Carlisle and Lindisfarne were friendly and that Carlisle was a cultural centre where the intellectual value of antiquities was recognised.

Cuthbert’s longstanding friendship with Hereberht, his personal visits to perform consecrations and his interest in the historic buildings of Carlisle all argue a close personal interest in the former Rheged. A further personal interest can be traced through his connection with the Northumbrian royal house, and in particular its women. Cuthbert enjoyed a close friendship with several of the Northumbrian royal women (eg Colgrave 1969: 189, 237, 243, 249). He seems to have had a particularly close relationship with the monastery presided over by the sister of Queen Eormenberg in the Carlisle area.

Many royal widows entered monasteries, and they usually chose amongst the larger and more important 28

‘A pillar curiously engraven; with some inscription upon it’: What is the Ruthwell Cross?

Whithorn (See Map D)

houses such as Whitby and Coldingham. Many of these houses were presided over by women of royal birth who had entered monasteries either by choice or from political necessity. Eormenberg’s choice of the monastery at Carlisle suggests that it was of some size and importance, despite its distance from the principal royal residence. Cuthbert’s visit to ordain priests so soon after visiting to dedicate a church indicates an active monastic and missionary community around Carlisle. Such visits from a man of Cuthbert’s position imply firstly that Carlisle was a Christian centre of some importance, and secondly that travel between the eastern and western extremities of Northumbria could be easily accomplished.

To the west of Ruthwell is the major ecclesiastical site of Whithorn. It is about 110km distant by land, but only about 80km by water, with sheltered landing places at each end. The major publication of the ongoing excavations at this site was released in 1997. More than 40 sculptured stone pieces have been found and preserved at Whithorn, together with several pieces found in the surrounding region. The British monastery at Whithorn is believed to have been established by Ninian some time around 400. Bede (Ecclesiastical History III: 4) writes of Columba’s arrival at Iona in 565 and his mission to the northern Picts. He notes also that the Picts south of the Mounth had been converted by bishop Ninian long before. The monastery at Whithorn became famous for its scholarly activity during the fifth and sixth centuries. In the sixth and seventh centuries, Whithorn appears to have had a population of between 50 and 200 people, both men and women (Hill 1997: 34f).

Carlisle was an early medieval ecclesiastical and cultural centre. This is borne out by finds of fragments of four separate cross-heads in the city, all dating from the eighth century (Bailey & Cramp 1988: 84ff). They are decorated with simple interlace, rosette and plant designs, and short inscriptions. These sculptures are not comparable to the Ruthwell Cross as they are small fragments with much more crude ornament and no figural sculpture. They are, however, indicative of ecclesiastical activity in eighth-century Carlisle.

The area around Whithorn was conquered from the British kingdom of Rheged by the Northumbrian kingdom. It is unclear when this took place, but Bede records at the end of the Ecclesiastical History (V :23) that, due to the increased number of believers, Whithorn has lately become an episcopal see in the kingdom of Northumbria. Therefore, by 731, the Whithorn area had become a part, not only of the Northumbrian kingdom, but also of its ecclesiastical organisation. Northumbrian bishops continued to preside over Whithorn throughout the eighth century and much of the ninth century (Hill 1997: 49).

Cumbria (See Map C) The hermit Hereberht lived on an island in Derwent Water, which is about 80km by land or water from Ruthwell. On the Cumbrian coast to the west of Derwent Water are the villages of Beckermet, Isel and Brigham and the town of Workington. All have post-Roman sculptured stones dating from the ninth century or earlier, which are identified (Bailey & Cramp 1988) as parts of crosses or having crosses on them. This indicates some ecclesiastical presence at each site.

The shrine of Ninian continued to be revered at Whithorn. In the late eighth century, Alcuin sent a gift of silk to wrap the body (Radford & Donaldson 1984: 6). If so important a person as Alcuin found it appropriate to revere the relics of Ninian, it can be assumed that many others from the north of England and beyond made pilgrimages and sent gifts to his shrine.

Also on the coast west of Derwent Water is the village of St Bees. At or near this site, St Bees or Bega is believed to have built a monastery in the seventh century. Of Irish origin, the saint is said to have escaped an arranged marriage in Ireland and travelled to England to found this monastery (Parbury 1985: 23). She became a wellknown figure, and two churches in the modern diocese of Carlisle bear her dedication. There are some extant fragments of tenth-century stone sculpture at St Bees, but nothing earlier. It is possible that the site was established in the seventh century and continued in monastic use throughout the intervening period.

The area immediately surrounding Whithorn is rich in evidence for early medieval ecclesiastical activity. Isle of Whithorn, about 5km away, is the logical harbour for sea traffic to and from Whithorn. It is believed that a chapel has stood at the harbour since the twelfth century. While there are no material remains from earlier than this, the site was probably used by religious traffic as a landing point from the time when Whithorn was established.

Although Ruthwell is now on a coastal plain about 2km from the shore, it was even closer to, probably even within sight of, the shore of the Solway in the eighth century. Sinclair (1794: 219) recorded that the sea had receded ‘of late years’. The Solway provided an ideal communication route between Ruthwell and such coastal Cumbrian settlements as St Bees. The Solway also provided opportunities for travel by river to inland areas of Cumbria such as the Lakes District.

St Ninian’s Cave is also about 5km from Whithorn and a similar distance from Isle of Whithorn. Several carved crosses have been discovered there, some free-standing and others carved into the rock wall of the cave. The majority are thought to date from the eighth and ninth centuries, although at least one is earlier, probably seventh-century, showing that the site was in Christian

29

Pamela O’Neill use in the early medieval period (Radford & Donaldson 1984: 22).

Less than 15km to the north-east of Ruthwell is a site which has been identified as an Anglian minster at Hoddam. Excavations began at this site in 1991, under the direction of Christopher Lowe, who published a report in the same year (Lowe 1991). A curvilinear ditch enclosure surrounds an area of approximately 20 acres. The site includes the remains of a church of probably c700 incorporating dressed Roman stone, probably from the fort at nearby Birrens. Other structures are postulated as being a bread oven of the seventh or eighth centuries, a meat smokehouse and a corn-drying kiln, all located near the enclosure ditch. The indications are of a large and well-organised ‘service sector’ of an early Northumbrian monastery. The site also yielded ten examples of sculptured stone from the eighth and ninth centuries. A large number of sculptured stones of the eighth to tenth centuries had been recovered from the site over the last 200 years, but most have now been lost. An earlier structure of indefinite use and a later ironworking furnace were also found on the site. Lowe suggests that Hoddam will have much to contribute to the study of northern Britain from the post-Roman to medieval periods. The indications are that it was a large and well-populated monastic settlement around the early eighth century.

Other possibly early ecclesiastical sites around Whithorn include Craiglemine, Glenluce, Kirkinner, Kirkmadrine, Monreith, Mochrum and Sinniness, all of which are find sites for early medieval sculptured stones. Western Galloway is rich in placenames with ecclesiastical associations: Chapel Finian, Chapel Rossan, Clugston, Kirkcowan, Kirkinner, Kirkland, Kirkcolm, Kirkmadrine, Kirkmaiden, Lady Bay, Maryport, Portpatrick and Stoneykirk. The placenames with ecclesiastical elements are in a surprisingly large number of cases associated with material remains of the early medieval period. This would suggest that early ecclesiastical associations for these elements are perhaps more likely here than in other areas. Certainly it would be valuable to trace the history of each placename and the associated site. Throughout the eighth century, Whithorn was a key part of the Northumbrian ecclesiastical organisation. It was an episcopal see from very early in the century. Communication between Ruthwell and Whithorn would have been very easy and Ruthwell might have been a convenient resting place on a journey from eastern Northumbria to Whithorn.

There are two sites in the Annan district with churches dedicated to St Mungo, also known as Kentigern. One is near Kirkbank and the other at Hoddam. Mungo is said to have worked in Southern Scotland during the late sixth and early seventh centuries. While the modern dedication of a site to Mungo does not demonstrate that it was in use during his lifetime, the possibility must be considered, particularly at Hoddam where there is other evidence.

Bewcastle Bewcastle is approximately 50km east of Ruthwell and 15km north-east of Carlisle. It has a small church on the site of a Roman station, with an early medieval stone sculpture in the churchyard. The Bewcastle Cross is a tapering rectanguloid shaft approximately 4.42m tall, broken at the top. On its west face are three figural panels. One of these is very similar to the Agnus Dei panel at Ruthwell, another is very similar to the worshipping beasts panel at Ruthwell, and the third shows a man and a bird of prey. The east face of the Bewcastle Cross has a panel of vinescroll similar to that on the east face of the Ruthwell Cross. The Bewcastle Cross also has several panels of Runic inscription, mostly now illegible.

Roman roads (See Map F) Much thorough work has recently been published which assists in developing an accurate picture of Roman activity in and around south-west Scotland. Fenton and Stell’s Loads and roads in Scotland and beyond (1984) includes comprehensive chapters on the Roman and medieval periods. These indicate the existence of a major Roman communication route leading from the western end of Hadrian’s wall through Annandale to the region of Edinburgh (Maxwell 1984: 27), and of a recognised permanent route through Annandale in the twelfth century (Barrow 1984: 51). These combine with Hadrian’s Wall to place Ruthwell within a few kilometres of major routes to the east and the north. Wilson (1995: 24) adds possible routes branching west to the Rhinns of Galloway, to Ayrshire and to the western end of the Antonine wall, based on finds of Roman material, forts and road features.

Annan district (See Map E) The triangular area of Ordnance Survey map 85 bounded by the A74(M) and the Solway Firth is 15km by 30km, and reaches from Gretna not quite as far north-west as Dumfries. Within the area are sixteen groups of placenames with possible ecclesiastical associations. They are Barnkirk, Brydekirk, Christielands, Eaglesfield, Ecclefechan, Kirkbank, Kirkhill, Kirklandrigg, the Kirkpatricks, Kirkstyle, Kirkwood, Ladyhall, Priestholm, Priestside, Redkirk and Repentancehill. Obviously the connection of most of these with the early medieval period on the basis of the name alone must be tenuous, but such a connection is nonetheless possible, perhaps even probable, as discussed above.

A few kilometres to the north-east of Ruthwell are two fortified Roman camps, at Burnswark and Birrens. More remains are found further north. Bowness-on-Solway, opposite Ruthwell on the southern shore of the Solway in Cumbria, is the western terminus of Hadrian’s Wall and therefore a key Roman site. During the Roman period, a well-developed network of transport and communication 30

‘A pillar curiously engraven; with some inscription upon it’: What is the Ruthwell Cross? routes existed in the area around Ruthwell. Most of this network would have survived into the early medieval period, as opposed to the little that remains in modern times. The preponderance of Roman remains on routes passing close to Ruthwell, coupled with its convenient location on the Solway coast, suggests the possibility that it was a resting place on journeys through the area. It certainly lay on easy travel routes which connected it with other areas to the north, east, south and west, both by land and by sea.

In the church itself, there is a fragment of sculptured stone with traces of mortar, indicating incorporation into a building. It is decorated with Anglo-Norse interlace, dating it to the ninth or tenth centuries (Williams 1974: 31). This suggests that a Christian settlement established on the site in or before the sixth century continued to exist until or beyond the ninth century. An eleventh-century fragment of a semi-circular drumcapital also in Dumfries Museum (Williams 1974: 31) suggests that Ruthwell had a stone church of some size and importance in the eleventh century. The current stone church is partially modern, but incorporates parts of an earlier building (see Figure A). Dinwiddie (1927: 140ff) reports that Henry Duncan remodelled the church in the early nineteenth century, moving the north wall outward by ten feet and the east wall in by ten yards. He claims that the walls of Murray’s Aisle and most of the south and west walls are thicker than the east and north walls, evidence of their greater antiquity. Dinwiddie (1927: 98) also refers to the incorporation of Murray’s Aisle into the main building in the late eighteenth century. The church before remodelling would therefore have been a rectangle approximately 4.3m north-south by 27.4m east-west, a shape consistent with an early date. The west wall contains a window which may date from the Norman period or earlier (Dinwiddie 1927: 141). This window and the architectural fragment at Dumfries combine to suggest that there may have been a stone church on the Ruthwell site from the eleventh century and perhaps earlier.

In 1978, an aerial survey revealed a ring enclosure approximately 175m in diameter, most of it in a field adjacent to the current churchyard at Ruthwell. The churchyard covers the enclosure at part of its perimeter. The aerial photograph led to excavations at the site by Chris Crowe. In 1980 he excavated a section 9m long at the opposite end of the enclosure to the church. In 1984 he made a follow-up investigation of two 3m by 3m areas in the field immediately to the west of the churchyard. Crowe (1987: 46) concludes that the site was a large defended ring enclosure used exclusively for ironworking during the Roman period 150-250. The dating is based on ironworking technology and cannot exclude the early medieval use of the site. As the main portion of the site has not been excavated no statement can be made as to its purpose, but the outer revetment of timber (Crowe 1987: 43) would be unusual in a monastic enclosure. The use of the site identified by Crowe appears to be unconnected to the early medieval ecclesiastical occupation. It does, however, indicate the suitability of the site for settlement. It also suggests that Ruthwell was part of the network of Roman-occupied sites in south-west Scotland. The nature of the site suggests that refined iron was exported from the site, which would necessitate good transport links with areas of Roman military activity.

Conclusion The monument at Ruthwell was almost certainly erected within 50 or 60 years of the death of Cuthbert. Ruthwell at this time ought not to be viewed as an isolated outpost of the Northumbrian ecclesiastical and political empires. Rather, it was a site which may have been occupied by a monastery for over a century. It was in an area where ecclesiastical institutions may have survived intact from the Roman period. It was surrounded by other ecclesiastical and monastic sites, which may have been far more closely spaced than in eastern Northumbria. It was in an area where the population, be they of British, Irish or English extraction, were close to the ideals and practices adhered to by most of the Celtic groups and rejected by the king of Northumbria at the synod of Whitby. It was also located on major transport and communication routes which linked it not only to the rest of Northumbria, but to the rest of the British Isles.

Ruthwell The Ruthwell Cross is not an isolated survival. There are several other items in the material record from the Ruthwell site. Three other pieces of sculptured stone survive. A sixth-century gravemarker now in Dumfries Museum suggests an early monastic graveyard at Ruthwell. An early monastic graveyard in turn suggests an early monastery. That no other evidence for such a monastery has been found is attributable rather to the minimal investigation of the site than to a confirmed lack of evidence. The ring enclosure seen in 1978 at first seemed to resemble a monastic enclosure, but the small excavation that was carried out at Ruthwell showed no evidence of such a use.

31

Chapter 4: Literature Review The Ruthwell Cross was ‘discovered’ by antiquaries in the eighteenth century. Since then it has been a subject of intense and increasing interest to various groups of scholars. Chapter 2 of this book examined the writings of many of the early antiquaries. After the monument was re-erected in the manse garden in 1802, scholars were interested almost exclusively in the Runic inscription. In the twentieth century, increasing scholarly interest has been shown in the Latin inscriptions and the vinescroll and figural sculpture. Exponents of language, poetry, religion, art history, sculpture, iconography, history and archaeology have all studied the Ruthwell Cross. It has been considered in the context of Pictish, Anglo-Saxon, British and Irish studies.

eighth centuries. Several other scholars published opinions on the Ruthwell vinescroll (eg Brøndsted 1924, Peers 1926). They were generally of the view that the best executed examples of vinescroll must have been made by imported artists, and attempted to construct various chronologies for stone sculpture based on the development and deterioration of the vinescroll motif. In the 1950s, writers such as Gardner (1951) and Stone (1955) continued to mention the Ruthwell vinescroll, but generally confined their discussion to a notice of earlier opinions with occasional modification. In the 1960s Rosemary Cramp brought a new perspective to the subject of Anglo-Saxon stone sculpture. In 1961 she published a paper on Northumbrian sculpture in Dumfriesshire which comments on Ruthwell’s place in the likely series of development of Northumbrian vinescroll. She places Ruthwell after Bewcastle but before Jedburgh, on the basis of a gradual reduction in the realism of the leaves (Cramp 1961: 6). She does not suggest that the work is foreign. Two years later, in a survey of early Northumbrian sculpture, Cramp compared the Ruthwell vinescroll to other examples. She finds the same types of seedpods, animals and similar details at Ruthwell and on fragments of vinescroll from Jarrow, and concludes that the Jarrow work and that at Ruthwell are very similar (Cramp 1963: 34f). In 1984, Cramp restated this view in the general introduction to the Corpus of Anglo-Saxon stone sculpture (Cramp 1984a: 16). Cramp’s attention to the details in the vinescroll and her careful comparison of those details across a wide selection of Northumbrian sculpture distinguish her work from that of earlier scholars.

This book will separately examine the vinescroll, figural carving, Latin inscriptions and Runic inscriptions. It will combine the material from each section to discuss issues of context, workmanship and audience for the monument. This chapter will review existing literature about each element in preparation for the detailed discussion in ensuing chapters. As the analyses rely on comparisons of the Ruthwell Cross to other works, this chapter will also review catalogue and corpus publications that list stone sculpture and related artefacts in the British Isles.

Vinescroll Most of the antiquarian visitors to Ruthwell did not comment on the vinescroll ornament at all, because they were primarily interested in the inscriptions. The vinescroll is, however, shown in all of the early drawings. Henry Duncan admired the elegance of the vinescroll, particularly when compared to the ‘cruder’ figure sculpture, and reproduced it in a cornice in the manse (Cassidy 1992: 23).

The 1980s saw a broadening of the study of vinescroll away from the strictly Northumbrian context. It became the subject of detailed study for scholars of Pictish and Irish art. Isabel Henderson’s important survey of Pictish vinescroll examines the small collection of surviving Pictish work and compares the major pieces with Ruthwell (Henderson 1983: 246ff), as part of her discussion of the relationship between Northumbrian and Pictish vinescroll. Nancy Edwards includes a useful appendix on Irish vinescroll in an article on the Clonmacnois South Cross (Edwards 1986). This article discusses Irish vinescroll and its relationship to Pictish and Northumbrian vinescroll, although it does not specifically mention Ruthwell.

Discussion of the vinescroll began in earnest in the 1920s. G Baldwin Brown’s The Arts in Early England dedicates most of Volume 5 (216 of 411 pages) to the Ruthwell and Bewcastle Crosses. The section dealing with vinescroll ornament occupies some eight pages (Brown 1921: 273ff). Brown discusses the relationships of the vinescroll at Ruthwell and Bewcastle with living plant forms and classical plant ornament. He concludes that the vinescroll at Ruthwell was adapted from Roman work by an artist who had never seen a living vine. An artist who had seen a vine, he argues, would never show its leaves sheathing bunches of berries as at Ruthwell. A lengthy digression on acanthus ornament in classical art leads Brown to the conclusion that the Ruthwell vinescroll has no acanthus features. Brown’s consideration of the birds and animals inhabiting the vinescroll is limited to a note that animals similar to the ‘fantasy-tailed creatures’ are found in southern English bronzes and Frankish manuscripts of the seventh and

Since Cramp’s detailed studies, it seems that the subject of Ruthwell’s vinescroll in the Northumbrian context has been exhausted. Those who wish to comment on the Ruthwell vinescroll generally cite Cramp and go no further. Some authors (eg Neuman de Vegvar 1987) discuss the relationship of Ruthwell to various 33

Pamela O’Neill continental models, while still relying on Cramp’s findings concerning Ruthwell’s insular workmanship and relationship to other Northumbrian sculpture.

that the archer represents Ishmael, and is therefore a part of the desert theme, and biblical in origin. Schapiro rejoined the debate to assert that the archer was intended to capture the imagination of the contemporary audience, and was therefore part of a tradition which included such secular motifs as hunting scenes and wild beasts (Schapiro 1963: 352).

The work of Rosemary Cramp is important in the study of the vinescroll on the Ruthwell Cross. Her attention to details of the vinescroll and comparison to other examples has made a considerable contribution to understanding of Ruthwell’s relationship to other stone sculpture, and distinguishes her work from that of other scholars, many of whom do not examine the vinescroll itself closely. This book will build on Cramp’s work, making a further detailed examination and using statistical analysis to investigate links between Ruthwell and other vinescroll.

In 1978 a new dimension was added to the question of theme when Éamonn Ó Carragáin, a specialist in liturgy and associated matters, suggested a link between the subject matter of the figural sculpture at Ruthwell and liturgical considerations of feast days and the mass. He points out the importance of liturgy in shaping the life of a monastery, and links some panels of the monument to liturgical texts. A series of subsequent articles have expanded and developed his arguments. He emphasises the multiplicity of meanings which might coexist in one picture or reference (Ó Carragáin 1983). He argues links between Gaul, Rome and Ruthwell in matters of liturgy (Ó Carragáin 1997). The Marian devotion, which he argues was newly developed in northern England, forms the focus for his explanation of the monument (Ó Carragáin 1999). Ó Carragáin’s is the first real attempt to consider the regular use to which the monument might have been put, and the context of the daily lives of those who might have used it.

Figural sculpture Notice of the figural sculpture on the Ruthwell Cross began with attempts to read the Runic inscriptions. John Kemble, in 1840, was pleased to note that his interpretation of the Runic inscription related to what he saw as the two principal figural carvings on the monument, the Christ and Magdalene and the worshipping beasts panels (Kemble 1840: 50-52). Other language specialists followed his lead. Albert Cook (1890: 154) identifies the bird on the upper north face as a dove with an olive branch, on the basis of the supposed inscription ‘I God no longer destroy man in anger’.

Papers from a Princeton University colloquium on the Ruthwell Cross, published as a book in 1992, discuss various aspects of the Ruthwell Cross. The article of importance for a study of the figural sculpture is Paul Meyvaert’s assessment of the theme of the cross (Meyvaert 1992). Meyvaert reviews each panel, discussing its associations for the medieval mind. He concludes that the upper stone should be rotated so that the Agnus Dei panel, which he describes as an apocalypse vision, appears on the south face. This adjustment then gives a division of the monument into the south face, designed to be viewed by the public, and the north face, designed to be viewed by monastics. Meyvaert’s approach to the study of the Ruthwell Cross adds to Ó Carragáin’s innovation by considering a physical context for the monument. He postulates an original position for it in the centre of the long narrow church. He admits to difficulties with the relationship of such a monument to the altar (Meyvaert 1992: n230). He does not address the likelihood of the original erection of a freestanding stone cross within a church building. As there is no evidence that any of the surviving monuments were originally indoors, this question needs to be addressed.

Brown led the way in looking at the figural sculpture on the Ruthwell Cross thoroughly and for its own sake. He finds continental and Insular comparisons for the subject matter of all but two of the figural panels. For the worshipping beasts panel he finds no parallel apart from Bewcastle. For the Christ and Magdalene panel he is unable to find a parallel earlier than the ninth century, and gives no details of any comparable ninth-century work (Brown 1921: 281ff). The style of the figural sculpture is derived from the Hellenistic East, he suggests (Brown 1921: 285). He advances the high technical quality, depth of relief, and use of complete cut-away sections as strong evidence of the monument’s early date, arguing that later debased examples of the form do not have these features (Brown 1921: 289). In 1944, Meyer Schapiro initiated a new discussion, centred on the theme or combination of the particular subjects presented. Schapiro compares the scenes illustrated on the monument to events in the life of St Mungo or Kentigern, and suggests that the purpose of the monument was to celebrate the local pre-Whitby Celtic observances in the face of the overbearing Northumbrians. He concludes somewhat more prudently that the figural sculpture has a strong eremitic theme which is ‘mainly Celtic in its religious content’ (Schapiro 1944: 176).

The most important recent work in the study of the figural sculpture on the Ruthwell Cross has been that which considers the monument as an integrated part of the religious community for which it was made. This book will consider further the question of the users of the monument. It will also take a statistical approach to the details of the figural sculpture, seeking to contribute to

The 1960s saw a digression into attempting to explain the apparently secular archer figure on the upper part of the Ruthwell Cross. Ernst Kantorowicz (1960: 57) argued 34

‘A pillar curiously engraven; with some inscription upon it’: What is the Ruthwell Cross? the questions of models and workmanship, which have remained largely unexplored since Brown’s early work.

inscription in person, and to have relied on three drawings for his reading (Kemble 1840: 48). Nonetheless, his interpretation is careful, methodical and credible. He claims that the inscription relates to the events in ‘the two principal compartments, viz. the washing the Saviour’s feet by Mary Magdalene, and the glorification of Christ through his passion’ (Kemble 1840: 47). He notes that it is in Old English alliterative metre and in the Northumbrian dialect of the seventh to ninth centuries.

Latin inscriptions Brown (1921) was the first scholar to make a detailed analysis of the Latin inscriptions on the Ruthwell Cross, as with the vinescroll and figural sculpture. His reading of the inscriptions is a little more extensive than more recent readings, and probably optimistic. A detailed comparison of the Ruthwell letterforms to those in early medieval Northumbrian and Irish manuscripts and sculptured stones leads him to the conclusion that the Ruthwell letter forms are similar to those in manuscripts such as the Lindisfarne Gospels.

In 1842, Kemble offered ‘further observations’ on the Ruthwell inscription, in a letter to the Society of Antiquaries which appeared in Archaeologia two years later (Kemble 1844). This letter explains that he has just rediscovered in his possession a copy of the poetry from the Vercelli Book, a tenth-century southern English manuscript. He was, he says, ‘agreeably surprised’ to discover that one of these poems, ‘The Dream of the Rood’, contained the entire text that he had discovered on the Ruthwell Cross ‘together with much more that must have perished’ (Kemble 1844: 33). His agreeable surprise perhaps caused Kemble to abandon his earlier careful methodical approach. He now assumes that ‘the reliefs upon the broad faces of the stone have no immediate relation to the inscription on the narrower sides’ (Kemble 1844: 38), a difficult assumption to support. He goes on to justify at some length the alteration to his original reading needed to bring the inscription into agreement with the manuscript and replace Mary Magdalene with the Cross as narrator.

Elizabeth Okasha’s valuable Handlist of Anglo-Saxon non-Runic inscriptions (1971) gives an authoritative text of the Ruthwell Latin inscriptions. The readings are careful and accurate, if a little conservative. She also suggests possible sources for some of the texts, such as the biblical extracts. The 1992 Princeton colloquium publication includes an ambitious article by David Howlett which seeks to reconstruct the inscriptions. It is an interesting exercise, which has very little basis in the surviving remnants of inscription. In some cases, he creates an entire sentence from a single surviving word. He even hazards a guess as to the inscriptions on the missing transom. The overall scheme of the inscriptions and their accompanying pictures is in his view related to the balance between the old and new testaments and the hierarchy of living creatures. There is no reason why Howlett’s version should not be correct, but equally no reason why other possibilities should not be considered.

On the whole, scholars, particularly those of Old English poetry and language, have tended to follow Kemble’s interpretation, to the extent that words from the Ruthwell and Vercelli texts are frequently interpolated into each other to reconstruct missing or doubtful sections. Recently, some scholars have begun to reject Kemble’s identification of the Ruthwell inscription with ‘The Dream of the Rood’. Howlett (1978: 167) states that the source of the Ruthwell inscription was ‘probably similar to, but distinct from’ the section of the Vercelli text. Bradley (1982: 159) says that the Ruthwell verses ‘are unlikely to be a quotation from a prototype version’ of ‘The Dream of the Rood’. He suggests that the Vercelli poet ‘deliberately borrows from the traditional verses a kind of authentication and the reverential aura belonging to familiar antiquity’.

Runic inscription The Runic inscription on the Ruthwell Cross has attracted perhaps more attention than any other feature. Its poor condition has led to considerable speculation. Its meaning was completely unknown until the early nineteenth century when Scandinavian philologists attempted interpretations which were soon rejected (Kemble 1840: 43-47), their principal shortcoming being an assumption that the runes were from the Scandinavian futhark. The consequent inability to make a coherent translation led to recognition of the problem and rejection of the assumption that the runes were Scandinavian.

Other works This review has considered the major developments in writing on four aspects of the Ruthwell Cross. A large number of other works have been written about the monument, contributing to other aspects of its study but not making a major contribution in any of these four areas. Many of these works have informed the views expressed in this book and are listed in the bibliography.

In 1840 John Kemble published in Archaeologia a paper whose stated objects were to discuss the use of AngloSaxon runes, to distinguish them from those of the Scandinavians, whose scholars he says ‘have been so obliging as to attempt to decipher’ the English inscriptions, and ‘to save them this trouble in future’ (Kemble 1840: 10). He deals with several Runic texts from both inscriptions and manuscripts, and applies his superior knowledge to the Ruthwell inscription with obvious relish. He appears not to have seen the 35

Pamela O’Neill

Catalogues

this information would be more useful if located within the catalogue entries.

The Corpus of Anglo-Saxon stone sculpture in England (Cramp 1984a, Cramp 1984b, Bailey & Cramp 1988, Lang 1991, Tweddle et al 1995) is a project of the British Academy. It aims to present a comprehensive catalogue of stone sculpture in England from the beginning of Anglo-Saxon influence to the Norman conquest. Each volume deals with a pre-1974 county or group of counties. Unfortunately only four volumes had been published at the time of this research, although the fifth and sixth appeared prior to completion of this book. The introductory matter for each volume summarises trends in style, iconography, materials and techniques within the area, and draws comparisons with objects in other media and other regions. The catalogue entries give a physical description of each item, using standardised terminology which is explained and illustrated in the general introduction to the series. Each catalogue entry also gives the original and present locations, condition, date and an analysis of the item, and is accompanied by illustrations and a list of references.

For Scotland, the modern scholar still relies on John Romilly Allen’s 1903 Early Christian monuments of Scotland. This work was an outstanding accomplishment, but is now sadly out of date. It lack entries for more recently discovered sculpture, gives outdated locations for the pieces, and has very few and poor quality photographs, relying rather on drawings, some of which are demonstrably inaccurate. A recent reprint (Allen 1993) includes an introduction by Isabel Henderson referring to sources which update some of the entries. Nash-Williams’ 1950 Early Christian monuments of Wales is clearly an attempt to match the Scottish work. It is more brief, but contains more photographs, which are still unfortunately not of the quality to which a modern scholar is accustomed. This work suffers the same drawbacks as does its Scottish counterpart. A useful catalogue for all forms of early medieval art is Webster and Backhouse’s The Making of England. This is divided into temporal periods, and subdivided into media. It lists the major pieces in each category, giving current location, approximate date, place of manufacture, and a discussion. Most pieces are illustrated. Because of the extensive coverage and comparatively small size of this catalogue, it is not comprehensive, though it covers what are generally considered the most important pieces from each category.

Harbison’s High Crosses of Ireland (1992) aims to present a comprehensive catalogue of freestanding stone crosses in Ireland. It does not address other forms of stone sculpture in Ireland. The crosses are catalogued by town or village, each entry giving an extensive description of the panels on the cross and discussing the iconography of the subject matter. A volume of photographs accompanies the catalogue. Dating, comparative iconography, and schools of sculpture are discussed separately. The lack of clear comment on dating for each entry is very frustrating for the reader, and while the comparative discussion is valuable, some of

36

Chapter 5: Statistical Analysis of Vinescroll Vinescroll is a distinctive type of ornament which occurs in a wide range of artistic contexts. In the British Isles, the term ‘plantscroll’ is often used, as the plant frequently loses any resemblance to a Classical or Eastern vine. Vinescroll derives its theological significance from the biblical reference at John 15:1-17, where Christ compares himself and his followers to a fruiting vine and its branches1. The vine appears in the art of many regions throughout the early Christian period. In some cases it appears as a simple vine, and in others animals and birds are added amongst the foliage. The term vinescroll is used when the vine forms a series of compartments by means of curves in the main stem and/or the volutes which branch from it. The presence or absence of animals in the compartments is indicated by the terms ‘inhabited’ or ‘uninhabited’. Cramp (1984a: xxiv) is of the view that vinescroll in England was based on Classical originals, meaning presumably Mediterranean or Near Eastern (Cramp 1984b: 15), whereas Radford (1977: 115) and others believe that it was derived from sources further east such as Syria.

Firm dating for sculpture with vinescroll is practically impossible, as the only available basis for dating is stylistic. A small number of the objects have inscriptions, but none contain significant information for dating purposes. Aspects of language, particularly of the Anglo-Saxon inscriptions, have frequently been used in arguing dates, but no agreement has been reached. Attempts have been made at establishing a chronological sequence for the sculpture, but these, together with arguments for relationships between various pieces and schools of sculpture are again largely speculative, and based on stylistic considerations.

Multivariate analysis For this project, I set out to statistically measure the degree of likeness between the various panels of inhabited vinescroll on the Ruthwell Cross and other pieces of sculpture, with the aim of providing a further contribution to the much-debated question of the relationships between the various pieces and schools of sculpture. I conducted a multivariate analysis of the inhabited vinescroll panels on the Ruthwell Cross in comparison with those on a number of other objects. Multivariate analysis measures a number of different attributes or variables in each unit of a sample to establish relationships between the units. It encompasses a wide range of methods, all statistically valid, and useful for different applications.

Vinescroll makes its first appearance in the post-Roman British Isles at approximately the same time as relief sculpture begins to emerge, that is the end of the seventh or beginning of the eighth century. It does not survive from this earliest period in other art forms. Henderson (1983: 244) suggests that it is possible that it was used in the British Isles by craftsmen in metal and ivory earlier than by sculptors, but concedes that the few surviving objects in these media cannot be dated before the middle of the eighth century. In the early period, vinescroll is most prevalent in the Northumbrian area. Inhabited and uninhabited vinescroll seem to have emerged simultaneously, and indeed are frequently found together in separate panels on the same object.

After obtaining promising results from experimentation with statistical computer programmes, I commissioned a purpose-written minimum spanning tree programme. I established a sample of units of vinescroll from throughout the British Isles and examined each unit for the presence or absence of each of a series of attributes. The programme used this information to create a tree diagram showing the closest links for each unit. This tree showed clusters of like units within the sample, and indicated the degree of likeness of various clusters and units. Linked or like objects were placed together on the tree’s various branches.

Freestanding sculpture in the form of crosses or pillars is the most common sculptural vehicle for vinescroll. A number of examples also occur on panels and friezes which were probably parts of shrines and architectural features, but only a small fraction of the surviving stone sculpture features vinescroll. It appears to have been more popular in Anglo-Saxon culture than with the remaining pockets of Celtic culture. There are less than ten surviving examples of vinescroll from Wales or Ireland, and none of the Welsh examples are inhabited. In Scotland, there are two geographical groupings of objects with vinescroll. The first is the southern area, believed to have been Anglo-Saxon, and the second is the north-eastern Pictish area, where vinescroll appears only on the latest group of sculpture.

Preliminary experimentation Initial experimentation was carried out using the multivariate analysis programme MV Nutshell, developed by Australian archaeologist Richard Wright. The Ruthwell Cross was divided into upper stone, west face, and east face, and compared to 27 other objects with vinescroll, not necessarily inhabited. The analysis was based on the presence or absence of ten attributes of the vine and its appendages as observed in photographs of the objects. The programme arranged the objects in a multidimensional space according to similarity, then constructed four axes through the space and plotted those

1 John 15: 5 reads ‘I am the vine, and you are the branches. He who dwells in me, as I dwell in him, bears much fruit; for apart from me you can do nothing.’ (New English Bible)

37

Pamela O’Neill axes (see Figure A). Much of the information generated was of little use, as some objects appeared identical because they shared the same attributes from such a limited group. However, there was a clear indication that the east face of the Ruthwell Cross corresponded fairly closely to the Bewcastle cross, and also that the east, west and upper portions of Ruthwell did not correspond particularly closely to each other.

relationship between Bewcastle and the east face of Ruthwell was close.

A second experiment used MV Nutshell to consider 19 attributes of the 16 inhabited vinescroll objects from the initial range. Despite the increase in the number of attributes the results were surprisingly similar (see Figure B). There were no longer any clusters of objects appearing identical, as the group of attributes had increased and the range of objects decreased. The only close relationship was between the east face of Ruthwell and the Bewcastle cross. Again, the relationship between the three parts of Ruthwell was no closer than any other, and indeed, more distant than that between the east face of Ruthwell and Bewcastle.

Sample

As the minimum spanning tree programme appeared to give clearer results, while following the same general trends as MV Nutshell, it was used to conduct a far more detailed analysis, using an enlarged sample and an extended group of attributes.

The extended sample consisted of objects with inhabited vinescroll from the British Isles. The selection of the sample was dictated principally by accessibility. In many cases, this depended on reliable publication of the objects. In order to include a wider range of objects, the definition of vinescroll was extended to include any depiction of animals involved in vegetation. Thus any depiction of an animal immediately adjacent to but independent of a piece of vegetation was excluded, while an animal largely surrounded by or interacting with the vegetation was included. Only three-dimensional objects were considered; thus metal, ivory, bone and stone pieces were included, and pieces of flat art such as manuscripts were excluded. This enabled the consideration of threedimensional attributes such as the nature of the relief work.

These results were of considerable interest, and useful in themselves. However, these were the only clear results generated by the experiments with MV Nutshell, and an alternative methodology seemed desirable as it might produce results of greater clarity. MV Nutshell was developed to analyse large and cohesive samples of data concerning such archaeological phenomena as skulls or prehistoric rock art. The sample of early medieval vinescroll, particularly inhabited vinescroll, even if expanded to include all surviving examples, would still be relatively small and scattered, and this may have accounted for the lack of clarity in the results. A purpose-written programme was therefore created in the context of this sample in the hope that it might generate clearer results.

The primary source for the sample was the four published volumes of the Corpus of Anglo-Saxon stone sculpture (Cramp 1984b; Bailey & Cramp 1988; Lang 1991; Tweddle et al 1995). All objects published in these volumes which have animals involved in vegetation identifiable from the photographs were chosen as part of the sample. This selection is clearly not representative of all early medieval stone sculpture in England, as it covers only about one third of the geographical area of England. It is also unfortunate that it excludes the potentially interesting area of medieval Mercia.

A further experiment was thus conducted using the minimum spanning tree programme. This programme uses the count of differences between pairs of sites (‘Hamming distance’) to attribute a ‘cost’ to each relationship. It then generates a tree diagram with nodes but no cycles, where every points representing an object is joined to at least one other point. This tree represents the minimum possible total cost for the joins. The cost of the relationship appears as a distance between the two objects. The programme presents the tree in the form of a list of links and their costs, which can be used as instructions for drawing a visual representation of the tree.

To partially address this imbalance, additional objects illustrated in The making of England (Webster & Backhouse 1991) were included. This catalogue has fairly comprehensive coverage of the principal AngloSaxon works of the seventh to ninth centuries, as it relates to an exhibition in which artefacts from many different collections were assembled. The selection of objects from this catalogue was again on the basis of animals involved in vegetation identifiable from the photographs. This extended the sample to include objects from Western Yorkshire, Norfolk, Leicestershire and Worcestershire, areas not covered by the Corpus of Anglo-Saxon stone sculpture. It also enabled the inclusion of portable objects believed to be of AngloSaxon workmanship.

This programme was applied to the same data as were used in the first MV Nutshell experiment (see Figure C). The tree showed the west face of Ruthwell at a considerable cost distance from all other objects. The remaining objects clustered more closely, with a slightly larger distance separating a group consisting of the east face of Ruthwell, Bewcastle, Lowther and Hexham 2 from the remainder of the cluster. Once again, the

Sculptured stone crosses from Ireland with inhabited vinescroll were identified in The High Crosses of Ireland (Harbison 1992) and included in the sample. Four of the five Pictish objects with inhabited vinescroll identified by Isabel Henderson (1983) were included. The fifth, the 38

‘A pillar curiously engraven; with some inscription upon it’: What is the Ruthwell Cross? cross slab from Mugdrum, Fife, was omitted because no illustration of it could be located in Sydney at the time of this research.

sculpture for York and eastern Yorkshire and are the entire known corpus of stone sculpture with inhabited vinescroll for this region (Lang 1991). The objects with inhabited vinescroll make up approximately one quarter of the objects with vinescroll in the region. Two units from separate objects were taken from the Corpus of Anglo-Saxon stone sculpture for south-east England, and are the only known sculptured stones with inhabited vinescroll in this region (Tweddle et al 1995). They are approximately one half of the stones with vinescroll in the region. In each region, vinescroll of either kind occurs on a small minority of the surviving stone sculptures. This is less than 10% for all areas except Cumberland, Westmorland and Lancashire-north-of-theSands, where the incidence of vinescroll is almost 15%.

The most difficult group of objects for which to obtain samples was the stone sculpture of apparently AngloSaxon style located in modern Scotland. Because the Ruthwell Cross itself falls into this category, it was considered to be an important group. The Corpus of Anglo-Saxon stone sculpture considers only objects with find-sites in modern England, whereas Isabel Henderson's article considers only Pictish objects and The early Christian monuments of Scotland (Allen 1903) provides photographs of only two non-Pictish sculptured stones with inhabited vinescroll. The objects from this group which were included in the sample were therefore assembled from a variety of sources, and cannot be claimed with any certainty to be the complete collection.

Twelve units were originally sourced through The Making of England (Webster & Backhouse 1991). Of these, two shafts from Yorkshire provided one and three units respectively, a cross-head from Worcestershire provided two units, and a frieze from Leicestershire provided a single unit. The other five units represented five different portable objects, two in metal, one in bone and two in ivory.

Despite some shortcomings in the accessibility of source material, the sample assembled for this analysis may be conservatively estimated as representing approximately 75% of the surviving inhabited vinescroll on pre-Norman stone sculpture from the British Isles. It therefore provides an adequate sample size for an exercise such as this.

Three units were taken from The High Crosses of Ireland (Harbison 1992). Each unit represents a separate object. Harbison catalogues 235 crosses in total. These three are all from the midlands region of Ireland. Harbison identifies uninhabited vinescroll on one other cross (Harbison 1992: 76) and one further severely weathered instance of what is probably inhabited vinescroll (Harbison 1992: 50), both also from the midlands.

Where an object included multiple panels of vinescroll identifiably separated from each other, by a distinct panel division or by being on separate non-contiguous fragments or by being on different faces of the object, each panel was considered as a separate unit. The four separate panels of vinescroll on the Ruthwell Cross were therefore considered as four separate units. This was done because in every case the multiple panels seemed to contain differences, in some cases slight but in others more extreme. The preliminary experiments in correspondence analysis highlighted the differences between the panels on the Ruthwell Cross.

Five units were taken from four of the five Pictish stones with inhabited vinescroll (Henderson 1983: 243). Henderson identifies a further fifteen Pictish stones with uninhabited vinescroll (Henderson 1983: 243 & 267). Vinescroll is found on only a small minority of the surviving Pictish stones, all from the later part of the Pictish period.

The sample used for the analysis is shown at Figure D, which shows for each unit the name used in this analysis, catalogue reference where available, find site and approximate date.

Four units representing four different stone sculptures of apparently Anglo-Saxon style in modern Scotland were identified from various sources (Cramp 1984b: illus 1429; Bailey & Cramp 1988: illus 677; Allen 1903: 437; Close-Brooks & Stevenson 1982: 17). As there is no published corpus of this group of stones, it is difficult to comment on their context and significance. The apparently Anglo-Saxon sculptured stones in Scotland seem to be a small group, and it is probable that those with vinescroll are approximately half of the surviving body. A few pieces are known with uninhabited vinescroll. The four units from the Ruthwell Cross representing the east and west faces of the upper and lower stones also fall into this category.

A total of 49 units were identified for the analysis. 11 units, representing seven objects, were taken from the Corpus of Anglo-Saxon stone sculpture for Northumberland and Durham and are the entire known corpus of stone sculpture with inhabited vinescroll for this region (Cramp 1984b). The number of inhabited vinescroll stones is approximately half of the total number of stones with vinescroll in the region. Five units, each a separate object, were taken from the Corpus of Anglo-Saxon stone sculpture for Cumberland, Westmorland and Lancashire North-of-the-Sands (Bailey & Cramp 1988). This is the entire known corpus of stone sculpture with inhabited vinescroll for this region, and is approximately one quarter of the total number of stones with vinescroll in the region. Three units, each a separate object, were taken from the Corpus of Anglo-Saxon stone

Attributes A group of attributes was established, describing various characteristics present on some, but not all, of the units in 39

Pamela O’Neill the sample. The attributes are listed in Table A. They describe small mannerisms of the carving as well as more clear features. Taken as a group, they should begin to describe a sculptor’s individual response to an instruction to create inhabited vinescroll. For example, the inclusion of a median incision on the main stem would probably not be derived from an instruction, and arguably not even from a model, but rather from the sculptor’s training or background, where vine stems have a median incision as a matter of course.

adjacent units on the tree is 10. The shortest distance between two units is 2. Several units are distinctly isolated from all others. At a distance of 10 from their nearest neighbours are the shafts from Urswick, Dacre and Reculver, the Hovingham slab, and a grouping of the two fragments of the Rothbury cross. The Ormside bowl, the upper east and lower west faces of Ruthwell, and the grouping of Bewcastle, Jedburgh and the lower east face of Ruthwell, are all at a distance of 9 from their nearest neighbours. These seven individual units and two groupings can all be considered as being separate from the main cluster. All other units join at a distance of 8 or less.

The selection of these attributes was necessarily somewhat arbitrary, as each unit has many more characteristics than could reasonably be included in the study for this book. Most of the attributes occur on one or more units from the Ruthwell Cross, and some (eg 3, 5, 6, 9) were selected because they occur on one but not all of the Ruthwell Cross units. Others were included because, while distinctive, and present on other objects, they do not occur on Ruthwell (eg 14,15,18,19). Because of this, the selection of attributes could be expected to skew the results slightly so that the results would give more precise information about the relationships including one or more of the Ruthwell units than about the relationships between units other than Ruthwell. The results would nonetheless be useful, as they would give precise information where Ruthwell is concerned and indicate general tendencies in the cases of other objects.

There are three close pairs in the tree. These are the two faces of the Cropthorne cross-head and the two fragments of the Auckland cross, each 2 apart, and two of the three fragments of the Easby shaft, which are 3 apart. There are four discernible axes to the tree, radiating out from the central area around the Auckland shaft and the Larling whalebone panel. One axis is fairly elongated, with two branches at its end. It contains the three linked Irish pieces, together with a scattering of others. Worth noting are the two linked units from Hexham, an important Northumbrian centre for stone sculpture, located at the extreme end of one arm. This axis is joined to the others via two Pictish pieces, and the shaft from Closeburn, which is geographically very close to Ruthwell.

A total of 40 attributes were selected, as allowing consideration of a good range of variables without becoming too large for manageability in this exercise. 40 attributes addressing characteristics of the vine and its appendages as well as the inhabitants could be expected to give a reliable indication of the general nature of the relationships between the units, although more attributes should be expected to give more precise information.

The second axis contains another varied array, including the remaining Pictish pieces, together with some of the portable items and a few pieces from the various English sites. The link between this axis and the central area is formed by the shaft from Morham, near Edinburgh.

Each unit of the sample was examined for the presence or absence of each attribute. Where the attribute was clearly present, the result was recorded as ‘y’. Where the attribute was either clearly absent or not able to be seen, the result was recorded as ‘n’ (see Table B). This was initially done using photographs, and with some reference to the texts of the source works. In each case the photograph or photographs in the source listed at Figure D were used, and where available, other photographs were consulted for alternative views or lighting conditions. During a visit to the British Isles in 1999, I examined in person as many objects as possible, to confirm or correct my observations from the photographs.

The third and smallest axis consists of an assortment including the Cropthorne crosshead, the unusual shaft with exploded vinescroll from Urswick, and the ivory Gandersheim casket. The points of particular interest in this axis are the Hoddam lost shaft and the two Jarrow panels, all of which appear at its extreme end. These three are all frequently claimed as close relatives for the Ruthwell Cross. The final axis contains the four units of the Ruthwell Cross. It is the largest of the four axes, and is loosely clustered rather than elongated. It is joined to the centre of the tree by the Oxford shaft, and has at its centre the shaft from Easby in Yorkshire. Many of the units on this axis are isolated. The Rothbury cross and the Hovingham panel are loosely connected to the tree at this axis. All of the Ruthwell units are here, but none of them connect directly to each other. Two of them are isolated, connecting at a distance of 9 to their nearest neighbours. A third connects at the fairly long distance of 7. The fourth, the lower east face, forms an isolated sub-cluster with the Bewcastle shaft and the Jedburgh panel.

Results The minimum spanning tree shows a great variation in the cost of the links between units (see figure E). The longest direct distance from one unit to another is 26 (Hexham 21b panel to Bewcastle shaft). This does not appear on the tree, as it is not part of the minimum total cost arrangement. The longest distance between two

40

‘A pillar curiously engraven; with some inscription upon it’: What is the Ruthwell Cross? Bewcastle and Jedburgh are geographically fairly close to Ruthwell, the three sites all located on the corridor between Lindisfarne and Whithorn.

cross-head are virtually complete and well preserved, so that their closeness on the tree clearly reflects that the two faces of each are very similar. The fragments from Easby are fairly closely grouped, with the lowest fragment separated, reflecting the alteration in the vinescroll at the very base of the shaft. The lower fragment is also smaller than the other two and may display fewer attributes. The two panels of vinescroll on the Hilton of Cadboll crossslab are also fairly complete, and it is interesting that they are widely separated on the tree, indicating that there are significant differences between the two panels.

Discussion Many of the units identified by the minimum spanning tree as isolated could be expected to be so on consideration of their background. Bailey and Cramp (1988: 91) identify the shaft at Dacre as being uncharacteristic of its time and place, and possibly the result of an oriental influence. The Ormside bowl is the only piece of its kind included in the sample. The peculiar requirements of the bowl shape may well be sufficient explanation in themselves for the isolation of this piece. The Urswick shaft is, like Dacre, difficult to locate in a specific tradition. It bears Anglo-Saxon Runic inscriptions, one memorial and the other of the signature type. Bailey and Cramp (1988: 150) suggest a late date and possible Viking influence for this shaft. It may represent Adam and Eve, or the great cosmic tree, rather than the more traditional form of vinescroll. The Hovingham panel has horizontal vinescroll, subsidiary to a row of arcaded figures. The sculpture is compared by Lang (1991: 147) to work from the Midlands, which area is under-represented in this sample. Brøndsted (1924: 37) pointed out the Middle Eastern affinity of the Hovingham vinescroll. The Reculver fragment is the bust of a human figure enclosed by a curving stem with leaves. It is quite different in composition from the remainder of the sample.

In the case of separate fragments of vinescroll believed to belong to a single face or panel of the object, it seems possible that damage to the fragments and their incompleteness might explain the lack of identity between them. Indeed, if the object were complete and the fragments combined, they would have been considered as a single unit for this study. In the case of separate panels of vinescroll appearing on separate faces of the same object, such an explanation is not sufficient. In these cases the panels survive complete or in large sections. They were all originally placed symmetrically on the objects. At Auckland, the vinescroll occurs on the two sides of the shaft, beneath where the arms of the cross are supposed to have been. At Cropthorne, it is on the front and back. It seems that the panels were intended to present the same overall appearance, while the details were allowed to vary slightly. At Hilton of Cadboll, the panels appear as left and right borders of the cross face of the slab. The variation in their appearance is apparently deliberate, as even the basic structure of the vine is different, and the panels are widely separated on the minimum spanning tree.

The remaining isolated units are somewhat more surprising. They are the four units from Ruthwell, the east face of which is coupled with the Bewcastle shaft and the Jedburgh panel. Each of these appears ostensibly to be a part of the mainstream vinescroll tradition.

The Ruthwell cross panels present a completely different pattern from those found in the foregoing examples. None of the panels links directly to any other. Although they are all found on the same axis of the minimum spanning tree, they are widely dispersed and two of them are completely isolated.

The Ruthwell cross and the Bewcastle shaft might be expected to stand a little apart from many other pieces, given that many of the attributes were selected because they distinguish one or more units of the Ruthwell cross from other units, and that the two objects have long been considered to be very similar. It could not, however, be expected that there would be only one other unit in the entire sample which would show a significant likeness to Ruthwell or Bewcastle. This result shows that while many of the attributes present at Ruthwell, Bewcastle and Jedburgh are also present on other units, they do not appear on any other unit in a combination similar to those found at Ruthwell, Bewcastle and Jedburgh.

An important implication of the patterning of the Ruthwell units is that the upper and lower stones do not appear to be particularly similar. There are considerable differences in the carving techniques of the two faces of the lower stone, and in the two faces of the upper stone. Further, there are considerable differences between the upper and lower stones of each face. The fact that the two stones do not link to each other for each face suggests that the two stones were not made at the same time or by the same sculptor. The upper and lower portions of each face are contiguous except for a narrow border at the upper edge of the lower stone. If the stones were made at the same time and by the same sculptor, the vinescroll could be expected to be more similar. The arrangement of the ornament and inscriptions suggest that the upper Ruthwell stone may have been made later as a companion to the lower stone at Ruthwell.

The results for multiple units from single objects provide interesting material for discussion. First, it is noteworthy that no two units from a single object are identical. This may be in part because many are small fragments, and do not show the full range of ornament which was probably present on the original sculpture. This would account for Escomb, Rothbury and Hexham in particular. The two faces from Auckland are relatively large and in quite good condition, and the two faces of the Cropthorne 41

Pamela O’Neill Given the possibility that the upper stone at Ruthwell is not a part of the original design scheme of the lower stone, it is useful to consider the lower stone as a single object, temporarily setting aside the question of the upper stone. The lower stone presents two faces which are very different. There are more differences between them than between many pairs of unrelated objects. The west face stands out as being extremely unusual in the context of this study. It has no significant links to any other object in the sample. This is to a certain extent true of its appearance also. It shows a great variety and liveliness amongst the appendages and inhabitants. There is a noticeable lack of uniformity amongst them. The volutes forming the compartments of the scroll spring from different points on the curve of the stem, some above and others below the compartment. The leaves take a number of different forms and arrangements, and the inhabitants are in a variety of postures, some seeming to emerge from the vine towards the viewer while others have their backs turned. Some but not all grip the stem or appendages of the vine or bite at the bunches or stem. They even break free at one point from the alternate facing pattern.

It seems likely that the two faces of the Ruthwell Cross were created by different artists. Many of the differences relate to what might be considered personal style rather than set design rules. The vigour of the animals, the details on the stem and leaves, and the choice between uniformity and variety all fall into this category. They could be copied from a model, but are more likely to be elements of the personal style of the artist. This style would derive from the artist’s background, training and influences, as well as personal preferences. The differences in the two panels of vinescroll suggest that a design from a single model or group of models may have been executed by two different artists. Two explanations for the differences between the panels of vinescroll are suggested. One is that the lower stone of the Ruthwell Cross was sculpted by two different artists or teams from different backgrounds working at more or less the same time. It would clearly be impossible for both sides of the stone to actually be worked simultaneously, but the two faces could have been carved consecutively or even in alternate shifts. Such an arrangement, with two artists or teams working on the same project, would appear to have been unusual, given that the only other monument with two symmetrically placed panels of inhabited vinescroll displaying such marked differences is the Hilton of Cadboll slab. That this Pictish piece is the only other with this unusual feature raises the possibility of a link between Pictish sculpture and the Ruthwell Cross.

The east face, by contrast, is very uniform in its presentation. Here the inhabitants face in strict alternation. They are all in strict front or profile view and take formal positions, perching sedately in the vine. All grip the stem of the vine and nibble at the fruit or flowers. The leaves are all of the pointed/lobed type, and do not appear in pairs or triple groupings. A range of types of fruit and flowers are present, providing variety within the formal arrangement. The volutes forming each compartment spring from the same point on the curve of the stem. This disposition is very similar to that at Bewcastle, where the inhabitants face alternately and always grip the vine and bite the fruit, and the leaves are all either pointed/lobed or triangular.

The second likely explanation of the differences is that the work was completed by more than one team working in separate seasons. The work was likely to have been carried out outdoors, which would mean that for several months of the year work would be unable to proceed due to rain, low temperatures and poor light. In fact, even if the work were carried out indoors the light would probably be inadequate for such fine work to be carried out all year. The later medieval cathedrals were built in seasons, with work proceeding only in some part of the year, and many show evidence of work by several different teams of masons (eg Seville, Santiago de Compostela: Grünenfelder 1976: 114, 106). Such an arrangement is surely also possible for a large and detailed sculpture in stone such as the Ruthwell Cross.

There is a clear difference between the two faces of the lower stone at Ruthwell. They are apparent on visual inspection, and are indicated by the locations of these two units on the minimum spanning tree. The vinescroll on the west face is more lively than that on the east. Naturalistic features such as the grooved stem and variety of leaves, fruit and flowers contribute to this impression. So do the beasts, engaging as they do with the vine and with the viewer. The east face has more stylised, formulaic features, like the rounded stem, single leaf type and comparatively listless beasts.

The location of Ruthwell, outside the mainstream of Northumbrian stone sculpture, would lend itself to such an arrangement. The contrast between the two faces might well be explained by a need to employ whatever good quality artists, capable of creating a relief sculpture of Ruthwell’s style, were available there. Such an explanation might also allow the upper stone to be considered as part of the original scheme, executed at a different season. In the more central areas, examples such as Auckland and Cropthorne might have been made by a single artist or team, even if over several seasons. This is difficult to say with any certainty, as we have no clear idea of the extent of the original body of sculpture.

The two faces are either based on different models or created by different artists. It is unlikely that different models would be used to create two pieces of vinescroll which fill identical spaces and are of the same overall layout. A comparable example is at Hilton of Cadboll, where the vinescroll is different in the two panels, but the primary difference is a structural one, where the stem of one panel forms undulating curves and the other forms zig-zags. There is also some variation in the appendages and inhabitants, as is found at Ruthwell.

42

‘A pillar curiously engraven; with some inscription upon it’: What is the Ruthwell Cross? We can only be certain that a considerable amount has been lost.

Cross. The upper stone appears to belong to a different context from the lower stone. The two faces of the lower stone show significant differences in style but not in organisation which suggest that they may be by different artists, possibly in a seasonal work arrangement. The analysis of the figural carvings and inscriptions in the next chapters will be compared to the results of the vinescroll analysis to further examine these questions.

An assessment of the vinescroll on the Ruthwell Cross has revealed significant differences between it and other sculptured objects from the British Isles in the early medieval period. These differences indicate that the Ruthwell Cross cannot be considered solely as a part of any of the contemporary schools of sculpture. The analysis also casts doubt on the unity of the Ruthwell

43

Chapter 6: Statistical Analysis of Figural Sculpture Sample

Perhaps as much as ten percent of early medieval stone sculptures of the British Isles include figural carvings, specifically carvings depicting human figures. They range from crude incised figures without facial features to the elaborate and detailed relief carvings found on the Ruthwell Cross. They occur throughout the period, and relief carvings of human figures are also found on sculptures from the earlier Romano-British period.

I collected a sample of 50 sculptural panels and fragments depicting central, forward-facing human figures (see Figure A). The sample was drawn from 40 different objects. In some cases up to three different units were taken from a single object. In order to achieve a workable number of units from each area, different criteria were applied in different areas. For areas where there were sufficient surviving examples, only those in relatively good condition were included in the sample. The entire sample consisted of panels sculptured in relief; incised figures, which would be difficult to compare with the figures at Ruthwell, were excluded. All figures selected were human1, so that depictions of angels with identifiable wings were excluded. All were in a pose which might be interpreted as standing. All had facial features if the head was still present on the fragment. All wore some sort of clothing.

The sculptor divided the north and south faces of the Ruthwell Cross into panels containing figural carvings. Setting aside their subject matter, these can be divided into three distinct groups according to visual criteria. The first group contains a central, full-length, forward-facing figure, possibly with subsidiary figures arranged symmetrically about it, the second group contains two figures of similar size side by side, and the third group shows figures in other arrangements incorporated into a broader scene. The third group has only one wellpreserved panel, the flight into Egypt, although the damaged lowest panel on the north face may also belong here. In the second group are the Annunciation, the healing, the Mary and Martha, and the Paul and Anthony. The first group consists of the Magdalene, the worshipping beasts and the Agnus Dei. The damaged crucifixion panel probably belongs to this group also. Panels with a central forward-facing figure are also found on plaques of ivory and metal frequently associated with book covers. Many depictions of the Crucifixion fall into this category, as the Christ figure is generally central and occupies most of the panel. The Crucifixion panel at Ruthwell would also belong to this grouping, but is too badly damaged for consideration here.

As with the pattern established in the vinescroll analysis, a panel from the upper stone of Ruthwell was included, together with the two Christ panels from the lower face. The figure on the upper stone is probably better interpreted as sitting, but it has frequently been claimed (eg Howlett 1992: 75) that it is standing. It is usually interpreted as representing John the Baptist holding the Agnus Dei. Three units were located in the Corpus of Anglo-Saxon stone sculpture for Cumberland, Westmorland and Lancashire-north-of-the-Sands (Bailey & Cramp 1988). Two of these are from the Bewcastle cross, and appear to be strongly similar to the Agnus Dei and worshipping beasts panels at Ruthwell. The third is a small slab with the Crucifixion from Penrith.

Two of the figural carvings of the first group on the Ruthwell Cross depict Christ standing with his right hand in a blessing gesture. In the uppermost panel of the south face of the lower stone, Christ stands with a book in his left hand, above Mary Magdalene, who holds her hair to his feet. In the corresponding panel on the north face, Christ stands holding a cylindrical object above two beasts of indeterminate species, which look up at him with their paws raised in what appears to be a worshipping gesture. The two figures of Christ are ostensibly alike, standing in a solemn, imposing posture, with the right hand raised apparently in blessing.

Five units were located in the Corpus of Anglo-Saxon stone sculpture for County Durham and Northumberland (Cramp 1984b). The Auckland shaft used in the vinescroll analysis yielded a Crucifixion and a nimbed figure between two others. A fragmentary figure of Christ and a waist-up depiction of a human figure were taken from a single cross shaft at Rothbury. The other unit is a badly damaged human figure on a shaft fragment from Ovingham. Five units were located in the Corpus of Anglo-Saxon stone sculpture for eastern Yorkshire (Lang 1991). Two are shafts from the city of York and depict nimbed figures. One from Folkton is a shaft fragment with a standing figure now missing its head, and two faces of a

A panel on the Bewcastle cross is remarkably similar to that on the north face at Ruthwell. A central Christ figure stands imposingly above two beasts in similar posture to those at Ruthwell. Christ again has his right hand raised in blessing while his left holds a cylindrical object. Bearing in mind that the vinescroll analysis in Chapter 5 yielded interesting results for three very similar panels from Ruthwell and Bewcastle, I carried out a similar analysis incorporating these figural panels.

I use the word human in the sense of bearing the physical characteristics of a human being and not of any other living being. Thus I include Christ, despite the theological difficulties associated with referring to Christ as human (see the chapter on the runic inscription).

1

45

Pamela O’Neill

Attributes

substantial piece of shaft from Nunburnholme depict single standing figures. These are supplemented by a shaft fragment from Otley with an upper body depiction of a nimbed figure, and one from Easby where the uppermost of a group of nimbed busts was included.

A group of 38 attributes was established, describing characteristics of the figures in various units in the sample. The attributes are listed in Table A. They describe aspects of the facial features, clothing and accessories of the figures. Some of the attributes probably derive from models, while others are more likely to reflect the personal style of the sculptor.

Five units were located in the Corpus of Anglo-Saxon stone sculpture for southern England (Tweddle et al 1995). An architectural panel from Jevington shows Christ treading on the beasts. Two architectural panels from Walkern and Romsey depict the Crucifixion. A small fragment from Southampton shows the lower part of one side of a robed figure, and a gravemarker from Whitchurch has a waist-up figure of Christ. These are supplemented by frieze panels with saints from Castor and Breedon, and the Lechmere stone, a gravemarker with a full-length Christ.

As with the vinescroll analysis, the selection of attributes was somewhat arbitrary, as each unit could contain hundreds of attributes. The attributes chosen here are all present on at least one of the Ruthwell Cross units. They do not all describe separate features, as for example the treatment of the nimbus. One attribute indicates the presence or absence of a nimbus, while three other attributes address details of the nimbus. The result of this multiplication is that figures lacking the nimbus altogether show as being different by four counts from figures with the triple cruciferous concave nimbus. Similar multiplication occurs with such features as the stole and overgarment.

Five units were located in The early Christian monuments of Wales (Nash-Williams 1950). The Bardsey Island shaft fragment shows the lower portion of a robed figure, the Llangan cross-head has a Crucifixion, the Pontardawe and Seven Sisters fragments show human figures with arms upraised and the Margam cross has a human figure below the cross-head.

Each unit of the sample was examined for the presence or absence of each attribute. Where the attribute was clearly present, the result was recorded as ‘y’. Where the attribute was clearly absent, the result was recorded as ‘n’. Where the attribute may have been present but could not be definitely identified, or where the stone was broken and the attribute might logically have been present on the missing portion, the result was recorded as ‘u’ (see Table B). The addition of the ‘u’ category was intended to reduce the incidence of a common absence of features because of damage to the object causing the impression of likeness in the minimum spanning tree. The sample was initially assessed by reference to photographs, and with some reference to the text of the source works. In each case the photograph or photographs in the source listed in Figure A were used, and where available, other photographs were consulted for alternative views or lighting conditions. I examined in person as many objects as possible, to confirm my observations from the photographs.

Nine units were located in The High Crosses of Ireland (Harbison 1992). Because of the exceptionally large number of human figures depicted on Irish crosses, only those depicting Christ and in relatively good condition were considered for this sample. Crucifixion scenes were taken from crosses at Castledermot, Dysert O’Dea, Kilfenora, Killaloe and two at Monasterboice. Scenes depicting the last judgement were taken from crosses at Clonmacnois, Durrow and Monasterboice. Nine units were located in modern Scotland. These were from a variety of sources, for reasons outlined in the chapter on vinescroll. Two units depicting saints were taken from a cross-slab from Kirriemuir, and another from a cross-slab from Invergowrie. A Crucifixion was taken from a cross-slab at Kirkcolm. Three depictions of saints were taken from a cross-shaft from Hoddam. Two pieces of Romano-British manufacture thought to depict the goddesses Brigantia and Minerva, from Birrens, geographically close to Ruthwell, were also included. Analysis including a Roman piece with a find-site near Ruthwell might indicate whether any relationship existed between the Ruthwell Cross and the earlier stone sculpture of the surrounding area.

Process The minimum spanning tree programme once again created a tree diagram showing the arrangement giving the minimum total cost for the links between units. It evaluated the likeness between units by giving a score of 0 for an attribute which was either present in both or absent in both. Where an attribute was uncertain in one or both units, the programme allocated a score of 0.5. Where the attribute was present in one unit and absent in the other, the programme gave a score of 1. These scores were allocated for all pairs of units and all attributes, and then used to calculate the costs of the links on the tree.

For contrast, an ivory panel of Anglo-Saxon workmanship from Belgium, depicting Christ treading on the beasts, was also included. Similarly, this might indicate whether there was any relationship between stone sculpture and ivory carving. This particular panel was chosen because of its central forward-facing figure and because it was included in The Making of England (Webster & Backhouse 1991), indicating its centrality to the Insular art of the period.

As a test of the reliability of the results, the programme also created a fictitious sculpture, the ‘Bexhill Octogon’, 46

‘A pillar curiously engraven; with some inscription upon it’: What is the Ruthwell Cross? with eight figural panels, each allocated attributes randomly selected from the other units. These eight panels were then included with the sample, and a second minimum spanning tree created for comparison with the first.

The minimum spanning tree which includes the fictitious Bexhill Octogon (see Figure C) is markedly similar to that using only the genuine sample. The subgrouping and isolated units identified in the first tree remain the same in the second. One notable change is that three of the isolated units have moved to link to the tree at one of the Bexhill units, although they are still isolated. Some of the Bexhill units are isolated, and one of them falls within the subgrouping. This confirms that the relationships and isolations identified by the minimum spanning tree are robust, and are generally maintained despite the inclusion of additional units.

For both of these samples, the programme also generated a list for each unit, of the closest links, the furthest link and the average difference from other units. This provided an additional representation of the degree of likeness between the units in the sample.

Results

Outliers

The minimum spanning tree shows a great variation in the cost of the links between units (see Figure B). The longest distance between two adjacent units on the tree is 15.5. The shortest distance between two units is 1.5.

Several of the units identified by the minimum spanning tree as isolated are also isolated in their iconographic, chronological and geographical contexts. The Southampton piece is of late, eleventh century, date, and has close stylistic links to southern English manuscripts of this period (Tweddle et al 1995: 265). It seems not to depict a common iconographic theme. Tweddle’s suggestion (1995: 265) that it could be a Crucifixion seems unlikely, given the lamb and lion lying beneath the figure’s feet. The Bardsey Island fragment is also late, dating from the tenth or eleventh century. Here, as at Southampton, only the lower portion of the figure survives. The Folkton fragment is from the tenth century, and Lang (1991: 132) considers the intertwined beasts on another face to be Anglo-Scandinavian. Again only the lower part of the figure is present, and in quite poor condition. In most fragments the upper part of the figure, including the head and some torso, survives, and this difference alone may be largely responsible for the isolation of these three pieces.

Several units are distinctly isolated from all others. Southampton is at the maximum distance of 15.5 from its nearest neighbour. Bardsey Island is at a distance of 14.5, Otley at a distance of 14, and the Birrens fragment at a distance of 13.5 from their nearest neighbours. The Ruthwell Christ and Magdalene panel and a pairing of the Ruthwell worshipping beasts and Bewcastle beasts panel are 13 from their nearest neighbours. Nunburnholme D is 12 from its nearest neighbour, and Rothbury A, Folkton and Castor are 11 from their nearest neighbours. A large close-knit subgroup consists of all of the Irish pieces, all of the Welsh pieces except Bardsey Island, and Nunburnholme D, Rothbury C and the complete Birrens piece. This subgroup is part of the main cluster, formed by all units except those listed above as isolated. The units in the main cluster are all separated from their nearest neighbours by a distance of ten or less.

Of Otley and the Birrens fragment only the head of the figure survives, and it is damaged and incomplete. As for Bardsey Island, Folkton and Southampton, these fragments are very small compared to most of the sample, which may account in part for their isolation.

The objects with multiple units all behave similarly in their distribution. None show any particularly close cohesion. No two units from a single object are closer than two links apart. In the cases of Ruthwell, Bewcastle, Rothbury and Nunburnholme, one unit from each shows on the tree as isolated. The two instances of two objects from a single location, York and Monasterboice, differ. The pieces from York do not show any close connection, whereas the Monasterboice tall cross links directly to one face of the Monasterboice Muiredach’s cross.

The five units from Southampton, Bardsey Island, Folkton, Otley and Birrens may reasonably be discarded as outliers in the statistical sense because many of their attributes are missing. They are therefore not particularly useful to this study. This is not true, though, of the remaining isolated units.

Isolated units

Objects from some individual regions show a marked degree of likeness, while other regions are scattered throughout the tree. All of the Irish units are in the subgrouping. All but one of the Welsh units are also in the subgrouping. The Scottish pieces do not link particularly closely to each other, but it is interesting to note that all except the complete Birrens piece are outside the large subgrouping. The eastern Yorkshire pieces all cluster closely around the subgrouping. Although most of them are outside it, they are all separated from it by only one link.

The figures at Bewcastle, Ruthwell and Castor are complete, and Rothbury A and Nunburnholme D are capable of definite identification of over half of the attributes in this analysis. The Castor panel has delicate thin drapery through which the legs are clearly visible, an unusual rimmed nimbus, and the feet are turned to one side, contributing to an unusual sense of motion present in the whole figure. It presents as being in a completely different style from any other unit in the sample.

47

Pamela O’Neill Rothbury A and Nunburnholme D do not have any particularly distinctive features. In both cases, another, apparently similar, unit from the same object falls within the main cluster. In these two cases, it is clearly the way in which the attributes are combined that isolates them from the main cluster, rather than the presence of unusual attributes or absence of usual ones.

These are both from southern England and both of the ninth century. In these two cases the entire monument is smaller than the Magdalene panel at Ruthwell, and in style they are quite different, showing a much more rounded, less tall and elegant figure for Christ, who does not have the Northumbrian adaptation of the pallium. Additionally, they lack the distinctive figure of the Magdalene at Christ’s feet, which sets Ruthwell apart both stylistically and iconographically from the remainder of the sample. It is to the Lechmere stone that the Ruthwell panel links on the minimum spanning tree.

The Christ figure on the Ruthwell Magdalene panel also has an unusual combination of attributes. Some of the attributes present here are seldom found elsewhere, as for example the inclined head. On the other hand, many attributes are found on a considerable portion of the sample, such as the holding of the rectangular object, probably best interpreted as a book, in the covered hand. Interestingly, this feature occurs in combination with the cruciferous nimbus only in the Ruthwell Magdalene, Lechmere and Whitchurch units, and neither Lechmere nor Whitchurch has the distinctive triple cruciferous nimbus of Ruthwell. The book held in the covered hand occurs in nine units, and books held in partially covered or uncovered hands occur in another seven units. This feature also occurs in Insular manuscripts and Byzantine art. The twelfth-century mosaics of Cefalù Cathedral feature a large array of saints, many of whom hold books in draped hands. (Johnson 1994: 119). Particularly similar to the posture of the Ruthwell panel is the Cefalù mosaic of St Nicholas. His right hand is raised in a gesture of blessing as is Christ’s at Ruthwell. The saints depicted at Cefalù were all church fathers, leaders of the church and bringers of it to the wilderness. The holding of a book in a covered hand is identified with an evangelistic role here as in other medieval art.

The other isolated units are the panels with the worshipping beasts at Ruthwell and Bewcastle. These link to each other at a distance of 9.5. This is not an exceptionally close link, but certainly indicates some relationship between the two pieces. The only definite differences between the two panels are in the drapery of the stole or pallium. Interestingly, the Bewcastle figure has the Insular pallium, while that at Ruthwell has the classical version. At Bewcastle there is some uncertainty in a small number of other features because of the relatively poor condition of the carving, so that the relationship may be closer than it appears. Features which distinguish the Ruthwell and Bewcastle worshipping beasts units from others in the sample are the cylindrical object in the left hand, which does not occur elsewhere, and the vertically raised right forearm, which only occurs here and on the Ruthwell Magdalene panel. The Agnus Dei panels at Ruthwell and Bewcastle also link together, at a distance of 8.5. The major difference is that the Bewcastle figure lacks the nimbus which is present at Ruthwell. In both cases, the carving is in quite poor condition, resulting in uncertainties in many of the attributes, which may mean that the relationship is closer than it appears. These two units are the closest on the tree to the Genoels-Elderen ivory plaque.

The additional stole feature, which appears looped across both arms in the Ruthwell Magdalene panel occurs also at Lechmere, Bewcastle and Hoddam. Douglas Mac Lean (1994: 301ff) firmly identifies this as the Classical pallium, part of the same garment as the stole arrangement at the neck, and modified to drape over both arms to suit insular taste. He calls this mode of drapery ‘improbable’, and so it seems likely that the modification was made in the representation rather than in the wearing. The implication is that the artist modifies the way in which the pallium is shown, rather than that the artist represents a figure wearing a different pallium. What we see is not a depiction of an Insular cleric, but an Insular depiction of a cleric, who may come from anywhere. Mac Lean observes that the same drapery is on the Bewcastle worshipping beasts panel, on Cuthbert’s wooden coffin, in the Book of Kells and in the Lichfield Gospels. The pallium was a badge of office for a bishop, and in many of these examples is worn by an evangelist. The combination of the pallium and the book held in the draped hand indicates that the particular depiction of Christ in the Ruthwell Magdalene panel shows him in his role of evangelist and church leader.

Discussion Overall, the minimum spanning tree has a dense group of sculpture which includes the pieces from Ireland, Yorkshire, Wales, and the later pieces from southern England. This connects to a thin band of pieces from Scotland and early pieces from southern England. At the extreme end of this band are all of the units from Ruthwell and Bewcastle, and the ivory plaque. Distributed widely throughout the entire tree are the pieces from Northumberland and Durham. The units in the dense group almost certainly differentiate from each other more distinctly than is suggested by this analysis, as the attributes used all refer specifically to the Ruthwell units. What is significant for this study is that they are all similar in their use or omission of the features found in the Christ figures at Ruthwell. For instance, all of the Crucifixions fall into this group, and they have in common that the Christ figure neither holds an object nor raises a hand in blessing.

Apart from the Ruthwell Magdalene panel, this depiction of Christ in the guise of an evangelising bishop occurs only on the Lechmere and Whitchurch gravemarkers. 48

‘A pillar curiously engraven; with some inscription upon it’: What is the Ruthwell Cross? The thin band linking the Ruthwell and Bewcastle units to the main group suggests some sort of stylistic continuity, where certain features are copied and others adapted. The continuity is not geographical, as the Scottish pieces are not combined in this band with their nearest geographical neighbours from the north of England, but rather with pieces from the south. This absence of the northern English pieces is echoed in their under-representation in the sample. Durham and Northumberland, which have large quantities of sculpture, provide only five units suitable for this sample. Apart from Bewcastle, Cumbria has only one. Yorkshire has a larger range, but most date from the end of the ninth century or later, when Scandinavian influence was beginning to appear in parts of that area. Either sculpture in the north of England was not inclined to include central frontal figures, or a disproportionate amount of the pieces now lost were of that kind. Much of the damage suffered by stone sculpture was inflicted during the Reformation, when figural carvings would have been a prime target. Nonetheless, there is no extant evidence that relief sculpture with a central frontal figure was produced at any of the major Northumbrian centres such as Jarrow or Lindisfarne. Hexham has only one badly damaged Crucifixion surviving. There is absolutely nothing to suggest that any of these centres ever produced a monument of the kind found at Ruthwell and Bewcastle.

Setting aside the possibility of a significant body of lost material, about which speculation would be inconclusive and groundless, there are no models amongst the corpus of English and Celtic stone sculpture for the figural carvings at Ruthwell and Bewcastle. Given the welldeveloped, confident style of the carving, it seems likely that there were models for the Christ figures. One likely source is ivory carving. The ivory panel included in this sample aligns closely with Ruthwell and Bewcastle units in the minimum spanning tree, and could provide a basis for figures like those at Ruthwell and Bewcastle, though the ivory figure does not have the same style of clothing as its stone counterparts. However, as indicated above, this drapery is found in Insular manuscripts, and these are another possible source. A further possible source is Romano-British stone sculpture, which was plentiful in this far north-western part of Northumbria. Ruthwell and Bewcastle are both within a day’s walk of Hadrian’s Wall, and of Carlisle, where St Cuthbert was proudly shown the Roman remains in 685 (Colgrave 1969: 243). Bewcastle itself is the site of a Roman fort (Bailey & Cramp 1988: 19), from which survives some metalwork but no stone sculpture. Dumfriesshire has several Roman sites, including Birrens, which has yielded the remains of a considerable quantity of stone sculpture (Keppie 1994). This sculpture from Birrens cannot be argued as a direct source for the Ruthwell and Bewcastle Christ figures, as the only extant figural sculpture depicts female deities. Nonetheless, it suggests an environment in which figural sculpture could readily be observed, and possibly techniques and details borrowed at need.

A large proportion (over 60%) of the dense group dates from the tenth century or later. Some of the examples from Yorkshire date from the ninth century, as do probably many of the pieces from Scotland, and the Auckland piece. By contrast, Bewcastle is firmly attributed to the first half of the eighth century (Bailey & Cramp 1988: 71), and the ivory plaque is also dated to the eighth century (Webster & Backhouse 1991: 180). The evidence of the extant sculptures suggests that figural sculpture of the type found at Ruthwell was not characteristic of the major centres of the Bernician area of Northumbria. Rather, it seems to be a development of the more outlying areas of that kingdom. The earliest extant examples are from the far north-west, at Ruthwell and Bewcastle. The trend then seems to have spread south and east into other outlying parts of the kingdom in what is now Scotland and Yorkshire, particularly western Yorkshire. The style of the figures differed somewhat between the two areas, with the Yorkshire work resembling more closely later and more southerly work, while the pieces from Scotland are closer in style to Bewcastle and Ruthwell. This period seems to have been a time of change in iconographic practice: in southern England there were gravemarkers and friezes with central figures, in Wales the ‘orans’1 figure appeared on stone, and Ireland adopted the use of standardised Crucifixion and last judgement scenes on the heads of the high crosses.

The figures appearing below the feet of the Christ figures are the least explicable aspect of the figural carvings at Ruthwell and Bewcastle. Ruthwell appears to be the earliest known European depiction of Mary Magdalene washing the feet of Christ. Later works, after the cult of Mary Magdalene had developed, sometimes show Mary with a box of ointment in her hand, referring to the same incident, but rarely is she shown in the act of washing the feet. The form of the woman’s figure at Ruthwell is in contrast to that of the Christ figure. She is made up of a series of sweeping curves, with a disproportionately large arm and hand, the flat of the hand considerably larger than the face, holding a fluid curve of hair to Christ’s feet. This difference in style of the two figures in the one panel is best explained by the abundance of models in portable art for the Christ figure, whereas there is no evidence to suggest that the Ruthwell sculptor could have found a model for the Magdalene figure. He would then need to resort to his imagination and native idiom to create the required image. The result suggests an idiom quite apart from the classical style of the Christ figure. The curves are somewhat suggestive of some Pictish symbol carving, where a symbolic representation of an object is created using curves and straight lines. The worshipping beasts at Ruthwell and Bewcastle are in a posture which is not found elsewhere in the early medieval period. There are many depictions of Christ trampling the asp and the basilisk (Psalm 91: 13), but in

1 A figure with its arms spread upward in prayer (see Nash-Williams 1950: 77, 161).

49

Pamela O’Neill these cases Christ attacks or at least subdues the hostile beasts (eg the Genoels-Elderen and Jevington units from the sample). At Ruthwell and Bewcastle, there is no hostility, and while Christ stands on the beasts, he appears to bear them no ill-will, and they are definitely worshipful towards him. The text of the surrounding inscription1 makes this distinction clear. This is another example of an iconographic combination not found elsewhere. Perhaps the most interesting aspect of these beasts, though, is their physical appearance. At Ruthwell they are more clearly visible than at Bewcastle. They bear little resemblance to any living animal. The closest comparison to their smooth curved outlines, pointed snouts and distinctive ears lies in Pictish work, and the highly stylised animals seen on Pictish symbol stones bear some similarity to the Ruthwell creatures.

and Bewcastle, and their separation from the Ruthwell Christ and Magdalene panel. This echoes the pattern of the vinescroll panels, where the Ruthwell east face and Bewcastle are closely aligned with each other but separated from the Ruthwell west face. The relationship here appears to be between the Ruthwell north face and Bewcastle, with the Ruthwell south face separated. This is strengthened by the relationship between the two Agnus Dei panels, one on the north face at Ruthwell and the other at Bewcastle. The Agnus Dei is on the upper stone at Ruthwell, and appears to be widely separated from the panels on the lower stone, particularly the north face, as is the vinescroll. The evidence of the figural carving, then, shows another distinction between two opposite faces of the Ruthwell Cross, linking one face to the Bewcastle cross. It also places Ruthwell and Bewcastle at the beginning of a tradition of figural carving in stone in the British Isles, linking them to slightly later groups from Yorkshire, Scotland and southern England. Possible sources for the accomplished figural carving at Ruthwell and Bewcastle are ivory carving, manuscripts, and Roman sculpture. The particular combination of subject matter and carving style, particularly in the subsidiary figures in the main panels, has no parallel. The carving suggests some possible traces of influence from the Pictish area. These issues will be explored further in later chapters.

What we have in the two Christ panels at Ruthwell is a more or less standard classical image of Christ as bishop or evangelist, which may be drawn from some combination of portable art such as ivory and manuscripts. Beneath the Christ figures are the Magdalene and the worshipping beasts. These figures are not drawn from any recognisable source. Rather, each appears to be an interpretation of a specific idea, based on the sculptor’s background and experience. Their sweeping curves and subjugation of realism to symbolism are reminiscent of Pictish work. A striking product of the minimum spanning tree is the alignment of the worshipping beasts panels at Ruthwell

1 ‘IHS X[PS] IVD[E]X [A]EQV[IT]A[TI]S BESTIAE ET DRACON[ES] COGNOUERVNT IN DESERTO SALVA[TO]REM MVNDI’ (Okasha 1971: 110)

50

Chapter 7: Latin Inscriptions The frames of the figural panels on the north and south faces of the Ruthwell Cross contain inscriptions in Latin. Inscriptions occur on many sculptured stones of the British Isles, sometimes alone and sometimes accompanied by figures and other motifs. By far the most common language used in early medieval inscriptions is Latin. Latin first appears in short inscriptions such as the common ‘hic iacet’ memorial formula used in fifth- and sixth-century western Britain. Later, more lengthy Latin inscriptions are used on more complex monuments such as decorated crosses and on dedication plaques. The Latin alphabet is also used for some inscriptions in vernacular languages, including Old English. In these cases, letters from other alphabets, such as Old English runes, are sometimes combined with the Latin letters.

comparison to Ruthwell. All units consist of at least six complete Latin characters. These may be, but are not necessarily, combined with more Latin characters, or with characters from other alphabets. The language of the inscription was not considered; some, but not all, are in Latin. The sample was taken from the same sources as for the vinescroll and figural sculpture. The 40 attributes are listed in Table A. The attributes describe the forms of various letters, the inclusion of monograms, ligatures and characters from other alphabets (Greek and Runic), and the arrangement of the inscription on the stone. Most letters of the Latin alphabet have one attribute, and some have more, if there are several different forms of the letter within the sample. Each unit of the sample was examined for the presence or absence of each attribute. Identifications were recorded as for the figural sculpture (see Table B). If an inscription was clearly incomplete, then any letter not appearing in the inscription returned a result of ‘u’, because of the possibility that the nominated form of it was present in the lost part of the inscription. If an inscription appeared to be complete, then any letter not appearing returned a result of ‘n’, because the nominated form of it was not present in the inscription.

Many of the surviving inscriptions are severely damaged. This is in part because inscriptions are generally shallower than relief carving. For some, like Ruthwell, this is further exacerbated by the fact that most of the inscription is at the edge of the stone and therefore badly worn. Many inscriptions are barely legible, and it is possible that some have been lost altogether because of damage to the sculpture. Some objects, including the Ruthwell Cross, have blank panels, which may have been intended for text. At Ruthwell, the lower part of the healing panel is blank. If such panels were intended for text, it has either been worn away, or was never completed, or was painted on rather than inscribed. Wearing seems unlikely, as the panel at Ruthwell bears no trace of an inscription, while the inscription in the margins of that panel remains fragmentary but clear. There is evidence (eg Bailey 1986: 6) that much AngloSaxon stone sculpture was painted, allowing the possibility of painted text. It seems unlikely that painted text would exist alongside incised text on a single monument, but architectural examples such as the crypt of Canterbury Cathedral show the use of relief and painted decoration in the same feature. The question of painted text on stone sculpture remains unresolved.

Results There are no tight clusters on the minimum spanning tree (see Figure B). The closest link is between Monasterboice and St Vigeans at a distance of 4. There are many isolated units, namely Yarrow, Winchester, Kirkdale, York minster 22 and 42, Lismore, Whitchurch, Tarbet, Jarrow 14, 16 and 18, the two Carlisle units and Ruthwell upper south. There are also two isolated loose groupings, one consisting of the three remaining Ruthwell units and the other of the three Welsh units. The large number of inscriptions with only a small number of letters makes interpretation of the tree difficult. Some links may be close or distant based on two inscriptions having the same letters, whereas others may be distant because two inscriptions have different letters.

Multivariate analysis I conducted a multivariate analysis similar to that in Chapters 5 and 6, to seek information about the degree of similarity of the letterforms and arrangement of various inscriptions. The sample consisted of 48 units taken from 43 objects (see Figure A). All were stone sculptures from the British Isles, with possible dating within the seventh to the tenth centuries. This dating limit was necessary because the large number of inscriptions from the fifth and sixth centuries would have made the sample unworkably large. The one exception to this rule was the inscribed stones of Kirkmadrine, which may pre-date the seventh century, but were considered important for

The tree shows some general tendencies, some of which are similar to those shown in the results of the analyses in the previous chapters. The three Welsh units link together near the centre of the tree. The Irish units are all fairly close together near the centre. The remaining pieces are more or less scattered throughout the tree. A group of Scottish units is found at one end of the tree. This includes the pieces from Whithorn and Kirkmadrine in Galloway, as well as Yarrow, Kirkliston, Greenloaning, St Vigeans and Newton. The Ruthwell grouping branches from the opposite end of the tree.

51

Pamela O’Neill

Discussion

manuscript, as on folio 29r, where ‘u’ appears in both the rounded and the pointed forms. Other manuscripts also show similarities to the Ruthwell letterforms. The Book of Durrow has the same very distinctive ‘g’, and the Lichfield Gospels has the ‘a’ with a crossbar above and the ‘m’ and ‘n’ forms. The letter ‘chi’ in the monogram for Christ at Ruthwell is also reminiscent of those in manuscripts, with its typically elongated left descender and its right terminals curving in towards one another.

The Ruthwell units are a clear illustration of the difficulties caused by damage to the inscriptions for interpreting this minimum spanning tree. The north and south faces of the lower stone are separated by a distance of 5.5, and differ in four attributes. The north and south faces of the upper stone are separated by five links, and differ in six attributes. The major difference lies in the fact that there are many more uncertainties recorded for the upper stone, whereas the faces of the lower stone have the majority of the alphabet present and legible. Thus, while there are significant differences between some of the letter forms on the lower stone, these are overshadowed by the distance created by the uncertainties on the upper stone.

Thus there are marked similarities between the Ruthwell inscriptions and the contemporary illuminated manuscripts, of which the Lindisfarne Gospels is only one among many examples. Combined with Ruthwell’s dissimilarity to inscriptions on other stone sculpture, this suggests that the model for the inscriptions was in manuscript form. We have seen that the models for the figural carvings were more likely to be portable objects such as ivory carvings. Similarly, it seems that the models for the inscriptions were also portable objects, probably contemporary manuscripts. These are objects that were normally to be found in an early medieval monastery. The sculptor or sculptors of the Ruthwell Cross apparently referred to such portable objects when designing the work. The possible reasons for this will be discussed in Chapter 10.

Nonetheless, some tentative conclusions may be drawn from the positions of the Ruthwell units on the minimum spanning tree. The upper and lower north faces differ in nine attributes, while the upper and lower south faces differ in seven. Generally, the forms of the inscriptions on the two faces of the lower stone are fairly similar. The two faces of the upper stone may also be fairly similar, but there is not sufficient information to be certain. There are greater differences between the upper and the lower faces of each side than between the two faces of each stone.

Relationship to Figural Panels

The evidence of the minimum spanning tree suggests that the inscriptions on the north and south faces of the lower stone at Ruthwell are fairly similar in their forms. They differ only in that the north face employs two apparently interchangeable letter forms for ‘o’ and ‘m’ and uses the monograms for Jesus and Christ. Brown (1921: 143) notes that the inscriptions on the north face have larger, bolder and better spaced letters than those on the south face. The inscriptions on the north and south faces of the upper stone show some similarities and some dissimilarities, but are now so incomplete that definite conclusions cannot be reached. There are more differences between the upper and lower stones than between the faces, and the extent of these differences is not clear because of the fragmentary nature of the inscriptions on the upper stone. An immediate distinction is that the south face of the upper stone incorporates Runic characters, where the lower stone does not.

The Latin inscriptions on the Ruthwell Cross ostensibly serve the purpose of captions, that is of identifying the content of the figural panels which they surround. However, detailed reading of the inscriptions makes it quite clear that they do not merely describe the illustrations, but are distinct texts which may be read independently of the figural panels. Rather than simply identifying the characters in the pictures, they present related, but not identical, material.

The form of the inscriptions on the Ruthwell Cross shows no distinct similarity to any other unit in the sample. This suggests that the inscriber looked to models other than contemporary stone sculpture for his script. Several writers (eg Lethaby 1912) have observed a distinct similarity between the letterforms of Ruthwell and those in the Lindisfarne Gospels. Certainly some of the more distinctive letterforms of Ruthwell occur on Lindisfarne’s initial pages, as for example the angular ‘s’, the ‘a’ with a crossbar above, the diamond-shaped ‘o’, the squared ‘c’ and the forms of ‘m’ and ‘n’. Another peculiarity of Ruthwell, the use of more than one form for the same letter in a single inscription, is also found in the

South face: Christ and Magdalene

The following detailed discussion of each panel will show the ambiguity of the relationship between the inscriptions and the figural panels. I base the texts of the inscriptions on Okasha’s (1971) Handlist of Anglo-Saxon Non-Runic Inscriptions, as her recording is generally reliable and free from bias. There are some matters of interpretation on which I have points of disagreement with Okasha, and these will be discussed as they arise.

The inscription surrounding the Mary Magdalene panel is given by Okasha (1971: 111) as ‘† A[..V...]B[.]STRVM : V[NGVE]NTI : & S[T]AN[S R]E[TR]O SECVS PEDES : EIVS LACRIMIS : COEPIT RIGARE : PEDES EIVS : & CAPILLIS : CAPITIS SVI TERGEBAT’. Okasha translates this as ‘She brought an alabaster box of ointment; and standing behind, (beside) his feet, she began to moisten his feet with tears, and with the hairs of her own head she wiped (them)’. She identifies it as Luke 7: 37-38 from the Vulgate Bible, and uses this source to complete the first two words ‘Attulit

52

‘A pillar curiously engraven; with some inscription upon it’: What is the Ruthwell Cross? alabastrum’. This is clearly an extract from the account of the incident which is illustrated in the figural panel, but it does not describe what is happening in the picture. Luke says the woman is standing, whereas the image shows an apparently kneeling woman. Her lower body cannot be seen, but the upper body posture is suggestive of kneeling. There is some practical difficulty with the concept of a person standing to wash another’s feet. The Ruthwell Magdalene is in front of the Christ figure, as evidenced by her head concealing part of his garment, while Luke positions her behind. The woman pictured wipes Christ’s feet with her hair, whereas in Luke’s version this is just one of many actions. The importance of the difference lies perhaps in that the inscription describes an act of humility and penitence, stressing the bringing of a gift and the extreme humility of the woman’s approach. On the other hand, the picture shows a humble penitent in an appropriate posture, dispensing with both gift and approach. While the thematic import of the two presentations is close to identical, the narrative of each is quite different.

to serve Christ. Christ honours her above all his other followers by appearing in his resurrected form to her first. Mary the sister of Martha and Lazarus was a popular figure with early monastics. The gospel story contrasts the behaviours of Martha, who busies herself serving Christ’s physical needs, and Mary, who sits at Christ’s feet and listens to his words. Christ’s support for Mary in the face of Martha’s complaints is seen by the Latin Fathers and many other writers as an endorsement of the contemplative life, as pursued in monasteries. Bede, writing in Northumbria at around the time of the manufacture of the Ruthwell Cross, asserts quite definitely that the woman who was a sinner, Mary Magdalene, and Mary the sister of Martha and Lazarus, are one and the same (Corpus Christianorum Series Latina CXX: 167). In his gospel commentaries he draws extensively on the Latin Fathers including Gregory and Cassian, particularly on the subject of Mary as a type for the contemplative life (ibid, 225). Bede’s scholarly works were respected by his contemporaries and copied many times. The works of the Latin Fathers were also available in the monastic libraries of Northumbria. Books were copied and lent regularly, not only in the major male scriptoria like Jarrow and Lindisfarne, but also in the double houses under the rule of abbesses. It is reasonable to assume that there was a general knowledge of the major exegetes amongst the religious of eighth-century Northumbria. An image of the woman washing Christ’s feet would automatically suggest Mary Magdalene and the sister of Martha and Lazarus.

The inscription is an extract from Luke’s story of the woman who was a sinner. Christ is at a meal in the house of Simon the Pharisee when this uninvited woman enters and begins washing his feet with her tears, drying them with her hair and anointing them with ointment. Christ uses a parable to point out that those who have sinned most will love him most, reminds Simon that he has failed in his duty as host to provide the service which the woman has given in his place, and finally addresses the woman: ‘Thy sins are forgiven . . . Thy faith hath saved thee; go in peace.’ (King James Version: Luke 7: 36-50) This story could be considered to merit in its own right a place on a monument such as the Ruthwell Cross. It is a perfect illustration of the individual response to Christ required by the church. It displays the humility, penitence and self-sacrifice required of all Christians, and particularly of those who pursue a monastic life. It shows Christ in two important roles, a forgiver of sins and a teacher.

Representation of all three of these women in the one figure on the Ruthwell Cross is very significant. To the virtues of humility and penitence are added loyalty, faithfulness, and a contemplative nature. The woman also has the distinction of being blessed by Christ’s approval, and singled out by him for a great honour. The Ruthwell Cross panel is the earliest known visual representation of the woman washing Christ’s feet. Even in later work, when the cult of Mary Magdalene had developed, illustrations of the woman washing Christ’s feet are an unusual feature. It seems that the designer of the Ruthwell Cross felt a particular need to include a representation of this incident in the figural scheme, even though there was probably no model available for such a scene. The placement of the woman in front of the imposing figure of Christ, and closer to eye level than him, makes her the visual focus of the panel, and centres the viewer’s attention on her part in the story.

The significance of the woman in this gospel passage was more extensive than this for the early medieval religious community. Most of the Latin Fathers were of the opinion that this woman who was a sinner was identical with both Mary Magdalene and Mary the sister of Martha and Lazarus. (Heberman et al 1913: 761) Mary Magdalene is mentioned at two separate stages of the gospel narrative. She is the first of the women mentioned by Luke as accompanying and providing for Christ when he becomes a travelling preacher in Galilee (8: 1-3). Luke says that seven devils had been cast out from her. She appears again at the time of the Easter story. She is present at the foot of the cross during the Crucifixion, accompanies the body to the grave, and is the first person to whom the resurrected Christ appears. She is charged with delivering the news of the resurrection to the other disciples. Her qualities of enduring faithfulness and loyalty are exemplary, as is her unquestioning willingness

The addition of an inscription which relates to, but does not precisely describe, the panel suggests a degree of intertextual reference. The picture cannot be said to have been chosen merely to illustrate the inscription, as it illustrates only the last few words. The inscription cannot be said to have been chosen merely to describe the picture, as it does much more. The relationship of the 53

Pamela O’Neill inscription and the figural panel suggests that here are two separate presentations, dealing with similar thematic material, and relating to the same gospel incident. Each, though, brings a separate contribution, and different associations, to the message of the Ruthwell Cross.

inscription in its present form does not even refer to healing, and space constraints suggest that it probably never did. We therefore have an inscription whose meaning is unclear, but which is narrative, and refers to something being seen. The picture shows Christ reaching towards another figure, which may represent a healing gesture.

South face: healing scene The inscription surrounding the healing panel is given by Okasha (1971: 111) as ‘† ET PRAETERIENS : VIDI[...] A NATIBITATE : ET S---’, and translated as ‘And passing [he?] saw [...] from birth ---’. Okasha infers from the figural carving that this inscription is likely to correspond with the Vulgate John 9: 1, which reads ‘Et praeteriens Iesus vidit hominem caecum a nativitate’: ‘And passing Jesus saw a man blind from birth’. This reference is dubious. Lacking the word ‘Iesus’, it is clearly not a direct biblical quotation, as is the inscription above. There is also the matter of the phrase, ‘et s . . .’, which Okasha does not discuss. This is not the beginning of John 9: 2: ‘et interrogauerunt eum discipuli sui rabbi quis peccauit hic aut parentes eius ut caecus nasceretur?’: ‘and his disciples asked him, saying, master, who did sin, this man, or his parents, that he was born blind?’ (King James Version), and there is insufficient space in the panel for the second verse, or even for enough of the verse to make a sensible passage. Another difficulty is that Okasha appears to have reversed the order of the inscription, as have other writers on the subject. In all other panels of the lower stone, the inscription reads down the right-hand margin first and then the left. Okasha has placed the left-hand portion before the right. Ordering this inscription consistently with the rest, it would read ‘A natibitate et s--- et praeteriens vidi ---’: ‘From birth and . . . and passing saw . . .’, thus removing it still further from identity with John 9: 1.

The lower part, approximately two-fifths, of this figural panel has been left deliberately blank by the sculptor. There must have been a reason for this, although there is no surviving evidence for what such a reason may have been. The panel may possibly have contained some less permanent form of decoration, such as paint. Alternatively, there could have been some significance contained in a simple blank section. At best, this panel and its inscription remain obscure. There is apparently a reference to healing in the illustration, but this reference appears not to be repeated in the inscription.

South face: Annunciation The inscription surrounding the Annunciation panel is severely damaged. All that can now be made out is ‘INGRESSVS A[NG] ---’ (Okasha 1971: 111). Okasha’s translation is ‘The [?angel] coming in ---’. She gives the possible source as the Vulgate Luke 1: 28, beginning ‘Et ingressus Angelus ad eam dixit’: ‘And the angel coming in said to her’. This seems the most likely source for the inscription. There is even sufficient space in the damaged top left corner for the cross symbol which begins other inscriptions on this face, and for the word ‘et’. The picture is clearly an Annunciation, of a type which is common and readily identified. A winged and nimbed angel approaches a nimbed and long-haired Virgin, whose hand is raised as if in surprise. In this panel, in fact, the sense of the inscription may coincide closely with that of the picture. Unfortunately both have been damaged so severely that details cannot be discerned, but what remains matches more closely than in any other panel.

The sculptural panel depicts Christ, with cruciferous nimbus, extending his hand towards another figure. The second figure is an adult, almost as tall as Christ, and of indeterminate gender. The scene may well be interpreted as Christ healing a sufferer, as Christ is frequently shown with a hand extended in healing scenes (eg Schiller 1966: plates 497-504). Meyvaert (1992: 110) refers to frequent representations of the healing of the blind man in early Christian art. There is no evident link between these representations (Schiller 1966: plates 505-523) and the panel on the Ruthwell Cross. They all show Christ touching or reaching towards the eyes of the sufferer. This is not the case at Ruthwell, where Christ’s hand extends below shoulder level. The positioning of the two figures echoes that of other panels with two figures at Ruthwell, and neither Christ nor the sufferer has any accessories uniquely identifying them as participating in the healing of the blind man.

South face: Crucifixion The lowest panel on the south face is the Crucifixion. The figural panel is severely damaged, and there are no surviving traces of inscription. The edges of the stone have been eroded, particularly to the right of the picture, where the side appears to have been deliberately trimmed, so that the portion which would have contained the inscription is now missing altogether.

North face: worshipping beasts The inscription surrounding the worshipping beasts panel on the north face is given by Okasha (1971: 110) as ‘[†] IHS X[PS] IVD[E]X [: A]EQV[IT]A[TI]S : BESTIAE : ET : DRACON[ES] : COGNOUERVNT : IN DE : SERTO : SALVA[TO]REM : MVNDI’. Okasha translates this as ‘Jesus Christ the judge of equity. The animals and the serpents recognised the Saviour of the world in the desert’. She is unable to identify a single

Whether or not the inscription refers to John 9: 1, it is similar to the inscription immediately above in that it does not directly relate to the illustration it surrounds. The picture apparently shows the act of healing. The

54

‘A pillar curiously engraven; with some inscription upon it’: What is the Ruthwell Cross? reference for this inscription, suggesting associations with Acts 17: 31, Psalm 66: 5, Isaiah 43: 20, and Jerome’s Life of St Paul. Paul Meyvaert (1992: 127ff) associates it with the apocryphal Pseudo-Matthew. In this account, dragons attack the family during the flight into Egypt, the child Christ stands before them, and they worship him. Christ warns his mother not to consider him a child, for he is a perfect man and ‘the beasts of the forest should grow tame before me’ (James 1953: 75). It seems unlikely that there is a single reference for this inscription, as none of the passages mentioned includes both the judge of equity and the animals and serpents motifs. That the inscription is a two-part construction rather than a single direct quotation is suggested also by its confused arrangement. All of the other inscriptions proceed in an orderly manner across the top of the panel, then down the right side and then down the left side, except where the Magdalene inscription uses all four sides of the panel, causing the healing inscription to fit into only two sides. The present inscription crosses the top, then continues down part of the right side. It leaves off after the word ‘aequitatis’, continues down the left side, and finishes on the lower part of the right side.

Anthony panel immediately below. The emphasis of the worshipping beasts illustration appears to be on the response of the animals to Christ, while the imposing figure of Christ himself serves primarily to emphasise their position. On the other hand, the surrounding inscription appears to emphasise the roles of Christ as saviour and judge, and introduces the motif of the desert.

North face: Paul and Anthony Okasha (1971: 110) gives the inscription surrounding the Paul and Anthony panel as ‘† SCS : PAVLVS : ET : A[...] FREGER[VNT] : PANEM IN DESERTO :’, translated as ‘St Paul and [?Anthony] broke bread in the desert’. The reference is to Jerome’s story of Paul and Anthony, who in their anxiety to defer to each other’s seniority eventually broke the bread together to begin their meal. The space allows for additional words after Anthony, and the missing words might give a little more of the story. The illustration is of the two holy men holding a large round loaf of bread between them. This motif is a common one for the period. It represents the humility and deference shown by Paul and Anthony in their dealings together. Being a well-known image, it would probably remind the viewer instantly of the story of the two holy men deferring to each other. Meyvaert (1992: 135) suggests that the illustration may even refer to the practice of confractio, known to have been practised at Iona, where two priests jointly broke the eucharistic bread, symbolising monastic harmony.

This inscription appears to have been constructed in order to present a deliberate combination of ideas. The reference to the desert does not occur in Pseudo-Matthew, although the story is clearly set in the desert. Other narratives incorporating beasts do include reference to the desert, but do not correspond as closely in other particulars. The identification of Christ as judge does not occur in any of the possible beast references suggested above, and so must be a deliberate interpolation. Similarly, the identification of Christ as saviour of the world does not occur in any of the beast references. This inscription juxtaposes four separate motifs, which are not intrinsically linked: the desert, the worshipping beasts, Christ as saviour, and Christ as judge.

In this case, the sense of the inscription seems to be almost identical to that of the illustration, that is a short reference to Paul and Anthony breaking bread, which would carry with it messages of humility, deference and harmony. The only exception is the insertion of the words ‘in deserto’. As with the Pseudo-Matthew story above, the story does take place in the desert, but the interpolation of the words at this point argues a deliberate wish to draw attention to the desert motif.

By contrast, the illustration to which it is linked is less complex. It presents beasts apparently worshipping Christ. This is perhaps a powerful message to the viewer that the dumb beasts which instinctively acknowledge and worship Christ present an example which the Christian ought to follow. They further offer themselves beneath his feet, in an act of admirable humility.

North face: Egypt journey Of the inscription surrounding the flight into Egypt panel, all that remains is ‘† MARIA : ET IO[...] TV[O]’, translating as ‘Mary and Joseph’ (Okasha 1971: 111). Although both inscription and illustration are in extremely poor condition, it is immediately clear that this inscription cannot be a direct description of this illustration. The illustration shows only Mary with the infant Christ on a donkey. Joseph is not present. The image may be either the flight into, or the return from, Egypt, both of which have been suggested. In either case, the suggestion is of Mary and Jesus going on a long journey on a donkey. The undertaking of a long journey through the wilderness is a metaphor for the monastic life. The journey taken by Mary, in order to serve the infant Christ, is a particularly strong example to those of the monastic order to leave their worldly lives behind

The cylindrical object held by the Christ figure may be a scroll, which may be an indication of judicial status. However, a more likely identification for the object is a glass chalice. This identification has been made for a similar object in the hand of Christ on folio 202v of the Book of Kells (Pulliam 1999). The object at Ruthwell is more likely to be a chalice than a scroll, because its end is hemispherical like the bottom of an early glass vessel, rather than flat like the end of a scroll. Christ is dressed as a bishop, and his hand is raised in a gesture of apparent blessing, which also weakens an identification as judge. It seems more likely that Christ is shown here as a bishop administering the sacrament. The absence of communion bread is compensated for by its presence in the Paul and 55

Pamela O’Neill them and serve Christ. The omission of Joseph from the image emphasises the loneliness of the journey.

Agnus Dei in his bosom’ (Duncan 1833: 7). Meyvaert (1992: 112ff) is convinced that this early suggestion was in fact correct and that the panel is an apocalypse vision. His argument relies on the figure holding a book in its right hand, which according to what is now visible in the sculpture seems remotely possible but not likely.

The inscription seems to have a theme which differs from that of the illustration. The apparent reference to Joseph shifts the emphasis away from the solitary nature of the journey. Although most of the inscription is now lost, it is tempting to suppose that there is a mention of ‘in deserto’ as in the two inscriptions above. The context of the journey to or from Egypt would certainly allow it.

Two distinguishing features of the sculpture require some discussion. On the Ruthwell Cross, the nimbus appears only on the Christ figures, and on the Virgin and the angel in the Annunciation. Other saintly figures including Paul and Anthony are not nimbed. It therefore seems unlikely that the nimbed figure on the Agnus Dei panel could be John the Baptist.

Upper stone: Mary and Martha On the south face of the upper stone, Okasha (1971: 111) gives the inscription surrounding Mary and Martha as ‘M[.]R[.]A M[. ...]ER DOMINNAE ---’. She suggests that this might translate as ‘Mary, mother of the Lord’. This suggestion is rejected by Meyvaert (1992: 138), who asserts, as have several others, that the name Martha can be read in the inscription. His view is supported by the fact that ‘dominnae’ is in a form which might mean ‘lord’, but is more likely to be the feminine plural ‘ladies’. The former meaning would depend on overcorrection of the vocative ‘Domine’. Ó Carragáin (1999: 196f) argues that the inscription refers to the Visitation and even so may quite properly contain the name Martha. The inscription therefore refers either to the ladies Martha and Mary or to the Visitation. The remainder of the inscription is lost, but there was clearly substantially more than now survives. The illustration is of two women embracing, of a type frequently used to represent the Visitation. The reference may be to the balance between the active and contemplative lives which must be maintained by those in monastic orders. Alternatively, it may be to the Visitation’s associations with the Virgin and John the Baptist.

The other feature is the spheres beneath the figure’s feet. Meyvaert (1992: 118) goes to great lengths to discredit a recent theory that they are rocks associated with John the Baptist, only to advance a similarly convoluted theory that they represent globes which are a development of a misunderstanding of apocalyptic wheels. He does not, however, seem to rely on this theory, but is content for the spheres to be globes, which are associated with ‘deity and sovereignty’ as well as the apocalypse. His comparison of these globes to those near the feet of a seated Christ in Majesty seems more convincing. Although Meyvaert does not mention it, the Christ in Majesty in the near-contemporary Book of Kells is a good comparison for the Ruthwell figure. He is similarly clothed, and the drapery over his right knee is similar to that at the left of the Ruthwell figure, perhaps reinforcing the suggestion that the Ruthwell figure is seated. Meyvaert (1992: 115) seems perturbed that the drapery at the Ruthwell figure’s right knee shows no similar treatment, and suggests that the sculptor was unable to accommodate it in the space available. The Kells artist, with plentiful space, saw no need to drape both knees in this manner. Beside and below the Kells figure’s feet are two boss-like circles. Interestingly for Meyvaert’s theory, the Kells figure also holds a book. It would be highly irregular for a Christ in Majesty to hold a lamb, usually a symbol of Christ himself. The Ruthwell panel, then, seems to be a conflation of a Christ in Majesty with some other image, and Meyvaert’s suggestion of an apocalypse vision is the best yet advanced.

Upper stone: Agnus Dei The inscription surrounding the Agnus Dei panel on the north face of the upper stone is given by Okasha (1971: 110) as ‘--- [A]DORAMVS ---’, ‘we worship’. This is insufficient to give any indication of the sense of the original inscription or to give any assistance in identifying the difficult picture. Traces of further lettering survive across the bottom of the panel, but no complete words can be made out.

Conclusion

The figural carving shows a nimbed figure with its feet on two spheres and holding a lamb in its left hand. The transverse fracture at the centre of this panel and substantial damage particularly to the lower fragment make definite identification of further features impossible. Agreement has not been reached as to whether the figure is seated or standing, as the fracture obliterates the part of the figure’s body that would indicate this. The fracture also obscures the proportions of the figure, as it is unclear whether there is some stone missing at the point of the fracture. The traditional identification of this panel is of John the Baptist displaying the Agnus Dei. This replaced an early suggestion that it was ‘the Supreme Being with the

Where an inscription and the figural panel it surrounds survive substantially, the text of the inscription is related to the illustration. In most cases the relationship is not direct. Text and picture call on separate associations in order to convey related messages. On the north face of the lower stone, there seems to be a unifying reference to the desert in the three remaining inscriptions, none of which is a direct biblical reference. The inscriptions are concerned with identifying persons, with names of all the figures portrayed, and descriptions of Christ. On the south face of the lower stone, the inscriptions describe actions, and there are no names mentioned. Two of the inscriptions appear to derive directly from Luke’s gospel. 56

‘A pillar curiously engraven; with some inscription upon it’: What is the Ruthwell Cross? The inscription surrounding the healing scene remains obscure, and its traditional association with an extract from John’s gospel seems tenuous. The inscriptions on

the upper stone are not sufficiently complete for useful discussion in this context.

57

Chapter 8: Runic Inscription The Old English inscription on the Ruthwell Cross is carved on the margins of the vinescroll panels on the east and west faces of the lower stone. It is arranged in horizontal lines reading across the upper borders and in short horizontal lines from top to bottom of the four side borders. Each line contains from two to four runes, with the exception of the lines in the upper borders, which extend across the width of the stone and are consequently longer. This arrangement differs from that of the fragmentary inscriptions on the upper stone and the Latin inscriptions discussed in the previous chapter, which are carved longitudinally in the borders so that they run vertically as well as horizontally (see Figure A).

suggestion that the runes are by a different hand or hands from the Latin inscriptions. Apart from the fact that the runes read transversely while the Latin reads longitudinally, the arrangement of the Latin and runic inscriptions is the same. They read firstly across the upper margin, then down the right margin, then down the left. That the Latin inscriptions read longitudinally around the figural panels gives an effect of framing, linking the text to the pictures. By contrast, the runes simply exist side-by-side with the vinescroll. Brown (1921: 143) also notes that the runic inscriptions on the east and west faces are arranged slightly differently. The runes on the east face are slightly less than two inches high, making 22 lines of text above the fracture. The lines of runes on the right and left borders correspond precisely in position. On the west face the runes are slightly more than two inches high, making only 18 lines above the fracture. The lines on the left and right borders are not in precisely the same positions. This difference in execution but not in overall design echoes the differences in the vinescroll which were identified by my analysis in Chapter 5.

Ruthwell has the longest extant inscription in AngloSaxon runes. Short runic inscriptions from the beginning of the fifth century onwards are found in England on portable objects, including coins. Runic inscriptions on stone are almost exclusively from the north of England and the south of Scotland. They are most frequently of memorial type, ranging from the grave-marker with an inscribed proper name found at monastic sites such as Lindisfarne and Hartlepool to more complex alliterative memorials as at Urswick in Cumbria (Page 1987: 37). The Ruthwell text is considerably longer than any of these. It is also unusual because it is a runic inscription on stone that is not of a memorial type.

Futhorc There are several runic alphabets, which are known variously as futharks or futhorcs. The Ruthwell runes belong to the Anglo-Saxon futhorc, which was used in England from early in the Anglo-Saxon period until the Scandinavian period. The Anglo-Saxon futhorc differs from the Scandinavian and earlier Germanic futharks in several particulars. While some runes are common to the Anglo-Saxon and continental futharks, they are not interchangeable. Some runes have the same form but different pronunciations, while others are completely different. The Anglo-Saxon generally has more runes, having developed in response to changes in the pronunciation of vowels, and with them the c/g/k group of consonants.

Workmanship Although their original appearance is unclear due to wear and tear, the runes appear to have been carved at approximately the same depth and thickness, and with much the same letter height, as were the Latin inscriptions on the south and north faces. Brown (1921: 143) takes this as evidence that they were carved by the same hand or hands as the Latin inscriptions. He observes that all of the letters, runic and Roman, terminate in picked dots, and are cut with similar depth and sharpness. His view appears to have been generally shared, although the matter is seldom discussed. One exception is Willett (1957: 119), who finds the strokes of the runes ‘narrower and shallower’ than the Roman letters, and concludes that the runes are a later addition. However, since Willett also claims that because some of the Latin text reads vertically it must have been carved while the stone was lying flat, while the runes which all read horizontally must have been added after erection, his credibility must be questioned. There is no surviving evidence to suggest that Brown’s observations are incorrect. The runes give the impression of being narrower than the Roman letters, but this is probably an illusion caused by the lack of horizontal lines in runes rather than a reflection of the comparative thickness of the strokes. In my view, there is no evidence to support a

The Ruthwell futhorc (see Figure B) distinguishes between the three different ‘c’ sounds – the softer sound in ‘ic’, the ‘k’ sound associated with a front vowel, and the ‘k’ sound associated with a back vowel. It also distinguishes between the soft and hard ‘g’ sounds. A separate rune appears for the sound usually represented by an ‘h’ in ‘almehtig’. Nine vowel runes are used, representing a, e, i, o, u, y, æ, œ and the diphthong ea. No other extant Old English runic passage distinguishes between sounds to the same extent, particularly in the c/g/k range. This suggests that the creator of the Ruthwell inscription was very particular about the representation of sound, or that he or she was using a particularly developed regional variation of the futhorc. 59

Pamela O’Neill Obviously, sounds are also identified much more precisely than in the contemporary Roman alphabet.

Text Because it is located at the edges of the monument, the runic inscription has been severely damaged over time by wear and weathering. The damage is more extreme near the fracture created when the cross was thrown down. The result of its poor condition is that more than one third of the runes which probably originally appeared in the inscription cannot be certainly identified. Many of them are completely illegible, and in some places the stone has been completely eroded where runes could be expected. It is even impossible to know how extensive the inscription originally was. We can, however, hazard a minimum possible number of characters of around 350, and a maximum of perhaps as many as 500. Only 261 characters can now be clearly identified. Any reconstruction of the inscription, therefore, necessarily includes a considerable amount of speculation. It is, however, clear that the inscription is a narrative relating to the Crucifixion. The sentence ‘Christ was on the cross’ (crist wæs on rodi) is legible in its entirety. References to Christ stripping himself and ascending the cross can be read with reasonable clarity. Also clear throughout the inscription is the frequent use of the first person pronoun ‘I’ (ic). Various other words can be made out, but on the basis of what actually appears on the monument it is impossible to reconstruct the whole inscription with certainty. The inscription appears to give a Crucifixion narrative from Christ stripping himself in preparation for mounting the cross, through men insulting him, to the coming of nobles who laid Christ’s body down. There are also enough alliterative syllables in an appropriate arrangement to suggest that the inscription is in Old English alliterative poetic metre.

hold. They reviled us two, both together. I stained with the pledge of crime .....

GEREDÆ HINÆ. GAMÆLDÆ. ESTIG DA HE WALDE. AN GALGU GISTIGA. MODIG FORE MEN .......

prepared himself: he spake benignantly when he would go up upon the cross, courageously before men ......

MITH STRELUM GIWUNDÆD, ALEGDUN HIÆ HINÆ. LIMWERIGNÆ. GISTODDUN HIM ........

wounded with shafts. They laid him down, limb-weary. They stood by him .......

+ KRIST WÆS ON RODI. HWETHRÆ THER FUSÆ. FEARRAN KWOMU> ÆTHTHILÆ TI LÆNUM. IK THÆT AL BIH.......SÆ IK W(Æ)S MI(D) GA(L)GU Æ(.........)RID. HA..............

Christ was on the cross. Lo! There with speed, came from afar nobles to him in misery. I that all beh(eld .......) I was with the cross .......

He associated the first two passages with the Christ and Magdalene panel (and see Chapter 7 of this book for a discussion of Mary’s presence not only at the footwashing episode, but also at the Crucifixion), and the last two with the worshipping beasts panel. More specifically, he related the first two to Mary Magdalene’s experiences of Christ and the last two to the glorification of Christ through the Crucifixion.

Interpretation The meaning of the runic inscription was completely unknown until the nineteenth century. It was at first believed that it was in a Scandinavian language, and in the early nineteenth century the first attempts at translation were made by Scandinavian philologists, who tried to read the runes as though their language were based on Danish (Kemble 1840: 46). The results were unconvincing, and were soon rejected.

There are almost certainly inaccuracies in Kemble’s original transliteration and translation of the inscription. Kemble was working from engravings of the inscriptions, and apparently had not seen the monument itself, so that inaccuracies in the engravings must have been compounded in his work. For instance, his reading of ‘GAMÆLDÆ. ESTIG’ rather than ‘GOD ÆLME3TTIG’ cannot be supported. It does, however, rest only on the confusion of very similar rune forms and an incorrect attempt at the word break. The bulk of his translation is sound, and suitably cautious. He does not on the whole attempt fanciful reconstruction of the illegible parts.

In 1840, John Kemble, in an article in Archaeologia, produced a translation which, he believed, related the inscription to the two principal figural carvings on the monument (Kemble 1840: 50-52). He read the four columns of inscription from left to right, or anticlockwise around the cross, beginning with the south-east. His transliteration and translation were: .......MIK, RIIKNÆ KYNINGK. HIFUNÆS

HLAFARD. HÆLDA IK NI DARSTÆ. BISMÆREDE UNGKET MEN. BA ÆT GÆD(R)E. BÆDI IK(N)ID BIST(E)ME(D)

.......me. The Powerful King, the Lord of Heaven, I dared not 60

‘A pillar curiously engraven; with some inscription upon it’: What is the Ruthwell Cross?

‘The Dream of the Rood’

The Ruthwell Cross dates probably from the early eighth century, and its Anglo-Saxon associations are with the kingdom of Northumbria. In keeping with this, the dialect of the runic inscription is Northumbrian or Anglian. Although there has been some disagreement over linguistic evidence for dating (see Chapter 4), it is generally held that the language of the inscription is compatible with a date in the eighth century. By contrast, the Vercelli Book, which contains ‘The Dream of the Rood’, dates from the late tenth century, and its dialect is primarily West Saxon.

In a letter printed in Archaeologia in 1844, Kemble changed his interpretation fairly radically. The new interpretation was based on a reading of the Vercelli Book (Vercelli Cathedral Library Codex CXVII) text ‘The Dream of the Rood’, which he had recently acquired. There had been some confusion over the publication of the Vercelli manuscript, and so it had not been widely available. The manuscript, now located at Vercelli in Italy, is of southern English manufacture and is dated on the evidence primarily of language and script to the late tenth century. It contains a miscellaneous collection of Old English poems and homilies.

‘The Dream of the Rood’ clearly covers a much wider narrative and subject matter. However, it does seem reasonable to assume that it is in some way related to the Ruthwell inscription. This assumption has been made by virtually every critic since Kemble, with the result that the Ruthwell text is traditionally reconstructed using inserts from the longer poem wherever the inscription is lacking. There is even one point where the Vercelli text is supplemented by a word from the inscription (line 59: sorgum). There is a danger, though, that in using the Vercelli text to reconstruct the inscription the original meaning and form of the shorter poem may be obscured.

‘The Dream of the Rood’ is a short Anglo-Saxon poem of 156 lines. It is considerably longer than the Ruthwell inscription, of which evidence of only 16 poetic lines survives. It takes the form of a dream vision. The primary narrator opens the poem with a description of a vision that appears to him at midnight of a bejewelled cross which dominates the sky, much in the style anticipated for Christ’s second coming. The cross addresses the dreamer, and takes over the role of narrator to describe its early life as a tree and its transformation into the cross. Then comes the passage which has some parallels with the Ruthwell inscription, where the cross describes the Crucifixion, beginning with the words ‘the young hero who was God Almighty stripped himself’. The parallel passage concludes with nobles from afar laying Christ’s body down. In ‘The Dream of the Rood’ the cross goes on to relate its own glorification and address a didactic message to the dreamer. The dreamer then resumes the role of narrator and details his actions upon waking.

An example of this problem is the line on the monument ‘.... ic riicnæ kyninc’: ‘I .... a mighty king’. There are no legible characters of the verb either on the monument as it now stands, or in any but two of the many drawings. The first of these, from 1789 (Cassidy 1992: plate 37), shows a single upright stroke and the rune for ‘e’. The second, from 1861 (Cassidy 1992: plate 44), clearly shows the word ‘ahof’: ‘raised’. As it also shows many other characters where other drawings agree there are none to be read, it would seem that the questionable characters have been added to what is visible on the basis of the reading from ‘The Dream of the Rood’. Similarly, editors of the Ruthwell text unquestioningly insert the verb ‘ahof’ from the manuscript. It may be possible that this is the reading that originally appeared at Ruthwell, but there is absolutely no evidence to that effect, while the 1789 drawing is evidence to the contrary.

Kemble noticed considerable similarities between the manuscript poem ‘The Dream of the Rood’ and the Ruthwell inscription, and adjusted his reading of the uncertain and lost runes in the inscription to bring it into line with the manuscript. In his 1844 article he says ‘Let us now suppose that the poet attributed to his ear the work of his eyes, and the address delivered to him by the cross, becomes an inscription upon one’ (Kemble 1844: 37). He suggests that the poet of ‘The Dream of the Rood’ had seen the earlier work and incorporated it into his poem.

It is obvious from their similarities that the two texts are in some way linked. Precisely what this link is can only be the subject of speculation. It seems reasonable to assume that the Ruthwell inscription dates from earlier than the poem that is recorded in the Vercelli Book. Although the latter may have existed for some time before being written into this manuscript, the form in which it is recorded is unlikely to have existed before the Ruthwell inscription. There is no indication in the language of the manuscript poem that it was composed significantly earlier than its recording, although the possibility remains.

This suggestion is an eminently sensible one, but does not necessitate the identity of the two works. The text of the parallel passage in the manuscript poem is not identical to the inscription at Ruthwell. Apart from differences of dialect, it also uses expressions in some places which are different even from the uncontroversial parts of the inscription. Furthermore, it includes passages ranging from a half-line to several lines which simply do not appear on the monument, and could not ever have fitted into the available space. The two poems are set out in parallel at Table A, showing the extent of the difference between the two versions.

Other comparable material ‘The Dream of the Rood’ includes elements which echo not only the poem inscribed at Ruthwell, but also some other Old English poetry. Significant amongst these are 61

Pamela O’Neill the riddles. The Old English riddles frequently appear in two forms. The first of these opens with the expression ‘I saw . . .’, and goes on to describe some wondrous sight (eg ‘Ic wiht geseah’: ‘I saw a creature’, Exeter Book 29), much as does the dreamer in ‘The Dream of the Rood’. The other form is where an object, such as a spear, battering ram, or the cross, describes its early life as a tree, then its cruel seizure and transformation by men, and finally its new-found happiness and glory in its new form. This formula was apparently familiar to the ‘Dream of the Rood’ poet, as the cross relates its history in precisely this manner.

standard line in Anglo-Saxon alliterative metre. They combine with normal lines to form a metre which is not the standard Old English alliterative metre, but a related alternative. Howlett (1978: 167) asserts that Ruthwell’s ‘source was a longer poem which contained both normal and hypermetric lines. The source was probably similar to, but distinct from, lines 39-65 of the Vercelli text’. Given the significant differences between the Ruthwell inscription and ‘The Dream of the Rood’, the association of the latter with the Ruthwell poem seems no stronger than with some other pieces of Anglo-Saxon poetry. The nature of Anglo-Saxon poetry is such that standard expressions, phrases and compound words form a pool from which a poet may draw at need to describe a particular emotion, thing, or act. Some of these expressions do not occur outside the poetry, but appear in more than one of the poems.

The tone of ‘The Dream of the Rood’ is in many ways similar to some of the longer Old English religious poetry, particularly that of Cynewulf. It resembles the poem ‘Elene’, also found in the Vercelli Book, in its combination of a narrative concerning legendary events with a personal narrative concerning an individual response to the events described. The opening passage is very similar to a passage in ‘Christ III’.

It seems likely that when ‘The Dream of the Rood’ was composed, whether this was at the time of writing of the Vercelli Book or earlier, the poet drew on traditions and material that were familiar to him. He used a style, and perhaps even expressions, that were also used in the riddles, he used a tone that was also used in longer religious poetry, and he used phrases which had appeared in inscriptions on the Ruthwell and Brussells crosses. That these phrases may have appeared in quite a different context need not have influenced him. The fact that they could be used to refer to the Crucifixion would have rendered them suitable for adaptation. Bradley (1982: 159) observes that

There is a short inscription on a silver-embellished wooden cross now in Brussels which also has close parallels with the Vercelli and Ruthwell poems. This cross is only 46.5cm long, and is decorated with interlace, the symbols of the four evangelists and the Agnus Dei. On art and iconography grounds, it is attributed to the tenth century, a similar date to the Vercelli Book, and to the north of England. However, the language of the inscription is late West Saxon, as for the Vercelli Book, and in contrast to Ruthwell’s Anglian. The Brussels inscription is in the Roman alphabet with the addition of the runes thorn and wynn, and reads ‘Rod is min nama: geo ic ricne cyning bær byfigynde, blode bestemed’: ‘Cross is my name: formerly I bore trembling(?) a powerful king, drenched with blood’. This is accompanied by information concerning the commissioning and manufacture of the piece. The phrases ‘. . . ic ricne cyning’ and ‘blode bestemed’ occur also in the Vercelli text. The first occurs also at Ruthwell. The survival of a portable object bearing phrases common to the two poems is a powerful indicator that such phrases were in more general use, and more generally accessible, than the two isolated examples recorded in Ruthwell and Vercelli. In the words of D’Ardenne (1939: 149), ‘both [Brussels and Ruthwell] no doubt draw on phrases common to traditional verse language concerning the Holy Rood, and are doubtless only chance survivors of a body of verse on this subject now lost’. In fact, the two probably draw on phrases common to traditional verse language concerning the life and Passion of Christ, and ‘The Dream of the Rood’ is another chance survivor of the lost body of verse.

‘the verses carved in runes upon the much older Ruthwell Cross are unlikely to be a quotation from a prototype version of [The Dream of the Rood]. More probably the [Dream of the Rood] poet, as he elevates the dreamer to the sublimest level of his vision, to visualisation of the historical crucifixion, deliberately borrows from the traditional verses a kind of authentication and the reverential aura belonging to familiar antiquity, in order to communicate both the reality and the charismatic nature of the experience.’ Whether the ‘Dream of the Rood’ poet knew the Ruthwell poem, or whether he simply knew of a traditional set of expressions which were also known to the Ruthwell poet, there is no justification for the extent of the influence which ‘The Dream of the Rood’ has had on the study of the Ruthwell inscription. If the Ruthwell inscription were an extract from ‘The Dream of the Rood’, its presence on this monument would be difficult to explain. Although the Ruthwell monument is now in the form of a cross (and may not have been originally: see Chapter 9), it resembles neither the bloodstained timber, nor the bejewelled gold-clad cross of ‘The Dream of the Rood’. The panel portraying

David Howlett (1978) has examined the metrical structure of the Ruthwell text in considerable detail. He suggests that the text is of a complex metre, containing both normal and ‘hypermetric’ lines. The hypermetric lines he refers to are lines which are longer than a 62

‘A pillar curiously engraven; with some inscription upon it’: What is the Ruthwell Cross? the Crucifixion is not given a position of prominence on the monument, but is placed at ground level. There is even some doubt as to whether it was part of the original monument (Orton 1998: 87). The other scenes are not about the Crucifixion at all. Nor can any theme be discerned which associates particularly with either the life and death of Christ or the veneration of the cross.

repentant thief crucified alongside Christ, or the Virgin Mary, or the apocryphal spear-bearer Longinus, or any of Christ’s followers at the foot of the cross. The only indication is that the narrative ‘ic’ persona is a witness to the Crucifixion, close enough to be drenched with Christ’s blood, moved to sorrow by what he, she, or it sees, insulted along with Christ, and for some reason unwilling to bow or bend.

Alternative reading

In direct opposition to the suggestion that the cross is the narrator is the use of the phrase ‘Crist wæs on rodi’: ‘Christ was on the cross’. In the context of ‘The Dream of the Rood’, this phrase is compatible with the shifts in narrator and in point of view maintained by the dream setting. In the Ruthwell inscription, though, which lacks that framework, it would suggest that the image of Christ on the cross is seen from without, and therefore by a narrative persona which is not the cross. Nowhere else in the inscription does the narrator seem to step outside itself in such a way. In fact the narrator is highly concerned with its own emotions and reactions to what it witnesses. It seems more likely that the narrator is an observer of, rather than a participant in, the Crucifixion, that is, close to the action but not the cross itself.

When Kemble published his second discussion of the inscription, he adjusted his entire reading of it to bring it neatly into line with ‘The Dream of the Rood’. He allowed that ‘The Dream of the Rood’ differed from the Ruthwell inscription in that it was ‘distinguished by a certain diffuseness and amplification’, and that the first section was only a paraphrase, ‘not even a very close one’ of the inscription (Kemble 1844: 38). Nonetheless, he reconstructed every dubious or illegible character of the inscription to reflect the manuscript poem as closely as possible. If, rather than an extract from ‘The Dream of the Rood’, the Ruthwell inscription is examined as an individual piece of poetry, and assessed on the basis of what can actually be discerned on the monument, it may be possible to find an alternative interpretation.

What the inscription presents is an ‘eyewitness’ account of the Crucifixion and the events surrounding it. Interestingly, it gives very little information about the Crucifixion itself. Rather it concentrates on the emotions of the narrator and the actions of the human beings involved. First it presents the men who insult Christ (and the narrator) before Christ’s death, then the noble men who come from afar to lay him down after it. These are rather featureless, emotionless characters, who simply perform their part in the action. It seems important to the poet to include the contribution of humankind to the story told by the poem.

Certainly, some of the readings in Kemble’s second version are more likely than those in his first, as indicated above. This does not validate his assumption that the entire sense of the inscription must be identical to that of the manuscript poem. Neither is it valid to exclusively reconstruct the lost and difficult parts of the inscription by insertion from the manuscript. Kemble’s first offering should be readmitted as a possible reading, recognising that, as with his second reading, some of his character identifications and word divisions are open to question. Kemble’s first interpretation, that the poem appearing on the Ruthwell Cross is not narrated by the cross, but rather by a person or persons, ought not to be discarded.

The only emotions detailed in the inscription are those of the unidentified narrator, who ‘dares not bow’, and is ‘[sorely] troubled with sorrows’. It is the narrator, also, who is ‘[drenched with] blood’ and who ‘[saw] it all’. Leaving aside the cross as a possible identity for this narrator, the obvious alternatives are human witnesses to the Crucifixion. Given the sorrowful tone, the most likely candidates must be Christ’s followers. To be mocked together with Christ implies some association with him. According to the gospels, as well as various other followers, Mary Magdalene was present at the Crucifixion. John (19: 25) has her standing near the cross. The most prominent panel on the south face of the Ruthwell Cross features Magdalene with Christ. Given this context, it must be possible that Kemble’s first account was more accurate than he later believed, and that the persona of the narrator of the poem, whose personal involvement and emotional responses are so graphically described, is Mary Magdalene.

There is no reference in the legible runes to suggest that the narrator ‘ic’ is the cross. The uses of the word ‘ic’ are as follows: .... ic riicnæ kyninc . ælda ic ni dorstæ ic ... .ith blod. .ist.mi. ic thæt al bi.... ic w.s mi. gi.rœ..d

so.gu.

I .... a mighty king I dared not [bow] I [was drenched with] blood I .... it all I was [troubled with sorrows]

The only other reference, which relates to the identity of the narrator is: .ismæræ.u unket men ba æt.ad..

men insulted us both [together]

None of these references necessitates, or even suggests, the cross as an identity for the narrator. They are equally compatible with, for example, the narrator as the 63

Pamela O’Neill

The nature of Christ

hundreds of years before the Ruthwell Cross was made. However, by 680, ecumenical councils were still findig it necessary to make doctrinal declarations on the nature and will of Christ. In both 680 and 685, English assemblies made formal declarations for the orthodox doctrine. (Werner, 1990: 186ff) The tone of the Ruthwell poem is such that events are depicted in an emotional and personal light. A description of Christ during the actual Crucifixion within this poem would be likely to present a single aspect of his nature. This would overturn the balance established by the existing descriptions. Avoiding any representation at all of the process of Christ’s death overcomes this problem.

Apart from the statement ‘Christ was on the cross’, Christ’s part in the action is limited to his stripping as if in preparation for battle at the beginning, and his description as ‘limwœrignæ’: ‘limbweary’ in the final lines. ‘Wounded with arrows’ also reasonably refers to Christ at this point, perhaps an indirect reference to his injury by the crown of thorns and the spear of Longinus. In ‘The Dream of the Rood’, it is the cross which is wounded with arrows, but there is no indication that it is not Christ who is so wounded in the Ruthwell inscription. Describing Christ both before and after but not during the Crucifixion indicates an unwillingness to unbalance a presentation of Christ’s nature. Before the Crucifixion, Christ is the supreme young hero, ‘God almighty’. Old English poetry’s standard image of the superlative hero, exceptional to the point of being supernatural, combines with the words ‘God almighty’ to convey the divinity of Christ. After the Crucifixion, he is the limbweary, wounded man. These two views represent the two extremes of perception of the nature of Christ. Together they make a balanced presentation which combines both elements of Christ’s nature in the one narrative.

Conclusion If the runic inscription on the Ruthwell Cross is viewed simply as a separate poem from ‘The Dream of the Rood’, it can be seen to be an integral part of the monument. It presents an emotional reaction to the story of the Crucifixion from the point of view of one of Christ’s followers, possibly Mary Magdalene who features prominently in the figural sculpture. Associated with the panel depicting Mary serving Christ by washing his feet, it is perhaps an example to the observer of the reverence and loyalty which is due to Christ. This is a theme which may be discerned in many of the scenes carved on the monument. The poem also maintains the orthodoxy concerning the nature of Christ, keeping a careful balance between his divine and human aspects, a further reminder of the response required by the church. The inscription and the figural sculptures could then be seen to be serving a unified purpose: to illustrate the proper response to Christ’s incarnation.

Controversies concerning the nature of Christ were prevalent in the early medieval church. The orthodox view was that Christ was a single entity with two distinct natures: the divine and the human. To overemphasise his human suffering was to deny his divine nature. Taken to extreme, this gave rise to the Arian heresy. To overemphasise the divine nature of Christ was to deny his suffering in human form. The extreme of this view was the Monophysite heresy. These controversies had begun

64

Chapter 9: The Upper Stone The upper and lower stones of the Ruthwell Cross are not congruent. There are differences between the two stones in the inscriptions on all four faces, the figural sculpture, and the vinescroll. A double border separates the upper and lower stones, while on each stone the panels are separated by only a single border. The two stones are of differently coloured New Red Sandstone, the lower stone a pinkish-grey and the upper stone red. Opinions vary as to whether the two stones could have come from the same quarry. There are also considerable differences in the way the two stones were treated around the time of the Reformation.

establish possible relationships between the upper and lower stones at Ruthwell, and to more clearly define the early medieval parts of the upper stone.

Vinescroll and figural sculpture Multivariate analysis of the vinescroll was carried out for Chapter 5 of this book. The results showed that there are significant differences between the vinescroll on the upper and lower stones of the Ruthwell Cross. The evidence from the analysis of the vinescroll suggests that the lower stone may have been made by two teams working to a single plan, either consecutively or simultaneously. The upper stone appears not to have been made by either of these two teams, but possibly by another team or teams. The team who created the vinescroll on the upper stone appear to have been working to the same or a similar plan to that which was used for the lower stone, as the vinescroll follows the same general form, differing only in the execution of details. Whether the team working on the upper stone was working at approximately the same time as those working on the lower stone, or was seeking to match the already existing lower stone, is yet to be determined.

The issue of the differences between the two stones has been variously observed over time. Henry Duncan, when he created the modern monument, was convinced that the pieces he assembled were not part of a singly conceived and executed sculpture. He thought it probable that the original monument had been a pillar consisting of only the lower stone and that the upper stone had been a later addition (Duncan 1833: 4). He was, however, apparently in no doubt that the monument he created consisted of early medieval parts which had been combined before the Reformation.

The multivariate analysis of the figural sculpture described in Chapter 6 of this book does not show such a pronounced difference. This analysis compared three panels: the Christ and Magdalene panel of the lower south face, the worshipping beasts panel of the lower north face and the Agnus Dei panel of the upper north face. The north and south faces of the lower stone are again markedly different, suggesting the possibility of two different styles and two different artists or teams. The upper stone does not link directly to either of the two lower faces, but is somewhat more like the north face than the south.

It is generally acknowledged that the uppermost fragment, which forms the upper arm of the cross, is not now correctly orientated to the remainder of the upper stone, and ought to be rotated through 180o. Paul Meyvaert recently (1992: 104) advanced the theory that it is not the uppermost fragment, but the remainder of the upper stone which ought to be rotated (see Figure A). In this he agrees with the general opinion that the opposite faces of the two parts of the upper stone ought to be aligned. However, he takes the argument further to suggest that after his adjustment the upper stone forms an integral part of the iconographic programme presented on the lower stone.

The Agnus Dei panel is significantly different from the worshipping beasts and Christ and Magdalene panels. Some particular details of the carving of the Agnus Dei panel mark it as different. Both the worshipping beasts and Christ and Magdalene panels feature a large concave nimbus which projects over the upper margin of the panel. The Agnus Dei figure has a much smaller flatter nimbus which is cut off by the upper margin. The figures on the lower stone are tall and narrow, with the nimbus as wide as the shoulders, so that they fill the whole available space in the panel. The Agnus Dei figure has broad shoulders but a small nimbus, so that the head with nimbus occupies only about half of the width of the panel. The skirt of the Agnus Dei figure has only one broad pleat at the centre front, while those of the Christ figures below have multiple narrower pleats across the front. These differences suggest that the Agnus Dei panel is part of a separate artefact from the other two panels.

Christopher Ball (1991: 108) suggested in passing that ‘there was originally more than the one monument known today’ (Ball 1991: 108), on the grounds that the upper stone differed from the lower. Fred Orton (1998) has written an important article around the question of whether the upper and lower stones were originally part of the same monument, and when and how they might have been combined. This chapter will use the findings of the preceding chapters as evidence of the relationship between the upper and lower stones. The question of stone types and arrangement will be investigated. Folk traditions concerning the origins of the monument will be discussed. A close examination of the upper stone will show that it may incorporate fragments of more than one early medieval sculpture. This chapter will seek to 65

Pamela O’Neill The most compelling argument from the figural sculpture is one which is difficult to quantify. Viewed from the floor of the apse, which is probably the closest approximation to early medieval ground level, the monument towers impressively. The eye is drawn upward to the imposing figures of Christ in the Christ and Magdalene and worshipping beasts panels. This is in part due to the carving style in these panels, where the Christ figures are made to seem as though they emerge from the panel by the use of deep relief and elongated proportions. The panels have a distinctive angled background with planes which slope back from the margins to join the edges of the figure. This gives the effect of pushing the figure forward from the panel. Above them, the figures carved in a flatter style seem to fade into obscurity. The Christ figures seem meant to surmount their monument. Their power and commanding presence seem to render anything above somewhat ridiculous. Surely the figure of Christ carved in such a deliberately imposing style should be unsurmounted in stone, just as in theology.

On the east and west faces, the inscriptions on both stones are exclusively in the Old English language and the runic alphabet. On the lower stone, the runes are arranged in short horizontal rows, which read firstly across the upper margin, then across the rows from top to bottom of the right margin, and then across the rows from top to bottom of the left margin. That is, although they read transversely where the Roman letters read longitudinally, they are arranged in the same order as the inscriptions on the north and south faces. There is no surviving inscription on the west face of the upper stone. The east face of the upper stone has a fragment of inscription which reads longitudinally from top to bottom of the right margin. That is, it follows the same arrangement as the inscriptions on the north and south faces of the upper stone, not the arrangement on the east and west faces of the lower stone. As Orton (1998: 82) puts it, these differences suggest that the inscriptions on the upper and lower stones ‘were put in place at different moments, at different stages or places of literacy, at different historical and geographical specificities’. In other words, the inscriptions on the upper and lower stones were not part of the same work assignment. The evidence of the inscriptions supports that of the vinescroll and figural sculpture, in suggesting that the upper and lower stones of the Ruthwell Cross were not made by the same hands, and possibly not at the same time.

The vinescroll on the upper stone does not seem to have been made by either of the teams who worked on the lower stone. The figural sculpture shows some distinctive differences between the upper and lower stones, particularly in the details of execution of the nimbus, clothing and proportions of the figure. The evidence of both forms of decoration suggests the possibility that the upper stone and the lower stone resulted from separate acts of creation.

Stone types

Inscriptions

Sporadic interest has been shown in the type and source of the stone used for the two parts of the Ruthwell Cross. J K Hewison was apparently interested in the question. In 1913, Dods, the mason who assisted in the relocation of the reconstructed monument, commented on the question in his letter to Hewison. Dods was the owner of some granite quarries near Dumfries and apparently knew a little about stone types (Orton 1998: 78). His letter says

The differences between the inscriptions on the upper and lower stones are immediately obvious, and have received scholarly attention. Orton (1998: 80ff) describes these differences in detail. On the north and south faces, the lower stone does not deviate from the Roman alphabet, except in the use of the sacred monograms, or from the Latin language. The south face of the upper stone combines Roman and runic alphabets in the Latin language. The traces of inscription on the uppermost piece of the north face have also been read as Old English language in the runic alphabet (eg Cook 1890: 154). There are considerable differences between the upper and lower stones in the language and letterforms of inscriptions on the north and south faces.

‘The lower section of cross shaft is made from a strong durable freestone of a light pinky grey colour having a very large proportion of quartz in its composition well water worn & rounded about from about 16th. to a 20th. of an inch in diameter & some grains smaller. The nearest approach to the composition of this stone I know is Kings Quarry Thornhill only the Kings Quarry grains are larger & more angular such as would be seen in the sedimentary rock deposits tailing off into finer grains as the water carries the smaller grains forward.

The layout of the Latin inscriptions on the lower stone is consistent around each panel. It proceeds in a distinctive manner across the upper margin, then down the right margin, then down the left. The remnants of the inscriptions on the upper stone are too incomplete to determine their overall layout. The notable exception is the south face of the upper stone, where the inscription in the left margin clearly reads upward from bottom to top. The inscription on the north face of the upper stone, though, reads from top to bottom down the left margin. The layout of the upper stone is not internally consistent, and therefore differs from that of the lower stone.

‘The upper section of cross is of a darker red shade. I would call it a light coloured red stone. To all appearance it has been as good a weather stone as the lower part it is not more weathered. I cannot locate where 66

‘A pillar curiously engraven; with some inscription upon it’: What is the Ruthwell Cross? it is from. It is within the lines of possibility it might be from the same deposit of rock got at some distance from the lower section. I have in my quarry experience seen as great a difference in colour in one quarry.’ (quoted in Orton 1998: 89ff)

be in the Nith estuary, where stone could easily be transported by water a short distance around the Solway coast or down Lochar Water, and then up Thwaite Burn or by land to Ruthwell. Interest in the stone types of the Ruthwell Cross has recently been renewed. Robert Farrell’s article in the 1992 Princeton book quotes from Dods’ letter, and observes that ‘His remarks about the color of the stone and its weathering are important. Color casts in the sandstones of the Ruthwell area are quite variable with light and dark casts layered in the same matrix’ (Farrell & Karkov 1992: 40). He does not, however, go on to explain why Dods’ comments on colour are important, or to explore the matter. Instead he takes up the issue of weathering. His reference to the ‘sandstones of the Ruthwell area’ is intriguing, as he, like Brown, fails to define that area.

Later in the letter he says ‘all of the stones the cross has been made from is real sandstone’. This is apparently in reply to a question from Hewison about whether it might be a red limestone. He suggests that the upper and lower stones might have come from the same quarry, apparently observing no other distinction between them than the colour. Dods was unable to find a source of sandstone with a better match than Thornhill, some 65km northwest of Ruthwell. This does not mean that there was no source with a better match, but rather that Dods, despite his familiarity with the quarries in the area, was unaware of the quarry from which the Ruthwell stone came. This is not as surprising as it might seem, since such a quarry might well have disappeared during the intervening millennium.

Fred Orton also takes up Dods’ comments on the stone of the Ruthwell Cross. He interprets Dods’ separate statements about the upper and lower stones as meaning that while the lower stone had near matches locally, the source of the upper stone was a complete mystery to Dods. Orton (1998: 78) goes on to say

The implication of Dods’ comments is that the Ruthwell stone may have been sourced closer to Ruthwell than Thornhill. This is compatible with the Geological Survey (Geological Survey 1948), which shows two deposits of Permian New Red Sandstone on the River Nith, one around Thornhill, and a larger one downstream around Dumfries. A similar configuration of Permian New Red Sandstone occurs on the River Annan, to the east of Ruthwell.

‘A bit of contemporary geology and lithology would not come amiss in rethinking the Ruthwell Cross. Differences in colour could mean differences in texture and composition – though not necessarily. Different stones might indicate different quarries. And different quarries – or two sites in the same quarry – might, as Duncan realized, indicate two historically specific moments of construction.’

Brown (1921: 108ff) reports that the two pieces differ in colour, the upper being deep red and the lower ‘warm grey’. He opines that both are New Red Sandstone of a type found in the Ruthwell district and in Cumberland across the Solway. Brown had geologists from Edinburgh University examine the stone of the Ruthwell Cross and ‘other fragments of sandstone picked up in the vicinity’. They observed that ‘the size of the grains of quartz, their sharpness and polish which are very notable, and the amount of admixture of the particles of mica’ were very similar, and Brown concluded that the stone of the Ruthwell Cross must be local (Brown 1921: 111).

Orton’s contemporary science does not seem to add much to Dods’ discussion. Differences in colour could mean differences in texture, but Dods’ notes and others’ observations of the monument suggest that in this case they do not. Differences in colour do mean differences in composition; there is probably a greater concentration of iron in the redder stone, but ‘red’ and ‘iron’ are two ways of describing the same phenomenon. Different stones might indicate different quarries, but Dods was of the opinion that they do not. Different quarries or two sites in the same quarry might indicate separate ‘moments of construction’, or they might simply indicate that the two good quality monoliths were not extracted side by side.

We do not know what the local samples used by Brown’s geologists were. Ruthwell itself is on a deposit identified by the Geological Survey (1948) as carboniferous limestone. Brown (1921: 110) observes that ‘there is now no actual sandstone quarry worked in the vicinity of Ruthwell, but there is plenty of the stone available, and it is used for the houses and walls of the locality’. The local samples might therefore be fragments from building activity or from abandoned buildings. The implication is that a quarry existed from which the Ruthwell Cross and other building projects around Ruthwell drew supplies. Such a quarry need not have been located in the immediate area, but convenience would dictate that it be easily accessible from Ruthwell. It might, for example,

Orton places important emphasis on the question of the stone types in the components of the Ruthwell Cross. The question of source is unlikely to be resolved in the absence of large-scale geological exploration. The question of importance that remains is whether the choice of two different coloured stones implies two different acts of creation or a single act of creation. The importance of the mismatched colours depends largely on the question of finish. If this monument was 67

Pamela O’Neill

Folk traditions

finished with gesso and paint, as others are known to have been (eg Cramp 1984b: 13, Tweddle et al 1995: 44), the question of stone colour is irrelevant. If the monument was unpainted, and not all stone sculpture was painted (see Tweddle et al 1995: 104), then the question of colour is important.

Fred Orton (1998: 84ff) reports a local tradition concerning the Ruthwell Cross. The tradition as recorded by William Nicolson (quoted in Orton 1998: 86f), incorporates a number of common folk motifs. ‘It was found, letter’d and entire, in a Stone-Quarry on this shore (a good way within ye Sea-mark) call’d Rough-Scarr. Here it had lain long admir’d, when (in a Dream) a neighbouring Labourer was directed to yoke four Heifers of a certain Widow yt liv’d near him; and, where they stop’d with yir Burthen, there to slack his Team, erect ye Cross & build a Church over it: All which was done accordingly. I wonder’d to see a Company of Modern Presbyterians (as ye present parishioners profess ymselves to be) so steady in this Faith; and even to believe, yet farther, yt the Cross was not altogether so long (at its first erection) as it was afterwards: But that it miraculously grew, like a Tree, till it touched the Roof of the Church.’

There is no record of any trace of gesso or paint being found on the Ruthwell Cross. However, there is no record of any expert unsuccessfully examining the monument for such traces. There is certainly nothing visible to the naked eye, but given the amount of exposure and handling the monument has undergone this is to be expected. For example, the photograph in the manse garden shows distinct areas of fungal growth. These must have been cleaned off when the monument was moved into the church. The accomplished nature of the carving, manifested in the visual power of the sculpture even in its current damaged state, might have rendered the use of paint unnecessary. However, the question of a painted finish is one which needs to be resolved. If the monument was originally unpainted, the problem of the poor colour match in the stone is very important. It is highly unlikely that a unified sculpture as ambitious as the Ruthwell Cross would compromise on stone selection to the extent of incorporating such an extreme contrast in colour. The difference in colour between the upper and lower stones would under these conditions argue strongly against the unity of the monument.

An alternative version of the tradition has the monument transported by sea and washed up at Priestside, about 1km from Ruthwell, and carried from there by a team of oxen belonging to a widow, with the same outcome. Orton emphasises the emerging importance of oral history generally, and the need to apply this to the study of the Ruthwell Cross. There are two important aspects of the traditional story. The first is that the monument is said to have been brought from elsewhere. The second is that it is said to have grown after its installation in the church.

Stone shapes The lower stone of the Ruthwell Cross tapers inward towards the top at a regular and pronounced angle. The upper stone does not have this pronounced taper. To the unaided eye, the sides of the upper stone appear to be parallel. If they do taper, it is certainly not to the same extent as on the lower stone. This effect is reinforced by the difference in the borders on the two stones. The borders on the lower stone are wide, regular and precise, emphasising the taper of the stone. The borders on the upper stone are narrower and inconsistent. The width of the border is not uniform on all sides of each panel. If the two stones were part of a single original design, the margins would be expected to be uniform throughout the entire monument. More importantly, the taper would be expected to be uniform across both stones.

The story of the monument having been brought from elsewhere is generally said to have been created in order to explain the existence of an object so accomplished in such an isolated place. Chapter 3 of this book has shown that at the time of the monument’s manufacture, Ruthwell was not an isolated place. However, it may have seemed so at the time when the tradition was created. Even so, the story may have its foundation in actual events. It must be remembered that the source of the stone was not in Ruthwell itself. If the stone for the monument was quarried somewhere near the Solway, as for example in the Nith estuary, it is likely to have been roughed out at the quarry in order to avoid transporting unnecessary weight. It would then be transported by water, arriving at Priestside, to be dragged to Ruthwell by a team of oxen. There is an area of rock within the low-water mark off Priestside called Rough Scar. This outcrop as the source of the stone in the second version of the story is entirely compatible with the first version of the story. It is unlikely that the monument would leave the quarry ‘letter’d and entire’, but this must be allowed as a slight exaggeration. It is normal practice in most cultures for

The irregularities and patches of mortar introduced by McFarlan and Dods tend to disguise the differences between the shapes of the two stones, but when each fragment of the upper stone is examined separately, it is clear that they do not have the same taper as the lower stone. The difference in taper argues strongly against the two stones having formed part of a single original monument.

68

‘A pillar curiously engraven; with some inscription upon it’: What is the Ruthwell Cross? monumental sculptures to be partially executed at the quarry site.

The problematic alignment of the upper and lower fragments of the Agnus Dei panel has attracted frequent comment. Part of this problem must be attributable to Dods, who was unable to reproduce Duncan’s much neater reconstruction. The conjoining of the two panels is now disguised by Dods’ mortar, so that it is impossible to determine the closeness of fit without radiographic techniques. However, the parts simply do not sit comfortably together. This is largely because of the different styles of relief on the two panels. Chapter 6 of this book discussed in detail the identity of the figure in this panel. The apparent conflation of a Christ in majesty with an apocalypse vision is not the only explanation which satisfactorily addresses the combination of the lamb in the arms and the globes beneath the feet of this figure. An alternative explanation, which accounts for both the problem of fit of the fragments and the combination of features, is that this is not a single figure. I suggest that Duncan combined the upper part of a John the Baptist or apocalypse figure from one stone with the lower part of a Christ in majesty figure from another.

The idea that the monument grew after its installation in the church intrigues Orton. He supposes that the monument dragged by the oxen was only the lower stone, and that the suggestion of growth might refer to the addition of the upper stone. This is an interesting idea, which opens up many possibilities. For instance, the upper stone might have been added very close to the time of manufacture of the lower stone. Alternatively, the lower stone might have stood for an extended period in the open air before the church was built and the upper stone added. In any case, the local tradition supports the notion that the original monument may have consisted of only the lower stone.

How many monuments? There is some disagreement over the number of early medieval fragments incorporated into the upper stone of the Ruthwell Cross. Dods’ letter to Hewison states quite clearly that there are five separate pieces which originally made the two stones of the current monument (Orton 1998: 91). That is, there are two large pieces of the lower stone; the piece which forms the upper arm of the crosshead; the piece with the upper part of the Agnus Dei and Mary and Martha panels and the lower arm of the crosshead; and the piece with the lower part of the Agnus Dei and Mary and Martha panels. Since Dods separated all the fragments of the upper stone, and then put them back together in slight disarray, he could be expected to know how many fragments there were.

An examination of the opposite face of the upper stone may elucidate this point. The Mary and Martha panel consists of the upper parts of the two figures and a tiny fragment with two sets of feet. While these feet are not positioned incorrectly for these figures, they would fit equally well with almost any depiction of two facing figures. In fact, although the two figures are the same height, the feet on the right seem to belong to a taller figure, as they are larger and the hemline above them is slightly higher. The excessive tallness of these figures may be attributable to the fact that these feet do not belong to these figures. If the figures were attached to a fragment with feet positioned slightly higher than here, and if the feet were attached to a completely separate fragment with two figures, two sets of figures of quite normal proportions could be created.

Robert Farrell (1992: 43) and Paul Meyvaert (1992: 100) do not accept Dods’ count. They believe that the piece with the lower part of the Agnus Dei panel is not attached to the piece with the lower part of the Mary and Martha panel. Farrell and Meyvaert are concerned with explaining the apparent elongation of the Mary and Martha figures and the foreshortening of the figure with the Agnus Dei. They suggest that the incongruity of the figures is best explained by the lowest fragment being in two pieces, a suggestion competently refuted by Bailey (1993: 145). There is no reason to doubt Dods’ testimony here, and there may be a much more straightforward explanation for the incongruity of the two panels.

The figures on the upper fragment of the south face appear well out with the level of the frame, while the feet seem to be set back a little. However, the feet are not set back from their own frame, but rather from the other pieces of stone in this panel. Both of the fragments with sculpture run through the full depth of the monument, and the margins of both fragments are aligned on the north face. The only conclusion to be drawn is that the two fragments are of slightly different thicknesses. The fragment with the feet of the figures on both faces is slightly less thick than the fragment with the upper bodies. This is yet another indicator that the two fragments were not originally joined.

On the upper stone, the background of the Agnus Dei panel appears anomalous. The upper part of the figure appears to be set back further within the margin, with considerable clear space around it, as in most panels on the lower stone. The lower part of the figure appears to be set forward within the margin, and fills the space almost completely, as do the Christ figures on the lower stone. This anomaly in the Agnus Dei panel suggests that the two fragments of the panel do not stem from a single original design.

The discrepancies in the inscriptions of the upper stone appear to be between the two faces. In fact, they are not. The discrepancies are between the two fragments. On the north face inscription survives only around the feet, while on the south face inscription survives only around the upper part of the figures. The inscription on the south face of the upper fragment reads up the left margin and includes some runic characters, while the inscription on 69

Pamela O’Neill the north face of the lower fragment reads down the left margin and has only Roman characters.

evidence of the inscriptions, the lower fragment may not be incompatible with the lower stone. It has no inscription on the east and west faces, and the inscription on the north face is compatible with that on the lower stone.

The uppermost arm of the cross-head appears to be compatible with the upper fragment of the foregoing discussion. The sculptural styles show no marked dissimilarities, and the shapes of the stones themselves are not incompatible. The combination on one face of the archer and the bird, and on the other of two of the four evangelist figures with their symbols suggests that these two fragments formed part of a crosshead.

The evidence of the stone types is inconclusive. It depends on questions which are thus far unanswered about the use of gesso and paint. If we assume that the monument was not painted, then the stone types are evidence against any of the upper stone having been part of the same monument as the lower stone.

The upper stone of the Ruthwell Cross may not be a nineteenth-century reconstruction but a nineteenthcentury construction. It combines two fragments which might originally have been parts of two separate monuments. This is indicated by the non-congruence of the figures in each of the main panels, the inconsistencies in the inscriptions, and the differences in thickness and sculptural style of the two fragments.

The folk tradition introduces the possibility that the original monument was added to at some point, presumably in the medieval period. It is likely that if this did occur, the preceding monument consisted only of the lower stone. A striking number of Anglo-Saxon monuments identified as crosses or cross-shafts do not show any trace of a cross-head. It is not necessarily appropriate to assume that they all originally possessed that feature. Under these circumstances, it is perhaps not unreasonable to consider the original monument at Ruthwell as having taken the form not of a cross, but of a pillar.

Conclusion Given that the upper stone appears to combine fragments from separate monuments, it is even less likely that the entire upper stone was originally part of the same monument as the lower stone. It remains possible but unlikely that some of the fragments of the upper stone were originally combined in the same monument with the lower stone.

In considering the manufacture and message of the early medieval monument which was the foundation for the modern Ruthwell Cross, it would be unwise to consider the upper stone as though it were a single unit, or as though it resulted from a single act of creation with the lower stone. The lower stone is the only part of the modern monument which can be identified securely as part of the ‘original’ monument which formed the basis of the modern Ruthwell Cross.

The evidence of the vinescroll suggests that the upper fragment of the upper stone is not part of the same original monument as the lower stone. The lower fragment of the upper stone has such a tiny scrap of vinescroll as to be ineligible for comment. The evidence of the inscriptions is that the upper fragment of the upper stone does not belong with the lower stone. On the

70

Chapter 10: By Whose Hands? This chapter will discuss issues of design, style and workmanship which may relate to the sculptors of the Ruthwell Cross and how they went about their work. I will use the simplifying term ‘workmanship’ to refer to the combination of all of these issues. This chapter will address primarily the lower stone of the Ruthwell Cross. Because the lower stone is the largest and most complete surviving fragment, it is the most accessible for such a discussion. The previous chapter showed that only the lower stone of the modern Ruthwell Cross can be securely identified as a single early medieval monument, and this chapter will proceed from that conclusion. The workmanship and meaning of the smaller fragments, or ‘upper stone’, should be considered in a separate discussion, as these fragments are arguably not a part of the same ‘original’ design. Their poor condition and fragmentary nature render them less suitable for extensive discussion than that of the lower stone.

These differences suggest that the east and west faces were sculpted by two different artists or teams, working to a similar overall plan. There are thus three artists to be considered for the vinescroll: the creator of the overall plan, the artist or team of the east face and the artist or team of the west face. The creator of the overall plan appears to have been working within a mainstream school of Insular stone sculpture design. The use of vinescroll, whether inhabited or uninhabited, to fill tall narrow compartments is well established. Such compartments occur on several units from the sample used for this analysis, many of them from outside the Northumbrian heartland. The creator of the overall plan for the vinescroll uses a familiar Insular idiom. The artist of the east face appears also to be working within an established Insular idiom. There are differences in detail between the east face and most other surviving works, but the formal, stylised appearance of the vine and inhabitants are well within the mainstream of Insular sculpture. The artist of the west face appears to derive his style from a different milieu. The liveliness and non-conformity of the vine and inhabitants of the west face argue a different influence from that of the majority of Insular vinescroll.

Previous chapters discussed various features of the Ruthwell Cross. This chapter will draw on those discussions to seek further insights into the workmanship of the original monument. In particular, it will explore the relationships between Ruthwell and other early medieval art forms which might have provided influence or models. Similarities have been noticed between the sculpture on the Ruthwell monument and some early medieval ivory carvings. There are also some features common to early medieval manuscripts and the Ruthwell monument, particularly its inscriptions. Ivories and manuscripts may therefore be among the models referred to by the Ruthwell artists. The sculptors’ methods may have been informed by surviving Romano-British stone sculpture in the area surrounding Ruthwell. There are elements in the style of the sculpture which suggest associations with Pictish sculpture. The generally accepted association of Ruthwell with Anglo-Saxon stone sculpture, in particular that of Northumbria, will also be considered.

Figural Sculpture The statistical analysis of the figural sculpture in Chapter 6 of this book found that the principal figure of the Christ and Magdalene panel on the south face at Ruthwell differed considerably from that of the worshipping beasts panel on the north face. The Christ of the worshipping beasts panel aligns fairly closely with that of the similar panel on the Bewcastle Cross, while the Christ and Magdalene panel is completely unlike any other sculpture in the sample. Both the north and the south faces have elements from outside the Northumbrian mainstream, namely the Magdalene figure and the two beasts, all of which appear completely unrelated to Northumbrian work, but perhaps, as suggested in Chapter 6 of this book, show traces of influence from Pictish style.

East and west, north and south Vinescroll

Inscriptions

The statistical analysis of the Ruthwell vinescroll in Chapter 5 of this book showed clear differences between the east and west faces of the lower stone. The vinescroll on the west face has more naturalistic features such as the median-incised stem and variety of leaves, fruit and flowers, and the lively beasts which engage with the vine and the viewer. The vinescroll on the east face has more stylised, formulaic features, including the rounded stem, single leaf type and comparatively listless beasts. The east face is more like some other pieces of sculpture, and particularly those from Bewcastle and Jedburgh; the west face is very unlike any other sculpture in the sample.

The inscriptions on all four faces differ. The runes on the east face are slightly smaller and more regular than those on the west. The Roman letters on the north face are slightly smaller and more regular than those on the south. The north face has multiple forms of ‘o’ and ‘m’ which do not occur on the south face. The content of the south face inscriptions is biblical and narrative, whereas the content of the north face inscriptions is apocryphal and descriptive. This suggests that the inscriptions on east and west were made by two different persons as was the vinescroll. The inscriptions on north and south were

71

Pamela O’Neill probably by different hands as were possibly the north and south figural sculptures. The runic inscriptions on east and west show the same sort of variation in execution as the vinescroll panels. The inscriptions are unlikely to be the result of separate plans, particularly the runic inscription which is continuous across both faces. However, it seems that they were executed by separate artists.

and Albert panel was associated with some Pictish pieces, while the Gandersheim casket was associated with the lost Hoddam shaft and the two Jarrow friezes. The Larling panel, which is actually whalebone but may be considered with the ivories, was central to the tree, and, with the Oxford shaft, appears to link the Ruthwell-Easby grouping and the remainder of the sample. This arrangement does not indicate a close relationship between Ruthwell and the ivory pieces. It does suggest that ivories might be expected to be dispersed throughout the sample, showing a variety of attributes and relationships similar to those of the stone sculpture. It therefore follows that there may have been vinescroll carved on ivory with a significant likeness to the Ruthwell vinescroll. This remains only a possibility, and the existence of such vinescroll on ivory has not been established.

Conclusion Detailed study of the sculpture and inscriptions indicates that the Ruthwell Cross is the work of two teams or artists. The east and north faces appear to be more formulaic and conventional, and therefore the work of an artist with more formal and conventional training. The west and south faces appear to be more lively and inventive, and therefore the work of an artist whose training and competence allowed more freedom in execution.

The spatial arrangement of the inscriptions on Ruthwell has its most marked parallels in ivory. The placement of inscriptions in a border around the main picture area is seen in the Genoels-Elderen panel, which is included in the figural sculpture analysis in this book, and also in the well-known Franks Casket (see Figure A). There is no similar arrangement in any of the Insular stone sculpture examined for this book. Kitzinger (1993: 9) refers to inscriptions laid out similarly to those at Ruthwell on Eastern icons. This layout may have been transmitted to Ruthwell from the icons, possibly through the medium of ivory carvings.

Relationships to ivory carvings Ivory carvings of Insular manufacture were included in the samples for the statistical analysis of both the vinescroll and the figural sculpture. The limits for the sample dictated that only the portable objects illustrated in The Making of England (Webster & Backhouse 1991) were included. The requirements for the sample were also strict: only ivories with inhabited vinescroll or central forward-facing figures were used. Added to these limitations, the fact that ivory panels are a fragile medium in which the surviving corpus is relatively small, has made it impossible to use many examples for this analysis. Some tentative conclusions may nonetheless be drawn concerning the relationship between the sculpture at Ruthwell and that of ivory carvings.

The relationship of the Latin inscriptions at Ruthwell to the figural panels they surround is unusual. Some objects have figural sculptures which are accompanied by short inscriptions naming their characters, as in some panels of the Franks Casket or the Bewcastle Cross. Other objects have inscriptions which appear not to relate to the sculpture. The long inscription at Bewcastle and that on the front of the Franks Casket are examples. Examples with a longer inscription which relates to the figural sculpture are predominantly in ivory. The GenoelsElderen panel and the Franks Casket have inscriptions beginning ‘here’ or ‘ubi’: ‘where/when’, and continuing to describe the action in the panel. Only one inscription on the Franks Casket, that depicting Romulus and Remus, is comparable to the Latin inscriptions at Ruthwell, in that it relates to but does not precisely describe the content of the panel. The evidence suggests that the practice on the Ruthwell Cross of surrounding figural panels with inscriptions relating to their content is most closely echoed in ivory, and does not generally occur in stone sculpture.

The central figures of the Ruthwell and Bewcastle figural panels have a naturalistic style of drapery and features which do not belong in the characteristic Insular design vocabulary. This Insular design vocabulary typically features highly stylised drapery which is reduced to swirling or geometric shapes bearing little resemblance to actual clothing. Many of the sculptured stones in the sample have clothing of this type, as do many Insular illuminated manuscripts. However, this feature is found in only a small number of Insular ivories, where the clothing is generally of the more naturalistic classical style. Ivories must therefore be considered a likely source for the more naturalistic central figures at Ruthwell and Bewcastle. Similarly, other Insular stone sculpture should not be considered a probable source for the Ruthwell and Bewcastle figures. The Ruthwell and Bewcastle figures have little in common with those on other Insular stone sculpture.

With the exception of the vinescroll, each element of the design of the Ruthwell Cross has close parallels in ivory carvings. These parallels in ivory carvings are generally closer than any resemblance to other Insular stone sculpture, with the exception of the figural sculptures which bear a close likeness to those on the Bewcastle Cross. In the statistical analyses carried out for this book, there is no particularly close resemblance between the

The vinescroll analysis revealed no particularly close relationships between the Ruthwell vinescroll panels and those on ivory objects. The ivory objects were widely dispersed in the minimum spanning tree. The Victoria

72

‘A pillar curiously engraven; with some inscription upon it’: What is the Ruthwell Cross? Ruthwell Cross and ivory carvings. The possibility remains that other ivories may have existed with vinescroll and figural carvings more like those at Ruthwell. The design of the Ruthwell Cross clearly relies on models like the ivory panels discussed here for some of its more unusual features. There are no objects in other media which provide closer parallels to the Ruthwell designs. It is a reasonable assumption that the designer and/or sculptors of the Ruthwell Cross drew inspiration from portable ivory objects.

earlier than the tenth century, and if so, may have had some influence on the Ruthwell sculptors. The figures painted in Insular manuscripts are generally of a type quite unlike those on the Ruthwell Cross. Frequently they are stylised swirls of colour with face, hands and feet added. Notable exceptions to this rule are in the Book of Kells and the Lindisfarne Gospels. The Lindisfarne figures are all seated and in partial profile, and therefore not particularly useful for comparison with Ruthwell. The Kells figures provide more useful comparative material. They are mostly central and frontal, although seated. Similarities between the Kells Christ in Majesty and the Ruthwell Agnus Dei panel were discussed in Chapter 7 of this book. It seems quite likely that the Ruthwell sculptors drew on illuminated manuscripts for inspiration when designing the figural panels.

Relationships to manuscripts Chapter 7 of this book drew attention to some similarities between the Latin inscriptions on the Ruthwell Cross and contemporary Insular illuminated manuscripts. The statistical analysis of Latin inscriptions in that chapter showed no distinct similarity between the forms of the inscriptions on the Ruthwell Cross and those of any other unit in the sample. The sample for this exercise was composed entirely of inscribed stones, and excluded objects in other media. It would be interesting to conduct further analysis incorporating sections of text from manuscripts to quantify the precise degree of likeness between the Ruthwell inscriptions and manuscript lettering. In the absence of such analysis, it can be noted that the Ruthwell inscriptions have a marked resemblance to the forms and arrangement of lettering on the initial pages of illuminated manuscripts. This observation combines with the demonstrated lack of likeness to other stone inscriptions to suggest that the forms of the Ruthwell inscriptions are modelled on manuscript texts.

The sculptors of the Ruthwell Cross were apparently familiar with contemporary illuminated manuscripts. The letterforms on the monument are very closely related to those in the manuscripts. There is no clear association between the Ruthwell vinescroll and the few examples in surviving manuscripts, but the possibility of such association exists. Some features of the figural carving at Ruthwell suggest influence from manuscripts. It seems likely that contemporary Insular illuminated manuscripts were among the materials influencing the work of the Ruthwell sculptors.

Relationships to Romano-British sculpture

Scholars have no very clear idea whether inscriptions on stone are likely to have been made by literate sculptors, or by illiterate sculptors copying the shapes of letters written by another person, perhaps a designer. The somewhat unusual precision with which most of the Ruthwell inscriptions fit neatly into the available space without resort to ligature or size variation suggests the possibility that this sculptor was literate, and his understanding of the letters enabled him to manipulate them to suit the available space. If indeed the Ruthwell inscriptions were laid out by a literate sculptor, it seems likely that his letterforms derived primarily from manuscripts. The sculptor appears not to have had a background which enabled or encouraged him to draw his letterforms from other inscribed stones. If the Ruthwell inscriptions were laid out by a designer who was not the sculptor, that designer apparently made a conscious decision to use letterforms like those in the more elaborate manuscripts. The designer was apparently unaware of, or chose not to use, more common incised letterforms.

Two pieces of Romano-British stone sculpture were included in the sample for the analysis of figural sculpture earlier in this book. One appears as an isolated unit on the minimum spanning tree, which suggests that it has no connection with the later sculpture of the remainder of the sample. The other links most closely to the Irish group. Both are at the extreme opposite end of the tree from the Ruthwell units. There is no immediately apparent connection between any Romano-British sculpture and the Ruthwell Cross. The detailed, lifelike draperies of the Ruthwell figures are unlikely to have been inspired by such Romano-British figures as the stylised Goddess in Carlisle museum (Figure B) or even the stocky Brigantia from Birrens in the figural sculpture sample. They do, though, hold echoes of the sloping shoulders and delicately draped clothing of the secondcentury goddess standing on a bull from Chesters (Figure C), features which are rarely found in Ruthwell’s contemporaries. A sculptor working primarily from unfamiliar models in ivory and manuscripts might seek technical inspiration in the sculpture he found nearby. In the case of the Ruthwell sculptors, such inspiration might come from the plentiful Roman remains in the area. There is evidence that such remains were known to the early medieval inhabitants of Carlisle (see Chapter 3), and it is

Vinescroll occurs in some southern English illuminated manuscripts of around the tenth century, amongst them the Athelstan copy of Bede’s Lives of St Cuthbert, where it is used in the borders of a page, and is inhabited. The use of vinescroll in manuscripts may possibly date from

73

Pamela O’Neill reasonable to suppose that such examples as those at Birrens and others along Hadrian’s Wall were also known in the early medieval period. The Ruthwell sculptors probably observed surviving Roman stone sculpture, and this may have informed their work.

particularly similar in form (see Figure F). The intimate understanding of animal form shown by the Pictish sculptors is also apparent in the Ruthwell donkey. At Ruthwell the technique has probably been developed to include sculpture in the round, which has resulted in the later loss of the donkey’s legs. The sense of movement and effort in the figure of the Ruthwell donkey is strongly reminiscent of horses in Pictish hunting and battle scenes.

Relationships to Pictish sculpture

An interesting comparison to Pictish sculpture arises from the analysis of vinescroll in Chapter 5 of this book. The Ruthwell units are fairly widely separated on the minimum spanning tree. The only other instance of wide separation between two units from a single object is in the case of Hilton of Cadboll. On this Pictish slab there is apparently a deliberate choice to make the two panels of vinescroll different. There is at least a complete unconcern for making them the same. This is seen in many other Pictish slabs of Class II and III, where a neat balance is achieved without resort to the mirror-image type of symmetry characteristic of most insular stone sculpture. The differences between east and west and north and south faces at Ruthwell may be an echo of this Pictish fashion. Although I have suggested that the differences are attributable to the employment of different artists, this does not necessarily exclude this unconcern for similarity as a contributing factor.

Chapter 6 of this book discussed the unusual composition and execution of the subsidiary figures in the two Christ panels of the Ruthwell Cross. The closest parallels for these subsidiary figures are in Pictish symbol carving. The figure of Magdalene, who washes Christ’s feet, is made up of sweeping curves, which suggest the upper part of a female body without actually giving a realistic rendition thereof. The right forearm, which carries the hair to Christ’s feet, is enlarged so that the hand is longer than the face. This enables the arm to fill the full width of the panel, and emphasises the important action. It is, however, not at all characteristic of the realistic style employed for the Christ figure. The emphasis of line over detail, and of symbolism over realism, combine with the sweeping irregular curves of the Magdalene figure to suggest the style of the incised Pictish symbols. Similar effects can be seen in the so-called elephant and goose symbols (see Figure D), where the features of the animals are represented by smooth irregular curves.

There are several associations between the sculpture at Ruthwell and Pictish sculpture. These are mostly points of idiom, where the sculptor might add his own interpretation to a model, as in the case of the donkey, or is working without a model, as in the case of the worshipping beasts or the Magdalene. The differences between the two sets of vinescroll at Ruthwell may similarly reflect a Pictish idiom. These points suggest that the sculptors of the Ruthwell Cross were familiar with the Pictish style of sculpture. They may have been influenced by Pictish sculpture, or have received some training from Pictish sculptors, or even have been Pictish themselves.

The worshipping beasts on the opposite face of Ruthwell are similarly distant from the realistic, classical-inspired style of the Christ figures. They seem to be generic beasts, and certainly do not evoke the ‘dracones’ of the inscription. If any resemblance to living beasts can be seen, it is perhaps to the rodent family. The Ruthwell beasts are seen in profil perdu, very similar to the profile view always adopted for the Pictish symbol beasts. The continuous curve from torso to pointed snout is reminiscent of the smoothly curved Pictish animal symbols, such as the so-called beast head (see Figure E). The carefully treated ears of the Ruthwell beasts, with their distinctive inverted drop shape, are similarly suggestive of incised Pictish work.

Relationships to Anglo-Saxon sculpture The relationships between the Ruthwell Cross and AngloSaxon sculpture were discussed in preceding chapters. The statistical analysis of the vinescroll demonstrated that Ruthwell’s only links were with sculpture from Bewcastle, Jedburgh and Easby. This suggests that Ruthwell stands at the beginning of a development in stone sculpture which took place in the former Rheged at around the time of its annexation by Northumbria. The Ruthwell vinescroll does not relate closely to sculpture from other Anglo-Saxon areas. Many objects of later date than Ruthwell present similar overall design or features, but none of the objects in the sample shows similar workmanship.

The subsidiary figures in the two Christ panels are arguably the only areas of the figural sculpture for which models in ivory or manuscripts were unavailable. In these cases, the sculptors seem to have invented an image based on their own idiom. This idiom appears to have been closely associated with the Pictish tradition of symbol carving. The sculpture of the Egypt journey panel may also show traces of Pictish idiom. The flight into Egypt is a common motif in early medieval art, and it is reasonable to suppose that models were available to the sculptor of this panel. However, the figure of the Virgin mounted on the donkey also bears a strong resemblance to the mounted figures on the later Pictish sculptured stones. A horse and rider on the Meigle no 2 cross-slab is

The statistical analysis of the figural sculpture demonstrated that Ruthwell is at the beginning of a 74

‘A pillar curiously engraven; with some inscription upon it’: What is the Ruthwell Cross? tradition of figural carving in stone in the British Isles. It links to the Bewcastle Cross and more distantly to other slightly later pieces from Yorkshire, Scotland and southern England. The particular combination of subject matter and carving style has no parallel. The Bewcastle Cross offers parallels for the worshipping beasts panel, and for the Agnus Dei panel of the upper stone. No other Anglo-Saxon stone sculpture shows figures carved in the manner of the Christs at Ruthwell and Bewcastle, and no other Anglo-Saxon stone sculpture shows figures like the Magdalene and the worshipping beasts. The workmanship of the figural carvings on the Ruthwell Cross derives from a tradition which is quite distinct from that which gives rise to other Anglo-Saxon stone sculpture.

The foregoing review of the relationships between the Ruthwell Cross and various groups of early medieval art has shown strong links between the workmanship of the Ruthwell Cross and work in various media. Some general conclusions may be drawn about the models used by both sculptors. Most elements of the design of the Ruthwell Cross have close parallels in ivory carvings and manuscript illumination. It is a reasonable assumption that the designer and/or sculptors of the Ruthwell Cross relied quite heavily on portable ivory objects for their models. It seems likely that contemporary Insular illuminated manuscripts were also among the materials influencing their work. There are strong associations between the sculpture at Ruthwell and Pictish sculpture. These are mostly mannerisms or idioms, where the sculptors might add their own interpretation to a model, or be required to invent an image because of the lack of a model. These points suggest that the sculptors of the Ruthwell Cross were familiar with and accomplished in certain aspects of the Pictish style of sculpture.

The statistical analysis of the Latin inscriptions suggested that the form of the inscriptions on the Ruthwell Cross shows no distinct similarity to any other Latin inscription from the Anglo-Saxon area. There is no other object in the sample with inscriptions arranged around the borders of figural sculpture as at Ruthwell. The combinations of letterforms at Ruthwell are not repeated exactly in any other inscription in the sample.

The sculptors were apparently working primarily from models in ivory and manuscripts and in a style not entirely familiar to them. It is possible that they drew technical inspiration from the sculpture to be found in the area. Such inspiration might have come from the plentiful Roman remains around Ruthwell. Some of the Ruthwell monument’s design features, such as the naturalistic fall of a garment or the rounded shape of a shoulder, can be seen in some of the more delicate Roman work in the region.

The runic inscription on the Ruthwell Cross is unique in Anglo-Saxon sculpture. Other runic inscriptions are generally memorial in nature, and shorter than that at Ruthwell. The arrangement of the runes, in that they run in short lines in the margins around the panels of vinescroll, has no parallel. The relationship between the Ruthwell Cross and AngloSaxon stone sculpture is slight. There are overall similarities of concept, as for example the idea of a freestanding cross, and of figural sculpture and vinescroll on that cross. In execution, or workmanship, there are few similarities. The vinescroll at Ruthwell is not similar to the majority of Anglo-Saxon vinescroll, showing mannerisms in the carving that are echoed only at Bewcastle and Jedburgh, and then later and more faintly at Easby. The figural sculpture is of a style far removed from all but the Bewcastle Cross. The inscriptions are laid out and the letters formed in a way that is dissimilar to other inscriptions, both runic and Latin. The evidence suggests that the sculptors of the Ruthwell Cross were the result of a milieu far removed from that of most AngloSaxon sculptors, and that their techniques and models were quite different.

The relationship between the Ruthwell Cross and AngloSaxon stone sculpture is slight. There are overall similarities of concept, but few of detail or execution. The evidence suggests that the sculptors of the Ruthwell Cross belonged to a milieu far removed from that of most Anglo-Saxon sculptors, using different techniques and models. The two teams or sculptors involved in the creation of the lower stone of the Ruthwell Cross were not trained in the Northumbrian tradition of stone sculpture. Their training appears to have included some Pictish influence. The sculptor of the east and north faces appears to have received some conventional formal training, causing the formal, tidy effect in his work. The sculptor of the south and west faces was able to move beyond the strictly formal and give his work more inventive and imaginative treatment. This may have been the result of less formal training, or of exposure to a wider variety of traditions in his training, or simply of confidence born of experience. This imagination is not generally seen in other AngloSaxon stone sculpture.

Conclusion Detailed study of the sculpture and inscriptions indicates that the Ruthwell Cross is the work of two teams or sculptors. The east and north faces appear to be the work of a sculptor with more formal and conventional training, while the west and south faces appear to have been made by a sculptor whose training and competence allowed more freedom in execution.

The influence of traditions outside the Northumbrian mainstream allowed the Ruthwell sculptors to create a monument of striking originality. They assembled ideas drawn from models in ivory carvings and in manuscripts, 75

Pamela O’Neill and applied to them techniques derived from their own backgrounds and surroundings. The resulting

imaginative and varied treatment is not to be found elsewhere in Insular stone sculpture.

76

Chapter 11: For Whose Eyes? Chapter 10 discussed the sculptors of the Ruthwell Cross and their techniques and models. It was concerned with how the original monument was made. This chapter will be concerned with why the original monument was made. It will seek the users of the Ruthwell Cross, the people by whom it was commissioned and for whom it was made. The meaning and message of the monument will be considered, and its themes compared to questions of religious life and doctrine. This discussion will form the basis for an exploration of a possible community context for the Ruthwell Cross.

The runic inscription, Ó Carragáin argues, is a crucifixion poem which deliberately relates the experience of its Cross narrator to that of the Virgin. The Cross as a shocked but co-operative participant in the Passion echoes the Virgin’s shocked but co-operative participation in the Incarnation. Although Ó Carragáin offers points of similarity between the stories of the Virgin and of the Cross, his argument is not conclusive. He concedes (Ó Carragáin 1997: 201) that the Ruthwell poem and the Vercelli text of ‘The Dream of the Rood’ are not identical, but maintains that the narrator of the Ruthwell poem is the Cross. Even if we accept this identity, the Marian echoes in the poem are slight, relying primarily on reconstruction of missing text. The echoes, as indeed the identity of the narrator itself, might apply to any person closely associated with Christ at the Crucifixion.

Theme and meaning of individual features of the Ruthwell Cross were mentioned in earlier chapters of this book. This chapter will draw together those references and seek unifying thematic material which relates to all the features of the monument. This chapter will again refer primarily to the ‘original’ lower stone, which can be securely identified as a unit. As the upper fragments cannot be reliably established as a part of the original monument, they do not necessarily form a part of the original thematic statement.

Ó Carragáin also places a heavy emphasis on the images on the upper fragments, which he argues relate to John the Baptist. The Agnus Dei panel, in his argument, definitely depicts John the Baptist. The Mary and Martha panel he identifies as a Visitation, where the Baptist’s mother greets the Virgin. He justifies the ‘Martha’ of the inscription by pointing out that the reading for the Dormition of the Virgin was the story of Mary and Martha (Ó Carragáin 1997: 196). Whether or not one accepts these associations, a major difficulty is presented by the inability to identify the upper fragments as belonging to the same initial scheme as the lower stone. Ó Carragáin’s argument for a Marian theme can, however, be applied to a later stage of construction if we accept Orton’s (1998: 87) suggestion that the upper fragments are a later, but still early medieval, addition to the monument.

The desert The majority of writers on the subject (eg Burlin 1968) have identified the desert or wilderness as a theme which recurs throughout much of the figural carving on the Ruthwell Cross. The Egypt journey has the Virgin and Child travelling through the wilderness. The Paul and Anthony and worshipping beasts panels are identified by their inscriptions as ‘in deserto’. If the figure holding a lamb on the upper fragment is identified as John the Baptist, John’s ministry in the desert links this panel to the desert theme. The Egyptian story of Mary Magdalene has her living out her life in the desert, so that the Christ and Magdalene panel also has remote desert associations.

If we consider the iconography of only the lower stone, the emphasis on the Virgin is reduced by the removal of the Baptist references. She becomes one reference among several. The healing scene, the Christ and Magdalene, the worshipping beasts and Paul and Anthony are too many to be subordinated to a mere two panels showing the Virgin.

On the north face of the lower stone, the association with the desert is clear. The action of all three scenes clearly takes place in the desert. Two of the inscriptions use the statement ‘in deserto’ to draw attention to this motif, and the third may have done so before it was damaged. The south face has only a remote connection with the desert in the Christ and Magdalene panel. The vinescroll and crucifixion poem of the east and west faces have no ostensible association with the desert.

Mary Magdalene The significance of the Mary Magdalene figure for the early medieval audience was discussed in Chapter 7 of this book. The Ruthwell Cross panel is the earliest known visual representation of Mary washing Christ’s feet. Even in later work, when the cult of Mary Magdalene had developed, such visual representations are an unusual feature. Later depictions of Mary frequently show her with a box of ointment in her hand, referring to the same incident, but rarely is she shown in the act of washing the feet. It seems that the designer of the

The Virgin Mary Éamonn Ó Carragáin (1997, 1999) constructs an argument based on liturgy that the iconographic programme of the Ruthwell Cross represents the Marian devotion newly arrived in Europe in the early eighth century. This argument takes into account the images of the Virgin in the Annunciation and Egypt journey panels. 77

Pamela O’Neill Ruthwell monument felt a particular need to include a representation of this incident in the figural scheme, even though there was no model available for such a scene.

the Crucifixion, few of Christ’s followers are mentioned as being present. In fact, in the majority of the accounts, it is only the women who are present, led by Mary Magdalene. It is Mary Magdalene who is later chosen as the first to see the resurrected Christ on Easter Sunday, and to tell the story of the Resurrection to other believers. The sentiments and experiences expressed in the Ruthwell Cross inscription must coincide closely with those of Mary Magdalene at the Crucifixion.

The image of Mary the sinner washing Christ’s feet was not popular amongst the early medieval didactic artists. It did not offer an example of a good Christian life, as did the Virgin and various ascetic or virginal saints. It did not display one of Christ’s miracles, as did the loaves and fishes or the healing of various sufferers. It must have been of particular significance to the commissioner of the Ruthwell Cross, in order to have been given such a prominent position on this impressive monument.

The Cross This book proposes that there is very little association between the original manifestation of the Ruthwell Cross and the Cross of the Crucifixion. The commonly held view is that the Ruthwell monument refers primarily to the Cross of the Crucifixion. The monument’s overall shape is held to be cruciform. The poem is believed to be narrated by the Cross. One panel of the figural sculpture is said to depict Christ on the Cross.

In the tenth century, Edith of Wilton embroidered an alb for the church at Wilton, with depictions of Christ and the apostles around the hem. Amongst the apostles was Mary Magdalene as the penitent embracing Christ’s feet. The picture was actually of Edith herself, in the role of Mary Magdalene. Judith of Flanders later had herself painted as Mary Magdalene embracing the foot of the cross. The practice of representing oneself in a scene with Christ or the saints was not exceptional. Dunstan, Aelfwine, Edgar and Cnut all did likewise. Various unidentified figures in the marginal areas of manuscript paintings may serve a similar purpose. In the later medieval period the practice became quite common. It was a way of expressing humility and devotion, and the hope of joining permanently with Christ and the saints after death. It allowed the subject to remain figuratively praying at the feet of Christ even when unable to do so in reality (Raw 1990: 24).

In its current form, one and only one of these conditions applies with certainty to the Ruthwell Cross. It is now in the shape of a cross. However, there is no evidence that the monument took the shape of a cross at any time prior to 1823, when Henry Duncan constructed a transom for the pillar he erected. If indeed the monument had been cross-shaped before its partial destruction in 1632, this was probably not the case at the time of its initial manufacture. This book has argued very strongly that the original monument consisted only of what is now the lower stone, and was therefore not cruciform. The narrator of the poem cannot now be certainly established. If any internal evidence existed concerning the identity of the narrator, damage to the inscription has deleted it. Comparison to ‘The Dream of the Rood’ is not a valid ground for identifying the narrator of the Ruthwell poem, and there is no other external evidence concerning the narrator.

What distinguishes the pictures of Edith and Judith from the other early examples is their actual adoption of a character to represent themselves. Their choice of a character in a pose infrequently represented is extremely interesting. The fact that of a small number of such representations, two are identifiable as being of female authorship is probably significant. That real women, and women of noble position, identified themselves with Mary Magdalene, suggests that the commissioner of the Ruthwell Cross may have expected its audience to feel a similar association.

The panel which is held to depict the Crucifixion is severely damaged. In its current state, it depicts a pair of legs and a shaped background. It is reasonable to suppose that at some point in the past it has been a visual representation of the Crucifixion. Opinion is divided as to whether this panel was part of the original sculpture or perhaps a later addition. If we accept that the Crucifixion panel was part of the original design, we still have no idea what form it originally took. Clearly we must accept that it showed Christ on the Cross, but of other detail we are in absolute ignorance.

The Christ and Magdalene panel is the largest and most prominent figural panel on the south face of the Ruthwell Cross. It is above eye level for a standing adult, and stands uppermost on the ‘original’ monument represented by the lower stone. It is the only panel on the south face which depicts a central forward-facing figure, with the possible exception of the partial crucifixion at the bottom of this face. These factors combine to focus attention on the majestic Christ figure, and more particularly on the woman’s act of washing the feet. This effect was clearly intended by the designer of the monument, who probably saw this panel as the most important on the south face.

In the original form of the Ruthwell Cross, the only descriptive reference to the Cross was that contained in the probable Crucifixion panel at the lowest edge. What other references this panel contained is now a mystery, and it is possible that other aspects of the scene were of more importance than the Cross. The only surviving reference to the Cross in the poem is the bald statement ‘Christ was on the Cross’, more a narrative aid than a

The narrator of the poem in Ruthwell’s runic inscription could be a human witness to the Crucifixion, as discussed in the Chapter 8 of this book. In the gospel accounts of 78

‘A pillar curiously engraven; with some inscription upon it’: What is the Ruthwell Cross? focussed description. The Ruthwell monument cannot be considered as having a major preoccupation with the Cross.

‘it is important to recall that the eighth century Northumbrian monks, while composing literature like Christ, also engaged in other types of creative work for the purpose of elucidating Christian ideas. They were active in stone sculpture, woodcarving, and manuscript illumination. The remains of this pictorial art may be scrutinized for evidence concerning theological notions current in Northumbrian monastic life.’

Christ The ‘original’ Ruthwell monument may be interpreted as a series of portraits of Christ, each highlighting a separate aspect of his nature. The worshipping beasts panel of the north face shows him as the triumphant judge of righteousness. In the Paul and Anthony panel he is shown as the supreme sacrifice in the communion bread. In the Egypt journey panel his human incarnation is depicted in Mary’s arms. The Christ and Magdalene panel of the south face shows him again in a triumphant pose, but stresses his forgiveness. The washing of Christ’s feet is identified by Bede (Homilia II.4 in Corpus Christianorum Series Latina CXXII: 210) as stressing Christ’s humanity, whereas the complementary washing of his head in the gospels stresses his divinity. The healing panel shows Christ’s divine and miraculous nature. The Annunciation panel stresses the divine nature of his conception. The Crucifixion panel presents the two natures of Christ in the one body, while also reinforcing the sacrifice motif.

His statement might well be applied not only to Northumbrian monks, but to male and female religious throughout the British Isles.

Theme or narrative When interpreting the written and visual texts presented by the Ruthwell Cross, a thematic approach is more useful than a narrative one. The texts clearly do not present a coherent narrative. They do not tell the story of Christ’s life. Neither do they tell the story of the church calendar, although parts of them relate to both. Rather, the texts present different aspects of a theme. The theme is the nature of Christ. The texts embodied in the figural carvings on the north and south faces comment on this theme, as do the runic inscription and the vinescroll. So also do the Latin inscriptions surrounding the figural carvings. Rather than simply an aid to identifying the characters in the pictures, they can be read as a separate entity which adds a further text in support of the themes presented.

Chapter 8 of this book described the heresies regarding the nature of Christ which were prevalent in the early medieval period. The Crucifixion poem on the Ruthwell Cross carefully alternates between images of the divine ‘almighty God’ and the human ‘limbweary’ Christ to retain the orthodox balance between the divine and human natures of Christ. This orthodoxy is precisely reflected in the figural carvings, which give a balanced view of the two natures of Christ. The vinescroll can also be interpreted as a representation of Christ, both his divine nature as the centre of all life (‘I am the vine . . .’) and his human nature in the spilt blood of the communion wine.

The thematic approach to reading the texts can therefore lend cohesion to the monument as an artefact, whereas a narrative approach tends to make each text fragment seem unconnected to the others. Adopting the theme of the nature of Christ, the viewer can read the texts presented by the pictures, by the Latin inscriptions, by the vinescroll and by the runic inscription, and simply receive the same message in several different ways.

The early medieval church continually convened councils, assemblies and synods which restated the orthodoxy of the moment, and declared the allegiance of various groups to that orthodoxy. The church in England pursued this habit in the late seventh century, with an assembly at Hatfield in 680 and a synod at Canterbury in 685 both declaring for the orthodox Dyophysite doctrine (Werner 1990: 194). As discussed above, Bede followed earlier patristic writers in dedicating a portion of his writings to expounding and discussing the orthodoxy of Christ’s nature. So too did the Irish poet Blathmac (fl 750-770), whose poetry on the Crucifixion and last judgement was ‘particularly interested in three things: Christ’s humanity, his divinity, and his kingship’ (Byrnes 1992: 175). This issue was clearly one which preoccupied the didactic and pastoral minds of the ecclesiastical establishment. If it was suitable material for discussion and literature, it was surely also suitable material for presentation on a monument to be viewed daily by the members of a religious community. Kenneth Mildenberger (1948: 426f) considered that

The other key attribute lent by a thematic approach is orthodoxy. Rather than seeking to give the Ruthwell Cross a narrative interpretation, the combination of images acquires some orthodoxy if interpreted thematically. With the more traditional, and mostly narrative, interpretations, the images are unorthodox, because they are so unusual, and because they are adopted in place of the images conventionally used in such a context. If the Ruthwell Cross is interpreted as presenting the theme of the nature of Christ, it acquires considerable orthodoxy. Surviving visual presentations on a theme such as this are rare in the early medieval context, thus the absence of similar surviving depictions. Written discussions of these issues are more common though, and relate quite closely to the subject matter of the figural carvings on the monument (eg Bede, Homilia II.4 in Corpus Christianorum Series Latina CXXII: 210).

79

Pamela O’Neill The Ruthwell Cross, interpreted as an artefact presenting a unified text in several parts, on a specific theme, can take its place comfortably beside other texts from the early medieval period. It presents its layers of meaning in as sophisticated and cohesive a way as any other text. Importantly, the themes presented, and the manner of presentation, are completely orthodox in terms of the doctrine and practice of the time and place where it was produced.

all Christians, but of women in particular. As women, they give a powerful message to women. Chapter 3 of this book examined the ecclesiastical makeup of the area around Ruthwell at the beginning of the eighth century. It concluded that the area was rich in ecclesiastical sites, with a considerable number of monasteries, at least one of which was presided over by a woman of the Northumbrian royal family. Her monastery would have been home to a considerable number of women. These women would probably have been of mixed Irish, British and English extraction. The message and medium of the Ruthwell Cross would have been entirely appropriate for them. There may have been other similar monastic establishments nearby.

For whose eyes? The foregoing discussion has addressed the meaning and message of the Ruthwell Cross. It is now necessary to consider for whom such a message was made. The theme, one of central doctrine, must be fairly universal. The particular mode of its presentation may give some assistance in seeking an audience. The Ruthwell Cross has an unparalleled number of depictions of women. Of the six major figural panels on the lower stone, three are known to contain women: the Christ and Magdalene panel, the Annunciation, and the Egypt journey. Only one is known to contain men: the Paul and Anthony panel. The gender of the person in the healing panel is uncertain, but even assuming that it is a man, the feminocentric focus of the monument is clear.

This noble abbess and others like her came from a background of considerable wealth and power. The abbess known to us entertained Cuthbert of Lindisfarne on at least two occasions. She must have had the resources to enable the employment of a group of sculptors to create a monument on the grand scale of the Ruthwell Cross. She clearly had the motivation to create such a monument. The Ruthwell Cross standing within or perhaps at the boundary of her monastic enclosure would be a daily reminder to the women in her care of the central doctrine of their church. It would also be a powerful visual reminder of the role they were required to play, with its portrayal of the repentant and worshipful Magdalene and the chaste and obedient Virgin. The Christ figures, in their majesty, might also indicate to passers-by the strength and nobility of the church which occupied this place.

The thematic focus of the texts of the Ruthwell Cross is not about women, it is about Christ. If it is not about women, then it is likely to be for women. This monument’s chosen medium of delivering the orthodox doctrine on the nature of Christ seems specifically targeted towards a female audience. The figures of Mary Magdalene and the Virgin serve not only as vehicles for the message about Christ but as poignant reminders of the humility, chastity, repentance and obedience required of

80

Chapter 12: Epilogue This book is part of a long tradition of attempts to construct an identity for the mass of sandstone we call the Ruthwell Cross. The first in that tradition was the unidentified early medieval person or persons who caused it to be removed from the ground, shaped and adorned with sculpture and inscription. The General Assembly of the Church of Scotland assigned it the identity of an idolatrous monument. Henry Duncan made a conscious decision to identify it as a single monument in the shape of a cross, and embellished its head with symbols of his own devising, whose meaning is now unclear. James McFarlan identified it as an ancient monument, placed it under government protection and made a place for it within the church building and community. His mason Dods constructed an altered appearance for it using mortar and an imprecise reconstruction. Many antiquaries and scholars in several centuries, of whom a few are mentioned in this book, have attempted to identify the monument as belonging to this or that tradition or as signifying one or another meaning.

make to that field. Ideally, analysis should seek to eliminate the bias in the sample resulting from inaccessibility of the material. That inaccessibility is gradually being eroded as successive volumes of the Corpus of Anglo-Saxon Stone Sculpture appear. Similar up-to-date works for Scotland and Wales would be most useful. Further analysis might also expand the range of attributes for consideration, thereby enhancing precision and reducing skew in the results. In the course of researching this thesis, I encountered some areas where further study would make a valuable contribution to our understanding of the Ruthwell Cross and its context. I list here some areas with the potential for further investigation. I believe that the full complement of documentation for the later history of the monument has not yet been brought to notice. It is clear to me that additional documents once existed relating to the 1642 Act and these may yet be found. The fabric of the church raises several questions, including the age of the building and the precise nature of Murray’s Aisle, which have a bearing on the early location of the monument. The partial excavation of the probably Roman enclosure in the field adjacent to the church has really produced more questions than answers. Further excavation would enhance our understanding of the site and its use over what may be an extended period. Recent research into the Christian heritage of Dumfries and Galloway has been very productive and interesting, and will hopefully continue with detailed and extensive study of placenames and early Christian remains. Detailed reconsideration of the runic inscription on the monument uninfluenced by ‘The Dream of the Rood’ might yield fresh insights. Examination of the monument for remains of gesso or paint, and consideration of the likelihood of such substances having been part of the original treatment would be useful. Radiographic techniques might provide more information on the shapes of the separate fragments disguised by Dods’ mortar. Geological investigation of the stone types and their probable sources might provide a little more information, and could resolve uncertainty on this subject.

The identity I have constructed for the Ruthwell Cross challenges some commonly held views. I have argued that the original form of the monument was not a cross but a pillar, terminating at the upper edge of the lower stone (see Figure A). I have asserted that the written and pictorial material on the monument combines in a unified thematic presentation to a female audience, on the nature of Christ and the appropriate religious response to his incarnation. I have specifically questioned the commonly held belief that the poem of the Old English inscription is narrated by the Cross. I have suggested that the monument was commissioned by a noble Northumbrian abbess whose spiritual guidance was in the school of Cuthbert of Lindisfarne. I have proposed that the abbess employed more than one sculptor or team, and that those sculptors were not from any mainstream Northumbrian tradition of stone sculpture, but rather had some Pictish influence. I have argued that their models were mostly in the form of portable objects such as ivory panels and manuscripts, which a noble abbess would normally possess. I have based my construction as much as possible on observation of the evidence, seeking to avoid assumptions.

This book has argued that the upper stone fragments are not a part of the original Ruthwell monument. Such a contention introduces a range of questions concerning the upper stone, the circumstances of its creation, and its original form. These questions have not been addressed here, but would form the basis of a very interesting study.

Some of the methods used in this book are new to the study of medieval stone sculpture. The multivariate analysis methods developed in Chapters 5, 6 and 7 are derived from archaeological and statistical contexts. I have shown that they may be usefully applied to the study of early medieval stone sculpture, and indeed of other art forms. The studies carried out here were experimental, as there was no previous work using comparable methods on this body of material upon which to draw. The techniques allow of thorough study in the area of early medieval art, and I believe have a useful contribution to

The relationship of the Ruthwell monument to the Bewcastle cross has been discussed in considerable detail. If my assertion that the Ruthwell monument is not a unified creation is accepted, these discussions must be revisited. The relationship is largely based on the common juxtaposition of the Agnus Dei figure and the 81

Pamela O’Neill worshipping beasts panel, which I argue is not an original feature at Ruthwell.

which generally precedes the detachment of a surface layer of the stone. In several places the surface of the stone is loosened and may fall in the near future. It would be helpful if the monument were examined by conservation experts and the source of any damp identified and eliminated. I believe it is important that the monument remain associated with the church at Ruthwell, and would strongly oppose its removal from the site.

Since this research was completed in 1999, several publications have come to my attention which address some of the matters I raise. Important amongst these are Carol Farr’s work on the monument’s association with women (Farr 1997), and several of the articles in Northumbria’s golden age. The latter was not available in Australia at the time of completion of this research, although the author of one paper had kindly given me a copy of his article (Ó Carragáin 1999).

The Ruthwell Cross has provided material for many generations of scholars and is a largely unacknowledged but important part of the Ruthwell community. Those of us who have been fortunate enough to study it must ensure that our successors are also able to do so. The Ruthwell Cross formed a focus for the religious community for whom it was made. Over time, it has been a focus for various groups, including those who have worked for its preservation, the congregation at Ruthwell, and the many scholars whose interest it has caught. This book follows hundreds of years in which the Ruthwell Cross has been at the centre of thought, research and worship. It will continue to be so for many years to come, and the research presented here now forms part of the fascinating and complex history of study of the Ruthwell Cross.

In this book, I have attempted as far as possible to return to physical and primary evidence, and not to accept unquestioningly the work of previous writers. I have found this a useful approach, and believe that while it is essential to continue reviewing previous scholarship and secondary material, it is also necessary to return to primary and physical material in the search for accurate information and new insights. An important factor for the future study of the Ruthwell Cross is the future of the monument itself. The stone has discoloured to a whitish shade in some areas, particularly in the angles where the relief joins the background. This may indicate a concentration of salts near the surface

82

Bibliography Allen, J Romilly (1903)

The early Christian monuments of Scotland, Society of Antiquaries of Scotland Edinburgh

Allen, J Romilly (1993)

The early Christian monuments of Scotland, Pinkfoot Press Balgavies

Bailey, Richard (1986)

‘A crucifixion plaque from Cumbria’ in Early medieval sculpture in Britain and Ireland ed J Higgitt, BAR Oxford: 5-22

Bailey, Richard (1993)

‘The Ruthwell Cross: a non-problem’ in The Antiquaries Journal 73: 141-148

Bailey, R & R Cramp (1988)

Corpus of Anglo-Saxon stone sculpture (Vol 2: Cumberland, Westmorland and Lancashire North-of-the-Sands), Oxford University Press

Baird, Joseph (1985)

‘“Natura plangens”, the Ruthwell Cross and “The Dream of the Rood”’ in Studies in iconography X: 37-51

Ball, Christopher (1991)

‘Inconsistencies in the main runic inscriptions on the Ruthwell Cross’ in Old English runes and their Continental background, ed A Bammesberger, Winter Heidelberg: 107-123

Barrow, G (1984)

‘Land routes: the medieval evidence’ in Loads and roads in Scotland and beyond, ed A Fenton & G Stell, John Donald Edinburgh: 49-66

Beckwith, John (1972)

Ivory carvings in early medieval England, Harvey Miller & Medcalf London

Bluemel, Carl (1969)

Greek sculptors at work, Phaidon London

Blair, P Hunter (1959)

An introduction to Anglo-Saxon England, Cambridge University Press

Bradley, S, ed (1982)

Anglo-Saxon poetry, Dent London

Brøndsted, J (1924)

Early English ornament, Hachette London

Brooke, Daphne (1991)

‘Northumbrian settlement in Galloway and Carrick’ in Proceedings of the Society of Antiquaries of Scotland 121: 295-327

Brooke, Daphne (1994)

Wild men and holy places: St Ninian, Whithorn and the medieval realm of Galloway, Canongate Edinburgh

Brown, G Baldwin (1921)

The arts in early England (Vol 5: The Ruthwell and Bewcastle Crosses), John Murray London

Brown, G Baldwin (1937)

The arts in early England (Vol 6 Pt 2: Anglo-Saxon Sculpture), John Murray London

Burlin, Robert (1968)

‘The Ruthwell Cross, The Dream of the Rood and the Vita Contemplative’ in Studies in Philology 65: 25–40

Byrnes, Gregory (1992)

Imagery, structure and meaning in the poems of Blathmac, unpublished MPhil thesis University of Sydney

Camden, William (1695)

Camden's Britannia, reprinted 1971, Edmund Gibson David & Charles Newton Abbot

83

Pamela O’Neill Campbell, James, ed (1968)

Bede: the ecclesiastical history of the English people, Washington Square Press New York

Canuteson, John (1969)

‘The crucifixion and the second coming in “The Dream of the Rood”’ in Modern Philology 66: 293-297

Cassidy, Brendan (1992)

‘The later life of the Ruthwell Cross: from the seventeenth century to the present’ in The Ruthwell Cross: papers from the colloquium sponsored by the Index of Christian Art, Princeton University, 8 December 1989, ed B Cassidy, Princeton University: 3-34

Chance, Jane (1986)

Woman as hero in Old English literature, Syracuse University Press

Clayton, Mary (1990)

The cult of the Virgin Mary in Anglo-Saxon England, Cambridge University Press

Close-Brooks, J & R Stevenson (1982)

Dark Age Sculpture, HMSO Edinburgh

Colgrave, Bertram, ed (1969)

Two Lives of Saint Cuthbert, Greenwood Press New York

Collingwood, W (1927)

Northumbrian crosses of the pre-Norman age, Faber & Gwyer London

Collingwood, W (1932)

‘A pedigree of Anglian crosses’ in Antiquity 6: 35-54

Cook, Albert (1890)

‘Caedmon and the Ruthwell Cross’ in Modern Language Notes 5: 153-155

Cook, Albert (1902)

‘Notes on the Ruthwell Cross’ in Publications of the Modern Language Association of America 17: 367-390

Cook, A & C Tinker, eds (1902)

Select translations from Old English poetry, Ginn & Co Boston

Cowan, Ian (1981)

‘The Reformation in Dumfriesshire’ in Transactions of the Dumfriesshire and Galloway Natural History and Antiquarian Society Ser 3 LVI: 82-90

Cramp, Rosemary (1961)

‘The Anglian sculptured crosses of Dumfriesshire’ in Transactions of the Dumfriesshire and Galloway Natural History and Antiquarian Society Ser 3 XXXVII, reprinted in Studies in Anglo-Saxon Sculpture, R Cramp, Pindar Press London: 1-15

Cramp, Rosemary (1963)

‘Early Northumbrian Sculpture’, Jarrow Lecture reprinted in Studies in Anglo-Saxon Sculpture, R Cramp, Pindar Press London: 21-38

Cramp, Rosemary (1970)

‘The position of the Otley crosses in English sculpture of the eighth to ninth centuries’ in Kolloquium uber spatantike und fruhmittelalterliche skulptur II, reprinted in Studies in Anglo-Saxon Sculpture, R Cramp, Pindar Press London: 55-78

Cramp, Rosemary (1974)

‘Early Northumbrian sculpture at Hexham’ in St Wilfred at Hexham ed D Kirby, reprinted in Studies in Anglo-Saxon Sculpture, R Cramp, Pindar Press London: 95-147

Cramp, Rosemary (1978a)

‘The evangelist symbols and their parallels in Anglo-Saxon sculpture’ in Bede and Anglo-Saxon England, ed R Farrell, BAR Oxford: 118130

Cramp, Rosemary (1978b)

‘The Anglian Tradition in the Ninth Century’ in Anglo-Saxon and Viking age sculpture, reprinted in Studies in Anglo-Saxon Sculpture, R Cramp, Pindar Press London: 217-246 84

‘A pillar curiously engraven; with some inscription upon it’: What is the Ruthwell Cross?

Cramp, Rosemary (1983)

‘The Anglian Sculptures from Jedburgh’ in From the Stone Age to the 'Forty-Five, ed A O'Connor & D Clarke, John Donald Edinburgh: 269-284

Cramp, Rosemary (1984a)

Corpus of Anglo-Saxon stone sculpture (general introduction), Oxford University Press

Cramp, Rosemary (1984b)

Corpus of Anglo-Saxon stone sculpture (Vol 1: Durham and Northumberland), Oxford University Press

Cramp, Rosemary (1986a)

‘Northumbria and Ireland’ in Sources of Anglo-Saxon Sculpture ed P Szarmach, reprinted in Studies in Anglo-Saxon Sculpture, R Cramp, Pindar Press London: 272-288

Cramp, Rosemary (1986b)

‘Anglo-Saxon and Italian Sculpture’ in Settimane di studio del Centro italiana di studi sull’alto medioevo XXXII, reprinted in Studies in Anglo-Saxon Sculpture, R Cramp, Pindar Press London: 299-328

Cramp, Rosemary (1989)

‘The artistic influence of Lindisfarne within Northumbria’ in St Cuthbert, his cult and his community to AD1200, ed G Bonner et al, Boydell Press Woodbridge: 213-228

Cross, F, ed (1997)

The Oxford dictionary of the Christian church (3rd ed), Oxford University Press

Crowe, Chris (1987)

‘Excavations at Ruthwell, Dumfries, 1980 and 1984’ in Transactions of the Dumfriesshire and Galloway Natural History and Antiquarian Society Ser 3 LXII: 40-47

D'Ardenne, S (1939)

‘The Old English inscription on the Brussells Cross’ in English Studies 21: 145-164

Dickins, Bruce (1932)

‘A system of transliteration for Old English runic inscriptions’ in Leeds studies in English and kindred languages 1: 15-19

Dickins, B & A Ross, eds (1963)

The Dream of the Rood (4th ed), Methuen London

Dinwiddie, John (1927)

The Ruthwell Cross and its story, Robert Dinwiddie Dumfries

Dodwell, C (1982)

Anglo-Saxon art: a new perspective, Manchester University Press

Duncan, George (1848)

Memoir of the Rev Henry Duncan, DD, William Oliphant Edinburgh

Duncan, Henry (1833)

‘Account of the remarkable monument, in the shape of a cross, inscribed with Roman and Runic letters, preserved in the garden of Ruthwell manse, Dumfriesshire’ in Transactions of the Society of Antiquaries of Scotland IV part 2: 313-326

Edwards, Nancy (1986)

‘The South Cross, Clonmacnois (with an appendix on the incidence of vine-scroll on Irish sculpture)’ in Early medieval sculpture in Britain and Ireland’ ed J Higgitt, BAR Oxford: 23-48

Elliott, Ralph (1989)

Runes: an introduction, Manchester University Press

Farr, Carol (1997)

‘Worthy women on the Ruthwell Cross: woman as a sign in early Anglo-Saxon monasticism’ in The Insular Tradition, ed C Karkov et al, Albany, State University of New York Press

85

Pamela O’Neill Farrell, Robert (1983)

‘Reflections on the iconography of the Ruthwell and Bewcastle Crosses’ in Sources of Anglo-Saxon culture, ed P Szarmach, Kalamazoo Michigan: 357-376

Farrell, R & C Karkov (1992)

‘The construction, deconstruction, and reconstruction of the Ruthwell Cross: some caveats’ in The Ruthwell Cross: papers from the colloquium sponsored by the Index of Christian Art, Princeton University, 8 December 1989, ed B Cassidy, Princeton University: 35-48

Faull, M (1977)

‘British Survival in Anglo-Saxon Northumbria’ in Studies in Celtic Survival, ed L Laing, BAR Oxford: 1-56

Foster, Sally, ed (1998)

The St Andrews sarcophagus: a Pictish masterpiece and its international connections, Four Courts Press Dublin

Frere, Sheppard (1987)

Britannia: a history of Roman Britain (3rd ed), Routledge & Kegan Paul London

Garde, Judith (1991)

Old English poetry in medieval Christian perspective: a doctrinal approach, DS Brewer Cambridge

Gardner, Arthur (1951)

English Medieval Sculpture, Cambridge University Press

Garmonsway, G, ed (1994)

The Anglo-Saxon Chronicle, Dent London

Geological Survey (1948)

Geological map of Scotland and the north of England

Gillespie, John (c1890)

Fifty views of Dumfriesshire and Galloway, Robert G Mann Dumfries

Gray, T & L Ferguson (1997)

Photographing carved stones: a practical guide to recording Scotland’s past, Pinkfoot Press Balgavies

Grünenfelder, Josef (1976)

Cathedrals of Europe, trans D Grambs, Phaidon Oxford

Hall, Sophie (1910)

Dr Duncan of Ruthwell, founder of savings banks, Oliphant, Anderson & Ferrier Edinburgh

Harbison, Peter (1992)

The High Crosses of Ireland: an iconographical and photographic survey, Dr Rudolph Habelt GMBH Bonn

Hawkes, Jane (1993)

‘Mary and the cycle of resurrection: the iconography of the Hovingham panel’ in The Age of Migrating Ideas, ed R Spearman & J Higgitt, National Museums of Scotland Edinburgh: 254-260

Heberman, Charles et al, eds (1913)

The Catholic Encyclopedia Vol 9, Encyclopedia Press New York

Henderson, George (1985)

‘The John the Baptist Panel on the Ruthwell Cross’ in Gesta XXIV/1: 3-12

Henderson, Isabel (1967)

The Picts, Thames & Hudson London

Henderson, Isabel (1983)

‘Pictish vine-scroll ornament’ in From the Stone Age to the 'FortyFive, ed A O'Connor & D Clarke, John Donald Edinburgh: 243-268

Hickes, George (1703)

Linguarum Vett. Septentrionalium Thesaurus Grammatico-Criticus et Archaeologicus, Oxford

Higgitt, John (1986)

‘Words and crosses: the inscribed stone cross in early medieval Britain and Ireland’ in Early medieval sculpture in Britain and Ireland, ed J Higgitt, BAR Oxford: 125-152 86

‘A pillar curiously engraven; with some inscription upon it’: What is the Ruthwell Cross?

Higgitt, John (1995)

‘Monasteries and inscriptions in early Northumbria, the evidence of Whitby’ in From the Isles of the North: early Medieval art in Ireland and Britain, ed C Bourke, HMSO Belfast: 229-236

Higham, N (1993)

The Kingdom of Northumbria AD350-1100, Alan Sutton Stroud

Hill, Peter (1997)

Whithorn and St Ninian: the excavation of a monastic town, 1984-91, Sutton Publishing Stroud

Holderness, Graham (1997)

‘The sign of the cross: culture and belief in “The Dream of the Rood”’ in Literature and Theology Vol 11 No 4: 347-375

Howlett, David (1974)

‘Two panels on the Ruthwell Cross’ in Journal of the Warburg and Courtauld Institutes 37: 333-336

Howlett, David (1976)

‘The structure of “The Dream of the Rood”’ in Studia Neophilologica 48: 301-306

Howlett, David (1978)

‘Two notes on “'The Dream of the Rood”’ in Studia Neophilologica 50: 167-173

Howlett, David (1992)

‘Inscriptions and design of the Ruthwell Cross’ in The Ruthwell Cross: papers from the colloquium sponsored by the Index of Christian Art, Princeton University, 8 December 1989, ed B Cassidy, Princeton University: 71-94

Hughes, Kathleen (1980)

Celtic Britain in the Early Middle Ages, ed D Dumville, Boydell Press Woodbridge

James, Montague (1953)

The Apocryphal New Testament (corrected ed), Oxford University Press

Johnson, Mark (1994)

‘The episcopal and royal views at Cefalù’ in Gesta XXXIII/I: 118128

Jolliffe, Norah (1940)

‘Dea Brigantia’ in The Archaeological Journal XCVII: 36-61

Kantorowicz, Ernst (1960)

‘The archer in the Ruthwell Cross’ in Art Bulletin 42: 57-60

Karkov, Catherine (1993)

‘The chalice and cross in Insular art’ in The Age of Migrating Ideas, ed R Spearman & J Higgitt, National Museums of Scotland Edinburgh: 237-244

Kemble, John (1840)

‘On Anglo-Saxon runes’ in Archaeologia XXVIII, reprinted 1991 as Anglo-Saxon runes, Anglo-Saxon Books Pinner

Kemble, John (1844)

‘Additional observations on the runic obelisk at Ruthwell; the poem of the Dream of the Holy Rood; and a runic copper dish found at Chertsey’ in Archaeologia XXX: 31-46

Keppie, Lawrence (1994)

‘Roman inscriptions and sculpture from Birrens: a review’ in Transactions of the Dumfriesshire and Galloway Natural History and Antiquarian Society LXIX: 35-51

Kitzinger, Ernst (1993)

‘Interlace and icons’ in The Age of Migrating Ideas, ed R Spearman & J Higgitt, National Museums of Scotland Edinburgh: 3-15

Laing, Lloyd (1975)

The archaeology of late Celtic Britain and Ireland c400-1200AD, Methuen London

87

Pamela O’Neill Lang, James (1991)

Corpus of Anglo-Saxon stone sculpture (Vol 3: York and eastern Yorkshire), Oxford University Press

Lee, N (1972)

‘The unity of “The Dream of the Rood”’ in Neophilologus 56: 469486

Lethaby, W (1912)

‘The Ruthwell Cross’ in Burlington Magazine XXI: 145-146

Lowe, Christopher (1991)

‘New light on the Anglian 'minster' at Hoddom’ in Transactions of the Dumfriesshire and Galloway Natural History and Antiquarian Society Ser 3 LXVI: 11-35

Lowe, Christopher (1993)

‘Hoddom’ in Current Archaeology Vol XII No 3: 88-92

Mac Lean, Douglas (1992)

‘The date of the Ruthwell Cross’ in The Ruthwell Cross: papers from the colloquium sponsored by the Index of Christian Art, Princeton University, 8 December 1989, ed B Cassidy, Princeton University: 49-70

Mac Lean, Douglas (1994)

‘The Book of Kells and the Northumbrian type of classical drapery’ in The Book of Kells: proceedings of a conference at Trinity College Dublin, 6-9 September 1992, ed F O’Mahony: 301-310

Mac Lean, Douglas (1995)

‘Technique and contact: carpentry-constructed Insular stone crosses’ in From the Isles of the North: early medieval art in Ireland and Britain, ed C Bourke, HMSO Belfast: 167-175

Maxwell, G (1984)

‘The evidence from the Roman period’ in Loads and roads in Scotland and beyond, ed A Fenton & G Stell, John Donald Edinburgh: 22-48

McEntire, Sandra (1983)

‘The devotional context of the cross before AD1000’ in Sources of Anglo-Saxon culture, ed P Szarmach, Kalamazoo Michigan: 345-356

McFarlan, Helen (1914)

Selections from letters and journals of Ruthwell manse life 1871 – 1889, privately printed Edinburgh

McFarlan, James et al (1887)

Unpublished correspondence between James McFarlan and HM Board of Works, now at Ruthwell manse

Mercer, Eric (1964)

‘The Ruthwell and Bewcastle Crosses’ in Antiquity XXXVIII: 268276

Meyvaert, Paul (1992)

‘A new perspective on the Ruthwell Cross: ecclesia and vita monastica’ in The Ruthwell Cross: papers from the colloquium sponsored by the Index of Christian Art, Princeton University, 8 December 1989, ed B Cassidy, Princeton University: 95-166

Mildenberger, Kenneth (1948)

‘Unity of Cynewulf’s Christ in the light of iconography’ in Speculum 23: 426-432

Nash-Williams, V (1950)

The early Christian monuments of Wales, University of Wales Press Cardiff

Neuman de Vegvar, Carol (1987)

The Northumbrian Renaissance, Associated University Presses

Ó Carragáin, Éamonn (1978)

‘Liturgical innovations associated with Pope Sergius and the iconography of the Ruthwell and Bewcastle Crosses’ in Bede and Anglo-Saxon England, ed R Farrell, BAR Oxford: 131-147

88

‘A pillar curiously engraven; with some inscription upon it’: What is the Ruthwell Cross? Ó Carragáin, Éamonn (1983)

‘Christ over the beasts and the Agnus Dei: two multivalent panels on the Ruthwell and Bewcastle Crosses’ in Sources of Anglo-Saxon culture, ed P Szarmach, Kalamazoo Michigan: 376-403

Ó Carragáin, Éamonn (1987)

‘A liturgical interpretation of the Bewcastle Cross’ in Medieval literature and antiquities, ed M Stokes & T Burton, Boydell & Brewer Cambridge: 15-43

Ó Carragáin, Éamonn (1997)

‘Rome, Ruthwell, Vercelli: “The Dream of the Rood” and the Italian connection’ in Verceli tra Oriente ed Occidente tra tarda Antichita e Medioevo, ed V Corazza, Edeizioni dell’Orso: 59-100

Ó Carragáin, Éamonn (1999)

‘The necessary distance: Imitatio Romae and the Ruthwell Cross’ in Northumbria’s golden age, ed J Hawkes & S Mills, Sutton Publishing Stroud: 191-203

Okasha, Elisabeth (1971)

Hand-list of Anglo-Saxon non-runic inscriptions, Cambridge University Press

Orton, Fred (1998)

‘Rethinking the Ruthwell monument: fragments and critique; tradition and history; tongues and sockets’ in Art History 21 No 1: 65-106

Page, Ray (1959)

‘An early drawing of the Ruthwell Cross’ in Medieval Archaeology 3: 285-288

Page, Ray (1987)

Runes, British Museum Press London

Page, Ray (1995)

‘Dating Old English inscriptions: the limits of inference’ reprinted in Runes and Runic Inscriptions, R Page, Boydell Press London

Parbury, Kathleen (1985)

Women of Grace, Oriel Stocksfield

Payne, Richard (1975)

‘Convention and originality in the vision framework of “'The Dream of the Rood”’ in Modern Philology LXXIII: 329-341

Peers, Charles (1926)

‘English ornament in the seventh and eighth centuries’ in Proceedings of the British Academy 12: 45-54

Poppe, E & B Ross, eds (1996)

The legend of Mary of Egypt in medieval Insular hagiography, Four Courts Press Dublin

Pulliam, Heather (1999)

The ‘visual vocabulary’ of Psalm illustration in the Book of Kells and the Corbie Psalter, unpublished conference paper International Medieval Congress Leeds

Radford, C (1977)

‘The Mediterranean sources of sculpture in stone among the insular Celts and the survival into the full medieval age’ in Studies in Celtic Survival, ed L Laing, BAR Oxford: 113-123

Radford, C & G Donaldson, eds (1984)

Whithorn, HMSO Edinburgh

Raw, Barbara (1970)

‘“The Dream of the Rood” and its connections with early Christian art’ in Medium Aevum XXXIX: 239-256

Raw, Barbara (1990)

Anglo-Saxon crucifixion iconography, Cambridge University Press

Repath, John (1999)

A stone cross among the fells, J Repath New Galloway

Ricci, Carla (1994)

Mary Magdalene and many others, trans P Burns, Burns & Oates Tunbridge Wells 89

Pamela O’Neill

Ritchie, Anna (1989)

Picts, HMSO Edinburgh

Saxl, F (1943)

‘The Ruthwell Cross’ in Journal of the Warburg and Courtauld Institutes VI: 1-19

Schapiro, Meyer (1944)

‘The religious meaning of the Ruthwell Cross’ in Art Bulletin XXVI, reprinted in Late Antique, early Christian and Medieval art, Chatto & Windus London: 151-195

Schapiro, Meyer (1963)

‘The bowman and the bird on the Ruthwell cross and other works’ in Art Bulletin 45: 351-353

Schiller, Gertrud (1966)

Ikonographie der christlichen Kunst: Band 1, Gütersloher Verlagshaaus Gerd Mohn

Sinclair, J, ed (1794)

The statistical account of Scotland, drawn up from the communications of the ministers of the different parishes (Vol X), Edinburgh

Smyth, Alfred (1984)

Warlords and holy men: Scotland AD 80 – 1000, Edinburgh University Press

Sokal, Robert (1966)

‘Numerical Taxonomy’ in Scientific American 215 no 6: 106-117

Stevenson, Robert (1993)

‘Further thoughts on some well-known problems’ in The Age of Migrating Ideas, ed R Spearman & J Higgitt, National Museums of Scotland Edinburgh: 16-26

Stevick, Robert (1967)

‘The meter of “The Dream of the Rood”’ in Neuphilologische Mitteilungen LXVIII: 149-168

Stone, Lawrence (1955)

Sculpture in Britain: the middle ages, Penguin

Sutherland, Elizabeth (1994)

In search of the Picts: a Celtic dark age nation, Constable London

Swanton, Michael, ed (1970)

The Dream of the Rood, Manchester University Press

Sweet, Henry (1978)

A second Anglo-Saxon reader: archaic and dialectal, Clarendon Oxford

Thomas, Charles (1971)

The early Christian Archaeology of north Britain, Oxford University Press

Tweddle, D, M Biddle & B Kjølbye-Biddle (1995) Corpus of Anglo-Saxon stone sculpture (Vol 4: South-east England), Oxford University Press Wakelin, Martyn (1988)

The archaeology of English, Batsford London

Webster, L & J Backhouse, eds (1991)

The making of England: Anglo-Saxon art and culture, AD600-900, British Museum Press London

Werner, Martin (1990)

‘The cross-carpet page in the Book of Durrow: the cult of the true cross, Adamnan and Iona’ in Art Bulletin LXXII: 174-223

Willett, Frank (1957)

‘The Ruthwell and Bewcastle Crosses - a review’ in Memoirs and proceedings of the Manchester Literary and Philosophical Society XCVIII: 95-136

90

‘A pillar curiously engraven; with some inscription upon it’: What is the Ruthwell Cross? Williams, James (1974)

‘An architectural fragment from Ruthwell, Dumfriesshire’ in Transactions of the Dumfriesshire and Galloway Natural History and Antiquarian Society Ser 3 LI: 29-31

Wilson, Allan (1995)

‘Roman penetration in Strathclyde south of the Antonine Wall’ in Glasgow Archaeological Journal 19: 1-30

Woolf, Rosemary (1958)

‘Doctrinal influences on “The Dream of the Rood”’ in Medium Aevum XXVII: 137-153

91

Illustrations for Chapter 2: What is the Ruthwell Cross

Figure A: The Ruthwell Cross

Chapter 2

South face: cross-head

South face: Mary and Martha panel

Page 94

Chapter 2

Figure A: The Ruthwell Cross continued

South face: Christ and Magdalene panel

South face: Annunciation panel

South face: healing panel

South face: Crucifixion panel

Page 95

Figure A: The Ruthwell Cross continued

Chapter 2

North face: cross-head

North face: Agnus Dei panel

Page 96

Chapter 2

Figure A: The Ruthwell Cross continued

North face: worshipping beasts panel

North face: Egypt journey panel

North face: Paul and Anthony panel

North face: lowest panel

Page 97

Chapter 2

Figure A: The Ruthwell Cross continued

East face: upper stone

West face: upper stone

East face: lower stone

West face: lower stone

Page 98

Chapter 2

Figure B: Bainbrigg's drawing of Ruthwell runes

(photograph: by permission of The British Library (Cotton Julius F IV f.352))

Page 99

Chapter 2

(photograph: Hickes 1703)

Figure C: Nicolson's drawing of Ruthwell inscriptions

Page 100

Chapter 2

South and west faces (photograph: Brown 1921)

Figure D: Ruthwell Cross in manse garden

Page 101

Chapter 2

North face

(photograph: Dinwiddie 1927)

Figure D: Ruthwell Cross in manse garden continued

Page 102

Chapter 2

Drawing by Henry Duncan (Duncan 1833)

Figure D: Ruthwell Cross in manse garden continued

Page 103

Chapter 2

Figure E: Dods' sketch of Ruthwell Cross

(photograph: copyright The Trustees of the National Museums of Scotland)

Page 104

Chapter 2

Figure F: Architect's drawing of mechanism for moving Ruthwell Cross

(plan displayed on Church wall)

Page 105

Chapter 2

(photograph: Gillespie c1890)

Figure G: Ruthwell Cross c1890

Page 106

Illustrations for Chapter 3: Where is the Ruthwell Cross?

Map A: Ruthwell in context

Chapter 3

Lindisfarne Melrose

Ruthwell Whithorn w Sol

ay

F

irth

Bewcastle

Carlisle

Cumbria

Hexham

Whitby

Page 108

Map B: Mountainous areas

Chapter 3

Page 109

Lindisfarne

12345678901234 34567890121 123456789012345678901234567890121 Melrose 123456789012345678901234567890121 123456789012345678901234567890121 123456789012345678901234567890121 123456789012345678901234567890121 123456789012345678901234567890121 123456789012345678901234567890121 123456789012345678901234567890121 123456789012345678901234567890121 123456789012345678901234567890121 123456789012345678901234567890121 123456789012345678901234567890121 123456789012345678901234567890121 123456789012345678901234567890121 123456789012345678901234567890121 123456789012345678901234567890121 123456789012345678901234567890121 123456789012345678901234567890121 123456789012345678901234567890121 123456789012345678901234567890121 123456789012345678901234567890121 Cheviot Hills123456789012345678901234567890121 123456789012345678901234567890121 123456789012345678901234567890121 123456789012345678901234567890121 123456789012345678901234567890121 123456789012345678901234567890121 123456789012345678901234567890121 56789012

1234567890123456789012345678901212 1234567890123456789012345678901212 1234567890123456789012345678901212 1234567890123456789012345678901212 1234567890123456789012345678901212 1234567890123456789012345678901212 1234567890123456789012345678901212 1234567890123456789012345678901212 1234567890123456789012345678901212 1234567890123456789012345678901212 1234567890123456789012345678901212 1234567890123456789012345678901212 1234567890123456789012345678901212 1234567890123456789012345678901212 Fells 1234567890123456789012345678901212 1234567890123456789012345678901212 1234567890123456789012345678901212 1234567890123456789012345678901212 1234567890123456789012345678901212 1234567890123456789012345678901212 1234567890123456789012345678901212 1234567890123456789012345678901212 1234567890123456789012345678901212

Ruthwell

Cumbrian Mountains

123456789012345678901234567890121 123456789012345678901234567890121 123456789012345678901234567890121 123456789012345678901234567890121 123456789012345678901234567890121 123456789012345678901234567890121 123456789012345678901234567890121 123456789012345678901234567890121 123456789012345678901234567890121 123456789012345678901234567890121 123456789012345678901234567890121 123456789012345678901234567890121 123456789012345678901234567890121 123456789012345678901234567890121 123456789012345678901234567890121 123456789012345678901234567890121 123456789012345678901234567890121 123456789012345678901234567890121 123456789012345678901234567890121 123456789012345678901234567890121 123456789012345678901234567890121 123456789012345678901234567890121 123456789012345678901234567890121 123456789012345678901234567890121 123456789012345678901234567890121

Chapter 3

Map C: Cumbria

Ruthwell

Solway Firth

Bowness Carlisle -onSolway Isel

Brigham Workington

St Bees Beckermet

Derwent Water

Page 110

Map D: Whithorn area

Chapter 3

Page 111

Lad ay y B

Ruthwell Kirkcolm

Glenluce Kirkcowan Kirkland Stoneykirk Clugston Portpatrick Sinniness Kirkinner Kirkmadrine Chapel Mochrum Finian Monreith Whithorn Isle of Whithorn Kirkmaiden St Ninian's Cave Maryport

Chapter 3

Map E: Annan district

Page 112

Ecclefechan Eaglesfield Crossgills Kirkbeck Brydekirk Kirkpatricks Kirkblane Kirkstyle Ruthwell Chapelhill Ladyfield Redkirk Point Ladyhall

Priestside

Chapter 3

Map F: Possible Roman roads

Burnswark Ruthwell

Birrens

Hadrian's

Page 113

Wall

Figure A: Ruthwell church

Chapter 3

Shape of church before 18th century renovation

Shape of renovated church

Murray's Aisle

N

Wall containing possible Norman window

(note: this plan has been drawn by the author from Dinwiddie’s description (see p31), and agrees with that drawn by Mayvaert (1992))

Page 114

Illustrations for Chapter 5: Statistical Analysis of Vinescroll

Chapter 5

Figure A: MV Nutshell vinescroll plots

Figure B: MV Nutshell inhabited vinescroll plots

Page 116

Chapter 5

Figure C: Preliminary minimum spanning tree computer output

Page 117

These are the links in the minimum spanning tree, and their weights. Hexham 1 -> Abercorn (2) Hackness -> Hexham 1 (1) Heversham 1 -> Hackness (1) Hovingham 5 -> Heversham 1 (1) Hilton of Cadboll -> Hovingham 5 (1) Breedon -> Hilton of Cadboll (1) Jedburgh Fragment -> Hilton of Cadboll (1) Beckermet -> Jedburgh Fragment (1) Norham 1/2 -> Hexham 1

(1)

St Vigeans -> Hexham 1

(1)

Sueno’s Stone -> St Vigeans (0) Urswick 1 -> St Vigeans

(0)

Brompton -> St Vigeans (1) Kells South -> St Vigeans (1) Croft -> Brompton (1) Falstead 1 -> Brompton (1) Tarbat -> Beckermet (1) Closeburn -> Brompton (1) Jedburgh Panel -> Abercorn (2) Aberlady -> Breedon (2) Auckland 1 -> Aberlady (0) Ruthwell Upper -> Hilton of Cadboll (2) Jarrow -> Heversham 1 (2) Carlisle 2/3 -> Falstead 1 (2) Lowther 1/2 -> Hovingham 5 (3) Bewcastle -> Lowther 1/2 (2) Ruthwell Lower East -> Bewcastle (1) Hexham 2/3 -> Lowther 1/2 (2) Ruthwell Lower West -> Ruthwell Upper (4) Total tree distance 39

Chapter 5

Figure C: Preliminary minimum spanning tree diagram

Ruthwell is at top and right-hand side

Page 118

Chapter 5

Figure D: Inhabited vinescroll sample

Ruthwell Cross lower east face

Ruthwell Cross lower west face

Ruthwell Cross upper east face

Ruthwell Cross upper west face

Page 119

Figure D: Inhabited vinescroll sample continued

Chapter 5

Closeburn shaft (catalogue Allen 1903: p437) Closburn, Dumfriesshire, late 8th/early 9th century

Hoddam lost shaft (catalogue Bailey & Cramp 1988: illus 677) Hoddam, Dumfriesshire, late 8th/early 9th century

Jedburgh panel (catalogue Cramp 1984b: illus Jedburgh, Borders, early 9th century

Morham shaft (catalogue Close-Brooks & Stevenson: 1982: p17) Morham, Lothian, 9th century

1429)

Page 120

(photograph: OGS Crawford; used with permission of the Institute of Archaeology, Unviersity of Oxford)

Chapter 5

Figure D: Inhabited vinescroll sample continued

Bewcastle shaft (catalogue Bailey & Cramp 1988: Bewcastle 1C) Bewcastle, Westmorland, first half 8th century

Dacre shaft (catalogue Bailey & Cramp 1988: Dacre 1A) Dacre, Cumberland, early 9th century

Heversham shaft (catalogue Bailey & Cramp 1988: Heversham, Cumberland, late 8th century

Lowther shaft (catalogue Bailey & Cramp 1988: Lowther 2A) Lowther, Cumberland, second half 8th century

Heversham 1A)

Page 121

Chapter 5

Figure D: Inhabited vinescroll sample continued

Urswick shaft (catalogue Bailey & Cramp 1988: Urswick 1C) Urswick, Cumberland, 9th century

Nunnykirk shaft (catalogue Cramp 1984b: Nunnykirk 1A) Nunnykirk, Northumberland, beginning 9th century

Rothbury 1B cross (catalogue Cramp 1984b: Rothbury 1bB) Rothbury, Northumberland, first half 9th century

Rothbury 1C cross (catalogue Cramp 1984b: Rothbury 1cB) Rothbury, Northumberland, first half 9th century

Page 122

Chapter 5

Figure D: Inhabited vinescroll sample continued

Page 123

Auckland 1B cross (catalogue Cramp 1984b: Auckland St Andrew 1B) Auckland, Co Durham, last quarter 8th/first quarter 9th century

Auckland 1D cross (catalogue Cramp 1984b: Auckland St Andrew 1D) Auckland, Co Durham, last quarter 8th/first quarter 9th century

Escomb 1A shaft (catalogue Cramp 1984b: Escomb 1aA) Escomb, Co Durham, second quarter 9th century

Escomb 1B shaft (catalogue Cramp 1984b: Escomb 1bA) Escomb, Co Durham, second quarter 9th century

Chapter 5

Figure D: Inhabited vinescroll sample continued

Page 124

Hexham 21A panel

(catalogue Cramp 1984b: Hexham 21aA)

Hexham, Northumberland, last quarter 7th century

Jarrow hunter frieze

(catalogue Cramp 1984b: Jarrow 20)

Jarrow, Co Durham, early 8th century

Hovingham slab

(catalogue Lang 1991: Hovingham 5A)

Hovingham, North Yorkshire, 8th/9th century (photograph: Brown 1921)

Chapter 5

Figure D: Inhabited vinescroll sample continued

Page 125

Hexham 21B panel (catalogue Cramp 1984b: Hexham 21bA) Hexham, Northumberland, last quarter 7th century

Jarrow bird frieze (catalogue Cramp 1984b: Jarrow Jarrow, Co Durham, early 8th century

Croft shaft (catalogue Webster & Backhouse 1991: cat 115) Croft-on-Tees, North Yorkshire, 9th century

Easby Shaft lower (catalogue Webster & Backhouse 1991: Easby, North Yorkshire, early 9th century

(photograph: copyright Department of Archaeology, University of Durham; photographer T Middlemass)

19)

fig 12)

Chapter 5

Figure D: Inhabited vinescroll sample continued

Easby Shaft middle (catalogue Webster & Backhouse 1991: Easby, North Yorkshire, early 9th century

York St Leonards Place shaft (catalogue Lang 1991: York, North Yorkshire, 9th century (photograph:

fig 12)

York St Leonards P lace 2A)

copyright Department of Archaeology, University of Durham; photographer T Middlemass)

Easby Shaft upper (catalogue Webster & Backhouse 1991: Easby, North Yorkshire, early 9th century

Page 126

fig 12)

Oxford shaft (catalogue Tweddle et al 1995: Oxford New Exam Schools 1A) Oxford, Oxfordshire, 10th century

Chapter 5

Figure D: Inhabited vinescroll sample continued

Page 127

York Minster shaft (catalogue Lang 1991: York Minster 1A)

York, North Yorkshire, 8th/9th century

Breedon frieze (catalogue Webster & Backhouse 1991: fig 21)

Breedon, Leicestershire, late 8th/early 9th century

Cropthorne crosshead front (catalogue Webster & Backhouse 1991: cat 209)

Cropthorne, Worcestershire, early 9th century (photograph: Brown 1937)

Chapter 5

Page 128

Figure D: Inhabited vinescroll sample continued

Cropthorne crosshead back (catalogue Webster & Backhouse 1991: cat 209)

Cropthorne, Worcestershire, early 9th century (photograph: Brown 1937)

Tarbat slab (catalogue Henderson 1983: no 2)

Tarbat, Ross, 8th century

Larling panel (catalogue Webster & Backhouse 1991: cat 139)

Norfolk (whalebone), late 8th century

Chapter 5

Figure D: Inhabited vinescroll sample continued

Page 129

Ormside bowl (catalogue Webster & Backhouse 1991: cat 134)

Cumbria (metal), second half 8th century

Ormside bowl (catalogue Webster & Backhouse 1991: cat 134)

Cumbria (metal), second half 8th century

Ormside bowl (catalogue Webster & Backhouse 1991: cat 134)

Cumbria (metal), second half 8th century

Chapter 5

Reculver shaft (catalogue Tweddle et al 1995: Reculver, Kent, early 9th century

Page 130

Figure D: Inhabited vinescroll sample continued

Reculver 1e)

Hilton of Cadboll slab left (catalogue Henderson 1983: Hilton of Cadboll, Ross, late 8th century

no 1)

Forres Sueno Stone (catalogue Henderson Forres, Moray, late 9th century

1983: no 5)

Hilton of Cadboll slab right (catalogue Henderson 1983: Hilton of Cadboll, Ross, late 8th century

no 1)

Chapter 5

Figure D: Inhabited vinescroll sample continued

St Vigeans Drostan Stone (catalogue Henderson 1983: St Vigeans, Angus, 9th century

Kells Patrick & Columba cross (catalogue Harbison Kells, Ireland, second quarter 9th century

no 7)

1992: cat 127)

Clonmacnois South cross (catalogue Harbison 1992: cat Clonmacnois, Ireland, second quarter 9th century

Page 131

56)

Monasterboice Muiredach cross (catalogue Harbison 1992: Monasterboice, Ireland, second quarter 9th century

cat 174)

Chapter 5

Figure D: Inhabited vinescroll sample continued

Victoria & Albert panel (catalogue Webster & Backhouse 1991: Continent (ivory), late 8th century

Rupertus cross (catalogue Webster & Backhouse 1991: Austria (metal), second half 8th century

cat 133)

cat 140)

Page 132

Gandersheim casket (catalogue Webster & Backhouse 1991: Germany (ivory), late 8th century

Rupertus cross (catalogue Webster & Backhouse 1991: Austria (metal), second half 8th century

cat 138)

cat 133)

Table A: Inhabited vinescroll attributes

Chapter 5

Number

Attribute

Description

1

Single stem

vine has one main stem, central or undulating, from which volutes branch ”

2

Simple scroll

main stem undulates, volutes from alternating sides form roundels *

3

Median-incised

main stem has longitudinal incision in centre

4

Ridged node

node with transverse ridges where volutes branch *

5

Leaves with bud

pair of opposed leaves with bud between *

6

Pointed/lobed leaf

long narrow leaf with lobes at base and tapering to point *

7

Flower

central point with radiating petal-like appendages

8

Seed pod

pair of leaf-like shapes sheathing group of seed-like points or appendages *

9

Rosette bunch

berry bunch in shape of rosette *

10

Rounded bunch

berry bunch in larger rounded shape *

11

Tapering stem

main stem varies in thickness

12

Interlacing volutes

volutes or tendrils interlacing with each other and/or main stem

13

Multiple volutes

node with a junction of more than two volutes or stems

14

Grooved technique

upper surface of relief is flat *

15

Internal bunches

all berry bunches occur within roundels of scroll

16

Triangular bunch

berry bunch in triangular shape *

17

Volutes behind

minor volutes always pass behind main stem or major volutes

18

Volutes in front

minor volutes always pass in front of main stem or major volutes

19

Winged quadruped

inhabitant with four legs and wings

20

Bud

appendage resembling new growth bud *

21

Paired leaves

pair of opposed leaves *

22

Triple leaves

pair of opposed leaves with third leaf between *

23

Pointed leaf

long narrow leaf tapering to point *

24

Swollen node

widening of stem at node where volutes branch

25

Triangular leaf

leaf with wide base and tapering to point *

26

Inhabitants behind

inhabitants always behind main stem and major volutes

27

Inhabitants in front

inhabitants always in front of main stem and major volutes

28

Twisted perspective

inhabitant with more than one ‘side’ visible

29

Never biting

no inhabitants bite stem or appendages of vine with beak or mouth

30

Never gripping

no inhabitants grip stem or appendages of vine with paw, claw or hand

31

Always biting

all inhabitants bite stem or appendages of vine with beak or mouth

32

Always gripping

all inhabitants grip stem or appendages of vine with paw, claw or hand

33

Bird

inhabitant with two legs, wings, beak and bird-like tail

34

Quadruped

inhabitant with four legs and no wings

35

Fishtail

inhabitant with long fish-like tail

36

Frontal

inhabitant depicted in frontal view

37

Profile

inhabitant depicted in profile view

38

Angled

inhabitant depicted in view between frontal and profile

39

Overhead

inhabitant depicted in view from above

40

Alternate facing

direction faced by heads of inhabitants in strict alternation

*

Attributes marked * based on Cramp 1984a: xxii-xxvii

Page 133

Table B: Inhabited vinescroll data

Chapter 5

Page 134

Object

Single stem

Simple scroll

Medianincised

Ridged node

Leaves with bud

Pointed/ lobed leaf

Ruthwell Cross lower east Ruthwell Cross lower west Ruthwell Cross upper east Ruthwell Cross upper west Closeburn shaft Hoddom lost shaft Jedburgh panel Morham shaft Bewcastle shaft Dacre shaft Heversham shaft Lowther shaft Urswick shaft Hexham 21A panel Hexham 21B panel Nunnykirk shaft Rothbury 1B cross Rothbury 1C cross Auckland 1B cross Auckland 1D cross Escomb 1A shaft Escomb 1B shaft Jarrow hunter frieze Jarrow bird frieze Croft shaft Easby shaft upper Easby shaft middle Easby shaft lower Hovingham slab York St Leonards Place shaft York Minster shaft Breedon frieze Cropthorne crosshead front Cropthorne crosshead back Oxford shaft Reculver shaft Forres Sueno Stone Hilton of Cadboll slab left Hilton of Cadboll slab right St Vigeans Drostan Stone Tarbat slab Clonmacnois South cross Kells Patrick & Columba cross Monasterboice Muiredach cross Gandersheim casket Ormside bowl Larling panel Rupertus cross Victoria and Albert panel

y y y y y y y y y y n n n n n n y y y y y y y n y y y y y y y y n n y y y y y y y n n n y n y n y

y y y y y n n y y y n n n n n n y y y y y y n n n y y y y n n n n n y y y n y y y n n n n n y n y

n y n n n y n y n n n n n n n n y y y y n y n n n y y y n n y n y y y n n n n n n n n n n n y y n

y y y n n y y y y y n y n n n n y y y y y y y y y y y y n n y n y y y n n n n n n n n n y y y y y

n y y n n n y n y n n y n n n n n n n n n n n n y n y n n n n y n n n n n n n n n n n n n n n y n

y n n n y n y n y n n n n n n y y n n n n n y y y n n n n n y n n n n n n n y n y y n n n n n n n

Chapter 5

Table B: Inhabited vinescroll data continued

Object

Flower

Seed pod

Rosette bunch

Rounded bunch

Tapering stem

Interlacing volutes

Ruthwell Cross lower east Ruthwell Cross lower west Ruthwell Cross upper east Ruthwell Cross upper west Closeburn shaft Hoddom lost shaft Jedburgh panel Morham shaft Bewcastle shaft Dacre shaft Heversham shaft Lowther shaft Urswick shaft Hexham 21A panel Hexham 21B panel Nunnykirk shaft Rothbury 1B cross Rothbury 1C cross Auckland 1B cross Auckland 1D cross Escomb 1A shaft Escomb 1B shaft Jarrow hunter frieze Jarrow bird frieze Croft shaft Easby shaft upper Easby shaft middle Easby shaft lower Hovingham slab York St Leonards Place shaft York Minster shaft Breedon frieze Cropthorne crosshead front Cropthorne crosshead back Oxford shaft Reculver shaft Forres Sueno Stone Hilton of Cadboll slab left Hilton of Cadboll slab right St Vigeans Drostan Stone Tarbat slab Clonmacnois South cross Kells Patrick & Columba cross Monasterboice Muiredach cross Gandersheim casket Ormside bowl Larling panel Rupertus cross Victoria and Albert panel

y y y n y n n n n n n n n n n n n n n n n n n n n n n n n n n n n n n n n n n n n n n n n n n n n

y y n y n n y n y n n n n y n n y y n n n n y y n n n n n n n n n n n n n n n n n n n n n y n n n

y n n n n n n n y y n n n n n n n n n n n n n n n n n n n n n n n n n n n n y n n n n n n y n n n

n y y y n n n n y n y y n n n y n n n n n n n n y y y y y n n n n n y n n n n n n n n n n y n n n

y y n n n n y n n n n n y n n n n n n n n n n y n n y y n n n n n n n n n n n n n n n n y y n y y

y y y y y y y n y y y n n n n y y y n n n n y y y y y y n y y n n y n n y y y y y y y n y y y n y

Page 135

Chapter 5

Table B: Inhabited vinescroll data continued

Object

Multiple volutes

Grooved technique

Internal bunches

Triangular bunch

Volutes behind

Volutes in front

Ruthwell Cross lower east Ruthwell Cross lower west Ruthwell Cross upper east Ruthwell Cross upper west Closeburn shaft Hoddom lost shaft Jedburgh panel Morham shaft Bewcastle shaft Dacre shaft Heversham shaft Lowther shaft Urswick shaft Hexham 21A panel Hexham 21B panel Nunnykirk shaft Rothbury 1B cross Rothbury 1C cross Auckland 1B cross Auckland 1D cross Escomb 1A shaft Escomb 1B shaft Jarrow hunter frieze Jarrow bird frieze Croft shaft Easby shaft upper Easby shaft middle Easby shaft lower Hovingham slab York St Leonards Place shaft York Minster shaft Breedon frieze Cropthorne crosshead front Cropthorne crosshead back Oxford shaft Reculver shaft Forres Sueno Stone Hilton of Cadboll slab left Hilton of Cadboll slab right St Vigeans Drostan Stone Tarbat slab Clonmacnois South cross Kells Patrick & Columba cross Monasterboice Muiredach cross Gandersheim casket Ormside bowl Larling panel Rupertus cross Victoria and Albert panel

y y y y y y y y y y n n y n n n n n y y y n y y y y y n n y y n y y y y y n y n y y n n y n y y n

n n n n n n n n n n n n y n n n n n y y n y n n n n n n n n y n y y n n n n n n n n n n n n n n n

n n n n n n n n n n y y n n n n n n y n y y n n y n n n y n n y n n n n n n n y y n y n n n n y n

n n n n n n y n y n n n n y n y n n y y y n n n n n n n n n n n n n n n n n n n n n n n n n n y y

n n n y n n n n n n n n n n n n n n n n n n n n n n n n n n n n n n n y n n n n n n n n n n n n n

n n n n n n n y n n n n n n n n y n n n n n n n n n n n n n n n n n n n n n n n n n n n n n n n n

Page 136

Chapter 5

Table B: Inhabited vinescroll data continued

Object

Winged quadruped

Bud

Paired leaves

Triple leaves

Pointed leaf

Swollen node

Ruthwell Cross lower east Ruthwell Cross lower west Ruthwell Cross upper east Ruthwell Cross upper west Closeburn shaft Hoddom lost shaft Jedburgh panel Morham shaft Bewcastle shaft Dacre shaft Heversham shaft Lowther shaft Urswick shaft Hexham 21A panel Hexham 21B panel Nunnykirk shaft Rothbury 1B cross Rothbury 1C cross Auckland 1B cross Auckland 1D cross Escomb 1A shaft Escomb 1B shaft Jarrow hunter frieze Jarrow bird frieze Croft shaft Easby shaft upper Easby shaft middle Easby shaft lower Hovingham slab York St Leonards Place shaft York Minster shaft Breedon frieze Cropthorne crosshead front Cropthorne crosshead back Oxford shaft Reculver shaft Forres Sueno Stone Hilton of Cadboll slab left Hilton of Cadboll slab right St Vigeans Drostan Stone Tarbat slab Clonmacnois South cross Kells Patrick & Columba cross Monasterboice Muiredach cross Gandersheim casket Ormside bowl Larling panel Rupertus cross Victoria and Albert panel

n n n n n n n n n y n n n n n n n n n n n n n n y n n n n n n n n n n n n y y n y y n n n n n n n

y n n n n n y n y n n n n n n n y y n n n n n n n y y n n n y n n n n n n y n n n n n y n y n n n

n n n n n n n n n n n y n n n n n n n n n n n n y n n n y n y n n n n n n n n n n y n n n n n y n

n y n n n n n n n n n n n n n n n n n n y n n n n y y n n n y n n n n n n n n n n n n n n n n n y

n y n n n n n n n y n y y n n n y y n n n n n n n n n n y y y n n n n y n n y y y y n n n y n y n

n n n y n n n n n n n n n n n n n n n n n n y n n n n n y n n n n n n y n n y n y y y n n n n n n

Page 137

Chapter 5

Table B: Inhabited vinescroll data continued

Object

Triangular leaf

Inhabitants Inhabitants behind in front

Twisted perspective

Never biting

Never gripping

Ruthwell Cross lower east Ruthwell Cross lower west Ruthwell Cross upper east Ruthwell Cross upper west Closeburn shaft Hoddom lost shaft Jedburgh panel Morham shaft Bewcastle shaft Dacre shaft Heversham shaft Lowther shaft Urswick shaft Hexham 21A panel Hexham 21B panel Nunnykirk shaft Rothbury 1B cross Rothbury 1C cross Auckland 1B cross Auckland 1D cross Escomb 1A shaft Escomb 1B shaft Jarrow hunter frieze Jarrow bird frieze Croft shaft Easby shaft upper Easby shaft middle Easby shaft lower Hovingham slab York St Leonards Place shaft York Minster shaft Breedon frieze Cropthorne crosshead front Cropthorne crosshead back Oxford shaft Reculver shaft Forres Sueno Stone Hilton of Cadboll slab left Hilton of Cadboll slab right St Vigeans Drostan Stone Tarbat slab Clonmacnois South cross Kells Patrick & Columba cross Monasterboice Muiredach cross Gandersheim casket Ormside bowl Larling panel Rupertus cross Victoria and Albert panel

n n y n n n n n y y y n y n n y n n n n n n n n n n n n n n n n n n n n n n n n n n n n n n n n n

n n y n n n n n n n n n y n n n n n n n n n n n n n n n n n n n n n n y n n n y n n n n n n n n n

y y n y n n y y y y y n y n n y y y y y n y n n n y y n y n y y n n n n n y n n n n n n n y n y y

n n n n n n n n n y n n y n y n n n n n n n n n n n n n n n n n n n n y n n n n n n n n n n n n n

n n n n y n n n n n y y y y y y y n y y n y n n n n n n n y n y y y n y n y y y y y y y n n y y n

n n n n n n n n n n n n n y y n n n n n n n n n n n n n n n n n n n n n n n n n n n n n n n n n n

Page 138

Chapter 5

Table B: Inhabited vinescroll data continued

Object

Always biting

Always gripping

Bird

Quadruped

Fishtail

Frontal

Ruthwell Cross lower east Ruthwell Cross lower west Ruthwell Cross upper east Ruthwell Cross upper west Closeburn shaft Hoddom lost shaft Jedburgh panel Morham shaft Bewcastle shaft Dacre shaft Heversham shaft Lowther shaft Urswick shaft Hexham 21A panel Hexham 21B panel Nunnykirk shaft Rothbury 1B cross Rothbury 1C cross Auckland 1B cross Auckland 1D cross Escomb 1A shaft Escomb 1B shaft Jarrow hunter frieze Jarrow bird frieze Croft shaft Easby shaft upper Easby shaft middle Easby shaft lower Hovingham slab York St Leonards Place shaft York Minster shaft Breedon frieze Cropthorne crosshead front Cropthorne crosshead back Oxford shaft Reculver shaft Forres Sueno Stone Hilton of Cadboll slab left Hilton of Cadboll slab right St Vigeans Drostan Stone Tarbat slab Clonmacnois South cross Kells Patrick & Columba cross Monasterboice Muiredach cross Gandersheim casket Ormside bowl Larling panel Rupertus cross Victoria and Albert panel

y n y y y n y n y n y y n n n y y y y n y y y n y y y y y y y y n n y n n y y y y y y y n n y y n

y y y y n n y n y y n n n n n n n y n n y n y n n y y y y n y n n n y n n n n n n n n n n n n n n

y y y y y n y y y n n n y y n y n n y y y y y n y y y y y n y y y n y n y y y n y y y y n y y n y

y y n y n n y y y y y y n n n y y y y y n n n n y y y n y y y n y y y n y y y y n y y n n y n y y

y y y n n n y n y n n y n n n n n y n n n n n n n n n n n n n n n n n n n n n y n n n n y n n n n

y y n y n n y n y n n n y n n n n n n n n n n n n y n n n n n n n n n y n n n n n n n n n n n n n

Page 139

Chapter 5

Table B: Inhabited vinescroll data continued

Object

Profile

Angled

Overhead

Alternate facing

Ruthwell Cross lower east Ruthwell Cross lower west Ruthwell Cross upper east Ruthwell Cross upper west Closeburn shaft Hoddom lost shaft Jedburgh panel Morham shaft Bewcastle shaft Dacre shaft Heversham shaft Lowther shaft Urswick shaft Hexham 21A panel Hexham 21B panel Nunnykirk shaft Rothbury 1B cross Rothbury 1C cross Auckland 1B cross Auckland 1D cross Escomb 1A shaft Escomb 1B shaft Jarrow hunter frieze Jarrow bird frieze Croft shaft Easby shaft upper Easby shaft middle Easby shaft lower Hovingham slab York St Leonards Place shaft York Minster shaft Breedon frieze Cropthorne crosshead front Cropthorne crosshead back Oxford shaft Reculver shaft Forres Sueno Stone Hilton of Cadboll slab left Hilton of Cadboll slab right St Vigeans Drostan Stone Tarbat slab Clonmacnois South cross Kells Patrick & Columba cross Monasterboice Muiredach cross Gandersheim casket Ormside bowl Larling panel Rupertus cross Victoria and Albert panel

y y y y y n y y y y y y y y n y n y y y n y y n y y y y y y y y y y y n y y y y y y y y n y y y y

n n y n n y n n n n n n n y y n n n n n n y y y n n n n y n y n n n n n n n n n n n n n n n n n n

n y n n n n n n n n n n n n n n y y n n n n n y n n n n n n n n n n n n n n n n n n n n y n n n n

y n y y y n n n y y y y n n n y n n y y n n n n y y y n n n y y n n y n n n y n n y y y y n y n n

Page 140

Chapter 5

Figure E: Inhabited vinescroll minimum spanning tree computer output

Page 141

These are the links in the minimum spanning tree, and their weights. Jedburgh panel Bewcastle shaft Easby shaft upper Easby shaft middle Oxford shaft Easby shaft lower Larling panel Closeburn shaft Auckland 1B cross Auckland 1D cross Escomb 1B shaft Cropthorne crosshead front Cropthorne crosshead back Morham shaft Forres Sueno Stone York St Leonards Place shaft St Vigeans Drostan Stone Hoddom lost shaft Jarrow bird frieze Hilton of Cadboll slab left Hilton of Cadboll slab right Tarbat slab Clonmacnois South cross Kells Patrick & Columba cross Heversham shaft Nunnykirk shaft Monasterboice Muiredach cross Breedon frieze Gandersheim casket Victoria and Albert panel Hexham 21A panel Hexham 21A panel Ruthwell Cross upper west Escomb 1A shaft Lowther shaft Jarrow hunter frieze Croft shaft Rupertus cross York Minster shaft Ruthwell Cross upper east Ruthwell Cross lower west Ormside bowl Hovingham slab Dacre shaft Urswick shaft Reculver shaft Rothbury 1C cross Rothbury 1B cross Total tree distance 302

-> -> -> -> -> -> -> -> -> -> -> -> -> -> -> -> -> -> -> -> -> -> -> -> -> -> -> -> -> -> -> -> -> -> -> -> -> -> -> -> -> -> -> -> -> -> -> ->

Ruthwell Cross lower east Ruthwell Cross lower east Ruthwell Cross lower east Easby shaft upper Easby shaft upper Oxford shaft Oxford shaft Larling panel Larling panel Auckland 1B cross Auckland 1B cross Auckland 1D cross Cropthorne crosshead front Auckland 1D cross Morham shaft Forres Sueno Stone York St Leonards Place shaft Cropthorne crosshead back Hoddom lost shaft York St Leonards Place shaft Closeburn shaft Hilton of Cadboll slab right Hilton of Cadboll slab right Clonmacnois South cross Kells Patrick & Columba cross Heversham shaft Kells Patrick & Columba cross Monasterboice Muiredach cross Hoddom lost shaft Forres Sueno Stone Monasterboice Muiredach cross Hexham 21A panel Easby shaft upper Oxford shaft Heversham shaft Hoddom lost shaft Clonmacnois South cross Lowther shaft Easby shaft upper Oxford shaft Easby shaft middle Victoria and Albert panel Oxford shaft Forres Sueno Stone Cropthorne crosshead front York St Leonards Place shaft Easby shaft upper Rothbury 1C cross

(6.0) (6.0) (9.0) (3.0) (5.0) (5.0) (5.0) (4.0) (6.0) (2.0) (5.0) (5.0) (2.0) (5.0) (5.0) (5.0) (5.0) (6.0) (6.0) (6.0) (6.0) (4.0) (4.0) (6.0) (5.0) (4.0) (5.0) (5.0) (6.0) (6.0) (7.0) (5.0) (7.0) (8.0) (8.0) (8.0) (8.0) (8.0) (8.0) (9.0) (9.0) (9.0) (10.0) (10.0) (10.0) (10.0) (10.0) (6.0)

Chapter 5

Ruthwell is at right

Figure E: Inhabited vinescroll minimum spanning tree diagram

Page 142

Illustrations for Chapter 6: Statistical Analysis of Figural Sculpture

Chapter 6

Figure A: Figural sculpture sample

Ruthwell Christ and Magdalene panel

Ruthwell worshipping beasts panel

Ruthwell Agnus Dei panel

Hoddam left (catalogue Allen 1903: Hoddam 1) Hoddam, Dumfriesshire, approx 9th century

Page 144

Chapter 6

Figure A: Figural sculpture sample continued

Hoddam front (catalogue Allen 1903: Hoddam 1) Hoddam, Dumfriesshire, approx 9th century

Hoddam right (catalogue Allen 1903: Hoddam 1) Hoddam, Dumfriesshire, approx 9th century

Birrens complete (catalogue: Jolliffe 1940) Birrens, Dumfriesshire, approx 2nd century

Kirriemuir left (catalogue Allen 1903: Kirriemuir 1) Kirriemuir, Forfarshire, approx 8th century (photograph: Allen 1903)

(photograph: Jolliffe 1940)

Page 145

Chapter 6

Figure A: Figural sculpture sample continued

Kirriemuir right (catalogue Allen 1903: Kirriemuir 1) Kirriemuir, Forfarshire, approx 8th century

Invergowrie (catalogue Allen 1903: Invergowrie 1) Invergowrie, Forfarshire, approx 8th century

Kirkcolm (catalogue Allen 1903: Kirkcolm) Kirkcolm, Wigtown, 7th/8th century

Bewcastle beasts (catalogue Bailey & Cramp 1988: Bewcastle 1A) Bewcastle, Westmorland, first half 8th century

(photograph: Allen 1903)

(photograph: Allen 1903)

Page 146

Chapter 6

Figure A: Figural sculpture sample continued

Bewcastle lamb (catalogue Bailey & Cramp 1988: Bewcastle 1A) Bewcastle, Westmorland, first half 8th century

Penrith (catalogue Bailey & Cramp 1988: Penrith 11A) Penrith, Cumberland, 10th century

York minster (catalogue Lang 1991: York Minster 2A) York, North Yorkshire, late 9th/early 10th century

York St Mary (catalogue Lang 1991: York St Mary Bishophill Senior 1A) York, North Yorkshire, mid 10th century

(photograph: copyright Department of Archaeology, University of Durham; photographer T Middlemass)

Page 147

Chapter 6

Figure A: Figural sculpture sample continued

Folkton (catalogue Lang 1991: Folkton 2A) Folkton, East Yorkshire, 10th century

Nunburnholme 1B (catalogue Lang 1991: Nunburnholme 1aB) Nunburnholme, East Yorkshire, late 9th/early 10th century

Nunburnholme 1D (catalogue Lang 1991: Nunburnholme 1aD) Nunburnholme, East Yorkshire, late 9th/early 10th century

Auckland 1B (catalogue Cramp 1984b: Auckland St Andrew 1bA) Auckland, Co Durham, last qrtr 8th/first qrtr 9th century

(photograph: copyright Department of Archaeology, University of Durham; photographer T Middlemass)

Page 148

Chapter 6

Figure A: Figural sculpture sample continued

Page 149

Birrens fragment (catalogue Keppie 1994: fig 5)

Birrens, Dumfriesshire, approx 2nd century

(photograph: copyright The Trustees of the National Museums of Scotland)

Otley

(catalogue Lang 1991: illus 922)

Otley, West Yorkshire, approx 9th century (photograph: copyright R Cramp)

Easby (catalogue Webster & Backhouse: fig 12)

Easby, North Yorkshire, early 9th century

Chapter 6

Figure A: Figural sculpture sample continued

Rothbury 1C (catalogue Cramp 1984b: Rothbury 1aC) Rothbury, Northumberland, first half 9th century

Rothbury 1A (catalogue Cramp 1984b: Rothbury 1bA) Rothbury, Northumberland, first half 9th century

Jevington (catalogue Tweddle et al 1995: Jevington Jevington, Sussex, late 11th century

Walkern (catalogue Tweddle et al 1995: Walkern 1) Walkern, Hertfordshire, 11th century

1)

Page 150

Figure A: Figural sculpture sample continued

Chapter 6

Romsey (catalogue Tweddle et al 1995: Romsey Romsey, Hampshire, 10th century

1)

Whitchurch (catalogue Tweddle et al 1995: Whitchurch 1A) Whitchurch, Hampshire, 9th century

Southampton (catalogue Tweddle et al 1995: Southampton Southampton, Hampshire, 11th century

Castor (catalogue Webster & Backhouse 1991: fig 23) Castor, Northamptonshire, early 9th century

Page 151

1aA)

(photograph: copyright Department of Archaeology, University of Durham; photographer T Middlemass)

Chapter 6

Figure A: Figural sculpture sample continued

Breedon (catalogue Webster & Backhouse 1991: fig 22) Breedon, Leicestershire, early 9th century

Lechmere (catalogue Webster & Backhouse 1991: Worcestershire, early 9th century

Bardsey Island (catalogue Nash-Williams 1950: cat 82) Bardsey Island, Wales, 10th/11th century

Margam (catalogue Nash-Williams 1950: cat 234) Margam, Wales, 10th/11th century

(photograph: Brown 1921)

Page 152

cat 210)

Chapter 6

Figure A: Figural sculpture sample continued

Page 153

Killaloe (catalogue Harbison 1992: cat 144, head, east)

Kilfenora, Ireland, 12th century

Ovingham (catalogue Cramp 1984b: Ovingham 1A)

Ovingham, Northumberland, late 10th/ early 11th century

Llangan (catalogue Nash-Williams 1950: cat 207)

Llangan, Wales, 10th/11th century

Figure A: Figural sculpture sample continued

Chapter 6

Pontardawe (catalogue Nash-Williams 1950: cat 256) Pontardawe, Wales, 9th/10th century

Seven Sisters (catalogue Nash-Williams 1950: cat 269) Seven Sisters, Wales, 9th/10th century

Castledermot (catalogue Harbison 1992: cat Castledermot, Ireland, 9th century

Clonmacnois (catalogue Harbison 1992: cat 54, head, east) Clonmacnois, Ireland, second quarter 9th century

37, head, west)

Page 154

Figure A: Figural sculpture sample continued

Chapter 6

Durrow (catalogue Harbison 1992: cat 89, head, east) Durrow, Ireland, second quarter 9th century

Dysert O’Dea (catalogue Harbison 1992: cat 91, head, east) Dysert O’Dea, Ireland, 12th century

Kilfenora (catalogue Harbison 1992: cat Kilfenora, Ireland, 12th century

Monasterboice Muiredach judgement (catalogue Harbison Monasterboice, Ireland, second quarter 9th century

136, head, east)

Page 155

1992:174)

Chapter 6

Figure A: Figural sculpture sample continued

Monasterboice Muiredach crucifixion (cat Harbison 1992: Monasterboice, Ireland, second quarter 9th century

Genoels-Elderen plaque (cat Webster & Backhouse 1991: Belgium (ivory), 8th century

174)

cat 141)

Monasterboice Tall (catalogue Harbison 1992: cat 175, head, Monasterboice, Ireland, second quarter 9th century

Page 156

west)

Auckland 1D (catalogue Cramp 1984b: Auckland St Andrew 1dA) Auckland, Co Durham, last quarter 8th/first quarter 9th century

Table A: Figural sculpture attributes

Chapter 6

Number

Attribute

Description

1

nimbus

figure has nimbus around head

2

concave nimbus

nimbus is concave or dished in form

3

cruciferous nimbus

nimbus has three radii representing the cross

4

triple cruciferous nimbus

radii in nimbus are marked by three parallel lines

5

nimbus meets frame

outer edge of nimbus touches inner edge of frame

6

long hair

hair falls below ears to or near shoulders

7

curly hair

hair is depicted with curls

8

inclined head

head is inclined slightly forward

9

high forehead

distance from eyebrows to hairline is exceptionally long

10

icon eyes

eyes are wide and staring as in Eastern icons or insular manuscripts

11

beard

figure has bearded chin

12

holding object

figure has object in one or both hands

13

box object

object is rectangular prism shape as box or book

14

scroll object

object is long cylinder as scroll

15

garment over hand

figure’s clothing conceals hand holding object

16

blessing hand

figure has one hand raised as in blessing

17

vertical blessing

raised hand is parallel to torso

18

sloping shoulders

figure’s shoulders slope or curve downward from neck to arm

19

round neck

undergarment has round neckline

20

stole

figure has stole-like garment draping upper body

21

stole in v

stole forms v at centre of figure’s chest

22

diagonal stole

stole slopes diagonally in front of figure’s chest

23

stole outside arms

stole wraps outside figure’s elbows

24

curved stole ends

stole has curved ends below figure’s waist

25

pleated stole

stole has several parallel longitudinal pleats

26

additional stole

figure has stole-like drapery across body at and below waist

27

looped stole

stole-like drapery forms deep loop below waist at front

28

folds in stole

stole-like drapery has longitudinal folds

29

kneelength overgarment

figure has overgarment open at front falling to or below knees

30

overgarment at front

overgarment covers part of skirt

31

z fold overgarment

sides of overgarment fall in z-shaped folds

32

boxpleat skirt

skirt has regular longitudinal square pleats

33

skirt below knee

skirt falls below knee but above ankles

34

skirt to ankles

skirt falls to or below ankles

35

bare shins

shins are not covered

36

bare feet

feet are not covered

37

one figure below

one animal, person or object appears immediately below the figure

38

two figures below

two animals, persons or objects appear immediately below the figure

Page 157

Table B: Figural sculpture data

Chapter 6

Page 158

Object

nimbus

concave nimbus

cruciferous nimbus

triple cruciferous

nimbus meet frame

long hair

Ruthwell magdalene Ruthwell beasts Ruthwell lamb Hoddam left Hoddam front Hoddam right Birrens complete Birrens fragment Kirriemuir left Kirriemuir right Invergowrie Kirkcolm Bewcastle beasts Bewcastle lamb Penrith York minster York St Mary Bishophill Folkton Nunburnholme 1aB Nunburnholme 1aD Otley Easby Auckland St Andrew 1bA Auckland St Andrew 1dA Ovingham Rothbury 1aC Rothbury 1bA Jevington Walkern Romsey Southampton Whitchurch Castor Breedon Lechmere Bardsey Island Llangan Pontardawe Seven Sisters Margam Castledermot Clonmacnois Durrow Dysert O’Dea Kilfenora Killaloe Monasterboice muiredach j Monasterboice muiredach c Monasterboice tall c Genoels-Elderen plaque

y y y y y y n n n n u y y n n y y u n y y y y y n n y y n y u y y n y u n u n n n n n n n n n n n y

y y n y y y n n n n n n y n n y n u n y y y y y n n y y n y u n y n y u n n n n n n n n n n n n n n

y y n y y y n n n n n n u n n n n u n n n n n n n n y y n y u y n n y u n n n n n n n n n n n n n y

y y n n n n n n n n n n u n n n n u n n n n n n n n y n n n u n n n n u n n n n n n n n n n n n n n

y y y n n n n n n n n y y n n n n u n n n y n y n n n n n n u y y n n u n n n n n n n n n n n n n y

y y y n y n y y n n n n y y n n u u n n n n y n n n y n n y u n y n y u n n n y n n n u n n n n n y

Table B: Figural sculpture data continued

Chapter 6

Page 159

Object

curly hair

inclined head

high forehead

icon eyes

beard

holding object

Ruthwell magdalene Ruthwell beasts Ruthwell lamb Hoddam left Hoddam front Hoddam right Birrens complete Birrens fragment Kirriemuir left Kirriemuir right Invergowrie Kirkcolm Bewcastle beasts Bewcastle lamb Penrith York minster York St Mary Bishophill Folkton Nunburnholme 1aB Nunburnholme 1aD Otley Easby Auckland St Andrew 1bA Auckland St Andrew 1dA Ovingham Rothbury 1aC Rothbury 1bA Jevington Walkern Romsey Southampton Whitchurch Castor Breedon Lechmere Bardsey Island Llangan Pontardawe Seven Sisters Margam Castledermot Clonmacnois Durrow Dysert O’Dea Kilfenora Killaloe Monasterboice muiredach j Monasterboice muiredach c Monasterboice tall c Genoels-Elderen plaque

y y y n y y y y n n n n y y n n n u n n n u y n n y n n n n u y y n y u n n n n n y y n n n y n n n

y n n n n n n n n n n n y n n n n u n n n n n n n n n n n y u n y n n u n n n n n n n n n n y n n n

y u n n y n n n n n n n n n n n y u n y y y n y u n n n n n u n n n n u n y n n n n n y n n n n n n

u u y y y y y y y y y y u u y y n u y y y u y y u y y u y u u y y y y u y y y y y y u y y y u u u y

n n y y y y n n n n n y n y y y u u n n n y y n n n n n n y u n y n n u y n n y n n n n n n n n n n

y y y y y y y u y y y n y y n n n n n n u n n y y y y y n n u y y y y u n n n y n y y n n n y n n y

Table B: Figural sculpture data continued

Chapter 6

Page 160

Object

box object

scroll object

garment over hand

blessing fingers

vertical blessing

sloping shoulders

Ruthwell magdalene Ruthwell beasts Ruthwell lamb Hoddam left Hoddam front Hoddam right Birrens complete Birrens fragment Kirriemuir left Kirriemuir right Invergowrie Kirkcolm Bewcastle beasts Bewcastle lamb Penrith York minster York St Mary Bishophill Folkton Nunburnholme 1aB Nunburnholme 1aD Otley Easby Auckland St Andrew 1bA Auckland St Andrew 1dA Ovingham Rothbury 1aC Rothbury 1bA Jevington Walkern Romsey Southampton Whitchurch Castor Breedon Lechmere Bardsey Island Llangan Pontardawe Seven Sisters Margam Castledermot Clonmacnois Durrow Dysert O’Dea Kilfenora Killaloe Monasterboice muiredach j Monasterboice muiredach c Monasterboice tall c Genoels-Elderen plaque

y n n y y y n u y y y n n n n n n n n n u n n y y n y n n n u y y y y u n n n y n n n n n n n n n y

n y n n n n n u n n n n y n n n n n n n u n n n n n n n n n u n n n n u n n n n n n n n n n n n n n

y n y n y n n u n n n n n u n n n n n n u n n y n n n n n n u y y y y u n n n y n n n n n n n n n n

y y n n n n n u n n n n y n n n n n n n u n n y n n n n n n u y y n n u n n n n n n n n n n n n n n

y y n n n n n u n n n n y n n n n n n n u n n n n n n n n n u n n n n u n n n n n n n n n n n n n n

y y y y y y y u y n y y y y y y n u y y n n y y y y y n y n u y y y y u n n n y n y n n y n y n n y

Table B: Figural sculpture data continued

Chapter 6

Page 161

Object

round neck

stole

stole in v

diagonal stole

stole outside arms

curved stole end

Ruthwell magdalene Ruthwell beasts Ruthwell lamb Hoddam left Hoddam front Hoddam right Birrens complete Birrens fragment Kirriemuir left Kirriemuir right Invergowrie Kirkcolm Bewcastle beasts Bewcastle lamb Penrith York minster York St Mary Bishophill Folkton Nunburnholme 1aB Nunburnholme 1aD Otley Easby Auckland St Andrew 1bA Auckland St Andrew 1dA Ovingham Rothbury 1aC Rothbury 1bA Jevington Walkern Romsey Southampton Whitchurch Castor Breedon Lechmere Bardsey Island Llangan Pontardawe Seven Sisters Margam Castledermot Clonmacnois Durrow Dysert O’Dea Kilfenora Killaloe Monasterboice muiredach j Monasterboice muiredach c Monasterboice tall c Genoels-Elderen plaque

y y u y y y y u n n y y y u y n n u n n u y n y n n y y y n u y n y y u y n n n y y y y n u u n n n

y y y y y y y u y y y n y y y n u u y y u y n y n n y n u n u y y y y u n n n y n n n n u n n n y y

y n y n n y n u y u y n n u y n u u n y u n n n n n n n u n u n n n n u n n n y n n n n n n n n n n

n y n n u n n u n u n n y u n n n u n n u y n n n n y n u n u n y n n u n n n n n n n n n n n n n n

n y n n n n n u u n n n n n n n n u n y u n n n n n n n u n u y y n n u n n n n n n n n n n n n n n

n y n n n n n u n n n n n u n n n u n u u n n n n n u n u n u n y n n u n n n n n n n n n n n n n n

Table B: Figural sculpture data continued

Chapter 6

Page 162

Object

pleated stole

additional stole

looped stole

folds in stole

kneelength overgarment overgarment at front

Ruthwell magdalene Ruthwell beasts Ruthwell lamb Hoddam left Hoddam front Hoddam right Birrens complete Birrens fragment Kirriemuir left Kirriemuir right Invergowrie Kirkcolm Bewcastle beasts Bewcastle lamb Penrith York minster York St Mary Bishophill Folkton Nunburnholme 1aB Nunburnholme 1aD Otley Easby Auckland St Andrew 1bA Auckland St Andrew 1dA Ovingham Rothbury 1aC Rothbury 1bA Jevington Walkern Romsey Southampton Whitchurch Castor Breedon Lechmere Bardsey Island Llangan Pontardawe Seven Sisters Margam Castledermot Clonmacnois Durrow Dysert O’Dea Kilfenora Killaloe Monasterboice muiredach j Monasterboice muiredach c Monasterboice tall c Genoels-Elderen plaque

y y y n y y n u y y y n y y y n n u y y u y u y n n y n u n u y y y y u n n n y n n n n n n n n n n

y n n n y n n u y n n n y u n n n u n u u n n y n n u n n n u n y y y n n n n n n n n n n n n n n n

y n n n n n n u n n n n y u n n n u n u u n n n n n u n n n u n n n y n n n n n n n n n n n n n n n

y n n n n n n u y n n n y u n n n u n u u n n y n n u n n n u n y y y n n n n n n n n n n n n n n n

y y y n y n n u u u n n y y n n y n n u u n n n n n u n n n n n y n y n n n n u n n n n n n n n n y

n y y n y n n u u u n n y y n n y n n u u n n n n n u n n n y n n n n n n n n u n n n n n n n n n n

Table B: Figural sculpture data continued

Chapter 6

Page 163

Object

z fold overgarment

boxpleat skirt

skirt below knee

skirt to ankle

bare shins

bare feet

Ruthwell magdalene Ruthwell beasts Ruthwell lamb Hoddam left Hoddam front Hoddam right Birrens complete Birrens fragment Kirriemuir left Kirriemuir right Invergowrie Kirkcolm Bewcastle beasts Bewcastle lamb Penrith York minster York St Mary Bishophill Folkton Nunburnholme 1aB Nunburnholme 1aD Otley Easby Auckland St Andrew 1bA Auckland St Andrew 1dA Ovingham Rothbury 1aC Rothbury 1bA Jevington Walkern Romsey Southampton Whitchurch Castor Breedon Lechmere Bardsey Island Llangan Pontardawe Seven Sisters Margam Castledermot Clonmacnois Durrow Dysert O’Dea Kilfenora Killaloe Monasterboice muiredach j Monasterboice muiredach c Monasterboice tall c Genoels-Elderen plaque

y n y n n n n u u u n n y y n n n n n u u n n n n n u n n n y n n n y n n n n u n n n n n n n n n y

y y n n n n n u u u y n y u n y y n y u u n n n y n u n n n u n n n n y n n y u n n n y n n n n n n

y n n n n n n u u u n y n n y n n y y u u n n n u n u n n n n n n n n y n n u u n n n y y y n n n n

n y y n y n y u u u y n y y n y u n n u u n n n u n u n y n y n y n y n n y u u y y y n n n y y y y

y n n n n n n u u u n y n n y n n y u u u n u n u n u y n y n n n n n y y n u u n n n y n n n n n n

y u u n u n n u u u u y y n u y u y u u u n u n u n u y u y n n y n u n y y u u y y y y y u y y y y

Table B: Figural sculpture data continued

Chapter 6

Object

one figure below

two figures below

Ruthwell magdalene Ruthwell beasts Ruthwell lamb Hoddam left Hoddam front Hoddam right Birrens complete Birrens fragment Kirriemuir left Kirriemuir right Invergowrie Kirkcolm Bewcastle beasts Bewcastle lamb Penrith York minster York St Mary Bishophill Folkton Nunburnholme 1aB Nunburnholme 1aD Otley Easby Auckland St Andrew 1bA Auckland St Andrew 1dA Ovingham Rothbury 1aC Rothbury 1bA Jevington Walkern Romsey Southampton Whitchurch Castor Breedon Lechmere Bardsey Island Llangan Pontardawe Seven Sisters Margam Castledermot Clonmacnois Durrow Dysert O’Dea Kilfenora Killaloe Monasterboice muiredach j Monasterboice muiredach c Monasterboice tall c Genoels-Elderen plaque

y n n n n n n u u u n y n n n n u y u u u n u n u n u n u n n n n n n n y n u u n y n y n u n n n n

n y y n n n n u u u y n y n y y u n u u u y u n u n u y u n n n n n n n n n u u n n n n n u n n y y

Page 164

Chapter 6

Figure B: Figural sculpture minimum spanning tree computer output

Page 165

These are the links in the minimum spanning tree, and their weights. Lechmere -> Ruthwell magdalene Hoddam front -> Lechmere Hoddam right -> Hoddam front Hoddam left -> Hoddam right Whitchurch -> Hoddam right Auckland St Andrew 1dA -> Whitchurch Breedon -> Auckland St Andrew 1dA Jevington -> Hoddam left Romsey -> Jevington Auckland St Andrew 1bA -> Romsey York minster -> Auckland St Andrew 1bA Pontardawe -> York minster Monasterboice muiredach c -> Pontardawe Castledermot -> Monasterboice muiredach c Durrow -> Castledermot Clonmacnois -> Durrow Monasterboice tall c -> Monasterboice muiredach c Monasterboice muiredach j -> Durrow Birrens complete -> Clonmacnois Rothbury 1aC -> Clonmacnois Llangan -> Castledermot Kirkcolm -> Llangan Kilfenora -> Monasterboice muiredach c Killaloe -> Kilfenora Seven Sisters -> Monasterboice muiredach c Dysert O’Dea -> Llangan Nunburnholme 1aB -> Kilfenora Walkern -> Castledermot Penrith -> Nunburnholme 1aB Ovingham -> Rothbury 1aC Invergowrie -> Hoddam right Kirriemuir right -> Invergowrie York St Mary Bishophill Senior -> Pontardawe Kirriemuir left -> Breedon Margam -> Invergowrie Ruthwell lamb -> Margam Bewcastle lamb -> Ruthwell lamb Genoels-Elderen plaque -> Ruthwell lamb Easby -> Hoddam right Castor -> Hoddam front Rothbury 1bA -> Lechmere Folkton -> Kirkcolm Nunburnholme 1aD -> Nunburnholme 1aB Bewcastle beasts -> Lechmere Ruthwell beasts -> Bewcastle beasts Birrens fragment -> Birrens complete Otley -> Nunburnholme 1aD Bardsey Island -> Dysert O’Dea Southampton -> Bewcastle lamb Total tree distance 359.5

(13.0) (7.0) (9.0) (3.0) (7.0) (7.0) (5.0) (7.5) (6.5) (7.0) (6.5) (6.5) (2.0) (1.5) (2.5) (2.5) (2.5) (3.0) (4.0) (4.0) (4.0) (4.0) (4.0) (3.5) (4.5) (4.5) (4.5) (5.5) (6.0) (7.0) (8.0) (8.5) (8.5) (8.5) (9.5) (9.5) (8.5) (9.0) (10.0) (11.0) (11.0) (11.0) (12.0) (13.0) (9.5) (13.5) (14.0) (14.5) (15.5)

Chapter 6

Figure B: Figural sculpture minimum spanning tree diagram

Ruthwell is at top and right hand side

Page 166

Chapter 6

Figure C: Additional figural sculpture minimum spanning tree output

Page 167

These are the links in the minimum spanning tree, and their weights. Lechmere -> Ruthwell magdalene Hoddam front -> Lechmere Hoddam right -> Hoddam front Hoddam left -> Hoddam right Whitchurch -> Hoddam right Auckland St Andrew 1dA -> Whitchurch Breedon -> Auckland St Andrew 1dA Jevington -> Hoddam left Romsey -> Jevington Auckland St Andrew 1bA -> Romsey York minster -> Auckland St Andrew 1bA Pontardawe -> York minster Monasterboice muiredach c -> Pontardawe Castledermot -> Monasterboice muiredach Durrow -> Castledermot Clonmacnois -> Durrow Monasterboice tall c -> Monasterboice muiredach Monasterboice muiredach j -> Durrow Birrens complete -> Clonmacnois Rothbury 1aC -> Clonmacnois Llangan -> Castledermot Kirkcolm -> Llangan Kilfenora -> Monasterboice muiredach Killaloe -> Kilfenora Seven Sisters -> Monasterboice muiredach Dysert O’Dea -> Llangan Nunburnholme 1aB -> Kilfenora Walkern -> Castledermot Penrith -> Nunburnholme 1aB Ovingham -> Rothbury 1aC Bexhill octogon 4 -> Kilfenora Bexhill octogon 7 -> Hoddam right Invergowrie -> Hoddam right Bexhill octogon 8 -> Invergowrie Bexhill octogon 3 -> York minster Kirriemuir right -> Invergowrie York St Mary Bishophill Seni -> Pontardawe Kirriemuir left -> Breedon Bexhill octogon 5 -> Castledermot Bexhill octogon 2 -> Nunburnholme 1aB Genoels-Elderen plaque -> Monasterboice tall c Ruthwell lamb -> Genoels-Elderen plaque Bewcastle lamb -> Ruthwell lamb Bexhill octogon 1 -> Kirkcolm Margam -> Invergowrie Bexhill octogon 6 -> Jevington Easby -> Hoddam right Folkton -> Kirkcolm Rothbury 1bA -> Lechmere Castor -> Hoddam front Nunburnholme 1aD -> Nunburnholme 1aB Bewcastle beasts -> Lechmere Ruthwell beasts -> Bewcastle beasts Birrens fragment -> Birrens complete Otley -> Nunburnholme 1aD Bardsey Island -> Dysert O’Dea Southampton -> Bewcastle lamb Total tree distance 424.5

c c

c c

(13.0) (7.0) (9.0) (3.0) (7.0) (7.0) (5.0) (7.5) (6.5) (7.0) (6.5) (6.5) (2.0) (1.5) (2.5) (2.5) (2.5) (3.0) (4.0) (4.0) (4.0) (4.0) (4.0) (3.5) (4.5) (4.5) (4.5) (5.5) (6.0) (7.0) (7.0) (7.5) (8.0) (6.0) (8.0) (8.5) (8.5) (8.5) (8.5) (9.0) (9.5) (9.0) (8.5) (9.5) (9.5) (9.5) (10.0) (11.0) (11.0) (11.0) (12.0) (13.0) (9.5) (13.5) (14.0) (14.5) (15.5)

Chapter 6

Figure C: Additional figural sculpture minimum spanning tree diagram

Ruthwell is at top and left

Page 168

Illustrations for Chapter 7: Latin Inscriptions

Chapter 7

Figure A: Inscription sample

Ruthwell Cross lower north face

Ruthwell Cross lower south face

Ruthwell Cross upper north face

Ruthwell Cross upper south face

Page 170

Chapter 7

Figure A: Inscription sample continued

Tarbet (catalogue Allen 1903: Tarbet 10) Tarbet, Ross, second half 8th century

Newton (catalogue Allen 1903: Newton in the Garioch) Newton, Aberdeenshire, approx 8th century

St Vigeans (catalogue Allen 1903: St Vigeans 1) St Vigeans, Angus, early 9th century

Greenloaning (catalogue Allen 1903: Greenloaning) Greenloaning, Perthshire, approx 8th century

(photograph: Allen 1903)

(photograph: Allen 1903)

(photograph: Allen 1903)

Page 171

Chapter 7

Figure A: Inscription sample continued

Page 172

Kirkliston (catalogue Allen 1903: The Cat Stane, Kirkliston)

Kirkliston, Lothian, 6th century (photograph: Allen 1903)

Yarrow (catalogue Allen 1903: Yarrow Kirk)

Yarrow, Borders, 6th century (photograph: Allen 1903)

Kirkmadrine 2 (catalogue Allen 1903: Kirkmadrine 2)

Kirkmadrine, Galloway, late 5th century (photograph: Allen 1903)

Chapter 7

Page 173

Figure A: Inscription sample continued

Whithorn (catalogue Allen 1903: Whithorn 2)

Whithorn, Galloway, 7th century

Carlisle 1A (catalogue Bailey & Cramp 1988: Carlisle 1A)

Carlisle, Cumberland, 8th century

(photograph: copyright Department of Archaeology, University of Durham; photographer T Middlemass)

Carlisle 1C (catalogue Bailey & Cramp 1988: Carlisle 1C)

Carlisle, Cumberland, 8th century

(photograph: copyright Department of Archaeology, University of Durham; photographer T Middlemass)

Chapter 7

Figure A: Inscription sample continued

Page 174

Kirkmadrine 1 (catalogue Allen 1903: Kirkmadrine 1) Kirkmadrine, Galloway, 5th century

Beckermet (catalogue Bailey & Cramp 1988: Beckermet St Bridget 1A) Beckermet, Cumberland, second quarter 9th century (photograph:

Hartlepool 4 (catalogue Cramp 1984b: Hartlepool 4A) Hartlepool, Co Durham, mid 7th - mid 8th century

Hartlepool 5 (catalogue Cramp 1984b: Hartlepool 5A) Hartlepool, Co Durham, mid 7th - mid 8th century

(photograph: Allen 1903))

(photograph: The Museum of Antiquities of the University and Society of Antiquaries of Newcastle upon Tyne)

copyright Department of Archaeology, University of Durham; photographer T Middlemass)

(photograph: Brown 1921)

Chapter 7

Figure A: Inscription sample continued

Hartlepool 6 (catalogue Cramp 1984b: Hartlepool 6a) Hartlepool, Co Durham, mid 7th - mid 8th century

Jarrow 14 (catalogue Cramp 1984b: Jarrow 14A) Jarrow, Co Durham, late 7th/early 8th century

Monkwearmouth (catalogue Cramp 1984b: Monkwearmouth 5A) Monkwearmouth, Co Durham, first quarter 8th century

York Minster 42 (catalogue Lang 1991: York Minster 42aA) York, North Yorkshire, 10th/11th century (photograph:

(photograph: copyright Department of Archaeology, University of Durham; photographer T Middlemass)

Page 175

(photograph: The Museum of Antiquities of the University and Society of Antiquaries of Newcastle upon Tyne)

copyright Department of Archaeology, University of Durham; photographer T Middlemass)

Chapter 7

Figure A: Inscription sample continued

Page 176

Jarrow 16 (catalogue Cramp 1984b: Jarrow 16aA)

Jarrow, Co Durham, late 7th/early 8th century

Jarrow 17 (catalogue Cramp 1984b: Jarrow 17)

Jarrow, Co Durham, 685

Jarrow 18 (catalogue Cramp 1984b: Jarrow 18a)

Jarrow, Co Durham, 8th century

(photograph: copyright Department of Archaeology, University of Durham; photographer T Middlemass)

Chapter 7

Figure A: Inscription sample continued

Page 177

Alnmouth 1B (catalogue Cramp 1984b: Alnmouth 1B)

Alnmouth, Northumberland, late 9th/early 10th century

Alnmouth 1C (catalogue Cramp 1984b: Alnmouth 1C)

Alnmouth, Northumberland, late 9th/early 10th century

Hexham (catalogue Cramp 1984b: Hexham 13A)

Hexham, Northumberland, late 8th/9th century

(photograph: copyright Department of Archaeology, University of Durham; photographer T Middlemass)

Chapter 7

Page 178

Figure A: Inscription sample continued

Lindisfarne (catalogue Cramp 1984b: Lindisfarne 25A)

Lindisfarne, Northumberland, mid 7th mid 8th century

York Minster 20 (catalogue Lang 1991: York Minster 20A)

York, North Yorkshire, late 7th - early 9th century

York Minster 22 (catalogue Lang 1991: York Minster 22A)

York, North Yorkshire, late 7th - early 9th century

Chapter 7

Figure A: Inscription sample continued

Page 179

York St Mary Castlegate (cat Lang 1991: York St Mary Castlegate 7A) York, North Yorkshire, 10th/11th century (photograph:

York St Leonards Place (catalogue Lang 1991: York St Leonards Place 1A) York, North Yorkshire, late 7th - early 9th century (photograph:

Hackness 1B (catalogue Lang 1991: Hackness 1aB) Hackness, North Yorkshire, late 7th - early 9th century

Hackness 1D (catalogue Lang 1991: Hackness 1aD) Hackness, North Yorkshire, late 7th - early 9th century

copyright Department of Archaeology, University of Durham; photographer T Middlemass)

copyright Department of Archaeology, University of Durham; photographer T Middlemass)

Chapter 7

Figure A: Inscription sample continued

Page 180

York St Mary Bishophill (cat Lang 1991: York St Mary Bishophill Junior 5A)

York, North Yorkshire, 8th/early 9th century

Aldbrough (catalogue Lang 1991: Aldbrough 1A)

Aldbrough, East Yorkshire, 11th century

(photograph: copyright Department of Archaeology, University of Durham; photographer T Middlemass)

Great Edstone (catalogue Lang 1991: Great Edstone 1)

Great Edstone, North Yorkshire, 11th century

Chapter 7

Page 181

Figure A: Inscription sample continued

Kirkdale (catalogue Lang 1991: Kirkdale 10A)

Kirkdale, North Yorkshire, c1055-1065

Bishopstone (catalogue Tweddle et al 1995: Bishopstone 1)

Bishopstone, Sussex, 9th century

Winchester (cat Tweddle et al 1995: Winchester Old Mnsr 1A)

Winchester, Hampshire, late 8th/early 9th century

Chapter 7

Figure A: Inscription sample continued

Page 182

Llangadwaladr (catalogue Nash-Williams 1950: cat 13)

Llangadwaladr, Wales, c625

Llanilterne (catalogue Nash-Williams 1950: cat 214)

Llanilterne, Wales, late 6th/early 7th century

Llanfihangel (catalogue Nash-Williams 1950: cat 54)

Llanfihangel-Cwmdu, Wales, late 6th/ early 7th century

Chapter 7

Figure A: Inscription sample continued

Page 183

Clonmacnois (catalogue Harbison 1992: cat 54, east)

Clonmacnois, Ireland, second quarter 9th century

Lismore (catalogue Harbison 1992: cat 166)

Lismore, Ireland, 9th century

Monasterboice (catalogue Harbison 1992: cat 174, west)

Monasterboice, Ireland, second quarter 9th century

Chapter 7

Figure A: Inscription sample continued

Page 184

Whitchurch (catalogue Tweddle et al 1995: Whitchurch 1E)

Whitchurch, Hampshire, 9th century

Whitchurch (catalogue Tweddle et al 1995: Whitchurch 1E)

Whitchurch, Hampshire, 9th century

Table A: Inscription attributes

Chapter 7

Number

Attribute

Description

1

reads up

inscription reads vertically from bottom to top of object

2

reads down

inscription reads vertically from top to bottom of object

3

reads across

inscription reads horizonally across object

4

longitudinal

inscription reads along long axis of object or panel

5

transverse

inscription reads across long axis of object or panel

6

in border

inscription placed in border of figural or decorative panel

7

equal height

letters are of approximately equal height

8

word dots

words are separated by dots

9

all serifs

all letters have serifs

10

no serifs

all letters are sans serif

11

all capitals

all letters are capitals

12

no capitals

all letters are lower case

13

A roof

horizontal bar across top of A

14

A straightbar

crossbar of A is straight horizontal

15

B rounded

B with two rounded loops

16

C squared

C formed of straight lines at right angles

17

D rounded

D with rounded loop

18

E squared

E formed of straight lines at right angles

19

F squared

F formed of straight lines at right angles

20

G flattopped

G with flat bar across top of curved line

21

H squared

H formed of straight lines at right angles

22

L squared

L formed of straight lines at right angles

23

M crossbar

M formed of three uprights and one horizontal line

24

M twobar

M formed of three uprights and two horizontal lines

25

M pointed

M formed of two uprights met at top by two diagonals

26

N pointed

N formed of two uprights met at corners by diagonal

27

N crossbar

N formed of two uprights met partway up by diagonal

28

O diamond

O formed of four diagonal lines

29

O rounded

O with circular shape

30

P rounded

P with rounded loop

31

Q descender

Q with upright at right hand side

32

R rounded

R with rounded loop

33

S pointed

S formed of five diagonal lines

34

S rounded

S formed of contiguous curves

35

T squared

T formed of straight lines at right angles

36

V pointed

V formed of two diagonal lines

37

other alphabet

inscription includes letters from non-Roman alphabets

38

ihs monogram

inscription includes monogram for ‘Jesus’

39

xpi monogram

inscription includes monogram for ‘Christ’

40

ligatures

two or more letters joined and sharing strokes

Page 185

Table B: Inscription data

Chapter 7

Object

reads

reads up

reads down

longiacross

transtudinal

in verse

equal border

word height

n n n y n n n n n n n n n n n n n n n n n n u n n n n n n n n u n n n n n n n n y u n u n n n n

y y y y n n n n n y n n n n n n n n n n n n u n n n n n n n n u n n n n n n n n y u y u y n n n

y y y y y y y y y n y y y y y y y y y y y y u y y y n y y y y u y y n y y y y y n u n u n y y y

y y y y n n n n n y n n n n y y n n n u n y u n n y n n u n u u n n y y n n y n y y y y y n n n

n n n n y y y y y n y y y y n n y y y u y n u y y n n y u y u u y y n n y y n y n n n n n y y y

y y y y n n n n n n n n n n n n n n n n n n n n n y n n n n n n n n y n n n n n n u n n n n n n

y y y y y n n y n n y n n y y y y y n y y n y y y n y n n y y n y y y n y y n y y y n n n y n y

y y n n n n n n n n n n n n n n n n n y n n n n n y n n n n n n n n n n n y n n n n n n n n y n

dots Ruthwell lower north Ruthwell lower south Ruthwell upper north Ruthwell upper south Tarbet Newton St Vigeans Greenloaning Kirkliston Yarrowkirk Kirkmadrine 1 Kirkmadrine 2 Whithorn Beckermet Carlisle 1A Carlisle 1C Hartlepool 4 Hartlepool 5 Hartlepool 6 Jarrow 14 Jarrow 16 Jarrow 17 Jarrow 18 Monkwearmouth Alnmouth 1B Alnmouth 1C Hexham Lindisfarne York Minster 20 York Minster 22 York Minster 42 York St Mary Bishophill York St Mary Castlegate York St Leonards Place Aldbrough Great Edstone Hackness 1B Hackness 1D Kirkdale Bishopstone Whitchurch Winchester 1 Llangadwaladr Llanfihangel Llanilterne Clonmacnois Lismore Monasterboice

Page 186

Table B: Inscription data continued

Chapter 7

Page 187

Object

all serifs

no serifs

all capitals

no capitals

A roof

A straightbar

B rounded

C squared

Ruthwell lower north Ruthwell lower south Ruthwell upper north Ruthwell upper south Tarbet Newton St Vigeans Greenloaning Kirkliston Yarrowkirk Kirkmadrine 1 Kirkmadrine 2 Whithorn Beckermet Carlisle 1A Carlisle 1C Hartlepool 4 Hartlepool 5 Hartlepool 6 Jarrow 14 Jarrow 16 Jarrow 17 Jarrow 18 Monkwearmouth Alnmouth 1B Alnmouth 1C Hexham Lindisfarne York Minster 20 York Minster 22 York Minster 42 York St Mary Bishophill York St Mary Castlegate York St Leonards Place Aldbrough Great Edstone Hackness 1B Hackness 1D Kirkdale Bishopstone Whitchurch Winchester 1 Llangadwaladr Llanfihangel Llanilterne Clonmacnois Lismore Monasterboice

y y n y y n n n n n n n n n y y y u n y y n n y n n n y y y y y y y n n n n n y y n n n n y n y

n n n n n y n n y y y y n n n n n u n n n n n n n n n n n n n n n n n n y n y n n n y y n n n n

y y n n n n n y y n y y y n n y n y n n n y n n y n y n n y y y n y n n y y n y n y n n n n n n

n n n n n y n n n n n n n n n n n n n n n n n n n n n n n n n n n n n n n n n n n n n n n n n n

y y n u n n n n n n n u n u u y y y y u n n u n y n n y n y y n y n n y n n y y n n n n n n u n

y y n u n n n y y y n u n u u n n y n u y n u n y n n n n y n y n n n y n n n y n y n n n n u n

y y u u u n n y u y u u n u u y n u n y u y u y n n n n y u u n u u n n y u y n y u n n n u u n

y y u u n y n n n y n u n u u u n u n y u y u n n n n n n y u n y n n n u u y n y u n y n u n n

Table B: Inscription data continued

Chapter 7

Page 188

Object

D E rounded squared

F squared

G flattopped

H squared

L squared

M cross-bar

M two-bar

Ruthwell lower north Ruthwell lower south Ruthwell upper north Ruthwell upper south Tarbet Newton St Vigeans Greenloaning Kirkliston Yarrowkirk Kirkmadrine 1 Kirkmadrine 2 Whithorn Beckermet Carlisle 1A Carlisle 1C Hartlepool 4 Hartlepool 5 Hartlepool 6 Jarrow 14 Jarrow 16 Jarrow 17 Jarrow 18 Monkwearmouth Alnmouth 1B Alnmouth 1C Hexham Lindisfarne York Minster 20 York Minster 22 York Minster 42 York St Mary Bishophill York St Mary Castlegate York St Leonards Place Aldbrough Great Edstone Hackness 1B Hackness 1D Kirkdale Bishopstone Whitchurch Winchester 1 Llangadwaladr Llanfihangel Llanilterne Clonmacnois Lismore Monasterboice

y y y y u n n y u n y u n n n u n u n n y y u n y y y n n u u n y y n n y u y y n u n n n n n n

y u u u u n n n y y u n n u u n n u n u u y u n y n n n n u u n u u n n u u y n n u n n n u u n

y y u u u u n n u n u u n u n u n u y u n n n n n n n n n u u n u u u n u u n n n u y y y u u n

u u u u u n n y u y u u n n u u n u n n n n n n n y n n y y u n y u y y u u y n n u n n n u u n

y y u u u n n n n n u n n n u u n u n u u y y y y n n n y u u y u u y n y y y n y u n y y u u n

y y y n y n n n n n n u n u u u n u n y n n n n n y n n n u u n n n n n n n n n n n n n n u u n

y n n n n n n n n n n u n u u u n u n n n n n n n n n n n u u n n n n n n n n n n n y n n u u n

y y u u y y n n y y y y n n y y y y y y n y y y y n n n y y u y y u y y y y y y y y n y n u u n

Table B: Inscription data continued

Chapter 7

Page 189

Object

M pointed

N pointed

N cross-bar

O diamond

O rounded

P rounded

Q R descender rounded

Ruthwell lower north Ruthwell lower south Ruthwell upper north Ruthwell upper south Tarbet Newton St Vigeans Greenloaning Kirkliston Yarrowkirk Kirkmadrine 1 Kirkmadrine 2 Whithorn Beckermet Carlisle 1A Carlisle 1C Hartlepool 4 Hartlepool 5 Hartlepool 6 Jarrow 14 Jarrow 16 Jarrow 17 Jarrow 18 Monkwearmouth Alnmouth 1B Alnmouth 1C Hexham Lindisfarne York Minster 20 York Minster 22 York Minster 42 York St Mary Bishophill York St Mary Castlegate York St Leonards Place Aldbrough Great Edstone Hackness 1B Hackness 1D Kirkdale Bishopstone Whitchurch Winchester 1 Llangadwaladr Llanfihangel Llanilterne Clonmacnois Lismore Monasterboice

n n n n n n n n y y y u n u u u y u n n y y n n n n n n n u u y y y y y y y y n y y n n n u u n

n n n y n n n y n y y y n n u u n u n u y y u y n n n n n n y n y u n n u n y n y y y n y n n n

y y y n y n n n n n n n n n u u y u n u n n u n n n y y n y n n n u y n u y n n n n n y n n n n

y y y u y n n n n n n n n n u u n n n u n n u n n n n n n n n n n n n n n n y n n u n n n y n n

y n n u y y y y y n y y y y u u n n n u y y u y n y n n n y y n y y y y n n n n y u y n n y y y

y y u u u n y n u y y u y u u u y y n u u y u y n n n u n u y y u u n n y y n n y u n n n u y n

y u u u u n n n u n u u n y u u u u n u u n u n n n n n n u u n u u n n u u n n y u n n n u u n

y y y y u n n n u y y y y u u u y y y y y y u y n n n n n u y y y y y y y y y y y u n y n y y y

Table B: Inscription data continued

Chapter 7

Page 190

Object

S pointed

S rounded

T squared

V pointed

other alphabet

ihs monogram

xpi ligatures monogram

Ruthwell lower north Ruthwell lower south Ruthwell upper north Ruthwell upper south Tarbet Newton St Vigeans Greenloaning Kirkliston Yarrowkirk Kirkmadrine 1 Kirkmadrine 2 Whithorn Beckermet Carlisle 1A Carlisle 1C Hartlepool 4 Hartlepool 5 Hartlepool 6 Jarrow 14 Jarrow 16 Jarrow 17 Jarrow 18 Monkwearmouth Alnmouth 1B Alnmouth 1C Hexham Lindisfarne York Minster 20 York Minster 22 York Minster 42 York St Mary Bishophill York St Mary Castlegate York St Leonards Place Aldbrough Great Edstone Hackness 1B Hackness 1D Kirkdale Bishopstone Whitchurch Winchester 1 Llangadwaladr Llanfihangel Llanilterne Clonmacnois Lismore Monasterboice

y y y u u n n n u n n n n u u u n u n u n n u n y n n y n n u n n y n n u y n n n u n n n u u n

n n n u u u n n u n y y y u u u n u n u y y u y n n n n n y u y y n n n u n n n y u n y n u u n

y y y u u n n y y y y y y n y y y y n y y y y y n n y n n y u y y u y y y y y n y y n n n u u n

y y y u n n n y y y y y y n u u n u n y y y u n y n y y n y u y y y y n y y y n y y n y y u u n

n n n y n n n n n n n n n n n n n n n n n n n n n y n n n n n n y n y y n n y n y n y y y n n n

y n n n y n n n n n n n n n n n n n n n n n n n n n n n n n n n n n n n n n n n n n n n n n n n

y n n n y n n n n n n n n n n n n n n n n n n n n n n n n n n n n n n n n n y n n n n n n n n n

n n n n n n n n y y y n n n n n n n n n n n n n n n n y n n n n n n n n n n y n n n y n n n y n

Chapter 7

Figure B: Inscription minimum spanning tree computer output

Page 191

These are the links in the minimum spanning tree, and their weights. Ruthwell lower south Ruthwell upper north Jarrow 14 Monkwearmouth Monasterboice St Vigeans Whithorn Hartlepool 6 Bishopstone Alnmouth 1B Newton Hartlepool 4 Lindisfarne Jarrow 16 York Minster 20 Beckermet York St Mary Bishophill York St Mary Castlegate Alnmouth 1C Hexham Greenloaning Great Edstone Aldbrough Clonmacnois Kirkmadrine 2 Kirkmadrine 1 Hackness 1B Hackness 1D Kirkliston Jarrow 17 York St Leonards Place Whitchurch York Minster 22 York Minster 42 Kirkdale Yarrow Hartlepool 5 Winchester 1 Llangadwaladr Llanilterne Llanfihangel Lismore Jarrow 18 Carlisle 1C Carlisle 1A Tarbet Ruthwell upper south Total tree distance 418.5

-> -> -> -> -> -> -> -> -> -> -> -> -> -> -> -> -> -> -> -> -> -> -> -> -> -> -> -> -> -> -> -> -> -> -> -> -> -> -> -> -> -> -> -> -> -> ->

Ruthwell lower north Ruthwell lower south Ruthwell lower south Jarrow 14 Monkwearmouth Monasterboice St Vigeans Monasterboice Monasterboice Bishopstone St Vigeans Monasterboice St Vigeans Monkwearmouth Monasterboice Monasterboice Whithorn Jarrow 16 St Vigeans Whithorn Hexham Hartlepool 6 Great Edstone Monasterboice Whithorn Kirkmadrine 2 Kirkmadrine 1 Hackness 1B Kirkmadrine 1 Kirkmadrine 1 Hackness 1D Monkwearmouth York St Mary Castlegate Monkwearmouth Jarrow 17 Kirkdale Bishopstone Jarrow 17 St Vigeans Llangadwaladr Llanilterne St Vigeans Monkwearmouth York Minster 42 Monkwearmouth Monkwearmouth Whitchurch

(5.5) (9.5) (12.0) (11.5) (7.0) (4.0) (5.0) (6.0) (6.0) (6.0) (6.0) (7.5) (7.5) (8.0) (8.0) (8.5) (8.5) (8.5) (9.0) (9.0) (8.0) (9.0) (8.5) (9.0) (9.0) (9.0) (7.5) (7.5) (8.5) (9.0) (9.5) (10.0) (10.5) (11.0) (11.0) (10.0) (11.0) (11.0) (11.0) (6.0) (8.5) (11.0) (11.5) (12.0) (12.0) (12.0) (12.5)

Chapter 7

Figure B: Inscription minimum spanning tree diagram

Page 192

Illustrations for Chapter 8: Runic Inscription

Chapter 8

Figure A: Arrangement of inscriptions

Latin inscriptions, north and south faces

Runic inscription, east and west faces

Page 194

Chapter 8

Figure B: Ruthwell Cross futhorc

Page 195

Chapter 8

Table A: Ruthwell Cross poem

Page 196

Chapter 8

Table A: Ruthwell Cross poem continued

Page 197

Illustrations for Chapter 9: The Upper Stone

Chapter 9

Existing Arrangement

Drawing by Henry Duncan (Duncan 1833)

Figure A: Arrangement of component parts

Page 200

Chapter 9

Uppermost fragment reversed

Figure A: Arrangement of component parts continued

Rearranged from drawing by Henry Duncan (Duncan 1833)

Page 201

Chapter 9

Lower fragments of upper stone rotated

Figure A: Arrangement of component parts continued

Rearranged from drawing by Henry Duncan (Duncan 1833)

Page 202

Illustrations for Chapter 10: By Whose Hands?

Chapter 10

Figure A: The Franks Casket

Figure B: Roman goddess, Carlisle museum

Page 204

Figure C: Roman goddess, Chesters

(photograph: Jolliffe 1940)

Figure D: Pictish symbols

Chapter 10

'Elephant' Meigle no 5

Figure E: Pictish 'beast head'

Glamis Manse

'Goose' Easterton of Roseisle

Figure F: Pictish horse and rider

Meigle no 2

Page 205

Illustrations for Chapter 12: Epilogue

Chapter 12

Figure A: My proposed 'original' Ruthwell monument

Rearranged from drawing by Henry Duncan (Duncan 1833)

Page 208